Site for Moon Base Determined

Deinhard writes "Going hand-in-hand with the recent discussion on Moon Bases, Space.com is reporting that the perfect spot for a moon base has been found. According to the article, 'the best spot to settle on the Moon may be on the northern rim of Peary crater, close to the north pole.' What makes the location so important is that it is permanently lit, with a balmy -58 Fahrenheit (-50 C)."

Comments

Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this is

[Anonymous Coward]

We are Mooninites from the inner core of the Moon. Our race is hundreds of years behind yours. Some would say that the Earth is our moon, but that would belittle the name of our moon, which is The Moon.

For one thing, the Moon has one third less gravity than your Earth. I don't know if you can understand that, but our vertical leap is beyond all measurement.

On the Moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with Moonrocks.

Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this

[TripMaster Monkey]

Fine, I'll build my own moon base! With blackjack...and hookers...in fact, forget the base!

Now all they have to do...

[Shadow Wrought]

is make sure that no one owns that parcel;-)

And now...

[Tuxedo Jack]

They can build the Alan Parsons Project.

Re:And now...

[Scrameustache]

They can build the Alan Parsons Project.

I thought that was some kind of hovercraft...

Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Ars-Fartsica]

Record debt and deficits, and the Senate is right now discussing removing the Estate Tax. There is no money for this in your lifetime, it is scifi.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[bobbis.u]

There are other countries in space besides the USA.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Anonymous Coward]

Right - congress is doing what it should be: ensuring that we reestablish monied lineages in this society. If you're wildly successful, it's the least you can do for your progeny, to ensure them that nobody with your last name from your line will ever have to work again.

Things like moonbases are just extraneous.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[JasonMaggini]

Who says it's the government that has to build it?

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Anonymous Coward]

He forgot Poland!

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[stinkyfingers]

And why would that stop the US Government? It didn't stop it from going to war, or continuing it, or providing an extension in welfare programs (drug benefit).

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[JasonMaggini]

Ah, to be that naive again....

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Catbeller]

Five years ago, we had plenty of money, and we were paying down the national debt, to the consternation of the debt holders.

Now we are pumping almost a quarter of our national tax revenues into paying the interest on the exploding debt. The average schmo got $300, the wealthy got hundreds of billions in tax cuts, and we are BROKE. Not an accident; now come the cuts in every guvmint expenditure hated by the right, along with huge increases in defense and surveillance spending.

We aren't going to buy any moon bases :(

We are buying a war machine, an occupation authority with 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, an upcoming invasion and occupation of Iran, economic collapse, and a permanent diversion of 25+ percent and rising of our national tax revenues into the hands of the people lending us the money to go broke.

No moon bases, not ever. A debt society trying to dig out from under the wreckage of the next ten years, for most of this century.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[terrymr]

Something D O O ecconomics, anyone ... anyone .... VOO DOO ecconomics.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[sp0rk173]

Well, it's not that naive, but it is naive. IF a corporation builds it, it DOES, without argument, belong to the corporation (unless they donate it). If built by government, it is at least in theory the property of the people. Modern practice has shown this to not always be true, but it's an arguable point. I know the park down the street, national forests, army bases, police stations, etc are ideally there for my good. They were built with the idea that I, as a tax paying citizen of a "democratic" state-based society, will benefit from their existance. Now a days they tend to exist for the extention and proliferation of the system, but it's hard to stop that. I agree that his comment about the base existing for humanity is very naive. If the US government built it - or any government for that matter - it would only exist for strategic allies or neutral nations that we feel cooperation with will benefit us. Just wanted to point out, though, that if a corporation built it, it would exist for one thing: economic profit for the corporation heads.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Fareq]

And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.

I'm sorry I have no modpoints today...
I can't figure out why this is flamebait while everyone else's comments are not...

You are, of course, correct. The estate tax is, primarily a way to redistribute wealth in an attempt to prevent permanent pseudo-nobility by limiting the number of generations across which nearly-infinite wealth can remain nearly infinite.

You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not (in my opinion, it is not), but you can not argue that this (and not "revenue generation") is the primary purpose of this tax.

What all of this has to do with the moon, however, is beyond me. Surely by now it has become obvious that the U.S. government is not going to be a major space player again. U.S. industry might someday, otherwise, I'm betting on the likes of Japan or China...

Maybe Japan... then the base could have a big earth in the middle of the flag instead of a big sun...

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[gl4ss]

* Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown (Score:4, Insightful)
by JasonMaggini (190142) Alter Relationship on Thursday April 14, @01:25PM (#12235625)
Ah, to be that naive again....*

without clicking |parent| i thought that you were talking about the idea of a corporation building a moonbase anytime soon very naive(because it is impossible in the short term future, how about we get private corps to build even launch vehicles on their own..).

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[HMA2000]

The US was never paying down the debt for any extended period of time (I believe our longest period of paying it down was 9 months.) Take a look for yourself, you'll see the number never goes down.

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

Also, a large part of the "surplus" was unsustainable. To some degree the surplus was a result of cost cutting but mostly it was the result of increased revenue in the form of capital gains tax. Around the late 90's the government was collecting incredible amounts of capital gains tax due to stock market bubble. This was not a sustainable form of revenue.

The "debt holders" are a sundry group with many different agendas and motives. To suggest that they were all worried about the debt being paid off (which wasn't happening anyway) is misleading at best.

Considering how much misleading crap you were able to pack into your first sentence I think it is safe for people to disregard the rest of your hyper-biased post.

As an aside, I understand it is fashionable to hate Bush on this board and to suggest that he is somehow some evil genius/dumb monkey pulling all the strings to make the rich richer but you do yourself and your politcal cause a huge disservice when you exaggerate (and lie about) your claims.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[lgw]

Have we no jails? Have we no workhouses? What have my tax dollars been going to?!

