NASA Considers Mobile Lunar Base

colonist writes "During the Apollo missions, astronauts explored on foot or in rovers. The next astronauts on the moon may move the entire base instead. Marc Cohen, from NASA's Ames Research Center, proposes a lunar base on wheels or legs, such as the habot (robotic habitat) or the mobitat (mobile habitat). Cohen considers mobile bases superior to rovers: 'To avoid life-threatening or other compromising situations that might occur with only one rover traveling to a remote place, a second rover might travel with the first. But what if the second rover runs into a problem, too - the same or a different problem? Well, that means a third rover. So, why not make the entire base mobile, so that all the resources, reliability and redundancy of the lunar mission move with the excursion crew?' Of course, mobile bases are nothing new. Terran buildings have been lifting off for years."

Comments

Space RV's

[gbulmash]

Moon missions in a futuristic RV. Feels like some cheap 70s TV Saturday morning sci-fi series.

That's just the ticket, ain't it. Winnebago finally becomes a NASA vendor. Mobile base, spare wheel on the back with a "Good Sam" wheel cover, towing a couple of electric Honda Quad-Runners as mini rovers. I can see it now. Space tourism will be huge.

Re:Space RV's

[red floyd]

Oh no! It's Lone Star and Barf! Prepare for Ludicrous Speed!

Re:Space RV's

[Esion Modnar]

Mobile base, spare wheel on the back with a "Good Sam" wheel cover

Yeah, but will the mud flaps feature Yosemite Sam ("Back Off!") or the ever popular Reclining Busty Chick?

Re:Space RV's

[irokitt]

Feels like some cheap 70s TV Saturday morning sci-fi series.

Actually, my first thoughts were about a particular search engine...

Re:Space RV's

[billso]

Let's put Sam's Club on the Moon, so the astronauts can get their photos developed and fried chicken to go.

Re:Space RV's

[Anonymous Coward]

"Feels like some cheap 70s TV Saturday morning sci-fi series."

Hey, you leave Space:1999 out of this. ;)

Re:Space RV's

[kcorporation]

But only with space Winnebago's will we be able to save the princess from the evil Dark Helmet, and stop him from stealing all of the air from planet Druidia!

Re:Space RV's

[Anonymous Coward]

RV's...not semi's.

Re:Space RV's

[Dark$ide]

Moon missions in a futuristic RV. Feels like some cheap 70s TV Saturday morning sci-fi series.

Like this one Space 1999.

Re:Space RV's

[mwood]

Hmmm, let me get this straight: instead of the risk of losing one rover and having to double up, plus the much smaller risk of losing both rovers and having four people *perhaps* unable to hike back to base, we'd prefer to lose the *entire base with all its resources* and leave our guys with nothing but the consumables in their suits (presuming they got out safely).

Hmmm.

Re:Space RV's

[Anonymous Coward]

My God! They've gone plaid!

Re:Space RV's

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh no! It's Lone Star and Barf! Prepare for Ludicrous Speed!

I don't really think we need ludricrous speed. And I'm not chicken.

Col. Sanders

Re:Space RV's

[susano_otter]

It seems to me that the problem being worked is this:

The rover gets into trouble.

To solve this problem, the base has to carve off some resources, put them on a second rover, and send them off to rescue or repair the first rover.

This solution leaves the base with less resources, and also leaves each rover with less than the total resources available to the mission as a whole.

Therefore, it is argued, let the whole base, with all the resources available to the mission, bring all those resources to bear on whatever problem faces the mission.

Clearly, since the base can carry more resources, it can solve more problems than any rover. If the base encounters a problem that it cannot solve, then it is no worse off than the rover would have been. For all problems less than "cannot be solved by the entire base", the base is much better off than the rover could hope to be.

The logical extreme would be to bring the entire Earth to the Moon, but that's beyond our capability. However, the principle is sound, and from the principle an optimal base size and resource load can be determined.

The author of this solution obviously believes that the principle demands a base size and resource load somewhat larger than "moon buggy".

It all seems straightforward enough to me.

Re:Space RV's

[mwood]

I think I got all of that, but it still trips my "putting all of our eggs in one basket" alarm. I don't like designs that demand choices between ignoring a problem and risking *everything* to solve it. If your buggy breaks, at worst your comrades still have the fixed base, but if your mobile base breaks then everybody dies. Having only one of a critical resource is not safe.

Anyway, if they do build the thing, I hope that Mission Control uses "The Hut of Baba Yaga" as the first-day wake-up music.

Re:Space RV's

[susano_otter]

Rover breaks an axle. A new axle (or tools to manufacture a new axle, or parts to assemble a new axle) is put on a second rover, and sent after the first rover. Second rover involves more moving parts, and more risk of component failure during trip. Meanwhile, passengers on first rover are stranded far from base.

Base breaks an axle. A new axle is removed from supply cabinet, installed. Meanwhile, passengers on base have dinner.

The second scenario seems much more safe and success-prone than the first. Not to mention that you don't have to keep a spare rover around to send after the first. The spare rover's payload budget could be spent on additonal spare parts and tools for the base, additional consumables, additional experiments, additional shielding, or some combination of the above.

If you're really hung up on the eggs:baskets thing, perhaps redundant mobile bases of optimal size, operating within support range of each other, would ease your mind.

Separating the operations element (rover and rover crew) from the support element (base and base crew) may not be the safest way to conduct operations in a harsh environment like the Moon's surface. Keeping ops and support as close together as possible would tend to minimize the hazards associated with the mission. Shorter lifeline==less risk. What could be shorter than moving the entire support element on site with the operations element?

Innovative idea

[Anonymous Coward]

This will likely be the First base design for soldiers Posted on the moon.

Great Idea

[netblade83]

We Should definitely send some sort of habitat to the moon.

Re:Great Idea

[macdaddy357]

We like the moon, coz it is close to us we like the moooon! but not as much as a spoon cuz that's more use for eating soup and a fork isn't very useful for that unless it has got many vegetables and then you might be better off with a chop-stick unlike the moon it is up in the sky it's up there very high but not as high as maybe dirigibles or zeppelins or lightbulbs and maybe clouds and puffins also I think maybe they go quite high too maybe not as high as the moon coz the moon is very high we like the moon the moon is very useful for everyone everybody likes the moon because it lights up the sky at night and its lovely and it makes the tide go and we like it but not as much as cheese we really like cheese we like zeppelins we really like them and we like kelp and we like moose and we like deer and we like marmots and we like all the fluffy animals we really like the moon

As long as

[Tebriel]

As long as we've discovered Doctrine:Mobility beforehand, we'll be fine.

Re:As long as

[abradsn]

I was waiting for someone to put this in here! :)

Re:As long as

[ArsSineArtificio]

I was waiting for someone to put this in here! :)

You're on your own. The rest of us Must Dissent.

Re:As long as

[kwoff]

As long as we've discovered Doctrine:Mobility beforehand, we'll be fine.

Nice one. :)

Re:As long as

[boicy]

I have a friend in the UK Armed Forces who had a thing or two to say about the US Army's docrine of mobility.

It's a long story so I'll cut it short; he was involved in training some soldiers from the 101 Airborne whilst they were in the UK and got into a conversation with one of their officers:

Bemused US Airborne Dude: "say, why do you brits spend so much time running up and down mountains in training? Can't you just radio a chopper?"
UK Dude: "Well, what happens if it gets shot down?"
Bemused US Airborne dude: "We radio for another one."
UK Dude: "And if the second one gets shot down?"
Even more bemused US Airborne dude: "We radio for another one..."

Train hard, fight easy as they say...

Re:As long as

[walueg]

Not true or funny considering the 101st's accomplishments.

Re:As long as

[argStyopa]

US Army's docrine of mobility...

Or, he could be talking about Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, which contextually might be more relevant, given that it is a SciFi game ABOUT the colonization of a different planet...just a hunch.

Re:As long as

[ckaminski]

In WWII, where there were no helicopters, and Vietnam, where helicopters had a nasty habit of getting shot down and soldiers ended up humping it.

OP: Funny yes. True? About as true as anything you else you read on the Internet in an unattributed manner.

Re:As long as

[Anonymous Coward]

and by the time the third chopper comes they are aired on al jazeera with a lost expression on their face

Re:As long as

[TheMeddler]

In the 82nd Airborne, we use to shorten this to: "You're only airborne until you hit the ground." The 101st is (little tab over the eagle patch notwithstanding) not airborne, anyway - it is air assault. They haven't jumped in decades.

To the Moon, Alice

[SolidiusRock]

It's been something of a dream to see us go back to the Moon. Mostly on the basis that we need to support space exploration and without people getting interested, that won't happen. However, with new and unique ideas in contrast to the moon, much like this one, it may ignite even more people to support space travel. On a different note, it would be interesting to see how a mobile base would work let alone fair in some large disaster. Instead of one or two deaths, we now have ten.

- P.S.: I know I just contradicted myself in some fashion, but so be it. :-)

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[ChowyChow]

What will likely happen, within the next twenty years is the advent of commercialized space travel.

I'm guessing those who are motivated with money and exploration will be the same ones motivated to reach the moon 'first.'

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

Scaled Composites, whose craft isn't even designed to make it into orbit, let alone to the moon?

Keep dreaming...

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

I used to be a major "moon-as-stopping-point" proponent myself. However, there are some serious advantages to a base on Mars in comparison.

* Higher gravity means less need for strength training to stop bone loss and other problems
* Partial natural radiation shielding
* Ample known water supplies (moon ice is currently only speculative, despite plenty of lunar-orbit studying)
* Cheap to get bulk raw materials to anywhere we care about. Even cheaper to get raw materials to Earth than it is from the moon, due to the orbital energy of the moon that needs to be overcome.
* Ample sunlight for farming; artificial light for farming is a pretty doomed concept, when you do the energy calculations.
* Partial-pressure domes
* Far more mineral rich in every respect except for Helium-3, which is currently pretty worthless.
* A perfect stopping point for a triangle trade with the incredibly mineral rich asteroid belt (Mars raw materials and people can get to the asteroid belt with very little energy; asteroid belt materials get sent to Earth; Earth sends small, high tech components that Mars can't build to Mars).
* Major terraforming prospects; estimated workforce needed to terraform Mars to 1atm=10,000 people; procodes enough pressure and CO2 for plants, which over about 100 years can produce enough O2 for humans to breathe.

Of course, the big downside: It's far. Still, I think the pros really outweigh the cons. A Moon base would be like an antarctic research station. A Mars base would be like a colony. Stopping at the moon just seems like a waste of time - it'll take so much in terms of resources to keep it going that it will severely sap from the Mars effort. Just think of food and nuclear fuel shipping costs alone... Mars will take more resources initially, but at least it becomes somewhat sustainable over time since large-scale partially-pressured agriculture is feasable, and there's enough good raw minerals in easily processable forms...

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[matlhDam]

Yes, because it took more than 20 years to go from the first sub-orbital flight to the moon the first time around.

Wait...

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[JazzXP]

Yes, but a moon base is much closer, even just for "practice" for a mars base. It's still a hell of a lot cheaper to send stuff to the moon than Mars.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Hittite Creosote]

Ample sunlight for farming;

How do you work out sunlight as benefiting Mars more than the moon? Lunar bases will get as much sunlight as Earth (ignoring atmosphere effects), while Mars will get less since it's further away from the sun.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Xilman]

Less absolute amount of sunlight on Mars but more evenly spread around.

A lot of plants can't hack 2-week long nights, whereas the nights on Mars are only slightly longer than they are here.

Paul

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[adeyadey]

I would agree with some of your points, but probably the strongest argument for the moon is simply that it is so close.

If there is a major accident, an astronaut can get back to a tried-and-tested apollo style lunar capsule, launch pretty much immediately and get back home in a few days.

On mars, you only have fast(ish) routes back to earth every 18 months (assuming something close to current rocket tech) with a 6 month transit time. A moon base will also give NASA time to invent new vehicles for landing men on, surviving on, then returning from another world with reasonable safety - remember they have not built such vehicles for over 30 years.

Zubrins plan for Mars is tempting, but NASAs manned program is really shaky at the moment post columbia - if they tried that direct-to-mars route & had a major catastrophe, which would be very possible given all the unknowns, they would be in political hot water. An easier & sucsessful moon mission would give them the political confidence to carry on to mars, and develop a range of useful technologies in the meantime.

I personally think that the X-prize is an interesting route - when you think about it it was *enthusiasts* that got men on the moon quickly and safely - the timescale for Apollo development was amazing, now we look back. Think of those early fanatical engineers, like van braun.. I think that a series of objectives, ending with prizes for the first hotels on the moon/mars, could acheieve far more for much much less public money - maybe operating in tandem with NASA agencies. If fact it seems NASA is starting to think this way too, and offer its own X-prize..

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[CrimsonAvenger]

* Higher gravity means less need for strength training to stop bone loss and other problems

* Partial natural radiation shielding

* Ample known water supplies (moon ice is currently only speculative, despite plenty of lunar-orbit studying)

Won't argue with those.

* Cheap to get bulk raw materials to anywhere we care about. Even cheaper to get raw materials to Earth than it is from the moon, due to the orbital energy of the moon that needs to be overcome.

No. MUCH cheaper in terms of deltaV to get something from Luna to Earth than from Mars to Earth. Roughly 2400m/s to get to Earth from Luna, 5700m/s from Mars to Earth.

* Ample sunlight for farming; artificial light for farming is a pretty doomed concept, when you do the energy calculations.

