US Plans Lunar Motel

OffTheLip writes "The US is planning to build a permanent lunar base which will support future visits to Mars. The living conditions on the moon presents a variety of challenges from medical to construction. Contingency planning would be critical but some feel the challenges presented on the moon will be less than Mars. The moon is closer to Earth, the atmosphere is less harsh and, unlike Mars, water does not exist. Is this the start of the next space race?"

Comments

Less challenges on the moon?

[metaomni]

The article makes a very good case for just the opposite -- the moon seems like it will be a much harsher locale for future astronauts, despite its closer location.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Ardanwen]

I was also thinking. How come having water on a planet makes things more difficult. I know life on earth (70% water surface) is tough ;), but based on that last sentence, I'd say mars is the better place to be.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[cmowire]

Well, it depends on your point of view.

If you suffer from a power/oxygen/water/etc. system failure, all you need is a few weeks supplies in the shelter on the moon. Wheras, you need to ensure that at all points in time, you've got 2 years worth of shelter supplies on Mars.

Also, the lowered gravity and nearly-nonexistent atmosphere means that a moonsuit from the 60s still works out well enough.

Also, given that you have only 3 days outside of the earth's magnetosphere to get there, you'll accumulate a lot less radiation on the way there than you would going to Mars.

Of course, that also would require piling lunar soil and rocks on top of whatever the lunar base ends up being made out of to provide sufficent mass.

But, still... Because of all of these things, it's easier to get a toehold sooner on the Moon.

The problem is that NASA has yet to grasp the idea of a fully independent spacecraft. It works out reasonably well to have astronauts swap out complete assemblies in LEO, where you can send up and down the stuff, if you are talking about going to Mars or Io or Titan or even near-earth-asteroids, you are going to be too far to pull stunts like that. We barely know how to weld and solder in space and nobody's ever tried to make a set of machine shop tools for space like lathes and mills. The moon would be a great place to research such things, but that also depends on NASA breaking with tradition and not blowing a good chance yet again.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[ceejayoz]

Well, if you build a Mars base on permafrost and it melts under your buildings, you're in a spot of trouble. I'm assuming that's the kind of thing they're worrying about.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Andrzej Sawicki]

You are probably right as to being on the Mars. Getting there seems to be the difficult trick at the moment.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[gerf]

The moon has problems with being used as a base, this is true. But, you have to look at all the pros and cons.

The moon is close. Astronauts, vehicles, resupplies, or emergency equipment can reach the moon in a much shorter time span than Mars. Heck, even communications reach the moon in a couple seconds. Also, gravity is lower on the Moon, so launches from the Moon won't take all that much effort.

Mars possibly has more water resources to utilize. The thin atmosphere doesn't help much overall, other than blocking a few micrometeorites from causing damage. There is also dust on Mars, but probably not as harsh as that on the Moon, as it's been exposed to wind erosion for a long time now, and is assumed to be rounded in shape. Mars days also are a benefit, as opposed to the Moon, which rotates only as it orbits the Earth.

My opinion, though it matters not? I say we need to dig on the Moon. Expensive though it may be, going underground protects you from radiation meteors, and solar flare material.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[uncoveror]

On the moon, The X-4000 Launch Aparatus might actually work as a launch vehicle.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[thc69]

The problem is that NASA has yet to grasp the idea of a fully independent spacecraft. It works out reasonably well to have astronauts swap out complete assemblies in LEO, where you can send up and down the stuff, if you are talking about going to Mars or Io or Titan or even near-earth-asteroids, you are going to be too far to pull stunts like that.

I find your ideas intriguing and wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Er, no, seriously, you make a good point.

We barely know how to weld and solder in space and nobody's ever tried to make a set of machine shop tools for space like lathes and mills. The moon would be a great place to research such things, but that also depends on NASA breaking with tradition and not blowing a good chance yet again.

Your examples actually don't sound so difficult. I'm surprised welding in space isn't already common; I figured it was necessary for such things as assembling/repairing Mir and ISS. I imagine it scarcely differs from welding on Earth; no air is required* (I guess depending on which type of welding), and gravity (which exists enough on the moon for this) is only helpful for securing materials and predictability of flying stray materials/sparks. Soldering is even easier. Machine shop tools could use air to control dust, but I can't think of any other than a tablesaw that use gravity (and the tablesaw is easy to modify to work in zero-G; just add a spring-loaded track/table above it).

*I just realized that air is necessary for the cooling of everything above, except possibly shop tools. However, I imagine it's pretty unlikely that much fabrication would be done in airless environments. The risk of cutting off a finger is bad enough when earth is so far away, but it'd be even worse when you weld or cut a hole in your spacesuit in a depressurized area.

I assume that these tools would be used for fabrication; raw materials would be kind of difficult to come up with. Better to load 1 ton of easier-to-fabricate materials than 1 ton of equipment, maybe? Think fiberglass-like materials. Sure, we can fabricate new parts for the Mars base out of Bondo! ;)

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[gclef]

All this is really an argument for a base at L4 or L5, if you ask me:

Pro:
    Just as close as the moon
    Smaller gravity well from the moon, though still gravitationally stable
    No dust
    No issues with rotation blocking sunlight for solar cells

Con:
    No resources at all, have to ship in everything.

I think whoever starts building at L4/L5 first will have a huge long-term advantage over any of the other space-faring groups. Lack of supplies is, I think, a minor concern, given that we'll have to do the same for a Moon station.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[HUADPE]

I imagine it scarcely differs from welding on Earth; no air is required*

Welding torches require oxygen in order to burn. In a ~0g environment you face a few unique problems.

Liquids (like really hot liquid metal) fly away, and can hit astronauts/equipment, and not cool on the spot of the weld (you seemed to realize this one on your own.)

Any sort of torch, assuming it provides its own oxygen, would either contaminate the air in the spacecraft, or if use outside, have the potential to apply thrust and move the craft off course.

If used inside the craft, the ~0g environment could allow large amounts of air to be incorporated into the metal...weakening it. (This principle is sometimes useful though...there are certain materials that can only be produced in a low gravity environment.)

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[maxdamage]

That and corrosion damage. On the moon you would not have to worry about the base rusting.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[cmowire]

Take a welding class sometime. There is much much much more to welding than the standard oxy-acetelyne torch.

Oxygen is not required. There are certain high-strength welding processes that even require a vacuum to work.

They already need to deal with the problem of oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen getting into the welds, which is why stick welders have a thick coating of flux on the rods and MIG and TIG welders cover the weldment with a variety of inert or mostly-inert gasses.

There are other problems, of course. :)

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[techno-vampire]

Of course, that also would require piling lunar soil and rocks on top of whatever the lunar base ends up being made out of to provide sufficent mass.

There's a fairly simple solution to that: dig a hole, build the station in it and pile the removed rubble on top. You not only get protection from radiation, you also get insulation. Also, you don't have to worry about packing the coverage down to keep it from slipping and exposing the station.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[general_re]

Any sort of torch, assuming it provides its own oxygen, would...if use outside, have the potential to apply thrust and move the craft off course.

Cooling would still be a problem, but thrust is a non-issue for arc welders.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[techno-vampire]

Actually, small stuff tends to accumulate in L4 and L5 positions. There may well be a fair amount of dust, sand and pebbles there. We won't know for sure until we send something there to take a look.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

With L4/L5 you mean the Langrange points right? What is the use of going there? There is nothing there right?? You can only hang around there, might aswell be in earth orbit. (which is easier to achieve) Being on the moon is the point right? Seeing what you can gain/do/learn there.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[cmowire]

Ah, but convection doesn't work, so you increase the possibility of any fluxes not properly floating to the top. You also have to wory about the flux evaporating and causing the solder to be propelled away from the workpiece. Also, some soldering and welding processes are designed to work inside the atmosphere, others are designed to work outside of the atmosphere.

But, no, nothing on the ISS is being welded in space. It is sent up in large chunks and is bolted together, often times with motorized screws so that the astronauts just have to manuver the pieces towards each other and then command the berthing mechanism to grip. They have been doing some limited soldering experiments in the ISS, but never as repair work, just as tests for eventually doing repair work.

The biggest problem is that a spacewalk takes too much effort to set up. You have to plan it out. You have to pre-breathe oxygen. You have to replace all of the relevant consumables. The people doing them are scientists, not bridge workers.

You can only get so far with merely bolting stuff together. Eventually, you need to start doing fabrication work. Sure, it's easier to send up 1 ton of easy-to-fab raw materials, but it's even easier to grab a 100 ton iron asteroid and not bother calling back to Earth at all. :) Remember that some of the iron asteroids are basicly steel with sufficent levels of purity that you could slice 'em up with a cutter and use them as building materials with nay but a quick metalurgical assay.

Some things will be much much easier in space. Ovens for example. A nice parabolic reflector to focus the sun's heat on a lump of metal can be made out of aluminised mylar and (titanium) chickenwire. You can use a refractory blowpipe to blow a bubble out of the lump once it's melted. Taking this to a logical extension, I could see large structures being manufactured using something akin to a glassblower's lathe.

But the problem is, on both the how-do-we-repair-things-and-build-new-things-in-sp ace front and the how-much-gravity-do-we-need-to-not-die-young-in-sp ace front, we've done... ehrm... almost nothing since the 60s.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Guppy06]

"the moon seems like it will be a much harsher locale for future astronauts, despite its closer location."

The destination may be harsher, but factor in the 1+ year a trip to Mars takes and all that lovely hard radiation you'd be exposed to, and the moon doesn't look so bad.

Besides, if something goes wrong, the moon is only about a week away.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[hazem]

Wasn't there an article on slashdot some time ago about how the dust on the moon is much finer and more abbrasive than Earth dust because it doesn't get blown around. It talked about how the dust would easily muck up seals and anything that had moving parts.

This http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/2 6/0851241 might have been it, though this one seems to focus on the health issues of the dust.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[oakgrove]

And with the complete lack of atmo, what about the cosmic ray issue. Are not cosmic rays still cancerous and devilishly difficult to filter out. It seems like that more than anything else would put the brakes on long term space vacationing. http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7753

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[modecx]

On the moon you would not have to worry about the base rusting.

Maybe not, but you do have to worry about that damned dust getting everywhere. It's very small, and unlike dust on Earth, it's very, very abrasive. It dosen't have the chance to be blown around by wind, moved by water, or anything else that would cause the edges of the particles to be worn smooth, like here on Earth, so it's sharp! It gets into seals, abrades space suits, irritates skin, etc. It's just plain nasty, and it's everywhere.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[hazem]

Ahh, here's the article I was thinking of:

Lunar 'Lawnmower' Devised for Moon Colonists:
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/1 6/188245

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[amliebsch]

Indeed - it seems like submerged-arc welding of the type done for naval vessels could be much more easily done in an airless environment.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[delong]

There's a fairly simple solution to that: dig a hole, build the station in it and pile the removed rubble on top

Not so easy in the limited gravity well of the Moon. As TFA states, there are serious problems engineering earth-moving machinery that will work on the Moon. Backhoes work on Earth largely because Earth's gravity is stronger than the force of the earth-moving arm exerted against the ground. Bulldozers work because Earth's gravity overcomes the forward force of the dozer, giving traction sufficient to move soil. There are serious problems with hydraulics and fluids in low gravity. The flying fine Moon soil particles are also serious problems for soil moving activity.

