Back to the Moon?

An anonymous reader writes "This BBC story discusses the prospects of probes returning to the moon. The article first mentions the ESA's SMART-1 probe, which will overfly the Apollo landing sites during 2003, and then talks with US scientists about why NASA should send probes back."

Comments

Are we running low on cheese?

[FelixCat]

The best reason for going back to the moon is to replentish our supply of cheese. It wouldn't be that hard to go back there. In Wallace and Gromit's "Grand Day Out" they completed the project over a weekend.

I don't know why this is such a big deal!

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[eggsovereasy]

*scratches head*

Quit being Pussies, build a moonbase

[sam_handelman]

Mining the moon for use on Earth is never going to be a winning proposition. Re-entry into earth's atmosphere is just too expensive.

However, we should to move our space fabrication facilities to the moon. That's the way to lower our launch costs, in the long run. It is a lower G environment, it provides an additional slingshot for launches into the rest of the solar system, and, given a sufficient initial capital investment, energy on the moon will be cheaper than energy on the surface of the earth.

Before that's practical, we need a thorough, ground based, resource survey of the whole sattelite. In order to do that, we need a permanent base with facilities to fuel, service and repair all of the robots doing the lunar surveys.

We have the technology. We should stop dinking around, pony up the cash, and do it.

Re:Quit being Pussies, build a moonbase

[zCyl]

Good thinking, we'll wait until life is perfect, and THEN we'll plan for the future.

*twiddles thumbs waiting*

Seriously, if you want the human race to prosper, you should support scientific advancement and exploration. In the end it will put food on the tables of your children and grandchildren.

Re:The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth

[xidix]

When people post writings which are not their own, they should at least credit the source. I have seen this before, among other places, here:

http://spiralx.dyndns.org/texts/troll1.html

Someone should mod this down for blatant plagiarism.

Re:Imagine how it smells by now!

[mskfisher]

but it's vacuum-sealed!
well, almost.

LOL: +1 Informative

[Subcarrier]

This is the first moderator who has made me laugh.

Moon base may make more sense than the ISS

[ike42]

The jury may still be out on the International Space Station (ISS), but the primary problem with all zero-g environments its that they really screws up human physiology. On the moon you don't have this problem, making long term habitation a much better prospect.

NASA does not like to publicize the extent to which even short space flights negatively effect an astronaut's health. We evolved in gravity and our bodies depend on it to function properly ... and no amount of research is likely to change this fact. However, low gravity environments (like the moon) are thought to be ok.

The moon is not that hard to get to, and once there its much easier to get into a zero-g environment, if thats what you want (for research, manufacturing, etc). If the goal is to have long term habitiation off Earth, then going back to the moon is a very good idea.

return to the moon?

[spongebobsquarepants]

According to top level sources broadcasting out of Pahrump, Nevada (ie Art Bell), we've yet to make the trip. It will be embarrassing when some new lunar probe confirms this ;)

Lack of communication in the space biz

[apsmith]

It always amazes me how limited the picture most people seem to have, even in the media, of the huge variety of space-related efforts that are going on. If it isn't on NASA's list (even if NASA people are involved in it) or occasionally on a European or Japanese list, it's as if it doesn't exist. Here's a short list of lunar missions and projects currently in development, private and public:

• SMART-1 from ESA (the only one this BBC article mentions)
• LUNAR-A from ISAS/NASDA (Japan).
• SELENE also from ISAS.
• TrailBlazer and Electra from TransOrbital Inc.
• Lunar Retriever from AppliedSpace Resources
• IceBreaker from Lunacorp
• Lunar Service from Celestis (you have to be dead...)
• Lunar Architecture is a subject of study for HJ Rombaut, including a recent Lunar Base design workshop
• Bill Mook's lunar tours
• The Artemis Project

Many of these have received approval - some of the commercial missions seem to have had a bit of trouble finding funding or overcoming regulations and have announced delays of a year or so, but then the government missions have been delayed too.

What's missing on this list? Where's NASA you say? Interestingly NASA has spent over 50 times as much on Mars missions as on missions to the Moon since Apollo 17 left in Dec 1972. But that may change now that the NRC has put a lunar return among the highest priority missions.

Want to be involved? Check out the National Space Society and the Moon Society and you may help make some of these things happen!

Re:Private missions to the moon

[Saeger]

IMO, you're vastly overestimating the value of "moon dirt". You'd need to ask a few interested people what they'd be willing to pay...

Personally, I wouldn't want to own an encapsulated speck of moon dust, but I would want a good sized moon rock that I could hold in my grubby hands. *I* would value an average density 1cm moonrock at no more than $1,000, which is still a profit over the insane $/kg of chemical-rocket transportation costs.

The reason I wouldn't pay any more than that is because its novelty value will drop to zero over time, just as if Columbus had brought back "American Soil!"...

--

WE NEVER WENT TO THE MOON!!

[ashitaka]

Never!

Not once!

You're a complete idiot if you believe for one friggin second we went to the moon.

We didn't have an "accident" on lucky #13.

We didn't bring back any dusty rocks.

We didn't boot around in an electric buggy.

We didn't slowly bounce up and down like Britney Spears on Qualuudes.

We didn't make any "small steps for man."

We didn;t drive golf balls "miles and miles"

I AM CANADIAN! We didn't go to the moon!

Bunch of Americans did though...

Re:you're right, for the wrong reasons

[Dan Crash]

1) Everything I've read on the subject regards construction in space as the most difficult and expensive environs possible. Maybe you can point me at something that says otherwise.

2) Your point about solar power satellites is incorrect. An article in more depth about this appeared in The Industrial Physicist in May. A relevant quote from the article follows:

Several types of solar-power satellites have been proposed. They are projected, over 30 years, to deliver approximately 10,000 kWh of electric energy to Earth for each kilogram of mass in orbit around the planet. To sell electric energy at $0.01/ kWh, less than $60 could be expended per kilogram to buy the components of the power satellites, ship them into space, assemble and maintain them, decommission the satellites, and finance all aspects of the space operations. To achieve this margin,launch and fabrication costs would have to be lowered by a factor of 10,000.

There's more in the article.

The Moon is the only practical place to build extraplanetary solar power, considering, as you note in point 3, that the Moon is made up of the very same materials in solar cells to begin with.

At any rate, we both agree that the human race needs a moon base. I just happen to think that it will be considerably more useful than you do.