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Catbeller]

Why is pointing out we-can't-go-'cause-we've-made-ourselves-broke flamebait to any knowledgeable person? It's the simple truth. It's only "flamebait" if you somehow have convinced yourself that we AREN'T taxcutting ourselves broke.

We're broke.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Fareq]

Just to correct a small point:

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the definition of "the wealthy" is any family who earns more than $320,000 per year. (I am using the "Married Filing Jointly" status for this comparison. There are significant differences (unmarried individuals can earn $320,000 before entering the highest bracket, but married couples can total no more than the same $320,000 -- or about $160,000 each))

Let's also assume that the "average schmo" is family earning, oh... $58,500 per year. (Remember, that's the couple's total, not the individual -- for this calculation, individual is $29,050)

I am using 1999 as the standard for "before the tax cut" and 2004 as "after the tax cut". For the purposes of this calculation, I am assuming income to be the taxable income, if only to simplify calculations. I am aware that there were a myriad of little credits and deductions added to the tax code in the last several years, and that ignoring them decreases the accuracy of my comparison.

Feel free to do more in-depth research to get more-accurate numbers.

The Wealthy:
in 1999, they earned $320,000 of taxable income, and were taxed as follows: (calc from the 1999 IRS Form 1040 Instructions)

Income over $283,150: Tax 90,200.50 + 39.6% of all income over $283,150.
$90,200 + (.396)*(320000-283150) = $104,793 in taxes.

In 2004, they earned the same $320,000:
Income over $319,100: Tax: $86,328 + 35% of all income over $319,100.
$86,328 + (.35)*(320000-319100) = $86,643

$104,793 - $86,643 = $18,150 in tax cuts, a 17% decrease in income tax.

That's right, the family earning $320,000/yr pays 17% less now than before! Let's check out our "average schmo" family.

1999:
If you make less than $100,000 you use the tax table instead of the rate schedule. In 1999, the tax table said married couples earning $58,500 in taxable income owe: $10,791

2004:
Same rules apply, in 2004 the married couple owed: $8,106.

That means the tax cut saved them
$10,791 - $8,106 = $2,685. This means that they owe 24.8% less tax today than they did before the tax cut.

That means the average couple saved over 24%, the wealthy couple saved about 17%. Not quite so unfair-to-the-average-schmo as you might think.

If you disagree with my definitions of average and wealthy, feel free to plug in your own numbers. I used these because they were near the cutoff points for different tax brackets, and I assumed that the government's definition of average and wealthy were based on those numbers.

---

There will be an immediate response of "bah, percentages, average-guy saved under $3k, wealthy-guy saved over $18k!" to which I can only say, you can hardly consider it fair to decrease taxes on the average individual so far that they are being *paid* by the government...

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[d34thm0nk3y]

The estate tax is, primarily a way to redistribute wealth in an attempt to prevent permanent pseudo-nobility by limiting the number of generations across which nearly-infinite wealth can remain nearly infinite.

An inheritance is income. Income is generally taxed in the US.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[Fareq]

You are correct, however

Suppose a family of 4, both children under 18 and live at home. Tax year 2004

Standard Deduction: $ 9,700
Exemptions-Yourself $ 3,100
Exemptions--Spouse: $ 3,100
Exemptions-Children $ 6,200
Total Deductions..: $22,100

This means that a family of 4 pays no income tax on at least the first $22,100 of income. In addition there are credits such as the Earned Income Credit (for those making less than about $31k/yr) and the Child Credit, which can decrease your tax by several thousand dollars. Yes, they directly decrease your TAX, and can actually bring your TOTAL TAX to less than $0-- in which case the government will cut you a check for *more* than all the money witheld from your paycheck.

Generally speaking, families of 4 making about $32,000 or less pay absolutely no income tax.

Those making less than about $40,000 will typically pay very little, being able to deduct about $22,000, paying 10% on the next
$14,000, and only paying the "normal" 25% rate on the last about 3,000 of income. That would make a guestimate of about $1,400 + $667 ~= $2075. And this is before the child tax credit which would decrease this by as much as $2,000 leaving a total tax liability of under $100.

(All sorts of bizarre limitations, conditions, and restrictions apply. Contact your tax advisor (for advice), or your senator (with complaints))

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[vertinox]

IF a corporation builds it, it DOES, without argument, belong to the corporation (unless they donate it).

Not unless their property is seized forcefully!

Haven't you heard of Space Pirates? Yaarr!

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[eraserewind]

No it's not. The fact that it is not covered by Income Tax should tell you something. Income is money recieved in payment for goods, services, and so on. It is a tax on new wealth introduced into the economy.

Inheritance is typically the transfer of wealth from one relative to another on their death. Since it doesn't grow (except possibly due to related "income" which is already taxed) it will diminish to nothing in a few generations if it is taxed. Which, as the guy said, is the whole point of "inheritance tax", whether you agree with it's social aim or not.

Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown

[dont_think_twice]

Try plotting the data on the website you suggest. It is fascinating. There are three distinct periods:
(1) Before 1992, when the debt is dramatically increasing (second derivitive greater than 0)
(2) Between 1992 and 2000, when the debt is increasing, but the rate of increase slows every year (second derivitive less than 0). In fact, the debt is nearly constant between 1999 and 2000. But this was not a trend confined to the late 90's (dot com era), it started dramatically in 1992.
(3) After 2000, when the debt again shoots up dramatically (perhaps exponentially).

It is impossible to look at that data honestly and say that it is not correlated with the president.

Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this

[Anonymous Coward]

So I suppose you'd be a good person to ask who wrote "The Moon Rulez" on my car with a key.

Too bad...

[polyp2000]

I own that bit of the moon, i have a certificate to prove it.

Re:Too bad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well in that case, you'd better get up there before anyone else and protect your claim!

Re:Too bad...

[blogeasy]

It looks like the standard price for land on the moon is $18.95/acre. Maybe they could buy you out.

