Motors Blog

I think there is a number of very good reasons for setting up colonies on the moon. First and foremost, all our eggs are currently in one basket. This is a ticking time bomb.

I would send teleoperated robots to use as workers there until enough infrastructure was in place to send humans safely for long period stays (if not permanent residence).

There is quite a lot that can be built using formed solar-melted regolith. Between general propose robots and a couple different type of 3d Printers very little would need to be resupplied from earth to get most of a lunar colony up and running.

And of couse getting a rail launch system installed on the lunar surface would facilitate getting lunar manufactured products to nearly anyplace in the solar system quite easy and affordably.

I like the idea of dropping off robots, some specialized tools and a whole bundle of solar equipment to see what can be done. Humans are a pretty high-maintenance bunch that tend to complain if they don't get enough sleep and things to eat...a bunch of robots are much easier to please.

I imaging a bunch of little "Wall-e" type machines scooping dust and depositing it in the right places...an industrial laser then fusing the right bits together in a "laser stereolithography" ("3D printer" as ZenZeddmore put it) type arranement. Once solid structures are prepared membrane balloons can be inflated inside them to provide a protected environment more compatible with us.

Although going to the moon would be an interesting exersize I think the learning curve of such an operation could be tested in deserts here on earth FIRST.

I like Buzz Aldrin's idea- let others do the moon trip, while we focus on the Mars trip. While there will always be something new to learn from any venture (even if it is only the fact that one should not have ventured!), there is an emotional issue about "returning" to the moon that most people don't want to address. Are we returning to the moon just to prove we haven't lost what our fathers had? Is it not emotionally more rewarding to expand on past accomplishments, rather than merely repeating them?

If homo sapiens survives, the moon and Mars will both ultimately be colonized, and it will most likely require a global effort to achieve this, rather than nationalistic bravado.

going to Mars....

The real question is "Should We Go to Mars?" (The question was asked to Americans, but I am speaking as a human being)

We need to spend same money in setting right the things on our only planet Earth. We are distroying it very great pace and looking towards Moon and Mars and our new home.

I disagree with the premise that we are spending the same money. We made the trip and then stopped. We should have continued to the next reasonable target using the moon to our advantage by setting up one or more bases, exploring, looking for possible resources such as water. Launching a ship to Mars from the moon would be much easier and the moon would have been an outstanding companion to the International Space Station (ISS). We basically stood still and now we are backing up even more with the shuttle retirement and basically moving back to an Apollo type system. There is so much we should have and could have done to advance our scientific and space research capacity. We should go to the moon and then continue our exploration from there.

"NASA says it plans a return trip to the moon in the next 10 years ..."

NASA should recover the historic video from the first trip (and about a hundred thousand other 'lost' documents from the Apollo program) before bungling another one. NASA claimed to have recovered the lost video but later recanted. Why am I not surprised?

As to the question of whether a return trip to the Moon is 'worth it,' (however that 'worth' is gauged, and by whom), let some other nation foot the bill. Return to the Moon? Sure, as long as NASA isn't involved. As it now stands, I wouldn't trust NASA to walk my dog, let alone return to the Moon. Insofar as their going to Mars? They must be kidding.

There are those of us who think that no human has been to the moon- that the supposed landing was faked- suppose they had been there- why then would it take so much time, effort & money to go back?-if I have succeded in something taking planning, effort, time I will have noted down details- so in future I could inspect notes & repeat- easily- previous venture.

Back to the moon to test everything for the Mars mission......the Moon has already been proved to be our "in our backyard", Mars is not as yet!!!!

Let's think about it in laymens' terms....

The Moon should be set up like "Grand Central Station" in NYC. It should be stocked with everything needed to prepare for a trip to Mars or beyond. Gravity is 1/6 of Earth, not much to overcome when blasting off with tons of material and supplies, etc.

