ESA Holds Workshop On Lunar Base Design

plasticpixel writes "Space.com is reporting that a workshop is underway in Noordwijk, The Netherlands, to discuss and plan extraterrestrial bases for human settlement of the Moon. Full story is online. Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project. Too bad I didn't have the backing of NASA or the ESA back then. "

Comments

This could be good

[sheepab]

Then they could build that power station on the other side of the moon that I read about. Maybe it was on slashdot, not sure. But it was supposed to be able to collect more than enough power to supply the entire planets demand. Energy would be collect on the other side of the moon, and beamed back to earth via satellites. Of coarse, this will never happen because of the greedy oil companies.

Re:This could be good

[vjmurphy]

Yes, but when that power station explodes, and you and I are stuck on the moon with Barbara Bain and Martin Landau, I'm coming after you.

Re:This could be good

[00_NOP]

Err, no. This will never happen because when some engineer on the Moon knocks the antenna out of alignment, the beam will frag New York or cause the Atlantic to boil.

Re:This could be good

[sheepab]

The beams dont harm plant/animal life, it was in the article.

Re:This could be good

[EvanED]

There's worry about "energy pollution" with this plan. i.e., we're sending Earth more energy than it would normally recieve, hence it heats up. Now, I don't know how much of this is a valid concern or not. It would at least be somewhat offset by the reduced amount of coal/oil that's burned...

Re:This could be good

[SyFryer]

Maybe they might find the bridges and stuff Patrick Moore claimed to have seen several years ago. Looking at him now, could have been hundreds i suppose :)

Anyone else remember that meme?

Google came up with www.lunartics.co.uk, i think he probably had too much sherry and put his monocole on the wrong peeper myself.

Re:This could be good

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they could build that power station on the other side of the moon that I read about.

You mean the side that's always facing the sun? *ahem*

Re:This could be good

[Abcd1234]

But... but... Simcity said this would happen!!!

Re:This could be good

[drpentode]

That's what they said about cell phones until someone discovered they had cancer. I'll bet the power station workers will be walking around with thumbs sticking out of their foreheads or something.

Re:This could be good

[Android robot head]

You could simply beam the heat back to the moon. Then everyone's happy.

All your base are belong to us!

[billstewart]

look, somebody had to say it :-) And I've already modded myself down...

Re:All your base are belong to us!

[BlowCat]

In A.D. 2002
War was beginning.
Captain: What happen ?
Sysadmin: Somebody set up us the link
Operator: We get http request
Captain: What !
Operator: Main screen turn on
Captain: It's You !!
CmdrTaco: How are you gentlemen !!
CmdrTaco: All your base are belong to us
CmdrTaco: You are on the way to slashdotting
Captain: What you say !!
CmdrTaco: You have no chance to survive make your time
CmdrTaco: HA HA HA HA ....
Captain: Take off every 'zig'
Captain: You know what you doing
Captain: Move 'zig'
Captain: For great justice

Moonraker

[bravehamster]

My lunar base design calls for gratuitous amounts of scantily-clad nordic women and lasers. Lots of lasers.

Seriously though, this is a great idea. I always remember the poster my teach put up in his Cosmology classroom. It was a 50's era "Moon Base of the Future!" type poster. Occasionally he would look over at it, and sigh softly to himself. Screw Watergate, the worst thing Nixon ever did was cut back the space program.

Re:Moonraker

[EverDense]

So that is what is on those tapes.

The Terrible Secret of Space?

Re:Moonraker

[sharkey]

No sharks with lasers?

Re:Moonraker

[sean23007]

Screw Watergate, the worst thing Nixon ever did was cut back the space program.

Remember that while the current administration cuts taxes. The only place the money is coming from is -- that's right -- NASA. And I don't think it's going to be the worst thing he does (unfortunately).

Re:Moonraker

[neocon]

Which is well and good, but while you're arguing about how NASA should be funded, most of the really interesting work is being done in the private sector by people like Bob Zubrin.

Nor is it very convincing to argue that if NASA is not funded, this must be because of tax cuts. See, there are two problems with this argument: first off, there is so much wasteful spending going on that to look at the federal budget and see raising taxes as the only way to balance the budget is absurd. How 'bout we look at that farm subsidy? Or programs such as the federally funded tattoo removal program in San Diego or the office of the federal tea taster in Connecticut?

Secondly, raising taxes in no way ensures higher government revenues. As Arthur Laffer demonstrated during the Kennedy administration (leading to JFK's tax cuts, which were very similar to those of the Reagan and Bush administrations), the best way to raise tax revenues is often cutting tax rates, especially for taxes which discourage investment. This works because cutting tax rates in ways that encourage investment encourages economic growth, resulting in a larger tax base.

Re:Moonraker

[sean23007]

Okay, you obviously don't like taxes, and you make a good point that a lot of tax dollars are spent poorly. But, while it makes sense for that argument to be made during the administration of someone who refuses to cut taxes, in order to convince him to cut the spending on these ridiculous items and insodoing lower the amount of tax dollars that are needed, the current president has cut a lot more taxes than he has cut spending. As is demonstrated by all of the foolish things you mentioned.

As a matter of fact, I like Zubrin, and I wish him all the luck in the world, but that doesn't change the fact that he just doesn't have that much money. When it comes to being able to fund a mission to another planet, you simply need the government in there. A few years ago Zubrin published a book, The Case for Mars, in which he proposed that the government open up the space race to the public, and offer a $20 billion reward for the first team to put a human on Mars and bring him/her back alive and safe. He proposed this because such a mission would cost more than $20 billion, but would cost less for a corporation to do it than for the government. It would thus guarantee that the government does not go overbudget, as it normally would. But tell me this: would we have gone to the moon if Kennedy had just offered a reward? In order to get something big, like space travel, done, the president has to grab the nation by the balls and tell them what's going on. The private sector can do fine, and they can make an assload of money eventually, the government can just get more done. If it is unproven that money can be made in space, the government is the only entity that can afford to go in. And once the government has pioneered the way, then the private sector can come swarming in, and thus comes economic growth. Hundreds of corporations were started by the government, with government capital and government technology, but with as much autonomy from the government as any other corporation. Cisco is one particularly good example of this.

You say that cutting taxes always encourages economic growth, but only in one sphere. What it really does is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. When the taxes are lower, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It seems like economic growth at first, as the wealthy suddenly produce more products and the middle and lower classes purchase them, but as time goes on, the wealthy producers of products find that there is less and less return on their investments; this is because the mass public has less money to spend on products. With this shrunken consumer base, there is less monetary incentive to continue selling products, and thus you run into massive shrinkage of the economy, resulting in a much smaller tax base. At some point after the taxes are lowered, people begin to recognize this, and the economy goes south. But that is only part of Wall Street's paranoia: if it's doing too well for too long, it will drop. There is no getting around it. Similarly, if it is doing too poorly for too long, it will improve. It happened to Reagan, it happened to Clinton, and it will happen to every 8 year president who is at least a little bit good at economic issues. Unless you lock Americans into some kind of "Cold War-esque" mindset, the economy can't stay up forever. Bush's people realized this, and thus were born the weekly terror alerts. No one can be sure if there really is a threat, but everyone is sure that they have to be really careful and that they can't question the government.

And to get back to your first paragraph, both NASA and the Mars Society are doing interesting things. However, they are playing in different playgrounds. Zubrin's in Canada playing around with a habitat that he wants developed for a Mars mission, and NASA's in orbit taking pictures of distant stars or they're flying to Mars to see what it's actually like. I don't see exactly how playing with toys in Canada is any more exciting than flying low over the surface of Mars and taking high resolution photographs, or sending down a lander to map out the terrain at ground level. Contrary to popular belief, the government can do interesting things, despite the fact that you paid for it. In fact, why don't people take more interest in what the government does? After all, they helped pay for it. For the last seven decades it has been demonstrated that the government can spend money better than the individual. Would we have landed on the moon if it was up to the individual to get us there? Or the states?

Re:Moonraker

[MrDolby]

Go Jude Wanniski Go. Supply side economics will come back eventually.

Re:Moonraker

[MrDolby]

Please for the love of god read
"Human Action" By Lugwig Von Mises.

Look it up on Amazon.

Re:Moonraker

[sean23007]

Indeed, his trade cycle theory seems to be exactly what I was getting at. Following every period of economic boom there follows a depression. This is not a fault of capitalism, it is a truth. People grow uneasy with the booming economy, and fear that it will collapse, and with the resulting cessation of investment, the booming economy collapses. Now, you might try and say that that means that taxes should be slashed and budgets cut and the market allowed to stabilize themselves, but that simply doesn't work. The solution, of course, is not pure socialism, rather the poor should be aided by the government such that they may survive. It is better to receive handouts than to take what is needed by force or cunning, is it not? As the poor get poorer, crime will increase. On the other side of the hand, is it not better for the wealthy product producers to have a massive base of people to whom they can sell their products, rather than attempt to sell to each other? If they cannot sell to the poor masses, why would they continue producing?

