The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-03-21 19:26:57

I found this posted on Marsnews.com today: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005 … rst.htm]En route to Mars, The Moon

Here we are arguing on this forum about whether we should bother to return to the moon, ignoring silly arguments like 'because it will be a great testing ground for Mars', instead looking at serious issues. Issues like the need for ISRU lunar oxygen, solar energy production, mining for PGM's, He3, setting up lunar observatories, and other worthwhile endeavors... And here's NASA, knowing full well these things are beyond their agenda, trying desperately to justify the moon as a first destination.

The Moon and Mars have a lot in common. The Moon has only one-sixth Earth's gravity; Mars has one-third. The Moon has no atmosphere; the Martian atmosphere is highly rarefied. The Moon can get very cold, as low as -240o C in shadows; Mars varies between -20o and -100o C.

In other words, NASA, what you are trying to say is that they're both not Florida...?? (This is what I don't understand. The article is supposed to justify the moon as a testing ground for Mars, but then goes into the details of the differences between them...?)

This is just silly, and quite laughable coming from NASA's top people. What makes it even sillier is when the rest of the article goes on about how the moon will be so great because it has dust. Which is just perfect because Mars has dust too. Wow. How insightful.

Do you get it now?

NASA does not expect to go to the moon to mine PGM's, or lunar oxygen, or to set-up observatories, or even to do usefull science.

They are going as practice for Mars.

Which in my opinion, is unjustifiable; the moon is simply too different.

Testing all this technology on the Moon, which is only 2 or 3 days away from Earth, is going to be much easier than testing it on Mars, six months away.

No it won't be easier, it will only be quicker.

el scorcho · 2005-03-21 20:02:26

Quote
Testing all this technology on the Moon, which is only 2 or 3 days away from Earth, is going to be much easier than testing it on Mars, six months away.

But testing it on Devon Island, a plane ride away, is apparently out of the question.

I saw a documentary on the Science Channel recently about Mars missions. They focused entirely on the problems of weightlessness for an hour. They spent about five minutes in the middle talking about the very simple, logical solution (spinning the ship for artificial gravity through centrifugal force) and then dismissed it because the astronauts "might get disoriented." They proceeded to continue with why weightlessness is bad, and finally finished up with how a solar flare is going to hit the astronauts and cause their T-cells to die off, releasing latent viruses. Apparently radiation shielding is now also beyond our technology.

All the documentary's dismal assertions were backed by alleged experts on spaceflight. It truly spoke volumes about the thinking at NASA.

Commodore · 2005-03-21 20:10:41

^ If nothing else, we can bag lunar regolith and tack it to the side of the ship.

John Creighton · 2005-03-21 21:47:40

I think you are being overly pessimistic. The article didn’t said that we are going to the moon to practice for mars. It says we can practice for mars on the moon. Of course we can also practice on earth to. The moon will help test some different concepts and improve ISRU. The article did also mention IRSU. I would of hoped to see some mention of lunar astronomy. PGM mining demonstrations would be interesting to but I think that prospecting, fuel production and oxygen production are higher priorities.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-22 06:24:08

The problem with the term practice is that it means temporary not intending to make anything permanent.

So the need for colonization can only occur if the private sector can get into the act and pushes for it to occur once the trail runs of Mars testing gets under way on the moon. Alot of what will happen will be determined by how long each mission is on the moon. This duration of practice will then force things to happen but only if funding are stable.

Dook · 2005-03-22 07:06:08

So the need for colonization can only occur if the private sector can get into the act and pushes for it to occur once the trail runs of Mars testing gets under way on the moon.

There is no need for colonization.

BWhite · 2005-03-22 07:24:27

So the need for colonization can only occur if the private sector can get into the act and pushes for it to occur once the trail runs of Mars testing gets under way on the moon.
There is no need for colonization.

If there is no colonization, there is no need for a manned space program.

John Creighton · 2005-03-22 07:29:15

If there is no colonization, there is no need for a manned space program.

