How NASA's Planned Moon Presence Will Practice Living in Space (msn.com) 49
NASA's plans for a presence on the moon "will allow the program to practice how to live in space sustainably," writes the Washington Post. "It will allow scientists to tap into the moon's considerable scientific value to learn more about how Earth was formed. And perhaps, it would also serve as a steppingstone to Mars and other deep-space destinations years in the future."
First, unlike in the 1960s — we now know that the moon has water. Water is not only key to sustaining human life, but its component parts — hydrogen and oxygen — can be used as rocket propellant, making the moon a gas station in space. That could be critical for long-duration missions, allowing spacecraft to refuel on the moon instead of lugging all the fuel from Earth. And since the moon's gravity is one-sixth of Earth's, it is a relatively easy springboard to other points of the solar system.
NASA is also considering building a nuclear reactor on the moon: It's one of several initiatives NASA has begun under its Artemis program, designed to help astronauts stay for extended periods when they'll need power, transportation and the ability to use the moon's resources.... The effort is still very much in its nascent stages, and the funding NASA would need for the long term has not materialized in full.... A sustainable presence, despite the rosy predictions coming from the top echelons of the agency, is still years away, and the technical challenges are immense.
But NASA has begun developing the technologies that would be needed to sustain astronauts on the surface for extended periods. In June of last year, the agency and the Energy Department awarded contracts, worth $5 million each, to three companies to develop nuclear power systems that could be ready to launch by the end of the decade for a test on the moon. The systems would generate 40 kilowatts of power, enough energy to power six or seven American households, and last about 10 years....
NASA is also looking to build solar farms, using arrays that point vertically and catch the angle of the sun over the horizon. And it's exploring how best to exploit what are called "in situ resources" — meaning those that already exist, such as the regolith.
The article even broaches the idea of "a lunar economy that would help sustain a permanent presence."
First, unlike in the 1960s — we now know that the moon has water. Water is not only key to sustaining human life, but its component parts — hydrogen and oxygen — can be used as rocket propellant, making the moon a gas station in space. That could be critical for long-duration missions, allowing spacecraft to refuel on the moon instead of lugging all the fuel from Earth. And since the moon's gravity is one-sixth of Earth's, it is a relatively easy springboard to other points of the solar system.
NASA is also considering building a nuclear reactor on the moon: It's one of several initiatives NASA has begun under its Artemis program, designed to help astronauts stay for extended periods when they'll need power, transportation and the ability to use the moon's resources.... The effort is still very much in its nascent stages, and the funding NASA would need for the long term has not materialized in full.... A sustainable presence, despite the rosy predictions coming from the top echelons of the agency, is still years away, and the technical challenges are immense.
But NASA has begun developing the technologies that would be needed to sustain astronauts on the surface for extended periods. In June of last year, the agency and the Energy Department awarded contracts, worth $5 million each, to three companies to develop nuclear power systems that could be ready to launch by the end of the decade for a test on the moon. The systems would generate 40 kilowatts of power, enough energy to power six or seven American households, and last about 10 years....
NASA is also looking to build solar farms, using arrays that point vertically and catch the angle of the sun over the horizon. And it's exploring how best to exploit what are called "in situ resources" — meaning those that already exist, such as the regolith.
The article even broaches the idea of "a lunar economy that would help sustain a permanent presence."
Washington Compost (Score:1)
Re:Washington Compost (Score:4, Insightful)
Only when present.
The moon... (Score:3)
She's a harsh mistress. Good luck NASA!
By all means! (Score:2)
Shift the mass of the moon and give global warming a real contender.
Re: (Score:2)
Math not your forte I assume?
- idiotic - (Score:2, Troll)
They talk about hardware, nuclear plants, 'sustained' presence - it's bull.
Unless they mean sustained as in 100 residents spending 3 months each on the moon. The reality is that people can't stay there. Engineers are pretty good at hardware for space travel. Even the space costumes are fairly protective despite the homemade element. But the human element is entirely neglected.
People can't live there. Period. There is nothing to discuss.
