Slashdot Log In
Another Small Step Before the Giant Leap
Posted by
Hemos
on Mon Dec 18, 2006 09:26 AM
from the a-brave-new-tomorrow dept.
from the a-brave-new-tomorrow dept.
Armchair Anarchist writes "Over at Futurismic, a new column proposes that NASA's plans to establish a lunar colony are an attempt to run before we can walk properly, and that developing orbital habitats first would be a wiser and more realistically attainable project. From the article: "... it seems to me that the trump card is with the orbitals; orbit is closer, cheaper and easier to get to, and offers more flexibility as a long-term outpost. Sure, let's put men back on the moon, mine it for helium-3, research its history and origins. But it makes more sense to launch missions of that type from an already-established colony in orbit.""
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Exactly! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
. . . around the Moon.
NASA business plan (Score:4, Funny)
Step 2: Forget the moon: Build stuff in orbit of Earth
Step 3: Profit!!!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.space.com/news/nasa_books_020228.html [space.com]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You aren't supposed to reveal step 2! Now they all know the secret... the world will surely come to an end.
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Article has Logical Errors (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Damned straight his argument is vacuous (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Futurismic Should Read the Plans (Score:5, Interesting)
For those not familiar with the study, it basically looked at a variety of approaches for returning to the moon, based on the capabilities of the Orion capsule, Ares launch systems, and Lunar Surface Access Module designs and recommended the best one.
The conclusion they reached was that the most sustainable approach was to start by landing several missions in the same location in a nearly permanantly lit region near one of the poles (avoids the problematic 14-day night). Each mission would be brief, but leave behind equipment that could be used by the next. The somewhat modular concept for the LSAM (likened to a lunar pickup truck) means it could easily bring different payloads down on each mission. After 5 missions, there would be enough equipment to support extended visits, and begin research into In-Situ Resource Utilization and other long term experiments; things you flat out can not do on the ISS.
The beauty of an outpost with the capability to be permanently manned on the moon is threefold:
1.) It doesn't need to be constantly manned, or even constantly maintained. Unlike the ISS, which at the least needs periodic orbital boosts and constant power to it's orientation control gyros, you can simply "winterize" a lunar outpost and leave it for a while. If you have budget constraints or some other program setback and have to abandon it for a time, it just sits there waiting for you to come back. The ISS deals with gravity just as a lunar outpost would, but the lunar outpost actually turns it into an asset.
2.) It enables long term investigation of a piece of lunar soil, and does not interfere with exploring other parts. NASA recognizes that the LRO may find other interesting sites on the moon to send manned missions to, and the proposed architecture still supports that. At the same time, they can get an in depth look at lunar geology and practice techniques that will hopefully be used in a Mars mission.
3.) It provides a wide range of options for contributions. A criticism of the ISS is that it has been constantly hamstringed as nations, including the US, have been slow to contribute pieces...all while it continues consuming resources. The US would develop the launchers capable of putting large payloads on the surface and create an infrastructure that can support a human presence, then welcome contributions from partner nations in the form of equipment, experiments, and astronauts above and beyond the basic goals as they see fit to contribute. Among the many possible contributions NASA has identified are ISRU experiments, alternate power sources, astronomy equipment (a radio telescope would have find effectively unprecedented low level of noise), and a pressurized rover for long distance EVA's.
Of course, the author did get right the concerns over the fact that the moon is much harder to get to than the ISS, and there are more things that can go wrong getting there and back, but so many more of his criticisms are off base. Even the concern about meteoroids strikes me as wrong. I can think of no reason why the moon should encounter a greater meteoroid flux than the earth (a noted threat to the ISS), and in fact, might even be safer for the lack of space junk.
The US has built two space stations. The Russians have built three, counting their ISS contributions. Private industry is even getting in on the game (Bigelow). Honestly, how long should we wait before re-extending our presence to the moon? How much more does low-earth orbit really stand to contribute to our understanding of how to go places in our solar system?
Parent
Makes more sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope I am wrong, but am willing to bet we won't have anything except the ISS (if we have even that) by 2020. The only possible exception might be if the Chinese put up something similar to ISS... but even that will be a far cry from anything we are talking about today (or twenty years ago).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If there was money to be made, someone in the private sector would have already designed and built what is needed. Eventually, the government backed scientists in the ISS or on a shuttle will find a way to so something profitable in space. Once this happens, and the cost of the space flight is justified by price of the retu
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Friendly cooperative American/European/Japanese Mars probes aside, I'd
Re: (Score:2)
Right now I think that just about everyone in the USA is jaded when it comes to this stuff. The "gee-wizz" effect doesn't work any more and most people would rather deal with their iPods than fellow human beings.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a bit premature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
need more than a rowboat and a tent (Score:5, Insightful)
Compare this with later ships that circumnavigated the globe on multi-year expeditions. The ships tended to be larger and more self-sufficient. They included things like portable blacksmith shops that could repair and fabricate unknown articles as needed, manufactured from stock materials that were also brought along.
