Why The Moon?

[TerrysID]

http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/?GT1=8900.

[jackson33]

this is pretty much what i have said all along. NASA is not embracing the idea of a moon base. they feel there Antarctic Station provides most of the human experience of isolation and w/o quite they dangers. the lunar observatory and moon launching plans will no doubt be scrapped or put off a generation or two. more likely additional advanced probes will venture to Mars and other planets and space staged telescopes will be around for awhile.

 

i do not like the link to Mr. Bush, however, since his object was to justify the expenditures of NASA which were in jeopardy at the time.

[Redux]

http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/?GT1=8900.

 

I've read that there are helium-3 deposits on the Moon. Thermonuclear reaction with helium-3 and heavy hydrogen doesn't make constructional material radioactive. It is the fuel of the future. The base is the first step to arrange it's delivery to Earth. That's very promising idea.

[JohnB]

What a pathetic opinion piece.

 

Give that guy his way and there won't even be an ISS. NASA can say why we need a moonbase, but the politicians and public don't want to know.

 

I did notice he didn't say what he thought NASAs "legitimate missions" were.

 

10,000 years ago he would have been saying "Zog, there is no need to go into the next valley and look, just throw a stone over the hill and listen."

[swansont]

What a pathetic opinion piece.

 

Give that guy his way and there won't even be an ISS.

 

Of what scientific (or other) use is the ISS?

[Spyman]

Why The Moon?

If you asked 100 people why we should return to the moon, you'd probably get 100 answers - or more! Over the past year, NASA posed this question not just to 100 people, but to more than 1,000 from around the world. Scientists, engineers, commercial entrepreneurs, space advocates, and the general public all provided answers to this intriguing question.

Starting with just their responses, NASA worked with 13 of the world's space agencies to develop a Global Exploration Strategy.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon.html

 

The Global Exploration Strategy developed themes and objectives, and these objectives have led directly into the Lunar Architecture. The Global Exploration Strategy saw contributions from over 1,000 people and 14 space agencies, and there are two overarching issues that we are dealing with, and that is why we are returning to the moon as well as what we hope to accomplish when we get there. As I mentioned, the Global Exploration Strategy resulted in themes, and these are crystallized into six themes, and that includes extending sustained presence, human presence on the Moon, international collaboration, the Moon's usefulness as a unique laboratory, economic advancement and technological innovation that will be important to space exploration as well as benefitting people here on Earth, preparing for future human and robotic missions to Mars and other destinations, and also pursuing a vibrant exploration program that will engage and inspire and educate the public, bringing hope to young and old alike.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/164021main_lunar_architecture.pdf

[Klaynos]

Money.

 

NASA needs to do stuff with which people have an interest, this tends to mean human space travel.

 

As for swansont's ISS question, we ALL know the answer to that, and it's quite short.

[swansont]

If you asked 100 people why we should return to the moon, you'd probably get 100 answers - or more! Over the past year, NASA posed this question not just to 100 people, but to more than 1,000 from around the world. Scientists, engineers, commercial entrepreneurs, space advocates, and the general public all provided answers to this intriguing question.

Starting with just their responses, NASA worked with 13 of the world's space agencies to develop a Global Exploration Strategy.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon.html

 

 

But that's not the same question as should we return to the moon— it presupposes that we are going there. An exercising in coming up with ways of justifying a decision after it has been made, which is a bad way to come up with policy.

[swansont]

I've read that there are helium-3 deposits on the Moon. Thermonuclear reaction with helium-3 and heavy hydrogen doesn't make constructional material radioactive. It is the fuel of the future. The base is the first step to arrange it's delivery to Earth. That's very promising idea.

 

 

The system can't be automated and run with robots?

[Spyman]

But that's not the same question as should we return to the moon— it presupposes that we are going there. An exercising in coming up with ways of justifying a decision after it has been made, which is a bad way to come up with policy.

Yes - bad policy - I agree, but The Global Exploration Strategy could still be good...

[calbiterol]

I understand that we are talking about many billions, if not trillions, of dollars, but why do you need a reason? What's wrong with exploring for exploration's sake?

 

JohnB's analysis of it vibes perfectly with me. It's pure opinion, and meant to be nothing more. I imagine the same person would say "absolutely not" to a manned Mars mission.

 

Swansont, first, there's a tendency to distrust robots, but a number of functions would require intelligence (especially if it were to be used as a construction facility for interplanetary spacecraft or a spaceport or any of the above) which is beyond the current state of AI. And remote controlling is out - even on the moon, the signal delay is too long.

 

Just my $0.02.

[Redux]

The system can't be automated and run with robots?

 

Сertainly not! Just imagine. One day they will go out of control and declare indipendence from Earth or even conquer us and use as batteries.