It is true that humans will do whatever is necessary to survive, even in times of economic despair, but that doesn't usually mean working harder at your job or working 18 hours a day (although it did mean that a century ago), it means resorting to crime (which it also meant a century ago). When someone can't afford to pay for food, they will still acquire enough food for survival. Thus, they steal. This definitely does not help those who are selling. If, however, everyone could afford to pay for food, everyone would purchase it and that would be very good for those selling.

As you can see, it is in the interest of the upper class to have as small a lower class as possible.

Re:Moonraker

[Dyolf Knip]

would we have gone to the moon if Kennedy had just offered a reward?

We went to the moon all right. Then we turned around and went home. Haven't been back for 30 years. Score one for government-run space programs!

the government can just get more done

Can, perhaps. Usually not, though.

If it is unproven that money can be made in space, the government is the only entity that can afford to go in

Sort of. Private entities have already shown it's possible to make money in space. DirecTV does turn a profit, after all. The catch is that not even the richest corporation in the world can afford to do more than establish some unmanned communications satellites due to ridiculously high launch costs. Fixing that would require serious R&D with dubious guarantees on a return, so _that_ is the part the government should have handled. Since NASA's launch costs have actually increased since the Apollo days, it's safe to say that they have failed in this regard.

I don't see exactly how playing with toys in Canada is any more exciting than flying low over the surface of Mars and taking high resolution photographs, or sending down a lander to map out the terrain at ground level.

Because those are NASA programs. And NASA has a long and treasured history of going nowhere with great fanfare. They've had 40 years to open space up to the public and what do we have? An aging shuttle fleet (which NASA has publicly said will be used for at least another 20 years) that is worse than what it replaced and a useless space station. Sure, the Mars probes are interesting; so are the Voyagers and all the others. But what good is it to know there's water on the moon or Mars if nobody goes there to use it? There's enough platinum in any given asteroid to build a dozen fuel cells for every man woman and child on the planet; why aren't we mining them? NASA has no interest in those kinds of things and is specifically interested in _not_ making it possible for others to do them. Most anything run by NASA will be fascinating, wonderous, overbudget, and useless for any practical purpose.

For the last seven decades it has been demonstrated that the government can spend money better than the individual

I would just love to see you prove that statement.

Would we have landed on the moon if it was up to the individual to get us there?

As far as I can tell, we might as well not have landed on the moon. All we have to show for it are some rocks.

There is simply too much wealth and opportunity in space for it all to be in the hands of some government bureaucracy.

Re:Moonraker

[thales]

"When the taxes are lower, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer."

That's because the Rich keep doing the things that made them rich, while the poor continue doing the things that made them poor.

Re:Moonraker

[sgage]

"But what good is it to know there's water on the moon or Mars if nobody goes there to use it?"

Someday someone _will_ go there and use it. But before you make your travel plans to Mars, it's a good idea to learn as much as you can about it.

Everybody is in such a hurry! Humans WILL go to Mars - I see it as practically inevitable. But you're in for a disappointment if you think it's going to happen on, say, Zubrin's timescale. I've said it before whenever this sort of topic has come up... SPACE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY FOR LIVING THINGS. It is difficult financially, politically, energetically, engineering-wise, organizationally, biologically, psychologically, you name it.

Just because we all grew up reading science fiction that describes all sorts of space-faring wonders does not make it easy. Sometimes it seems that y'all think that because Heinlein wrote cheery space-operas, NASA must really willfully suck for holding out on us. Folks, Heinlein et al. wrote great science fiction, but it is fiction!

You write about mining platinum on asteroids so we can have cheap, plentiful fuel cells on Earth. Do you have any clue as to the magnitude of that undertaking? Getting there, extracting/refining the platinum, getting it back to Earth... Do you seriously believe that the bottom line - financially and/or energetically would be positive? If you do, I've got an asteroid to sell you...

The Space Station, for all its problems, will provide several important increments of engineering, organization, and biological/psychological knowledge. I know, it's very hip to put down the ISS, and there surely are some fuckups associated with it. But it's a necessary step. Space exploration is just as much about learning how to administer huge complex systems involving thousands of people and suppliers as it is about rockets blasting spaceward-ho!

Sure, you could probably cobble together a quick and dirty manned mission to Mars within 10 years or so as Zubrin says, but it would be just like the Apollo program everybody whines about - a dead end. Probably end up with some dead space pioneers, too.

I mean, I understand why you'd like to hurry it up: I personally would get a huge thrill out of seeing the first video from folks on Mars. I doubt if I'll see it in my lifetime (I'm 47), but I'd like to. But not if it means cutting corners and rushing. Let's think it through, do it right...

- Steve

Re:Moonraker

[neocon]

I think other responses have spoken well to the space parts of your post, especially in pointing out that NASA actually hasn't accomplished all that much compared to the money pouring into it. I would add that NASA has also served to reduce the opportunities for other entities to make money in space, so there is, in fact, a negative to government-subsidised space exploration which must be considered. I'd like to speak to your third paragraph, though, as here I think you're way off base.

You say that cutting taxes always encourages economic growth, but only in one sphere. What it really does is widen the gap between the rich and the poor. When the taxes are lower, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

The problem with this claim is that the poor have almost never gotten poorer in any absolute sense, so you can only maintain this claim by relying on comparisons between the rich and the poor, instead of looking at the fact that a growth economy improves standards of living at all levels of society. To give a clear example of this, the bottom 20% of American society in 1990 had, earned, and consumed as much (adjusted for inflation) as the middle 20% had done in 1950. In other words, the poor did not, in fact, `grow poorer' at all, they experienced an improvement in condition unlike that produced by any other economic system in the history of the world.

Nor are `the rich' a monolithic entity. Talk about the improvements in the standard of living at the top levels of society is meaningless if we do not also consider the fact that membership in those top levels is constantly changing. Indeed, asked by a 2000 Gallup Poll whether they believed a poor person in America could become rich by working hard, 84% of Americans answered `yes'. 84%.

At some point after the taxes are lowered, people begin to recognize this, and the economy goes south. But that is only part of Wall Street's paranoia: if it's doing too well for too long, it will drop. There is no getting around it. Similarly, if it is doing too poorly for too long, it will improve. It happened to Reagan, it happened to Clinton, and it will happen to every 8 year president who is at least a little bit good at economic issues.

But you speak as if these changes in the economy happened in a vacuum. They did not. Reagan (like Kennedy before him) cut taxes, focusing on taxes which punish investment. This resulted (as it had for Kennedy) in unprecedented economic growth. Clinton (and Bush Senior) raised taxes, and each kicked off an economic tailspin. In the time since Bush's tax cut, unemployment has dropped, and the economy has begun to slowly grow again. To speak of these economic changes as `cyclical' or `inevitable' ignores the fact that they followed specific government actions.

By the way, for Kennedy's view on tax cuts, check out his speech to the Economic Club of New York of December 14, 1962.

Bush's people realized this, and thus were born the weekly terror alerts. No one can be sure if there really is a threat, but everyone is sure that they have to be really careful and that they can't question the government.

And I think this is just paranoia. Given the rate at which existing al-Qaeda infrastructure is still being uncovered, and the fact of several attacks on US interests being averted very recently (including firing on US planes over Saudi Arabia and attacks on US shipping by agents based in Morocco), can anyone really say with a straight face that we don't have reason to be on alert?

Re:Moonraker

[Dyolf Knip]

I see it as practically inevitable

But nobody is doing it. NASA 'has plans', but that means exactly dick. If nobody does it, it won't happen.

SPACE IS EXTREMELY DIFFICULT, ESPECIALLY FOR LIVING THINGS

Not really. The difficult part is surviving when you have precisely zero margin for error and your equipment consists of the absolute minimum needed to keep you alive. These are all problems associated with high launch costs and having no industry up there. Problems with radiation? Tack on some armor. Lunar regolith would work if it's piled on thick enough, and it's plentiful and easy to get at. Problems with life support? Put in backup systems; keep chunks of comet ice around as backup. Problems with chemical fuels? Well duh, of course you will if you have to spend 99% of it getting out of Earth's gravity well. Problems with zero-G? Spinning exercise rooms or some such. Of course, at $10k a pound you can't do any of this if you fly NASA.

You write about mining platinum on asteroids so we can have cheap, plentiful fuel cells on Earth.

Sure. It's a resource common as dirt in space but rare as diamonds down here with a huge demand just waiting for a supply. And it's by no means the only example.

Getting there, extracting/refining the platinum, getting it back to Earth... Do you seriously believe that the bottom line - financially and/or energetically would be positive? If you do, I've got an asteroid to sell you...

You say it's inevitable, then say it's not even remotely possible? Once you're there, it's cheap and could be made mostly self-sufficient. The expense is in getting the equipment out of the gravity well in the first place. Dropping stuff down from orbit is a hell of a lot cheaper than getting it up.

Space exploration is just as much about learning how to administer huge complex systems involving thousands of people and suppliers as it is about rockets blasting spaceward-ho!

Are you sugesting that nobody has ever had to do things like organize thousands of people in complex systems before?

