What's the Moon good for?

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">It's relatively easy to make ... a lunar space elevator</font>/i><br /><br />My first thought was, "Yes, this would be a good first place to test and deploy the concept." Then I was wondering about the very slow rotation of the Moon. How far out from the surface would the elevator need to go?</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">On page 65 Outstanding questions are listed.</font>/i><br /><br />There are many scientific questions that you and I might find valuable, but what will fly with the American tax payer may be a different. The recent survey showing that only 40% of Americans believe in evolution (pretty much the bedrock of modern biology) makes me a little hesitant to rely on science as a means to justify anything to the American public.</i>

 

[yevaud]

<i>How far out from the surface would the elevator need to go?</i><br /><br />Calculator <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Differential Diagnosis:  </em>"<strong><em>I am both amused and annoyed that you think I should be less stubborn than you are</em></strong>."<br /> </p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Instructive and informative.Only 40 percent believe evolution is right!!I did not know.Thanks.

 

[JonClarke]

Only just seen this post, sorry. <br /><br />Just because 40% don't believe in evolution does not mean that science cannot be successfully used to justify things to the US public. After all, the same public accepts science as the justification for much of the billions spent on oceanographic and polar research. <br /><br />Furthermore, I note that this issue is about the value of the Moon in general, not just to the American public. If the US public does not accept the science and other justifications that is their loss. So long as we, meaning the human species, go back to the Moon and then beyond I don't really care who does it. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

It is Amrican public who gave us Appollo and man went to moon.

 

[cosmictraveler]

We need to build a space platform to send to Mars for it will be able to protect the crew when they reach Mars then they could go down to the surface to explore then go back up to the station. The moon isn't that great to be for a space station above the Earth can do any space observations as well as experiments better than a base on the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>It does not require many words to speak the truth. Chief Joseph</p> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

I agree with most of what's been said. I do think that one of the major reasons the moon is important is psychological. A) public awareness, but also B) the mental health of the people there. They are going to be very isolated. Being able to see "home" should help them deal with that. On Mars, they won't be able to just look out the window and see the earth. Also, I disagree that the training won't be applicable on Mars. yes, there will be differences, but the moon is a much harsher environment. If our technology works there, it should work on Mars. We will still be dealing with lunar dust, much like the fines on Mars, as well as having to have a closed environment. Not sure why there is so much strife over that issue. We need to take the steps that are close first, then move further away. Besides, any fuel we can create on the moon, is less that we have to haul up from the earth. Once we can boost from earth with just enough fuel to get out of the gravity well, and then refuel in space, we'll be able to do more exploration for less cost.<br /><br />Rae

 

[josh_simonson]

>> It's relatively easy to make ... a lunar space elevator<br /><br /> />My first thought was, "Yes, this would be a good first place to test and deploy the concept." Then I was wondering about the very slow rotation of the Moon. How far out from the surface would the elevator need to go?<br /><br />Would a beanstalk (or "skyhook") be possible on the moon?<br /><br />Yes, but it would have to be extremely long. There is no simple "lunar synchronous orbit" that is analogous to a geosynchronous orbit, since the moon rotates only once per (lunar) month, and the near side always faces the Earth. A lunar beanstalk would go to the nearest lagrange point, which is Earth-Moon L1: between the Earth and the moon. (This can also be called the cis-lunar lagrange point.)<br /> <br />The L1 Lagrange point itself is mildly unstable, but of course a beanstalk would be longer than the distance to the Lagrange point itself, and would extend into the Earth's gravity well slightly to keep it in tension. The beanstalk would be terrifically long, a minimum of 58,000 km just to get to the Lagrange point, and then depending on the counterweight mass, a bit further. However, because of the low lunar gravity, a Lunar beanstalk doesn't require an impossibly strong material to manufacture. - http://www.treitel.org/Richard/rass/stalk05.html<br /><br /><br />So an elevator to LL1 would be a little longer than an earth space elevator, but is also exposed to only 1/6 the gravity. This makes the strength requirements for the tether orders of magnitude less than for an earth space elevator, and LL1 has such a high gravitational potential that only a small kick is needed to go from there to anywhere in the solar system.<br /><br />Since lunar orbits are unstable, a lunar space elevator doesn't have near the danger from debris that an earth elevator does. Also the climber only has to work 1/6 as hard as a earth based one. Like