It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-10-19 11:15:28

The newest Telemetry(From Horizon) reveals those signs of Ice Craters are
Wrong. It was a Fool's Dowser.

Prediction 1) on the moon, H20 by weight will be more valuable than most
metals mined there. 1 ton or water or 1 ton Iron. you make the call.

Prediction 2) Lunar Settlements, Will always remain Small in this century. Think how manyProgress Cargo ships are sent to the ISS, Now triple the price for trans-lunar voyage and landing.

Prediction 3) Lunar Occupation will be driven equaly by Military & Scientific
ambitions.

Prediciton 4) It will not succeed as a Tourist destination either. LEO Tourism
will thrive.

Summary: the Moon is like having a backyard with a very steep slope.
Yeah sure It can be used, but at what cost and why not move (mars) instead.

RedStreak · 2006-10-19 12:07:43

Sorry Admiral but your comment has to be demoted to cadet...

These are based off Earth-based radar readings, much of which like visual Earth-based observations are difficult at best due to the angles we're seeing the lunar poles at. Also ice grains are likely mixed in with lunar dust, so when you bounce radar off you're more likely to see it as dust not pure ice.

I find it only fitting that we're getting contradictory findings from something so many space enthusiasts are betting their hopes on. My only bet thus far is that we're going to get confirmation from the LRO-Lunar Impactor mission. Nearly half the instruments aboard it are dedicated to delving into those shadowed craters; coupled with an entire booster stage being plowed into the surface if that doesn't spew out a hint of water then likely it is not present in sufficent quantities to support at least global lunar exploration - perhaps a localized base at best but the point remains.

RedStreak · 2006-10-19 12:17:17

Yeah sure It can be used, but at what cost and why not move (mars) instead.

...namely because Mars is an entire planet and I'd rather not being the idiot who accidentally steers it into Earth.

Seriously though the Moon should be utilized. It has the minerals, metals, minimal gravity, no atmosphere, and even without the ice an underground lunar base has a hell of alot more protection than a free-flying space station. In the short-term it isn't essential for the first Martian explorations but with distance being a huge factor when you get to talking about sending people en mass to colonize the Moon will be targeted first. The Moon will hold greater appeal than Mars because the Earth is safely within reach.

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-10-19 15:09:22

I don't mean moving mars, I mean a colonial migration there.

The Lack of Nitrogen and Cosmic rays, Will hinder fast developement
there, But in 200 years I expect 100 million Humans to be living on
Mars. There wont be more than 5 million on the moon.

Commodore · 2006-10-19 16:46:05

I don't think anyone will agrue that the Moon is a better residential target than Mars. Likewise, I don't think anyone will argue that there is a better industrial target than the Moon.

Martin_Tristar · 2006-10-20 01:17:20

The primary reason for the Moon is a large industrial outpost for construction and development components for spaceships, cargo for settlements throughout the solar system and a scientific platform for exploring the universe from, particularly the far side of the moon from earth.

Mars will have the largest colony for humans except for earth in this solar system. We could provide all the necessary resources for all settlements via movement of resources including movements of planetoids, asteroids and comets to meet the needs of the greater human society.

" All issues have a solution " don't think too small in the development of answers. !!

Stormrage · 2006-10-24 07:37:49

The only advantage i see with the moon is that it is closer then Mars.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-24 11:04:57

Thats kind of a big advantage... once fuel is available on the Moo (LOX at least) you can send people there with a 40MT class launch vehicle in a capsule or something instead of like 200MT for Mars.

You get 2-3X the sunlight too, and almost 24/7 at the poles.

RedStreak · 2006-10-24 15:23:01

Martin summarizes alot of what I think alright. You want to lower the cost of getting into space? You need to build stuff in space - not like the ISS I mean mine, refine, forge, assemble, wire, stamp and launch it into orbit.

The Moon is a blessing, even if it is lifeless and barren.

RobS · 2006-10-24 16:55:05

The latest radar data only confirmed what radar data told us a few years ago: there are no ice deposits on the moon. The Clementine data could have been consistent with ice deposits or with disseminated frost, and I think even Clementine favored the latter because of the nature of the signal. The question is, can one extract water from cryogenic regolith efficiently and cheaply enough if the reg is only 1-2% water ice? A study by scientists at the Colorado School of Mines suggested 2% was cost efficient but 1% probably was not.

It is also possible the hydrogen signal from the polar regolith was caused by solar hydrogen. We know hydrogen is present in the reg there in low densities and that there's potentially a huge amount in all that soil. But we don't know whether we can use it economically or how long it will take us to develop an economically effective extraction system.

-- RobS

RedStreak · 2006-10-24 23:10:36

It is also possible the hydrogen signal from the polar regolith was caused by solar hydrogen. We know hydrogen is present in the reg there in low densities and that there's potentially a huge amount in all that soil.