Look, I don't really care about the ISS. It's a toy. As far as I'm aware NASA has no plans whatsoever for permanent space stations past it. My problem is with NASA in general. The government-run agency is simply never going to do much. Period. They've arguably gone backwards in the past 30 years, so I don't see why you're so hopeful about their future.

Sure, you could probably cobble together a quick and dirty manned mission to Mars within 10 years or so

And NASA has a long and glorious history of following up on its explorations?

I don't really care about a mission to Mars, either. It would be amazing, sure, but it wouldn't matter one bit if all that happens from it is that the explorers come home with rocks. This is exactly what happened before with Apollo and NASA has made zero progress in what really matters: letting other people do stuff in space.

We do not need NASA to be our explorers in space. All we need, all we _ever_ needed from them was to get the door open for the rest of us. We have millions of people who would love nothing more than to try to build a financial empire in space. Whereas NASA thumbs its nose at would-be tourists trying to give them millions. They've spent 40 years working entirely in the wrong direction.

Re:Moonraker

[sean23007]

Yes, the poor keep buying from the rich, but once the poor are no longer fiscally capable of doing so, why would the rich continue producing? Once the rich destroy the poor, they stop doing what made them rich.

Re:Moonraker

[neocon]

The main problem with this claim is that in fact, the poor have gotten richer in an absolute sense in almost every decade that the US has existed. In other words, it is simply false that `the rich get richer and the poor get poorer'. In point of fact, the rich get richer and the poor get richer. That's what's so great about our system.

The moon is a dead end

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read Robert Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars', you will understand why the moon is a dead end. We need to go to Mars. Mars has everything including water to sustain human settlement at some stage. Already, the resurces are their to make fuel for the return trip. The moon is a dusty dead end.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[shrikel]

Well, I agree that Mars will be a much better destination, but I also think it's a good idea to test our principles and ideas on the moon, and make sure we can make it all work. If we can survive on the Luna, we can survive on Mars. It's like a beta version.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Skyshadow]

Yeah, the discovery of massive amounts of water was huge. Given that, I'd say the first step in establishing a successful moon base would be to move it to Mars.

Think about it: The moon is our solar system's version of a wasteland -- all it needs is a sign saying "Why live here?".

Mars, on the other hand, has all the resources you could want. With electricity and some basic engineering, farming and construction skills, you could live happily on Mars pretty much independent of Earth. Well, you might have to import some nitrogen...

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Olinator]

Yeah, but the reaction mass required to escape the moon's grav pull is a lot lower than that required to achieve escape velocity from Down Here; there's a case to be made that a mission to Mars should start use the moon as a staging area. Picture this: a mars mission module is built in pieces down here, shipped to a moonbase in successive trips along with fuel, and assembled/tested/launched on the moon.

Heck, if there are enough raw materials on the moon, maybe just build the structure there, and manufacture only the stuff that needs complicated fabs down here.

Ole

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read Robert Zubrin's 'The Case for Mars', you will understand why the moon is a dead end. We need to go to Mars.

Not that we shouldn't be planning to go to Mars, but I can think of three reasons to go to the moon.

1. Practice. If we can establish a even a small lunar base, then Mars should be a piece of cake (relatively speaking). And don't forget, after Mars we're going to the asteroids, the outer planets, and their moons. And they don't as hospitable an environment as Mars.

2. It's nearby. "Only" three days by space ship. Work out all the bugs in the base's design and construction within "easy" commuting distance (again relatively speaking).

3. The moon makes a convenient staging base for a Mars and other deep space missions. Plenty of raw material, a convenient gravity field (easier to assemble things than in weightlessness), but not so large a gravity field that it's very difficult to break free of.

I'd hate to see us go to Mars in one shot and come back and take another 40 or 50 years to go back.

That's my biggest gripe about the Apollo project. After the last Apollo lunar landing, we had absolutely no infrastructure left in space. No space stations, no lunar base, nothing, zip, zero. Just a pile of rockets.

The most amazing technological achievement of the twentieth century and ultimately it was nothing more than a publicity stunt. *sigh*

Re:The moon is a dead end

[carlos_benj]

The moon is our solar system's version of a wasteland...

Kind of like Phoenix used to be? Can't seem to keep people from moving here faster than the infrastructure can grow now.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[wronkiew]

Yes, but the Moon, unlike Mars, is capable of turning a profit right now. All the arguments against space exploration on the grounds that it is too expensive only apply to space-based research. Those arguments carry a lot of weight when you consider the incredible cost of projects like the ISS and flags-and-footprints on the Moon and Mars. Commercial exploitation of near-earth asteroids and the Moon is within our reach technologically, and it comes at essentially no cost to us. Of course, like most business ventures, it requires a little initial investment. The students in the lunar base project will be successful if they produce designs that are capable of returning money on the investment, and if someone actually steps up to fund the project.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[carlos_benj]

Yeah, but the reaction mass required to escape the moon's grav pull is a lot lower than that required to achieve escape velocity from Down Here; there's a case to be made that a mission to Mars should start use the moon as a staging area.

So, what raw materials would be found on the moon that wouldn't have to take off from earth in a more primitive form? You'll also have to transport enough supplies to sustain the builders while they assemble the parts on the lunar surface and the tools used to do the assembly. Then you'd have to transport the extra fuel to achieve escape velocity from the moon when you could have had the whole job done with one launch.

Once you've established a fleet of space based or lunar based craft and have a permanent manned base on the moon the economies might shift in favor of your proposal. Or am I missing something?

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars has a disadvantage the moon doesn't: greater gravity. Magnetic rails can launch objects into orbit from the moon, but NOT from Mars. That makes the moon the perfect place to build an orbiting space station -- perhaps more cost-effective than the ISS we're building now, whose orbit will eventually decay and will plunge to earth just like Mir.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[arthurh3535]

Actually, with the Moon's negligible atmosphere, all you need is energy and a mass driver.

It would be quite easy to use the Moon as a stepping stone to get more mass into Earth/Moon orbits.

The big stumbling blocks for this of course is that there is no market and we have no idea on how to mine in vacuum(sp?)

But the Moon is much easier to get off of in the long term, if you really think about it.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Olinator]

Blockpoth the quoster:

So, what raw materials would be found on the moon that wouldn't have to take off from earth in a more primitive form? You'll also have to transport enough supplies to sustain the builders while they assemble the parts on the lunar surface and the tools used to do the assembly. Then you'd have to transport the extra fuel to achieve escape velocity from the moon when you could have had the whole job done with one launch.

There's a lot of structural mass involved in a platform that can sustain the thrust required to get off of our ball of dirt that then becomes superfluous for the entire rest of the trip, and is a maneuvering liability (extra inertia == more reaction mass required for a given vector change). If we had some sort of propulsion method that didn't involve reaction mass this wouldn't matter so much, but as yet that hasn't happened.

Look at it this way: if you were going to build a wooden boat, would you build it at the logging camp 500 miles from the ocean, incorporate wheels and a car engine, and drive it to the ocean?

Ole

Re:The moon is a dead end

[PowerPenguin]

One thing that I haven't heard mentioned yet is that a base on the moon gives the opportunity for a rescue mission.

If something really critical goes wrong help is only a couple of days away (assuming NASA could afford to launch a shuttle). A couple of days stuck in an escape module is not a big problem as long as there's water and air available. For that amount of time it wouldn't be out of the question to provide those supplies.

By starting on Mars you basically give up the ability for a rescue. Help will be six to nine months away. There's no chance for assistance in an emergency.

While both missions would entail a large amount of risk you don't want to be wasting peoples lives because someone made a stupid mistake. (And you know that there are stupid mistakes made... like not converting between metric and imperial units!)

Re:The moon is a dead end

[carlos_benj]

Rowboat or tallship?

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Skyshadow]

Well, the thing there is that Phoenix is quite a bit closer to places with resources than the moon is. You can't really compare the two -- you can't build an aquaduct to the moon or lay train tracks, so the only way to get anything there is with a serious heavy lift vehicle (think Saturn V).

Now, Mars is the same way, but Mars is much more rich in resources and friendlier to terrestrial activity than the moon. In most cases with Mars you only have to move your tools there, then you can use the available resources to survive.

Think of everything you can't do easily on the moon -- you can't get oxygen from the atmosphere by applying basic chemistry, you can't grow plants due to the moon's relatively long days (on Mars you could use a pressure dome and some Mars-made mirrors to amplify light), you have to deal with decreased G, etc.

The only thing the moon has going for it is that it's relatively close. That said, if my ascent vehicle breaks down and I have to hang out until help arrives, I want to be on Mars -- I have a much better chance of survival.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[blue trane]

The only thing the moon has going for it is that it's relatively close

Location, location, location...

Re:The moon is a dead end

[blue trane]

. The students in the lunar base project will be successful if they produce designs that are capable of returning money on the investment, and if someone actually steps up to fund the project.

It's a European project. They generally have less problems funding research with government funds than us short-sighted, greedy, selfish americans.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[CrimsonAvenger]

That said, if my ascent vehicle breaks down and I have to hang out until help arrives, I want to be on Mars -- I have a much better chance of survival.