Re:Too bad...

[jonadab]

> Ultimately it doesn't matter who owns it until there's some feasable way
> to get there.

Getting there isn't too hard. Okay, so it's not an afternoon jaunt, but it's
been done a handful of times, and that was without modern technology. The
hard part is figuring out how to derive substantial benefit from staying
there long term. Nobody's solved that one yet. Visiting the moon is an
interesting endeavor, but after a short stay, everybody seems to want to
come back to Earth. I guess it's not a tangible thing, just some kind of
nebulous psychological thing or something. People keep saying Earth has
"better atmosphere", whatever that means.

-50c?!

[Anonymous Coward]

"But Keptin, this is the Garden spot of Ceti Alpha 6"

Always???

[Fnagaton]

"What makes the location so important is that it is permanently lit"

Even during a lunar eclipse? ;)

Re:Always???

[Ayaress]

Eclipses are relatively rare. It's one thing to have to run off stored energy for a few hours a couple times a year tops, it's another one to have to run off batteries for half of every month.

Re:Always???

[Ayaress]

Easy way to deal with that (instead of cutting off outside light and imposing an artificial day/night cycle inside the base) is to change the kind of people NASA gets for astronauts. The Mercury through Apollo astronauts were mostly pilots, and a lot of space shuttle astronauts have been as well. But I think a permanantly-lit lunar base would be better suited for naval officer, particularly ones that serve on submarines.

People on submarines have to adapt to weeks and even months without any sense of time. No daylight, no night, sometimes not even a well defined schedule. Not everybody can handle it, but some people get by pretty well. Not to mention that submarines are cramped and uncomfortable places to be, which isn't uncommon in space travel.

Re:Always???

[Deinhard]

Interesting that most space opera today adopts that model. Heinlein started it all since he was an Anapolis graduate. It seems that most space forces are called "space navies" with corresponding ranks.

Re:Always???

[h4rm0ny]

Tell you what, build the base on the other side of the moon and send Goths. Lots of Goths.

Gothsss in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!

Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[tquinlan]

...we've had the technology for years as Robert Zubrin points out in his book. The moon is just a big rock, and we've been there before.

(Seriously, read the book, and if you're not convinced, well, you should be. ;) )

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[TripMaster Monkey]

The moon is just a big rock

Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars, and with only 1/6 the gravity and no atmosphere, it's easy to get those materials into orbit.

"Skipping" the moon is sheer lunacy (pardon the pun). Once established, the Moon Base will py for itself countless times over.

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[Skyshadow]

Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars, and with only 1/6 the gravity and no atmosphere, it's easy to get those materials into orbit.

"Skipping" the moon is sheer lunacy (pardon the pun). Once established, the Moon Base will py for itself countless times over.

No offense, but that's complete horseshit.

What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies. It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in. Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there. If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment.

The moon base was included in NASA's 90 Day Report because it was part of a gigantic wishlist of projects that NASA wanted funding for. Space stations, moon bases, new vehicles, giant interplanetary ships, space girls in tin foil bikinis, etc. That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then.

The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth. Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good location for and establishing a base.

You won't get to Mars by making stupid, wasteful moves, and a moon base is just that.

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[tquinlan]

Actually, read the book. It is actually *more* costly to go to the moon first, since you have to take off, land, then take off again. That there is 1/6th the gravity does not mean that there is no gravity; consequently, you have to expend fuel to take off again.

Did you even read the book? I didn't think so.

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[Capt'n Hector]

Iraq is just a big desert

Yes, just a big desert, chock full of raw materials we need our war against Iran, and with only 1/6 the popularity and no insurgents, it's easy to get those materials into the market. "Skipping" Iraq is just wack (pardon the pun). Once established, the Iraq war will pay for itself countless times over. --

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[brontus3927]

Moon's Composition:

1. Oxygen: 42%
2. Silicon: 24%
3. Iron: 13%
4. Calcium: 8%
5. Aluminum: 8%
6. Magnesium: 6%
7. Other (including lots of Helium-3 & Titanium): 3%

Incidently, the largest concentration of Iron looks to be in the general area of where the article recommends putting a base

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[lgw]

I'm not te AC, but: Mars (presumably) has a reasonable amount of water , and the dust has faced at least some erosion, so it won't eat through space suit seals and kill you if it gets in your lungs (moon dust is sharp).

I'm not sure that a Mars colony could become self-sustaining, but it could get a *lot* closer to that than the moon. Either the moon or Mars would be a far better place to launch rockets from than Earth, as you have less gravity to fight, but still enough to avoid the hassles of 0G construction.

Plus, smash enough comets into Mars and it would retain an atmousphere for quite some time. The moon is a lost cause for terraforming.

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[Eradicator2k3]

The website you cite is obviously in error. Any small child could tell you that the moon is made of cheese. Therefore, it is a strategic location for astronauts to stop and indulge in a little fondue before continuing on to Mars.

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[Xyrus]

"No offense, but that's complete horseshit."

We can barely keep a simple space station in orbit with a couple of astronauts, let alone a full orbital construction bay for spacecraft.

"What you've got in the moon is the potential for a small base that will forever be completely dependant on Earth for supplies."

And what of Mars? I suppose we'll just plant some seeds, spread a little water and have a full fledge hdroponics garden.

The fact is it takes a lot more than water and dirt to make the supplies necessary for human planetary colonization.

"It's water-poor, the dust is an extreme health hazard, there's no atmosphere to protect you from solar radiation or run internal combustion engines in."

Aside from the martian dust being less toxic, how is this any different from Mars?

"Unless you're there to harvest H3, there's no point in being there."

That would be until precious metals or heavy elements were discovered to reside relatively close to the surface. Or if we ever needed another source of titanium, the moon would be it.