There is an alternative but it is unacceptable to the politicians and bu
Re: - idiotic - (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The reality is that people can't stay there. Engineers are pretty good at hardware for space travel. Even the space costumes are fairly protective despite the homemade element. But the human element is entirely neglected.
Part of the initial habitat is to better understand the Lunar conditions so that we can design accordingly going forward. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
People can't live there. Period. There is nothing to discuss.
If you quit before you even get started then you cannot learn what needs improvement.
The alternative is people who are engineered, just like the equipment they use.
That technology is hundreds of years away.
Allow your next kid to be a potential astronaut, enroll it in a program of genetic 'touch up' through which he or she will be better equipped to live in space and contribute to the future of mankind.
You obviously do not grasp of how little we understand the inner workings of the human body. Also, what you are describing would be incredibly unethical.
Re: (Score:3)
Unless they mean sustained as in 100 residents spending 3 months each on the moon. The reality is that people can't stay there.
No kidding Sherlock. I would assume a "sustained presence" would be comparable to what we already have in Antarctica or the ISS, with some permanently manned bases, and some seasonal ones. Obviously colonisation makes little sense, so why do you make such a proposal only to mock it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck off, you're plain wrong. Reference: https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Re: - idiotic - (Score:4, Interesting)
People can live in zero G for a year or more. The gravity of the Moon, while reduced, makes living there a lot easier on the body. Caves may also provide some protection from radiation too, beyond what is offered on the ISS. Year long stays shouldn't be a problem.
The main issue is that the Moon dust destroys all the equipment taken up there. At the end of those 3 day Apollo missions the suits and the rover were pretty much worn out. A more permanent habitat will have to deal with that, and I imagine visitors will spend most of their time inside because of the limited supply of disposable EVA suits.
Re: (Score:2)
What a well written argument:
"People can't live there. Period. There is nothing to discuss."
Slashdot at its best.
Although it is unfortunate it took you five paragraphs of "nothing to discuss."
The only idiocy is not to test. (Score:4, Insightful)
The genetic engineering technology to let us survive unprotected in the the vacuum and radiation of space (including the Moon, and even Mars for most practical purposes) is WAY beyond the crude GMO finger-painting we're currently capable of. And the other planets with atmospheres have temperatures so extreme that water-based biochemistry just isn't a viable option.
Even more "support role" engineering is still beyond us. And while there probably will be backlash against it, some of the most useful improvements will likely be immensely popular on Earth as well - two of the biggest are eliminating cancer (whales and such are completely immune), and being able to "turn off" muscle atrophy like bears and such do when hibernating. Imagine getting in great shape once, and then keeping that muscle for the rest of your life without further effort beyond eating enough extra calories to keep them fed.
So, as we go to space we will always have to engineer the environment to ourselves. And while terraorming is an interesting long-term plan, that requires that we already have a thriving space economy to support it. So there's just no getting around artificial habitats and space suits.
And since we'll need those anyway, we may as well start developing them in earnest now. Along with developing the technology to efficiently industrialize such barren landscapes, which will also be essential. Once genetic engineering is ready it will be a "drop in" component to make things easier for the next generation.
But as others have said, the health problems living on the moon will be much less than living on the ISS. 17% gravity, and near-zero radiation assuming they bury their habitat under a meter or so of regolith. And the temperature probes left by the Apollo missions show that just one meter underground the extreme temperature fluctuations at the surface disappear - becoming a steady ~70*F near the tropics with only a few degrees fluctuation over the course of the entire year. Colder near the poles where most the water is, but a decent heat sink might actually be the more valuable asset.
Of course it remains to be seen if *truly* long-term stays will be possible, but there are several different levels of success. If people can work on the moon for a year with a decent exercise regime and come back not much worse off, that makes industrialization viable for at least a research and Earth-support role. With only a few seconds of communication lag, Once things are up and running you hopefully only need the robot maintenance technicians on site.
Also, muscle atrophy wouldn't *necessarily* be a problem for someone who never intends to return to Earth, making permanent colonization a possibility.
Will there be other health problems? Probably, but at this point we have literally no real idea what or how bad they might be - the only data points we have are on Earth, and in free fall. A moon base will give us our first data point between the two, and give us some idea of the shape of the "health problem curve" between those two extremes, which we're going to have to deal with as we expand beyond Earth. Presumably with the long-term risks evaluated in lab animals before humans try for it.