Probably. No clue how this would work out with artificial lights for two weeks, natural sunlight for two weeks. On the other hand, people grow marijiuana indoors all the time. Can't be too hard...

* Partial-pressure domes

Hmmm? Martian atmospheric pressure is ~2% of terrestrial. Close enough to a vacuum to make no practical difference in designing a dome, I think.

* Far more mineral rich in every respect except for Helium-3, which is currently pretty worthless.

Probably. But by no means certain. We've looked at a handful of surface spots on both places, so we really don't know too much about the mineral resources of either.

* A perfect stopping point for a triangle trade with the incredibly mineral rich asteroid belt (Mars raw materials and people can get to the asteroid belt with very little energy; asteroid belt materials get sent to Earth; Earth sends small, high tech components that Mars can't build to Mars).

No. deltaV requirements to go from Luna to an asteroid ~500Gm from Earth are essentially the same as those required from Mars to the same rock. And launch windows from Luna come along almost twice as often, giving Luna an edge. Admittedly, there are some materials (carbon, specifically) that we can get in quantity on Mars that we can't get from Luna. So there will no doubt be a reason to move some materials from Mars to the asteroids. But anything available both on Mars and Luna will be equally expensive to ship from either, and more convenient from Luna because of more frequent launch windows.

* Major terraforming prospects; estimated workforce needed to terraform Mars to 1atm=10,000 people; procodes enough pressure and CO2 for plants, which over about 100 years can produce enough O2 for humans to breathe.

Won't argue with this one either.

Mars base is desirable, but it does not eliminate the need for a Lunar base - if nothing else, the Lunar base should be where the majority of the Mars spacecraft are built. Not the complicated parts, necessarily, but structures, liquid oxygen for fuel/atmosphere, that sort of thing. If we could build all of a Mars ship but the electronics, food, and H2 from Lunar materials, we'd significantly lower cost of a Mars mission.

Yah, we'd frontload a lot of costs by building the Lunar infrastructure, but in the long run it would save us a great deal of money. Even in the medium run. And possibly in the short run (the first three-five missions, perhaps) we'd even come out slightly ahead....

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[starcraftsicko]

You were good until this:

* Major terraforming prospects; estimated workforce needed to terraform Mars to 1atm=10,000 people; procodes enough pressure and CO2 for plants, which over about 100 years can produce enough O2 for humans to breathe

The much lower gravity on mars combined with the lack of useful magnetic field will make it virtually impossible to hold a surface pressure anywhere near 1 atm. The best you can reasonably hope for is a 1/2 atm surface pressure (in the deep valleys mind you) and a high fraction of oxygen to yeild a breathable atmosphere.

Keep in mind also that the atmosphere of mars is really all of the radiation shielding there is. With no magnetic field to speak of, the martian atmosphere is exposed to solar wind and all of the other hard radiation that the sun throws at it. That's one of the reasons they have such a hard time keeping probes and robotic explorers "alive" on the partian surface.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[red floyd]

Except during the several month long, planet-wide dust storms (see Mariner 9).

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[James Turpin]

Generating a planetary magnetic field should be a high priority in terraforming.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Cranx]

Mars gravity (1/3 of Earth's) is also a huge sticking point. It would still take a tremendous amount of energy to lift anything out of Mars' gravity. You'd have to build a fair-sized launch vehicle capable of landing on Mars without damage, either with enough fuel to launch or with equipment to extract fuel from the environment. The size limitations of what you can land there limits how much you can lift back into space. The moon, by comparison, has half of Mars' gravity, making landing there twice as easy and lifting back off twice as easy, with a far, far shorter distance to travel through space back to Earth.

More than likely, Nasa won't leave anything to chance and will bring the fuel and water needed to complete the mission. That means the moon and Mars are equal in terms of resources. The moon is closer and has less gravity. The moon is probably where a stopping point would be.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

... and 2% of the US's GDP.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[crawling_chaos]

Scaled's vehicle isn't really a step toward an orbital ship. It's too flimsy to survive getting injected into orbit, much less coming back down. Armadillo's craft actually has a scale-up that would be orbital capable, on the other hand, so not all hope for a privately funded trip to LEO is forlorn.

On the other hand, only one entity has ever built a rocket capable of taking a manned craft to the surface of the moon, and it wasn't private industry. Too bad Nixon killed the Saturn boosters in favor of the Shuttle. We could really use a Big Dumb Rocket right now.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[HopeOS]

It did not cost 2% of the GDP to build it; the expenses were largely in development. That information is now known, and the majority of it is available at your university library.

-Hope

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Eraser_]

Probably. No clue how this would work out with artificial lights for two weeks, natural sunlight for two weeks. On the other hand, people grow marijiuana indoors all the time. Can't be too hard...

Maybe I missed some point, but people grow marijuana because they have near unlimited power coming from that wall socket. The big problem is generation and storage of power. Harvesting it from the sun is OK and all, but you have to be able to harvest enough power during sunny times to last you through the frigidly cold night, and keep your plants alive. Eventually there would be a layer of greenhouse gas to aid in this edevour, but it would have to be closely monitored. Nature setup this planet with the perfect atmosphere, we are pretty new at this whole terraforming from scratch thing.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[starcraftsicko]

Um. Even in theory, how would you suggest this be done? We don't even know (for sure) how Earth's magnetic field is generated. IIRC, we THINK that it might have something to do with the flow of liquid metal (iron) around a core of solid metal, but since we can't observe it...

IF this theory is correct, we'd have to find a way to (re)melt the outer portion of Mars' core... then find a way to get it moving in the 'right' (or any) direction.

NASA (or whoever) could always mount a sophisticated "laser" on the moon (err "Death Star") to do this, but I'm not sure that it's practical. :-)

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

> MUCH cheaper

My mistake; I had it backwards. Mars to Earth's moon vs Earth to Earth's moon. delta-v for Mars to Earth's moon is 5.4 km/s, while delta-v for Earth to Earth's moon is 15.0 km/s.

> On the oter hand, people grow marijuana indoors all the time

Not really applicable. People don't grow enough marijuana to get calories to live off of indoors. If they did, their power bills would be astronomical, as would the equipment that they needed.

> Close enough to make no practical difference in designing a dome

It's not a pressure issue. It's a radiation shielding. A thin partial pressure dome on the Moon would not provide enough shielding to protect you (and, more critically, your crops) from the sun or GCR.

> Probably. But by no means certain.

The moon's minerals that we know about are generally silicon and aluminum oxides that are hard to break down. But even from a theoretical standpoint, the moon should be pretty mineral bereft, while Mars should be rather mineral rich. We know that in the past Mars had huge volcanic activity, and has been largely eroding ever since (beyond that, we don't know too much about its geology). The moon, on the other hand, was created in a collision with Earth, in which Earth should have gotten the vast majority of the heavy metals.

> deltaV requirements to go from Luna to an asteroid ~500GM from Earth are essentially the same as those required from Mars to the same rock.

Darn, where is that table when I need it...

> but structures, liquid oxygen for fuel/atmosphere

Certainly, there's aluminum on the moon, which would undoubtedly be what one would want, so I have to agree with you there. It'll be expensive as heck setting up an aluminum smelting plant anywhere outside Earth, but it's pretty much a requirement wherever we want to colonize. :P As for fuel, oxygen isn't a fuel - it's an oxidizer. Perhaps you might be able to make some solid rocket boosters with what's available if you were shipped in the binder.... although if you're shipping in the binder, that kind of defeats the purpose. The near lack of hydrogen and carbon in lunar samples thusfar is a really big problem.

On Mars, however, you have ample hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, and aluminum already known (plus a whole lot of other stuff). So, perhaps if you shipped in nuclear fuel or huge amounts of solar arrays, you might be able to produce aluminum products and oxygen on the moon... but I can't see how you'd economically produce fuel there. On the other hand, it is quite feasable, and actually rather simple, to do so on Mars.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[CrimsonAvenger]

On Mars, however, you have ample hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, and aluminum already known (plus a whole lot of other stuff). So, perhaps if you shipped in nuclear fuel or huge amounts of solar arrays, you might be able to produce aluminum products and oxygen on the moon... but I can't see how you'd economically produce fuel there. On the other hand, it is quite feasable, and actually rather simple, to do so on Mars.

You liquify O2. That accounts for ~5/6 of the fuel mass required for an H2/O2 rocket. You lift the H2 from Earth. For the first trip. Later on, might make sense to import it from Mars. Since the fuel (and oxidizer, yes I know the difference - and I know when it stops making a difference) is most of the mass of the spacecraft. Reducing the amount of that "most of the mass" that has to be lifted from Earth to the spacecraft is a significant thing.

Admittedly, in the long run, you'll be using nuclear rockets, and have no real use for lunar oxygen. Even then, it is possible that it is worthwhile. Consider, a 60t (dry) spacecraft, nuclear propelled, would require ~50t of H2 reaction mass. The same 60t spacecraft, using conventional rockets, would require ~135t of H2/O2. But only 22.5t of that 135t is H2. As opposed to ALL of the 50t. You'd have to have a nuke rocket with an Isp of 1600+ to match the cost-effectiveness of the H2/O2 burner, if only the H2 had to come up from the ground.

Alternatively, it is possible to design a rocket to burn a slurry of Al dust and O2. Both of which are available on the moon. Performance of an Al/O2 rocket is crap, but crap that doesn't have to be lifted from Earth at all. Might be worth using, in some cases.

Please note that I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go to Mars. Or even that Luna is more important than Mars. Luna will never be more than a convenient waystation between Earth and other places. But without that waystation, getting to other places will be painful....

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[CrimsonAvenger]

You missed something. I was referring to the difficulties (or lack thereof) of growing things on Luna. Which we weren't talking about terraforming (it may be possible, but it certainly is pointless).

It is worth pointing out that Luna is a better place for solar power than either Earth or Mars - no weather. Clear and sunny, all day, every day. Course, those two-week nights require some significant power storage. But in many ways, it is still easier than Earth or Mars. On both of those planets, you have to design for an uncertain amount of storage (what if it rains for three weeks straight? Or dusts, as the case may be on Mars...), whereas on Luna, it as predictable as the sunrise....

Better still would be orbital solar arrays, beamed to ground. But it is unlikely that we'll have such on Mars for a long time after we first go there. Or on Luna, even if they are available around Earth.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[whittrash]

What would be better would be to build a tiny ship with robots in it and a small mining machine, maybe it could use a fresnel lens or a large focusing device to smelt ore. They could mine ore on the moon and build more robots and a bigger mining operation. Then they could take those resources and build a luxury moon base. This way we could build a base without having to launch a large payload. We would only need to send people...or perhaps the robots could live there for us so we didn't have to send people there. We could even build a giant rail gun to lauch spaceship parts or raw materials into orbit and build the base there instead. We could send other robots out to find big chunks of space ice and use that for propellant for our space rockts so we can travel. Reallistically, nuclear fusion and better computers would be nice before we try this, the problem is we need large amounts of cheap energy and powerful and robust automated systems for a moon base to work well. Doesn't Magneto have a moon base? How did he build his base?

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[cjameshuff]

* Higher gravity means less need for strength training to stop bone loss and other problems

We really have no idea how much will be required. It may only be necessary to strength train a short period before returning to Earth.

* Partial natural radiation shielding

That exists in both places...the Moon has plenty of dirt that makes pretty good shielding.

* Ample known water supplies (moon ice is currently only speculative, despite plenty of lunar-orbit studying)

The lunar soil contains large amounts of oxygen, and large amounts of hydrogen will need to be supplied anyway for power. Burn the hydrogen with the oxygen in fuel cells. Use some of the water that results for the inhabitants, and once you have large amounts of solar power, you can electrolyze the rest back into hydrogen and oxygen for fuel during the lunar night.

* Cheap to get bulk raw materials to anywhere we care about. Even cheaper to get raw materials to Earth than it is from the moon, due to the orbital energy of the moon that needs to be overcome.

A direct transfer orbit from Mars orbit from Earth might be cheaper. The moon would probably be cheaper using other trajectories. In any case, you don't really want to send the materials to Earth, you want to send them elsewhere in space.

* Ample sunlight for farming; artificial light for farming is a pretty doomed concept, when you do the energy calculations.

The moon has more, but you would probably want an orbital farm, because providing light during the lunar night would be a pain. Providing supplementary food for a small number of people would not use an impractical amount of power.

* Partial-pressure domes

The pressure difference between the interior and outside will be nearly the same. The Martian atmosphere is very thin.

* Far more mineral rich in every respect except for Helium-3, which is currently pretty worthless.

The minerals are highly oxidized. The moon has significant amounts of reduced metals. A solar furnace could vaporize these to extract the desired metals. Mars receives far less light from the sun, making this kind of high-energy processing more difficult.

* A perfect stopping point for a triangle trade with the incredibly mineral rich asteroid belt (Mars raw materials and people can get to the asteroid belt with very little energy; asteroid belt materials get sent to Earth; Earth sends small, high tech components that Mars can't build to Mars).

Phobos and Deimos, maybe. A large asteroid in an elliptical orbit that takes it close to the orbit of Earth and the belt would be even better.

* Major terraforming prospects; estimated workforce needed to terraform Mars to 1atm=10,000 people; procodes enough pressure and CO2 for plants, which over about 100 years can produce enough O2 for humans to breathe.

You severely underestimate the requirements for terraforming Mars.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[cjameshuff]

The magnetic field is not the reason for the thin atmosphere. Venus also has no significant magnetic field, slightly less gravity than Earth, receives far more solar radiation (nearly twice that of Earth, about 4.46 times that of Mars), and its surface atmospheric pressure is about 90 times that of Earth. Titan's atmosphere, mostly nitrogen, has a surface pressure 1.6 times that of Earth, and much less gravity: about 0.14 gee (though it does receive about 1/12 as much light as Mars). Mars would lose atmosphere faster than Earth, but it would still do so at geological rates.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you need a Death Star?

