Why go to the moon? Does anybody know? Because its Cheaper!!

[dan_casale]

There are a lot of modern processes that require a vacuum somewhere in the process. The moon or in orbit provides a near perfect vacuum.

 

[cyrostir]

a few good things about the moon: <br /><br />the moon is great for getting launches off the ground because of the low gravity<br /><br />The moon is great for telescopes (in craters out of the sun) because it has no atmosphere to distort any images.<br /><br />those are two good things i just got off the top of my head, and another thing, its a hell of a lot closer than mars

 

[halman]

CDR6,<br /><br />So many people seem to think that it will either be the Moon OR Mars, but not both. This perception seems based in part on the belief that we are ready to go to Mars right now, and that will be delayed if we go to the Moon.<br /><br />I have seen numerous articles and studies which maintain that the ability to go to Mars is very close, and that we could do it in a few years. This may be true, but I am very concerned that going to Mars at the first possible oppurtunity is a recipe for disaster. I am much more concerned about seeing a stable, long term space program get developed, one which can grow to support a huge effort when it comes time to go to Mars.<br /><br />For instance, developing what is called Cheap Access To Space is going to need a project close to home which requires a high rate of launches for a while, to justify the expense of building a new launch system. Once we have CATS, then we will be more assured of developing space-based industries which will provide a never ending market for launch services. With CATS, we can build a Mars ship the size of the Queen Mary if we want to, and there will be no more talk of crews spending a couple of years in a spacecraft that is designed for minimum weight and cost.<br /><br />Mars is the perfect laboratory for Artificial Intelligence, remote sensing, image aquistion, autonomous weather monitoring, and all kinds of robotics and vehicle design. We can well use ten or twenty years of studying Mars with robots and rovers, because we want to know what the weather will be doing in a few hours when a lander is preparing to de-orbit, or a party is preparing to do a surface sweep for fossils. Having an atmosphere makes a planet a lot more unpredictable.<br /><br />And the Moon has the potential for making space pay back directly some of the money that has been poured into it. Utilizing Lunar resources in any way will be profit from the investment we have been making since the 1960's. The Moon is likely <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

knowledge_is_power,<br /><br />Thank you!<br /><br />Sometimes, I fear that the prospect of the space elevator is going to inhibit rocketry and areospace severely. Many people have come to believe that a space elevator will be possible in 20 years or so, which just ignores some of the basic tenets of developing new technologies. For one thing, even if we had the technology right now to build a space elevator, we would not. Such a project is going to cost huge sums of money, which would be justified if there were enough traffic to make the thing pay for itself. But there is no big demand for launch capacity right now, because no one is doing anything which creates such a demand, like building and maintaining a Lunar base, building reserach stations in solar orbit, or preparing a major manned probe outside of the Earth-Moon system.<br /><br />Also, it is generally a good practice to thoroughly test a material which is going to be exposed to a variety of environments, while being stressed considerably. We will have to know that the material we build the anchor lines with, (probably carbon nanotubes) will last at least 50 years, and preferably over 100. Creating tethers 22,000 miles long is also going to require some new forms of engineering, as the production process is going to be part of the construction process, unless we want to try to figure out how to spool 22,000 miles of material.<br /><br />And just who do you suppose is going to build this thing, which will have tremendous economic power? Will it be a single nation, commiting all of its resources to 20 some odd years of construction before operations can commence, and another 10 years to work out the bugs? A space elevator may take 50 years or more to become profitable, depending on construction time and interest rates.<br /><br />Building a base on the Moon is the best goal that the space program could have right now, because it is achievable in a short enough period of time that it will keep people's interest <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

NASA's Institute for Advance Concepts has a proposal for a space elevator from the surface of the Moon to one of the Earth-Moon Lagrangian points. It would be substantially smaller than an Earth space elevator and would only have to handle the stresses of a far smaller gravitational field.<br /><br />Testing the concept on a lot cheaper task would seem to be a good reason to go to the Moon.

 

[frodo1008]

Another item that is going to make an elevator to GEO quite expensive initially is something that elevator proponents seem to miss. That is that such a structure IS going to be quite heavy and large. It is going to tale a whole lot of ordinary rocketry just to get the basic structure up to GEO. Remember this is GEO at some 22,000 miles altitude, not LEO at some 200 miles altitude. <br /><br />When you look at commercial satellite launch systems the ability of such a system to get various masses up to verious orbits is quite different. If a rocket can get some 5,000 kg up to LEO it can only get a small part of that mass up to GEO, and then usually only with additional stages. It just makes common sense that getting up to GEO at 22,000 miles altitude is going to be more difficult than getting up to LEO at 200 miles.<br /><br />Again, thinking logically, you are going to want some very large facilities at the recieving points of your elevator(s). Obviously you are eventually going to bring up the materials for at least part of such recieving stations for the various elevators, on the elevators themselves. But, initially this may very well have to be done by rocketry. Sometimes it appears to me that in their enthusiasm for such systems the proponents of such systems (and I am actually such a proponent myself, but I realize that this is a far future type of solution) overlook the difficulty in even setting up such systems.<br /><br />I do however, feel very strongly that such systems will not only be feasable in the long term, but they will bring the cost of moving outward into space down to the present cost of rapid transit here on the Earth. They would indeed be the ultimate in CATS!!