Construction on the Moon isn't as simple as "dig a hole, plop in base, cover".

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[maxdamage]

I was thinking about that after my post. I would think you would face the same problem on mars. At least on the moon there would be the possibility of rescue or repair. In days rather than months that is.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[blincoln]

Backhoes work on Earth largely because Earth's gravity is stronger than the force of the earth-moving arm exerted against the ground. Bulldozers work because Earth's gravity overcomes the forward force of the dozer, giving traction sufficient to move soil.

I am imagining something like porcupine quills, only much bigger. The moon-based construction equipment shoots a couple into the ground when it needs purchase. If the construction were planned well, the equipment could be detached and the quills used again when something else needs to work in that same spot.

For a bulldozer, you could use the quills as mount points for a modified railroad track that was added on to as the bulldozer needed to move further. Unlike a railroad track on Earth, this one would also be anchoring the vehicles that ran on it.

The dust and problems with hydraulics are big concerns, though. I think it will be interesting to see how those are overcome.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[smchris]

I'm satisfied that distance is the overriding factor.

It isn't like Mars isn't really, really cold at night too, has dust problems, radiation and an atmosphere that "isn't" for all practical purposes.

Mars would certainly be more interesting and would probably have immense psychological benefits with sky, clouds, sunsets, wind and water or CO2 ice but the moon is a practical baby step. And martians should feel a lot more secure in their isolation knowing they are working with moon-tested technology.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[jacksonj04]

I reckon corkscrew grips inserted at an angle. That way they can be removed when you need to move the machinery.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[nacturation]

Any sort of torch, assuming it provides its own oxygen, would either contaminate the air in the spacecraft, or if use outside, have the potential to apply thrust and move the craft off course.

I think you'd only have to worry about the thrust issue if you're okay with losing astronauts when they do welding. Assuming no astronauts are lost, the whole equal-and-opposite-reaction thing pretty much takes care of that problem.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[BeerCat]

Are not cosmic rays still cancerous and devilishly difficult to filter out. It seems like that more than anything else would put the brakes on long term space vacationing

Au contraire. Offer cheap 3 month trips for all those coming up to retirement age, and they likely won't live long enough to claim their pension. Will do wonders for the demographic pensions black hole that the western world seems to be looking forward to.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[furry_wookie]

>Construction on the Moon isn't as simple as "dig a hole, plop in base, cover".

How about "light fuse on 1MT nuke. run like hell. boom. plop in base. cover.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[sd_diamond]

Also, the lowered gravity and nearly-nonexistent atmosphere means that a moonsuit from the 60s still works out well enough.

Not quite. The Apollo EV suits worked fine for the short duration they were needed, but their seals were severely degraded by moon dust, which turned out to be far more corrosive than anyone anticipated. They wouldn't be any good for extended usage.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[gerf]

This could be perfect for the future when we send long slow payloads between different places. Who cares if a load of bearings takes 5 years to reach Mars from the Moon and Earth? It's like sending something UPS Ground: it's cheaper, and it'll get there eventually.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[iamlucky13]

To add to your response, not only is oxygen not required, it is downright bad for welding. If oxygen dissolves in the molten material, it causes voids and really bad corrosion (particularly for iron alloys). When using an oxy-acetylene torch, ideally oxygen doesn't touch the weld. Your flame should be as close to stoichiometric as possible, so that only CO2 and H20 vapor contact it.

While 0 G welding would present some difficulties (stuff flying out, and more importantly, all the dust that is typically generated), it can also have some advantages, too (orientation doesn't affect your puddle). The only disadvantage I can think of off the top of my head for welding in a vacuum is slower cooling, but perhaps not even that, depending on the apparent surfaces to radiate too.

I guess a lot of people probably think of welding as something along the lines of "heat stuff up, push it together, hope it sticks." It's much more scientific than that.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[slazar]

On Mars there is weather and dust storms. This wears down sharp dust, so that problem would not be found on Mars. But yeah, it would get everywhere!

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[LeeBarnes]

"like sending something UPS Ground: it's cheaper, and it'll get there eventually."

not from my experience.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Necoras]

Putting a lathe in null gravity is just asking for trouble. Spin the wood/iron/whatever and you spin your whole spacecraft. Basic Newtonian physics, equal and opposite reactions. On earth all of the force goes straight into the ground. Same for the moon. If we really want to get moving in space we HAVE to do it from the lunar surface. Spacestations look cool in movies, but something the size of Mir or the ISS is useless for anything more than the most basic of research. As humans we can build and manipulate our environment, but we have to have an environment to manipulate. We either need a space station the size of a city (and with costs to orbit somewhere around $15k per POUND that isn't happening soon) or we need a planetary (or lunar) base to start building from. The moon is ideal as a launch site with it's 1/6 of our gravity. Cost to orbit from the lunar surface is orders of magnitude less than from earth, as proved by the lunar landers used in the 60s. We need to get to space. Life is expensive there, but everything else is cheap. Metal asteroid are easy pickings with a decent mining craft. Solar power is abundant when not diluted by Earth's atmosphere (the protection my skin is extremely thanful for). Lunar dust can even concievably be used to produce oxygen. Water can be recycled for a remarkably long time, food grown by the same plants that recycle the CO2 we love to exhale. The devil's in the details. All of this is great in theory, but until we have a large enough base to test it on, we're out of luck. Mars is much too far away to use as a stepping stone with our current technology. After we've established a launching base on the Moon we can start looking to Mars, Io, Ganymede(sp). The rest of our solarsystem is just a staging ground for colonies on other earth like planets... assuming we find those. The biggest problem with all of this is distance and time. Star Trek will probably never happen simply because a viable FTL drive is, sadly, rather unlikely. If we find planets similar to Earth, we'll colonize them eventually. Whether that society will look like Orson Scott Card's Ender universe, with instantanious communication allowing for a widespread government, or more like Pournelle and Niven's Legacy of Herot with individual planets, separated for decades at a time, noone knows. But assuming we don't kill each other off in one wonderful blast, and that we can learn to look farther into the future than 5 years, we'll get there. All it takes is time. ~Nec

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[cmowire]

Yes.

However, the atmosphere of mars is such that the insulation methods used for the Shuttle and Apollo EV suits won't work and they'll have to use heavier insulation.

So, to make a good moonsuit, you have to fix the seals.

To make a good mars suit, you have to fix the seals, make it lighter weight, fix the insulation, etc.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[smoker2]

When I used to weld for a living (MIG), the gas used was 90%+ nitrogen and a few % argon, and was basically for cooling iirc. The inertness of the cooling gas is so you can control the weld temperature more exactly (oxygen would increase the heat of the weld, while hydrogen would just burn). It's surprisingly easy to blow holes in steel when it's only a couple of millimetres thick.

All the tips for MIG welders are made of copper, and so is the spool wire, so if you run them without a cooling gas they melt together and you get no work done. All the welders I used, used currents approaching 160A.

As far as I know, nitrogen was the main constituent of the gas because it is plentiful and therefore cheap.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[GrumblyStuff]

Nice try.

How are you gonna light that fuse WITH NO AIR!? HA!

(Yes, I know nukes don't have fuses.)

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[dcam]

Ah, but convection doesn't work, so you increase the possibility of any fluxes not properly floating to the top. You also have to wory about the flux evaporating and causing the solder to be propelled away from the workpiece. Also, some soldering and welding processes are designed to work inside the atmosphere, others are designed to work outside of the atmosphere.

What about MIG welding. AFAIK, this would not require flux floating the surface.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[salec]

The gravity, if needed, could be substituted with centrifugal force, at least on a small scale (i.e. imagine rotating automatic soldering bench, where you remotely control soldering iron and grips or tweezers, with visual feedback coming from "above" - a radial-mounted camera closer to the center then the bench is). If gravity is needed for just a short period of time, then a simple pendulum will do (partial rotation), or perhaps an in-line accelerating/decelerating setup.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Beale]

If people would actually put some money/work into getting decent orbital infrastructure instead of just firing off rockets everywhere, it'd be a damn sight easier.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[VernonNemitz]

Water isn't so tough to obtain on the Moon.
Just use solar power to extract oxygen from rocks, and then combine with hydrogen collected from the Solar Wind.
After all, since the Moon hasn't got enough atmosphere to block the Solar Wind, collecting hydrogen as it flows by should be fairly easy.
Yes, this a slow-but-sure method. But lots of water isn't really needed, if wastewater recycling is enforced. Then you only need enough new water to replace leakages/losses.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Verteiron]

You fool! You can't use nukes on the Moon! You'll blow it to smithereens!

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[delong]

How about "light fuse on 1MT nuke. run like hell. boom. plop in base. cover

The US, UK, and Russia are banned from detonating nuclear devices in space, for any purpose, by treaty.

We'd also like to avoid making our construction site glow like a lightstick.

It also doesn't address the "cover" problem.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[schlumpf_louise]

I can see it now...
65th birthday.. retirement home or the moon? hmm....

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[some guy I know]

What is the use of going there?

L1 would be a great place to base a lunar space elevator.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

Ok i should've been more specific i mean what is the use of going there for the type of outpost they were talking about in the article.
L1 is a good place to start a lunar space elevator? I don't quite believe it, wouldn't the earth get in the way of the line? Where do you know that from, have some links? L1 is between the sun and the earth.
A space elevator from the moon may even not be posible geostationary orbit of the moon is too far, perturbed by earths gravity or even beyond the earth. (though im to lazy now to calculate it)

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[some guy I know]

L1 is a good place to start a lunar space elevator? I don't quite believe it, wouldn't the earth get in the way of the line? Where do you know that from, have some links? L1 is between the sun and the earth.

Sorry, I should have been more specific.
I meant the Earth/Moon L1 point.
Here are some links:

• Lunar Space Elevator article at Wikipedia
• Google search for "lunar space elevator"

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[Jasper__unique_dammi]

Hmm those web searches are just plain obvious.. should've done them myself. Thanks for the reply.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[cmowire]

Oh, that's an interesting idea.

I'm almost picturing some sort of combined heater/spool such that you could generate a blob of hot solder in zero-G, apply it to the board, and then start the workpiece rotating to "suck" the solder into the right position.

Re:Less challenges on the moon?

[salec]

Well, I ment that just as a quick fix, a means to use ready-made legacy tools. It is just a taught experiment to display the principle. When it comes specifically to soldering, modern technology using lightweight components, "rework", already depend on adhesion more then they do on gravity. You print the solder paste on the board, position and glue components over, then bake all that in the oven. As the solder paste melts, it spreads to neighbouring copper and tin surfaces and bonds them as it cools down (we can overcome the lack of convection using fans). It works even upside down (i.e. when assembling modules with components placed on both sides of the board), in spite gravity, here, on the bottom of gravity well, so odds are good it will work fine in low G too.

mars 1 water 0

[Potor]

my my my ... poor grammar. "unlike mars, water does not exist"? what the hell kind of statement is that? does that mean mars exists, but water does not?

Re:mars 1 water 0

[ScrewMaster]

does that mean mars exists, but water does not?

Yes, but only if you BELIEVE.

Re:mars 1 water 0

[Firewheels]

Satire. Sarcasm. Irony. Sense of Humor. Look them up in a dictionary.