It gives the human body time to acclimate to weightlessness, etc. It allows a blastoff without worry of collision with the space junk in orbit around the Earth. It's a no brainer. We should have been spending our money on the Moon. Our "genius" super college graduates should have been creating new technologies instead of scamming the public on Wall Street.

Enough said, I'm a disgruntled American Citizen that expected to be living on the Moon by now and will most likely never see that day in my lifetime!

It allows a blastoff without worry of collision with the space junk in orbit around the Earth.

LOL.

By the time this fool human colonizes moon, will surely make the sky of moon crowded with the satellites. Space junk problem will remain.

not much to overcome when blasting off with tons of material and supplies, etc.

Till today, whatever we wish to carry to mars, has to be taken from earth. No manufacturing stations are yet established (and can not be in near future). So we will be overcoming earth's gravity first and then again moon's gravity.

It gives the human body time to acclimate to weightlessness,

This acclamatization is automatically achieved while travelling from Earth to Moon. In fact weightlessness is there in this travel, and not on the moon.

It is hoped by some that a moon base could be used as a staging or practice area for a Mars mission. This only makes sense to me if we can use ballistically launched components to the moon, to be assembled there by robotics, and then on to Mars. Virtually all extended life support systems and supplies could be staged there, (or in earth orbit for that matter), allowing a much larger habitat for the journey and as an orbiting base, complete with 2 shuttles (redundancy) for landing on the planet.

I can't see us getting much in the way of usable materials from the ball of space dust that is our moon. so why bother with it? The machinery needed to mine and manufacture would be useless on Mars, or even so would need to be relaunched, expending yet more fuel and attendant systems.

As for a practice platform, our deserts have a closer gravity to Mars than Mars does to the moon. The moon also lacks the wind loading and particulate abrasion that will be found on Mars. Not to mention that pressurized spacesuits needed on the moon could be reduced to a high tech survival suit on Mars.

So let's do our Mars staging on the Gobi desert. Leave the moon to whoever wants it. I'm sure some practical use for a moon base will be found, but not on the way to Mars.

The easiest way to scupper anything is to constrain it on the basis of first cost.

If these costly exercises would have been alternately viewed towards improvement of the very planet earth ,I think we may expect more terrestrial visitors to earth than, making costly expeditions to moon and other planets by humans from earth. Even at this critical junctures, with so many problems haunting earth, is there any meaning about these expeditions. Curiosity at what cost? International competitions for which sensible pursuit? We may have to reconsider our missions for beneficial purposes and evade curious mis expeditions.

agreed.. also, such projects give hope to people. Most people's spines still tingle if they listen to JFK's speech on the announcement of the the entire program...

Chris

Not just my spine. I still often get tears in my eyes.

The thing i fear most about a "direct to mars" mission is a rehash of the Apollo failure to follow up. I'd expect the public to say ok we did that. So what? And the funding would dry and that would be that. But imagine if you could bid for timeshare on lunar robots which you could use for what ever purpose you want? How much money would that bring in? Have the chance to make artwork on the moon? Host a lunar party with robot proxies as avatars? These things can't be done on Mars given the time lag.

I agree... would be a shame to have it go, and then fizzle.

I would rather build infrastructure on the moon. At least that would give some place to go when the food runs out on earth. hopefully we could have started a reasonable colony there.

KKJENSEN

Whether NASA or European union based research organizations- the subject is about the worthiness of space missions, pertaining to curiosity explorations into moon and other planets. Research pertaining to energy, resources, waste etc needs an effective focus and I don't thing any space research/ nuclear scientific research organizations had so far brought any concrete solutions worthy of saving planet earth. Any research outcome is meant for commercial exploitation that the users got to pay for services. So to say ,everything involves a cost and even NASA can not function without funds. Private research even though is business oriented, remember it results in quality and service improvements against an existing entity and doubtlessly delivers results, unlike many of the public funded researches. As per your justification even NASA can contribute to its focus on planet earth's resources renewal and alternates available on earth.