 

[john_316]

i always believed walk before you run then take small steps before big ones, and work on building infrastructure here as well then you can build that on mars too...<br /><br />so take what we can get and keep at it. <br /><br />if we were going to the moon during the last 20 years would we have complained about it like we do going to LEO????<br /><br />

 

[halman]

knowledge_is_power,<br /><br />Many people seem to think that there is a huge, pent-up demand for access to space, and, that as soon as some cheap method is developed, everyone will be going there. As much as I wish that this were true, I don't believe that it is. For one thing, doing anything in space is very expensive right now, because we have done so little, and have to learn how to do everything from scratch. What holds true on Earth often does not apply in space, which can result in very unpleasant consequences unless every eventuality can be prepared for. So merely having Cheap Access To Space does not mean that access will be desired. The funding to do the projects that will demand higher launch rates must be secured, such as a base on the Moon.<br /><br />To develop a base on the Moon will take 10-15 years, minimum, during which launches will be very frequent. But paying for the launches is small change compared with paying for a permanent base to be built. That money has got to be guarenteed for the life of the project, or the project might fail if funding suddenly dries up.<br /><br />In some respects, this is akin to trying to build a national high speed rail system. The technology exists to move a train on steel wheels over steel rails at speeds of around 250 miles per hour. Such a system would drastically reduce the transportation costs of moving anything around the country, either people or freight. But there is no demand for such a system, because people are in love with their cars, and flying is kept as cheap as possible, in spite of its being the single most inefficient way known to man to move mass from one point to another.<br /><br />When energy costs reach a certain point, cars and airplanes will be prohibitively expensive to operate. At that time, demand for a national high speed rail system will suddenly increase dramatically, and ways to pay for such a huge project will be found. And the cost of a national high speed rail network would o <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[thinice]

<i>Vertically launched rockets are horribly inefficient, losing 20 miles per hour of velocity for every second of vertical flight. </i><br /><br />What velocity are you talking about? Vertically launched rockets are quite effective in piercing through the densiest layer of the atmosphere.

 

[thinice]

<i>If you have alot of people in space something may go wrong, but that is how the learning process works.</i><br /><br />What all those hordes of people would do at the top of a space elevator?

 

[quasar2]

correct, & going to Mars, especially w/ the laxity lately will be that much more difficult. then we hafta deal w/ the rivalry between Mars First & Moon first. sometimes it`s acknowledged there is a connection between them, sometimes not. obviously a vehicle capable of a Mars Mission could be used for Luna. simple fact. & by the same token, if there were a Manned Moon Return, vehicles will be developed which a Mars Mission could use. stoppin @ The Moon appears to be a waste of time to some. but some of us may actually be considering the fact that neither may ever be done. & "settling" for The Moon is good enough. it`s a question of what can be done in some of us`lifetimes. kinda sobering really. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

knowledge_is_power,<br /><br />Sure, a train ticket is cheap. That is because it takes a couple of days to go from New York to Los Angeles. Most Amtrak trains are not supposed to go faster than 70 mph. And going that fast on some track is impossible. The United States rail system is based on 1880's technology, which is barely adequate, and was almost replaced by trucking. But the steel wheel on the steel rail is still the most energy efficient way to move mass on land, and trucks are horribly inefficient, so they are losing some ground to trains.<br /><br />Per passenger mile, air travel is the single most energy intensive way there is to move people. Automobiles rank second. Until some new form of energy is found, mass transit is more likely to be what people abandon their cars for.<br /><br />I have a feeling that it is going to be expensive to do just about anything in space for some time, as simply working there means that the person must be trained for survival in a vacum, as well as how to operate a space suit, understand communications, and be the best at whatever it is that they do. And they will have to be rotated back to Earth every few months, so that they do not lose their muscles.<br /><br />Cheap Access To Space is a relative term. Right now, shuttle rates are running around 6,000 dollars a pound. If we can acheive 300 dollars per pound, we will have CATS. <br /><br />If NASA were to receive a budget equivalent to what is spent on cosmetics in the United States every year, we could have a Moon base in about 15 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[ehs40]

we need to get back to the moon but first we need a new shuttle program and to finish the iss

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Here's a link to the lunar space elevator proposal (the site was down when I last posted). It's quite interesting.