As a Liberal and yes, even a Libertarian -- I found the post damn funny.

Just a small note.

Re:mars 1 water 0

[HUADPE]

Note: The Second Amendment also grants the right to citizens to refuse keeping soldiers in their homes.

That would be the third amendment. The second one says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Re:mars 1 water 0

[AndroidCat]

You must be new here.

The atmosphere is less harsh?

[Enleth]

Wow, an astonishing piece of news - there's atmosphere on the Moon!

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[hey!]

Wow, an astonishing piece of news - there's atmosphere on the Moon!

No, RTFA. The atmosphere that isn't on the Moon is less harsh than the one that is on Mars.

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[aktzin]

Wow, an astonishing piece of news - there's atmosphere on the Moon!

You're right, it's not astonishing. Thanks to the Apollo missions and more recent studies it was determined that our moon and many others in the solar system actually have very faint atmospheres. Though the Moon's gravity is very low it's just enough to hold a thin concentration of gas molecules very close to the surface:

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/moon/ lunar_atm.html&edu=high

I do see your point, common sense would make it seem that it's just a vacuum. What with all the impact craters and the sky being always black over there.

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[LouisZepher]

Well, technically, no atmosphere is less harsh than one comprised of gasses a human can't breathe. It's like saying "Holding your breath until you asphixiate is less harsh than the cyanide in a gas chamber."

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[LilWolf]

Where else do you think all that ozone layer has gone from Earth? It doesn't just magically disappear into thin air! ;)

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[B3ryllium]

It's easier to defend against no wind than it is to defend against 300KM/h+ winds.

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[Pedrito]

Thanks to the Apollo missions and more recent studies it was determined that our moon and many others in the solar system actually have very faint atmospheres.

You might want to read the link you posted. The moon does not actually have a very faint atmosphere. From your link: "[the moon is] surrounded by a *very* this [sic] region of molecules which might be loosely classified as an atmosphere."

My math may not be that great but my English is pretty good: "might be loosely classifed as" != "is"

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[techno-vampire]

The Moon is sometimes considered to have a "trace atmosphere." One of the interesting things about this, is that it can consist of things like sodium that you'd not normally find in any atmosphere.

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[aktzin]

You might want to read the link you posted. The moon does not actually have a very faint atmosphere. From your link: "[the moon is] surrounded by a *very* this [sic] region of molecules which might be loosely classified as an atmosphere."

I did read it, thanks. And since you feel the article doesn't make a case for a lunar atmosphere, here's a paragraph from NASA's Moon Fact Sheet:

http://www.spds.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonf act.html

"Lunar Atmosphere Diurnal temperature range: (greater than)100 K to (less than)400 K (roughly -250 F to +250 F) Total mass of atmosphere: ~25,000 kg Surface pressure (night): 3 x 10-15 bar (2 x 10-12 torr) Abundance at surface: 2 x 105 particles/cm3 Estimated Composition (particles per cubic cm): Helium 4 (4He) - 40,000 ; Neon 20 (20Ne) - 40,000 ; Hydrogen (H2) - 35,000 Argon 40 (40Ar) - 30,000 ; Neon 22 (22Ne) - 5,000 ; Argon 36 (36Ar) - 2,000 Methane - 1000 ; Ammonia - 1000 ; Carbon Dioxide (CO2) - 1000 Trace Oxygen (O+), Aluminum (Al+), Silicon (Si+) Possible Phosphorus (P+), Sodium (Na+), Magnesium (Mg+) Composition of the tenuous lunar atmosphere is poorly known and variable, these are estimates of the upper limits of the nighttime ambient atmosphere composition. Daytime levels were difficult to measure due to heating and outgassing of Apollo surface experiments."

Yes, it's "tenuous" but if experts like NASA and Sir Arthur C. Clarke call it an atmosphere, that's good enough for me.

P.S. That NASA web site is very slow today, try the Google cache. http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:YB5wQo57AwIJ:w ww.spds.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/moonfact.html +nasa+moon+atmosphere&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[isomeme]

It's close enough to being a vacuum that standard university lab equipment couldn't detect the difference between it and a true vacuum. To give some idea of how little of it there is, each of the Apollo missions noticeably increased the lunar atmospheric pressure with exhaust gases from the descent and ascent stages.

Re:The atmosphere is less harsh?

[LouisZepher]

(For those that browse at AC=-1) AC says: I hope you aren't serious. You do know that ozone (O3) breaks down into other gases (and faster in the presence of fluorocarbons). It doesn't fly off into space... or get pulled in by the moon's 1/6 G or something.
Notice the smiley? Most people put those to indicate a joke.

Atmosphere?

[colonslashslash]

The moon is closer to Earth, the atmosphere is less harsh

The moon has atmosphere now?

What a truely magnificent age we live in.

Re:Atmosphere?

[Tx]

Well, to be fair, the moon does have an atmosphere, just about, though not much of one, to be sure.

Re:Atmosphere?

[Decaff]

The moon has atmosphere now?

Actually it does; a very, very thin one.... which, I guess, is how it is in some bizzare way, less harsh.

Re:Atmosphere?

[colonslashslash]

Ah fair enough. Learn something new every day. :)

Re:Atmosphere?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Hey, I was more amused by the following statement:

The moon is closer to Earth

Closer then Mars? Who woulda thought!?

Re:Atmosphere?

[x_codingmonkey_x]

Actually the Moon does have an atmosphere. The atmospheric pressure is 3 × 10^-13 kPa so essentially a very small one. It consists of Helium 25%, Neon 25%, Hydrogen 23%, and Argon 20%. More info on the Moon here

Re:Atmosphere?

[ceoyoyo]

Apparently a hard vacuum with the odd random molecule bouncing around in it is less harsh than carbon dioxide now. Who knew?

Re:Atmosphere?

[danimrich]

The atmosphere on Mars is 95% carbon dioxide, 3% nitrogen, 1.6% argon, and contains traces of oxygen and water. It's atmospheric pressure is 750Pa, about 0.75% of Earth's pressure (data from Wikipedia).

But maybe the atmosphere is more harsh on Mars precisely because it is more dense than on the Moon. Unlike on Moon, you can have significant dust storms on Mars.

Wikipedia writes, "In the winter months when the poles are in continual darkness, the surface gets so cold that as much as 25% of the entire atmosphere condenses out into thick slabs of CO2 ice (dry ice). When the poles are again exposed to sunlight the CO2 ice sublimates, creating enormous winds that sweep off the poles as fast as 250 mph (400 km/h)."
I'd rather not be there...

Re:Atmosphere?

[MythoBeast]

If you think about it, it's common sense. What's worse, living alone, or living with someone who steals all your stuff?

An atmosphere on Earth provides us with many benefits. First, it gives us oxygen to breathe (duh). Second it provides us with ambient pressure so our liquids don't boil. Third, it holds water in solution so we don't dry out. Fourth, it protects us from radiation from space. Fifth, it maintains a livable temperature so we don't boil or freeze. This doesn't include a host of useful and non-immediate applications, like carrying voice communication or supporting airplanes, or providing an environment for us to grow food.

The atmosphere of Mars does none of these things (except mild but inadequate radiation protection) so it's little better than a true vaccum. What it does do is leech heat out of anything it touches. It also carries microfine dust which will make it hell to keep anything mechanical working. So, yes, the "atmosphere" of the Moon (or ultrahigh vaccum, or whatever) is, in fact, less harsh than the one on Mars.

Re:Atmosphere?

[TekPolitik]

The Moon does have an atmosphere. It consists of Helium 25%, Neon 25%, Hydrogen 23%, and Argon 20%

Then this whole "build a hotel on the moon" thing is disturbing. Hotels are going to want lights. If there's a lot of Neon up there we're going to have Las Vegas sur la Lune. I don't know about you, but I don't want to look up at the moon only to see "Live XXX Shows" in garish orange lights.

Re:Atmosphere?

[Tablizer]

The moon has atmosphere now?

It was Neil's burrito: "That's one small frrrrrrrp for man...."

Re:Atmosphere?

[ceoyoyo]

Maybe. The atmosphere of Mars also provides a not-insignificant amount of pressure, making it easier to build and less of a catastrophe if you get a leak. Also less of a catastrophe if you happen to puncture your suit. It also provides gasses to use in a greenhouse. The atmosphere might leech heat from things that are uninsulated, but it also regulates heat so you don't have the same extent of baking and freezing that the moon has.

Re:Atmosphere?

[srcosmo]

I don't want to look up at the moon only to see "Live XXX Shows" in garish orange lights.

Take out the quotation marks, and it gets my seal of approval.

Re:Atmosphere?

[ColaMan]

Yes, but 250MPH winds at 750Pa are fuck-all really.

I'm sure one of our aerodynamic guru's here on slashdot could calculate the wind load on a person at that speed and pressure - I'd wager it's not enough to knock you over.

The only problem you might have is more wear on your suit from 250MPH dust particles zinging past.

Re:Atmosphere?

[Cicero382]

It's all very well to discuss which has the harshest environment - Mars or the Moon. What about the third planetary player in the game which has the harshest environment of all? That's right... Earth!

Ok, so we don't really notice for the most part because we evolved here, but think about it:

A heavy atmosphere which carries dust and that most corrosive material - water. Even large mountains are ground to nothing in a matter of a few million years. Add to that fact it's about 20% oxygen and you have a serious fire risk as well!

Compared to Mars and the Moon, there is crippling gravity here. In order to build structures to cope with that AND the atmosphere we have to use a huge amount of materials for strength.

70% of the surface of Earth is covered with corrosive water made even worse by the inclusion of salts. (And we can't breathe water)

Areas of Earth are so unstable that volcanoes can appear out of nowhere and earthquakes can cause havoc. The planet is still tectonically active for crissakes!

I could go on...

Ok, so we also "evolved" our machines with this environment in mind. But, after that, something as benign as the moon has got to be piss-easy provided we stop trying to crowbar Earth solutions into a Moon/Mars problem.

Re:Atmosphere?

[ceoyoyo]

The air pressure on Mars is equivalent to about an altitude of 85,000 feet on Earth. It's not much pressure but depending on how your suit is designed it might be enough to prevent explosive decompression while you slap a patch on. If you're building large surface structures, say a greenhouse, the pressure on the outside, even if it is just 1% means the building doesn't have to be built quite as much like a reverse submarine.

For comparison, the Moon's atmospheric pressure is about 0.00000001% of Mar's atmospheric pressure.

Re:Atmosphere?

[MythoBeast]

Believe it or not, you can get the same air-pressure benefit by reducing the pressure in your suit as you get from increasing the pressure outside. That's how dispersion works. Astronauts take advantage of this by keeping the pressure in their suits no higher than necessary to keep the astronaut alive. IANAA, but I believe that it is about a half to a third of one atmosphere.

The one benefit that you DO get from having any atmostphere at all is that you don't have to engineer your equipment to avoid vaccuum welding. When two pieces of metal slide against each other on earth, they have a thin layer of gas holding them apart like microscopic ballberrings. When you try to do this in a vaccuum, they just might get stuck against each other and have to be pried apart.

Re:Atmosphere?

[ceoyoyo]

Yes, what matters is the differential pressure. So you reduce the pressure inside your suit. Having pressure outside still helps. Unfortunately, as you point out, there's a limit to how much you can reduce the inside pressure before your astronauts start dying.