ONE IMPORTANT STATEMENT- THERE IS PLENTY OF UNTAPPED AVENUES AND RESOURCES ON EARTH ITSELF, EARTH IS THE UNIQUE PLANET WITH ALL LIFE SUPPORTING ELEMENTS. LET US NOT BE FANTASIED ABOUT THE UNKNOWN ANGELS IN OTHER PLANETS.

My argument wasn't that the arrival at some other celestial body would add something, nor am I suggesting in that post that we bail on earth and hide somewhere 'just in case'.

Serious research needs a serious justification before anyone will put money on the table...public or private. While the environmental concerns of late have freed up significant money for research on that topic, my personal opinion is not that we need to repair the planet but just stop abusing it and things will settle down on their own. Too much of the environmental money seems to be flowing towards proving our fate or survival based on the status-quo...I'm interested in improving things in the obvious, make-everyone-happy kind of ways. Give governments their taxes, consumers their toys and companies their profits...is there no way to trim some of the garbage from our lifestyles and still fit into this frame?

Just one example on the value of public research: all structural design of buildings, aircraft, bridges, cars, etc that touch on finite element analysis was possible because of the research done by NASA. Would it have happened without NASA? Maybe, as a company saw the need and paid for it...but the technology would be patented and it's accessibility would be very limited. While FEA programs nowadays are still commercial the base code and theory is public domain and for a small fee you can get the original nasa code and turn it into whatever kind of program you want. The information produced at the time has been the basis behind the structural substantiation of just about every aircraft flying today since so many of the textbooks and reference materials have roots in nasa's research.

There is a lot of room for public/private joint ventures. I'm quite impressed with the gigapan project. While entertaining and not accomplishing anything towards fixing the real problems the world faces it DOES show they (big public and private organizations) can cooperate. Now if someone could convince an alliance of like-minded organizations with the resources and knowledge to fix our dependancy on wasteful living (both our consumption and need to constantly produce) then I'm on board...moon and mars be damned!

KKJENSON

your reply comment was impressive. NASA with its immense scientific and innovation potential, with a total focus well within the earth's orbit like aviation, environmental sustainable alternates can impart unmatched benefits to the globe. If speculations on assumed opportunities in extra terrestrials happened to mislead it's mission, then comes the real question of justification for true viable outcomes. Environmental alternates needs total serious focus from all spheres like federal organizations, private or even individuals with clarity of focus and it is high time to gear up.

Regards

Good Answer.

Dragon

If the moon were made of gold, it would not be economically profitable to go there and bring it back.However, the moon has something much more valuable than gold.It has lots of Helium 3. H3 is very rare on earth, most of it is destroyed in our atmosphere.It is given off in large quantities by the sun.The moon has no atmosphere to destroy it, and the lunar samples contained high amounts of it. It has been accumulating for billions of years in the rocks and soils on the moon.

Why helium3 you may ask? The answer is FUSION.Hydrogen is very low yield, and wastes a lot of energy in proton emissions,which shortens the life of the containing vessels as well.H3 on the other hand, is very high yield, and produces less wasteful emissions.It is worth thousands of times the price of gold.The fusion research now being done on hydrogen will apply directly to H3, but with an over unity output.

The next "Gold Rush" will be to the moon.

Many countries are now interested in going to the moon.Why? MONEY

Do we need to go back? Certainly.Will we be the first to harvest H3 from the moon?

Only if we get private industry interested.$$$$$$--------------------------------------------------------------------------

EZStreet

There will be no exploration or research of any kind in space for the foreseeable future. Mr. Obama is quit busy shutting down NASA and any military research or procurement. The only chance of any advances will be from private commercial exploration based upon god old fashioned capitalist profit unless he manages to tax them out of existence.

Or until he gets voted out of office.

Regards Dragon

Dear Guest, Please read comment #19.

Regards Dragon

Ya! thats what I meant to say! GA.

