Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-16 19:37:49

But whats the freakin point? Why would we jeopardize the Mars mission by wasting our time on adapting MLV's for our moon redux? The moon is not our end-goal!

Take a step back and think: Why do we want to go to the moon? It certainly ain't for science. And it's not for flags and footprints. It might challenge NASA again, but what's the point?

Discounting the above, there may be three other reasons to return:

1. To mine needed resources (He3...)

2. To test long-term habitation on the moon, preparing ourselves for habitation anywhere in the solar system.

3. To trial equipment and procedures, preparing us for a Mars mission.

Okay, reason number 1 is total BS, most of us can agree on that one. Reason 2 is actually most worrying (think 'ISS the sequel', on the moon ).

So the only real reason of any credibility is reason 3. Personally though, I feel even this reason is rubbish. Apollo was our practice. But we have to go back to the moon, Bush has decreed it, so I guess we must ??? . So, IMO, Zubrin, seeing the bigger picture, is right.

Why do you want to go to the moon, GCNRevenger?

RobS · 2005-03-16 20:44:41

Michael, there's a helluva lot of science to do on the moon! Vast amounts. Not only is the history of the moon itself important to understanding the origin of the Earth and the solar system, but the moon should have fragments of early earth and maybe even early Venus on its surface, which help reconstruct the history of those worlds directly. The moon is chock full of science, I assure you.

-- RobS

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-16 20:59:52

Well, apparently Nixon didn't think so, and neither did the public by that stage. But that's not my argument. In any case there will be 100 times more science on Mars.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 22:47:38

Last fall I heard Rick Tumlinson speak in person and he proposed that "Moon-Mars" be defined as one word, not two.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Mars guy, I can compromise and accept Tumlinson's proposal. Moon first as part of an integrated plan to go on to Mars. Not my first choice, but I will support it 100% as a compromise.

But, if the "Moon only, Mars, well someday far far away"people hi-jack the Moon-Mars initiative and somehow under the table manage to structure the VSE so Mars capability is essentially postponed indefinitely, while saying Moon-Mars in public, I will be :angry:

My political support for the Moon requires "Moon-Mars" be one word, not two. Otherwise, send ONLY robots until GCNRevenger's honest-to-God RLVs come on line.

BWhite · 2005-03-16 23:24:31

Michael, there's a helluva lot of science to do on the moon! Vast amounts. Not only is the history of the moon itself important to understanding the origin of the Earth and the solar system, but the moon should have fragments of early earth and maybe even early Venus on its surface, which help reconstruct the history of those worlds directly. The moon is chock full of science, I assure you.
-- RobS

Mars appears to have http://www.brown.edu/Administration/New … tml]recent volcanic activity. By comparison, the Moon is boring, and most American voters would agree, IMHO. :;):

John Creighton · 2005-03-17 11:30:31

The problem with launching Shuttle with only the main tank is that it would require too many engines (in my opinion) to have enough thrust to get off the ground. The RS-68 is a large (by volume) engine, and I don't think you could fit many of them under it. The large diamater's drag also demands high thrust.
It would also require signifigant pad operations & modifications.

How about using a different engine. Perhaps what is needed is a tank with the same volume as the shuttle but longer. The Russians are increasing the length of there soyaze because of advances in controls. Why can’t the Americans do the same thing. The next question is what engines have the thrust to lift the longer tank. Perhaps there are compelling reasons for a clean slate. The rocket may not be a lot more efficient but may thorough away less engines and be able to launch without boosters for lighter payloads.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-17 11:49:20

I disagree with you Michael, there is enough scientific motive to justify a return to the Moon, from what we could learn about our planet, and learn from the use of an observatory on the "dark" side. That said, a long-term continuing presence on the Moon doesn't make much sense from a scientific standpoint... intermitant visits only.

Whether we set up shop on the Moon beyond a minimal and infrequently manned science camp to me depends on one thing... that is there any industrial bennefit that the Moon can provide. The most likly "exports" are He3 for fusion or PGMs for catalysts.