As anyone could tell you, you just need a handful of nukes and a little unobtainium.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

> We really have no idea how much will be required

Yes, but just based on what we've seen in zero-G, the prospects for such low gravity don't look good.

> the Moon has plenty of dirt

The lunar regolith doesn't allow light to pass through, and thus prevents effective farming. Humans aren't the only things that need shielding.

> the Lunar soil contains large amounts of oxygen ... in tightly locked-up forms that are not easy to process.

> large amounts of hydrogen would need to be supplied anyway

Not on Mars; Mars has the hydrogen (the moon doesn't). What, you think we're going to be powering either site (which are expected to have refining) by shipping *chemical fuel*? Are you crazy? Have you looked at the math involved? It's ludicrous.

> Providing supplementary food for a small number of people would not use an impractical amount of power

Given a 2000 calorie diet, and assuming that even in the highly unfamiliar lunar environment we can get the same sort of yields that we get on Earth due to extensive, very expensive automation, that would be one acre of farmland per person. Lets just ignore how massive of a structure you'd need to shield and light that acre under regolith, for now. One acre of sunlight on earth receives about 200kW in a year (on average; it really depends on where you are, but most farmland will get at least this much). If your plan is to ship in hydrogen for fuel cells, being kind and ignoring the mass of the tanks (which will be a large portion), and assuming that all of your oxygen is derrived at no energy cost (the energy cost is actually *huge* when separating it from silicon and aluminum oxides; there's a reason why aluminum recycling is so popular in the industry... I'd have to check, but it may be even more than you'd get from burning the oxygen with hydrogen in a fuel cell). Lets just make these preposterously kind assumptions here.

1kg of hydrogen will get you about 86 MJ of energy in your typical fuel cell. For every watt hour of power you want, you need about 3600 joules, so that's about 24kWh per kilogram of hydrogen. 1kg of hydrogen would thus power your acre for about 0.12 hours. You would consequently need about 73 metric tons of hydrogen every year for this one person to farm, which, with a earth to moon cost of a mere 20,000$/kg, would cost ~150 million dollars.

But wait, it gets better. :) Hydrogen tanks are very heavy - lets be nice and only increase that cost to, say, 200 million dollars. Lights don't do perfect conversion efficiency, and it gets worse when you're trying to mimic sunlight; lets be kind and only raise that to 400 million dollars per person. Even the best lights have lifespans and need to be replaced; lets be really kind and say that it only has an upkeep of an additional 100 million dollars per person, to a total of half a billion dollars per person per year, just for the farming.

However, the oxygen *isn't* free. Looking at the stats for a Brazilian alumina smelter using top of the line tech, a constant 1140MW power provides for 55% of a 135mtpy smelter. Assuming half of the output mass is oxygen (I don't have time to do the math here), that's 67.5 mtpy; converting to metric, we get about 55 metric tons per year. We need a whole lot more than 55 metric tons; we need 73*4=292 metric tons per year. That's 5.3 times more. So, 1140/.55*5.3= a constant ~11 GW power at all times to run the smelters to provide the oxygen.

Notice something? Your fuel cells are generating 200kW. You're putting in 11 GW to get oxygen from the aluminum ore. *It doesn't work out* - it doesn't come even close. As I mentioned processing aluminum ore takes a *lot* of power. You'd consequently have to ship your oxygen in, since you can't get it from the regolith. The shipped in oxygen would mass about four times as much as the hydrogen. You do the math.

A lunar base will *not* be doing farming without *extensive* nuclea

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

I think the power problem will be a big issue; solar arrays are nice, but producing the sort of power needed to run a colony (*especially* if you plan to grow your own food - we take for granted how much power the sun constantly bombards every acre of land with) would require incredibly massive arrays. I think pretty much every basic design - lunar or martial - will be nuclear. It's just too expensive otherwise.

In the long run? Certainly nuclear isn't sustainable on the moon (unless current theory of moon formation is wrong), so producing thin-film solar cells might slowly take over as the route to take. Probably for Mars, too. But off the bat, the power needs for farming the moon will be so huge, I don't think they'd even be able to do it with nuclear power.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[CrimsonAvenger]

And why not solar? as you say, we take for granted how much power the sun constantly bombards every acre of land with. The sun bombards Luna just as hard.

Might be some issues with radiation levels on the surface, but sunlight can be piped underground, if needed there. Certainly, nuclear has its advantages - not least of which is the small fuel mass required (100g/MW-Year? somewhere around there, anyway, in a military reactor), but the minimum size for a decent installation is quite large, and so quite unlikely at first.

I'm a nuclear advocate, and I don't expect nuclear power to be used much offworld in a big way for a very long time, if ever. Solar is too good an option, in places with no weather...

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

Oh, if you can get such a big array, it'd be great on Luna. But an acre of solar panels is far from lightweight ;) Perhaps (although it'd be incredibly expensive also!) lunar sand could be fused into large reflector mirrors, and attached to heliostats shipped from Earth; then it could be focused on a solar-thermal power plant (shipped from Earth also). Of course, cooling the plant would be a harder engineering challenge, and it will weigh a lot to ship from Earth....

I wonder how hard it is to apply thin-film solar cells, and what the requirements for what they're applied to are....

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[starcraftsicko]

Ok class, the question for today is:

Q: Why is a comet's tail always directed AWAY from the sun.

A: Solar Wind.

The solar wind is ionized, so the Earth's magnetic field deflects to a large degree. Gravity also plays a large role. Shear from the solar wind would be a real concern for any terraforming project on Mars.

Titan is protected by the incredibly strong field around Saturn, and also by its distance from the sun. As for Venus... for some reason I always thought venus had a meaningful magnetic field... But I suppose that we could just be looking at the result of "recent" (last million years or so) volcanic activity.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Noren]

In the longer run, a better way to store energy for propusion is as antimatter- with far, far more energy per gram than combustion or nuclear sources. We can currently make and store small amounts of antimatter, and there's no fundimental reason it could not be used as an energy source.

Energy is cheap in space once you get enough solar cells, which will generate more energy than analogous ones within the atmosphere (and possibly much more if placed in an orbit closer to the sun...)

Of course, if your magnetic confinement of the antimatter fails all the antimatter will encounter matter and convert to energy and you'll release all of your stored energy at once.

It'll be a while yet before we have reliable and practical large scale antimatter production/storage/propulsion systems, but it would be the ideal rocket fuel once the (considerable) challenges are overcome.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[CrimsonAvenger]

Just so. But I'm more interested in the immediate future - say, 50-100 years. We won't be using antimatter much within that span, if only because we won't have the excess power-generating capacity to make much of it within that time.

I'm hoping for antimatter production in reasonable quantity (more than 100 kg per year, say) in about 200 years. I don't really expect it that soon, though....

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Rei]

Sorry, I looked it up again, and it was 0.8% of the GDP. Still, when Rutan starts spending 0.8% of our GDP, let me know.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[cjameshuff]

A comets tail is very thin, and the gravity of a comet is practically zero. Titan and Mars are giants compared to comets.

As for the magnetic field of Saturn...Titan actually sometimes passes outside the Saturnian magnetopause. Being within the magnetic field is no guarantee of protection either: like Earth, Saturn has radiation belts, which may intersect the orbit of Titan.

Venus has a magnetic field about 0.000015 times as strong as Earth's, probably resulting from interactions between ions in its upper atmosphere and the solar wind. And I extremely strongly doubt that volcanic activity can account for an atmosphere on a roughly Earth-sized planet which is 90 times as heavy as that of Earth.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[cjameshuff]

> The lunar regolith doesn't allow light to pass through, and thus prevents effective farming. Humans aren't the only things that need shielding.

Actually, we pretty much are. Crops have a very limited growing season, long-term effects from mutations just aren't much of a worry for them. Filters to reduce the intensity (or simply an arrangment of mirrors indirectly lighting the crops) and cut out some UV will be sufficient.

> the Lunar soil contains large amounts of oxygen ... in tightly locked-up forms that are not easy to process.

You can get far by simply heating it, easier on the Moon than on Mars.

> Not on Mars; Mars has the hydrogen (the moon doesn't). What, you think we're going to be powering either site (which are expected to have refining) by shipping *chemical fuel*? Are you crazy? Have you looked at the math involved? It's ludicrous.

I thought I was pretty clear that it would only use it for the setup power. Initially, it will require some form of power transported to the moon. The craft taking people and materials to the moon will require power. This all results in a significant amount of water being taken to the vicinity of the moon.

Mars does have the hydrogen, but it also has less than half the amount of sunlight per square meter.

Your entire argument about farming is ridiculous...I specifically said supplementary food. You ignore the fact that the growing season is only a small portion of the year to inflate the figures, and I have no idea what crops you were thinking of. The oxygen would be provided by a solar furnace during the day, not an electrical Brazilian alumina smelter on demand.

> It's an issue of shielding. A partial pressure dome for farming wouldn't work on the moon for farming because of radiation.

A double-layered translucent dome (to help regulate the temperature), plus Venetian blinds to provide a diurnal cycle for plants that need it would probably work just fine on the moon. As I said, crops probably don't need much protection from radiation, they certainly don't need as much as us.

> So you pick and choose which asteroids? I'm talking mining in general. The best asteroids aren't necesarily going to pass by Earth.

You chopped out the part which explained what I was talking about. The asteroid would have an elliptical orbit that comes close to that of Earth and the belt. Habitats would be built on the asteroid, which would then provide a means of safely transporting people between Earth and the belt. No need to go to Mars. Even if the delta-V is higher, the manned ships have far shorter trips to make, and can greatly cut down on shielding.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[shadowbearer]

Like Goddard?

Baby steps. That's how the massive government space program started, and how the commercial space program is starting (but the current efforts have the experience and gained knowledge of more than a half century of spaceflight to draw on, and are advancing much more quickly.)

I think we'll be pleasantly surprised...and remember that back when we were taking our first steps, few had dreamed of the potential profitability of communications and spy satellites.

Now the fruits of half a century+ of development of the technology is accessible to small startup companies. Think about it, Rei. I know you are a pessimist when it comes to the development of manned space access - hell, I have been since watching the clusterfuck that happened after Challenger - but this is private corporations who are dedicated to making it happen! Come on now! Not even twenty years ago this was considered just a pipe dream!

I simply don't understand your pessimism about this. Sure, it's not likely to be a ten year suborbit to lunar landing style excursion, but who's to tell at this point? What a lot of us have dreamed of for two decades+ is at least being attempted. Give 'em some credit!

SB

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[shadowbearer]

Partial natural radiation shielding

That's really meaningless, because Mars has no magnetic field that makes a difference there, unlike Earth; and the atmosphere is far too thin to provide any radiation shielding that will make a difference for human beings. We'll be doing the same thing on Mars as we would do on Luna - building underground.

A perfect stopping point for a triangle trade with the incredibly mineral rich asteroid belt (Mars raw materials and people can get to the asteroid belt with very little energy; asteroid belt materials get sent to Earth; Earth sends small, high tech components that Mars can't build to Mars).

The major cost of those components is getting them off Earth in the first place. Once you are in LEO you are halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Mars could and possibly will become a good waystation, but that's a long, long way in the future. You are looking entirely too far ahead without considering what we have to do to get there. Laudable, but not realistic.

Major terraforming prospects

That's just a plain ridiculous comparison. Luna can't be terraformed. Mars can, but the effort would still take centuries, at least. It's a nice idea, but exploring the solar system will involve learning how to live within self-contained and self-sufficient environments; and the best place to test them is Luna (because it's the easiest point to launch a rescue mission to.)

As to H-3, on the timescales you are talking about, it's likely that it won't be useless when we finally get there. At least we can hope :)

SB

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Xilman]

Except during the several month long, planet-wide dust storms (see Mariner 9).

That's a good point. Anyone know how much visible light gets filtered out by those things? They certainly scatter a lot, or we'd be able to see through them, but if you're standing on the ground how dark does it get?

Plants here on earth have evolved to live in diffused sunlight (think forest floors or predominantly cloudy areas) and so if a Martian dust storm lets through enough light that in itself won't be a killer.

Paul

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if this changes anything or not:

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsyste m/ moon_mountain_020326.html

Question: Mount Malapert is 16,400 feet high, and gets sunlight 90 percent of the time, even during lunar night. How much extra juice could a solar power field ringing the mountain crank out? Or have you already factored that into your calculations?

I suppose the real wild card is whether or not there's ice at the Lunar South Pole. Assuming there is, that would simplify the problem of supporting human habitation there immensely.

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[displague]

All this talk of "shipping" makes me wonder why FedEx/UPS aren't taking stake in the space race.

"Just sign here, and here. Have a good day." Vrrrooooomm

Re:To the Moon, Alice

[juhaz]

Not really applicable. People don't grow enough marijuana to get calories to live off of indoors. If they did, their power bills would be astronomical, as would the equipment that they needed.

You don't necessarily need to grow calories 100% of the time, just keeping the plants alive over the night time could suffice, and the amount of light for that is easily doable without astronomical power requirements (not even as much as marijuana, think house plants).

Long-term, it should not impossible to breed or GM a plant that can stand 2 week dark period on it's own (assuming one suitable for food production doesn't already exist, counting not only traditional plants but edible fungi, etc.), deciduous plants in big parts of the world already spend better part of the year without any photosynthesis at all.