Vacuum welding is another good point. Also, an atmosphere, even as thin as Mars' will absorb quite a few meteors, all the alpha and beta radiation and a significant amount of harder stuff.

Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

NASA is calling for help from the public in designing and building a lunar base entirely out of popsicle sticks and paper clips.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[SeekerDarksteel]

If only someone had MacGuyver's cell phone number....

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

"If only someone had MacGuyver's cell phone number...."

Ring, Ring

"What do you need?"

"A lunar base to support 50-100 people for 6-8 months."

"What do you got?"

"The cover from an old FORTRAN manual, some rubber tubing, and a chewing gum wrapper...

...hello?"

"Yeah, I'm sending the blueprints overnight FedEx, along with a working model made out of the contents of an ashtray outside the Post Office."

"Thanks!"

"It's what I do." Click.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[LouisZepher]

Of course, MacGuyver doesn't have a cellphone, it's just a Snicker's bar, a few M&M's, and a Twizzler for an antenna. Didn't you ever see the episode where he had to escape from the renegade Oompa-Loompa terrorists?

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[metlin]

Oh, just ask at the Department of Homeworld Security. ;)

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Let's send the MS Office paper clip with the hope that it'll finally turn out to have a use.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

"Macguyver is dead. Chuck Norris killed him."

That wasn't really MacGyver; it was a body double made from toilet paper rolls and pipe cleaners.

What does that say about your precious Chuck Norris?

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[Marsmensch]

Chuck Norris' punch is so powerful that MacGuyver's head exploded when his double was hit.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

"Chuck Norris' punch is so powerful that MacGuyver's head exploded when his double was hit."

MacGyver always keeps a spare head handy for Chuck Norris encounters.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[Marsmensch]

Realizing his foe wasn't dead yet pissed Chuck off so much that his glare burned a hole in MacGuyver's spare head.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

"Realizing his foe wasn't dead yet pissed Chuck off so much that his glare burned a hole in MacGuyver's spare head."

While Chuck Norris was busy staring at MacGyver's head, Macgyver's hands were constructing a flamethrower out of bottlecaps and shoelaces. Just as MacGyver's frontal lobe began to melt away, Chuck Norris became disturbed by the fact that his entire torso was engulfed in flames. With that distraction, MacGyver was saved from the menacing glare, and took cover in nearby bushes to build a new brain.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[Wescotte]

MacGyver was saved from the menacing glare, and took cover in nearby bushes to build a new brain.

After that was complete MacGyver realized just how old Christie Brinkley has gotten and maybe he was a better choice to partner up with Norris peddling the Total Gym and after selling his idea to Norris they went on to settle their differences and retire stinking rich.

The End

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[slashdotmsiriv]

Last time I checked with him he was resting by his fishless pond. Anyway, just check the SG Command directory, he has been affiliated with them for quite some time.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[brian0918]

"The End"

...or was it?

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[Marsmensch]

Chuck chuckled with contempt.

"You can run, MacGuyver, but you can't hide!... pussy!"

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[forgotten_my_nick]

If you were a real MacGuyver fan you would know that all he needs is duct-tape.

Re:Due to budget constraints...

[hcdejong]

Gives a whole new meaning to the old Mastercard saw...

Cover from an old FORTRAN manual - $ 1
some rubber tubing - $ 0.50
and a chewing gum wrapper - $0.98 with a rebate

Lunar base to support 50-100 people for 6-8 months - priceless [1]

1: ever seen NASA's budget?

Water

[Anonymous Coward]

The jury is still out on wether or not their is water-ice trapped in craters at the polar regions of the moon.

Space Race

[DarthChris]

"...Is this the start of the next space race?"

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work together instead of wasting billions on competing?
Of course, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Re:Space Race

[scarlac]

Actually, competition is often better than working together. That of course depends on who we are targeting. Competition is a natural thing in animals and humans that pushes us to perform the best, to win the "battle" (survival of the fittest).
However - most scientific research is done in collaboration between countries, but the most valuable information is often kept secret, so not to let others jump in and steal credit. I would however agree with you that competition can trigger a waste of money, but it does give us alternative ways of thinking, which is thereticly a good thing. (We all know that the best products doesn't always win, bla bla bl..)
Remember that two of something are not always mutually exclusive.

(Redundant:)
And I too was surprised to find that there was an athmosphere on the moon. I knew there was a chance Mars could get it, but I had no idea that the moon already had one. And at the same time I was also surprised to read that water might not exist ;-)

Re:Space Race

[mcc]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work together instead of wasting billions on competing?

Didn't we try that with the International Space Station? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember that "all working together" only really worked until such time as the question of who was going to pay for all of this working together came up, at which point the Russians wound up sticking America with the bill for most of the Russian contribution, then started renting stays on the ISS to wealthy millionaires.

Now, the ESA and Japan and whatnot seem to be a lot more responsible about their portions of the project-- hell, maybe more responsible than NASA even-- but maybe we can say there's some downsides to collaboration when we're talking about multi-year public projects that cost many billions of dollars, downsides that don't exist when we're talking about I dunno world diplomacy. The heads of governments and even corporations change from time to time, and when (as with the ISS or a lunar base) the benefits of the project are indirect, every time this happens there is a risk of the new leadership going "wait... why are we paying for this again?". The more countries or entities you have involved, the more chances you wind up with for this risk to come to pass...

Re:Space Race

[Anonymous Coward]

"Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work together instead of wasting billions on competing?"

And wouldn't it be nice if we had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles? Jesus Christ, are you so delusional as to think that global co-operation on a project this size is even remotely possible? Lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya.Competition is a good thing. It's what drives us forward. Competition got us into space in the first place. Competition brought us government, and countries, and law. All progress is driven by competition.

To answer the original poster's question, no, this will not be the begining of the next space-race. There is no military advantage to building a spa on the moon. If however, someone wanted to build a laser on the moon, then yes, there would be another space-race.

Re:Space Race

[BengalsUF]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work together instead of wasting billions on competing?

No, it would not. Competition breeds innovation. Non-competition breeds bureaucracy.

Re:Space Race

[Lewis Daggart]

Yep. Also, we need to disband all corporations and create government sanctioned monopolies on all production. That way, we don't waste resorces on needless redundancy, cheap generic knockoffs, and consumer choice.

Actually, competition brings greatness to the front in all fields. Without competition in sports, we'd still think running the mile in under 4 minutes was impossible. Without competition in industry, we'd lose out on innovation, content to work at the humdrum pace of sloth and mediocrity.

Competition, the fear of someone else getting their first and reaping the benefits of the victor, is quite possibly the greatest motivation we have to do better. Remeber in school when everyone got a trophy? Noone cared.

Re:Space Race

[blueadept1]

Wouldn't it be nice if we could all work together instead of wasting billions on competing? Of course, that's not gonna happen any time soon.

Fucking commie.

Re:Space Race

[barawn]

at which point the Russians wound up sticking America with the bill for most of the Russian contribution

Do keep in mind that the US was supposed to ferry crew back and forth - when the Shuttle was grounded after Columbia, we started using the Soyuz capsules. Russia then started to say "uh, hey, we need to get paid for this sort of stuff..." and Congress starting hedging about whether they could give Russia money at all due to political issues.

We're not exactly blameless in this.

Re:Space Race

[boutell]

We kept the Russians in the ISS project to keep Russian rocketry engineers and physicists gainfully employed. Which, in my opinion, was a worthy investment. But I wish we could have done it without compromising the usefulness of the ISS.

Of course, since Russian rockets are currently the only reliable manned ticket to space, maybe it's not so dumb.

the moon...

[joe 155]

... would be a better place to launch all space missions from. It's far easier and cheaper to set off (because of less gravity and no atmosphere). The only problem is that the moon itself is actually in space, although i read about a giant elevator which might be built up into space (if it's possible) which would make getting there a lot easier... also it'd be a bitchin' place to stay the night.

Re:the moon...

[mblase]

It's far easier and cheaper to set off (because of less gravity and no atmosphere).

That would be a plus, if it weren't for the little matter of fuel. Since there's no practical way to obtain rocket fuel from the moon itself, we'd have to carry it all up there on other spacecraft--completely eliminating any advantages.

Re:the moon...

[LouisZepher]

It's only easier to fire a rocket off the surface of the moon, however, setting up the launch pad, facilities, living quarters, etc on a non-terrestial body that is currently inhospitable, though while not exactly rocket science (okay, it is, but you know what I mean), it's not exactly as simple as the current model. It may be cheaper in the long-run, once you've built everything you need on the moon, but initially, it's going to be very costly, I'd imagine.

And I'd much rather have a space-escalator. Led Zepplin comments aside, I think it'd usher-in a new "X-treme Sport" of Banister Sky-Sliding.

Re:the moon...

[cmowire]

Not necessarily.

If you build the spacecraft on the moon and only send up fuel, you may come out ahead.

If you build a mass driver on the moon for launch, you come out ahead.

If you were to use nuclear propulsion, the amount of fuel required might be sufficently small to outweigh the disadvantages. Remember, you can use a nuclear powered craft to escape the gravity well, it would just cause cancer in a lot of folks if you ever tried it on Earth.

But... ehrm... yeah, it's probably still better to assemble and launch from L4 or L5.

Re:the moon...

[Eric Smith]

Since there's no practical way to obtain rocket fuel from the moon itself

What makes you think that? The lunar crust contains plenty of aluminum and oxygen, which can be used as rocket fuel. You just set up solar panels to generate electricity to run a refining operation. What could be simpler? :-)

Atmosphere less harsh

[NXIL]

Yes, the atmosphere is much less harsh--in fact, in simulations, no one who has taken off their helmet and sampled the moon's simulated atmosphere has ever complained. Ever.

I am certainly glad it is less harsh than the atmosphere of Mars, since I still have that image of Shwarzenegger's eyeballs popping out of his head in "Total Recall" when he is exposed to the pre-terraformed atmosphere.

Perhaps hybrid Man-Beasts will be able to farm water on the Moon. I am looking forward to them filling some craters with farmed water, so I can go sailing there. The trade winds are always nice around the Sea of Stoopidity.

Less harsh?

[MarkusQ]

Near vacuum is "less harsh" than thin C02? How so? And even though water does exist on the moon, its absence would be a minus, not a plus. The "weather" on the moon may be marginally less objectionable (it depends on your tastes, I suppose) but you're not going to be out in the weather much on either of them. And as for the distance, the real question is the depth of the gravity well, on which standard I'll grant that the moon is somewhat nicer.

Even so, an Earth-crossing asteroid would probably be a better choice, or something in one of the L-points (from which you could use the superhighway for cargo that wasn't marked "Rush").

-- MarkusQ

Re:Less harsh?

[ceejayoz]

Near vacuum is "less harsh" than thin C02?

Wind, perhaps? Dust storms on Mars would be a nasty event for a colony, especially if it interferes with communications and solar power. Some of them last months, too.

Re:Less harsh?

[aquabat]

I suppose it's possible he means that the atmosphere of Mars has wind that contains abrasive particulate matter, and as such, it can cause problems with airlock seals and moving machine parts. In contrast, the moon doesn't have that problem. However, on the moon, you can kick up the dust more easily, due to the lower gravity, so perhaps the advantage is cancelled.