The problem with your stance is Bill, is a simple chicken/egg issue, that without Shuttle-II then Lunar development is impractical. But without a base to fly to, then there is no sufficently compelling reason to build Shuttle-II.

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-17 11:54:27

Such a rocket is possible John, it just wouldn't be Shuttle Derived anymore, and instead by a brand new rocket.

However, a purely SSTO (no upper stage, no boosters) rocket suffers a pretty nasty mass penalty. A staged rocket of one shade or another would provide superior performance.

BWhite · 2005-03-17 12:03:50

The problem with your stance is Bill, is a simple chicken/egg issue, that without Shuttle-II then Lunar development is impractical. But without a base to fly to, then there is no sufficently compelling reason to build Shuttle-II.

Chickens and eggs? Yup I agree.

PGMs may be the best short term incentive for a significant presence on the Moon. But if we cannot create incentive for significant levels of non-taxpayer sourced investment, its all a meaningless dog and pony show anyway. :;):

That's why I want to sell media rights. I believe we could generate $10 - 15 billion in revenue - - globally - - from the telecast of humanity's return to the Moon =IF= NASA took astronauts from around the world with them.

$10 to $15 billion for the first mission and lesser amounts for each subsequent mission as NASA delivers the first Brazilian to the Moon, then the first Spainard, then the first Japanese, etc. . .

At the proposed VSE funding levels, done all-EELV, without funding for genuine RLVs its all rather meaningless. :;):

BWhite · 2005-03-17 12:11:22

The follow on "master narrative" is that we are going to set up the infrastructure needed to bring back PGMS for fuel cells so we can fight pollution (both from terrestrial mining operations and by be able to use hydrocarboins more efficiently).

Return to the Moon is not merely to make "America feel good" or to "do science" its to begin lunar mining of PGMs.

Currently unprofitable (lunar mining costs would currently exceed PGM revenue) we close the financial circuit by selling intangible media and marketing rights under the theme of "saving the planet"

Edited By BWhite on 1111083134

RobS · 2005-03-17 12:13:43

The moon may have had recent volcanic activity as well near LeMonnier Crater in Mare Serenitatis.

The question whether the moon is more "boring" than Mars is not a scientific question; it is emotional. Mars is a mythological object, from canals to terraforming. The moon is a romantic objec--it is stared at by lovers, supposedly--but that does not translate into public support.

Mars can produce a hundred times more science than the moon? Maybe. But it is unscientific to try to quantify the difference, because different scientific facts have different degrees of importance. The key to understanding the origin of life on earth may lie in the regolith of Noachis, where we can reconstruct the prebiotic chemical evolution that led to life on Mars. Or it may be found in a one-kilogram fragment of 100-million year old Earth crust, blasted into space 4.4 billion years ago and lying somewhere on the back side of the moon, waiting for an astronaut to find it.

The moon has "a lot" more scientific value than Antarctica, but no one will advocate abandonment of Antarctica in favor of the moon. Smiliarly, the moon will have to find its place in humanity's exploration and settlement agenda.

-- RobS

Palomar · 2005-03-17 12:28:40

*Sorry, I just can't see the appeal of human inhabitation of the Moon from a practical standpoint: Zero atmosphere and very low gravity; 0.17 compared to Mars' 0.38.

Frankly, trying to make the Moon into a human dwelling place strikes me as trying to make a silk purse out of a pig's ear by comparison to Mars -- which has a lot more potential.

But of course Mars is much further away. ::shakes head::

--Cindy

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-17 12:39:39

Unless you are Ben Bova, the Moon doesn't really have much appeal as a perminant home for anyone... but that isn't what it would be used for. It would be like a drilling rig in the sky, people visiting it for a "shift" to run the Platinum mines, and rotating back to Earth... with bars of the precious material in the cargo hold after supplies on Earth have dried up.

Mars on the other hand has essentially no promise of material return for a long, long time.

BWhite · 2005-03-17 12:53:04

Dennis Wingo (Moonrush) nails it spot on:

Moon: To Save our Civilization Here

Mars: To Spread our Civilization There

= = =

GCNRevenger is 100% correct. The Moon should be seen as a giant drilling site or mining platform.

