The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

Josh Cryer · 2004-08-29 07:54:25

Here's, essentially, my reason for thinking Mars isn't really a "stepping stone." If we have the technology to survive on the moon for any extended period, then we'd have the technology to survive on Mars for said period, and potentially longer. The major difference being that the moon lacks the resources we need in an easily obtainable fasion (water, to think of something quite important).

No matter which route you take, you're going to have to test your tech here on Earth. The moon may be a few days away, but that doesn't mean that the people who are doing all the work up there are going to be any better off than those who would go to Mars. You screw up, you die. It doesn't matter where you go.

I'd prefer we go to a place with higher gravity (I'm sure it'd be much easier on us earthlings simply on that basis alone), a very useful atmosphere (which lets us design simplier machines to deal with air supplies; and fuel), very ample water (no need to ship water in), a place which is the most understood body in the solar system except for Earth (we have mapped Mars to ridiculous scales, the topographic map of Mars actually exceeds that of Earth by several magnitudes).

I reckon any Mars missions (with adequate technology) could be more productive than a moon mission (with the same level of technology).

Grypd · 2004-08-29 08:05:13

I think an important fact that most Moon enthusiaist miss is that going to Mars makes a lot of their dreams for the Moon more realistic. The Moon is still the 'high frontier' becuase we have gone no further. A successful mission or two to Mars would alter the public's perceptions towards the Moon, making it seem much more realistic to build hotels or other structures there. And that change in attitude means more funding raising for said projects.

At the moment if we go to Mars it will take a large part of the resources that the space agencies have to do the mission. If we are lucky then there might be a couple of others. But after that they will drop the Mars missions, they did it to apollo and they will do it to the Mars missions. The next stage is obviously colonisation but without the infrastructure it will not happen.

We have to try to avoid this the general public are no longer interested in what occurs in space only when things go wrong. If we land men on Mars then that will attract large numbers of people to watch the landing, but the second and third missions will simply not attract much public interest. What we will get if you land men on Mars and do not have the ability to follow up immediately with colonisation is this. Ok youve landed found alien life oh wow, lets cut your budget you dont need it anymore. What do you mean NO, you dont have anything to spend it on do you, NO of course not. I want to put that money to this military overspend, this health program, this National debt.

That is why I want to go the Moon first, we can develop the Moon using Telerobotics. It can make infrastructure creation a lot cheaper than any means we have from Earth. We will never make the Moon completely self sufficient, but the reverse is also true with resources coming from the Moon the Earth is no longer self sufficient. Space colonisation and utilisation is a serious and expensive game, if you can reduce costs then you increase capability. And at the moment we are not capable of colonising Mars.

Gennaro · 2004-08-29 12:18:30

You could maybe use the moon for cycler construction, I don't know, maybe. But by the time you get all of that infrastructure up there, perhaps we will have a breakthrough in fusion research and can construct much more powerful SSTO's and other ground launchers than today's chemical variety. Launching cyclers in one piece would then not be so difficult, in fact considering that we won't need mega big spaceships for some time, today's launch technology can probably go a long way to get the eventual cyclers we need into place.

What I mean is that building large cycler ships also requires you have something to transport. Although I believe some limited commerce can be established by early mid-term, primarily between Mars and Earth to offset colony expenditure, I don't see the need for very large or very many ships either for cargo or people for a very long time to come.

In itself, the moon only offers more problems than it solves.

1) There is nothing meaningful to mine and export to earth that we know of.

2) Solar power is inferior to nuclear power and will be totally obsolote when we get fusion. Don't see why people have this hang up with solar panels.
Solar energy is not a viable export considering the productivity of nuclear power.

3) Although there are copious amounts of oxygen, there is virtually no hydrogen for rocket fuel, it will have to be shipped to the place.

4) In addition to hydrogen there is virtually no carbon, nitrogen and phospherous on the moon which growing things need to survive, or at least as far as I'm aware they need. In other words, if you want agriculture you'll even have to ship the biomass! You'll probably end up better with just importing food instead of trying to grow your own.

5) There is virtually no copper, zinc or lead and a number of other strategic metals and substances, so these things will also have to be shipped.

