Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

Commodore · 2005-01-09 20:57:29

I wonder if it is possible to engineer a plant that will go dormant or use stored chemicals for two solid weeks without light or much heat, and then grow and replenish these stocks in the extra-bright Lunar day and (some) of its heat...

Why bother when we can use lamps?

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-09 21:02:04

I wonder if it is possible to engineer a plant that will go dormant or use stored chemicals for two solid weeks without light or much heat, and then grow and replenish these stocks in the extra-bright Lunar day and (some) of its heat...
Why bother when we can use lamps?

Thats easy: energy. The fact that you wouldn't need much to grow the plants.

They'd also perhaps be tailored to operate at reduced pressures perhaps?

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-09 21:52:28

Mars and the Moon both have some gravity so you don't have to worry about the plants escaping.

>> Yeah but its much less gravity.

I was joking about the plants escaping GC. Just having some fun.

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 00:57:48

http://scienceforums.com/article.cfm?id=32430]If a physicist in Houston has his way you'll be able to say good-bye to pollution-causing energy production from fossil fuels. In the April/May issue of The Industrial Physicist Dr. David Criswell suggests that the Earth could be getting all of the electricity it needs using solar cells - on the moon.

Just think of the power for beamed energy rockets. US won't have to depend on dictators, or occupation forces for energy access.

Could the Moon beam power to http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/ma … .html]Mars also ?

Euler · 2005-01-10 01:25:29

I doubt that it will ever be economical to beam solar power from the moon to the Earth, and it would make even less sense to try and beam power from the moon to Mars.

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 04:26:14

I doubt that it will ever be economical to beam solar power from the moon to the Earth, and it would make even less sense to try and beam power from the moon to Mars.

Once the use of remaining oil resources are no longer able to keep warming Earth, we could be slipping back into an ice age.
What more stable and convenient place to put solar cells than on the Moon.

Other places in the solar system could be targeted with great amounts of energy.
For example microwaving the Martian polar ice caps.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 07:35:23

You can't beam energy from Earth/Moon to Mars, its simply too far. The microwave transmission beam would spread so much, that the energy would be essentially zero. It is impractical enough to try and transmit energy from the Moon to Earth across 240,000mi.

Then there is that issue that your solar cells on the Moon would be useless for about two weeks straight unless they were sited at the limited terrain near the poles. Mars is even behind the Sun for some days of the year.

Investing in advanced nuclear fission concepts is probobly a better idea. If you want to do space solar power though, the place to do it would be high Earth orbit: close enough to limit beam spreading, little need to compensate for the Earth's rotation, and short eclipse periods.

Oil will always be available, there are vast quantities and reserves here and there, it just won't always be cheap like today. The reason these reserves aren't be tapped is because oil from elsewhere is so cheap and drilling wouldn't be profitable... yet. Also some of the oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico are refilling themselves, perhaps though an entirely inorganic geological process.

Grypd · 2005-01-10 08:19:54

You can't beam energy from Earth/Moon to Mars, its simply too far. The microwave transmission beam would spread so much, that the energy would be essentially zero. It is impractical enough to try and transmit energy from the Moon to Earth across 240,000mi.
Then there is that issue that your solar cells on the Moon would be useless for about two weeks straight unless they were sited at the limited terrain near the poles. Mars is even behind the Sun for some days of the year.
Investing in advanced nuclear fission concepts is probobly a better idea. If you want to do space solar power though, the place to do it would be high Earth orbit: close enough to limit beam spreading, little need to compensate for the Earth's rotation, and short eclipse periods.
Oil will always be available, there are vast quantities and reserves here and there, it just won't always be cheap like today. The reason these reserves aren't be tapped is because oil from elsewhere is so cheap and drilling wouldn't be profitable... yet. Also some of the oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico are refilling themselves, perhaps though an entirely inorganic geological process.