If your ascent vehicle breaks on Mars, you have a minimum 8 month wait for rescue. If it breaks on the moon, the wait is like 3 days.

I think I'll take the 3 day wait over the 240 day wait anytime...

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Olinator]

Well, considering the proportions of the trip we're actually talking about, let's say: anything that you can then use to traverse all the world's oceans twice, without anchoring. Incorporate storage for all supplies necessary for the trip into your ship design, and stock the ship fully before leaving the camp because you won't be able to make port until the end of your voyage..

Ole

Re:The moon is a dead end

[sgage]

"Commercial exploitation of near-earth asteroids and the Moon is within our reach technologically, and it comes at essentially no cost to us."

WTF? Essentially no cost? How do you propose getting to a near-earth asteroid, mining and refining whatever putative resource might be there, and returning it to Earth "essentially no cost to us"?

Re:The moon is a dead end

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon is close enough to earth to make up for lack of resources. Mars has resources, yes, but it's getting there and back reliably that's the trick. We've demonstrated that people can go safely to the moon and back, so it seems more logical to plan a base for there than for somewhere that won't see a manned mission for another 20+ years.

Re:The moon is a dead end

[hplasm]

According to my "Lusers Gide to Thee Yooniverse" 2024 edition, the moon is classified as a cul-de-sac. Not quite the same thing, but just as dusty.

I wonder

[dmarien]

What will come out first? The moon colonies or the Holographic storage devices. The lunar bases are predicted for a timeline of 2020, but I wouldn't be surprised if the first holographic enabled desktop computer I own (when they are finally ready) is shipped to my plot of land on lunar colony 12b sector 7g.

Re:I wonder

[Thing 1]

I wouldn't be surprised if the first holographic enabled desktop computer I own (when they are finally ready) is shipped to my plot of land on lunar colony 12b sector 7g.

"If the plant ye wish to flee,
Go to sector 7G."

"To avoid the spider's curse,
simply quote a Bible verse."

And he threw a rock instead. (It's an old Simpson's episode, and I'm sure that's what you intended to invoke when you typed "sector 7g". ;-)

Things every lunar base needs

[Bonker]

- locker-room full of silvery spandex bodysuits for the ladies and bulky kevlar-lined battle-space-suits for the guys

- Lots of dangerous air-locks, with only two doors.

- Weapons. Lots of weapons.

- A great friggin huge laser beam pointed right at the Earth.

Um, Hemos...

[Chagatai]

"Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project."

Sorry, Hemos, but I don't think that the ESA is going to tackle this project with popsicle sticks, styrofoam cups, cardboard paper towel rolls, and that box that you later used to bury your pet hamster in.

Re:Um, Hemos...

[L. VeGas]

I don't think that the ESA is going to tackle this project with popsicle sticks, styrofoam cups, cardboard paper towel rolls

No, that would be the Russian Space Agency.

Re:Um, Hemos...

[bigjocker]

"Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project."
Sorry, Hemos, but I don't think that the ESA is going to tackle this project with popsicle sticks, styrofoam cups, cardboard paper towel rolls, and that box that you later used to bury your pet hamster in.


But I bet Hemo's model didn't have any cm/inches issue ...

So, no matter how many chewing gum it had, it would have worked better than the NASA funded one

Re:Um, Hemos...

[Lord Omlette]

American Parts, Russian Parts, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!!

Re:Um, Hemos...

[warpSpeed]

American Parts, Russian Parts, ALL MADE IN TAIWAN!!!

and assembled in china...

Re:Um, Hemos...

[plasticpixel]

Oh sure give Hemos all the credit...

It was my school project, my popsiclesticks, and other 'art' supplies and....

I really want to know how you knew about the hamster. I really did bury it in a box that I made.

;-)

The implications are staggering...

[magicsquid]

Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project. Too bad I didn't have the backing of NASA or the ESA back then.

So you're implying that you DO have the backing of NASA or the ESA for all of the lunar bases you're designing now?

Re:The implications are staggering...

[zoombat]

Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project. Too bad I didn't have the backing of NASA or the ESA back then.

So you're implying that you DO have the backing of NASA or the ESA for all of the lunar bases you're designing now?

Of course... obviously any serious scientist knows that only high quality insightful scientific ideas get presented and discussed on Slashdot.

Comfortable Quarters

[Arallok]

Lunar outposts are to be designed for comfort as well as utility. Power, communications, and other Moon base logistics to support work activities are also being assessed.

Its not comfortable unless I can telecommute back to my office on earth (802.11b of course...)
What kind of "last mile" solutions do they offer for lunar residences?

Re:Comfortable Quarters

[PacoTaco]

Don't forget the 50' tall basketball court.

Re:Comfortable Quarters

[Skyshadow]

#1 construction item: I friggin' sauna.

Consider how cold it would be when you were on the night side of the moon. Now, as anyone who's ever lived in Wisconsin can tell you, you'll be cold no matter how much you pump the heat into your base. And going outside? Damned chilly.

My preferred solution is a hot tub (water=warm up fast), but a good hot sauna would do in a pinch.

Just Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

a Beowulf cluster of those?

Re:Just Imagine...

[bochdog]

YABIP Yet another Beowulf idiotic posting. This shit is getting old.

Re:Just Imagine...

[dmarien]

oh shesh, i'm getting sick of the "YA YABIP P" too! okay, i realize the vulnerability i'm at for getting nailed with a YA YAYAIBPP P, but I dont care!!!!

okay, this game's over.

Re:Just Imagine...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sick of YAAATMN (Yet another annoying acronym that means nothing) posts, personally.

My favorite line from the article:

[shrikel]

Rombaut has high hopes that students can shed old think regarding lunar architecture.

Shed old think. I like it.

Re:My favorite line from the article:

[morgajel]

"shed old think"
it's double plus good!

Why are we going again?

[lionchild]

While I think that space exploration and colonization isn't a bad idea, this article seems like a bit of fluff, as it doesn't really point out practical reasons to colonize the moon, or even Mars.

For purely scientific reasons means that someone has to pay for it, and not get anything but just knowledge back from it. I think to get real, positive backing, you're going to need solid, long-term business applications. That's when you'll get real money to do something with, I suspect.

Until then, I be we'll just be dreaming about doing it.

Re:Why are we going again?

[lokki]

you're going to need solid, long-term business applications

You're also going to need solid support from the tax paying, voting public. That, sadly enough, will probably wind up being the bigger hurdle. Slashdotters and SF con geeks (that may be a redundant grouping, actually) aside, the general populace seems less than enthused about space. Tragically so, IMO.

Re:Why are we going again?

[carlos_benj]

someone has to pay for it, and not get anything but just knowledge back from it.

That's a good argument for not funding education too.

Re:Why are we going again?

[lionchild]

To a point, you're correct. However, the ROI (Return On Investment) for Education is likely 10 or 100 times better than the ROI for going to the Moon or Mars for scientific reasons.

It'll cost Billions, if not Trillions of dollars to send a small group to the moon or Mars, and keep them there, on life support, re-supply them regularly, etc.. However, for only a few thousand dollars a year, we can educate an individual.

Please, don't get me wrong. I think it would be -awesome- to have a colony on the Moon or Mars. I just don't think we can find the backing just yet for that sort of event.

Re:Why are we going again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an American consumer, I would much rather spend my money on Britney Spears than on space exploration.

Fine, if they choose to sell the energy

[GuyMannDude]

Energy would be collect on the other side of the moon, and beamed back to earth via satellites. Of coarse, this will never happen because of the greedy oil companies.

Interesting idea but these people are meeting to discuss human settlement on the moon. I'm sure the people living there are going to have some plans for that power as well. Remember that America started off as a colony of Britian and way for England to reap new natural resources. Finally, the Americans realized that they could be self-sufficient so they said "Screw you!" to the Brits. These moon dwellers may start off by harvesting sunlight for the Earth-bound but who's to say that they won't decide that they have better uses for the power on the moon? Yeah, yeah, I know that supposedly there's plenty of power -- more than the moon would use by itself. But you'd be surprised how necessity expands to fill supply. Pretty soon the moon-folk will need to build their own Las Vegas with so many lights you'll be able to see it clearly from Earth.

I would say that "greedy oil companies" is just one possible fly in the ointment to this plan

GMD

lunar base

[Toshito]

My suggestions:

1- don't use those small 5" b/w tv's as monitors
2- small printouts on rolls of paper are lame too
3- tight costumes for men are a no-no (but ok for women)
4- try to have at least one crew member with psychic abilities, it may come handy when confronted to strange alien life forms

Hemos' school project...

[hamburger lady]

Burns: Could you explain the model, young man?

Hemos: Well, basically, I just copied the base we have now. Then, I added fins to lower wind resistance. And this racing stripe here I feel is pretty sharp.

Burns: Agreed. First prize!

Re:Hemos' school project...

[Peyna]

Reminds me of the story a few days about the kid who tried build a nuclear reactor for a scout thing. IIRC, the one kid on the simpsons made his own long before that kid did!

The best way to build a base

[PacoTaco]

Just ask the aliens on the far side of the moon for construction tips.