Chris

1) Although I agree that high efficiency solar cells may be utilized on the moon, once they are trucked there, that's where they need to be used. The idea of beaming the microwave energy back to earth has some of us a bit uneasy. The suggestion that ³He is available for use as a fuel has some merit, but the quantities required far exceed (actually more like tonnage) what is easily available on the moon, the immense size and cost of the plants, and the year 2050 as a start-up date makes its use more like an over-unity exercise than a viable avenue for power generation. (My opinion only).

2) The Moon as habitat is unsustainable without earth assistance. The Sahara is utopia compared to it, and with less raw materials available. The 'what ifs' of disaster scenarios are not enough to make me want to hide out on the moon waiting for something to happen, in an instantly deadly environment. Regolith is used for protection by ground hogs and Barsoomians alike.

3) The efficiency and efficacy of further forays will depend largely on cost/benefit ratios, of which calculus could be deemed significant only in the ability to cook the books, to the benefit of some grant program. I agree that the moon would make a good ballistic launch platform, but to what purpose other than short range (moon back to earth) projectiles. That given that anything relaunched from the moon originated on earth, adding to the expense. Once free of earths gravity, why brake for anything?

4) ".... we will have turned our backs on the still untrodden heights ...." Good quote! And most serious Sci-Fi writers (and believe me, they are serious) have regarded the moon colony as a nothing more than a pest hole for convicts, asteroid miners, and a few scientists. A warren of cramped warehoused humans living on canned air and bad rations, where a trip 'topside' would cost a weeks wages for the chance to hit a few golf balls. Then read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Mars Trilogy' and try to convince me we need a moon base on the way to Mars.

I agree completely with your closing statement, with the exception that we need to return to the moon. Other societies need their fresh perspective added to space exploration, and their day in the sun. Let them have it, with our support and blessing.

that one too! GA.

When I said we I meant humanity, not just Americans

Dragon

Well put.

Dragonstarm

On going through your post, I would like to post the following comments.

* Energy- Nuclear energy is still under debate and are you sure the HE3 is available in moon to be direct purest form? The greedy human consumption Will one day exhaust moon also and start crying for new supplies. Nuclear energy is not a promised and established solution.

*Safety- Asteroid can dash against a new human colony in space/ moon/ mars also, why earth alone?

*Efficiency- Solar seems to be a scopeful energy solution but not an established totally reliable energy solution.

*Fiction writer's story can be interesting for movie making and novel reading, but not to real life.

WE ARE STILL RELY ON PLANET EARTH'S RESOURCES AND LET US NOT ASSUME THAT ALL OPPORTUNITIES AND OPTIONS TO OUR NEEDS ARE LOST ON EARTH.

Greener, cleaner, healthy earth is very well meet able and let us orient our focus and visions on earth. Once every thing is solved, expeditions to Moon and mars is worth enjoying.

*

Brilliant!

Dragon

As to the availability of HE3 on the Lunar surface, it will not be necessary to continually mine the Moon. The Sun produces a million of tons of it per day and ejects it on the solar wind. The Moon simply has a source that is accessible and it would be useful for a resupply base for the actual collectors. (L.E.A.'s) They will need to be outside the Earth's magnetosphere, and the Moon seems an ideal place to build a resupply station. Frankly I do not care which country or consortium builds this, only that it gets built.

Regards Dragon

Before replying, we should know what NASA found on the moon the last time they were there. The secrecy involved in what was found prevents making any decision to support or not support difficult to make. They, NASA, are allowed to do this in their initial justification for their existance, can withhold in the name of National security. Clues as to what was found may be found in a book called " The dark side of NASA"

I've read some very good arguments for going back to the moon and beyond but a thorough hazard analysis looks at all sides and all what ifs so.

1. In nature we tend to screw up every thing we touch.
2. We need the moon.

WOW, over two weeks and no kick in the teeth for that one, guess I hit home.........................

Simply put, you are right, so nobody here has anything to beef about. Simple!

("Simples" for those watching UK TV Ads recently!!)