6) While the moon is near it's still too far away to reach with SSTO's. As long as we're stuck in a chemical/fission age of propulsion you can either use expendable launchers or set up a combination of heavy expendables and an elaborate system of SSTO's and lunar cyclers, although at the latter end they will still need hydrogen shipped from earth somehow!
All of this only to construct shipyards to build mega spaceships we won't need for the very long term.

No, regrettably, I can see almost no use for the moon in a space expansion perspective. Luna from this point of view remains lunacy. It might become useful later on, who knows, but it's not the place from which to initiate solar system settlement.

As far as Mars Direct is concerned, I at least believe in it as a transitory model from exploration to colonization. Transhabs left over from previous expeditions can be clustered and in combination with a number of special purpose shipments they can be used to house the workforce employed to found the original settlement of Hobbit habitats and agricultural domes. Once the original complex gets online, you already have a de facto colony. So what's the problem? A political decision to go is really all there's to it at that level.

Allright, I admit I'm no expert and there could be things in this thread I don't realize, but from the way I look at it, my understanding after having read Zubrin and John S Lewis Mining the Sky is that purist Zubrinism is what makes sense here.

Martian Republic · 2004-08-29 13:44:00

5) There is virtually no copper, zinc or lead and a number of other strategic metals and substances, so these things will also have to be shipped.

I don't know every thing that the moon has, but it does have Aluminum, silicon, and raw materials for glass. The verdict is still out as to whether it has any water or not. Besides having a physical plate form to build stuff on, you can also retreat into the hillside to get away from harmful radiation, which is a big advantage too. I don’t know of any real in-depth study of the Moon for resources though.

Larry,

deagleninja · 2004-08-29 14:12:14

Let me clarify my position on why going to Mars first will yeild more momentum to our space program. First, try and understand what really killed Apollo....boredom.

Much like our rushed assualt on Iraq, we didn't plan beyond the moment. As many have correctly stated, only one scientist, a geologist, was included in the Apollo landing mission (and wasn't it the last mission?). Everytime they landed they did the same things: plant a flag, take some pictures, collect a few rocks, play golf.

You can't ask people to be interested in something just becuase 'it's space!', people are human and get bored with repetition. How much interest is there in the MERs now? The rovers were grabbing front page news nearly everyday for a month, but now there are no drastic revelations, and so the interest has died down.

Here's a short list of things astronuats could or will be doing on Mars that they can't on the Moon. Listening to the sounds of Martian winds, watching clouds pass by, witnessing sunrises and sunsets, pumping water from underground, growing a garden, etc.

See any differences? On the Moon, our astronauts had to bring the interesting things with them (golf, carts, flags). This won't be the case with Mars.

I can't think of a single country that would have a problem dropping the ISS if the replacement was an international effort to get 6-7 people to Mars. We could send 2 Americans, 2 Russians, 1 European, 1 Japanesse, and 1 Chinesse and include every major space program in the world. Keep it simple by using mainly US tech with a dash of ESA and Russia and let the other counties help foot the bill for representation.

All the excuses drop away in the face of a plan like this. The money needed can be shouldered by several countries making it very affordable. Radiation isn't as deadly as some would like us to believe. Concerns over travel time can be solved by good 'ol redundancy.

Something people should consider about permanent colonies is gravity. Martians will be able to return to Earth with enough training and medicine. Lunar colonists won't be able to come back home after a year or two tops.

Gennaro · 2004-08-29 15:18:06

deagleninja, good post!

In case listening to the Martian winds won't suffice, I think it's important to make a single thing crystal clear from sctratch. We are not going to Mars for the media coverage. It's not about public relations and entertainment, of course people grow bored with all that when the novelty blows over! (Actually something that believers in space tourism should take a moment to think about as well.)
We are going to Mars for serious human affairs. Like the territorial and material expansion of our species.

Martian Republic,
well, yeah. Actually there are a lot of good things on the moon which can be used there for various applications. Like silicon, iron, titanium, magnesium, calcium and aluminium, everything readily at hand and locked tightly together with oxygen, so if you get the materials out you get all the oxygen you need in the bargain.
Another bonus factor is we really don't need the eventual famed polar water, only transport huge amonts of hydrogen to the moon (for an application besides rocket fuel).
What I'm after is there's a main stay mineral called ilmenite (FeTiO3), present in concentrations up to 10% in some lunar soils. If you hit this with hydrogen, you get the following:

FeTiO3 + H2 = Fe + TiO2 + H2O.