Well, now no kidding. IMHO nowadays it's impossible, even on Earth there are no mining operations without human's participation. Sure the process will be automated as much as it possible, but somebody should repair broken technics and so on. Moreover why should we refuse the experience of colonizing other planets? In this aspect Moon looks easy and profitable for nearest future.

[ecoli]

I understand that we are talking about many billions, if not trillions, of dollars, but why do you need a reason? What's wrong with exploring for exploration's sake?

becasue it's a lot of money. There should be a good predefined goal.

[Redux]

becasue it's a lot of money. There should be a good predefined goal.

 

Isn't it more wise to invest money into science (even if only next generations reap the fruits of this labour) than investing unjust wars all over the world???

[D H]

I understand that we are talking about many billions, if not trillions, of dollars, but why do you need a reason? What's wrong with exploring for exploration's sake?

 

JohnB's analysis of it vibes perfectly with me. It's pure opinion, and meant to be nothing more. I imagine the same person would say "absolutely not" to a manned Mars mission.

 

My thoughts exactly. IMHO, NASA was created primarily to put humans into space. The science took a free ride. Exploration for exploration's sake, and doing it with people, is NASA's first and foremost mission. The science, to me, is secondary.

 

From the article:

Worse, moon-base nonsense may for decades divert NASA resources from the agency's legitimate missions, draining funding from real needs in order to construct human history's silliest white elephant.

 

This isn't just an opinion. It is an extremely biased opinion. This opinion comes out in every article I've read by Greg Easterbrook. Pray tell, Greg, what are the agency's legitimate missions?

 

I, too, am biased in this regard. My bias is opposite of Greg's. I started my career 28 years ago in unmanned space. I moved to the manned space program 8 years later.

 

The science in unmanned space programs may be better than that in manned space. However, even better science is done on the ground than is done by unmanned space programs and at much less expense. Get rid of people in space, and robotic probes on Mars will have to compete with graduate students out in the field on the surface of the Earth. A robotic probe is incredibly expensive compared to a geology graduate student. A geology graduate student can accomplish more in one weekend than those robots accomplished in two years. Putting people into space is the best justification for going into space, manned or unmanned.

 

Swansont, first, there's a tendency to distrust robots, but a number of functions would require intelligence (especially if it were to be used as a construction facility for interplanetary spacecraft or a spaceport or any of the above) which is beyond the current state of AI. And remote controlling is out - even on the moon, the signal delay is too long.

 

This person expressed my views on robotic exploration quite nicely:

From

http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/01.09.04.bush.html

:

The sooner we get President Bush's Exploration Initiative going, the sooner we will get humans to Mars and learn what the planet is all about! I look at the 3+ weeks that it has taken the rovers to drill a little dust off a rock and proclaim it as volcanic. Then I imagine Harrison Schmidt landing, taking his hammer to the rock, and proclaiming the same thing...in about 5 minutes!

 

The Rovers are a prime example of why robots are NOT the way to explore space.

[D H]

What's wrong with exploring for exploration's sake?

becasue it's a lot of money. There should be a good predefined goal.

 

Exploration for exploration's sake is the reason d'etre. A good predefined goal that accomplishes this is to put a permanent base on the Moon in preparation for sending people to Mars.

[ecoli]

Isn't it more wise to invest money into science (even if only next generations reap the fruits of this labour) than investing unjust wars all over the world???

whether current wars are just or not is not relevant to this discussion.

 

The issue isn't should we spend money on science or war. The issue is where should we be spending money on science. Is there any proof that building a permanent lunar base will help us get to mars?

[CPL.Luke]

well considering that there isn't much difference betweeen getting a man on the moon as compared to getting a man on mars (realy a question of scale). It makes it much easier to convince politicians to sign off on the thing.

 

Just consider how the conversation between a senator and an engineer would go when discussing a mars mission.

 

before new moon mission.

 

Senator: so what do you need to get to mars?

Engineer: well we need to find a way to get a years worth of oxygen out there, we need to design a really big rocket and build it. We need to rebuild the entire infrastructure of nasa etc.

 

 

with moon base

 

Senator: so what do you need to get to mars?

Engineer: well we just need to attach a big rocket to one of these CEV's and add an extra payload compartment, and brief the guys who built our moon base on whats going to be diffferent on mars.

 

which one do you think would go over better?

 

also consider that because the moon option provides a cheap long term solution, its lesss likely that it will get canceled, and even if it does the infrastructure will still be there. ready for the private space companies to take over.

[D H]

The issue is where should we be spending money on science.

 

Science? Earth-based observatories are getting better and better. Why not forego the expensive probes and do everthing from Earth?

 

 

Is there any proof that building a permanent lunar base will help us get to mars?

 

Proof? We've never been to Mars. Do you want a direct mission to Mars instead? The Mars Society wants to sweep all the unknowns under the rug and go for broke. The unknowns are immense and will kill us, both financially and literally.