Well, at our budget levels but a manned space program offers the potential to do science cheaper then robots. It just requires a bigger initial investment.

SpaceNut · 2005-03-22 08:20:16

Of which if you are going to invest that much more for manned missions then lets go for what is really needed, Colonization by having a parallel path to space by private industry with the government sponsored Nasa programs.
Maybe even giving them some funding as high risk to achieve this goal of joint operations.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 11:10:57

If there is no colonization, there is no need for a manned space program.

Untrue, space has atoms that we need on Earth that aren't available anywhere on this planet in sufficent quantity. And yes, there is the good ol' zero-g manufacturing thing.

RobS · 2005-04-01 14:04:58

GCN, so far there don't seem to be any zero-gee manufacturing processes that look profitable. I suppose if launch costs drop to about $500 per kilogram, though, that might change. Do you know of promising processes? What zero-g manufacturing options look promising?

- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 14:14:52

At the moment of course not. In the future however, with Shuttle-II/III or a space elevator, that could change radically.

BWhite · 2005-04-01 15:42:56

If there is no colonization, there is no need for a manned space program.
Untrue, space has atoms that we need on Earth that aren't available anywhere on this planet in sufficent quantity. And yes, there is the good ol' zero-g manufacturing thing.

Mining and even zero-gee manufacture require permanent presence of substantial equipment if not people and perhaps can be called colonization-lite.

= = =

Edit to add: Permanent settlers "on the ground" would appear to have a more legitimate claim to ownership of mining sites near where they were actually living.

Edited By BWhite on 1112391957

Grypd · 2005-04-01 17:43:21

But it does not mean it has to be a permanent human prescence. If we can get Telerobotics to do what we need to do on the Moon till the state that sending Humans to a fully functional base what is the problem.

Especially if we can use telerobotics to create the Industry we need and use people to overseer the construction instead of using them as the workers we let robots do it. This solves a lot of problems that the Moon has like the lower gravity and no atmosphere protection, while still allowing a prodigous construction rate and utilisation of lunar materials.

Admiral_Ritt · 2005-04-01 17:56:39

Not Only is the moon a harsh mistress, she's probably poor one at that.

Notes:

Even if we find some water polar craters chances are it is
bound up in the lunar soil. If 3 tons of processed lunar
soil yields 1 gallon of water, think of the energy and facilities
drain a base relying on this would suffer.

Carbon and Nitrogen are also vital base elements required by
a larger base. If we don't find these in sufficient quanities, only scientific or Mining operations(I doubt this) and a little tourism will be the moon's "payoff"

Unless someone finds Lake Superior sized quanities of water
forget the moon keeep going to Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-01 18:27:47

But it does not mean it has to be a permanent human prescence. If we can get Telerobotics to do what we need to do on the Moon till the state that sending Humans to a fully functional base what is the problem.
Especially if we can use telerobotics to create the Industry we need and use people to overseer the construction instead of using them as the workers we let robots do it. This solves a lot of problems that the Moon has like the lower gravity and no atmosphere protection, while still allowing a prodigous construction rate and utilisation of lunar materials.

Yes it does. I don't think that robots will ever be good enough to operate a mining base on their own. They just aren't that good.

Oh, and Ritt, your required megahuge quantities of water is unreasonable and unessesarry. If a hundred pounds of dirt yeild one or two pounds of water, thats okay, because energy is pretty easy to make on the Moon with its long, bright days and low gravity.

Speaking of gravity, lifting the soil off the ground won't be near as hard as Earth.

Grypd · 2005-04-01 18:54:14

Yes it does. I don't think that robots will ever be good enough to operate a mining base on their own. They just aren't that good.

As stated they will not be operating on there own they will be operated by people from rather comfortable offices here on Earth. That is the beauty of telerobotics and with a time delay of 3 seconds it is perfectly feasible to function with this system. If we can operate on human beings by telerobotic surgeons by this method we can certainly move Regolith. And we have telerobotic soil movers here and in use.

Speaking of gravity, lifting the soil off the ground won't be near as hard as Earth.