This sounds like a perfect time for a .......

[richarst1414]

Bio Dome 2

Re:This sounds like a perfect time for a .......

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the Earth BioDome1 and the experment
was called BioDome2 so the moon would be 3.

Paul van Susante

[apsmith]

I met one of the lunar base workshop organizers, Paul van Susante, in Denver about a month back - he was contributing to the National Space Society's International Space Development Conference as a speaker in the Moon track, which I'd helped organize. Paul had some really nifty designs for south polar telescopes; one small one that could be deployed robotically, and a larger one (1000 sq meter) that would require human labor to put together.

The South Pole region of the Moon has emerged recently as an ideal base location; temperatures are always moderate, a selection of areas close by can be found with continuous sunlight and also continuous line-of-sight communications with Earth, and there are craters that apparently never see sunlight and are believed to contain cometary ice (water is hard to find on the Moon), and also would be ideal for telescopes.

Lunar base designs can be found going back to Army and Air Force ideas back in the 1950's, so the idea is nothing particularly new; obviously what we'd really like is to have a plan that includes ways to get the funding to actually build the things! Science, tourism, and possibly space-based energy and materials supply seem to be the main candidates... Now if NASA wasn't spending 100 times as much on Mars as on the Moon we might get somewhere...

Re:Paul van Susante

[rice_burners_suck]

Now if NASA wasn't spending 100 times as much on Mars as on the Moon we might get somewhere...

You aren't thinking fourth-dimensionally! NASA is spending 100 times as much on Mars for a reason. Perhaps there have been breakthrough discoveries so important (with scary and/or highly political consequences) that NASA is keeping them secret, but continuing to study them. I'm not saying there's little green men on that little red planet, but I am saying that somthing must be going on.

As for a moon base... I think that's a good idea, but they should be freakin' careful. Have you seen that "Time Machine" movie that recently came out? The one that allegedly tells H. G. Wells' story, but is actually totally different? They showed the moon falling apart when humans tried to blast things into place. It shattered, fell on the Earth, and killed all the people until a million billion years into the future. So yeah... build a moon base, but don't do no nucular blasts up there!

Oooooooooooooh well.

Dr. Evil would be proud...

[jzarzosa]

"Welcome to my moon base..."

I wonder if they're going to create different moon units... how about moon unit Alpha and moon unit Zappa?

"Mini Me... stop humping the fricken' laser!"

jz

No Interim Plans?

[medcalf]

There was no evidence of any attempt to actually reconnoiter the potential sites - this will require manned landings in advance of the establishment of a base. There was no evidence of an attempt to determine if there were sufficient water ice to actually support human habitation, or if not, to figure out the logistics of water and air resupply.

Also, why solar power rather than the (cheaper, more reliable and higher-output) nuclear option? It's not like the radiation would be a problem there.

All in all, it's a nice thought, but most likely it'll go nowhere.

-jeff

Re:No Interim Plans?

[elsegundo]

Also, why solar power rather than the (cheaper, more reliable and higher-output) nuclear option?

Well, for one thing it requires moving a lot of (heavy) plutonium and/or uranium.

Also, in defense of the solor option, the moon doesn't have that annoying atmosphere to get in the way. Well it does have a tenuous atmosphere, if you want to split hairs...

Re:No Interim Plans?

[SirSlud]

> (cheaper, more reliable and higher-output)

I might agree with higher-output, but given the lack of clouds, why more reliable (obviously more consistant, as the nuclear power station generates energy all day, but I assume your solar array would take this into account)? I thought orbits were fairly reliable. And cheaper? Its cheaper to run a nuclear power station than to set up some solar panels and hook them into a grid, sit back and wait?

Re:No Interim Plans?

[EvanED]

Problem with that is the moon doesn't have day and night like most of the world. I'm almost positive it has day and night more like... Alaska. Within the course of an orbit (28.something days) you'd have sun for 14 continuous days then no sun for 14 continuous days. You'd need a big buffer.

Re:No Interim Plans?

[Neil Watson]

Try to stop the ignorant general public from panicing when you tell them your carrying a relatively large nuclear reactor to space.

That aside, I think there is less to go wrong with a solar array. It would be nice if we could invent batteries that could store the electricity long term.

Re:No Interim Plans?

[medcalf]

Don't carry nuclear reactors, carry RTGs. The general public will still panic, but then the general public are not generally capable of evaluating technical risks in the presence of emotional scaremongering, so that is to be expected.

Heck, in the Viet Nam war, the military was prevented from using sealed plastic strips filled with the chemical used in glow-in-the-dark watch hands to provide constant illumination around the perimeters of villages in order to prevent infiltration. After all, it was related to radiation in some way. (I believe radium was part of the chemical mix.)

Re:No Interim Plans?

[medcalf]

RTGs are cheaper than large solar arrays. Large solar arrays would have to either be orbital, with power beamed to the surface, which would be new (thus less likely to work well) and expensive. But a ground-based array would only get sunlight two weeks out of four. That is another measure of reliability - not that it's broken, but it's just not producing. This is not a couple-day thing like the Apollo landings were. You have to plan for long-term.

Cool, but

[plastic_heaven]

if you are going to spend all that time/energy/money on a lunar habitat, why not go the extra "mile" and go to Mars instead? Sure it's farther, but it would seem to have more resources for the people who have to become self sufficient. Maybe you won't be able to beam back power to earth from there, but I think as far as human achievements go, it would be more beneficial.

Re:Cool, but

[EvanED]

If you have problems, and it turns out you are having problems extracting water/whatever, you're a LOT further (let's see: 20 light-minutes vs. 250,000 mi, so 15 times) away. So it takes a months and a half instead of three days for the supply ship to get there... not good if you're running low.

Re:Cool, but

[Anonymous Coward]

Average time for trip to the moon: 3 days.
Average time for trip to Mars: 3 years

Does that explain the difference? I'm all for a Mars base, but a moon base is a lot easier to do.

Re:Cool, but

[EvanED]

And it's not just travel time, it's the launch windows: you could only make the trip when Earth and Mars are somewhat close together. Making the journey when Earth and Mars are on opposite sides of the sun is not very appealing.

A Physics class at UCSD has an online handout that describes a trip you can make without burning your engines all the way there. In other words, you break from Earth's gravity and get in an orbit that will land you and Mars in the same place sometime in the future. Problem is, the travel time is nine months. (One way.) And you can only leave earth for this journey once every 26 months, or you wont be in the right place.

they need...

[paradesign]

a server colocation farm. how cool would it be if you site was hosted from... space.

people would do it for the novelty alone!

Re:they need...

[dpp]

a server colocation farm. how cool would it be if you site was hosted from... space.

Yeah, but imagine the latency :-)

The light-travel time to the moon is 1.3 seconds, so things would get a bit sluggish :-(

Re:they need...

[FreeUser]

a server colocation farm. how cool would it be if you site was hosted from... space.

The netlag sucks though. 2 1/2 lightseconds makes my pings at around 5000.2 ms round trip. Oh well, at least the DMCA can't touch me there ... yet.

Re:they need...

[zoombat]

a server colocation farm. how cool would it be if you site was hosted from... space.

Not only cool.. how's that for an offsite data storage location? Not many companies can boast that their data will survive full-scale thermonuclear war... but if you use the server collocation farm on the moon, when the war is over and only the cockroaches and styrofoam are left, your data is STILL safe!

We can ask the experts!

[teamhasnoi]

Sierra! They pioneered base-building back in the early 90's, with engineering marvels such as Outpost and Outpost 2: Back in the Habit!

The most difficult engineering project...

[Zelet]

I would like to see them engineer funding for this wonderful idea. If they can do that, then they can design anything.

Re:The most difficult engineering project...

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, that technology is already developed. The idea is, the most corrupt men in the country talk about how swell the idea is and how other people must pay for it. Scribble some words on paper, call it a law, and then use that law to extort money from wage earners (e.g. people working at McDonalds, etc). If they don't give it to you, you just send men with guns to their house to haul them off to jail.

Been there, done that.. in smaller form

[getha]

Funny, I followed this workshop two years ago in a somewhat smaller form (I think). It was organised by the same people though, Paul van Susante I remember.

It was fun to do, but the technical level was pretty low as we were mostly second or third year students. It was also framed in a multi-cultural frame, so there were a lot of side issues dealing with foreign students. And it was a lot shorter.

But it was fun, probably one of the funnest things I did that year. It also sparked my interest in the other disciplines here at the Technical University (I am studying Civil Engineering). I still have this vague idea of combining something like this into my thesis, but I can't really come up with a good basis for that (yet)...

Good to see they're still hammering away at this. I for one would sign on for a stint on a lunar base yesterday, if I could...

Important items

[carlcmc]

#1 - Power: Solar energy is readily available.

#2 - Oxygen: Converting CO2 back to O2 with plants is one possibility, however, this may take awhile to get up and running. Power should be a nonissue for using filters similar to the space station. O2 can always be obtained from water but on the moon.... water isn't the best choice.

#3 - Speaking of water- transporting water up is one issue. Once you get enough, hopefully systems for purifying, using plants, etc can be used.