Now that private companies are showing some proficiency with tasks that were previously only the domain of government (e.g. launch capabilities, manufacture of orbital habitats and facilities), NASA should concentrate on the next step in exploration. If they want to explore (which I fully support doing), they should concentrate on developing things which support exploration that nobody has done yet. Support tasks, such as launch capability, habitats, etc., should be farmed out in competitive contracts or Grand-Challenge style contests.
A moon base is a logical step, but it is really just a support role. NASA should farm this out or indicate willingness to purchase capabilities and participate in evaluation, but should focus on creating long-range exploration capability. After all, even Columbus's trip was government financed. Once people became aware of the investment potential, they financed new ventures themselves and eventually opened up what had been exploration efforts into commercial enterprises and settlements.
Parent
Sure, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We've already been to the moon... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Let's put it this way: What information we have about the Moon's surface is roughly equivalent to what Google Earth has about the land area of the US combined with a quick physical survey of an area roughly the same as your average suburban mall. We know less a
Unmanned is better (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That may be true, but there are other, better reasons to send humans [wellingtongrey.net].
We must raise the bar (Score:5, Interesting)
ISS 2? (Score:2, Insightful)
ISS is already up there and should be much more mature by the time we plan on landing on the moon again.
Re:ISS 2? (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It isn't remotely self-sufficient. ISS 2 (or whatever) probably won't be fully self-sufficient either, but it'll let us work on the logistics issue first.
2. It is strictly a space lab. If we want it to be a portal into the rest of the solar system, we need to have something where we can construct and refit spacecraft in orbit.
3. It is very low orbit.
Parent
NASA isn't trying to establish a lunar colony (Score:4, Insightful)
There are actually still a few advantages to stopping at an orbital base on the way to the moon, but all you need at the base is an insulated fuel depot and a robot arm, not a massive spinning habitat. Even once it's a good time to build massive spinning habitats for their own sake, we'll want to mine lunar resources or captured NEO asteroids to do it, and learning how to make a lunar base more self-sufficient is one small step on the way there.
Bleh (Score:2)
Let NASA know a little bit about space missions than bloggers do, but even without this, common sense says that's easier to establish a colony on a solid surface, and with some gravity (much easier to build tools, handle daily activities and so on, even the safety of having some ground below your feet), versus a colony in a ship in open space.
But you know, universe has its ways... , I me
Problem (Score:3, Insightful)
There's actually mineable material on the moon, I don't know how useful it is, but at least theres a chance the moon can produce resources as well as research.
what about radiation shielding? (Score:2)
I tend to disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah right. It makes so much sense to launch a lot of stuff into orbit, just to use a small amount of that stuff to go to the moon.
There's nothing in orbit that can be used by the colony, apart from solar energy. Everything else has to be shipped up there, or generated, or simply isn't available (gravity, anyone ?).
On the moon, there's at least a chance to use some local resources (Oxygen, building material, maybe water). And gravity. There's a lot of difference between pratically zero-G and 0.16 G. In the latter, stuff will start acting somewhat like on earth (things/liquids fall on the floor, people can actually walk and distinguish between up and down). You could have an actual kitchen on a moon base - unthinkable in zero G.
One simple reason (Score:5, Insightful)
A colony implies people living there for longer than 10 years. Zero gravity is a bitch at 10+ years.
--Blerik
ground to stand on (Score:2)
Getting material out there may be more costly at first, but a moon base should be more cost effective over the long haul, especially if future expansion can utilize some of the resources the moon has to offer (even if it's just shelter).
Considering how long these projects take to complete I would say we've got the Orbiter, lets do the moon
Robots, not people (Score:4, Interesting)
run first, walk later (Score:3, Insightful)
The above are all commonly said and assumed to be true when in fact, they may not be.
1. Several of my younger siblings were able to run before they could walk. The MIT media lab ran had the same experience with their "waliking" robots-some were able to run more easily than walk.
2. I've seen a few babies that didn't learn to crawl until after they were walking. They had a s
Nothing to do in LEO (Score:2)
I'm all for space fareing, but.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If the economy was in the condition it was before Bush went into office, I might be for something like this, but at the moment, we're sinking into debt up to our noses and the last thing we need to do is spend a fortune going back to the moon. We ought to get a little fiscal responsibility in place first. I know these things take years to work out, and had Clinton pushed it, I would have been all for it because I would have thought, "How could this enormous surplus possibly be squandered so quickly?" And yet, Bush pulled it off in record time.