If there are serious problems, then it is likely to put a severe damper on both Moon and Mars long-term development plans. At least until something like those Japanese(?) "wine glass" rotating habitats becomes realistic, or we're able to re-engineer ourselves to handle lower gravity.
Why wait for NASA? (Score:2)
Oh, and if children raised in the U.S. but by illegal immigrants aren't real Americans, then South Africans who weren't even raised there, can never be. So, when he plants his own flag and declares sovereignty, it won't be an issue. Maybe Bezos will let the U.S. be part of his country.
Re: (Score:2)
But this time America will kinda have a flag, a SpaceX one.
Not that old trope again. Who do you think is paying SpaceX, and giving them the technology to improve on?
They are a commercial rocket company, not a charity. Did Neil Armstrong plant a Grumman flag? Or did you think NASA built the lander themselves?
Re: (Score:2)
Spacex's customers, including NASA.
"and giving them the technology to improve on?"
Every scientist and engineer who ever published.
NASA are funding the Artemis missions on shitty SLS rockets, if they can afford them and the time it takes to build them.
Spacex will soon have the VASTLY better Starship, and might let NASA pay to use it sometimes, if they're nice.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA are funding the Artemis missions on shitty SLS rockets, ... might let NASA pay
You clearly have no clue of the history, and how NASA was forced.
Fortunately, unlike some of the commenters here, NASA and SpaceX are run by grown-ups who know how to work together, instead if indulging in puerile insults.
Re: (Score:1)
Until now: you stupid cunt.
Re: (Score:2)
But this time America will kinda have a flag, a SpaceX one.
Not that old trope again. Who do you think is paying SpaceX, and giving them the technology to improve on? They are a commercial rocket company, not a charity. Did Neil Armstrong plant a Grumman flag? Or did you think NASA built the lander themselves?
I think you've been trolled. But if not, consider that Musk is pulling a real Howard Hughes at this point. And his reboot of the Soviet N1 Rocket is his Spruce Goose.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've been trolled. But if not, consider that Musk is pulling a real Howard Hughes at this point.
Yeah, can't trust a Norwegian. The whole mars colony plan may be a bit crazy, but even so the Starship is shaping up as an awesome vehicle to LEO. :-)
I admire Musk's achievements, but if he stays on the same trajectory he could well be full-on Howard Hughes in ten years of so
Re: (Score:2)
I think you've been trolled. But if not, consider that Musk is pulling a real Howard Hughes at this point.
Yeah, can't trust a Norwegian. The whole mars colony plan may be a bit crazy, but even so the Starship is shaping up as an awesome vehicle to LEO.
Rather big accolades for a rocket that has not reached orbit and returned yet. 8^)
I admire Musk's achievements, but if he stays on the same trajectory he could well be full-on Howard Hughes in ten years of so :-)
He has lost the ability to consider that he might be wrong, and appears to believe if he can think it, it is done. That everything done before was wrong. And that anyone disagreeing with him is utterly wrong
And his minions just enable his lofty thoughts about his infallibility.
I wasn't too concerned about him, until I watched his big presentation about his big semi-truck. He showed an animation bragging about how the tru
Lunar base now! (Score:2)
We need to build a moon base ASAP. I've had it with Earth's gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Him and Einstein with his stupid speed limit suck.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, fuck Isaac Newton. Would it hurt to have made it a half Gmm/r2 ?
We're having a vote on it next week. Gonna settle this physics stuff the right way.
Re: (Score:2)
Please join me in my "Black Lighter Matter" campaign.
But there is no spice on the Moon or Mars, so why? (Score:2)
Oh scientifically yes, interesting but "colony" ? We are better off to send robotic vehicles, they do not need oxygen and food and do not get depressed. Sure romantically and media-wise is not so hot to send robots, but still rationally it seems wasteful - so much more to do here on this still fantastic planet.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon is a good place to experiment on, to help us to live on Mars.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Musk's mission is to give humans a presence on another planet, in case Earth has a catastrophe.