 

We haven't the foggiest idea how to send people to Mars for an extended stay, all the while keeping those people alive and sane. We don't know what it takes to prepare a mission of the magnitude of sending people to Mars. We need to learn how to do that.

 

Mars is 9 months away. The Moon is but 3-4 days away. NASA's concept is to learn how to go to Mars by going to and staying on the Moon as a preparatory step. We will send people there for sorties first (Apollo redux), and then for ever longer expeditions. We will learn along the way what it takes to keep people alive and sane when the next breath of fresh air is 9 months away. And who knows, by the time we are ready someone might well have come up with a propulsion technique that reduces the 18 month round trip to a much shorter time.

[D H]

well considering that there isn't much difference betweeen getting a man on the moon as compared to getting a man on mars (realy a question of scale).

 

Baloney. That is like saying" There isn't much of a difference between climbing some local 1000 foot hill and climbing Mount Everest. Its really a question of scale."

 

We don't know how to get people to Mars, have the stay long enough to make the trip pay off (and make the return feasible), bring them back home, and see a bunch of live and sane disembark when they finally land back on the Earth.

 

With a little imagination, one can turn the 1000 foot hill into a start for climbing Mount Everest. Lug more equipment than you would ever dream of taking on a 1000 foot climb. Set up base camps. Stay for a long time.

 

The same applies to the Moon as a pathfinder for going to Mars. However, the trip to Mars will still be a lot more quite complex than any of our trips to the Moon. The 1000 foot hill is not Mount Everest.

 

Senator: so what do you need to get to mars?

Engineer: well we need to find a way to get a years worth of oxygen out there, we need to design a really big rocket and build it. We need to rebuild the entire infrastructure of nasa etc.

 

In other words, it is not a question of scale.

 

America can get to the Moon with no outside help (we did just that 35 years ago). Getting to Mars will be a world-wide endeavor.

[CPL.Luke]

well once we've gotten to the moon than all of the infrastructure will have been built already, the problems associated with a manned expedition spending a year or more in a very hostile enviroment will also have been solved (for the most part.

 

and you don't need to design and build as big of a rocket if you've got the moon to launch from.

 

and the point that I was trying to make is that once were on the moon it seems possible to go to mars, without that much difficulty (seems being the operative word).

 

 

there are 1000-2000 foot climbs that require you to do almost everything you would to get to the top of mount everest, its just that it takes you alot longer to get to the top of mount everest, (again almost being the operative word)

[Klaynos]

well considering that there isn't much difference betweeen getting a man on the moon as compared to getting a man on mars (realy a question of scale). It makes it much easier to convince politicians to sign off on the thing.

 

It's worth noteing that NASA where originally apposed to the idea of returning to the moon.

 

I strongly dislike this direction of exploration because so many good science missions have been abandoned or severely delayed.

[D H]

It's worth noteing that NASA where originally apposed to the idea of returning to the moon.

 

Where in the world did you get this idea? The Exploration Initiative started within NASA. It was not something foisted upon NASA. Until the President announced and funded the Initiative, all NASA could do regarding sending people back to the moon was have a few people making paper studies. Like any government agency, NASA is accountable to the President and Congress and can only work on authorized projects.

 

I strongly dislike this direction of exploration because so many good science missions have been abandoned or severely delayed.

 

Exploration is a big part of NASA's reason for being. Congress and the President mandate NASA "to advance human exploration, use, and development of space." Without the human side of the equation, NASA's mandate "to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe" might well fail to get the kind of funding it is getting now.

[swansont]

I've read that there are helium-3 deposits on the Moon. Thermonuclear reaction with helium-3 and heavy hydrogen doesn't make constructional material radioactive. It is the fuel of the future. The base is the first step to arrange it's delivery to Earth. That's very promising idea.

 

It's probably not economically feasible, since you have to lug everything up there to set up the mining operation. And while the He-D reaction doesn't produce neutrons, you will get D-D reactions occuring in the reactor, which does. If fusion ever become practical.

[swansont]

Swansont, first, there's a tendency to distrust robots, but a number of functions would require intelligence (especially if it were to be used as a construction facility for interplanetary spacecraft or a spaceport or any of the above) which is beyond the current state of AI. And remote controlling is out - even on the moon, the signal delay is too long.

 

Just my $0.02.

 

 

Even if this is the case, I don't see why one can legitimately use "the technology isn't advanced enough yet" as an objection here, and (others) use "in the meantime, technology will advance" to bolster the "pro" argument.

 

The signal delay to the moon is a few seconds. It needs to be demonstrated that this is an insurmountable problem, escpecially in light of the fact that we do send probes out, away from the earth, and have some success at what they do, either with automation or time delays longer than what would be seen on the moon.