NASA Considers Plans for Permanent Moon Base 353
el crowbar sent us a link to an MSNBC article detailing NASA's plans for a moon base. The permanently staffed structure could begin construction sometime in 2010, with six-month duty rotations the norm by 2025. Interestingly, the space agency is looking far afield for technical expertise. Consultants on the project include individuals from Caterpillar, Norcat, Boeing, and other manufacturing concerns. Right now the only detail for placement and purpose is 'on the rim of a crater near one of the poles', but the article outlines a few other ideas that enterprising individuals have in mind for a moon base. Besides helium-3 mining and lunar hotels, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup?
Sports! (Score:5, Funny)
Retirement... (Score:3, Interesting)
If they can't solve the age-related muscle- and bone-deterioration problems by the time I get frail, I want to be able to retire on the Moon. Yes, I know, getting there once will be difficult, but I hope, I'll be able to make it.
And then — many more years of free movement in a comfortable nursing home. With beautiful views, miles of walkways, high-speed Internet (even if some latency remains talking to Earthlings), and monthly visits from family...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, the 1/6 gee would definitely increase your vertical leap and increase the odds of being able to dunk. But you should specify that the court be indoors, heated, and pressurized. Trying to do a lay-up in those big bulky spacesuits might be harder than you think.
I think other indoor, 1/6 gee sports that would be pretty cool:
Diving. Besides jumping higher, you fall slower, giving you more time to execute some gnarly moves on your way down.
Boxing? no. (Score:3, Informative)
Will be successful only if... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Definitly.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe someone can come up with a catchy name for it.
That's our way (Score:5, Funny)
Moon Base (for the sci-fi fans)
Resort Hotel (most likely modeled in the Las Vegas "style")
Commercial trips to the moon (perfect for advertising agencies to plaster their wares on)
Strip Mining (for the republicans)
Yeah, you can tell the American touch has been put on these plans (Note, I am American). Any chance we can put some government offices, maybe a DMV or something?
Disclaimer: This is written as sarcastic dry comedy, not hateful/spiteful/snotty
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Guantanamo Crater (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:That's our way (Score:5, Funny)
Well, if we're going to get into stereotypes (says the non-Christian, non-gun-owning American)...
To make it British: Hand out halloween fake snaggletooth inserts and white greasepaint so they can get that pasty look.
To make it French: Spray them with horse sweat, remove their spines and replace them with a stick up their ass.
To make it German: Everyone will line up here... NOW!!!
- Greg
Only worth-while question: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Make it mobile (Score:5, Interesting)
From TFA:
I think we should start by getting a few moon facts straight before we progress to a permenant settlement:
So if it was going to lose line of sight occasionally it would be on every lunar orbit, not every year. The lunar axis of rotation is so close to the orbital plane around the Earth that a polar station will never see the Earth move significantly in its sky.
If anybody is interested my preference would be for a heavy, pressurised rover. Capable of autonomous driving and control from the ground. Each new crew lands close to the path of the rover and drives it for a week or so. They then meet up with another lander and use its ascent stage to return to Earth. Some ascent stages are landed under remote control so that the first crew can use one to return.
The problem with a fixed base is that the local area will get boring pretty quickly, so a pressurised rover will be needed in any event. If the rover only drives at 10km/h the whole habitat may just as well be on the rover. It can drive fast enough to always be in sunlight, so you don't have to worry about energy storage at night.
Ascent stages are flown down under automatic control, or left behRe:Make it mobile (Score:5, Informative)
That's not entirely true. The earth rises and sets in places all around the moon's circumference as seen from the earth, not only at the equator. The effect that makes the moon's face as seen from the earth move a little bit is called "libration". There is libration both in longitude and in latitude. For some points near the poles of the moon, libration in latitude can make the earth invisible at times. Formulas for calculating librations can be found in chapter 53 of this book [willbell.com].
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason the base would be placed at the poles is two fold. First, it's the only place where, at a mountain peak, solar power is available all the time. Second, it's the only place that has been shown to have water (in the form of ice) near the surface.
But you're right: It's got absolutely nothing to do with "line of sight" communication with Earth. The near side of the moon always faces the earth.
Obviously (Score:5, Funny)
Needs fusion (Score:5, Insightful)
But seriously, folks... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about.... a solar forge, melting down local ore, bubbling a gas through it (lower gravity means more spherical bubbles, better strength) to make foam alloy structural elements, then putting it on your solar powered catapult to shoot into orbit for either a) recovery for earth use via semi-controlled re-entry or b) orbital construction.