Did any one else

[JRob007]

read that as mobile laser base?

Re:Did any one else

[TheSpoom]

NASA Considers Alan Parsons Project
from the one-miiiiillion-dollars dept.

Re:Did any one else

[SpankMonkeyPox]

Would that be a part of the Alan Parsons Project?

Re:Did any one else

[Anonymous Coward]

I am the Eye In The Sky looking at YOUUUUUUUUU!

Terran?

[Traa]

Ha, Protoss will wipe you out!

Re:Terran?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just watch out for those pesky Zerg Queens if your command center gets down into the red. Keep at least a few marines or goliaths nearby to help destroy it if a queen shows up. Infested Terrans are nasty little buggers....

Re:Terran?

[ArsSineArtificio]

kekekeke scaled composites rush ^_^

Re:Terran?

[Anonymous Coward]

but as the protoss and terran continue to battle across the sector, blue tiger and his cerebrates will sit back patiently untill we got 12 queens and then 150 mana on each. (the command center is kinda like a prize for extra effort.

anyone into sc games (or brood wars also), icq me 75757417. :)

and to those who think they can battle cruiser me, dark swarm works wonders. ;)

Re:Terran?

[cpsc2005]

Somehow, I don't like the sound of this. I have a feeling I'll be dead before the bases get to the other side of the map^H^H^H solar system.

Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-FI

[Claire-plus-plus]

Land trains without tracks, sounds like the trains in the Amtrak wars books by Patrick Tilley. As you may or may not know those books featured a mobile base/habitat on wheels that was set up like a trackless train.

Inherent problem

[carambola5]

By making the base mobile, it would obviously need to be above ground (er, regolith, I suppose). One of the major problems with this is shielding from cosmic radiation. By placing a base a few meters under the lunar regolith, expensive (either due to manufacturability or weight) shielding need not be used... the regolith is good enough. However, with a mobile lunar base, that expensive shielding must be employed and transported along with the mobile base.

I'm sorry, but this is just one of the many reasons why a mobile lunar base is infeasible (as of now). The sheer coolness of it is astronomical (haha, get it?), but the costs are simply too high.

Re:Inherent problem

[Sampizcat]

So, why not make it underground, and just tunnel everywhere? We could become the Mole People!

Seriously though, it would shield from (some? UV?) radiation as well as help against debris striking the base (provided the debris was small and/or the base & tunnels were deep enough underground).

Plus, the moon rock between you and space would provide some sort of insulation and therefore warmth as opposed to being simply "out in the open", wouldn't it? And how hard could moon-mining be anyway? There's no issue of debris, just shoot it out into space, or even at Earth and it will just burn up (assuming the pieces are small enough). Of course, this could be bad as if they don't make it we could end up with a lovely ring of debris around the moon.

Regardless of what happens, there's some pretty cool stuff waiting in the future. Hope it's in my lifetime.

Re:Inherent problem

[Dark Nexus]

Considering the low gravity, transporting that shielding along with the base wouldn't be that difficult.

You're probably right about the cost though, and weight would certainly come into play with actually GETTING the sheilding there.

Re:Inherent problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if it's packed full of Intel® Centrino chips! No just Mobile Technology, but Mobile Moon Technology(MMT).

Re:Inherent problem

[Sampizcat]

Actually, as well as the benefits mentioned above, we eliminate (mostly) the problem of transporting weighty materials to the moon. All we really need is the mining equipment.

...plus a few fluoro lights, brightly-coloured flower wall-paper, lava lamps, spiders to leave their webs around the upper parts of the tunnel and dark areas so you can walk through them...

Re:Inherent problem

[Slashamatic]

Forget cosmic, the main issue for the lunar camperwould be solar, i.e., during flares. This is already a major issue for mission planners and the ISS has a single protected area where astronauts can hide in when NASA sounds the alarm.

Of coure it would be possible to do something similar for NASA's lunar-camper. It would just add to the weight. A static underground shelter as you suggest would be much better.

Re:Inherent problem

[RollingThunder]

Remember that low gravity doesn't change the mass, just the weight. You still need to put in a lot of energy to start the mass moving, it's just easier to build the structure to hold it and lift it up.

Re:Inherent problem

[carambola5]

Plus, the moon rock between you and space would provide some sort of insulation and therefore warmth as opposed to being simply "out in the open", wouldn't it?

Actually, regolith is such a good insulator, the base would have to vent off heat.

And how hard could moon-mining be anyway?

Not terribly hard. Remember, everything weighs ~6x less on the moon. Picking stuff up and putting it down elsewhere is much easier. But also, regolith is mostly of a very fine composition. Something similar to the sand you find in hourglass timers. Not to mention no water to allow it to clump. I would imagine such a small angle of repose would lead to a more inefficient dig than generally expected.

Re:Inherent problem

[penguinoid]

So, why not make it underground, and just tunnel everywhere? We could become the Mole People!

Well, for starters there would be the problem about tunnels not being air-tight. Although I suppose a thin sheet of plastic would solve that (since the air pressure will push it outward against the walls of the tunnel).

Re:Inherent problem

[mosb1000]

Maybe you could design a structure atop the mobile base capable of holding several meters of regolith. It wouldn't need to be all that sturdy since things on the moon don't weigh that much, and you could fill it up once you got there, so it'd be inexpensive.

Re:Inherent problem

[stevelinton]

The moon rotates every 29 plus days, call it 700 hours.

The diameter of the moon is about 2162 miles, so the circumference is about 6800 miles. So at less than 10 mph, even at the equator, you can keep the entire moon between you and solat radiation.

Not realistic at the equator, but rather fun.

Nearer the poles though, this could be entirely feasible. Use the mobile base to simply avoid daylight.

Rules out solar power, of course.

Steve

Re:Inherent problem

[techno-vampire]

What's the problem? You simply lower the base, shovel some regolith over it and Bob's your uncle. When you're ready to move, a little more shovel work uncovers it.

Re:Inherent problem

[blrr]

The Mole. I believe that was Pod 6 on Thunderbird 2.

Re:Inherent problem

[Rei]

I vote for this proposal. Not the "tunnelling everywhere" concept so much as the humans becoming Lunar Mole People concept. is there a signup sheet somewhere? I've always wanted to make B-movie sci-fi into reality... ;)

Re:Inherent problem

[cynic10508]

...simply avoid daylight.

Something tells me that this is something slashdotters can contribute a lot to. I call it Project: Parents' Basement.

Re:Inherent problem

[Somegeek]

You're also forgetting about the cold. I think that the lunar night is like -180 c or something. I think that would be a huge challenge for our material sciences to deal with. That is one of the challenges of a lunar base, if they can't put it in a spot with constant sunlight (they think they have found a couple) then the base has to deal with 2 weeks of 100c in the sunlight, followed by 2 weeks of darkness in the impossible cold. Also one of the reasons to go to Mars first. The environment is much more habitable and forgiving. Well, some anyway.

Re:Inherent problem

[stevelinton]

There is a problem with temperatures, but it doesn't work quite the same way on the Moon as you seem to think. There is (basically) no atmosphere, so there is no "current air temperature" as there is on Earth. The rock surface varies from very hot after being in sunlight for a while to very cold after being in shadow for a while, but the rock is a very poor conductor, and it is not hard to insulate the base from the rock it's standing on (or rolling over) or simply to heat or cool the small amount of immediately adjacent rock and use the rock itself as insulator.

The main issue is radiation. If you are in sunlight, you get intense radiant heat from the sun, which, depending on what colour you are, you may or may not absorb. If you're not, and can see open space, then you radiate heat to it, again depending on what colour you are. Finally, you have to get rid of the heat generated by your people and machinery, which can be a problem, especially if you are underground.

These are all issues that need attention, but it should not actually be too hard to keep all, or most of the materials that make up the base at more or less whatever temperature you want. To a large extent this can be done with surface coating -- shiny at optical wavelengths to reflect sunlight, darker at IR wavelengths to radiate internal heat, etc. Some active heat pumping might also be needed.

Re:Inherent problem

[hughk]

You would normally want to be in the Sun. You can see where you are going and what you are doing. Also as other posters have remarked, it wouldn't be so cold.

The problem is how much notice you get of a serious flare to get out of the way, (i.e, to the darkside or at least a shelter.

Re:Inherent problem

[stevelinton]

Even between flares, I don't think being in the sun is too healthy in the long term. Does anyone have hard data?

I really don't think cold is a problem. If you make the base reasonably shiny it won't radiate much -- getting rid of heat is likely to be a bigger problem than keeping warm.

Re:Inherent problem

[fredrik70]

Plus, the moon rock between you and space would provide some sort of insulation and therefore warmth as opposed to being simply "out in the open", wouldn't it?

actually, vacuum is a hell of an insulator, the only way you can lose heat in space is via radiation, which is a fairly slow process, You wont instantl freeze if you take of your space suit (in the shadow). What we would need to insulate against would be solar radiation, since that can get pretty hot up there (~150C, IIRC), plus we get the benefit of shielding against particle/etc radiation

Re:Inherent problem

[AGMW]

Rules out solar power, of course.

Why not stay at the pole, but just out of the sunlight, and tow a trailer full of solar panels a few hundred meters behind you, in the sunlight.

Re:Inherent problem

[hughk]

A decent bit of metal and possibly polyethylene will help to handle radiation, at least to the level of the ISS. The 'shelter' in the ISS is in the hab module and also has things like water tanks as well around it.

The closest analogue to this would be the ISS, but as far as I know, it flies beneath the Van Allen belts. Outside the belt then the risk from charged particles increases a lot.

Re:Inherent problem

[gnu-generation-one]

"Of coure it would be possible to do something similar for NASA's lunar-camper. It would just add to the weight"

So take a set of hollow walls and fill it up with dirt when you get there... maybe even pump dirt in like you do for the insulation (paper-mash) on some terran houses.

Re:Inherent problem

[starcraftsicko]

so the circumference is about 6800 miles. So at less than 10 mph, even at the equator, you can keep the entire moon between you and solat radiation.

..as the vacuum-suited crow flies. There's mountains and craters and other big stuff on the moon. Bet it'll be a bit longer as the habitat walks.

Re:Inherent problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Good idea except except by staying permanently on the night side there would be no way to defeat stray vampires.

Re:Inherent problem

[ripcrd]

the only way you can lose heat in space is via radiation,

Not exactly. There is also conduction. If I place my palm against a cold piece of metal or any other substance at a lower temperature than my body, the two bodies will attempt to equalize temp. The metal becomes a heat-sink, pulling the heat from my hand. Good reason to wear gloves. Even if you are in the vacuum of space your body will still shed heat. I may absorb heat in the form of solar radiation, but I am still radiating heat.

Re:Inherent problem

[Slashamatic]

I like the idea, but they are talking about a metre or so of regolith. Not good to keep carrying around. Another issue is that when particles collide with the lunar surface, there is secondary radiation from the bits that 'bounced'. This suggests that you need more than just a roof.

Re:Inherent problem

[Slashamatic]

The main issue is how much warning you would get of storms. If a storm takes 72 hours to come in (I seem to remember the lag that was reported last year between one major flair and the resultng aurora) then you just need to keep within a margin of that away from the terminator line.

Re:Inherent problem

[Slashamatic]

Of course if you wanted to keep things nice and predictable, you could just build a railway around the pole at a decent enough distance. You could then pop into and ut of the sun as you and/or the experiments need it.

Re:Inherent problem

[fredrik70]

ah, very true, was more trying to bring forward the fact that albeit space is very cold (at least in the shadow of the sun), it wont instantly freeze you if you remove you protection, as seen in 'Mission to Mars' for example. You would rather slowly radiate away all your heat (I assume we all protected from solar radiation).
But yes, grabbing hold of a metal pipe with your bare hands in space is nothing I would recomment! ;-)

Thought

[BCW2]

If we want to go back, send a mars type rover first and put it near one of the previous landing sites. It would be nice for planning purposes to know how the lower part of a lander has held up for thirty years or more. Might help plan the construction of something permanent.

Re:Thought

[Esion Modnar]

send a mars type rover first and put it near one of the previous landing sites

I've always wondered if there is a plan for preserving the original landing sites: landers, footprints, everything.

The sites have huge potential for tourism in the future (think next couple hundred years), and tracking them up with all our new footprints just won't do.

I suppose a crane could be brought in to drop a big protective dome over the whole area, put in observation catwalks, and such like. Turn the place over to the Parks Service.

Re:Thought

[Alsee]

Or they could just spray the sites with UltraHold hairspray.

-

Re:Thought

[mao_de]

"We landed on the moon, we carried a harpoon"

I knew it was prophecy...

Re:Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Turn the place over to the Parks Service.

Welcome to moon. Remember, only you can prevent forest fires.

Re:Thought

[Smork]

(Fry and Leela shut Bender out of the moon lander)

Bender: Fine, I'll make my own lunar lander! With blackjack, and hookers...in fact forget the lunar lander and the blackjack!...ah, screw the whole thing.

Re:Thought

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry to disappoint you, but there won't be any footprints left.

Contrary to the popular myth, the recycling of the regolith due to thermal expansion and contraction will wipe out details like footprints after a few decades.
RJG

Re:Thought

[wisdom_brewing]

think futurama

But what happens if...

[genixia]

The base breaks down and the rover then breaks down and then the back up rover breaks down. How are the guys going to get back to the return craft then?

Re:But what happens if...

[gbulmash]

The base breaks down and the rover then breaks down and then the back up rover breaks down. How are the guys going to get back to the return craft then?