And let's not forget that the moon has 1/6 the gravity of Earth. Using the possible water stores that reside at the poles, this makes an ideal launch platform.

Not to mention the lack of atmosphere would be great for all sorts of astronomical purposes.

Basically, you don't know enough about the moon to state whether or not a base there would be fruitless. And why is Mars more likely to not be fruitless? Is there proven resources there?

"If you're planning on going to Mars, it's worse than a wasted step -- it's not a good financial move, it's not a good place to practice techniques for Mars and it's a far more hostile environment."

Potentially, all exploration is a wasted financial step. There are no guarentees that any risk will pay off, which is why it is called a risk.

And how is the moon not a good place to practice for Mars? Mars has almost no atmosphere (and what it does have is comprised of carbon monoxide), has a 1/4 gravity of Earth (the moon has a 1/6), has a negligible magnetic field and is very cold (just like the moon). As an added bonus, Mars has planet-wide sandstorms which blocks the sun for days.

Both environments are hostile. That's why it so difficult for us to live there.

"That's why we're no closer to Mars now than we were then."

We're no closer to Mars because of physical, biolgical, logistical and psychological hurldes that we haven't cleared yet. We can't get a fscking space station together in the span of a decade, let alone build an all out orbital construction platform for building space craft. There are few countries that even have the capabilities to put satellites into orbit. Building an orbital space dock is orders of magnitude more difficult than a simple space station. Not to mention the sheer amount of money it would take to orbit and maintain the whole damn thing. Then you've got to deal with the fact that a group of humans will be packed in like sardines for a minimum 12-month round trip, and all the supplies that will entail. And the fact that said humans will be exposed to a far harsher environment just trying to get there is another matter. Just getting to Mars would be an achievement.

"The fastest, easiest and cheapest way to get to Mars is to skip things like the moon and on-orbit assembly and to use heavy lift vehicles directly from earth."

The fastest, easiest, cheapest way to get to Mars is to wait for us to get a better grip on interplanetary technologies and there's no better target for this than the moon. Whatever we can do for our jaunts there, we "should" be able to scale up. Even if the moon contains "nothing useful", it would at least be good target to practice with.

"Use as much existing off-the-shelf tech as you can..."

I agree with this.

"... and then launce opposition missions to spend large amounts of time on the Martian surface with the specific objective of finding a good

Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars...

[drinkypoo]

You're making the welding thing way too complicated. You have two options: gas welding and solar welding. Parabolic mirrors big enough can deliver as much energy as you're interested in. You might think about using a little of whatever inert gas you can come up with as a shield gas to scare away dust, or you could use some kind of rub-on material as a flux. As for pressurized air, hydraulic power is much more common than pneumatic, as it is much easier to control, much easier to seal, and in general allows transmission of greater power. Hydraulic systems regularly operate at pressures over 2,000 PSI, so the difference between Earth and its moon (~14.7psi and below) and Earth and Mars (Nearly no difference from the moon situation) is negligible. The real issue is heat, and how you deal with it. If you can utilize the moon as a heat sink, perhaps by pumping coolant down into rock, you can mitigate that. Also, maintenance becomes a lot more complicated, but that's to be expected.

As for this next bit, I can't wait to tell you how wrong you are:

Cars aren't pressurized vehicles, and they're not made of iron (they're made of steel). Most importantly, their skins don't constantly change size as temperatures change rapidly (an even bigger problem for aluminum structures, which are less susceptible to oxidation). Etc.

Cars are pressurized vehicles, just not to ~1 bar. Er, that is, PSIG. Certain weather conditions and of course the slamming of doors can cause significant pressure differentials; in some cars which are overly tight, you can feel it in your head when someone shuts the door, er, solidly.

In addition, steel and iron are different, yes, but being mostly the same thing (iron + carbon = steel) they share many properties. Among them there is the tendency to expand when heated and contract when cooled. In fact, heat-expanding pieces to install or change them is not uncommon in automotive work. Most all auto body panels will expand or contract measurably (millimeters) when left in direct sun or exposed to below-freezing temperatures. Automotive paint is expected to flex along with the steel under these conditions, and also in those where someone pushes on the steel. Auto body deforms quite a bit. A lot of cars are quite flexible, and under normal operation can flex inches. And I'm talking cars made in the last couple of decades, too, not just in the fifties or whenever.

Not to mention, auto body panels are sometimes made of aluminum (e.g. Honda/Acura NSX) which, as you note, expands and contracts significantly with temperature.

Slashdot polls work

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet it was all triggerd by our poll

Re:Expected

[SmokeHalo]

"Anonymous Cowards only, please...step right this way for the physical."

Solar Radiation?

[dubiousx99]

Wouldn't solar radiation be a hazard from the constant light?

Re:Solar Radiation?

[MoralHazard]

Have you ever heard of a little thing called the "International Space Station"? Yeah, exactly.

If you leave Earth's protective envelope, you do become subject to larger exposures of radiation, but the danger can be minimized with shielding. People can take a decent amount of radiation exposure before they show any health effects, even the long-term cancer risks.

Basically, you just have to build sheltered structures for the inhabitants to block the radiation. It can be a choice of construction materials, or you can just bury the structures and pile regolith on top--the old bomb shelter solution. All it takes is a bulldozer and some internal supports, and you've got a pretty nice shelter.

Spacesuits aren't very good radiation protection, so they'll probably impose daily, monthly, and mission-specific limits on outdoor activities for inhabitants. If they also keep alert to solar activity, they can just head indoors when the worst stuff is coming.

How can you keep alert to incoming radiation, you ask? The ionizing, harmful parts of solar radiation are mostly charged particles, which travel slower than the speed of light. Big emissions of charged particles happen in conjunction with particular types of electromagnetic radition, which DOES travel at the speed of light (duh). So we look for the EM radiation that signals a coming charged particle storm, and tell the moonies to get indoors quick.