Low gravity ceramic compounds would be interesting also.
um... a joke has to be thrown in...
great place for a remake of Sapce:1999?
If you want a joke: (Score:2)
Vacuum is easier elsewhere (Score:5, Insightful)
---Nathaniel
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's expensive; it costs hundreds or thousands of dollars...
Is that by the pound, or kilogram?
Re:But seriously, folks... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
It's impressive, but no record. There was an "o" from east Germany back in the late 70's that managed a 37.5 place jump in the grammar Olympics that year. The landing was unfortunate (due to that
Make it underground (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Who is going to direct it? Spielberg or Lucas? (Score:4, Funny)
Well at least we can dream (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well at least we can dream (Score:5, Insightful)
Twist Intellectual Property (Score:4, Interesting)
Finally, IP would have a use other than screwing non-lawyers.
Re:Well at least we can dream (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Von Braun's body lies a moulderin' in the ground (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Von Braun's body lies a moulderin' in the groun (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well at least we can dream (Score:5, Interesting)
TheBudgetGraph.com (Score:5, Informative)
Space 1999... um... 26 years late (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
The differences are, indeed, subtle, but after the fourth repeat on ITV4 you can start to discern them.
I've recently arrived at the conclusion that the occupants of Moonbase Alpha were, in fact, the useless crap from Earth that nobody wanted to deal with. They were "tricked" into taking postings on the moon where someone deliberately set them up the bomb. Let's recall who we're dealing with here:
Haven't they learned anything? (Score:2, Informative)
A second now - (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Low gravity instead of no gravity: all sorts of things get more complicated in zero-G. Cooling is a nice example - you have to force circulation of fluids because convection does not exist. Fluids in pipes (plumbing in general) are also much better behaved in any gravity than in zero-G. You could have a decent shower in a moonbase, although I would not recommend a swimming pool due to the risk of drowning - it's ha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just existing up there requires a Ph. D. in Not Fucking Up the Hab.
And for what? He-3? Try again.
Settlers (Score:5, Insightful)
Electricity could be provided from solar power, since you would have areas that always receive direct sunlight. At first a large scale Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator could provide more than enough power.
I may be a pessimist but it's my belief that the key to long term human survival (as a species) requires that we find a way to get off this rock and not just for 6 months but indefinitely. The moon seems like a very good start. Once we learn how to survive there the prospect of permanent colonization of an actual planet, like Mars, would be cake.
Nick Powers
Computer Science Masters student Texas A&M U
Re:Settlers (Score:4, Insightful)
Live on the moon in 1/6th gravity. Never come to Earth again. Ridiculously expensive to have family and friends visit. Possible long term health consequences, possible heath effect for children, if children are even a possiblity.
Yeah. Everyone I know would like to settle there.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
--Nathaniel (neutrino physicist in a mine shaft)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Settlers (Score:4, Insightful)
They do that because a) it's cool b) it's well paid (by scientific standards). a) only lasts about 6 months, b) relies on having somewhere to go to spend the money.
Just waiting for it... (Score:2)
Mooninites (Score:2, Funny)
Other uses - make it a colony, not a base! (Score:4, Insightful)
Up, make it self-sustainable, self-expanding and self-developing through utilising the resources available on the moon, aiming to import as little as possible from the mother nest. I say we should aim for a colony, not a base.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other uses - make it a colony, not a base! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's somewhat impractical and slightly redundant. Presumably the point of a moonbase is to develop the technology and techniques needed to develop colonies in the future? "Importing as little as possible" is an easy thing to say, but a lot harder to do. Even here on earth we find it hard to grow enough food in enclosed environments, what's it going to be like in space?
It's worth looking back at human history for lessons on colonies, in fact probably the colonization of North America is the most enlightening and best known. American colonies, whether English, French, Spanish, Dutch or Danish, all had two things in common:
- They were expensive
- They had a low success rate
They all had to import things initially (food, people, tools) and they had their own set of problems (disease, climate, natives), but generally colonizing a different continent is a lot easier than a different planetary body. Despite this, most colonies failed miserably. Some of the common reasons for failure included:Basically, for a variety of reasons, a self sustaining colony cannot be instantly setup, it always needs expensive support from the homeland until it has adjusted to its new environment. However a few colonies were worth the initial huge cost (in both currency and lives) to keep them maintained, the reasons for this include
To cut a long and interesting story short, the successful ones all made money. In the case of the Spanish they literally brought it home in the form of gold, for the English and Dutch new trade goods and markets and the taxes on trade did it and the French, well, are generally a lesson in how not to do it.