Voilà, water!

To get metallic silicon (for example to construct solar panels) you need to react it with carbon. I mentioned carbon in connection with biogenic elements, but this is another use for which it has to be imported to the moon. The reaction looks like this:

SiO2 + 2C = Si + 2CO

So perhaps regardless the tone of my post, there are ways provided we don't imagine the moon can become self sufficient - hydrogen boils off for example and needs to be replenished - and we actually can find a place for the moon in the larger scheme of things. We don't need it for settling Mars though, I'm positive about that.

Other things that are reasonably common on the moon is potassium, manganese and chromium (about 2000 parts per million), which are used in various industrial applications.

Now, as a last point, of course I'm no geologist but if I remember correctly, somebody could perhaps help me and prove me wrong about this, but chromium I believe actually is often found together with platinum group metals on earth (platinum, palladium and the likes) and such metal ores are at least partly related to so-called mafic-ultramafic complexes, basically lava flows resulting from ancient impactors, not hydrologic processes per se. This could, and I have mentioned it previously, in my mind potentially mean that there are platinum group ores on the moon as well.
Of course these might be found deep down in the crust and might prove impractical to extract. Moreover, asteroids definitely and probably Mars already has these ores in forms much easier to mine and there's a very definitite limitation to demand from earth, but with the limited knowledge I personally possess, I wouldn't rule the prospect out entirely.

Dook · 2004-08-29 16:55:05

In my opinion a mission to mars will not be just another Apollo. Going to the moon was out of the realm of thinking for most people in 1962, even the scientists, but once we got there what else was there to do? There is no hope for finding life so what is the point once you've done it? Once was enough. Today I think even the average person believes that we can land on mars if we wanted but for some reason, unknown to them, it hasn't been a goal of our leadership. A mission to mars should arouse as much public support as Apollo did if the leadership advertises it correctly. Saying we will go there in 30 years gets no one excited. Saying we are going there in 7 years would. It would also help get the public enthused about it if the NASA administrator would provide a semi-detailed report to the public on mars direct or semi-direct showing exactly how we are going to get there and providing progress reports to the media every six months or so.

Sure the first mars landing would have the most interest and the others less and less. That's to be expected. But if NASA sells it correctly, provides weekly video clips from the crew on mars with footage from outside excursions and video from the pressurized rover's excursions or mars remote controlled airplanes it would be more popular than the highest rated TV show. Think of it, every friday night you could see fifteen minutes of video of Olympus Mons or Valles Marineris, or see a flight down into a giant crater? Or maybe footage of another mars hab ship landing?

A discovery of alien life would be incredible. Oh wow just doesn't quite cover it.

Rxke · 2004-08-29 17:37:49

In this multimediaworld, Mars is more photogenic.

The Moon is dull (for the common viewer,) it has no real mountains (theyre hills, rather) and craters, well... You seen one, how many do you want to see next?
And it's a strictly black-and white world, w/ no atmosphere, so exteme contrasts. No good on a TV (I'd love to see real photo prints on B/W Baryta paper, though, it would be arty...) Ok, you can take shots of the Earth...

Mars: Extreme stuff: huge volcanos, super grand canyons etc... Lots of colors, thanks to the atmosphere, too: sunsets etc... Imagine a truly hi-res motion picture of setting sun, ice glinting, frost, clouds... Inspiring stuff, IMO. And sound to boot... It will win hands-down in media-land. National Geographic would lap it up. A real new land to explore, mysterious, grand, blahblahblah...

And people will be there for a quite long time, before heading home, months rather than days or weeks... so they won't stay in the boring flat lands... James Cameron might 'direct' them

comstar03 · 2004-08-29 17:46:00

Touchie, touchie, about the " Apollo " comments.

All are thinking still two dimension (2D), we are trying to build a human presence in space, not a colony here or there. When you count the moonbase, mars settlements, other planetary bases, space platforms, explorer ships, deep space plaforms, and research stations in space could mount upwards of several thousand people activity working and living in outer space.