Just remember...

[radiotyler]

TANSTAAFL

Is anyone else bothered that there is no mention of private funding or participation only, "NASA, NASA, NASA"?

Re:Just remember...

[capecodcarl]

Is anyone else bothered that there is no mention of private funding or participation only, "NASA, NASA, NASA"?

Nope. Apparently only the outspoken NASA-hating trolls like to point out stuff like that. The rest of us are quite proud of NASA and the accomplishments they have made to advance space exploration for all mankind.

Re:Just remember...

[radiotyler]

"...outspoken NASA-hating trolls..." Yikes.

I'm damn proud of what NASA has accomplished in the past. Just pointing out that this is a pretty big project that someone has to pay for. Maybe there's another way to do this. You know, without my taxes.

Re:Just remember...

[Jerf]

The rest of us are quite proud of NASA and the accomplishments they have made to advance space exploration for all mankind.

Why does that imply that desiring private participation in space is somehow "trolling"?

I'm proud of NASA. I'm proud of its past accomplishments. I consider the odds of NASA getting a viable, long-term, self-sustaining human presence in space about zero, using the current effectively-monopolistic approach. Again, how is this "trolling"? I think it's a pretty clear-eyed view of the present state of NASA and space exploration, not trolling. I think you have to squint awfully damned hard, to the point of self-delusion, to believe anything else about the current state of NASA.

"Past performance may not be an indicator of future success", to borrow a phrase from the financial community.

Re:Just remember...

[radiotyler]

Not really... for one, they aren't *stopping* anyone in the private sector from doing it. Remember, private sector participation is driven only by profit - if it doesn't look profitable and doable, nobody will invest.

Ok, so it's not profitable or doable for the private sector. Fine. Why should we do it then? I understand there are scientific reasons such as using the moon base as a stepping stone to send a manned mission to Mars, but there's already the ISS chewing up money with the same justification. The part that irks me is that because NASA is a bureaucratic government (read tax) funded space agency, they're not exactly "chomping at the bit" to get any help from the private sector. Or any help internationally. That would only take some of the heat off of them, and do nothing to justify the pretty expansive budget they already have.

Second, in a case like this I'm happy it's NASA doing it - private ownership of a lunar base would only lead to milking it for profit and the other woes of capitalism, rather than scientific research for the greater good.

I am instantly skeptical of anything done "for the greater good". I find it much easier to believe in doing something for money, fame, or prestige than "for the people". Maybe I've just been burned by ideologists a few too many times, but that phrase is usually pretty suspect to me.

Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[leftie]

"...However, Russell Kerschmann never forgot. He is a pathologist at NASA Ames studying the effects of mineral dust on human health. Both the Moon and Mars are extremely dusty worlds, and inhaling their dust could be bad for astronauts, says Kerschmann.

"The real problem is the lungs," he ex-plains. "In some ways, lunar dust resembles the silica dust on Earth that causes silicosis, a serious disease." Formerly known as "stone-grinder's disease," silicosis first came to idespread public attention during the Great Depression when hundreds of miners drilling the Hawk's Nest Tunnel through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia died within five years of breathing the fine quartz dust kicked into the air by dry drilling--even though they had been ex-posed for only a few months. "It was one of the biggest occupational health disasters in U.S. history," Kerschmann says...."

"...Quartz, the main cause of silicosis, is not chemically poisonous. "You could eat it and not get sick," he continues. "But when quartz is freshly ground into dust particles smaller than 10 m (for comparison, a human hair is 50+ m wide) and breathed into the lungs, they can embed themselves deeply into the tiny alveolar sacs and ducts where oxygen and carbon dioxide gases are exchanged." There, the lungs cannot clear out the dust via mucus or coughing. Moreover, the immune system's white blood cells commit suicide when they try to engulf the sharp-edged particles to carry them away in the blood-stream. In the acute form of silicosis, the lungs can fill with proteins from the blood. He adds that it is as if the victim slowly suffocates from a pneumonia-like condition.

Lunar dust, which like quartz is a compound of silicon, is (to our current knowledge) also not poisonous. But like the quartz dust in the Hawk's Nest Tunnel, it is extremely fine and abrasive, almost like powdered glass. Astronauts on several Apollo missions found that it clung to everything and was almost impossible to remove. Once it was tracked inside the lunar module, some of the dust easily became airborne, irritating lungs and eyes...."

http://www.space.com/adastra/adastra_moondust_0602 23.html

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[DoorFrame]

Wouldn't this be solved by including a big fan/vacuum in the airlock room to suck all the particulates on the outside of an Astronauts spacesuit?

I don't know how difficult it is to remove lunar dust, but I'd imagine 30 seconds in a strong windtunnel would be sufficient.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate when I get 10m (that's over 30 feet!) particles of quartz in my lungs. :(

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[CGP314]

Honor Kim Stanley Robinson and don't call it dust, call it the fines.

-CGP

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Quixote]

for comparison, a human hair is 50+ m wide

Jeezus! Even KingKong doesn't have that fat hair.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Pulzar]

...But when quartz is freshly ground into dust particles smaller than 10 m...

I think you don't have to be scientist to realize that eating 10 meter wide chunks of rock is dangerous. ;)

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Sr. Pato]

particles smaller than 10 m (for comparison, a human hair is 50+ m wide)

Surely you must mean nanometer, or something to that effect. Because if not, that's one massive hair.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Dragon_Hilord]

whatever the case is, people going to the moon better be ready to hear that they have asbestosis. The US had better get some other countries on board too!

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[pomo monster]

"I thinks that they mean Micron... but they are morons for not using the right abbriviation."

No, I think Slashdot is "morons" for not letting you paste in the right abbreviation (which looks like, but isn't, "um"). Why, oh why, is Slashcode stuck in the 1990s?

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[kthejoker]

The m stands for micron.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[nacturation]

don't call it dust, call it the fines

Pedantically speaking, one would call it "fines", not "the fines".

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[typical]

Formerly known as "stone-grinder's disease," silicosis first came to idespread public attention during the Great Depression when hundreds of miners drilling the Hawk's Nest Tunnel through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia died within five years of breathing the fine quartz dust kicked into the air by dry drilling--even though they had been ex-posed for only a few months. "It was one of the biggest occupational health disasters in U.S. history," Kerschmann says...."

Never heard of it before now, but Wikipedia has an article on everything.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[Tablizer]

I think you don't have to be scientist to realize that eating 10 meter wide chunks of rock is dangerous.

Naw, they just give it to the Intelligent Design group to test.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[MythoBeast]

Sadly, micron is generally abbreviated with a 'u' on a normal keybard instead of an m because it looks more like a mu than an m does. Easy mistake though.

Re:Not until the moon dust problem is solved.

[x2A]

Take your boots off before coming in... saves walking dust in, AND it's polite!

Less harsh ?

[aepervius]

Mars ~ 1/100 of earth atmosphere at sea level and mainly CO2
Moon pressure (none or nearly none)

Less harsh is a kind of misnomer. You would probably have the same kind of problem between a wall separating 1 atm air and 1/100 atm CO2, as with a wall separating 1 atm air and 0, nada...

Re:Less harsh ?

[Jeff Molby]

I would imagine that he was referring more to things like sandstorms rather than pressure.

Re:Less harsh ?

[Guppy06]

The moon doesn't have weather and all those impact craters seem to indicate that you don't need to worry about heat shielding when you're going to land.

Moon

[CGP314]

some feel the challenges presented on the moon will be less than Mars.

They feel do they? I'm glad we have people willing to know with their hearts rather than think with their heads.

-CGP

Huh?

[10101001011]

Mars has an atmosphere that would protect the "base" from debris and space junk that would otherwise plunge into the surface of the moon. Also, when they bring water into the equation, I presume they are talking about rust and other such destruction -- last time I checked the atmosphere on Mars was well below zero, thus water can't be much of a concern. I'd actually have to say that Mars would make a better candidate, as it offers a better chance for scientific discovery.

  But then again, the moon is an easier and quicker target... (sigh, patience is a virtue)

Re:How about we explore something closer to home?

[radiotyler]

What, did you forget about Sealab 2021?

Mailbox head.

hell yes

[kiyuki]

Finally a place far enough to go when my ex comes to town.

"News" for Nerds, Stuff that matters.

[iamlucky13]

Fortunately, the article isn't quite so silly, but I'm hard pressed to find a reason why this article should take up space on the front page. It's not news. It's a very vague and somewhat scattered compilation of miscellaneous details that have been discussed over the past couple of years, with a sprinkling cheesy analogies and meaningless opinions on top. This fits better in the category of "Tidbits for people who don't care. Stuff the BBC wrote about last year"

Re:"News" for Nerds, Stuff that matters.

[hackwrench]

The "News for Nerds" that I see here is the continued horribleness of science and technology reporting by the mainstream press.

Tagging

[Xiroth]

I hereby nominate this summary to be the first to get a 'badsummary' tag, because the submitter obviously completely misunderstood the original article. Maybe it should get a 'badtitle' tag as well - the article is about the possibility of and difficulties facing a permanent lunar colony, it doesn't say anything about motels or even space tourism.

Re:Tagging

[superrcat]

the article is about the possibility of and difficulties facing a permanent lunar colony, it doesn't say anything about motels or even space tourism.

Please read the article before posting... the article states:

"The lunar base is not a 'colony,' " Lee said. " 'Colonization' implies populating the place, and that's not on the plate. This is a research outpost."

The outpost would be an intermediate stopping point for travel between the Earth and Mars. I think the title was a metaphor, not literally referring to a motel or space tourism.

Don't think so...

[Reality Master 101]

The US is planning to build a permanent lunar base which will support future visits to Mars.

Nothing is "permanent" that doesn't pay for itself. I'm sure everyone thought in 1969 that we were permanently on the moon, but it didn't quite work out that way, did it?

It's like Magellan. You send them off, and maybe they come back, maybe they don't,

Magellan et al were looking for PROFIT. They weren't risking their lives for the hell of it.

Re:Don't think so...

[NeilTheStupidHead]

Exactly, Magellan's voyage resulted in the loss of most of his ships, crew and even his own life. Despite this the voyage still turned enough profit to cover its costs and generate a nice surplus.

Re:Don't think so...

[Guppy06]

"Magellan et al were looking for PROFIT. They weren't risking their lives for the hell of it."

Phase 1: Go to the Philippines
Phase 2: ???
Phase 3: Profit!

Re:Don't think so...

[x2A]

"They weren't risking their lives for the hell of it"

I doubt any astronaut would word it like that tho... damn those people and their sense of adventure, if only they could be boring too

Re:Is there hope?

[veeoh]

Ditto!

Why now?

[abertoll]

Hmmm, I had always wondered why they decided to build a space station in orbit instead of building the station on the moon. I thought there was some reason for this. Does anyone know why we should have 2 stations up there?

Re:Why now?

[nuntius]

A space station in Earth's orbit experiences less gravity than one would on the moon; this is important for microgravity experiments (such as crystal growth). Also, it is much cheaper (significantly less fuel) to put a space station in a low earth orbit than to reach the moon's orbit. Plus you have the added benefit of avoiding a difficult landing.

As for why lauch another station? My guess is to boost PR and get more funding.

next space race?