If the moon had some form of magnetic field that could channel hydrogen toward the poles I might believe that hypothesis more solidly but it is just as if not more 'iffy' than the likelehood of ice down there.

Regarding efficency of extracting ice, I think even if microwaving the dirt requires alot of power the point of Eternal Light's high solar illumination efficency becomes moot...but of course more efficency is better, particularly when it comes to keeping any melted ice from evaporating away.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-25 08:22:12

...If this trapped solar hydrogen is from the solar wind, but the craters where the hydrogen signal originates from are perminantly shadowed, then how would solar hydrogen get there?

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-10-26 12:48:58

Well even if there is that monetary unit known as a gallon of Moon Water
in the regolith that can be mined. Here are practical questions.

1) How big a solar Array would you need to run a mining operation

2) Will you need reactors to power the H20 extraction process

3) Yields? crush 100 tons of rock to get 1 Gallon of H20?

Well, I can see that the smart thing to do is to set up the mining outpost
first and build cisterns to hold their H20 product.

Once you've got 100,000 gallons. Then you can talk about buillding a larger
base there: The real challenge will then be to get the H20 Recyling to 95%+
efficiency.

P.S. I bet those colonists would tear their hair out when a visitng LOX-H2 powered lander arrived (talk about conspiquous consumption)

RedStreak · 2006-10-26 15:37:02

Well even if there is that monetary unit known as a gallon of Moon Water
in the regolith that can be mined. Here are practical questions.
1) How big a solar Array would you need to run a mining operation
2) Will you need reactors to power the H20 extraction process
3) Yields? crush 100 tons of rock to get 1 Gallon of H20?

All good questions, and this is why we need lunar probes providing data for answers asap.

Regarding crushing moon rock, we still need to generate LOX and extract minerals - we can do plenty with that 100 tons - the H2O would be the bonus from the process. Personally I'd hope that gross an excess wouldn't be the case but it could just as likely be too with as little 'ground truth' we have.

P.S. I bet those colonists would tear their hair out when a visitng LOX-H2 powered lander arrived (talk about conspiquous consumption)

Depends - lunar landers if they're developed into a local-operated vehicle may be modified to run on LOX-aluminium for instance to utilize more cost effective materials. I would recomend that route for the same reasons you state - H2O is there but like oil on Earth it isn't limitless.

RobS · 2006-10-26 20:46:11

I don't know where the solar hydrogen would come from. I'm quoting the literature. Possibly it would hit the reg in a sunny place, then get knocked loose by cosmic radiation or a micrometeorite later, bounce/wander into the shade, and settle. Apparently colder regolith can hold more adsorbed hydrogen and helium than hot, and the reg is much cooler at the poles because of the oblique sunlight. Perhaps the hydrogen, or some of it, is in low-sun areas, not the shade.

-- RobS

Grypd · 2006-10-27 04:20:27

Still there is the possibility that collisions on the Moon from volatile laden asteroids/comets has delivered some of those volatiles into locations where the sun does not reach and so they remain there even if buried under the regolith debris of further collisions.

The only way to know will be to send a rover in to look.

Admiral_Ritt · 2006-11-02 19:22:00

Radar reflections do not pan out

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blogs/s … 01013.html

Unfortunate, Like I said monetarily 1Gal H20 > 1lb of AL, on the moon.

If the H20 is Lying deeper within the Powdery stuff it would still be plenty usefull for Lunar Bases. If it's found deeper bound to big blocks, then it's a Show stopper.

Are there enough Metals on the Moon to make Ship hulls, Magnetic Rail launchers?
We could still use Extensive Robotics to keep the Human life support costs down.

Commodore · 2006-11-02 19:30:22

Either way, theres still plenty of oxygen, and a CaLV load of H2 would go a long way.

RobS · 2006-11-02 19:41:01

This Popular Mechanics article is nothing new. To be specific:

Rock, Polar, Scissors: Astronomers Debunk Ice-on-Moon Theory
Any inklings of a plan to build bases on the moon might have just hit a road block: A new study, conducted by a team of astronomers led by Cornell professor Donald B. Campbell, shows that what scientists once thought were sheets of ice in craters at the moon’s polar regions are most likely just deceptive reflections from the lunar soil.

I am not familiar with any scientific literature that actually suggested sheets of ice. "Sheets of ice" was speculation.

Astronomers have long held that the existence of ice sheets could mean water, oxygen and hydrogen fuel, a valuable resource if we plan to make the moon a base or—who knows?—even colonize it permanently. The polar areas, which are shielded from the sun and clock in at about -173 degrees Celsius, would have been the only area of the moon where large deposits of water could have survived. Orbiting spacecraft designed to analyze the moon showed high concentrations of hydrogen at the poles, supporting the theory that ice sheets could be there.