Yes, here comes the can't do this, can't do that people, but you don't see that when the economies of scale get to a point that they could support the space based community from earth that is when things get really exciting and grow rapidly. United States and Australia where build at the same time but the positions at the turn of the 19th Century we changed one growth in population and the other didn't. The same can be said with space.

I can still hear the can't do that people. !!!!!!!!!!!!

Grypd · 2004-08-29 17:57:55

Dook it would be the highest rated television show at least for that week, then the second week it would be still doing ok, but by the third week the latest version of Sex in the city would be back on top.

This is fact the population of the western world have a really poor interest factor, ask anybody who works in television.

We know the Moon has all that we need to create a full industrial center for Man to get major access to space. And it has when necessary got reasonably easier access to the NEO class of asteroid and there materials.

We cannot colonize mars when all we are sending is 6 people at a cost of 2 Billion $us for each 6 man crew. How many crews will we be able to send before the plug is pulled. We must reduce the cost of sending people or the mainstay of colonisation families will never be sent. This is the idea behind cyclers, which once constructed only need resupply and all the expensive costs have been dealt with. Cyclers will certainly have a nuclear power source and use solar as backup. They will probably spin to provide a limited gravity and the colonists will take along there own food and supplies.

Dook · 2004-08-29 18:35:45

Your idea increases the risk of congress pulling it's funding because it is so expensive (how much does a moon base cost?) and inefficient.

You want to expose hundreds (thousands?) of humans to great risk by travelling to mars and struggling to grow enough food and obtain enough water and oxygen, energy for CO2 removal, for what? Just so mars will be fully terraformed by the year 2974 rather than 3004? The risk is not worth the benefit. What if there is a problem with their RTG reactor at the same time that a three month long dust storm clouds the sky? They wouldn't have the energy to keep the CO2 removal systems operating.

If something happens the world would ask "Why did you do such a stupid thing? For what good purpose did all those people have to die?"

Colonization of the moon or mars with such risk to so many is just not smart, even if you can find people who would go.

Gennaro · 2004-08-29 19:03:49

We cannot colonize mars when all we are sending is 6 people at a cost of 2 Billion $us for each 6 man crew. How many crews will we be able to send before the plug is pulled. We must reduce the cost of sending people or the mainstay of colonisation families will never be sent.

The provision is that the plug is never pulled. The costs involved in this sort of thing are so immense there is no way to move but incrementally. You give a little you collect a little, you give some more. We can't expect having a net return on the investments for several decades at least, simply because a lack of terran demand. Going out by huge engineering schemes on the moon of all places with such prospects would be a repetition of the failure of communism, provided it could ever get off the ground. This tells me two things. One, it's nothing for private enterprise until much later, only the state can manage such a far-sighted program to blaze the trail since the state by definition is not reliant on profit and two, people talk about Columbus, but that analogy is wholly at fault. We are not about to cross the Atlantic by caravel, rather we are trying to do so by rowboat. When we get fusion, that will be us inventing the sail.
To see the program through you need stamina and staying power. It could be America can't make it. It could be no democratic state of this day and era is up to it, swinging in the currents of global finance and public whims. It may require profound changes to civilization and the political ideas that guide it.

This is the idea behind cyclers, which once constructed only need resupply and all the expensive costs have been dealt with. Cyclers will certainly have a nuclear power source and use solar as backup. They will probably spin to provide a limited gravity and the colonists will take along there own food and supplies.

I'm all for cyclers, especially cyclers that spin by retractable tethers . SSTO's at earth and Mars could be made to dock with cyclers using gascore nuclear engines which would provide enough delta V to use a wide spectrum of launch windows. I'm just rather doubtful about building them on the moon, at least for a hundred years.

comstar03 · 2004-08-30 00:02:42

Gennaro,

I find you funny !!!!, We are making assumptions on little information on the moon, My assumptions are based on the logical approach to building a large space industry and community outside earth atomsphere. I find other people's assumptions flawed because of personal bias. I see Mars as the second largest community of humanity in the next century, but that will use the transportation and other resources from the earth and moon to do it.