Simply making sure your solar panels are around the Moon should ensure constant power except for the occasional eclipse. But I doubt we will ever use the Moon as a single big powerplant not when it appears we are so close to Fusion being able to work.

Sure oil will allways be available just not for the rather wasteful use of consuming it for fuel. It is too important for a lot of other purposes like making plastics. We can though allways use artificially create hydrocarbons, just expect prices for items made of plastic or have plastics in them to skyrocket.

It is almost certain that the oil wells in Mexico are simply being refilled from smaller oil deposits in the strat around and when these empty then so will stop the refilling process.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 09:21:28

It is almost certain that the oil wells in Mexico are simply being refilled from smaller oil deposits in the strat around and when these empty then so will stop the refilling process.

That is a pretty bold assumption to make without much evidence, would that be because you want to see oil go away? Read this:

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ART … E_ID=38645

I think the evidence is fairly compelling that you are wrong in your assumption...

Anyway if not, many bulk polymer substitutes could be produced from corn and other plants instead of inert hydrocarbons if it came to it, but at present there is no substitute for hydrocarbons for air travel or engineering polymers, and hydrogen fuel cells are no match for hydrocarbons for power/weight ratio... portable tools, turbine engines, and so on. Perhaps trains too...

Edit: Somthing that aproximates diesel oil can be made from biological sources, but I don't know how good a replacement it is.

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 13:06:50

Moon Methane ? Use the Hydrogen to make water ?
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.07/gold_pr.html] What fairly stable molecule have we got that has mass 16? Methane.

With the world's population doubling every 50 years, and the need for large amounts of energy to access space, Moon solar energy, conveniently, will be there.

Even if there are enormous oil reserves, refilling the ones being exhausted, converting to beamed energy is more convenient from Moon based solar cells.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 13:19:52

No its not. In fact, its more convienant to just keep pumping if oil supplies are much, much bigger then originally imagined.

It is a signifigant amount of trouble to stop burning oil or coal for energy, and will without a doubt require extensive revival of nuclear energy. Fusion is still some ways off, and it is not possible to beam energy from the Moon easily.

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 13:34:52

Just use the fusion reactor of the Sun.

Space transportation, along heavy routes, will become wired. Instead of electrically powered subway trains, it will be beamed power wireing to where it is used.

Beam power from Earth to orbit, possibly from oil or coal generated electricity; and then beam power from the Moon based solar energy.

Nuclear rockets initially, but looking for ways to leave the power plant behind.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 14:01:59

Beamed power, even from high Earth orbit, is still a pipe-dream MarsDog. The problem is simple, that no matter how well the beam is collimated, even with a laser the beam will spread signifigantly. It will be wider at the target then at the emitter reguardless what you do, infact a laser beam that is carefully focused on Earth from a emitter not a few feet in diameter will become several kilometers wide when it hits the Moon.

There is no easy solution to this problem other then to increase the size of the collector and use a very large dish transmitter to make the beam a cone rather then a straight pencil beam. This will require very large satelites and very large transmitters even at Earth orbit and would require truely huge ones on the Moon, which will not be simple or cheap or easy to make. Transmitting microwave energy beyond a few hundred thousand miles is impossible, there is no way you could avoid beam spreading enough with the dish method, it would be too hard.

And then there is the problem of atmospheric absortion or reflection, particularly when it gets cloudy, possible RF interference or EM damage from beam leakage, and the horrible consequences if you miss... which would incinerate whatever the beam hit.

Grypd · 2005-01-10 15:56:44

It is almost certain that the oil wells in Mexico are simply being refilled from smaller oil deposits in the strat around and when these empty then so will stop the refilling process.
That is a pretty bold assumption to make without much evidence, would that be because you want to see oil go away? Read this:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ART … E_ID=38645
I think the evidence is fairly compelling that you are wrong in your assumption...
Anyway if not, many bulk polymer substitutes could be produced from corn and other plants instead of inert hydrocarbons if it came to it, but at present there is no substitute for hydrocarbons for air travel or engineering polymers, and hydrogen fuel cells are no match for hydrocarbons for power/weight ratio... portable tools, turbine engines, and so on. Perhaps trains too...
Edit: Somthing that aproximates diesel oil can be made from biological sources, but I don't know how good a replacement it is.