Any extra-terrestrial colony is only going to be a long term proposition if it makes more than it costs. Obviously no body, private or public, is going to throw money at a colony just for the sake of having it there (small scientific outposts excepted). With a current average launch cost of about $10,000 per pound one-way (I think) the moon is going to have to produce or allow production of something pretty fucking valuable to allow a permanent colony to grow there (and there are no new markets out there).
Assuming you can find that thing then you have the next problem of free market economics. Anything that costs $10,000 per lb is going to be sought after and extremely rare on Earth. As soon as you start transporting it back from the moon in practical quantaties (say one full shuttle load) it's no longer going to be rare and the price is going to drop, or, in the case of something that expensive, more likely plummet. I'm not an economist, but common sense tells me the chances of the price staying high enough for long enough to even break even is negligble.
The other end of the problem is to lower launch costs of course. I'm not really in the loop anymore but I think the current thinking is that things start getting interesting when launch costs come down to <$500/lb. That's a twenty fold decrease. A jump of that magnitude needs a technology revolution, not just tinkering with existing techs.
There are many obstacles to permanent ET colonies but the biggie is always the cost of overcoming that pesky gravity field we have. Whilst going to the moon may be fun, and incidentally show those Chinese who's who, I can't help but think that the money would be better spent in this direction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Other uses - make it a colony, not a base! (Score:5, Interesting)
So if you value permanemnt human space settlement in it's own right, the aim should be for it to exist for it's own sake. Best way to do this is to make it "home" for people. For this, you need it to be as self-sustaining as possible. Once the colony got big enough, it may be able to host greater scientifict research, and also work as a launch platform for deeper space exploration.
I have no idea if this is more cost-efficient than putting the money into development of exotic launch technologies here on Earth tho'. It may be, but it may also be that those projects has a lower return on the investment than learning how to "seed" new colonies out there that can aid further exploration of space (and secure humanity).
Indians are going... (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly ... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is possibly the most small-minded query ever seen on a
[assume best Jeff Spicoli persona] Like, Mr. Hand, do you have any good ideas for a moon base startup? [giggles nervously]
Opinions on the submission summary aside, the big question for me is: To what extent will Americans (I'm not) expect this venture to be self-funding? A research component (pursuit of pure knowledge stuff) in NASA's budget will, I expect, only get you part-way.
If helium-3 is present to the extent indicated by the lunar soil samples brought back by Apollo 11 and subsequent missions, then the economics of a lunar mining operations might even work - if we can find something to do with a big swack of helium-3, other than filling kid's birthday balloons. Maybe there's someone out there who is an authority on this: to what extent does using helium-3 as fuel for fusion reduce the by-product/radioactive waste produced by nuclear reactors? Is helium-3 at reasonable cost a Big Win for the nuclear industry?
The time is certainly ripe for getting serious about getting out of the fossil-fuel business (not from an economic perspective, where Exxon's $40 Billion USD profit last year looks Pretty Good, but from a How Long Can This Go On? perspective).
I'm reading this the day after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued their report, which says things don't look good, to say the least:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2007-02-0
So the economic appeal may be there.
Six month rotations are mentioned. I'm not an out-doors guy, but I'll tell you that the prospect of spending 175+ straight days in-doors isn't too appealing to me. Maybe this is why Huxley envisaged Happy Drugs; this would be the ultimate test of our ability to medicate ourselves to contentment in the face of adversity in our environment. I'm wondering what the rotation cycles are for remote assignments on Earth, e.g. Antarctic and Arctic exploration stations? While functionally the Antarctic Winter and the Lunar environment have the same effect - no going outside except in serious gear, or you die - I think that there is a psychological oppression that goes along with being on the moon. Comments?