We have made assumptions on the make up of the moon, if the assumptions are correct in the evolution of the planets and moons then the moon has the same mineral structure as earth, and we haven't found it yet. I think you need to develop an overview understanding of the current solar system and lay out a new inner planetary system for the next century or so ahead up to 2125. ( all of us are dead and dust but our legacy will live on and upwards )

Gennaro · 2004-08-30 04:55:11

We have made assumptions on the make up of the moon, if the assumptions are correct in the evolution of the planets and moons then the moon has the same mineral structure as earth, and we haven't found it yet. I think you need to develop an overview understanding of the current solar system and lay out a new inner planetary system for the next century or so ahead up to 2125. ( all of us are dead and dust but our legacy will live on and upwards )

Please, comstar, I'm aware of the current evidence for the formation of the moon and like you I used to suppose it should have a material structure much like earth since after all it's only a chunk of earth that's up there. That was until I began reading up on the subject. Granted, I guess a lot of the information we have comes from the Apollo samples which are incomplete and there's much left to be done. Hopefully, it will turn out like you and I hope and the moon will have a more diversified material structure than currently supposed.
One of the last books I read however, World Building by Stephen L. Gillet - actually a sort of guide for science fiction authors, but nevertheless written from a professional perspective - states that the moon material mostly is composed by terran crust, that is the lighter 'scrap' material from on top. If this is true, the moon will generally be a poorer world in terms of heavy elements than the earth, not least since the earth continually renew its crust material from the mantle by the dynamics of plate tectonics.

Now, I'm not anti-moon and I agree we need to plan ahead in the long run and big perspective, I only doubt the moon is instrumental in human settlement of the solar system, especially in its early stages. Mars is a world that basically has everything to make it self-sustainable, including biogenics and volatiles, and to create a civilization, the moon hasn't got these things.
Secondly, you write somewhere above about economics of scale on earth supporting rapid growth, well yes the paycheck of an engineer does translate into generate aggregate demand, but the time and means spent on a space program is nothing but wasted capital until the population on earth can gain from linkage into the interplanetary economy or benefit from its offshoots.
Thriving communities off earth, wherever they are, are totally irrelevant from the perspective of the tax payer as long as this link isn't established. The question therefore is not what we can build on the moon, but what the moon has to offer us.
You say it's a huge platform for constructing spaceships outside the gravity well. Well, disregarding the detriment offered by hard radiation and vacuum and the need to import several crucial elements, I guess I agree. The thing is such plans are on the mega scale while possible demand for off world generated products remains limited for the time being. You simply cannot flood the earth with platinum group metals for example, the world consumption of which are in the hundred of tonnes range yearly, without suffering a substantial drop in prices, making a premature mega investment highly unprofitable.
As precious metals, like the platinum group (in addition to deuterium for fusion reactors) are things that can be supplied from Mars as well as from asteroids, what do we need for starting off interplanetary commerce? We need a limited fleet of cyclers and transgravity craft, not overcapacity. Such cycler ships can be supplied by heavy launchers from earth much easier and more cheaply than creating gigantic infrastructure on the moon where there currently isn't anything at all but rocks and forbidding conditions.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-30 05:59:03

Sorry guy's I am trying to caught up from the long weekend and all the numerous post to this topic.

Josh Cryer
You put it so nicely with the, if we develope it for the moon it will work for Mars approach to design needs.

Grypd
Your use of robotics for base construction is a plus. In another thread you make use of simular talents for re-use of any thing that is brought to the ISS. If it is there it is free since it has already be paid for.

Gennaro
The use of nuclear do to its higher outputting levels is a plus for a large base but it is a very costly in the early stages of man building initial bases on either the moon or Mars. Think free when it comes to solar energy and to the initial lower cost of the panels.
Great chemistry lessen Of getting what is needed for survival though chemical reactions.
The provision is that the plug is never pulled is the feeling I share as well, but how to get the funding and to lower the costs as we go is the question.

deagleninja
Quote:
We could send 2 Americans, 2 Russians, 1 European, 1 Japanesse, and 1 Chinesse and include every major space program in the world. Keep it simple by using mainly US tech with a dash of ESA and Russia and let the other counties help foot the bill for representation.