Note the "could be there"! The information below about the Clementine results is very important because Clementine's data is the only data that was reliable. It did not show "high" concentrations of hydrogen; just higher than elsewhere. It never suggested by itself ice sheets, unless there were very small ice sheets. The pixel size of the Clementine instrument was quite large and the total hydrogen it saw in the large area was fairly small. That either meant a large area with low hydrogen concentrations or tiny areas with very high hydrogen concentrations.

Years ago, Campbell had noticed an abnormal polarization signal from the satellites of Jupiter that denoted the presence of water ice. Using this discovery and a study of Mercury as models, Campbell and his team bounced radar signals off the moon from a telescope in Puerto Rico in search of the unique polarization signature from the returning signal. High-resolution radar showed that the same signal coming from the poles also came from the sunny areas of the moon—areas where water can’t possibly exist.

This may be new data.The last time someone bounced radar off the moon, about three years ago, the results were regarded as not supporting ice at the lunar poles.

“Our observations clearly show that the polarization characteristic of water ice is actually also associated with sort of rocky ejecta around young impact craters and on rocky interior slopes of other, larger craters,” says Campbell. “So our assessment of it is that what was hoped to be a signature of water ice at the poles of the moon in the radar was indicative only of very rocky surfaces.”

But the lack of water ice on the moon doesn’t necessarily spell the end for NASA's plans to make a base there. “There’s still a possibility that there’s ice at relatively low concentrations—water ice in the form of rains mixed in with the lunar soil,” which Campbell says would be consistent with findings from the lunar prospector and the Clementine spacecraft, which indicated high hydrogen concentrations at the poles. Besides, “I don’t think that NASA would be assuming that it was a resource that they could utilize, [because it’s] potentially in the bottoms of impact craters at extremely cold temperatures, so there’s issues of accessibility that you have to worry about.”

This last paragraph states the status quo that reigned last month as well as the current thinking.

-- RobS

noosfractal · 2006-11-09 03:29:55

"A review of the lunar polar ice controversy, how it will be resolved, and what it means to our return to the Moon"

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.nl.html?id=1170

( long article )

dicktice · 2006-11-09 12:51:43

What if we drill straight down through the Moon's regolith to obtain cores, kilometres deep: what might we find in the way of potential resources?

Commodore · 2006-11-09 13:17:29

What if we drill straight down through the Moon's regolith to obtain cores, kilometres deep: what might we find in the way of potential resources?

Perhapes, volcanic gas.

Not So Dead After All - Moon's Escaping Gasses Expose Fresh Surface

Isn't there a good deal of hydrogen in volcanic gas on Earth?

SpaceNut · 2006-11-09 21:20:59

Possibly would then explain the thin:

Atmospheric characteristics
Atmospheric pressure 3 × 10-13kPa
Helium 25 %
Neon 25 %
Hydrogen 23 %
Argon 20 %
Methane
Ammonia
Carbon dioxide
trace

publiusr · 2006-12-08 15:57:50

Now for some lava tubes...

EuroLauncher · 2007-10-07 04:45:53

SPUTNIK AT FIFTY I
By Giovanni Fabrizio Bignami
Published: October 3, 2007

Boarding now for Mars

It's harder to predict whether we will also have colonized the Moon. NASA has already started "Apollo on steroids," which will give us our first chance to leave Earth orbit since 1972. But many space researchers think it would be a mistake to focus our efforts on a Moon colony, delaying a vigorous start of a nuclear Martian program.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-10-19 11:15:28

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#2 2006-10-19 12:07:43

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#3 2006-10-19 12:17:17

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#4 2006-10-19 15:09:22

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#5 2006-10-19 16:46:05

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#6 2006-10-20 01:17:20

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#7 2006-10-24 07:37:49

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#8 2006-10-24 11:04:57

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#9 2006-10-24 15:23:01

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#10 2006-10-24 16:55:05

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#11 2006-10-24 23:10:36

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#12 2006-10-25 08:22:12

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#13 2006-10-26 12:48:58

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#14 2006-10-26 15:37:02

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#15 2006-10-26 20:46:11

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#16 2006-10-27 04:20:27

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#17 2006-11-02 19:22:00

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#18 2006-11-02 19:30:22

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#19 2006-11-02 19:41:01

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#20 2006-11-09 03:29:55

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#21 2006-11-09 12:51:43

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#22 2006-11-09 13:17:29

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#23 2006-11-09 21:20:59

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#24 2006-12-08 15:57:50

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

#25 2007-10-07 04:45:53

Re: It's Official the Moon is not the Future of Colonization

Board footer