Sorry GCN but if you read that article it simply states that the Oil that is refilling that one field is coming from a source unknown and could easily be a deeper field that we dont know about and this is actually said in the article.

Mexico peaked in its oil production in 1921 and though modern techniques are in play and deep water sources of oil are now being developed we have never caught up to the amount pumped in that year. Still Mexico remains the seventh biggest oil producer in the western hemisphere. And maintains a potential of about 1.6 billion barrels.

The oil that is pumped in Mexico is mostly the result of Jurassic shales and at the depth we are drilling to get we find that the rock strata is very broken.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 16:02:07

Then you must not have read the article Grypd.

The presence of Helium, the proximity to geologic penitrations in the crust, the homogenaity of of the oils' chemistry worldwide, and the presence of oil in regions where evidence of prehistoric biomass is not.

Might you dismiss this concept because you hate oil?

Grypd · 2005-01-10 16:19:51

I hardly hate oil, But until I see real proof it is only a rather dodgy theory.

Until then it is a very inplausible situation and one that we cant base our entire civilisation on. If we run out of cheap oil then we will be in real trouble unless another source of energy is found.

And if there are such sources of deep oil then why dont the petrochemical companies look for them and get a massive increase in there share prices. Geologists dont believe these ideas the companies dont believe them and certainly neither do the goverments.

What is more likely a lower strata of fractured rock with another older oil deposit or incredibly manufactured oil endlessly resupplying itself. Remember the Strat of this whole region is very broken up, something to do with a large rock having hit at the end of the jurassic?

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 19:04:02

Resolution = (Distance * Wavelength)/Diameter

1,000,000 meter diameter array on Moon (1,000 kilometers)
0.030 meters or 10 GHZ microwave
Distance to Mars 250 10^9 meters

Resolution = (250 * 10^9 * .030)/10^6 = 7.5 * 10 ^3 meters
Mars Diameter = 6,785 km
Moon Diameter = 3,476 km

So you could target Mars from the Moon
Expecting most of the energy to fall within the 7.5 kilometers.

=======================================

From Earth, attenuation without rain is manageable

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-10 19:09:46

That is still an antenna of insane size, 1,000km is not practical nor even a signifigant fraction of that. By the time we were capable of making such a contraption and energy to operate it, we might as well build a Soletta or other giant space mirror to heat Mars instead.

As far as putting the beam on Earth, the antenna you would need would still be pretty big, and clouds will be a constant problem. You may also want to look into an appropriate frequency for the microwave beam to maximize transmission.

MarsDog · 2005-01-10 19:54:46

Say, you have transmitters 10 km apart inside the 1000 km diameter phased array.The beam is steered by the phase differences.

The software is well developed both for radar and astronomy.
There will be a lot of sidelobes.

The Moon settlers, instead of looking after the Cow that jumps over the Moon, could tend large solar arrays, and combine to direct energy where required.
A good cash crop.

Austin Stanley · 2005-01-10 22:45:41

I agree. The Lunar environment is sufficently different from Mars that it isn't a good investment at all, and both Lunar and Martian environments are sufficently similar to what can be mimiced on Earth that it makes little sense to not test things here.
Low-pressure CO2 greenhouses? Easy.
See if plants are killed by solar flares? Proton accelerators are probobly cheaper.
Testing space suits? Easy, just don't make the testers wear the backpack, hook it up to hoses.
Testing ISRU equipment? blow some dust into the vacuum chaimber with the machine.
Testing rovers? Run them around a hanger with a crane that lifts up on them to partially negate gravity.
Testing HAB LSS systems and fuel tankage? What has gravity got to do with that?
Engines? Largely gravity-agnostic too.
The list goes on. Antarctica or Sibera or whatnot would work pretty well for psychological training too.
The only reason to go back to the Moon is to go back to the Moon.