This is a great concept to get the other partner nations on the band wagon to the moon especially for those that have no put a man on it yet.

comstar03
Your right lets not think in 2D or just of building on the surfice.

Lets dig caves and line them to keep the precious gases from escaping, making of green houses inside these caverns and so much more.. Whether the moon ever has a large population it does not matter but it must become self sustaining and suffiencent.

Dook
Yes caves or self contained habitats.
The navies of the world live in subs for extended periods of time. We could learn a lot about the logistics of population to resources needed as viewed though there use as it would apply to either the moon or mars as the goal.
By the way the threads on your vehicles would be in high demand for use in either case.

As for the TV broadcast of the 60's nastalgia Black and white of the Moon or the color of Mars, I want both. Watching a reality show on the moon is only going to be interesting if it is made interesting. Not just simply a running camera catching everything that goes on.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-30 06:20:20

Martian Republic
I too feel that the shuttle external tank has value if it where give a ride the rest of the way up into orbit. To be re-used in a number of manners. They only cost 40 million in comparision to the 1 billion shuttle flight cost but it is essentially free once there in orbit. As you note there would have been at least a 100 of them to be reused. One a lot more garbage could go into one of them versus the very small progress M or proton. Also the progress M or proton could be recycled for it's engines and such making a very in expensive mission to the moon from the station possible.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 10:30:27

With regards to going often as the article puts it 400 shots for 50 billion with existing equipment.

Colonize the Moon before Mars
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1

Existing technology can be used to get to the Moon (see “Soyuz to the Moon?”, The Space Review, August 2, 2004). A lunar landing mission might cost $120 million for an Ariane 5 booster. If each mission cost another $120 million for the Soyuz, service module and everything else, then that would be $240 million per flight instead of $5 billion per flight. That means that a $50-billion level of commitment from Earth can afford over 400 flights every two years.

RobS · 2004-09-07 12:47:14

I'm not all that impressed by the article "Colonize the Moon First." I don't know why one needs lunar cyclers and I doubt even Mars cyclers are worth it economically any time soon. His dismissal of the impact of finding life was not well thought out. Arianes are more expensive than he says. He says an Araine can send a comparable amount to the moon as a heavy lifter can to Mars, which is not true. It takes MORE delta-v to land things on the surface of the moon than on Mars because the latter can use aerobraking.

He's right that telerobotic work on the moon is easier, and that tourism on the moon is easier. I suspect the latter will be an important economic incentive for developing the moon. It will take some decades longer for Mars to become a tourist destination because of the greater distance.

One argument he misses is the utilization of platinum-group metals (PGMs). The lunar regolith is up to 1% nickel-iron, which can easily be concentrated magnetically, and higher concentrations should be easy to find via magnetic anomalies. Nickel-iron is an excellent source of PGMs; higher than most terrestrial ores (which are usually a mix of terrestrial materials with nickel-iron from ancient impacts). PGMs are worth about 20 million per tonne, and the hydrogen economy, if it kicks in, will push up the demand because right now fuel cells need platinum catalysts. It may be possible to mine PGMs on the moon and on Mars more cheaply than on Earth. It will also be possible to mine it on near-earth asteroids, but they won't have the human infrastructure of a moon base (robotic repair is still a long way away). The moon will probably be the place where the technology to mine PGMs is developed and first used, and near earth asteroid mining will then have to compete with an existing industry; it will be a while before that is economic.

Dennis Wingo's new book, Moonrush, by the way, makes this argument about PGMs. It's a well thought out work.

I should add that Wingo rejects Helium-3 mining as a boondoggle; the Helium-3 fusion process requires much higher temperatures than other fusion processes and thus is unlikely to be favored. This article about colonizing the moon says nothing about He-3 either.

-- RobS

deagleninja · 2004-09-07 12:54:08

Thanks for the link Harold!

Robs-Nice retort and kudos on the mention of PGMs.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-07 13:11:59

So when will the real moon rush begin. When Nasa does not rely on contracts to get vehicles for the job. Factories could be turning out just what Nasa needs like clock work if it were not for the pork barrel process.

For the Moon Nasa needs equipment to create an under ground cavern for man to live in for protection not only from space but from the solar radiation and from the suns very powerful storms. Temporary lunar landers for crews going and coming, Lunar resupply ships any combination of LEO or direct for cargo size and CEV Capsule to LEO or lunar insertion combinations.