Not perfectly safe, but come on: they're on the fucking moon.

Re:Solar Radiation?

[SydShamino]

All of your points are very good, yes. It is possible to block radiation.

But the International Space Station (altitude 220 to 224 miles) remains below the inner Van Allen radiation belt (min altitude 250 miles or so in some places).

So using it as an example of people living with solar radiation is a bad idea. They get more exposure than people on the ground, yes, due to the lack of atmosphere to block radiation, but they avoid the worst of it by staying below the earth's magnetic shields.

Interesting..

[technomancer68]

This is going to be interesting to see how the man that "laid claim" to the moon is going to handle people that he's sold property to. I wonder how he will respond to the government building a base on "his" territory.. Hmmm wonder if this will turn into a court battle?

ice station zebra

[MrLint]

Up at camp in the mountains in Feb. couple of years ago it was -40 in the daytime. Which is almost bearable if the wind isnt blowing... so as long as the wind isnt blowing on the moon... hmmmm well then there ya go:) no wind blowing on the moon

Penguins are awesome.

[Anonymous Coward]

-50 isn't so bad. Almost tolerable. To penguins or something. Maybe we could make a penguin farm on the moon.

Re:Penguins are awesome.

[Creepy]

send Minnesotans - when I was a kid, I had a neighbor that sat outside on a lawn chair every morning reading the morning paper, even in 30 below weather (I can only presume his wife kept his pad too hot for him, but you never know). If you're thinking he was bundled up, you'd be wrong - he sat out there in boxers and an undershirt.

Build him a little habitrail and biodome and he'd be set.

Moon Bases in Lava Tubes.

[Greg Wright]

One proposal for a moon base I found interesting was using lava
tubes as pre-built bases. It provided radiation as well as
meteorite protection. They actually did a bunch of research in
lave caves in Oregon some time ago.

http://www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5ombrr1.html

Re:Moon Bases in Lava Tubes.

[El]

Huh? Are you sure your not talking about lava tubes on Mars? I don't know of any volcanic activity on our moon...

Re:Moon Bases in Lava Tubes.

[Greg Wright]

I also know of no volcanic activity that has taken place in the past,
however, I think they *are* talking about Lunar(our moon) bases. At
least what I can gather from this:

"Evolving Lunar Lava Tube Base Simulations with
Integral Instructional Capabilities"

http://www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5lbi88.html

In part:

"The concept of lunar bases inside lunar lava tubes was suggested by
F. Horz in his 1985 paper, "Lava Tubes: Potential Shelters for
Habitats." Lava tubes are made by crusting over of lava channels
(Greeley, 1971; Harter & Harter III, 1982; Greeley & Spudis,
1986). Lunar lava channels, or sinuous rilles, some of which appear to
have uncollapsed roof segments, have measured widths of from 200m to
1.5km. Roof thickness in excess of 10m provides meteorite and
radiation shielding and moderation of surface temperatures (Horz,
1985). An entrance is easily cleared into the shielded environment of
a tube for the largest machinery."

I guess there must have been some in the past. Later in the document
they go on to talk about Mars as well.

Why bother?

[chris09876]

What's the purpose of a moon base? Bush said he wants to use it as a stepping stone for Mars... but are there really any savings gained? Earth is where the ship manufacturing takes place... and (at the moment) is the source of fuel. Any materials obtained here would still need to be sent to the moon, and then to Mars.

Does it have something to do with the moon's lower gravity making it easier to blast off a ship?

Re:Why bother?

[YrWrstNtmr]

Build it in parts here, assemble on the moon. Easier to launch a bigger ship from there.

Re:Why bother?

[Ogive17]

Current space ships use up most of their fuel leaving Earth's atmosphere. If a manned trip to Mars was to happen, they would have to refuel unless they wanted to take 3 or 4 years to get there (and the water/food needed for that trip would make a launch straight from Earth basically impossible).

Re:Why bother?

[brontus3927]

While I support going to the Moon, I don't think the "stepping stone" arguement is valid, for the reasons you list above. As Zubrin points out in his Case for Mars, greater delta v (change in velocity, which equates to fuel) is required to get from Earth to Moon to Mars than Earth to Mars. However, it's not the only reason to go. Why go:

• "Dark" or Far side of the Moon. Great for radio astronomy because you have a giant rock (the Moon) permenantly between the disk and the source of noice (Earth radio).
• Abundant source of Helium-3 He3 is an isotope of Helium with only one neutron. Fusion research currently deals with Dueterium (D)-Tritium (T) (Hydrogen with 1 neutron and with 2 neutrons respectively) fussion which is "dirty" in the respect that is spews radioactive neutrons. D-He3 fusion, on the other hand, has very little radioactivity (most of it due to unspent fuel). Helium 3 is relatively rare on Earth, but could meat current power needs for 100 years (IIRC). By that time, we should have the tech to scope He3 out of Jupiter's atmosphere.
• low-G (not zero/micro-G) research. It has applications.
• retirement? low-G is easier on the heart & bones withouth the pesky decalicification.
• Solid base for manufacturing. All the benefits of zero-G manufacturing, but something solid to bolt the machinary to.

What about Earth-moonbase LOS?

[amstrad]

Wouldn't putting a moonbase so close to the Moon's limb will cause line of sight communication problems during parts of the month due to lunar libration?

Possible solutions:
1) very tall antenna
2) relay satellite

watch out for water ice!

[Zapraki]

in the permanently shadowed depths of craters around the lunar north pole, water ice may lurk...

Wow, I didn't realize that the moon was going to be so dangerous, what with water ice lurking in the inky blackness and all.

Kinda reminds me of playing Xcom2: Terror from the Deep...

Re:watch out for water ice!

[Snarfangel]

Wow, I didn't realize that the moon was going to be so dangerous, what with water ice lurking in the inky blackness and all.