#4 - food - would require routine trips of food up until you got a large enough installation of plants. What would happen if you had a challenger disaster again and the people need foor?

#5 - sex and internet - not necessarily in that order? hmmm...

One only has to think of the biosphere and biosphere 2 to think of failed or partially failed experiments at doing something like a self contained area. - Biosphere 2

Re:Important items

[meringuoid]

#1 - Power: Solar energy is readily available.

Yup, no worries there if you have one of those South Pole sites with permanent daylight. Anywhere else you'll have to deal with a two-week night illuminated by the Earth. Batteries or fuel cells, perhaps, to store the surplus from the daylight phase, but I'd want a nuclear reactor handy as a backup.

#2 - Oxygen: Converting CO2 back to O2 with plants is one possibility, however, this may take awhile to get up and running. Power should be a nonissue for using filters similar to the space station. O2 can always be obtained from water but on the moon.... water isn't the best choice.

Mir technology ought to do it, assuming we have plenty of power.

#3 - Speaking of water- transporting water up is one issue. Once you get enough, hopefully systems for purifying, using plants, etc can be used.

Shipping up all that water is a non-starter. Water recycling is _essential_. Using plants for this, as well as for O2 production, would be nice, but we can probably do it with machines more reliably to begin with. Again, it's all been done on Mir for years.

#4 - food - would require routine trips of food up until you got a large enough installation of plants. What would happen if you had a challenger disaster again and the people need foor?

You don't use the Space Shuttle to launch food supplies! Use the Progress drones to ship it to the Station, then some sort of orbital transfer vehicle (most likely yet another variant on the general theme of Soyuz) to ship it to the Moon.

#5 - sex and internet - not necessarily in that order? hmmm...

For psychological reasons you'd probably want a roughly equal gender balance... Getting a net link would be interesting. You'd have immense bandwidth, but ping times from hell.

yeah right

[2Bits]

I read the title

ESA Holds Workshop On Lunar Base Design

and I thought, cool, now I can attend the workshop and design my own luna base. I put up all the paperwork necessary so that my manager can approve my trip and expenses to the workhop, and ran to his office, afraid that I wouldn't be the first one.

Then, he said:"Sure, I can approve that, if you take care of the budget for the launch.".

Oh boy, feeling like a deflated balloon now....

What I want to know...

[EvanED]

Do I get frequent flier miles for my trips to and from the moon?

Re:What I want to know...

[meringuoid]

Do I get frequent flier miles for my trips to and from the moon?

Only on PanAm...

Extraterrestrial bases.. start closer to home

[ezs]

Mars in Utah

From around a month or so ago.

Doubleplusgood!!!

[isotope23]

I am glad to see newspeak creep into articles such as this! "A fellow workshop manager, Rombaut has high hopes that students can shed old think regarding lunar architecture. " Looks like Oceania is right around the corner...

Minime, Stop humping "The Laser"

[zrk]

Get a frickin room, you two!

Yeah right. Everything except decent gravity.

[ArcticChicken]

You pro-Mars base people make me laugh for so many reasons, not the least of which is the gravity issue. Spend 5 years on Mars, and then another 5 back on Earth rehabilating yourself to "normal" gravity. Any child unfortunate enough to be born there could never leave.

You'd be better off going to Venus:
a) Physically it is far more the Earth's twin than Mars will ever be. The gravity you'd experience there would be almost identical to what you have here on Earth. You'd just have to ignore the 90 times greater atmospheric pressure. No big deal.
b) Venus has too much atmosphere. If the the atmospheric pressure is that big a problem for you (wimp!), remember this: if we've proven anything here on Earth, it's that we're good at destroying large-scale stuff, not creating large-scale stuff. Just set up a few shop-vacs around the planet, and hoover away that extra sulfurous crap they call an "atmosphere". Simple and effective!
c) Closer to the sun = better solar power options (just got to get rid of those nasty sulfuric acid clouds first ... a simple 20 minute project for an oil company I'm sure)

Why the hell would anyone want to go to Mars? Venus rulez!!!!!

A dead end?

[martissimo]

many scientists consider mining the moon for He-3 to be the key to unlocking the secrets of fusion energy.

it's only a possibility certainly, but not exactly a sure "dead end" either

Re:A dead end?

[carlos_benj]

Helium? Really? So that's how the moon stays up there!

Not as good as it sounds.

[surfcow]

"International Team Explores Lunar Base Proposals", sounds great, but the teams are composed entirely of students with no power to do anything except study ideas. So, a better headline might be "International students discuss lunar base proposals."

I wish it was as good as the headline sounds.
The story has nothing on real-world issues like funding, design, lobbying, private sector support - nada.

The biggest stumbling block to a true lunar base is political. Many (mostly conservative) lawmakers think that any money spend on space (other than defense spending) is a total waste. Many of those that are interested in space seem to think that the Moon should be completely ignored in favor of Mars, no matter what, no discussion, period. The former head of NASA was one of these. And we haven't been to the moon in about 25 years.

If I had a wish, it would be that these students study and publicize the politics behind those groups that are keeping us from funding a legit moon base.

=brian

WARNING: IMPOSTER beowulf post

[Anonymous Coward]

This beowulf post has not been certified, and is not endorsed or supported by me, Anonymous Coward. This beowulf post is an IMPOSTER, and the reader should be advised that s/he has NOT been authorized by me, anonymous Coward, to imagine a beowulf cluster of these.

Movie Time Machine?

[Vengie]

Didn't anyone else see the movie "Time Machine"? (The recent remake of HG Wells....) Especially the section where we discuss if we have "Gone Too Far" and [SPOILER WARNING] they begin drilling/explosions for the lunar colony, they crack the moon up and destabilize its orbit? IANA Astrophysicist nor am I a geologist (lunologist?) and am not certain of the validity of that scenario, but doesn't anyone else find the prospect of drilling into the surface of the moon frightning? Isn't there enough space junk in our atmosphere already? Just wait until the Space Station is ready to be broken up for re-entry. All we need is one nice chunk hitting a major metropolitan area. (Hello Iridium....)

Re:Movie Time Machine?

[meringuoid]

Relax, we're not going to break the Moon. It's been hit by much bigger blows than any nuclear explosive we might ever use for mining; just look at all those craters! Oh, and there is no space junk in our atmosphere. It's all up above the atmosphere; once a bit of junk sinks down into the atmosphere, air resistance kills its orbit and it falls in, burning up on the way down. The eventual re-entry of the ISS probably isn't much to worry about. The Russians did a fine job keeping Mir on track when it came down, and the Pacific is a large target, hard to miss... (although NASA did manage to hit Australia when Skylab came down...)

Re:Movie Time Machine?

[Anonymous Coward]

omfg, you are a moron. The moon is 1/6 the size of the earth. Good luck demolishing it.

Moon base alpha

[ZaneMcAuley]

*puts on pink wig*
*puts on funky miniskirt*

I'm set :)

No nuclear waste storage!

[Titusdot Groan]

What ever they do, I hope they don't store nuclear waste nearby and I hope they don't call it Moonbase Alpha ...

Requirements

[rjamestaylor]

It's got to have automatic sliding doors that swoosh, pervasive speech-enabled computers, and pod-bay doors. Or I'm not going.

Legos then?

[jfsather]

All the bases I made as a kid were made of legos. The ESA must like legos right?

-J

Advantages of setting base on the moon then Mars

[jellomizer]

1. Quicker Internet Connection. It takes light about 20 min or so to get from the earth to Mars. imagan waiting 40 minuts to get slashdot. Give up any chance of having a first post.

2. Debugging extraterestral bass designes. I much rather build a base on the moon first then on mars. Any problems with the mars base can mean a slower death. And the getting extra suplies would be almost out of the question.

3. You can get a really good tan. A moon day is about 2 weeks or so you can get plenty of sun tan time. Plus with no atmosphere to block those tan helping UV rays it just helps even more.

4. A good start towards the next mars base. Making ships that lift off of the moon is a lot easier then Earth. and cheaper too. So if you can collect the raw materials to make the Mars ship on the moon and the IS there there is a lot less extra conserns that are needed.

5. Help humans to get over this gravity problem. By using the moon we can help bread people better suited to living in lower gravity enviroments. and may take longer space travil better.

6. A quick and easy way to improve you golf game. with a moon base and golf course you can really hit the ball.

7. Incorages more comericalm in space. A moon base when made more complete may be used for the tourism market and even some mining companies. With more comericalism and comptition it can help create a better faster cheaper space travle and make it open for the common man

8. Atronomy reasherch. No atmosphere make it great for ovservations.

9. Imagin life in those bouncy things.

10. Colonalzation is what we do. If we can conization a place in space as barron as the moon then we can defently do mars

Warning, popup hell...

[cperciva]

Given that slashdot routinely labels New York Times links with "(free subscription required)", how about space.com get labelled with "(warning, popup hell ahead)"?

A single popup ad is bad enough, but when the story spawns three extra windows, it's just dumb.

a waste of time....