No, no, none of this is sufficent testing. You must test things in the way you intend to use them, or there realy isn't much point to it. If you are going to use your spacesuits, for example, hundreads of times with minimial time for servicing and repair then that is how you should test them, not with hoses replacing their life support packs. Or if you are going to use your Rovers for multiple hundread km then this how you should test it, not just drive it around with a crane. If you are not simulating the enviroment in which an accident might occur, what is the point?

The other point is that to realy have effective testing you have to test all your systems in concert. A failure in one system may not lead to disaster but it may cause another system to fail in unexpected ways. You also have to develop systems for dealing with accidents when they do happen, and the place to do this is not on Mars.

And again, its not as if there is nothing to do on the moon. There are lots of things we still have to learn about the planet. And this knowledge will be usefull in our later exploration/development of the solar system/universe. There are several other large stoney planetoids in the solar system, but the moon is a heck of a lot easier to access.

LtlPhysics · 2005-01-11 00:46:46

No. Test them test them test them on the planet. This is not a new idea, as if no one else has given it any thought. There are probably similar notions in other forums here but they are so old that you don't see them anymore. I'm new but I have been reading as much as my eyes and neck will tolerate. I haven't found it yet, but it's probably there from long ago.

Considerations for the garden's exterior: extreme heat, cold, vacuum, all manner of radiation, particles, punctures, joints, et al. Dry runs to LEO? How many? Dry runs to the Moon? How many? Dry runs to Mars? Dry runs to the Moon for construction and on to dry runs to Mars? It will never happen.

What is a dry run anyway? Could every launch, every landing be a dry run for the launch or landing to follow? We have been throwing things at Mars for decades, were they all dry runs for the orbiters and rovers of today? Perhaps so, perhaps there is no such thing as a dry run.

NASA has made some blunders -- 100% oxygen -- flawed insulation -- flawed foam -- mistakes that have been incomprehensible and fatal. There will be more fatalities in the future, guaranteed, unless we retreat and leave it all to robots and probes.

So blast the beans and brussel sprouts here in the interim, blast the miniature patch of green as vigorously as possible, plant them all across the planet if you think that will make a difference.

But when you launch to the Moon, make the first one count. The first rover to Mars counted.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-11 08:28:19

No. Test them test them test them on the planet. This is not a new idea, as if no one else has given it any thought. There are probably similar notions in other forums here but they are so old that you don't see them anymore. I'm new but I have been reading as much as my eyes and neck will tolerate. I haven't found it yet, but it's probably there from long ago.
Considerations for the garden's exterior: extreme heat, cold, vacuum, all manner of radiation, particles, punctures, joints, et al. Dry runs to LEO? How many? Dry runs to the Moon? How many? Dry runs to Mars? Dry runs to the Moon for construction and on to dry runs to Mars? It will never happen.
What is a dry run anyway? Could every launch, every landing be a dry run for the launch or landing to follow? We have been throwing things at Mars for decades, were they all dry runs for the orbiters and rovers of today? Perhaps so, perhaps there is no such thing as a dry run.
NASA has made some blunders -- 100% oxygen -- flawed insulation -- flawed foam -- mistakes that have been incomprehensible and fatal. There will be more fatalities in the future, guaranteed, unless we retreat and leave it all to robots and probes.
So blast the beans and brussel sprouts here in the interim, blast the miniature patch of green as vigorously as possible, plant them all across the planet if you think that will make a difference.
But when you launch to the Moon, make the first one count. The first rover to Mars counted.

As you have noted, a "Dry Run" can mean many things to many people determining who they are and what they want to accomplish and/or what the ultimate goal is. I can see your frustration with Dry Runs and how everything that going to happen in the future is still going to happen in the future even twenty or thirty years later when it was suppose to have already happened. I get frustrated with the space program or so called private enterprises that are going to take over the space business and do it better.