One Word: RUUUUUUNNNNN!!!

- Greg

Re:But what happens if...

[smellygeek]

Two words: 'On Star'

Re:But what happens if...

[surprise_audit]

I think the plan is to drag the whole ball o' wax along in one lump - rovers, base, return rocket, etc. At least, that's how I read "make the entire base mobile". I suppose there might not be a return rocket...

Re:But what happens if...

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Sheesh, You call ARC Europe.

ARC Europe clubs offer multiple member services and contacts. It is on the ARC Europe clubs that you can rely for seamless, best-in-class roadside assistance, as well as for savings, traffic information, travel services, and much, much more.

Re:But what happens if...

[TwoPumpChump]

How are the guys going to get back to the return craft then?

Try to jump really, really high. The escape velocity on the moon is so much less than the Earth ;-)

Re:But what happens if...

[StalinsNotDead]

One Word: RUUUUUUNNNNN!!!

Three words. "Bounce Really Fast!"

Re:But what happens if...

[XPisthenewNT]

Make the moon base fluffy, and make the rover a giant catapult. When the bastard breaks down, hurl yourself back at the base. If you miss you are dead, but you were dead anyway...

This is a great idea, until....

[sharkb8]

The mobile habitat runs into the same problem that toasted the rovers. It may suck crashing your moon buggy off a crater lip, but imagine wrecking your entire mobile-Moon-house.

Re:This is a great idea, until....

[netblade83]

maybe then send it the astronauts separately. send the base down first, then once its landed safely, send down a lander.

Yeah, this is exactly what we need...

[shigelojoe]

Mobile homes on the freaking moon. Dale Earnhardt commemorative posters and a car on cinderblocks are all that's left.

Re:Yeah, this is exactly what we need...

[Waffle Iron]

At least the tornado risk should be minimal.

Re:Yeah, this is exactly what we need...

[andersa]

On the other hand the alien abduction risk is probably increased.

Re:Yeah, this is exactly what we need...

[chiph]

Makes it harder to repossess, anyway.

Re:Yeah, this is exactly what we need...

[Anonymous Coward]

A rat bit my sister Nell today... and Whitey's on the moon

Proposal...

[sinner0423]

...I have a cheaper solution than NASA. It would cost 80 billion less, too.

Only for astronauts who demand better things in life.

Re:Proposal...

[deathcloset]

eureka!
thanks sinner you gave me an idea.
maybe this sounds stupid, but wouldn't it be possible to make the base a giant sphere? essentially a hamster ball.
Two spheres really. An external sphere in contact with the moon's surface and a free-floating internal sphere - with the living quarters and such.
how to keep it floating? well, first we need a nuclear power plant (but of course). then we could find good use from our good old friend magnetism...or whatever.
then, drive it the same way a hamster drives his ball; create an magnetic impulse between the internal and external sphere. the internal sphere will try to climb the inner-wall of the external sphere and the external sphere will counter with an equal and opposite reaction which will result in forward movement. Nuclear meltdown aside, it sounds like a relatively simple concept. and it's bound to have less moving parts than some trackless-locomotive or star-wars-power-droid-lookin' hundred legged breakdown-machine.

Re:Proposal...

[sinner0423]

Hey, cut me in for some profit, and you'll have your own (patent pending)AstroBall.

Re:Proposal...

[xenocide2]

well, aside from putting nuclear material on the moon, there's the matter of getting in/out. Also im sure your electronics would love to float on the moon from incredible magnetism.

Re:Proposal...

[Firethorn]

Putting nuclear material on the moon is no harder than any other material, and the energy density is so much greater, pretty much necessary if you're not going to depend on solar power, which would require you to hang around in the heat and radiation as well as not being practical for mounting on a giant ball.

And magnetism can be shielded against. Set up a farandy cage or something. It would even need to be hugely powerful, given the low gravity of the moon. I'd be more worried about how to keep the interior upright.

Re:Proposal...

[Flingles]

There's this picture in my mind. Your multi-billion dollar ball (which in my imagination looks like the death star), trapped helplessly in a crater.

Re:Proposal...

[Cornflake917]

drive it the same way a hamster drives his ball; create an magnetic impulse between the internal and external sphere

Holy crap! Where do you get your hamsters from? I want a magnetic impulse generating hamster, damnit. Just think of the possibilities!

1) Buy hamster with ability to create magnetic impulse
2) ???
3) Profit!

It's been done.

[Lost Dragon]

For a truly practical design, NASA will need to add front and top mounted lasers, as well as the ability to hop over craters. If Moon Patrol taught us nothing else, it taught us that.

Re:It's been done.

[Anonymous Coward]

and don't forget that the wheels must bounce away in three different directions when the rover explodes. this is tricky when the only directions you have to work with are forward and backward.

we'll also probably need to provide some kind of atmosphere. not necessarily breathable, but at least dense enough to carry the sounds of lazer beams and explosions, as well as a completely funkified and pimpin' blues progression.

Permanent presence

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there any reason why we aren't starting a permanent lunar settlement any time soon?

NASA Ames...

[IanDanforth]

I went to check out their Mars flyby simulation the other day. They had SGI towers powering a multi-projector system. I was all excited, as were the kids around me, until the showtime came and went with no show. A few minutes later an engineer came by and taped up a hand written sign saying there would be no shows today, the system was broken, and they didn't know when it would be back up.

Needless to say my confidence in the place dropped a few points. But maybe they could get a walking moon-base up and running. :) -Ian

Re:NASA Ames...

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they'll outsource the project to the people at Junkyard Wars.

AAA

[cynic10508]

But, would AAA honor my membership card off-planet for when my mobile habitat needs a tow?

Re:AAA

[pragma_x]

I don't see why not.

Give 'em a call and wait for the wrecker to arrive. It may take a few decades, so please be patient.

Also keep in mind, unless your a premium member, only the first five miles of towing are free.

Mars for me.

[Anonymous Coward]

What do other space-related stuff should we stop spending money on for a lunar base? Right now, I'd rather go for Mars. That's the one that will inspire millions and go down in the annals of the ages.

Re:Mars for me.

[techno-vampire]

A moonbase has a number of advantages. It's a good idea to learn how to build and maintain a base, because it's close enough to the Earth for us to send needed supplies or repair material. It might even be a better place to start a Mars expidition from, because we can get a little extra velocity from the moon's orbital velocity.

In my database

[suso]

I knew I put the moon and a table for planet in my address database design for a good reason.

Gee...

[Anonymous Coward]

Good thing this is a scientific enterprise, I hate to be caught unawares by something burrowed near all those moon rocks.

What if...

[idontneedanickname]

What if the mobitat (or whatever) runs into the same problem the rover[s] ran into? In general what if the mobitat runs into any problems? This page shows a mobitat that also acts as a lander. I'm guessing it would also act as the return vehicle. Do you really want to put your ticket back home into more jeopardy than absolutely necessary? For example, by having it move around, possibly through difficult terrain and such. Of course one would have to weigh the benefit of not having to travel to get back to your return vehicle over the mobility of this type of habitat and the equipment-carrying capability it implies.

Re:What if...

[colonist]

Moving the return vehicle puts it at risk, but not moving it could put it at risk, too. I'm thinking more of Mars, where you could move your return vehicle out of the way of bad weather, etc.

A robotic scout could go first and test difficult terrain to see if the base can handle it.

Re:While this may sound like a good idea...

[Pantero Blanco]

Well, if you want to really use an environment for anything other than looking at it from a distance, you have to be willing to get it a little dirty. If this becomes an issue, they'll probably set aside a certain region for exploration and leave the rest alone. I doubt many of the Space Utility Vehicles will last for very long. Not that they aren't a good idea, but space vehicles just don't seem to have long lives. And I'm sure they'll have another craft in the area to get the astronauts off in case of a breakdown.

I can just imagine this...

[RyoShin]

[in the cockpit of the mobitat]

[large thumps]

Jim: Um... crap, Dave? I think we just hit a... uh, a space cow.

Dave: A space... what?

Jim: Well, we hit something, and wheels #24563 and #4 are reporting problems.

[Dave turns on cameras and aims them at the wheels]

Dave: We ran over some metal sphere and... a flag? Also, wheel #4 is broken, we'll be here for four days.

[/simulation]

Problem Solved

[tunabomber]

NASA's already got this monstrosity (the Mobile Launcher Platform, not the shuttle), so why can't they just throw some bunk beds in it and blast it into space?
Oh, and food. They'd need food as well.

Re:Problem Solved

[Have Blue]

Probably because it weighs over 7,000 tons, and I wouldn't be surprised if that's more than every payload ever launched into space so far put together.

Re:Problem Solved

[Somegeek]

Actually, if you count the mass of the shuttle itself, over 10,000 tons has been lifted to orbit just in the space shuttle program alone. Kind of amazing.

Not that it makes any sense to want to orbit the shuttle's transporter, but I guess if we really wanted to we could, just in a 100 bite sized pieces, over the next 20 years or so.

Link to data source

Re:Problem Solved

[Anonymous Coward]

8.23 million pounds, if you read the 3rd paragraph of the linked page.

Re:Problem Solved

[XPisthenewNT]

This thing is a joke right, this can't possibly exist, it's huge! And what's the point? Did you see the picture of it driving down a highway, you know completely covering the highway? That's practical and probably doesn't harm the road in anyway (sarcasm)

Re:Problem Solved

[susano_otter]

FYI, that's not a highway, it's the roadway between the shuttle prep facility (a large hangar) and the shuttle launch facility. Both facilities are on the grounds of the spaceport. The transport never uses roadways accessible to the public. This particular roadway was purpose-built as a solid, durable surface for the transport to move over, between the two facilities.

It is, in fact, the most practical system NASA was able to come up with.

I defy you to propose a more practical one.

You know you're reading Slashdot when...

[brewin]

...the author of a post tries to pass a StarCraft strategy guide off as a legitimate news source.

Mobile base breaking down?

[MoobY]

Are these guys considering the fact that the mobile base might break down too so that doesn't really solve the problem of rovers breaking down?

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[nick0909]

Not sure why you got a redundant on this, but they say it will bring along all the redundancy of multiple rovers with one base. I fail to see how one base is as redundant as multple rovers. If your one base dies its dead. If you build a static base and let rovers out and they crash who cares, your base and people are okay and you can still send out more rovers.

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[Somegeek]

If lunar explorers are out in a rover, and say the axle breaks, if it takes them longer to walk back than their air supply of their suit lasts, they die. So you send a backup rover. it gets an electrial problem that fries it electronics. they die if there is not a third rescue mobile. Big negative for your exploration crews to die.

Now if you are moving your whole base around, if an axle breaks, you are now stuck in that spot until/if repairs are made, but you still have your food, water and air generating/recycling equipment with you. everyone lives. Big plus.

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[Overzeetop]

Of course, if your food/water/air recycling equipment fail/run out before you can get back home, you die.

All of a sudden you have the same problem as you started with, just on a larger scale. sure, they can radio back to earth (assuming they have commnications) and send up a rescue party. Remind me again how long it takes to re-certify the Shuttle to fly after a failure.

Your initial scenerio had two equipment failures (two rovers). My scenerio has two equipment failures (mobile base and shuttle).

Face it, a mobile base makes about as much sense as a space elevator.

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are you so down on space elevators? I suggest you read Bradley Edwards' book on the subject.

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[Overzeetop]

I shouldn't have been so hard on space elevators. Anything that requires a cable to get something into orbit would qualify for my ire. (Somebosy at MSFC is bound and determined to put everything in orbit with a cable...it's like a broken record)

Re:Mobile base breaking down?

[Somegeek]

OK, this is all hypothetical and IANARS but

1) I would guess that a mobile base station is going to have the same equipment that a fixed station would have, at least in the beginning, so any risk of failure in any life critical equipment is going to be the same for both options. As well, if you have a failure to that equipment in a base, you possibly have the option of repairing it. In a rover there might not be a way of replenishing air to wait for a rescue.

2) The space shuttle will not be used to get crew to the moon, that will be a conventional rocket, probably a Soyuz. And you can bet that if lives depended on it, the shuttle would fly, certification be damned.

Bottom line - your failure scenario would be the same for a fixed or mobile base, while the mobile base concept reduces the risk of manned rover missions, and gives the benefits that having a mobile base allow. But this is all moot unless they figure out a way to give a mobile base the radiation shielding that it would need.

They already have a "mobile lunar base"

[penguinoid]

Its called a spaceship

interesting

[lingqi]

Giving this some thought, I wonder if it will provide any good return of information we do not already know.

1) the the last few decades material sciences has advanced a lot, for example I believe that the amount of titatium and composite materials being used today is a lot more than the lunar lander.

2) if we are worried about the effect of radiation, vacuum, etc on space structures - we really don't need to look at the lander: an astronaunt can just walk outside of the space station (provided a functional suit or two) - or even have the spaceshuttle pick up and old satellite or two. Those are being subjected to much harsher environments than the lander moon

3) we can fairly accurately duplicate the environment on the moon, and carry out the same experiment (even, accelerated) on earth.

4) construction of a moonbase would probably take place underground to take advantage of some cheap radiation / meteorite shielding from the moon's dirt. the above ground structure does not provide readily corrolateable information in this regard.

Indeed, with unlimited resources it would be interesting to see if microfractures develop due to small meteorite impact / radiation / day/night temperature cycle and such, but it would seem that these can be learned via separate means without the need of a dedicated rover mission.