 

[quasar2]

if "we" had contined to The Moon, there would be @least a base there by now. this may not`ve been a US base, but it would`ve given us incentive to perhaps top that or work together. & this is mostly what`s motivating us nowadays. the fact others are steppin up to the plate. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spayss]

The Shuttle is stuck on the launch pad because of a sensor. On Earth. This is 2.5 years after being gone over with a fine tooth comb.<br /><br /> And keeners believe we have the technology to safely put people on Mars and keep them there for any length of time and then pick them up? <br /><br /> As for a habitation on the moon having established itself by now? Just like the Shuttle has become more efficient and reliable over the years? Just as the ISS has found some purpose that no one can fugure out?<br /><br /> Pie-in-the-sky optimism is nice but we have to concentrate on actually getting into space reliably and efficiently. The USA hasn't had a successful space mission since October/ 2002 . We're not in any position to talk about servicing a habitation on the Moon or anywhere else.

 

[quasar2]

well i guess one can say we have a purpose now. we now know about existence of ice in both locations. i`ll hesitate on the existence of free water on Mars. & few other things i can`t think of at the moment. & as i said, we have competition. to be honest i lost faith in Shuttle & ISS several years ago. & i think we`re wealthy & capable enough to absorb the foolishness of these endeavors. that`s been part of the problem for awhile now. the US being too "good" for its own good. egos getting in the way of real work. that being the ability to live permanently in OuterSpace. it can never be said enough this is indeed Mankind`s Greatest Adventure. & will be for who knows how many years to come? all will profit from this. as Cold Fusion, AI, Biologix, etc., will be spinoffs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[halman]

spayss,<br /><br />What we accomplish is directly proportionate to what we invest. The United States has been spending pocket change on space flight since about 1966, when the Apollo appropriations began winding down. People get all upset because space is so expensive, but that is because 5 billion dollars a year sounds like a lot. Compare that with the 5 billion being spent in Irag every month right now, or the amount spent on cosmetics in the United States every year. If this country had been spending 1 percent of the federal government annual budget on space exploration since 1970, we would have a base on the Moon, several space stations, and we would be on our way to Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[john_316]

Has anyone seen any preliminary designs on the next lunar lander?<br /><br />Will it incorporate DC-X technologies or ideas?<br /><br /><br />Will the lunar base be a prefab shelter or will the lander double as a habitat while there? <br /><br />Anyone seen any ideas on these things anywhere?<br /><br />I must be blind lately because I havent seen much in the way of lunar habitat and or EVA equipment and such for the planned lunar missions as was mentioned by a previous poster on another post....<br /><br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Anyone seen any ideas on these things anywhere? "</font><br /><br />I wonder if these are the 'simple' questions that the 60 day study supposedly failed to answer, thus delaying it. So far most of the talk has been about CEV, Stick and SDHLV, which are fine and necessary to get stuff and people <i>near</i> the Moon. But how to land there, live there and what will be done there? And one of the worst, after CEV and two new launchers, is there enough money left to build proper mission equipment, landers, habitats, rovers and whatnot?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I wonder if these are the 'simple' questions that the 60 day study supposedly failed to answer, thus delaying it.</font>/i><br /><br />I think the 60-day study is also being delayed until Discovery successfully returns home.<br /><br />There are two main studies: what is needed to retire the shuttle and what is the roadmap with the VSE. Since NASA's dollars are pretty much fixed, the two studies are tightly entangled. Furthermore, there has been a lot of talk that the original ISS final design and schedule and the original 28 missions are pretty much history. To make such as announcement before or during Discovery's flight would be a major distraction.<br /><br />Of course, if Discovery cannot make the July window, Griffin will probably be forced to show his hand before RTF.</i>

 

[le3119]

First, we can access the Moon with relative ease, and from initial facility operations, expand our activities there, and number of participants, geometrically. People from every country could quickly gain access to the lunar surface, of course, nations like the US would remain "gatekeepers" for some time, giving us the political leverage back here on Earth. We can always monitor lunar activities from Earth, constantly reminding all on Earth that we are making that frontier our permanent home. This would be a very positive psychological effect, a real moral booster for the younger generations. <br /><br />1. The moon is our laboratory for learning how to function on Mars and the outer moons. <br /><br />2. Experimental biospheres may become tourist destinations, where people can fly in the low gravity gardens. <br /><br />3. Resources, such as basalt, H2, O2 and metals will provide our other space activities with support. Nuclear and solar power tech can be perfected there, far away from Earth's delicate environments.<br />