It is pitch black. You are likely to be drowned by Water.
>light lantern
That does nothing. It appears the lantern's batteries are dead.
>scream for help
In space, no one can hear you scream.

Re:Permanently?

[brontus3927]

An eclipse lasts a few minutes. It would take at least that long for the heat trapped in the rocks to be released into space. Eclipses would be an inconvience (necessitating battery storage and running the base at minumum power)

Took 11 years ...

[shashark]

The analysis, to be published in the April 14 issue of the journal Nature, is based on 53 images from the spacecraft Clementine, which orbited the Moon for 71 days in 1994.

11 years for the data to be analyzed.

In another equally insightful phrase...

"That fits in neatly with the White House vision of using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars."

No wonder.

Obligatory Google

[CyberSlugGump]

Google lunar job

Perfect contest

[shanmuha]

Now that we have 'official' private space launches, I implore all those zillonaires-with-more-money-than -they-know-what-to-do-with, to come up and sponsor a x-prize like prize for the first moonbase!

Hmm

[Joe the Lesser]

It's important to me that my moon base have all 4 seasons.

Will I get that there?

Re:Great...

[Anonymous Coward]

EH? What fscking environment? There's nothing there but fine dust!

Re:Up Nort'

[Hoplite3]

The lack of atmosphere really changes the way heat flows. Our intuition about hot and cold is shaped by convection, where heat is transfered to gas molecules that bump against us and are then swept away. With no atmosphere, heat transfer slows down. The only heat loss on the moon would occur by conduction into the surface of the moon.

How "cold" is the moon in human terms? I don't have any idea. I'd imagine sunlight would be more important for constant solar power (well, barring eclipses).

Owen

[pete-classic]

Well, he'd better have those units in the Northern Rim repaired by midday, or there'll be hell to pay.

Re:Expected

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there some sort of fat virgin shortage on the moon?

Re:There's always an eclipse on Earth

[Ayaress]

You've got it backwards. Take a look at the numbers. The maximum possible number of lunar eclipses per year is three.

What you're thinking is that when there is an eclipse, it's visible everywhere on earth, I think. Solar eclipses are only visible in certain places.

The alternative is that you're thinking of solar eclipses, and just completely wrong. The maximum possible number of solar eclipses visible from ANYWHERE on earth in the same year is five (also worth noting that if there are five solar eclipses, there can only be two lunar eclipses).

Furthurmore, of those maximum of three eclipses per year, not all of them are total. The north or south pole sometimes escapes them. If the north rim of the moon is visible, then the north pole station will remain lit.

Now, when there is a lunar eclipse, the maximum length is two hours for a partial eclipse, and 1 hour 42 minutes for a total eclipse.

In the worst possible case scenario, a north polar base on the moon will have to run without solar power for a total of six hours a year, broken into three two-hour blocks.

Re:Lunar eclipse

[databoing]

*BZZT!* Wrong! Thanks for playing!

A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is in the umbra or penumbra ("shadow" for you laypeople) of the EARTH.

A SOLAR eclipse occurs when the moon gets between the earth and the sun.

Solar eclipses are more common (once every 2 years, offhand), than lunar eclipses (once every 4 years).

Duh

[dfn5]

Here on earth, when we say that the temperature is so many degrees, we are talking about the air temperature. Since there is no atmosphere on the moon, how are those temperature readings to be interpreted?

Obviously it is the temperature of the vacuum.

No problem

[El]

Growing up in Alaska, I've been outside in -60F weather, and it's not so bad (you can always put on more insulation). You just have to keep every part of your body covered, including wearing a face mask. Once you solved the problem of a total lack of oxygen, solving the problem of keeping warm should be trivial.

Re:No problem

[CrazyTalk]

I dont know dude - you may have grown up in Alaska, but ever sit through a 3 hour Buffalo Bills game in January?

Re:No problem

[Skyshadow]

Once you solved the problem of a total lack of oxygen, solving the problem of keeping warm should be trivial.

There is no problem with a lack of oxygen. The vacuum would kill you way before you had a chance to suffocate.

Re:No problem

[sharkey]

Perhaps you should try wearing something with better insulation than red/blue body paint and an official Bills' G-String.

Re:No problem

[asavage]

This is not entirely true. Read this from NASA's website

Might be fun settling on the moon but,

[pg110404]

the best spot to settle on the Moon

The commute would be an awful bitch. One could always telecommute, but the ping delays would be a serious drag.

Seeing as how the site is always facing the sun, it would be kinda nice to have large kick ass solar panels to power a moon computer archive...... Wait a minute, the earth has a magnetic field to prevent solar radiation from cooking a lot of things. Even if we lived on the moon in a bubble, what would the long term effect of solar radiation (particle to create electrical disturbances and high energy radiation such as x rays) have on the equipment and/or body?

Re:Might be fun settling on the moon but,

[Theaetetus]

Even if we lived on the moon in a bubble, what would the long term effect of solar radiation (particle to create electrical disturbances and high energy radiation such as x rays) have on the equipment and/or body?

Problem well known and solved - build your warrens underground. A few meters of rock will stop that nasty solar radiation, including flares.

Moonbase Pluses

[TiggertheMad]

Any materials obtained here would still need to be sent to the moon, and then to Mars.

Except the tons and tons of hydrogen, oxygen, and water that you are going to extract from the ice frozen in the ice caps in the poles. In addition, they might be thinking of mining the ice, which would involve tunneling. To me this makes a lot of sense, as several meters of rock is wonderful protection from high speed rocks, is wonderful insulation to help maintain a constant tempature, and is a cheap way to add to the size of the space station without having to build entire new modules. The moon would be a good place to put a telescope, since it is massive enough to be stable, unlike an inhabited orbital platform, and could be the start of a massive Very Long Baseline array for looking at really distant objects. Plus, it could be the start of permanent off world colonies. Mars is a good idea, but it's kind of a long first trip. Plus, It will give us extra time, as invading aliens will probably stop to level the moonbase before attacking earth.