Re:interesting

[Somegeek]

Indeed, with unlimited resources it would be interesting to see if microfractures develop due to small meteorite impact / radiation / day/night temperature cycle and such, but it would seem that these can be learned via separate means without the need of a dedicated rover mission.

NASA already explored this.

It was called the Long Duration Exposure Facility, or LDEF. It was a 10+ ton structure filled with 57 different experiments that the space shuttle carried to orbit in 1984 and retrieved from orbit in 1990.

LDEF link

Re:interesting

[BCW2]

No matter how well it could be duped here on earth, they would miss something. Just human nature, we are not perfect. They should take a look at what was left up there to see. How are the rovers holding up? Not just the lower stage of the landers. There is a lot to be learned for planning of a permanant base.

Didn't they already try that? (Obg. Simpsons Ref)

[MachDelta]

Yeah, I think i've seen the mobile house thing before somewhere... but didn't it fall over? And what did Professor Frink say? Oh right!
"The real humans won't, er, wo -- won't burn quite so fast"

Astronaut flambé anyone?

(PS: First person to mention lack of oxygen on the moon gets kicked in the head)

Is NASA lost?

[Dzimas]

And I mean this in all sincerity. It appears that they're not really sure what the next big thing is. Perhaps its Mars, or maybe RV moon bases. Remember the space station? I thought not. The ISS seems to have become boring background noise to the American public. Until someone gets killed in that duct-taped tin can, it won't get more than a passing mention. I suspect that the BIG problem is that we've just about hit the technical limit of what can be accomplished with big metal firecrackers blasting off from Earth every once in a while. The TRUE exploitation of space will have to wait for the next technological breakthrough. Perhaps a space elevator, or a plasma photo drive. :)

Re:Is NASA lost?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they're lost.

There's no value whatsoever in carefully weighing your options when dealing with projects that will cost many billions of dollars. None whatsoever.

Re:Is NASA lost?

[Overzeetop]

No, it's not about technical limits, it's about financial limits. NASA does a lot of continuous research, both alone and with other agencies, such as NOAA. It's all stuff we take for granted now, kind of like sending the shuttle up three or four times a year. It's not sexy anymore just to get to orbit.

The problem is that the "next big thing" costs a lot of money. Think in terms of $1E12 to $3E12. Thats where preliminary Mars Mission estimates hit. Bush announced his plans for the Mars mission, then offered to give them an extra $1E7 to $1E8 over the next ten years to pull it off. I see no less than 3 orders of magnitude shortfall.

Think that number is out of line? Wiki mentions $1E10 as the 1994 cost of Apollo. Though not listed at Wiki, I would expect the Shuttle program cost somewhere in the $1E11 range. Given inflation of both costs and expectations, $1E12 is a good target for the next likely Big Thing.

With the retaliatory action in Afghanistan and the personal vendetta persued in Iraq, along with a not-red-hot-bubble-driven-economy tax base, we're back in the red by $5E11 a year, and still owe $7E12.

NASA doesnt seem to have vision because there's really no money to do a marquis program properly. They're trying to start a high profile program, funded by scraping the sides of the financial pudding bowl. It just isn't going to work. Gee Whiz is expensive - it always has been. Now that we pay for overhead and profit of corporations in addition to the research and development, its even more expensive than it used to be.

NASA hasn't lost it focus, it's been beaten out of them. How much would you expect to spend for the next Hollywood super-blockbuster? I'll give you a budget of $750,000. And I want three films. And amazing special effects - stuff never done before. Throw in a couple of name actors, too - that'll help the marketing. You'd start putting together Blair Witch Project ideas, too, faced with that kind of scenerio.

Mobile?

[penguinoid]

Shouldn't they first set up a permanant base on the moon before worrying about a mobile one? That plus a vehicle would provide good coverage until they can learn a little more about driving on the moon.

Re:Mobile?

[NanoGator]

"Shouldn't they first set up a permanant base on the moon before worrying about a mobile one? That plus a vehicle would provide good coverage until they can learn a little more about driving on the moon."

Shouldn't they first set up a mobile base on the moon before worrying about a permenant one? That plus a vehicle would provide good coverage until they can learn a little more about establishing a base on the moon.

Art...life...who knows?

[thejoelpatrol]

I recently read about some new "stealth" planes; next step, Wraiths. Programs like Ghost experiments are nothing new. We know that electrified anti-RPG armor (Plasma Shields level 1) is in the works. Recent conflicts have seen great use of non-manned equipment like recon planes (Observers) and even bombers (Reavers with wings). The Republicans continue to make noise about really really expensive Missile Turrets to keep us safe from North Korea. At one point, some Terrans use Psi emitters to direct the Zerg against the enemy. Biological warfare?

Re:Art...life...who knows?

[Anonymous Coward]

I remembered how "emperor" mensk was crowned by himself. Reminds me of our fav prez in that wacky America country.

I agree we aren't far off from starcraft. Heck, we already have Infested Terrans blowing up buildings and stuff. Aswell as an incompetant gov't leader with the "power bug" on his mind.

least mensk only gave up his second in command to the zerg b/c lack of time for a rescue. (i'm sure he would of if he could of for saving her) imagine the things the real crazy "president" has done. (quotes for prez b/c he cheated to get in, they'll catch it in time, and might even take him outta the office. i'm hoping for dishonourable discharge from office or something like that.)

"Nuclear Launch Detected" is all we got to look forward to with him in office...lol

Will the rovers be red?

[Anonymous Coward]

Red rover, red rover, send an astronaut right over!

Don't know bout you, but...

[Esion Modnar]

if I'm on the moon, and I leave base in a rover, I think I'd like to know the damn thing will still be there when I get back. I can see some really nasty practical jokes being pulled.

Of course, if they were to "bug out" a la M*A*S*H, it'd be easy to track them in the lunar dust. And I'd be just a wee bit testy, too.

^H^H^H^H^HWrong!

[quarkscat]

In keeping with the Bush doctrine of only
supporting applied science (as opposed to
pure science), the mobile lunar base will
be used as a replacement penal colony for
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Ashcroft has adviced
that it will be the only way to keep the
Red Cross, ACLU, and Amnesty International
away from his "boy toys" in detention there.

Re:^H^H^H^H^HWrong!

[Rei]

You forgot to add "Supreme Court".

Re:^H^H^H^H^HWrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

Retard is right... ACLU and Amnesty International are a frickin' JOKE! JOKE!!!! If those losers would spend more time going after the real bad guys, say people who kill more than 500,000 people, maybe they'd have some street cred. Unfortunately independents and republicans are nauseated by their constant US bashing bias. They want to help the world, GO AFTER DICTATORS WHO KILL MORE THAN 500,000 PEOPLE!! DUH!! They should have spent large amounts of time going after Saddam. They should also be beating the drum that something needs to be done in the Sudan, but no, they'll be content ripping on the US. They have such good hearts, don't they! Idiots.

Re:^H^H^H^H^HWrong!

[Rei]

Which dictators are you including in the "who kill more than 500,000 people" line? Certainly not Saddam - nowhere close, unless you count the Iran-Iraq war. The largest mass grave found in Iraq had between 2 and 3 thousand bodies; most graves were small, with a few dozen bodies; only about 50 graves have been found, despite satellite searches (disturbed soil in Iraq has a different spectral content). The vast majority (although certainly not all, and some are suspect) of the people found thusfar were killed either in the Shiite uprising or the Iran-Iraq war - including the large grave mentioned above. So, realisticly, you're looking at a state-sanctioned killing rate, outside of wars, deaths of a rate somewhere between 2,000 and 20,000 (about the same number as the number of civilians that we've killed in the invasion). Now, the Iran-Iraq war did involve some incredibly brutal tactics, including the Anfal campaign against the Kurds who sided with Iran, but that was the 80s (you know, back when we were pals?).

Besides, apparently you've never read Amnesty's reports. They *do* spend a lot of time criticizing brutal dictators. They don't just simply stay focused on whatever dictator it's currently trendy to hate. For example, when was the last time you gave more car than a warm bucket of spit's worth for the victims of Islam Karimov in Uzbekistan who were, even according to the British (*their ally*) were literally *Boiled To Death*?

Re:^H^H^H^H^HWrong!

[shadowbearer]

Heh.

Let'em try. The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, after all.

That might just be repeating the Australian experience....and I for one would find it completely and hilariously ironic :) - not that I'll live that long.

Good funny!

SB

The Russian version isn't mobile...

[NanoGator]

... but it does have cloaking capability.

i can't

[primus_sucks]

what the hell are you talking about?

Re:i can't

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he's talking about that.

Re:i can't

[Sielle]

He's refering to accidently running over the first moon lander and the flag that was placed there. In other words the drivers not paying attention and destroying a piece of history.

Re:i can't

[Anonymous Coward]

but the lander... isn't still there. they had to use it to get back to the capsule. Moon gravity is pretty low but you can't quite jump into orbit, not wearing a heavy spacesuit at least.

Re:i can't

[Branc0]

There was also a plate of metal left behind with a message of the "American people"... something like "we came in peace" and all that.

In Soviet Russia, they did this in 1970

[Animats]

The USSR landed several rovers on the moon. Big rovers. The first, Lunokhod 1 worked for eleven months, exploring far more territory than the short-duration American manned missions. This vehicle was the size of an SUV, so it is clearly the first "mobile lunar base".

Re:In Soviet Russia, they did this in 1970

[Dusabre]

In Soviet Russia they must have small SUVS, 1.7 meters long and 1.96 meters wide. Calling it SUV size is a blatant exaggeration and the Soviet Moon rovers were basically the size of Nasa ones.

I won't comment on calling something unmanned "a base".

References for Mobile Lunar Base Papers

[colonist]

I found these references at AeroSpace Architecture Publications:

Cohen, Marc M. (2003 September). Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures (AIAA 2003-6280). AIAA Space 2003 Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, California, USA, 23-25 September 2003. Reston, Virginia, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Link to on-line order forms

Cohen, Marc M. (2004 February). "Mobile Lunar Base Concepts." In M. S. El-Genk (Ed.), Space Technology and Applications International Forum - STAIF 2004: Conference on Thermophysics in Microgravity; Conference on Commercial/Civil Next Generation Space Transportation; 21st Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion; Conference on Human Space Exploration; 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization; 1st Symposium on New Frontiers and Future Concepts (p. 845-853). Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 8-11 February 2004. College Park, Maryland, USA: American Institute of Physics. Link to on-line order forms

Space Camp Fantasies-

[Alice_Pleasance_Lidd]

The best experience of Space Camp was joining with the other cadets to design a lunar base. I remember well the debate on how much area we would have to devote to the oxygen-producing forest. (yes, hardly mobile.)

Now that I've established my expert credentials: If you're going to be on an energy budget there are almost certainly going to be higher priorities than the energy required to lug everything around. Orders of magnitude difference- think of all the other things you could be doing.

Pick a good place with as much water as possible and start building the telescope, is what I say.

Re:Space Camp Fantasies-

[Firethorn]

I'd go with food crops personally, rather than trees. I'm sure you could calculate how much food crop you'd require using hydroponics data. You'd have to mulch the waste plant products and be pretty careful about the carbon/oxygen balances until you reach a critical mass. That type of base would be the type to end up being a 'moon colony', capable of supporting itself no less than some third world countries (ie not very well without imports).

On the other hand, this 'mobile' base would require regular complete resupply. It'd work like the ISS, totally dependent on the earth.

Department of Redundancy Department

[Tokerat]

To avoid life-threatening or other compromising situations that might occur with only one rover traveling to a remote place, a second rover might travel with the first. But what if the second rover runs into a problem, too - the same or a different problem? Well, that means a third rover. So, why not make the entire base mobile, so that all the resources, reliability and redundancy of the lunar mission move with the excursion crew?

That's fine and all, but what happens when only one base is traveling to a remote place? A second base might travel with the first...but what if the second base runs into a problem, too? Well, that means a third base...

Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[Anonymous Coward]

That's fine and all, but what happens when only one base is traveling to a remote place? A second base might travel with the first...but what if the second base runs into a problem, too? Well, that means a third base...

Each lunar base has one (or more) return vehicle, so if there's a problem with the base, the crew returns to Earth.

If there's a problem with the return vehicle, then the crew needs to be rescued.

Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[cruc]

That's fine and all, but what happens when only one base is traveling to a remote place? A second base might travel with the first...but what if the second base runs into a problem, too? Well, that means a third base...

All your base are belong to the moon...or, In Soviet Russia, the moon roves you! and the rest of the normal Slashdot jokems......

Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[Tokerat]

That's fine and all, but what happens when only one rescue crew is traveling to a remote place? A second rescue crew might travel with the first...but what if the second rescue crew runs into a problem, too? Well, that means a third rescue crew...

God, I'm such an asshat ;-D

Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[Branc0]

Would you rather be with problems on the moon surface when the Rover breaks down or inside a base with oxygen and food when something bad happens?

Re:OMFG

[Anonymous Coward]

parent is not off topic

"Of course, mobile bases are nothing new. Terran buildings have been lifting off for years."

Pictures

[Somegeek]

Here are some links to NASA's concepts of what the mobile bases might look like:

MOBITAT

HABOT

What are they smoking?

[Alsee]

Habot? Mobitat? E-gads! What horrid names!
Hell, even Lunabago would be better than those monstrosities!

-

Re:What are they smoking?

[serutan]

I like Lunabago! How about the Terrain Traversing Reroutable Robot (Tatertot)?

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[FleaPlus]

I would certainly tend to hope that people at NASA read large amounts of sci-fi. Many of the most useful concepts in spaceflight have come from science fiction, e.g. geosynchronous satellites.