[CrankyWorm]

And they are going to chase ... Soviets? Hold on, they are Russians now and you can buy them all out with 10% of the NASA budget. Who else? Own tail?

Re:Space Race, with standards?

[taiwanjohn]

I agree with both you and the parent comment. Competition is healthy, but working together could save a bundle. How about agreeing on a few standards, such as the size and shape of airlocks, so that different countries' vessels could dock with each other? That would allow easier cooperation, while preserving the competitive environment. It would also allow private companies like SpaceX to interoperate with everyone else in the game.

Maybe somebody at NASA will write an RFC...

--jrd

Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[Dr. Spork]

I guess I understand the pull of putting people on places that seem hard to get to, but we should realize that all this brings us is the gratification of human vanity. Very little else gets done.

Meanwhile, we're becoming dramatically better at robotics, artificial intelligence, autonomous systems and long-distance communication. What we can do in 2020 that we couldn't do in 1968 is to send good, smart and relatively cheap robots to the moon, and actually have them build something useful.

If we don't have to worry about human safety and frailty, we can get big projects done for relatively little money. I'm talking about satellite-steered bulldozers, a nice big nuclear powerplant, and a real industrial-scale mining operation. We don't need humans to be there, the moon is close enough for fly-by-wire with reasonable ping times. Sure, once our robots build a reasonably shielded and equipped hotel, we can launch people who can say "been there". But let's first figure out what our goals are and then make sure we're acting to fulfill our goals! I'm almost sure that we're better served by some serious robots than by astronauts on the Moon.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[xTantrum]

After watching "exploring space: the quest for life" On pbs the other night. i have to agree with the above post. Technology is advancing at such a rapid and alarming pace, it wouldn't be difficult for us to come together and utilize our expertise in robotics and computing to send robots to space - collect data, study and prep it for human colonization or visits. In fact it would be less expensive, push us to learn more about computing and robotics, advance our technology and intelligence.

In the interim we could focus more on the problems at home. How about world hunger, idiotic wars and and advancement and encouragement of the sciences instead of the hollywood propaganda much of us in the "free world" are bombarded with.

I'm very proud of what NASA did in getting us to the moon - it showed us what could be achieved and the space wars fueled competition and encouraged the creation of the internet. But its time we implemenet common sense and stop bowing to the political pressures. The aricle is a hope at best of getting to the moon and establishing a base or colony there. there is way too much to overcome...Fuel problems for extending stays, making sure your astronauts stay in shape so the low gravity doesn't shrink their hearts and make them lose muscle mass and turn to jelly..the moon dust...the list goes on.. its sad that NASA is nothing more than a political puppet of this administration and its sad the US has such an idiot in office whose only concern is personal benefit and gain and not the greater good. While we worry about achieving science fiction we are destroying our atmosphere, starving our ppl to death and encouraging the lack luster education of our children so they can be an example to their kids..Maybe i'm getting too old, but i sometimes am glad i won't be around to see how mess up this only planet we have - in the end its just one world ppl and we need to take care of home first.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[afabbro]

What we can do in 2020 that we couldn't do in 1968 is to send good, smart and relatively cheap robots to the moon, and actually have them build something useful.

In the last ten years, we've had quite a few problems sending comparatively simple robots to Mars. What makes you think our batting average would be any better on the moon?

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[canadian_right]

We should do both. The long term goal of psace exploration should be self-sustaitining colonies on other planets, and the long, long term goal should be colonies on other start systems.

With goal in mind it makes sense to continually imporve our technology for getting people into psace, and continue with robatic science missions which do give us a better "bang for the buck".

If the Americans spent all the money they wasted on the war in Iraq on space exploration they could have a Mars base in 20 years.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[patio11]

Robotic exploration is ALSO a stupid vanity project. Seriously, lets suppose you send up a couple billion dollars worth of robots to the moon. What is "something useful" that they can build for us? The world's most exclusive tourist resort? A staging area so they can make another, equally purposeless but vastly more expensive, base on Mars? Transmute lead into gold, and lose money because it costs more to transport the lead than the value of the gold?

They should disband NASA, let private companies take over the sat-boosting business (the only worthwhile endeavor in space -- unless you count spending hundreds of millions of dollars to perform "important scientific work" such as seeing what happens to snail shells when they're exposed to zero gravity), and dole out the funds to do civilian and military R&D without having to waste huge portions on the whole "Oh, and move the experimental apparatus to space!" step of the process. Since we're not throwing money into an almost endless black void anymore, with the money left over from our New and Improved R&D Slush Fund (NIRDSF, the successor organization to NASA) we can organize a really kick-butt Fourth of July parade to satisfy folks who are really nostalgic for some national-greatness type projects.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[x2A]

"But let's first figure out what our goals are"

The goal, in this case, is human life on mars. The moon is just a stepping stone, a warm up. During the process, we will discover, gain experience, and invent. We will learn more than what is only relevant on the moon. Sometimes you gotta take the plunge. To get life up there, we need to send life up there.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[x2A]

How about world hunger,

There's more than enough people on this planet to have some working towards getting into space, and some working towards helping the starving. NASA aren't stopping you from helping the starving. Also, you do realise that they aren't going to be launching money into space, right? The money required to do this will stay on earth, ready to be spent on the next thing. There's no waste here on the money front.

idiotic wars

We are talking about america here, I don't know if they have the grounds to lead the world on that front.

and advancement and encouragement of the sciences

What the hell do you think this is???

there is way too much to overcome

So we should submit to the problem rather than try overcome it? I'm glad there are people in the world who aren't as defeatist as that.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[xTantrum]

you ppl missed my point completely. No one said anything about abandoning the space initiative or forgoing advancement in technology and sciences. I simply said there are more cost effective ways to do so and to do so at a better time when certain variables are known and overcome.

as for the wars yes i'm talking about america, i'm not necessarily attacking the country i'm simply saying they are the "richest" and as such it would be ideal if they could have an administration that could allocate funds properly and for better initiatives than PR propaganda.

as for not advancing in sciences, don't be ridiculous the argument is relative to what i'm talking about, so if your saving human lives, then by all means go for it-and yes, you can save more lives on earth by allocating the space flight money to combatting global warming for example,but of course according to america there is no global warming - Not to mention i don't see the latest university or ph.d students getting billions in my money to do research in one tiny area of interest that tickles their fancy.

As for the money not going into space..AYAFI? where is the money going then, in my account? I won't even argue this if you don't see it.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[x2A]

"As for the money not going into space..AYAFI? where is the money going then, in my account?"

You're absolutely correct, all money that doesn't go into your account must be going into space. There's no way it could be going into people's accounts who are working on the project or anything like that, for them to then spend here, on earth. They load up the rockets with $5 bills and BLAST them into space, where they can never be spent on anything. Oh yes, how stupid I am.

ugh.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[xTantrum]

you are obviously a pedant and choose not to see what i'm saying.I'm talking about the allocation of funds. So the money is spread thinly to NASA employees who in turn use it for their personal gains. If the funds were allocated elsewhere such as putting robots there instead of humans - huge cost savings,maybe employ more workers in the process and discover new things. put the rest of the money to say...i don't know..better educational structures and incentives for children and other issues.

No goverment is a saint perhaps, but i reiterate: it'd be nice if this going to the moon wasn't about PR. You can't convince me-especially with the way they are going about it- this isn't a pie in the pie sky venture for the forseeable future. Next your gonna tell me you want to replace nature and billions of years of evolution, employ terraforming and colonize mars.

Re:Manned exploration is a stupid vanity project

[x2A]

"You can't convince me-especially with the way they are going about it- this isn't a pie in the pie sky venture for the forseeable future"

They're talking about 2020, that's some 14years of R&D time. 14 years is the unforseeable future, as far as the technical advances we can make over that period of time are concerned.

"Next your gonna tell me you want to replace nature and billions of years of evolution, employ terraforming and colonize mars."

Terraforming is a lil more out of reach than this going to the moon, but no I probably wouldn't bother, I can guess the type of response I'd get.

just more NASA funding propaganda ...

[2TecTom]

buerocrats don't build, engineers do

NASA is a bureaucracy, not a construction company

the only thing NASA can build is even more bureaucracy

if you want a moon base, space station, etc ... tender a contract

...also...

[centipetalforce]

NASA announced that lodgers would ride to the moon on unicorns wearing specially modified space suits. They would be propelled using miniature dilithium reactors that are cooled by good vibes and pixie dust. Once lodgers arrive they will be greeted by Freddie Prinze Jr in the lobby who will dance the jitterbug whilst parking the unicorn in the specially designed space igloos made from carbon nanotubes so strong that even the harshest of meteor showers would not chip these specially designed unicorn stables. They hope to have the project complete by 2890.

Obligatory Futurama Quote

[bytor4232]

Narrator: No one really knows when, where, or how man landed on the moon...
Fry: I do!
Narrator: ...but our Fungineers imagine it went something like this.
[Animatronic whalers emerge from a lunar lander]
Animatronic whalers: [singing] We're whalers on the moon.
Animatronic gophers: We carry a harpoon.
Animatronic gophers, Animatronic whalers: But there are no whales, so we tell tall tales and sing a whaling tune.
Fry: That's not how it happened.
Leela: I don't see you with a Fungineering degree.

Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote

[santaliqueur]

Animatronic Jackie Gleason: One of these days, Alice. Bang, zoom. Straight..to the moon.
Fry: That's not an astronaut, it's a TV comedian! And he was just using space travel as a metaphor for beating his wife."

Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote

[elrous0]

One of the funniest bits was the t-shirt "-Eric

Re:Obligatory Futurama Quote

[elrous0]

One of the funniest bits was the t-shirt "I'm with stupid, on the moon!"

-Eric

Seeing is believing. NASA == cancelled projects

[HiThere]

I'll believe this when I see it. More and more I think that under this administration NASA is a PR flack that cancels anything practical, but spins dazzling visions of the future (as long as there isn't any budget requirement).

They haven't earned much trust recently. And as fiction writers, they need to work on plotting, pacing, and character development.

Mars is much easier to survive on

[Mugros]

Don't forget the giant structures that are embedded into the mars mountains with all those nifty machines that will send you back if in emergency... well, to an alien planet far away. But you won't have to stay on boring Mars.
On Moon you would only find an old dead NASA astronaut.

Just watch the Hollywood documentaries and you'll agree.

That's nothin'

[ZoneGray]

Big deal. The Grateful Dead played From The Mars Hotel more than 30 years ago.

I hope it does mean a new space race

[CorporalKlinger]

I don't want to get all philosophical here or anything, but I really do hope this means the beginning of a new space race. People may be posting replies on here in their usual cynical tone about whether or not the moon has atmosphere, the typical slashdot genital-size war, I guess you could say, but I feel a lot of hope from an article like this.

Some of the greatest modern advancements in technology came out of the Russian Space Program and NASA during the 1960's and 1970's. Since that point, it seems as though the world has lost contact with the idea that the universe is a lot larger than our little planet. Space "exploration" has become less about discovery and more about putting billion-dollar communication and military platforms into orbit. John F. Kennedy's call for America to land a man on the moon and return him safely to the earth provided a shot in the arm for the fields of science and engineering, the likes of which have not been seen again in our nation. It is time to re-focus on the big picture, and I think that perhaps the best way to go about doing that is to begin a project that will combine the efforts of people from nations near and far with the end goal not of destruction or wealth, but of exploration and improvement of the human condition for all.