[Lumpy]

the LAST thing we need is "moon base" designs. we need important people with big enough balls to shame the US government into funding it. you can design until your head falls off, it means squat if you cant build it.

How about getting together a coalition to figure out how to get the funding to build a moonbase instead of wasting time and money.

I cant remember who said it back in the 80's... but he was right... "The only way to get the human race to the stars in a big way is to have a war with another species where we have to go to space.. until then the morons that run the government will do nothing."

So, can we declare war against Alpha Centauri yet?

Re:a waste of time....

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Al Qaeda will fund them, and lock all non-arabs out of space.

Was nobody paying attention?

[kaladorn]

The kids these days....

5. Have some good pilots aboard and plenty of small VTOL ships (some armed)
6. Don't store large amounts of radioactive waste... or you might get a free trip to the far side of the galaxy....

Project Endurance

[cybercuzco]

This also sounds like A project that was also a class at the University of Maryland, Project Endurance. A zipped word file of the final report can be found here This project was the capstone design course for aerospace engineers at the university. Our task was to design a series of 6 missions to explore the lunar base for a period of 90 days each as a prelude to a fully manned base. Hope you enjoy.

I may be a fool

[Anonymous Coward]

The big argumenet for military waste...er spending is that it puts a lot of money into the economy and employs people. You know keynesian economics. What if we were to put all the money we currently put into killing people into space exporation? That is 100s of billions of dollars a year. Think what we could do? And we would still be handing money out to the same contractors, so whats to lose?

Can you say "Lunar Red Light District"?

[Anonymous Coward]

Meeting in the Netherlands, eh?

Looks like the first Lunar Laws might actually promote some freedom of personal choice. I can't wait to go to the Lunar brothels and get banged in reduced-G! And the kind nugs should burn great in an oxygen-enriched environment.

Go Dutch!

The Moon is extremely fragile?

[ArsSineArtificio]

Why do you think that the Moon is extremely fragile? It's not made of porcelain. We've been drilling into the Earth for millennia and it hasn't started crumbling yet.

As for destabilizing the Moon's orbit - basically, this would require a tremendous impact or explosion on one side of it, pushing it out of its present orbit. Think about all those craters on the moon. Even the force of truly humungous meteorite impacts couldn't move it from where it is now. Maybe if we detonated every nuclear weapon on Earth at the same point on the lunar surface simultaneously, we could move the Moon. Maybe.

A lunar geologist, btw, would be a "selenologist".

Re:The Moon is extremely fragile?

[apsmith]

Actually, a lunar geologist is called a "lunar geologist". US Geological Survey employed one of the best, Eugene Shoemaker, and had a large group of geologists in the 1960's and 1970's working on the geology of the Moon. And the American Geophysical Union publishes a lot of lunar and planetary geophysical papers. The prefix "geo" in this case has lost its original meaning.

Re:The Moon is extremely fragile?

[ArsSineArtificio]

I will amend my prior statement - a lunar geologist should be called a selenologist.

not quite,

[isotope23]

Because if we handed all this money out,
they might actually make a profit!!

How you ask?

1st minerals i.e. asteroids
2nd science, new patents etc.

And of course the gubment won't do anything
which shows foresight.....

ping times

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, your internet quake III games are REALLY going to suck if you're playing from the moon... can you say 4+ second ping times???

ping times

[Anonymous Coward]

Speed of light round trip time to the moon is over 4 seconds, isn't it? Which means hosting on the moon would basically SUCK. Big time.

kickin' it old skool!

[Anonymous Coward]

speaker=Tom Sellek&gt
Can.
You.
Imagine.

A Beowulf cluster of people bitching about Beowulf cluster trolls
&ltvoiceoverspeaker=Tom Sellek, Mood=Enraged&gt
SHOVED&nbsp UP&nbsp YOUR&nbsp ASS?!!!!
&lt/voiceover&gt

(yeah, moon cities my ass...)

All I want is....

[Wintermancer]

...A big linear accelerator/mass-driver aimed at Redmond, WA.

Is that too much to ask for?

Not feasible

[Marx_Mrvelous]

"Beam the energy back to the earth" ??
No offense, but that reminds me of when I thought that nuclear reactors somehow transformed uranium into electricity. I was so disappointed to learn it was just making heat...

But anyways, there's no good way to "beam" energy from the moon. Lasers? Microwaves? Photon streams? None of them would work, but it has nothing to do with greedy oil companies, it has to do with physics.

Re:Not feasible

[blibbleblobble]

"There's no good way to "beam" energy from the moon"

Nope. There's a damn good way to "beam" it from the sun, though.

Which leads to the question: If we can't economically build arrays of solar panels in the desert, what makes people think they could build a huge array of receivers to get energy back from the moon?

A practical solution (surely not!) is: we already have loads of energy being sent back from the moon - it's known as the tide, and we have some great, efficient, and economical machines to use that energy. So let's get those installed before we start listening to the more wacky schemes...

Too bad for Napster...

[jzarzosa]

...they could have moved to the Moon and distanced themselves from the reaches of the RIAA!! Then what, huh!?

Re:I have always felt...

[CyberDruid]

...slightly terrorized by Alpha Centauri. A base on the moon would teach those damn fanatic triple suns a lesson. Teach 'em good...

Er...

[davew2040]

Reminds me of the lunar base I designed when I was about 9 years old for a school project. Too bad I didn't have the backing of NASA or the ESA back then.

Geez, is it some sort of prerequisite that all Slashdot editors can't have had any friends as children??

GNU Moon

[axxackall]

Whatever they decide, but they must use ONLY Open Source Software on the Lunar base! It's a neutral territory and it should stay free from any proprietary software.

GNU Public License will work just perfect as it is more protected from proprietary codejacking.

Maybe even we should declare Moon as a territory of GNU Public License! Let's vote RPM as a Moon President!

Re:GNU Moon

[Trinn]

Your post was going along quite well until you came to the very last point, and suggested that we vote the Red Hat Package Manager as the president of the Moon. While I understand that ease of installing packages on the moon is important, I really think that you must have meant RMS. However, given the choice, I think RPM would be better at the politics of actually running a government, RMS would simply disband it. (yes, this is hyperbole, this whole post is comedy. If you don't have a funnybone, that is your problem.)

Re:Advantages of setting base on the moon then Mar

[Anonymous Coward]

So many mistakes.... And now I mark your test:

" 1. Quicker Internet Connection. It takes light about 20 mins (Plural) or so to get from the Earth (Noun) to Mars. imagine (imagan) waiting 40 minutes (minuts) to get slashdot. Give up any chance of having a first post.

2. Debugging extraterrestrial (extraterestral) base (bass) designs (designes). I'd (verb) much rather build a base on the Moon (Noun) first than (then) on Mars (Noun). Any problems with the Mars (Sigh) base can mean a slower death. And the getting extra supplies (suplies) would be almost out of the question.

3. You can get a really good tan. A Moon (Arrgh) day is about 2 weeks or so you can get plenty of sun tan time. Plus with no atmosphere to block those tan helping UV rays it just helps even more.

4. A good start towards the next Mars (Jktfdg) base. Making ships that lift off of the Moon (Again!!) is a lot easier then Earth (Odd how (s)he gets it right now of all times). and cheaper too (This is a sentence??). So if you can collect the raw materials to make the Mars ship on the Moon (Its like his/her caps lock is flickering) and the IS there there is a lot less extra concerns (conserns) that are needed (Did that make sense to anyone??).

5. Help humans to get over this gravity problem. By using the moon we can help breed (bread) people better suited to living in lower gravity enviroments. and may take longer space travel (travil) better.

6. A quick and easy way to improve you golf game. With (Beginning of a sentence) a Moon (Its just random....) base and golf course you can really hit the ball.

7. Encourages (Incorages) more commercialism (comericalm) in space. A Moon base when made more complete may be used for the tourism market and even some mining companies. With more commercialism (comericalism) and competition (comptition) it can help create a better faster cheaper space travel (travle) and make it open for the common man

8. Astronomy (Atronomy) research (reasherch). No atmosphere makes (Plural...) it great for observations (ovservations).

9. Imagine (Imagin) life in those bouncy things.

10. Colonization (Colonalzation) is what we do. If we can colonize (conization) a place in space as barren (barron) as the Moon then we can definitely (defently) do Mars"

Marks out of ten, lets see, 10-42=?? Ahh yes, -32.. Not quite a passing grade, and there's plenty of room for improvment.

I have seen the future, and it is filled with axe wielding, crying, English teachers.
Save the written word!!!


Apologies for any offence given greater than that which I received upon reading this post.

Disagree

[Catbeller]

Mars is not the future for mankind. It's a very romantic idea, since it parallels the development of the Americas, but a growing population (remember our numbers double every 30-40 years! probably faster in an open frontier) will cover Mars pretty quickly, with modern technology

The moon has much the same problem, only without water. The moon is great for metals and oxides, but pretty bad for human colonization.

Let us harken back to the Seventies, and the L5 space colonization studies. Colonies in free space, placed anywhere in the solar system, from Earth orbit, the L1-L5 points, Mars conveyor orbit, Mars orbit, asteroid belt, or just a plain solar orbit, benefit from no gravity well, roll-your-own gravity, and constructed living room potentially millions of time Earth and Mars put together. And yes, birds and trees and all the rest can come along as well.