In this particular case though, I'm not so sure. It just seems that you would take too much of a hit on cost and reliability to make up for any possible benefits. For one, a mobile base can't be built into the regolith for insulation, a feature one hopes a lunar base would have.

Mobile Oppression Palace

[ari_j]

The Decapodians are at it again!

Obligatory pictures

[FleaPlus]

I haven't seen them linked to yet, so here's some info pages with pics of this:

"Habot" mobile lunary base
Mobitat (mobile lander?)

Does anybody know if scientists in Antartica use mobile habitats? If they do, then this would seem much more plausible.

White Trash!

[James Durie]

Oh My God!

Don't you see the real point of this.

The US creates a trailer park on the moon and ships up all their trailer trash.

Leave 'em for a few years and let natural selection work things out. Pretty soon the moon will be overrun with mutants that can shoot a stop sign with deadly accuracy from a mile away.

It Science gone mad I tell you.

Re:White Trash!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then they will enlist them in the US Space Marines, to torture Iraqi genestealers!
(TRUE: "Lynndie England" actually lived in a trailer park.

Re:White Trash!

[txmadman]

And after the Terra-Luna Civil War of 2237-40, they'll shout: "The Moon shall rise again!"

(With a shout-out to the greatness that is Futurama...)

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[irokitt]

There actually was such a vehicle developed by the military in the 50s, designed to haul troops around Alaska. Each vehicle had huge tires, and the whole thing would just crawl around on the snow.

An endless string of "what ifs."

[techno-vampire]

No matter how you try to arrange things to be perfectly safe, there's going to be risk, and the explorers will be the type of people willing to take them. NASA has long viewed its mission to be "the exploration of space with zero risk." Everything they design is over-engeneered to make it as close to 100% safe as possible, with the result that everything takes longer to build, is exorbitantly expensive and far more massive than it needs to be. I'm beginning to believe that NASA is more interested in keeping its workforce busy and getting bigger budgets with which to do less. Maybe we need to tell them that enough is enough already, and that they need to get off the stick and get us back to the Moon.

Re:An endless string of "what ifs."

[kabocox]

I'm beginning to believe that NASA is more interested in keeping its workforce busy and getting bigger budgets with which to do less. Maybe we need to tell them that enough is enough already, and that they need to get off the stick and get us back to the Moon.

It's not really NASA's fault. I'm sure most of the folks their would love to put up a lot more shuttles and other space craft. It's the politics. The reason NASA has grown so large is because it subsides Aerospace industry and science minded people. (Which is a good thing.) I personnelly would like to see just a space station built and have about 50-100 deaths in construction. That isn't high number of deaths. Alot of major buildings like the Empire State Building and the Hover Dam had a lot of deaths. It just that the ESB and HD weren't going to be stopped because of accidents. If NASA had one death under construction of anything in space, the program would stop for a decade while it looks at everything possible that could have gone wrong. Then it would take another decade for any corrective measures to be taken.

Going into space isn't safe and most likely won't be until we've been doing it on a daily basis for a few decades.

Re:An endless string of "what ifs."

[techno-vampire]

NASA is a bureaucracy. As such, the main interest of many of its members is keeping their jobs and funding. Actually doing something comes second, at best. They stick to the shuttle because it keeps 25,000 people on their payroll, and they get the same budget if it flys twenty times a year or zero. Doing everything in the most elephantine way is much less work for the same money, so that's what they do. Maybe if they were paid on a flight-by-flight basis would encourage them to fly more often. I doubt we'll ever have routine space-flight (Like we were promised the shuttle would give us.) until it becomes a commercial venture. At that point, no flights means no income and no jobs, so the ships will fly.

(OT) Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[Tokerat]

Yea but I have a feeling Department of Redundancy Department dates back to the days before Slashdot...you insensitive clod!

Re:(OT) Re:Department of Redundancy Department

[FishermansEnemy]

You must be new here...

Yeah, but what if...

[Tatarize]

What if we steal other countries bases. You have a few up there and they grab them all and steer them into the sea of tranquillity. What then, you're stuck outside, without a clue where your base went. And we will leave you with a little TNT.

You can only say to your friend "Someone set up us the bomb."

Because, "All your base, are belong to us."

Okay, so its a pretty long tangent for a pretty crappy joke, de-mod my shiny metal ass.

Disagree

[hung_himself]

I think they write too much sci-fi...

Seriously, I feel a bit sorry for the folks there. The interesting science that they do is not really interesting enough to warrant the billions invested unless they can come up with military applications or appeal to the Trekker in the public. Hence have the nanobe "discovery" while shilling for money to send men to Mars or school teachers on missions to generate excitement for the space shuttle. Meanwhile, planetary probe missions get cancelled.

Maybe it is time to retire this relic of the cold war or just admit that it is primarily for military purposes and re-allocate the funds for science elsewhere. Give the money to someone who understands O-rings and knows what units to use..

Re:Disagree

[dschuetz]

Maybe it is time to retire this relic of the cold war or just admit that it is primarily for military purposes and re-allocate the funds for science elsewhere.

I really don't know why people perpetuate the myth that NASA is a branch of the military. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think NASA has launched a military satellite since the Challenger explosion. All military satellites are currently launched by expendable boosters, built by Lockheed and Boeing, from Air Force Bases (Cape Canavaral and Vandenberg).

NASA missions, on the other hand, have all been about the ISS, Earth science, and the effects of weightlessness on humans. I'm not even sure NASA is involved with cutting-edge military-based aerospace research (most of that happening out in Nevada now).

Can anyone expand on this?

Re:Disagree

[Paulrothrock]

Yes, but the military requirement for polar launches influenced shuttle design.

And he didn't say it was a military operation, just that it was for military purposes. Or was that whole space race thing about international cooperation?

Re:Disagree

[ckaminski]

IIRC, NASA has flown a few DoD payloads since Challenger. STS-32 was the first DoD payload I noted after Challenger, but I haven't reviewed every mission profile at nasa.gov.

From what *I* understand, there doesn't seem to be a lot of cutting edge military aerospace work that isn't going on in either California or Washington (boeing/lockheed). NASA has the whole hyperX project, and the military is looking more at space dominance than air dominance for the 21st century.

Re:Disagree

[TheMeddler]

"I really don't know why people perpetuate the myth that NASA is a branch of the military"

Probably because the pilot (and mission commanders) are inevitably military (Air Force) - plus DoD/Air Force has a "Space Command".

http://www.peterson.af.mil/hqafspc/

BTW, I'm answering your question, not implying that I agree with "the myth".

Re:Didn't they already try that? (Obg. Simpsons Re

[Sielle]

But but... the moon has a lack of oxygen, they wouldn't burn like that. *duck and run*

Gundamium

[Icyfire0573]

We need a moon base if we ever want to make the Gundams that will protect the colonies from the depredations of the Earth Federation!

ARC has some bored scientists

[EvilStein]

"Hey Dave, watch Slashdot pick up on this crazy ass article I just posted!"

"Yeah, man.. that Moon-Winnebago thing is pretty out there.."

*sound of snickering*

This reminds me of that Futurama episode...

[Anhaedra]

The one where Zoidberg's people invade earth and build a "mobile oppression palace".

Winnebago.

[torpor]

I've thought for years that companies that make 'habitats' all need to tie up with NASA.

I think it'd be great if boat mfr's, RV mfr's, and cheap house mfr's, all got together and developed a common, open, standardized framework for habitat design and construction, with NASA involved.

Every time I look at a UFO, I think to myself 'well-designed Winnebago', and if I could, I'd buy one of those instead of ___insert_favorite_waste_of_realty_here___ any time ...

Trailer park trash in space...

[Anonymous Coward]

All y'all, grab some six-packs of buds, yer shotguns and some copenhagen, we're going to the moon!

How long until the aliens start performing lunar anal-probing?

Houston, we have a problem...

[c0p0n]

But what if the second rover runs into a problem, too - the same or a different problem? Well, that means a third rover. So, why not make the entire base mobile...
What if the base has a problem? that means a second base...

Re:Houston, we have a problem...

[RichiH]

yes, that is exactly what i thought. while having a huge uber1337 base may sound like a great idea, you have the problem with the shielding the other posters mentioned plus you get one big single point of failure. and when that things really breaks, what will the astronauts do? sit on the rover and wait it out?

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[Frogbert]

No, "land trains without tracks" sound like trucks. Lets face it they are reinventing the wheel.

Problem in one word:

[TheLoneCabbage]

Sheilding!

You don't have the earth to protect from all those evil sunspots, misc radiation sources, and micrometorites. A mobile base would have to manufacture it's sheilding on earth and ship it (at extrodinary cost) to the moon.

A static base can just pile up moon dirt on it's self. (or just give the astronots a shovel!)

I always loved the reason that Joss Weadon gave in fire fly for why the future looked more like a western. It's the frontier stoopid. Resources are rare, machines break down, and simple works just fine. If you ship 2 motor bikes to a remote planet you will only have 2 motor bikes, but if you ship two horses... Of course this is the moon, not the wild wild planet, however the basic idea aplies. KISS

Re:Problem in one word:

[TheLoneCabbage]

stoopid:

stupid Audio pronunciation of "stupid" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (stpd, sty-)
adj. stupider, stupidest

1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse.
2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes.
3. Marked by a lack of intelligence or care; foolish or careless: a stupid mistake.
4. Dazed, stunned, or stupefied.
5. Pointless; worthless: a stupid job.

Or someone who forgets to run spell check FIRST!

Dough!!

Re:Problem in one word:

[TheLoneCabbage]

as dumb as my spelling is, the idiot who moded me correcting myself as a Trool truely takes the cake.

People won't read the comments before modding them, and you wan them to RTFA?

Re:Problem in one word:

[pragma_x]

Agreed. Sometimes you have to stick with what works. A big pile of regolith is 100% effective against radation and the entire moon is made of the stuff. Plus, you could build most of the base by remote with *robots* before people even have to set foot there.

I like the idea of motor bikes, but I always thougth that some Segways with oversized wheels would be ideal, given that space suits have pretty limited flexilibity. Plus the things are at least doubly redundant in the commercial version: imagine one hopped-up by the guys at JPL.

Re:Problem in one word:

[TheLoneCabbage]

I would have thought a hopper. Since the whole point would be to move 1 or 2 men a large distance quickly.

A one man Segway style device, but instead of wheels it POPs compressed gass (disolved from regolith) for a lift off. Suspension of course would be a nice touch, since you'll come down as hard as you went up. It would be simpler, and with fewer moving parts. And you could get quotes from the astronauts like "Boingy Boingy Boingy!"

Re:Problem in one word:

[Mr2cents]

If you ship 2 motor bikes to a remote planet you will only have 2 motor bikes, but if you ship two horses... .. you'll get inbreeding.

Re:Didn't they already try that? (Obg. Simpsons Re

[MachDelta]

Oh you bastard! You'll bleed for this!

/me chases Sielle with his shoe

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[DerWulf]

what makes any vehicle a train but the tracks?

what about jump suits

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if jump suits are feasable for moon travel. The weight/thrust ratio seems to be too much of a problem on earth, but in moon gravity it could be different.

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[wisdom_brewing]

austalia has truck trains... huge huge mother truckers with 10+ trailers behind each truck... theyre called trains too

Nonsense

[Fortress]

This is the height of foolishness. For the mass of the drive system for the entire base, you could fly ten rovers to the moon. This would give much better redundancy than a single base-like vehicle. About the only advantage I see is using the same base to explore physically disparate locations.

Mass vs. weight

[Rexdude]

Okay, so mass is the amount of matter in something and weight is the net force exerted on it due to gravity. Just a thought experiment-if you're up in the ISS, holding a shotput and a baseball (which i think are of a similar size, though one is much heavier) Since the shotput has much higher mass compared to the baseball, it should be harder to juggle ? I'm having trouble contrasting this with the standard image of zero gravity-where everything floats around nice and easy. If I was to throw either of them to a colleague-would I need to exert more force to do it? High school physics says it is so-but 'imagining' how it would be is another matter...is it just as tough to throw a shotput up in space as it would be here on earth?

Re:Mass vs. weight

[RollingThunder]

You can make things move in zero-G, true. However, it's not completely effortless.

The more massive something is, the harder you have to push to get it to move at a certain speed.

So yes, if you threw a baseball and a shotput in space, one of two things would happen:

You throw them both with the same force, and the baseball will move a lot faster.

You throw them at the same speed, and have to push a lot harder on the shotput.

Re:Mass vs. weight

[StalinsNotDead]

So yes, if you threw a baseball and a shotput in space, one of two things would happen:

You throw them both with the same force, and the baseball will move a lot faster.

You throw them at the same speed, and have to push a lot harder on the shotput.

Bot only that but the shotput would exert more force on you, and unless you were securely anchored to some other large object you would be moved farther back by throwing the shotput than throwing the baseball. Probably not very far or fast, but each action does have en equal and opposite reaction. It's just that gravity on Earth kepps you firmly anchored.

NASA who?

[pommiekiwifruit]

Didn't they used to have spaceships or something like that in the old days? Now it's just Burt Rutan who can put a human into space from the USA (go Burt!).

Nahh...

[59Bassman]

Never heard of a carjacking? Park that LERV (Lunar Exploration Recreational Vehicle) near the wrong crater and when you get back the thing's up on blocks - if you're lucky!

Makes for some interesting postulations, though. Who'll have the first spinners in outer space? If you're building a Lunar Conversion Van, do you go with the teardrop or diamond back side windows? Shag carpeting or faux-wood paneling on the walls? Hide-a-bed to be stealthy or just put in the queen-sized waterbed and be obvious about it?