No need to wait for terrestrial supplies to dry up, however. PGMs are useful today to lower the cost of fuel cells to run on natural gas. We just gotta find a way to get PGMs back to Earth, at a profit.

(Edit: I believe that if we are willing sell some snake oil, we can do exactly that, today, with the rockets we have - - or at least the rockets Russia has)

RobS, emotions ARE the key.

Unless we embrace Tumlinson's idea that "Moon-Mars" is one word, not two there is no escape from "Lunatic versus Mars-nut" warfare that undermines all space exploration efforts.

= = =

Creating new intangible assets is the fastest way to make money, today. Brand value is all based on emotion.

Emotion is what makes us human. I ain't no Spock, nor do I wish to be!

Tap water is essentially free. Tap water labelled "Dasani" is worth $1.00 for 16 ounces. Irrational? Sure. Welcome to humanity.

= = =

To bootstrap the lunar PGM market?

Sell limited edition lunar PGM coins at $5000 per 3/4 ounce (or more), stamped with the images of the astronuats who went back to the Moon to mine the PGMs that will allow us to make the fuel cells that will fight global warming. Those guys are heroes!

Snake oll? Well, okay. :;):

But snake oil is a better rocket fuel even than slushed hydrogen.

Edited By BWhite on 1111085689

GCNRevenger · 2005-03-17 13:19:44

I am convinced that we CAN'T mine the Moon without an RLV, Russian rockets are too expensive.

"Emotional snake oil" as you put it might provide a little push, but I assure you that it would be fleeting. People would get bored with them, and then that money would basically dry up.

Tourism is the only other endless non-material supply of money for a Lunar base, but the cost for that isn't likely to be low enough so a sustainable number of tourists (who could afford it) would line up for the trip.

Edit: Maybe "RLV" should be changed to "Revolutionary Launch Vehicle." Heh.

BWhite · 2005-03-17 14:04:30

I am convinced that we CAN'T mine the Moon without an RLV, Russian rockets are too expensive.
"Emotional snake oil" as you put it might provide a little push, but I assure you that it would be fleeting. People would get bored with them, and then that money would basically dry up.
Tourism is the only endless non-material supply of money for a Lunar base, but the cost for that isn't likely to be low enough so a sustainable number of tourists (who could afford it) would line up for the trip.

First, the Lunar Hilton must overlook your mining sites.

= ==

So where do we get the billions (tens of billions) needed for RLV research and development? More chickens and eggs.

Think on this. 70% of Ford Motor's 2004 profit came from Ford Motor Credit. Selling insurance and interest on auto loans, not manufacturing cars.

Mining and manufaturing are increasingly becoming a smaller percentage of the overall economy. It may NEVER be profitable to mine lunar platinum as a stand alone business unless we factor in externalities such as reducing pollution (catalytic converters & avoiding mining operations) and enhancing fuel efficiency.

How do we capture the value of increasing fuel efficiencies or reducing pollution? Not easily in a free market, unless consumers are educated on the social benefits of supporting lunar mining.

Selling "souveniers" allows individuals to make micro-payments in lieu of taxation with a similiar macro-ecoomic effect (edit: similar to collecting tax dollars to subsidize space exploration as Wingo advocates - - and this idea may actually be more efficient than taxation)

Persuade people that lunar mining is in humanity's common interest and then brand merchandise that supports luanr mining.

Canon is willing to spend real money to be the "official camera" of the Chicago Cubs because they believe they will sell more cameras that way.

"Fair trade" coffee is another example. 30% of coffee sold in Britain is labeled fair trade and people pay a premium so they can "feel good" about not oppressing coffee farmers in South America.

= = =

If Janis Joplin came back to life and brought an honest-to-God Mercedes RLV with her, that would be good. But I won't hold my breath.

Edited By BWhite on 1111090266

Palomar · 2005-03-17 14:06:39

RobS, emotions ARE the key.
Unless we embrace Tumlinson's idea that "Moon-Mars" is one word, not two there is no escape from "Lunatic versus Mars-nut" warfare that undermines all space exploration efforts.