Do both type show cost analysis for which type to keep from launch to return of Astronauts.
If we compare space transportation to that of our highways we need a variety of space crafts to get the job done, not just 1 type. Temporary 1 type might work as a fill in but the design needs to be made for each purpose.

deagleninja · 2004-09-07 13:24:27

Good points SpaceNut. I've been saying for years how out-dated NASA is. What we truly need is a new organiztion devoted to expanding America's territory. Instead of a Department of Homeland Security, I would like to see The Department of Expansion. It could have its roots in the White House and report directly to the President with progress updates.

Hmmm, there may be something to that. I've always said, and polls have shown, that people are more interested in space settlement than exploration. Exploring is a never ending goal with hard to define criteria.

Perhaps we should get our space advocacy groups to push this?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-08 07:23:22

While this article is not about the topic it does bring out a very important aspect of doing the moon first and not just going to plant a flag and some foot prints. It is however about save humanity or at least giving it a new cradle for life in case of a near term Earthly disaster.

Europe's first lunar probe is due to orbit the Moon in November. Does an body think it could provide Nasa with the needed mapping info that they are seeking from the first ones that we will launch?

Noah's Ark plan from top Moon man
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3635972.stm

The European Space Agency's chief scientist has said that there should be a Noah's Ark on the Moon, in case the Earth is destroyed by an asteroid or nuclear holocaust.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-08 07:29:41

I asked the question on the Moon probe to soon before I had finished reading the other web sites news sources. It appears that it is the smart-1 that is schedueled for november.

Europe's eye in space views dark side of moon

Spacecraft the size of a washing machine probes lunar secrets
http://www.guardian.co.uk/space/article … 61,00.html

Grypd · 2004-09-08 16:00:44

Smart-1 due to its design will be doing a lot of mapping of the lunar landscape. But due to orbital mechanics it will start mostly with the equator region of the Moon and as the mission continues hopefully more of the Moon including the very important lunar regions of the Moon. What is very exciting is that the resolution of the Photos will be high and this will help plan the next series of landings.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-08 17:45:26

Good points SpaceNut. I've been saying for years how out-dated NASA is. What we truly need is a new organiztion devoted to expanding America's territory. Instead of a Department of Homeland Security, I would like to see The Department of Expansion. It could have its roots in the White House and report directly to the President with progress updates.
Hmmm, there may be something to that. I've always said, and polls have shown, that people are more interested in space settlement than exploration. Exploring is a never ending goal with hard to define criteria.
Perhaps we should get our space advocacy groups to push this?

Actually what I favor is giving NASA a government charter to build a city on the moon of maybe 10,000 people in a twenty to twenty five year time frame. Ask what shortest way to accomplish that mission and have about 50 ships going between the earth and the moon.

Like how would you accomplish that and the financing is going to be made available too.

If this were to happen, private enterprise would be right behind them following them out to the moon with hotel, restraints, shop and manufacturing with farming.

Larry,

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#151 2004-08-29 07:54:25

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#152 2004-08-29 08:05:13

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#153 2004-08-29 12:18:30

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#154 2004-08-29 13:44:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#155 2004-08-29 14:12:14

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#156 2004-08-29 15:18:06

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#157 2004-08-29 16:55:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#158 2004-08-29 17:37:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#159 2004-08-29 17:46:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#160 2004-08-29 17:57:55

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#161 2004-08-29 18:35:45

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#162 2004-08-29 19:03:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#163 2004-08-30 00:02:42

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#164 2004-08-30 04:55:11

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#165 2004-08-30 05:59:03

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#166 2004-08-30 06:20:20

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#167 2004-09-07 10:30:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#168 2004-09-07 12:47:14

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#169 2004-09-07 12:54:08

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#170 2004-09-07 13:11:59

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#171 2004-09-07 13:24:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#172 2004-09-08 07:23:22

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#173 2004-09-08 07:29:41

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#174 2004-09-08 16:00:44

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

#175 2004-09-08 17:45:26

Re: The need for a Moon direct - and sustainabilty program

Board footer