In the long run, Mars is a park, the Moon is a strip mine, and Earth is the Olde Worlde. Free space economies, with enormous material and energy resources, will have a collective economy that can fund silly things like star probes and colonization of other star systems.

Mars is small potatoes. We've been thinking in that groove because we see it as an extention of the Apollo methodology. Expensive one-shot landings, followed by useless science stations that cost toomuch and are vulnerable to budget murder at any time. For space travel to succeed, you need lots of people who want to go, a place for them to go, wealth to be made, and the possibility of growth to the nth degree.

Mars would be a very expensive Antarctic station. Tho I love the idea of being on Mars, having grown up studying and dreaming about the place, it is in a deep gravity well. Why climb up out of Earth's hole just to climb down another one?

does anyone consider the result of colonization...

[Anonymous Coward]

colonizing the moon means a very small addition to the moons mass. now consider the fact that there is a direct corolation between the moon and weather/tides on earth (altho im sure thats not all) adding mass to the moon however small will start to change the force of gravity between the earth and the moon. mass flooding/droughts are bound to be the result of this in the future (or it may make earth a more hospitable place to live who knows im trying to make a point about the destruction and blah blah blah blah, blah).

Personally colonize mars first. it may be more expensive but hell what is money in this god forsaken comunist (to explain, most people see comunism as bad so i am using it to describe out capitalist society) society we have. At least colonizing mars will have a much less drastic effect (and a greater chance of not crashing into earth) on earth.

Capitolism is crap it is no better than comunism done wrong.

Use Mozilla

[DenOfEarth]

Mozilla lets you shut those down...I don't know any other browsers that do.

How about..

[Chicane-UK]

..worrying what to do with the Asteroid problem as previously reported on Slashdot. I found that post a little unsettling, and would rather have protection against 120 metre pieces of rock hitting the earth, instead of some moonbase..

Re:How about..

[Anonymous Coward]

A moonbase could be used to detect asteroids, you idiot.

Without New Propulsion Technology, they're not

[geekster_2000]

going anywhere !!!

Space Propulsion Engine for Flying Saucer - New Physics

Inventor of 3D volume holographic optical storage
shopping his concept for Space Propulsion Engine
using Propellantless Mass to US and other countries.

for further look at biography background goto

http://colossalstorage.net/colossal.htm

He says he has looked at and researched the world's space agencies, aerospace
companies, universities research, and corp. research and feels very confident
knowing others technology while no one knows his.

He is working in top secret and he says no physicist or scientist he has ever studied or researched had this approach and knows his concept will work to give near light speed travel thru Galaxy with 500K/Miles per Hour to start or 138 miles/sec. Nasa fastest time are 25,000 mile/hr or 3.9 miles/sec

he says it is a mankind first concept !!

"The Gods Themselves"

[haggar]

I just finished reading Asimov's classic "The Gods Themselves", where the life and technical details of a lunar space station are described. I really like Asimov's methodical and scientific approach of the topic. Even things like lifestyle and metabolism changes are discussed.

Warmly recommended reading.

Oort Cloud

[Skyshadow]

Hey, if you want habitable surface area, start moving out to the Oort cloud.

I can't remember who originally suggested this, but if you can develop a reasonable fusion power source (which I consider a matter of time, although I couldn't guess how much), the Oort cloud is the perfect place to be. You can use comets to fuel your reactor and lights or large, locally made mirrors reflecting the dim sunlight to grow food (hm, gotta find something that grows well in zero grav... or you could teather two comets together and spin 'em for gravity).

There's a staggering number of Oort cloud objects of reasonable size. Once your kids come of age, they can inherit the family mining/farming/industrial/mirror manufacturing/reactor building/whatever business or buy a reactor of their own and hop to a passing comet to set up shop -- talk about the ultimate homesteading environment.

Your lifestyle would definately be *different* in this sort of environment, but I don't see any reason why people couldn't adapt to live like this. Eventually, you'd probably have huge numbers of objects teathered together to make great city-states. As always, it seems that portible, plentiful energy is the big key.

And that's what I call expansion of humanity.

Materials

[v8interceptor]

I hope they use Lego. If their budget permits, maybe even Star Wars lego.

Re:does anyone consider the result of colonization

[paladijn]

eeehm, you should delve more into physics, this little amount of mass on the moon will make no signicifact difference.
and the moon will not crash into the earth, geeez, how often do we have to say this, you need force to propel a mass. LOTS of force, not just adding some mass that comes in at very low velocity.

Moon planet

[rice_burners_suck]

I believe I have the ultimate design for a moon base: Terraform the moon and turn it into a planet orbiting our own. Sure, you might think the moon can't hold oxygen and other gasses due to its low weight (and therefore, low gravity), but that's not such a big problem. Have you ever read Isaac Asimov's Prelude to Foundation? The world described in that book, I believe it was called Trantor, was almost entirely covered with domes. It began when shopping centers enclosed themselves in domes. Then, cities covered themselves. The next thing you knew, the whole damn planet became covered. Something of this nature should take place on the moon, except that instead of a bunch of domes, they'd build a huge hollow sphere that encloses the whole damn moon. This sphere would be made of millions of square sheets of ultra-pure glass about 10 feet thick. Then, trillions upon trillions of tons of oxygen and whatever gasses would be put inside this sphere, along with soil, seeds, fertilizer, and whatever else is necessary for getting things going. (Where would the gasses come from? Well, you could jack them from Venus, which has them in excess, or from any of the gas planets. Got the wrong gasses? That's not a problem with nuclear fission/fusion. Just figure out how to take radioactivity out of the equation. That shouldn't take more than half an hour of a freshman science major's time.) Lots of water would be added. The next thing you know, it will turn into a cycle--rain, snow, whatever. I think lights could be hanged from the enormous frame of the sphere, providing light to areas that are not lit by the sun. Vast cities would be built on the moon, but the whole system would be engineered from the start to create no wastes, and to use the cyclic patterns of the new "planet" to their fullest advantage. Oh yeah, and to protect from meteors and stuff, big huge lasers will be mounted all over the top of the spherical structure, and they'll blast anything that comes close (except ships and whatnot).

Once this is done, terraform Mars and do exactly the same thing, except that Mars doesn't need to be enclosed. But its moons do. And then, it'd be cool to terraform Venus. There's lots of potential there. Perhaps if trillions upon trillions of plants are placed there, the atmosphere will automatically change and become more Earth-like. Once that's done, do the same to Mercury. At that point, you've done all the solid bodies from Mercury to Mars. Then, you can do all the moons of the gas planets. And then, you can do Pluto, which is cold and stuff, but that doesn't really matter, considering you'd dome it in and put heat lamps all over the ceiling. And don't forget its moon, whatever it's called. Once that's done, find more planets and do the same. By then, the human population of the solar system will be like 4 trillion or so, so someone will figure out warp drive, and we'll start taking over all the planets in the galaxy. And then, when the human population is like 945 quadrillion to the third power, someone will figure out travel between the galaxies, and we'll do all those planets. And then, when the human population approaches a hundred thousand million billion trillion quadrillion times the previous amount, someone will figure out travel between universes. And by then, the Internet will be so damn big, Google will have to buy one of the universes and fill it from end to end with an enormous cluster of Linux quantum-mainframes, just to hold the indexes and stuff.

Re:Moon planet

[apsmith]

Actually, the lifetime for an O2/N2 atmosphere on the Moon similar to that on Earth is about 10 million years - you'd need a lot of energy to extract all that oxygen, but terraforming the Moon as far as atmosphere goes is actually almost practical. The big problem is that month-long day/night cycle...

Grrrr....

[alpha264]

I'm really starting to think that ignorance is bliss!

Lunar Architecture

[nathanm]

Hans-Jurgen Rombaut, an architect from the Netherlands, specializes in lunar architecture.

Wow! I didn't know the demand for lunar architecture was so high that an archictect from a small country like the Netherlands can specialize in it.

Re:Advantages of setting base on the moon then Mar

[Anonymous Coward]

You are truly a slave to spelling aren't you?

Habitats on Mars (Academic paper)

[penguinsula]

Here's a link to a paper (12 Mb pdf) written by a friend of mine during his studies. Unfortunately he died earlier this year in a car accident caused by a drunk driver.

"This paper primarily deals with the possibilities and problems aerospace scientists, designers, architects and others encountered during the latter part of the twentieth century when designing and planning a Martian base for the near future."

http://213.84.201.236/HarDecher/indexHar.html

Re:Advantages of setting base on the moon then Mar

[Anonymous Coward]

Not quite a slave, just stunned at the number of weird errors. I didn't even comment on the validity of some of the comments, or touch the sentence breakdown..

Flat pack..

[browman]

Perhaps Ikea should get involved, I hear they're doing flat-pack apartments these days. Kit it out with their "Luna" range, and there you have it, a base constructed from modular swedish pine components, complete with matching pencil holders...