What we have found in the apollo missions is that the first 15cm of regolith is very loose but also with a tendency to be charged. After that the regolith is compacted and with the down force of just astronauts to try to shift it it was found to be very diificult, Downforce in low gee is the problem. But with machinery set for the purpose and using different techniques other than down force it is easier to shift. Add in the use of compressed oxygen in replacement of explosives and Regolith shifting is a lot lot easier. We can even consider the use of charged Regolith to actually strengthen the machinery we use to mine.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-02 03:10:13

Can I just add that ISRU means 'Living off the land', not pilfering lands of their resources for profit.

Perhaps something which is often confused...

-Mike

Grypd · 2005-04-02 05:39:50

No what it means is In Situ Resource Utilisation it does not mean we do not use materials we find to improve conditions for people. We are already using asteroidal impact materials as our main source of PGMs and it follows we will go to the source to get more that we need. And using materials from where we go to expand capacity makes real sense as well as fiscal sense too.

And with a planetary population in the 7 Billions and going up and well over half living in poor conditions how do you propose that we get the resources we need to get this population up to decent living conditions never mind the standard the western world now has.

We face many problems on this planet and one of the biggest is we need energy and we are running short of it. Our main sources of Energy on this world also have nasty side effects which pose a hazard to civilisation. Using space resources relieves this pressure and gets us onto a lot more enviromentally friendly course, which frankly benefits everyone.

Michael Bloxham · 2005-04-02 18:29:07

And what do you suppose 'In-Situ' means? Currently, we are not in a situation which warrants the construction of lunar extraction facilities for export to earth. We may be in that sort of situation 50 years into the future, or sooner if launch costs come down considerably, but not today. Lunar resources will help us on the moon, not here on earth. Atleast not yet.

Commodore · 2005-04-02 18:36:03

And what do you suppose 'In-Situ' means? Currently, we are not in a situation which warrants the construction of lunar extraction facilities for export to earth. We may be in that sort of situation 50 years into the future, or sooner if launch costs come down considerably, but not today. Lunar resources will help us on the moon, not here on earth. Atleast not yet.

It might not do much on the moon right off, but we will need it immediately on Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2005-04-02 22:05:29

And what do you suppose 'In-Situ' means? Currently, we are not in a situation which warrants the construction of lunar extraction facilities for export to earth. We may be in that sort of situation 50 years into the future, or sooner if launch costs come down considerably, but not today. Lunar resources will help us on the moon, not here on earth. Atleast not yet.

Which is just fine

See, if NASA is spending too much money on expendable vehicles for a Lunar program and need more money to work on a Mars expedition or Shuttle-II or something, then the solution is to stop throwing the vehicles away. Switch from expendable to reuseable cargo landers, TLI/TEI landers, and crew capsules over to reuseable ones and pocket the difference.

But to do that, we'll need at least some Lunar fuel. Lunar fuel would make suborbital hops over the Lunar surface way cheaper too, which would be just swell for setting up a interferrometer super-telescope or mapping out mineral/voltiles deposits.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-03-21 19:26:57

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#2 2005-03-21 20:02:26

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#3 2005-03-21 20:10:41

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#4 2005-03-21 21:47:40

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#5 2005-03-22 06:24:08

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#6 2005-03-22 07:06:08

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#7 2005-03-22 07:24:27

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#8 2005-03-22 07:29:15

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#9 2005-03-22 08:20:16

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#10 2005-04-01 11:10:57

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#11 2005-04-01 14:04:58

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#12 2005-04-01 14:14:52

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#13 2005-04-01 15:42:56

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#14 2005-04-01 17:43:21

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#15 2005-04-01 17:56:39

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#16 2005-04-01 18:27:47

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#17 2005-04-01 18:54:14

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#18 2005-04-02 03:10:13

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#19 2005-04-02 05:39:50

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#20 2005-04-02 18:29:07

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#21 2005-04-02 18:36:03

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

#22 2005-04-02 22:05:29

Re: The Lunar Folly - NASA Scientists give their reasons.

Board footer