Moon race, part 2

[salimma]

Now that the Chinese, Indian and Japanese all profess an interest in colonizing the moon.. the question is, will the first nation who reach the site claim its entirety, and how valid would that claim be?

Re:Moon race, part 2

[brontus3927]

Under the Moon Treaty, the Moon is international domain, just like Antartica

Re:Moon Bases in Oregon

[natoochtoniket]

Great idea. Oregon would be an ideal place to build a moon base. Not only could we use the lava tubes for potection against solar radiation, but the logistics would be much simpler and cheaper. Putting everything on rockets and sending it a quarter million (or so) miles to the moon would be really difficult and expensive. It would so much easier to just have it delivered to Oregon in the first place. UPS and Fedex even go there, already.

Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Let's build it after science discovers the anti-dollar. You know, that amount that you have, exactly inverse to the debt held as foreign reserves.

Morons.

Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this

[Brett Buck]

You and your 3 dimensions, how cute. We have 5, uh, 5000 dimensions. Don't question it!

Nitpicking

[benhocking]

What you're thinking is that when there is an eclipse, it's visible everywhere on earth, I think. Solar eclipses are only visible in certain places.

Lunar eclipses are visble everywhere on Earth that one could see (eclipsed portion of) the Moon. I.e., from approximately (actually a bit more than) half the Earth.

Similarly, Solar eclipses are visible everywhere on the Moon that one could see the eclipsed portion of the Earth (again, about half the Moon). :)

Of course, those living on the Moon might refer to Lunar eclipses as Solar eclipses and Solar eclipses as Terran eclipses.

beg to differ

[circusboy]

I think you'll find it's made of cheese.
I have it on good authority...

Finance: Money for Moon Base borrowed

[WillAffleckUW]

Record debt and deficits, and the Senate is right now discussing removing the Estate Tax. There is no money for this in your lifetime, it is scifi.

Ah, but you assume they actually intend to pay for it.

We all know that Moon Base Alpha will be paid for with money borrowed by China.

After all, it's not like they have a space program ...

Taxes

[MyLongNickName]

You DO get taxed on birthday presents if they are bove a certain level.

And estate taxes prevent riches from piling up ad infinitum in one family. You shouldn't have an unassailable advantage over everyone else just because your parents are richer than everyone else.

Re:Taxes

[TamMan2000]

There is rampant misinformation on the estate tax.

If your estate is worth less than 1.5 million dollars there is no estate tax. I realize that 1.5 mil doesn't go as far as it used to, but would still enable a dependant to retire to an upper middle class lifestyle upon receiving this inheritance.

And when it comes down to it, an inheritance is income. Should this income be excluded from taxation? If so why? The only argument I have heard on this is that it has already has been taxed (the "unfair double taxation" argument), when it was earned by the deceased. But this argument doesn't hold water. Would you say that one should not pay income tax on one's salary because that money is paid from the income of the organization that employees one; that money was taxed when it was income of the employer (Oh no! double taxation). The simple fact is that money circulates, it gets used repeatedly, if money was not taxed repeatedly, the government would, literally, have zero income. And while we might disagree on the needed level of government services that we should be taxed to fund, I think we can all acknowledge that some level of funding is necessary...

Is there another reason that it should be excluded that I am unaware of?

Since When...

[gillbates]

Have lower taxes ever kept politicians from spending money they don't have?

Especially considering the current administration is spending money like a drunken democrat?

Congress just has to write a check. They'll let someone else (i.e. the American taxpayers) figure out how to pay for it.

The moon is too dry.

[Mad Bad Rabbit]

Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars,

The main requirement for a trip to Mars are volatiles for fuel and life support, and the moon has almost none of those.

Sure, there is lots of metal oxide laying around on the moon for building an empty ship out of ; but even then, the standard processes we have for making steel or aluminum require large amounts of carbon (to reduce the oxides) and water (to cool down the molten metals afterwards). Again, the moon just doesn't have those.

If we could find a Near-Earth asteroid with abundant volatiles like water ice and ammonia ice, it'd make more sense to build a base there than on the moon.

I am Gnotigna, Royal Daughter of Ignignot

[LPetrazickis]

Hello, beloved earthlings.

We have been observing your earthworld with moonminds vast and merry for many moonyears. You earthtechnological earthachievements are moonimpressive to our moonminds.

Unfortunately, we mooninites are fighting a civil moonwar. Moonsibling is killing moonsibling. As Moonheir to the Moonthrone, I am trusted with protecting the ample Moontreasury.

Fellow sapients, the Moon needs your earthhelp. I need to transfer the equivalent of $50,000 USD to two thousand and one Earth banking accounts. In order to do so, my moonsubterfuge moonskills will have to deceive the earthbankers.

I plead with you on my moonknees.

Please let me transfer $50,000 USD to your earthaccount. The moonmoney will have to stay earthhidden for at least pi earthdecades. I trust you will earthsafeguard it from the moonpretenders to the Moonthrone.

We will moonreward all earthhumans moongenerously.

In order for me to transfer $50,000 to you, I need an initial earthmoney fund to earthbribe the earthbankers. Please send me $500 now, and I will moonreimburse you in the transfer.

The Moon cries out for your earthhelp as the moonpretenders moonrape, moonravage, and moonraze their way to my moonpalace. Please take my $50,000.

Whatever happened to Malapert Mountain?

[RevRigel]

TFA claims there are no constantly sunlit spots near the south pole, but remembering an article I saw a few years ago, I looked up Malapert Mountain, also in a space.com article. Same story..constantly lit, on a crater rim, and the inside of the crater is constantly dark, so it would be perfect for an optical telescope with a short cable run to the moon base at the crater rim. They even suspect strongly that there's water ice in the crater there. So, what gives? Is the previous article wrong or are the people in the current article suffering from amnesia/not-discovered-here? They seem to both be using data from Clementine. Here's another, more informative site on Malapert with lots of pretty pictures.