*Hmmmm. That is a really excellent point, Bill. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think you're right. As much as I'd like to skip the Moon entirely (except for telescopes built on the far side of it, perhaps a small manned base for exploration, etc), we may have no other choice ultimately.

GCN: Unless you are Ben Bova

Trust me, my husband wouldn't make a mistake like that! Ha ha. :;):

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-03-17 14:23:03

RobS, emotions ARE the key.
Unless we embrace Tumlinson's idea that "Moon-Mars" is one word, not two there is no escape from "Lunatic versus Mars-nut" warfare that undermines all space exploration efforts.
*Hmmmm. That is a really excellent point, Bill. I hadn't thought of it that way before. I think you're right. As much as I'd like to skip the Moon entirely (except for telescopes built on the far side of it, perhaps a small manned base for exploration, etc), we may have no other choice ultimately.

Tumlinson impresses me greatly. He also talks about the three paradigms of space exploration:

von Braunian - - for the greater glory of the state (Ve vill conquer space!);

Sagan-ite - - look but don't touch (leave only footprints and take only pictures); and

O'Neill-ian - - space is for all of us and if we can't go ourselves we gotta send stuff back, like lunar PGMs.

We can quibble about whether St. Carl is the right symbol to use in making this point but the basic point stands unchallenged, IMHO.

= = =

Question - where is the empahsis for the VSE with respect to these categories?

Tumlinson said last Fall (I heard him ) that the Bush VSE is von Braun-ian. Michael Griffin (IMHO) may be more of an O'Neill-ian.

Edited By BWhite on 1111093194

Commodore · 2005-03-17 16:26:50

I am convinced that we CAN'T mine the Moon without an RLV, Russian rockets are too expensive.

If by RLV you mean a Lunar RLV, then I agree. Bringing down down supplies safely and returning with fuel for a transit craft, and the mined material itself (at least early) will require a craft capable of frequent trips to and from the lunar surface from lunar orbit.

But once the mining base is established, there probably won't be all that much material going up. A resupply/spare parts/crew swap module once a month at most. So we'd need a HLV to set up the base, and then a probably an upgraded EELV to maintain it.

RobS · 2005-03-17 16:45:56

Hey, I wasn't knocking emotions! I was just pointing out that people were mixing emotions with scientific reasons not to do something.

Personally, I don't see the moon as a place of permanent settlement because (1) the gravity may be too low for children, and (2) it can be reached in a few days, as opposed to a few months every 2 years, so it is feasible to rotate personnel. It is not so feasible to rotate personnel on and off Mars, and I suspect children can be raised there in heavily shielded habitats (you can also sew weights into their clothes enough to raise the effective gravity on their bones to a reasonable level; on the moon, that would take a lot of weights!).

As for PGMs, I still await more information. I read Dennis Wingo's book and was impressed. Then it occurred to me he had not said much about how he would separate PGMs from other metals in the nickel-iron, so I managed to obtain his email address and asked him about the problem. He said he thought all one had to do is heat up the nickel-iron high enough to melt it and that would separate the iron from the nickel (they melt at very different temperatures) and that differential melting would do a lot of the separation; one would have to use some chemical processes for the last stage of extraction of PGMs. I wrote him back and pointed out that nickel-iron is a "solid solution"; essentially an alloy, not two separate metals that interpenetrate and melt separately. If they melted at separate temperatures, the earth's inner liquid core would have separate iron and nickel layers, and it apparently does not.

So he doesn't yet have a simple way to separate the nickel from the iron. This is important because the PGMS mostly adhere to the nickel. If one has to use chemical processes, they will have to be immensely efficient in order to be economic. For example, let us say that 1 tonne of carbon monoxide can be reused 1,000 times in creating liquid carbonyls for separating iron from nickel, cobalt, and other metals in the meteorite. No process is 100% efficient in recapturing materials; some escapes through tiny leaks, etc. Well, a typical nickel-iron meteorite is only 1 part in 30,000 PGMs. That means every tonne of PGMs would require 30 tonnes of carbon monoxide to separate it from nickel-iron. If you had to haul the thirty tonnes from Earth, the process would not be economic. You probably need a recycling efficiency of better than 49,999 in 50,000 to make the process econmic if one uses carbonyls. For this reason, Mars may be cheaper for PGM extraction than the moon.