I do think, however, if you take the economics out of it, that a moon colony is a much better next step than another orbital station, for various reasons, not least of which is, a station just isn't really a step forward. It's a step sideways. We need to move forward and we need to take grander steps. There will be failures (and sadly, some will probably cost lives), but it's the steps forward that make the big impact on the public and help build further support for the program.
The public was excited early in the Apollo program. They wanted to see us go to the moon and they watched it every step of the way. But then we just kept going back, picking up a few rocks and coming back (this is from a public perception point of view), and quickly support diminished. When NASA isn't moving forward, they don't get support, and people simply won't support another station, especially after the disaster that ISS has been from a PR point of view. It's been a money pit and as far as the public is concerned, it's not much more, fascination-wise, than a big, expensive Skylab.
Better Plan (Score:5, Insightful)
Instead of blowing insane amounts of money on the space station and on unreasonable shuttle launches, we should be pouring those exact same dollars into RESEARCH on better and cheaper means to reach space. Whether it is beamed energy launch vehicles, rail-gun like ground launch facilities, a space elevator, scramjet engines, or who-knows what other tech, we will be far better off if we (temporarily) sacrifice the manned space program to sink the up-front dollars into cheaper access to space. Once you have that cheaper access, then future dollars will provide vastly greater dividends in future practical sustainable manned space development. Then and only then can we establish practical and sustainable oribtal facilities and a moon base and even a SUSTAINED Mars base presence.
As much as I would like to see us get people to Mars, I don't want a replay of the Moon joke. Over-priced impracitical throwaway missions... and we haven't been back there in THREE DECADES. I do not want a throwaway mission to Mars. As nice as it would be to get people there and get dome decent science out of it, it's just NOT WORTH IT to do a tera-bucks throwaway mission to land a couple of people for a holliday vacation and then abandon Mars for two or three of four decades.
I'd rather wait a while for that first mission to Mars and then see it done right. Do it when it makes sense to do it. Shift the current spending to more robitic missions and probes across the solar system, and shift the spending to development of more efficent space access technology.
So I am opposed to our current manned program and I am opposed to the various proposals for more manned missions... and I do so out of my deep desire and support for manned space projects.
-
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As much as I would like to see us get people to Mars, I don't want a replay of the Moon joke. Over-priced impracitical throwaway missions... and we haven't been back there in THREE DECADES. I do not want a throwaway mission to Mars. As nice as it would be to get people there and get dome decent science out of it, it's just NOT WORTH IT to do a tera-bucks throwaway mission to land a couple of people for a holliday vacation and then abandon Mars for two or three of four decades.
That's just the way exploration and colonization works within the framework of human society. Columbus discovered (at least within the European perspective) the Americas in 1492. Serious colonization arguably didn't start until the founding of Havana in 1515. Considering the vast differences between creating long term colonies in the Americas and creating colonies on another planet, it makes sense that the exploration phase would take much longer. Especially considering that individual human life h
NASA is in the Entertainment and Educat. Business (Score:3, Interesting)
Like an aging actor, NASA needs makeovers [space.com]. Like any corporate giant NASA likes to tell success stories [nasa.gov]. NASA has an apparent target demographic [nasa.gov] of kids, students and educators. However, their real target demographic is the parents and grandparents of school aged children and adult science geeks. NASA must convince them, the voting public, that they're doing useful science. This market is similar to that faced by most educational toys.
As a corporate entity, NASA must look to the future. NASA cannot focus on boundad, workable, and term-limited projects such as the IIS, there will rapidly become no NASA. Such projects aren't as fundamentally entertaining, even if they may be more scientifically useful. NASA must continue to make plans to enhance future revenue by continuing to entertain their apparent target demographic, and appear to educate them in the eyes of their true demographic. NASA may be able to complete the IIS, but the IIS story has played out. They need something new and exiting, and they know it.
This is not written to slight NASA in any way. Every entity has its own economics. It's just that when I read stupid statements like the one made in the essay, I feel as if the author doesn't understand the fundamental economic position of NASA. NASA's primary job isn't human spaceflight, or spaceflight. It's to entertain while it educates. That's what brings in the money.
Self Promotion, the submitter is the Columnist... (Score:3, Informative)
Underwater colony first (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes there have been above-ground attempts (why did they stop). Underwater makes it harder to cheat and would be closer to moon isolation for much less cost.
mineshaft space (Score:2)
Mr President! We must not allow there to be a mineshaft gap!
lagrane points outside of radiation belt (Score:3, Informative)
Re:thermal sink and nuclear power (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't really see an alternative to nuclear power if we are serious about space development. Hopefully fusion will be available soon, but with a track record of nearly 50 years, researchers