Another Small Step Before the Giant Leap 277
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.""
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)
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?
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:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lunar base in 2024 (Score:2)
That's not much of a prediction (although as someone else pointed out Bigelow might prove you wrong). Currently, NASA's plan is for a lunar base in 2024. Therefore, even an optimist shouldn't expect one before then.
2020? (Score:2)
A good point (Score:5, Insightful)
Just a bit premature.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if I would consider a year as "long-term." I would view that more as short to medium-term (at most). 5-10 years would be the beginnings of "long-term," and I'm sure we don't really know what sort of effects living in zero gravity for that long would have.
Lack of gravity aside, high energy solar particles may have serious effects with longer term exposure.
Astronauts have reported seeing this solar radiation with there eyes closed, as particles whiz through their eyeballs inducing Cherenkov radiation [wikipedia.org] (flashs of light).
On earth, our atmosphere and magnetosphere protect us from these solar particles, but for extended stays in space the story is different. Maybe the effects of zero-g can be countered by excercise or centripetal force, but all that solar radiat
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we move around the Earth in a vast array of different craft. Huge ocean going vessels ship containerloads o
Re: (Score:2)
What would be the point of a lunar base then? To mine at GREAT expense He3 fuel for a fusion reactor which hasn't been built?
Re: (Score:2)
Orbit:
Good launch point for ships travelling from earth and avoiding its gravity well. The ships can be geared towards exploration rather than take-off.
Research - zero g, artifical g (spin), massive solar radiation
Shelter - all artificial
Communications
Moon:
Ships, again, but have to be able to deal with some gravity at beginning and end of each flight.
Research - low g, solar radiation
Shelter - some natural
Mining
Seems like a pretty even match s
Re: (Score:2)
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].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Mostly, I tend to agree with the author of the blog. We need orbital stations first, but even so, we should also be sending robotic construction vehicles to the moon to start preparing a base for future habitation NOW. I think it makes a lot more sense to have most of a moon base built before we arrive.
Imagine the first construction crew arriving on the moon to find and extensive labyrint
Re: (Score:2)
One could wonder how much unexpected stuff there's gonna be on the Moon. Well, I bet there would be a lot of that if people got to be on the Moon for 10+ years, getting bored out of their minds and toying with the alien environment. Oh, and trying to survive, achieving some pretty amazing deeds in that direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Space has a terrible power, my friend!
One day my Space Robots will revolutionize the world! And space!
Do you have stairs in your house?
Re: (Score:2)
We must raise the bar (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the *human element pushing the envelope* is precisely what made the early space program fascinating, and the LACK of same is why it's become ho-hum in the eyes of most of the public.
People as a whole just don't CARE unless it's a man on the edge. Then we want to be there, to urge it on,
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.
Logistics issues, Re:ISS 2? (Score:2)
ISS isn't a proper space colony, though. 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. [want a space craft garage]... 3. It is very low orbit.
Low earth orbit, inside Earth's magnetic protection, is where space stations have to be but self sufficiency will only come from beyond orbit. The only resources available in Earth orbit are zero G growing conditions and
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.
Re: (Score:2)
what about radiation shielding? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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.
The Moon is an orbital too (Score:2)
The author of this article seems to have forgotten that the Moon is an orbital body of the Earth, too.
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
Re: (Score:2)
And the effects of lunar gravity for 10+ years are
Re: (Score:2)
Still very likely much less harmful than zero gravity for 10+ years.
counter zero G with centripital force (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
already been done (Score:2)
NASA needs to get out of its "not invented here" mindset and go talk to some midway ride designers.
Seriously, though, I see where there are issues in creating a non-vibrating, rotating, airtight interface between a rotating section and a non-rotating section of a spacecraft/space station. But why can't the astronauts just have a nearby habitat that they do shi
Re: (Score:2)
The weight on the outer rim of the space station will be uneven. As a result, the space station will wobble and move as it spins. How would you compensate for this wobble? Rockets require fuel, which adds weight and a tremendous expense (The rockets need to be fired frequently).
Re: (Score:2)
Have two rotating components that rotate in opposite directions. If helicopters can manage it, then so can space stations.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but think of the sex positions that would be possible!