Re:There's always an eclipse on Earth

[SirCyn]

I think what he means is that one side of the Earth is always in darkness (facing away from the sun). What he doesn't realize is that only about 85% of the shpere is in darkness, and that both the very top and bottom (perpendicular to the light travel) always stay lit.

In a case like the Earth where our axis of rotation is tilted, one pole (switches depeding on time of year) is always daylight. Check out the Xplanet program if you have *nix. Right now it's the north pole that always has light.

The moon rotates around the exact same axis as it revolves around the Earth, and at the same rate. So we alwys see the same side of the moon. At the north pole of the Moon there is always light, year round. Similar to how the north pole of Earth has continous light right now (for the season anyway).

Re:Conservation of Energy on Earth

[What me a Coward]

Ok just what have you been smoking? And why didn't you share with the rest of the group?

Lets clear up some Gravity and Leaping issues here

[DumbSwede]

OK these figure seem to be getting misquoted a lot lately on Slashdot.
The Moon has about 1/6 Earth Gravity
Mars has about 1/3 Earth Gravity.

Assuming a 6-foot man can jump 6 feet on Earth, he could jump about 1/(1/6)*3 + 3 feet for a total of 21 feet on The Moon, 1/(1/3)*3 +3 for a total of 12 feet on Mars. Keep in mind when a 6-foot man jumps 6 feet here on Earth he is only lifting his CENTER of gravity 3 feet with a starting height of 3 feet for it.

AYBAB2U

[Anonymous Coward]

AllYorBaseAreBelongtoUs

Good location

[Fillymon]

you sure wouldn't want to stick it where the sun don't shine.

Re:Up Nort'

[jfengel]

I wish I could find the reference, but Arthur C. Clarke once wrote a short story proposing precisely this. He was writing about a footrace, and it ended with racers naked, like in the first mrathon. I believe he revisited the idea in The hammer of God, but I think he did it the first time before anybody actually landed on the moon.

You lose heat by radiation, but space suits have elaborate cooling systems, since there's no atmosphere to wick away your body heat, and that's most of what you use on earth. Sadly, the exact heat-flow math (including sweat, which would still evaporate, or at least sublime) is beyond me.

Clarke said you could go out naked, except that your feet would get really, really cold. The character in the story warms his feet by starlight (really just getting them off the ground).

You'd have to be pretty careful with breathing, since you wouldn't have the usual 1 atmosphere of external pressure helping you exhale. (Space suits, conversely, are pressure suits and restore some of that 1 atmosphere.) I'm sure it's some function of keeping the partial pressures of oxygen in the right place, but again, that's more math than I want to do.

But you'd probably want to pressurize your head. There is intra-ocular pressure; it probably wouldn't pop but might be uncomfortable. Even if you pressurized the squishy bits in your head, you could have burst blood vessels in the skin; it's like a giant all-over hickey. It would depend on the way the heart adjusted pressure to the lack of resistance you get from the atmosphere.

So that's the interested-layman answer. I hope you can get a better one from an actual physicist.

Re:Not to nitpick, but...

[qeveren]

I tried your formula to convert -50C back to F, and get the right result(-58F). It looks like you did F = C(9/5) + (-32) instead. :)

Lack of hydrogen, use nuclear fission to create it

[theolein]

The biggest problem of any Lunar undertaking is water, or more appropriately, hydrogen, as there's loads of Oxygen.

Now, what if there just isn't that much ice in those lunar polar craters. AFAIK, there's only speculation that there may be ice there, but nothing has been proven, has it? The data is inconclusive at the moment. And even if there is ice there, there seems to be good amount of evidence that it will not be all that much, ranging from one small lake to a "sea" the size of Connecticut.

A lot of industrial processes need water in large quantities and this may prove to be exhaustive of what little lunar ice there may be. In other words, lunar industry for water and rocket fuel might just deplete the moon's natural resources as fast as our need for oil does.

If this worst case scenario turns out to be true, what would possible solutions be? Would it be realistic to smash an ice asteroid into the moon? I don't think we are quite capable of that just yet.

What about artificially creating hydrogen as a by product of nuclear fission or some such process that strips a proton off an atom? According to a quick Google search, it is quite possible with today's technology and there seems to be quite a lot of Uranium on the moon as opposed to hydrogen.

I think that artificially generating hydrogen might actually make a lunar base more flexible with respect to positioning, although placing the base in a polar crater might help to shield it from Solar eruptions and meteor impacts.

Re:Lets clear up some Gravity and Leaping issues h

[uberdave]

I'm not sure where you're getting your equations, but clearly the man will be able to jump six times as high on the moon as on the earth, and three times as high on Mars.

When you jump, you provide kinetic energy to your body. As you rise, the kinetic energy gets transformed to potential energy. At the top of your jump, all the kinetic energy has been converted to potential energy and you come to a stop. The potential energy then gets reconverted to kinetic energy as you fall. The potenial energy is determined by the equation u=mgh, where u is energy, m is mass of jumper, g is the gravitational force, and h is height. Or rearranged, the equation would be h=u/(mg), or height is inversely proportional to gravity.

So, assuming the mass of the jumper and the energy put into the jump remains the same, the jump on the moon would be six times the height as on the earth.

Estate tax

[Scott7477]

I personally don't want to see the development of a new noble class based on the ability to pass down accumulated wealth indefinitely. If this were the case in the US, Bill Gates' knighthood would be the real deal and we would all have to bow down before him and refer to him as "Your Excellency." The estate tax is as you say the primary method that US society uses to prevent this. The framers of the Constitution had seen the evils perpetrated by the feudal/noble system and wanted to make sure that this would never happen in the United States.