I think that six month rotations would take quite a while to build up to.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Samarium mining (Score:3, Informative)
how about (Score:2)
i would say that could be done here on earth but it hasn't been, and there is no unclaimed land left to move to.
waspleg
How about... (Score:2)
Power of course (Score:2, Interesting)
Alternate Purpose... (Score:2)
Dig, don't build! (Score:5, Insightful)
Builds require structural materials to maintain their integrity, which means mass to haul into space
There is no protective atmosphere on the moon, so the structures are SOL if a rock happens to come wandering in from space, barring LOTS of mass for protection. (Yes it can happen - where do you think meteor showers come from?)
Radiation on the moon's surface is also not cut down, so same problem as incoming high speed rocks. Materials durability concerns, people concerns, all sorts of fun.
If we put the sucker underground, we get a nice layer of rock on top of the base, which will neatly avoid getting lots of support materials up there and will protect everyone. It would also provide thermal inertia against extreme temperature swings, reducing energy and insulation costs. Sure the view would suck, but I'll bet after a while the view on the moon would get old too. Have a viewing station above for observations/airlock/what have you, but build the bulk of it underground. The moon is relatively stable geologically and the far more active Earth has plenty of underground structures on it, so the real question is digging it out.
So I would suggest looking at ways to hollow out large areas on the moon with minimal equipment. My first thought would be small, low mass automated diggers running off of solar power feeds working slowly over time, so we can learn about the environment as we dig into it. Easy to get up there, and over time they could do serious work if built reliable (think filling up a swimming pool one drop at a time, just in reverse.)
It wouldn't have the neat "space base!" look you see on the covers of science fiction books, but I think it would be much more practical, safe, and useful.
I know how we could finance it... (Score:3, Funny)
2. set up webcams around the base
3.
4. PROFIT!
How about a nuclear waste dump? (Score:2)
2010? Seriously? (Score:2)
The article says they plan to start building in in 2010. That's only 3 years away. They haven't got anything to put that kind of gear on the moon at present. How do they intend to have a vehicle ready by then?
Some ideas (Score:2, Interesting)
vacuum industry - there are lots of cool potential manufacturing technologies (and lots of current ones) that require a good vacuum.
Low-G research - kind of like the vacuum industry
Microgravity research - Create a Zero-G environment directly on the moon by taking advantage of the vaccum and low G environment; basically build a linear accelerator mass driver on the equator at the highest elevation. Use it to accelerate a lab to moon oribtal speed at that altitude, let the lab wh
Offsite storage! (Score:2, Interesting)
So, if your data is REALLY vital, you can store your backups in the ULTIMATE offsite data center!
Things you'll need (Score:3, Funny)
2. Magnifiying glasses and mirrors. I've had fun reflecting sun beams in people's eyes. I'm sure the moon people will having doing it to us Earthlings. Only we'll never know who did it.
3. A limitless supply of drugs and other entertainment. If you're never coming back, then you might as well have a hell of a time!
Of course (Score:2)
I'll call it... (Score:2, Funny)
Moon Pirates (Score:2, Informative)
the moon plan (Score:2, Interesting)
When did we become the B.S. nation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at one of my favorite examples: the Chunnel vs. the Big Dig. The Chunnel is 31 miles long, 24 miles under the English Channel. The Big Dig is about 6 miles long, 2.5 miles under Boston Harbor. Wikipedia says the Chunnel cost about 10 billion pounds and the Big Dig has cost about $15 billion "so far". Not much difference between the two. The Chunnel has had a non-fatal fire. The Big Dig leaks like a sieve, the books were cooked to hide the substandard materials used to construct it and it has had a fatal ceiling collapse. Makes you proud to be an American taxpayer, doens't it?
But a person could take any number of examples of bridges to nowhere, Big Pharma and the like that are draining a few billion here and a few billion there of citizen taxpayer dollars until you are talking real money. What I have to wonder isn't how long people will put up with it but how long people _can_ put up with it. Is the typical American so rich he really can be bled indefinitely with little to show for it? I'm guessing not and I think that is an important difference between now and the 60s. You can point out that Apollo had to start from scratch, corporations were probably making a good profit on the deal then too and that the Vietnam war was going on. But the U.S. was in an historic boom, people with well-paying jobs actually made things here and the average household wasn't carrying $7000 in credit card debt. It isn't enough to rebuild the Saturn V or relearn the Apollo program knowledge now residing in nursing homes. We need to get back the best parts of the America that created the Apollo program.
What scares me most I think is the fallout when it becomes undeniably clear to the world and ourselves that we've metastasized from a pragmatic "can-do" nation of the Right Stuff to some schizoid out-of-touch B.S. nation.