Re:I hope it does mean a new space race

[djpenguin808]

You have fundamentally misconstrued what the "space race" of the late 50s to early 70s was about. It was, in fact, all about destruction and wealth.

The space race was merely a way to put a pretty public face on the development of rockets powerful enough to boost nuclear weapons into a ballistic arc from which they could strike other continents, otherwise known as ICBMs. As with all "epic" war programs, this one primarily enriched the defense contractors involved, although it did actually create several usable weapons systems, unlike bigger boondoggles such as the Star Wars missile defense system.

The space race was ignited by Cold War hysteria on both sides, and perpetuated by politicians and defense contractors. The purpose of the space race was not to land on the moon, or orbit the first human, or any other such milestone. It was a way for the Soviets and Americans to very publicly show off the lift capacity of their rockets, demonstrating exactly how many megatons of destruction they would be capable of raining down on the other. American politicians had the added benefit of being able to bring jobs and prestigious facilities to their districts (ever wonder why most of NASA's major facilities are in the south? That's where the powerful politicians of the day hailed from.)

Re:I hope it does mean a new space race

[What me a Coward]

What the heck kind of crack have you been on?

True ICBM's and other weapons of mass destruction did come out of the space race among other projects but to claim based on the ideas to present that the space race was simply about publicly showing the world who had the most power to destroy all of mankind or to give certain politicians fatter bank accounts or to benifit their states is simply insane and assinine.

You clearly dont understand the whole idea of the race to space.

It was multi part, Part who had the better tech and social/ecconimic system as well as to shore up their pollitical careers (how could polliticians justify to their constituents keeping them in office while they or our government did nothing about that satalite orbiting overhead) not who could launch the biggest nuke on the other (though thoughs ideas did come about as a result but the result wasn't to show that both could rain down enough destruction on earth to end it all for everyone) which is hardly showing who was better. When you reach the point that you and your enemy can wipe out all life on the planet you have hardly shown either to be better.

It was more about showing who's ecconimic system and political system was better as well as who had the better tech to that end the US ended up winning out by reaching the moon and returning the occupence of the vessel to earth safly. Which did show to the world who had a better social/ecconomic system but also a side benifit of who had the better tech. Of a negative result it also showed the world that both nations had the power now to bring an end to life on earth. As a positive however it also showed that one launching a strike on the other would result in a counter strike (MAD) or Mutual Assured Destruction which would keep one side from launching on the other. This helped keep the balance till one side could outdue the other via tech which the US manajed to win which resulted in the collapse of the USSR in 1991.

Since then however this side benifit has resulted in helping fuel anti American sentiment (mostly due to the loss of the previous counter balance to the US in the fomer USSR) without them many people in other nations belive rightly or wrongly that their is nothing to keep the US from expressing it's ambitions for power (outside of china which is not on par to the US right now) which could lead it to try and take over large parts if not all of the world which has helped fuel anti american sentiment which hasn't been helped by the iraq war.

But that's neither here nor their the main goals of the US during the space race was more defined as social and ecconomic and pollitical rather than that of power or militarily.

If you think that you have obviously missinterprited the whole idea of the space race.

If you want to go by shear power of missles the russian ones were more powerfull (they were also more prone to failure because of a larger number of engines which were smaller and larger in number which resulted in more problems trying to launch them) they also demistrated the most powerfull hydrogen bomb and had the most overall number of Nukes but the fact that both countries had enough nukes to wipe out all life on earth several times over created a stalemate which as i said gave most of the rest of the world comfort in the fact that most likely neither side would launch on the other no matter how greedy or ambitious they might have been as it would end up wipeing us all out which would serve noone.

But that comfort is gone and gives some cause for concern if not outright panic about what the US might do or about what it is doing. I've heard some doosy's like were trying to take over the world via corperations infiltrating other countries (the people of France weren't to happy about the idea we sent a clown (MCD's) instead of someone anyone else to ecconimcly conqure them) While untrue at least as fa

tunnels

[MikeFM]

I've always thought that tunneling is the obvious way to build a moon base. It's a lot of dense rock so we could send up a mining robot to dig through the rock and collect the scrap for use in producing glass and possibly collecting useful resources from. Maybe use a laser to seal any places where the rock isn't airtight. If it's an airtight tunnel then just slap on a an airlock and all that and you have a survivable place to start building a city.

It'd seem something that would be within reasonably ability to build a semi-automated robot that could pick proper locations and make the tunnels needed for human habitation.

Re:tunnels

[gerf]

I've always thought that tunneling is the obvious way to build a moon base.

I know, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein was a great book. As people know, SF starts a lot of great ideas...

Re:tunnels

[MikeFM]

I never read that one. Is it about tunneling? It's weird how few sci fi books seem to be written these days about living or traveling to the moon whereas in the past it was a popular topic. It's like it became boring to just travel to the moon even though we haven't made it available to the common person yet. I'm still waiting though. :)

Re:tunnels

[carambola5]

Lunar regolith is not something you want to build into. In-situ resource utilization is a tremendous idea, but the regolith needs to be prepared for building. Sure, it's extremely strong in compression, but lunar regolith fails miserably in shear. This "dense rock" you speak of is merely compacted dust. You need to extract the regolith, mix it with a bonding agent (eg: resin), and then form it.

How do I know? I've spent the last few weeks trying to simulate the density of lunar regolith with the appropriate simulant. Lunar mining is something the US is working on, but by no stretch of the imagination has mastered.

Re:tunnels

[MikeFM]

Interesting. Have they actually taken soil samples under the top layer? I find it surprising that underneath the regolith it isn't just solid rock. It'd seem to be expected that with nothing to constantly erode the substance that it would be a solid mass under a thin dust layer.

Even so, would it not be workable to tunnel through this substance and have it create the cement inner walls inside the tunnels? Or would lasering, or otherwise heating, the walls to seal them not be workable?

It seems a bit silly that we haven't sent more exploration robots to the moon as it'd seem to be much quicker and less expensive to send such robots there, be more likely to be useful to us in the near term, and that sending data back and forth would be less problematic given the shorter distance involved.

Re:tunnels

[gerf]

No, actually. It's about colonizing the Moon. The main character is an old scientist/tech type, who does maintenance, more or less, on the big moon computer. Mind you, back then, computers were very very large, with relays and vacuum tubes. The computer becomes so large, it becomes sentient, and only reveals itself to this one man.

It's a great read, so I won't give away the plot. Though I think you could find more info in wikipedia or something, if you wanted to.

Re:tunnels

[carambola5]

Please, drop the "laser" idea. It's completely infeasible, impractical, and dangerous from an engineering standpoint.

As far as cement inner walls: that's generally perceived as the ideal method. Lunar regolith provides excellent radiation insulation. The good news: it blocks harmful solar radiation. The bad news: it blocks heat dissapation from the base. We'll need a clever way to expel heat from the underground base (eg: radiating plates).

Anyway, to create these "cement blocks," we basically need to make them out of the regolith. There's no way hauling up cement is cost-effective. Regolith bonds very well, seeing as it hasn't eroded, and thus each particle has many sharp edges/points for interlocking. We just need to provide a resin of some sort to prevent shear degradation.

Call up your congressman: tell them our lunar mining researchers need more resources. :)

Re:tunnels

[CrimsonAvenger]

Actually, it's about a revolution on the moon - Lunar penal colonies kick out UN representatives/prison guards (film at eleven).

And Manny wasn't old. Professor de la Paz was old, but he didn't do the maintenance on Mike.

Note also that transistors had been around for a very long time when that story was written - Mike wasn't made with vacuum tubes or any such rot....

Re:tunnels

[MikeFM]

Lasers are dangerous in an uninhabited area? I can see possibly impractical as they might require a lot of energy to work but I'd think you'd have to compare it to the energy required to tunnel and build the cement walls as needed. Also there is no need to be to urgent so they could recharge, work a little, recharge, work a little, etc. Other than those energy needs I don't see why it'd be impractical to use a laser to heat the rock walls until they fused into a solid surface. Any explanation for those of us who don't study moon rocks?

I'd think in the cold of space heat would be something to conserve. If you did need to get rid of extra heat I wonder if you couldn't use it as a power source by channeling the heat into one area and playing off the difference in tempertures.

Would there be nothing on the moon that'd provide us with the materials needed to make the resin? The only thing that I'd expect to not be there if making some form of cement or concrete would be a water source. I wonder if nobody has a method of producing something like that from native moon rock that wouldn't require water to bond.

Re:tunnels

[gerf]

Sorry, I read it like 10 years ago in HS :/ Maybe I should consult Wikipedia before making such an arse of myself, oh god of whatever i'm tired blah fucking future in laws i want to not deal with

Glass

[khundeck]

FTFA: "Picture a buggy pulled behind a rover that is outfitted with a set of magnetrons," he suggests. (A magnetron is the heating element in a microwave oven.) "With the right power and microwave frequency, an astronaut could drive along, sintering the soil as he goes, making continuous brick down 0.5 m deep," Taylor points out. He adds that by changing the power settings the astronaut could melt the top inch or two of the soil to make a glass road.

"Or say that you want a radio telescope," he continues. "Find a round crater and run a little microwave 'lawnmower' up and down the crater's sides to sinter a smooth surface. Hang an antenna from the middle--voila, instant Arecibo!" he ex-claims, referring to the giant 305-m-diam radio telescope formed from a natural circular valley in Puerto Rico.
---
When I read that, I had an 'aha!' moment.

KPH

Towels and soap

[cojsl]

Stolen towels and soap from the lunar hotel would be the pinnacle of my collection!

Don't worry, LockMart, Boeing, and the rest will

[Ellis D. Tripp]

get their flace at the trough, just like they always have.

NASA hardly does anything "in house", certainly not spacecraft construction. As much as the "free market" droids like to scream about how NASA needs to be privatized, the majority of their budget just gets handed over to private industry via procurement contracts as it is.

Maybe what is needed is for NASA to get people ON STAFF to handle some of the work that is now being farmed out?

Bread and circuses

[Cally]

"It is symbolic of our struggle against the Romans!"
"Symbolic of his struggle against reality, more like..."

"Is this the start of the next space race?"

[Sr. Pato]

Question: Wasn't the whole point of the U.S. sticking a flag into the moon, aside from epic showmanship, to point out that it's pretty much U.S. soil now? So wouldn't it be stupid for other countries to race to build a space-station just to be charged with tresspassing or get a bill for their respective taxes? Sorry folks, just saying. This project doesn't have -as of yet at least, that motivational, patriotic, inspirational drive the last one did. But meh, that's just my opinion.

Re:"Is this the start of the next space race?"

[Ombwah]

No, the Moon is not US soil. It is by treaty international. Further, a desire for patriotic, soil grubbing, flag waving competition as a means to an end is shallow, divisive and in many ways what is keeping the race from the stars. We should get off the rock because it behooves humanity, not to be cooler than the red team.

Re:"Is this the start of the next space race?"

[slavemowgli]

This project doesn't have -as of yet at least, that motivational, patriotic, inspirational drive the last one did.

Given what you said above, I think the word you're looking for is "greed".