I agree with GCN that tourism is probably the best business for supporting the moon. PGMs may work as well, but they may be farther down the road, and they may depend (ironically enough!) on importing carbon from Phobos and Deimos by solar sailing vehicle.

-- RobS

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-17 16:52:09

NASA will not be returning to the Moon to mine platinum, Damnit! Yes, that might be a great idea, but no matter how logical it may seem, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!

I promise.

Now let us please be realistic in the context of NASA's near-term capability and agenda.

BWhite · 2005-03-17 16:54:44

RobS, don't haul CO, use CH4 as your primary imported fuel.

Methane is easier to ship and store than LH2 and you can run LOX/methane pressurized rovers that "look like" oversized made-in-Detroit SUVs for the marketing angle and cash inflows.

Making CO from CH4 is easy enough and supplies energy.

= = =

Collect CO2 ice from your lunar launch sites, if you use methane for lunar launch.

Edited By BWhite on 1111100551

BWhite · 2005-03-17 16:58:33

NASA will not be returning to the Moon to mine platinum, Damnit! Yes, that might be a great idea, but no matter how logical it may seem, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
I promise.
Now let us please be realistic in the context of NASA's near-term capability and agenda.

Unless the VSE facilitates stuff like this, it is a waste of money.

Better to send robots and fund midnight basketball. Sorry, but that is how I feel.

Commodore · 2005-03-17 17:03:38

NASA will not be returning to the Moon to mine platinum, Damnit! Yes, that might be a great idea, but no matter how logical it may seem, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
I promise.
Now let us please be realistic in the context of NASA's near-term capability and agenda.

NASA has to do it first.

You don't actually think mining companies will try it on their own without the goverment doing the R&D and working out the bugs first do you?

We have to start looking for ways to recoup the massive costs involved. Congress will not fund science expeditions forever.

BWhite · 2005-03-17 17:09:52

NASA will not be returning to the Moon to mine platinum, Damnit! Yes, that might be a great idea, but no matter how logical it may seem, IT WILL NOT HAPPEN!
I promise.
Now let us please be realistic in the context of NASA's near-term capability and agenda.
NASA has to do it first.
You don't actually think mining companies will try it on their own without the goverment doing the R&D and working out the bugs first do you?
We have to start looking for ways to recoup the massive costs involved. Congress will not fund science expeditions forever.

NASA's very first lunar mission should include pyrolysis demonstrations.

Go back to my opening post and re-read Zubrin's 2nd essay.

Let NASA open the Moon to commerce. Prove the techniques for extracting lunar O2, then get on with going to Mars.

= = =

If NASA refuses, call Roskosmos!

Edited By BWhite on 1111101035

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-03-16 19:37:49

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#27 2005-03-16 20:44:41

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#28 2005-03-16 20:59:52

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#29 2005-03-16 22:47:38

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#30 2005-03-16 23:24:31

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#31 2005-03-17 11:30:31

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#32 2005-03-17 11:49:20

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#33 2005-03-17 11:54:27

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#34 2005-03-17 12:03:50

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#35 2005-03-17 12:11:22

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#36 2005-03-17 12:13:43

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#37 2005-03-17 12:28:40

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#38 2005-03-17 12:39:39

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#39 2005-03-17 12:53:04

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#40 2005-03-17 13:19:44

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#41 2005-03-17 14:04:30

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#42 2005-03-17 14:06:39

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#43 2005-03-17 14:23:03

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#44 2005-03-17 16:26:50

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#45 2005-03-17 16:45:56

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#46 2005-03-17 16:52:09

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#47 2005-03-17 16:54:44

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#48 2005-03-17 16:58:33

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#49 2005-03-17 17:03:38

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

#50 2005-03-17 17:09:52

Re: Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

Board footer