Re:Already there (Score:5, Funny)
And I'm assuming plans for a giant "laser" have already been considered.
Ridiculous. How are the sharks supposed to swim up to the moon just so we can get big frickin lasers up there? On the backs of the mutated sea bass?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Already there (Score:4, Funny)
Re:pr0n! (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The Moon is a terribly useful place - low-gravity, no atmosphere and just arounf the corner.
Throw them on the Sun. They will get a nice tan.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
No experience in what? Building moon bases? Who has that kind of experience? Building equipment to build moonbases? I think Boeing and Caterpillar might be good bets as Boeing is a space contractor and Caterpillar is manufacturer of construction equipment.
Tell us, who would you recommend to build a moon base? Or are you suggesting we don't build a moonbase? In which case, what do you suggest we do instead?
Re:corporate welfare (Score:5, Insightful)
That's harsh. Apparently corruption managed to land us on the moon, send dozens of probes out into the solar system, and built an International Space Station complete with the capability to take routine space trips every 4 months. If NASA did all of what it has done while being nothing more than a tool for corporations to steal government money, then shit, sign me up to be a congressional lobbyist- I might cure world hunger.
I'd prefer to see the space program killed altogether and NASA disbanded instead of having taxpayer money wasted on moon colonies and manned trips to Mars.
This is definitely not a waste of money. Once this industry gets started, the possibilities are enormous. First think of the political implications of having a thriving off world colony. What if we could move UN headquarters to Lunar City, the first truly international city? What would it mean for world unity, for peace and human progress? You're worried about the cash? Well the first thing they told me in economics is that technological innovation drives the economy- we were an agricultural planet until technology came along and forged the industrial economy. The technologies developed to build a moon base would filter down, as they always have, and invigorate the economy. Then think about the industry that would follow, that would benefit Earth: off world manufacturing that would get pollution out of our fragile ecosystem, off world (solar) energy generation, off world disposal of hazardous waste. Did you know that on earth, Iron, the most commonly used metal, is mined from Iron Oxide- rust? Did you know that rust is literally covering the surface of mars? It might even get cheaper to extract Iron from Mars than on earth if we keep up this exploration nonsense.
And best of all, think about the scientific opportunities space bases would allow us. A perfect, undisturbed view of the heavens. Super ideal experiment conditions in the form of vacuum and free fall. Greater access to natural resources for particle physics- research stations on mercury interacting with the sun, or on pluto interacting with nothing. Advances in bio-chemistry that would come from vastly improved understanding of planetary/atmosphere physics and chemistry, and study of asteroids and comets, as well as above mentioned 0 g and vacuum. All these opportunities are only accessible if we make a serious, money losing push at first.
I get your cynicism as to the intentions of the politicians but realize, it's not the politicians or the people who are interested in huge profits who are doing this (there are vastly better industries to make money in than space). It's the people who are passionate about such things. And while it may just be another project for the politicians, for the people who choose to devote their lives to its pursuit, space is much more- and it is something worth going about correctly and responsibly. People willingly sacrifice their lives in return for the chance to explore space. To say that NASA is a waste of taxpayer money and no better than waging a war...
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>That's harsh. Apparently corruption managed to land us on the moon, send dozens of probes out into the solar system, and built an International Space Station complete with the capability to take routine space trips every 4 months.
A space station, built at an exorbitant $100 billion, that has delivered very little serious scientific research. That's 18 years of NSF
Re:Lets not get religion on the moon. (Score:4, Insightful)
Realistically, we're going to see all kinds of competing religions up there: Christians from the US and Europe, hard-line Communist believers (who are religious in all but name) from China, Hindus from India, assorted Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and Shintos and, so to speak, God knows what-all
Re: (Score:2)
Massachusetts in general and Boston in particular are probably the least religious places in the US.
Yeah, Catholicism is particularly under-represented (/sarcasm)
Sheesh.
Re: (Score:2)
This is entirely off-topic, but... (Score:2)
So you are against people pushing their faith on others, and your proposed policy is to force visitors to the moon to become atheists while they are there? Isn't that just a tad bit hypocritical? Or is it only bad to force one person's faith on another person if their faith is different from yours? Because I know lots of religious people who would agree with you on that.
Re: (Score:2)
moonies!
Re: (Score:2)