*gulp*
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)
"and other activities" (Score:2)
.
Re: (Score:2)
Mars (Score:2)
Why aren't we sending a manned mission to Mars? That would be much more interesting...
Actually, I think I know the answer. This administration has consistently show that it doesn't care much for science. This is all really about providing a publicly acceptable spin on weaponizing space, and a mission to Mars doesn't make much sense it that context.
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.
the irony (Score:2)
People are interested in exploration more than science. People like stories of discovery-modern science is a lot more about cataloguing, analysis, and duplicating experiments. They know science is important, it just isn't as interesting. What is behind the next bend in the road/trail? What is over that hill? What is that cave? Disc
Life's too short (Score:2)
I guess the reason mankind is rushing this out is because we simply can't start a project we won't be able to finish in our lifetime. Sad thought, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly don't believe this is true. It depends on how much it matters to us.
We could certainly have a permanent human presence on Mars in, say 25 years. The basic technology is there. The problem is that the cost is high enough to preclude a realistic plan.
If there were a clear reason for us to go there, we would. But even if the surface of Mars was dotted
Pie in the sky BS... (Score:2, Interesting)
I've always had a huge interest in space. The sooner we're able to permanently and independently live in space, the better.
But a permanent, independent manned presence in space isn't likely to happen within our lifetimes. Why? Because:
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.
I think what they are saying... (Score:2)
Nuclear Sub onThe Moon (Score:2)
It seems that if we can put 100+ men on a nuclear sub in a more hostile environment than outer space, 1000 feet down, for up to 90 days at a time, why can we not use the same technology to build a Moon base. Build the parts on Earth and brute force move them to the moon then using deep sea divers who are used to working in ultra hazardous environment to put it together.
To service it use 'a space bus & lander that uses the ISS as a bus depot. Never having to land on the earth.
To get to the ISS
Re: (Score:2)
It's also an awesome heat sink, something that is pretty critical for a nuclear powered habitat. Remember that a submarine is really powered by a heat engine that relies on a temperature differential. The
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
Its all a plan by the government (Score:2)
If we ship all that nuclear waste up to the moon in new shuttle type vehicles it could be stored on a crater in the moon with no worries about unknown people getting access to it and any fears of lunarquakes or water tables woul
"Space 1999" (Score:2)
My Bernal Sphere song (Score:2)
Actually, a year ago I wrote a song inspired by some concept art [google.de] from the 70s:
Here it is, for your convenience, hope you like it.
ARTIFICIAL SUMMER BREEZE (BERNAL SPHERE)
Have you heard the news my dear?
Were moving in our Bernal Sphere
I read the brochure, it was clear
the futures here within a year.
I bought a semidetatched place
close to the zero G estates.
well work on earths first SPS
a giant maser, whod have guessed?
REFRAIN:
We will wake up every mo
Incrementalism got us to the Moon (Score:2)
Engineering is an incremental process. You scale things up 20% and 30% at a time, and see which things are flexing too much or developing cracks or failing. Or you take something known, working, and reliable, and you add one new thing to it.
As Petrosky pointe
Stop with the 'witty' story titles (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Big Problems with Floating Colonies (Score:2)
Have you noticed how that all terrestrial colonization has been targeted at land masses? There were no initial offshore colonies. The ships went to islands but nobody considered building a permanent floating colony. Why not?
There are big problems with floating colonies, be they offshore or offworld. There's nothing there to build with nor to build upon. All shelter, all living space, and all defensive fortification would have to be imported, even dirt. It would be inherently more dangerous than an
mineshaft space (Score:2)
Mr President! We must not allow there to be a mineshaft gap!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(oh come on, someone was gonna say it...)
Calling all Rocket Scientists (Score:2)
Are there any rocket scientists in the house today? I am curious about the feasibility of this. I know a little bit about Lagrange points and why they exist, but am not an expert by any means, so apologies if my questions seem uninformed...
Which Lagrange point would be most appropriate for doing something like this? Once that is decided, how difficult is it to put something either on a Lagrange point, or at least into some sort of
lagrane points outside of radiation belt (Score:3, Informative)
Shuttle plans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Parallism is better in the long run (Score:2)