When everything been said and done, I know no other better way to do space or setup a space colony on either or both the moon and Mars then by a Kennedy type Moon Mission as a National Goal to accomplish. where we have boundaries as to what we want to do and in what time frame that we want to it in and within that frame work we have our Dry Runs, because our equipment has to be tested if we are going to risk human life on our ventures. Also during this time of doing these Dry Runs, is a time for developing technologies and for building infrastructure so that we can accomplish our stated mission and for providing a foundation for more aggressive programs and projects.

Otherwise as you have probably seen, everything you seen, seams to keep sliding into the future and never seams to become reality.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-01-11 09:41:56

To make it a National goal to have bases on the Moon and an increased space capacity is a great idea. As long as it is not a Kennedy type goal which though a success did not allow for anything further than just getting there and looking.

The next time we go to the Moon it is with the desire to actually stay and to use what we have there to improve our capacity in space and possibly our enviroment here.

If we can develop processes and equipment that suit both the Moon, Mars and possibly the Asteroids then all the better. And there is one other advantage to going to the Moon it will give us something immaterial but definitely worthwhile...Confidence.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-11 10:01:55

The notion that equipment must be tested in actual use before it can be trusted is a quaint throwback to the seat-of-pants engineering days. If the equipment is gravity-agnostic, then there is no rational reason it can't be tested here. Rovers can be driven in circles for a hundred miles in a good sized hanger. Space suits can be tested without the LSS backback attached, it really is close enough; just connect them later on a test stand, no problem. Solar pannels, plants for food/water/air, nuclear reactors, inflatable modules, etc etc etc... all these things we can test right here on the ground and get far more data far more cheaply and far faster then sending them for a dry run.

If we can't learn to make spacecraft with componets that are reliable and compatible enough to be tested on the ground seperatly or in major system assemblies (HAB, ERV, CEV, etc), then we have no business putting people in any rocket.

Now for this "national goal" business... Simply making it a "goal" does not bypass the need to answer the WHY question. Setting up a base with no purpose is stupid no matter how we go about doing it.

The Apollo project had its "why," which was to beat Communist Russia to the Moon as fast as was possible, all other concerns such as science or cost were essentially peripheral. Which is also why it died so suddenly after we proved that Apollo 11 wasn't a fluke.

We go to the Moon to study the Moon for science and look for future prospecting/solar power base/rocket fuel depot/etc or to set up astronomical bases.

We go to Mars in order to study it to learn more about our Earth, and to set up a beachhead both logistically and technologically for the next frontier for humanity.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-11 12:34:14

Here is a russian link for Animal, Plant Diversity and Ecology in Siberia.

Here's something for ERRORIST Concrete Nation, A Bright future for ancient material

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2005-01-09 20:57:29

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#52 2005-01-09 21:02:04

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#53 2005-01-09 21:52:28

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#54 2005-01-10 00:57:48

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#55 2005-01-10 01:25:29

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#56 2005-01-10 04:26:14

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#57 2005-01-10 07:35:23

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#58 2005-01-10 08:19:54

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#59 2005-01-10 09:21:28

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#60 2005-01-10 13:06:50

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#61 2005-01-10 13:19:52

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#62 2005-01-10 13:34:52

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#63 2005-01-10 14:01:59

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#64 2005-01-10 15:56:44

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#65 2005-01-10 16:02:07

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#66 2005-01-10 16:19:51

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#67 2005-01-10 19:04:02

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#68 2005-01-10 19:09:46

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#69 2005-01-10 19:54:46

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#70 2005-01-10 22:45:41

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#71 2005-01-11 00:46:46

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#72 2005-01-11 08:28:19

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#73 2005-01-11 09:41:56

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#74 2005-01-11 10:01:55

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

#75 2005-01-11 12:34:14

Re: Long Duration Lunar Mission "Dry Run" - for Mars Direct

Board footer