Musk's mission is to enrich himself and to sell his mission with bullshit stories to rubes. If he gave one tenth of one fuck about other humans, he wouldn't behave as he does.
Re: (Score:2)
- Musk does indeed behave strangely and supports some crazy, indefensible ideas.
- One can ( think one ) cares about humanity as a whole while mistreating some subgroup of other humans. Just look at all those hateful woke cunts.
- I do believe that a civilization on Mars is Musk's driving ambition, and all the evidence points to him still aiming for that noble goal.
Re: (Score:2)
- One can ( think one ) cares about humanity as a whole while mistreating some subgroup of other humans. Just look at all those hateful woke cunts.
Oh look, another cuckservative who won't admit that his people invented cancel culture [medium.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
- No-one sensible thinks Musk is in it for even more money.
True dat - now that he holds the record for losing money. Strategery?
- Musk does indeed behave strangely and supports some crazy, indefensible ideas.
One can ( think one ) cares about humanity as a whole while mistreating some subgroup of other humans. Just look at all those hateful woke cunts.
He's allowed those "hateful woke cunts" to live rent free in his head. He's even allowed them to steer his philosophy as a counterpoint to theirs. But they are oddly similar in mental state.
Speaking of mental state, he is showing signs of instability. And it is similar in some fashion to what happened to Howard Hughes.
And his N1 Reboot Rocket is likely to turn out to be his personal Spruce Goose.
It is conjecture on my part, but hi
Re: (Score:2)
And when Spacex's reusable Starship - the largest rocket ever - launches successfully this year, you will be back here to admit you are just sad and jealous?
Good, we'll talk again soon.
Re: (Score:2)
So the second richest man in the world is a failure? Of course he is.
I didn't say failure, I said he holds the record for the most money lost. Do you deny that? Hey - 182 billion here, 182 billion there, it might add up to serious money at some point.
And when Spacex's reusable Starship - the largest rocket ever - launches successfully this year, you will be back here to admit you are just sad and jealous? Good, we'll talk again soon.
It's going to take a lot more than one launch to impress me - Liquid rocketry is over a century old by now. We need to see it deliver on it's promises, not just a one-off event. We need launch, return, refuel on site with zero maintenance, and repeat .
After all that is how it must be done on Mars.
And I won't admit I'm sad an
Re: (Score:2)
Musk's mission is to give humans a presence on another planet, in case Earth has a catastrophe. The moon is a good place to experiment on, to help us to live on Mars.
Musk's mission is to make Twitter have Twitter turn a profit.
I fear the dream of Musk and his minions is fading fast, but if you are a true believer, carry on.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe in his main goal, Mars colonization.
Re: (Score:2)
I would say an outpost would be a better characterization than colony. We're not looking to have people live there permanently, but we need boots on the ground to do research quickly, not just on the history of the moon, but how to live in space and industrialize space resources. We've reached the point of diminishing returns with robots, and they've told us enough for us to be confident we can build an outpost. Robots have their place, but a team of scientists on the moon would get more done in a week t
Moon habitation should have started 40 years ago (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Walk before you can run. Going to Mars is out of the question, By going to the moon and developing sustainable living habits there - trial & error, then can the human race make the leap outwards. All this should have been started years ago - planning ahead as we're destroying our planet. Old enough to have watched the Gemini and Apollo programs. In elementary school in Florida, when a rocket went up, we went outside to see the smoke trail as it went up. I watched the moon walks, who can say that ? We should have started building stuff on the moon then and to think how much further along we would be now !!!
I am probably older than you. I was 12 years old ("the golden age of science fiction") when I watched the launch of Explorer 1 on television. I have been a fan of space exploration ever since. To someone my age, watching the first stage of the Falcon 9 land on its tail is even more impressive than the launch. When my son worked at the Redstone Arsenal he gave me a tour of the place where Werhner Von Braun had designed those wonderfull rockets. If you get a chance, visit the U.S. Space & Rocket Cent
a decade at a time (Score:2)
What about asteroids? (Score:2)
If we can figure out how to be semi-self-sufficient in one of those, there's our long term backup plan for humanity. We've just got to reduce the need for external inputs down to stuff we can mine off other asteroids. At that p