So, on a crater wall in 2020..

[adeyadey]

"Ok, roger that huston, we are descending the crater wall to return to Mobile Exploration Habitat and.. heck, where is it? Buzz, did you put the handbrake on?"

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[sn0wcrash]

I believe that was the Alaskan Land Train? You can see the tires from this beast on Big Foot 5 and 7.

Reclining Busty Chick in a Space Helmut?

[StressGuy]

:)

Is it just me?

[Shoten]

Is it just me, or does this guy seem a little low on the common-sense scale? I mean, his logic is this:

1. Unpressurized rovers can't go too far because the astronauts will be limited by the air supply in their suits, so pressurized rovers that can go further are better.

Okay, good so far. On to the next part of the idea.

2. If something goes wrong with the rover, the guys inside are screwed. Being stranded on the moon with no AAA roadside assistance really sucks, so there should be two rovers.

Hm. Maybe, but you've just doubled the resources needed to go look into something. If this logic had been followed before, we'd never have made it to the moon in the first place. At some point you need to just accept that setting up a base of operations on the moon HAS to involve risk. Why not have redundant systems on the rover instead of two rovers? But it really goes off the tracks here...

3. But what if something happens to both rovers? You really need three!

Wait, now...someone didn't pay attention in statistics class. If there's a 1% chance of the first rover failing, then the chance of two rovers failing isn't .5%; it's .01%. And as I said above, at some point you just need to accept that being an explorer on this level is dangerous stuff, and shit will happen. Also, any event big enough to nail both rovers at the same time (meteor strike, or solar radiation enough to overwhelm any protection the rovers have?) would nail three as well, so that kind fo risk isn't limited by this approach at all.

4. So just get rid of the rovers, and stick with one big mobile moonbase!

Okay, so now what you've done is gotten rid of the rovers, only to make the whole base just one big rover itself, or a whole group of interdependent rovers? And this is more reliable HOW? It seems to me that it takes the challenge of a moonbase and adds complexity to it. Not only do the pieces have to fit together to form a secure and reliable habitat, now they have to withstand coupling and uncoupling, as well as the challenge of mating when the respective pieces might not be exactly aligned due to terrain. So I'm thinking this guy is a little more into astrophysics and a little less into simple common-sense engineering than he should be. Thoughts, anyone?

Re:Is it just me?

[sexylicious]

I see that it could be useful to have a mobile base. But only if that base is backed up by an underground, permanent base too. The mobile base could be useful for just getting really far away from the permanent base... like the other side of the moon.

But I can't possibly see a mobile base taking over for a permanent underground facility. Like you said, there is radiation, micrometorites, and the possibility of breaking down, which all point to needing a permanent facility where you can service the vehicles.

Re:Is it just me?

[at_kernel_99]

A permanent base is somewhat limited in the area it can explore. In all likelihood, a mobile base would also have rovers, but those rovers would travel a limited distance from the base. A permanent base would require burlier rovers for extended expeditions.

earthbound metaphor:

From your house you can travel pretty easily in the immediate are by walking, unburdened, knowing you're close to home. To go a little farther maybe you ride a bike. But there's a practical limit to how far you can go in a day & still return home for food, rest, etc. Now, if you have a motorhome, you don't quite have the same comforts as a permanent home, but you're sheltered at the end of the day - you can take off your outside clothes, sit down to take a dump, etc. With the motorhome you can still carry along the bikes to do local exploring. Sure, motorhomes break down. Permanent homes need maintenance too. The nice thing about the motorhome is you aren't confined to living next to the airport.

No more dune buggies, they're too dangerous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, the baby boomers are getting older... The original moon buggies were modelled on dune buggies, which seemed cool at the time.

Such a thin line between genius and stupidity?

[smchris]

I'm trying to get my mind around the idea.

Perhaps they are inspired by KS Robinson's gigantic Mars machines that can house people for weeks? But the effort to get a few of them up and running in the first place!

If they think the moon is so dangerous they have to go this route, then it does start to seem like a _real_ space station as a platform to Mars makes as much sense in the near to medium future.

What about the mobile base?

[g0bshiTe]

What happens when the mobile base runs into a problem? Will they send a second? Why mess with the moon anyway? We know we could sustain life on another heavenly body, so why go to the expense to do it? I think the money would be better spent developing other technologies for space exploration. Maybe better radiation shielding, or better engines. The current state of the space program is stagnant at best, hopefully with the door opening to private corporations to explore space we will see more innovation in ships, rocketry, and shielding technologies.

Instead of a shuttle that should be collecting social security.

Baba Yaga's Space Hut

[c0bw3b]

What would be sweet is if it had chicken legs.

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[WoodenRobot]

Man, those are BIG tires...

Silly idea

[CrimsonAvenger]

So, rather than worry about a failure-prone rover, we can worry that the whole base is a failure-prone rover?

Probably, better idea would be to make base decent-sized, underground (for radiation protection, and thermal protection), then build outlying bases (like a line shack on a 19th century ranch) with emergency supplies/tools/whatnot.

Mobile buildings have been around for ages

[Hoi Polloi]

Its nothing new, they've had self-propelled huts in Russia for centuries:

Baba Yaga's Hut

An example of wasteful monopoly spending/thinking

[Anonymous Coward]

Why would we need people up there and waste money and life? Just send some robots up there. Let them build an infrastructure that is good enough for us to go up there and live. But for now, use robot, just less costly.

Those are big rovers NOT mobile bases

[J05H]

I don't care how NASA is pitching it - one of those designs is a burly rover and the other is an unstable tinkertoy. Neither design is a "mobile base" - they are both large rovers.

A base should, by any reasonable designation hold at least a dozen people, these units look like they each hold 1-3 people, max. So they have a docking tunnel, big deal. They are still rovers, not mobile bases. A fleet of mobile bases (like in the Habot pic) will need a shirt-sleeve environment for maintenance, guaranteed. Hence, any schema like this will end up basing from a buried garage/base of some kind. The units might make sense for exploration, especially if the units can lift, fly to a new area to explore, then fly back to a main base.

Others have already mentioned it, but shielding on the moon is a critical issue. Even with the tanks mounted above, a user of one of these steroid-Rovers is going to get an unhealthy dose of radiation. This kind of setup would probably require a buried, rad-safe base to retreat to.

The Mobitat uses a modified version of the Mars rover "rocker-bogey" suspension - it's good to see that NASA will keep using what has turned into a very successful design.

The Habot is, IMHO, totally impractical. The "walker" legs would be a maintenance nightmare in the lunar environment. The fines (very small particles) on the moon are abrasive and static-charged. The particles find their way into anything - the Apollo suits were breaking down after a few days exposure. Sealing the joints on those legs is going to prove futile - wheels have similar problems but not nearly as complex.

Cute viewgraphs, I'm waiting for a private base.

Build lunar base.
do something.
profit!

Josh

Short Stories re: traversing the Moon

[Steve Hamlin]

Linked below is a cool Sci-Fi short story about a crash landing on the moon, and the survivor has to walk/run around the moon at a high latitude, in order to stay in the sun to keep warm, until a rescue craft can come get her 30 days later.

A Walk in the Sun by Geoffrey A. Landis.

===== =====

Another good short story about an astronaut on the moon being pulled into different possible same-Earths, and his life when he returned to 1950's Earth from Moon #6 (the sixth different Moon he had been warped onto)

Moon Six by Stephen Baxter

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[ckaminski]

God, you can imagine trying to stop 400 tons with that little tractor rig? Visions of the tandem rig I saw last night tailgating a Civic 20' off his rear bumper at 70 mph.

Re:Bow down...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just in time for me to set up my new Lunar Church

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[wisdom_brewing]

each trailer has its own breaks on all trucks with more than one trailer (well, each trailer has parking breaks, im not sure if standard trailers have breaking breaks)... their weight makes it easier for them to stop if anything, the amount of rubber in contact with the ground is bound to help also...

Team Work

[StalinsNotDead]

They should work with the people building this

A little cooperation may help both projects.

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[das_cookie]

Anyone else remember the "Cities in Flight" novels by James Blish? Whole cities lifting off from the Earth, off to find brave new worlds... Blish not only wrote many of the Star Trek novels, he wrote dozens of sci-fi books over about 4 decades.

Affordable lunar housing

[Anonymous Coward]

The buildings don't need to have their own wheels. Lift 'em with lunar hydraulic jacks and move 'em with lunar trailer trucks and what do you have? Lunar trailer parks.

[--insert trailer-trash jokes here--]

The other side

[Gorimek]

I'd love to hear what a 101st helicopter pilot had to say about that doctrine.

Re:Does anyone else think NASA reads too much SCI-

[Manitcor]

they have parking brakes as well as regular brakes its pretty standard on semis and is farily popular on smaller consumer car trailiers.

babababa

[Anonymous Coward]

I love stuff spam.signup@gmail.com

Mobile? Huh?

[PrvtBurrito]

Is it just me or is NASA barking up the wrong tree on this one? I would think that the challenge of a Moon Base would be building a sustainable (human) operating environment on the moon. This base would allow humans to exist/live on the moon allowing for human exploration of the solar system and potential commercialization of the resources present outside of our planet. These are significant challenges. Lets focus on these instead of focusing on exploration of the Moon. Is there anything a huge mobile laboratory could tell us that a small inexpensive rover could not?

Go West Young Man...

[HopeOS]

I think they're reading about the settlement of the western frontier of the United States of America. A mobile platform is an analog for the covered wagon, a caravan of which is effectively a trackless train. I also mention this because an essay contrasting NASA with western frontiersman was circulating for awhile. It was a critical piece, but it may have sparked some ideas, too.

-Hope

Structure Captured

[playgod]

Doesn't anyone realise how vulnerable this will be to the dreaded engineer rush?

Trailer parks on the moon!

[javaxman]

That's all we need, lunar trailer parks...

Re:Trailer parks on the moon!

[gbulmash]

That's all we need, lunar trailer parks...

Populated by Jed, Jethro, Granny and Elly May... The Tranquility Craterbillies. :-)

- Greg

Slightly OT, NASA Researcher is a Union Man!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Marc Cohen, the researcher mentioned in the article is the president of the NASA Ames employees union, an affiliate of the International Brotherhood of Jazz Dancers, Pastry Chefs, and Nuclear Technicians, a union for the rest of us geeks and other assorted smrt people.

Taking the giant SUV concept to the Moon...

[mi]

The Ford Exorbitant is ready. Despite being the mobile habitat, it comes with a rover anyway.

What about L4 and L5?

[einhverfr]

No. deltaV requirements to go from Luna to an asteroid ~500Gm from Earth are essentially the same as those required from Mars to the same rock. And launch windows from Luna come along almost twice as often, giving Luna an edge. Admittedly, there are some materials (carbon, specifically) that we can get in quantity on Mars that we can't get from Luna. So there will no doubt be a reason to move some materials from Mars to the asteroids. But anything available both on Mars and Luna will be equally expensive to ship from either, and more convenient from Luna because of more frequent launch windows.

Actually, a station at L4 or L5 (wrt Luna and Earth) would be an ideal triangle point, partially because it is at the point of an equilateral triangle and partially because the energy required to get to other points in the solar system would be far less than from Luna, Mars, or Earth.

An L4 or L5 station wrt Mars and the Sun might also be useful, but would probably be way to far from anything to be used by anything other than robots. OTOH, a base on the L4 and L5 asteroid clusters (wrt Jove and Sol) might make more sense....

Re:What about L4 and L5?

[CrimsonAvenger]

While it is true that it requires less deltaV to go from L4/5 to Mars than Luna to Mars, it actually requires less deltaV to go from a low-lunar orbit to Mars than from L4/5. So if we were considering a space station as a waystation (no doubt there will be several - Earth Station, Luna Station, Mars Station, though the latter might very well be at one of the Martian moons), Luna Station would be preferable to L4/5.

Big problem with a station is that it has to import EVERYTHING from somewhere. Except sunlight, of course. Always plenty of that.

And bases on the Jovian L4/5 points are silly, except as places to ship things to Earth. Launch windows to the hypothetical 500Gm radius asteroid orbit come about once every six years, as opposed to once every 14 months from Luna or Earth.

Note that I am assuming minimum-energy transfer orbits for everything except manned-missions. I tend to prefer free return orbits for missions carrying people.

I used to have the "Mobile Lunar Base" Lego set!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is the type of thing NASA is looking for: Mobile Rocket Launcher

They should name it "Alpha"

[bodland]

They are already 5 years too late....

"LunaTrail" by Habitrail

[korbin_dallas]

Man, NASA wastes so much money. They've already been designed, see here: "http://www.pet-shop.net/html/space.html"

So imagine a large cylinder about 30-40 feet in diameter, and about 100ft long. Then put the exercise tracks inside at each end. Whenever the moon folks want to move the mobitat they just 'RUN' in circles. Same direction to go straight, opposite to turn. Brilliant I say!

Maybe I should go patent that right now!

Actually, I thought mobile homes caused tornados.

[pikester]

I guess that will probably throw off a few tests.

But of course!

[sunking2]

Let's replace a relatively simple lunar rover that just might break with a super complex movable base! Nothing disaterous could ever happen to something like that.

Here's an idea, lets take the big mobile base design and scale it down. Then it could leave the base with say, one or two people in it and cruise around. Surely these little bases would be less prone to failure than the big base. We could call them Rovers!

Lunabago!

[toosmart]

What a concept!

But where will the supplies come from?

[Peaker]

You can't lift the supply depot!