Just in case the misleading title of this story

[irimi_00]

mislead you... This is not actually going to be a "motel" or 'hotel' per se. You will not be able to go there after prom. What they are probably refering to is the lunar base that we (America) is planning to build. I just thought we ought to clear that up.

MO-tels?

[CarpetShark]

Even more astonishing... there will be motels.

A type of hotel in which parking is provided at or near the room and the room door gives out onto the parking lot.

Re:MO-tels?

[famebait]

Even more astonishing... there will be motels.

Yeah, someone is obviously stretching the "build it and they will come" credo way too far.

Re:MO-tels?

[LoonyMike]

What could be more romantic than committing adultery ON the moon?

Re:MO-tels?

[SubOptimalUseCase]

I'm sorry, but when I saw 'Lunar' and 'motel' in the same sentence, my poor, media saturated brain immediately leapt to those Motel 6 radio adverts -

"We'll leave the light on (and the air lock open) for you."

Re:The moon may be more difficult than Mars

[Professr3]

You state that the moon has less gravity than mars, and certainly less than earth. Now, why would a moon base be completely useless when you can launch and receive vessels without having to worry about such an enormous escape velocity? You could guide asteroids down onto the moon and mine them for metals, fuel, water, and other materials. You could build spaceships on the moon, eventually. You could launch them towards mars with a fraction of the fuel they would need if they left from earth. So please, don't say a moon base would be useless...

The case for Mars

[BuR4N]

"which will support future visits to Mars"

Why in the name of God do we go to the Moon first if what we really want is to go to Mars ?

Robert Zubrin have written an excellent book on the subject, more info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Case_for_Mars
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Zubrin

Re:The case for Mars

[spikexyz]

The first thing that crossed my mind when I read the article summary was this book. I don't think Zubin's method is really that sound; it sounds like it lacks any sort of backup if things go wrong. However, his point about it not making sense to use the moon as a steping stone to mars is a good one.

Re:Is there hope?

[mallardtheduck]

The definition of 'Race' requires two or more competitors, so no, this would not be another space race.

Mod parent up!

[Hakubi_Washu]

The moon is a siren call diverting our ships from mars, as much as a huge space station is. Read Zubrin's book, it explains those things very well! The moon is a nice goal in itself, but serves zero purpose in going to mars!

I would like to build this!

[drewzhrodague]

I would like to build a station on the moon. Please contact me about setting up a contract, and we'll get right to work on it!

Why post AC?

[Hakubi_Washu]

Zubrin's Explanations are valid.

Doesn't feel good

[jhines]

The idea of planning on setting up a base on the moon, or mars, doesn't seem to me to be a good idea, given that we can't even manage a station in low earth orbit. If there were flights to serve and support the ISS, then maybe a station further out is possible.

A moon base is the right next step, but the footing on our current step isn't that good.

Ultrahigh vacuum, not atmosphere.

[Nowhere.Men]

Ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) : 10-9 Torr 1 Torr is 133 Pa. It is more particles visiting or leaving the moon.

Re:Fix earth first

[otomo_1001]

Because getting OFF earth is the best first step to cleaning it up. Think about it. Move all the polluting things off planet and make Earth for living things not machines.

Moon

[certel]

I'd be down for a visit! Anyone think this reminds them of Austin Powers? :)

Re:Moon

[moro_666]

yep, dr. evil is on the roll ....

but could you imagine a beowulf cluster of these lunar motels ...

Re:Is there hope?

[Teun]

'Race' requires two or more competitors

Race agains time.

And all the things that are time-dependent.

Re:How about we explore something closer to home?

[mrchaotica]

Think SeaQuest (err... 1st season, at least), not Bond.

Easy: Weaponize moon dust and disclaim liability

[ikekrull]

I mean, the US is building several permanent bases in Iraq and don't seem to be concerned about the health effects of the thousands of tons radioactive dust they have introduced into the area. It's safe, right?

Birth defects, cancer and the introduction of radioactively and chemically toxic elements into the food chain arent seen as a concern. Those effects clearly don't exist. Silicosis could similarly be made to disappear with a little bit of out-of-the-box thinking here.

Simply degrade the worth of astronauts lives to the same value that is placed on thousands of soldiers or Iraqi civilians lives, and there you go.

Re:Space Race, with standards?

[Sean Riordan]

I would have to agree with the parent and GP posters. Human nature being what it is, competition is critical due to the lack of substantial and obvious financial or tactical gains to be had from space exploration. A global joint effort while on paper would appear the best way to achieve success, would IMO quickly turn into a huge cluster of epic proportions. That being said, a set of interoperability standards could go a long way towards making healthy competition an effective method of achieving some success. The parent's suggestion of an RFC is not nearly as silly as it sounded at first though it would have to involve far more than just NASA however wrong that may seem to us US centric folks. Steady flow of information between the various groups would go even further. Our nature and ever present politics will probably always prevent 100% information exchange, but a high level of exchange could go a long way. At least among the pure science types this should be too much of a stretch.

Re:Is there hope?

[AusIV]

I thought the same thing initially, but depending on how quickly the commercial space industry gets moving, it could be NASA vs. Scaled Composite. That's what I'm hoping for, anyway.

Re:Is there hope?

[mallardtheduck]

Then the second competitor is either the person who set the record (could be yourself - meaning that there are two 'instances' of you in the race) or the clock itself if you are trying to meet an arbitary target time.

Re:Space Race, with standards?

[taiwanjohn]

The parent's suggestion of an RFC is not nearly as silly as it sounded at first though it would have to involve far more than just NASA however wrong that may seem to us US centric folks.

Yes, well, it was intentionally silly. Actually, I reckon the current ISS docking "standard" would be a likely place to start, since it's already "supported" by some portion of the ISA partners.

Having a well supported standard would also make it easier to mount rescue missions, in the event of an accident, because more spacefaring nations (or commercial interests like SpaceX et al) would be able to offer hardware. More useable launch vehicles would potentially be available at any given time.

--jrd

Finally !

[Kohath]

Two words:

space prostitute

Tourism?

[RyoShin]

While I'm sure NASA will have a lot of interest in doing science research on the moon, as well as setting up a landing and take off area for ships going to and from Mars, it could be funded (at least partially) by tourism.

Set up a deal with some international hotel chain. Hilton, Holiday Inn, what have you. Work with them to construct living quarters on the moon. Nasa makes it possible, the hotel company makes it comfortable. Then work with travel agencies to set up private trips to the moon. NASA would be responsible for bringing people to and from the moon, and the hotel would take care of them while they're on the moon. Aside from being able to say "I stayed a night on the moon", you could set up such things as moon walks (hey, moon shuffle board!), lunar rides, and other such things. Of course, all of this would be handled by the hotel, and would not be cheap.

NASA and the hotel would split the profits. This would help speed up construction on the moon, and I'm sure you'll have other businesses interested in setting up tourism operations, which would be viable once such companies like SpaceX get commercial space rides going.

And you've heard of the Mile High club, right? Well, see how much people will pay to join the "Moon High" club, where the deed is done in orbit. (Porn companies will love this idea, too.)

Once tourism has made the moon an atractive destination, you'll get other private industry companies coming up, as well. For instance, I recall a story on Slashdot a few months back where they made glass 10x strong than normal with almost no imperfections by making it in zero G and using sound waves to keep it from touching anything.

Re:The moon may be more difficult than Mars

[Derling Whirvish]

Now, why would a moon base be completely useless when you can launch and receive vessels without having to worry about such an enormous escape velocity? You could guide asteroids down onto the moon and mine them for metals, fuel, water, and other materials. You could build spaceships on the moon, eventually. You could launch them towards mars with a fraction of the fuel they would need if they left from earth. So please, don't say a moon base would be useless...

I'll say it. A moon base would be useless. Given the level of technology you describe you could just as easily beam the men and equipment directly from Earth to Mars via a teletransporter. Our current level of technology would only allow us to duct-tape a couple of rocks together on the surface of the moon and throw them towards Mars by hand. That's the level of fabrication of space-ships using lunar materials that we could achieve presently. Going to the moon as a stopover on the way to Mars just adds an additional gravity well that spaceships from Earth have to go into and out of on the way, all the while expending earth resources to do so.

Start of a space race? Or star wars?

[rzed]

Although several nations are talking about building bases on the moon, in point of fact no nation can feel safe in allowing any other single nation to build a base there. It isn't an issue of feel-good space tourism; it's a military issue.

The reason military tactics urge seizing the high ground is that it's harder to go uphill than down. The energy spent moving uphill can't be used to fight a battle when you get there. The moon is the ultimate high ground.

Consider that launching missiles to attack the moon require huge boosters, much bigger for a given size warhead than the other way around. The cost for each launch is higher, or the payloads smaller, than a moonside base could deliver. Heck, from the moon you could lob large boulders and let earth's gravity turn them into highly-destructive missiles. There isn't any point on the earth's surface a lunar base couldn't reach.

So okay, this is far-future stuff; it would take years to get a base up and running, and years more before it became a viable military threat, but you can bet it's in the plans whenever any nation starts talking about Luna Hiltons and space tourism. When military budgets are put into the project, NASA's will be the petty-cash fund.

You may think this is a joke, or paranoia at work. Consider, though, whether you would feel the same if you *knew* that starting tomorrow, China would be developing its moon base in some unspecified way, with some unknown number of workers and undisclosed technology. Think how China would feel if it were the US doing the same thing instead. If you liked the cold war, you're gonna love the moon-base race.

Only one important use

[Tablizer]

I think having both a moon-base and a Mars trip is a waste of money. The cost of a base far outweighs any advantage to having one first before going to Mars. Better to spend on the money on more Mars supplies.

However, it does have one very important role. When samples are brought back, in case they have life we would want to incubate them in a moon lab before taking them back to Earth. It is too risky to take Mars life strait to Earth without studying it first. On the slim chance it is dangerous, better to kill an isolated moonbase than risk a huge earth plague (perhaps to other life besides humans).

Water could be available

[MickLinux]

I notice that olivine is one of the lunar minerals, from the Apollo/luna lunar program. But that was from the surface. Considering that Serpentine, a hydrate of olivine, is an asteroidal mineral, I wouldn't be surprised to find Serpentine under the surface. In such a case, one would have access to water by simply baking it out of the Serpentine.

Re:Fix earth first

[What me a Coward]

And keeping it safe and protected from all things as a preserve even from the dieing sun itself but only till the money runs out then it's goodbye earth (the rich can pay to odserve the end of the world AKA Doctor who SCIFI Channel eppisode end of the world which aired this last week) (Sorry for the Doc who ref i liked watching it as a child on PBS when tom baker was the Doctor not sure about this current one but I give him a chance).

At any rate i agree the best thing we humans could do to fix the problems of earth is to get the heck off it asap. Any other choice is futile as we could never undo the problems we created without creating new ones in the porccess especially as our population continues to grow. But the earth itself will heal itself from them given time it has done so in the past and will do so again in the future after were gone, the earth is great at doing that sure life may suffer some in the proccess but then it always has and has in the end improved in the proccess. What we need is not better ideas to solve our problems while still staying here but more space and places to call home man made solar extra solar (other worlds in and out of our system) to give us back the elbow room we have lost in recent times as well as space from each other to a degree.

If people haven't figured this out yet then their truly is no hope for mankind and mother earth gia whatever ideal you ascribe to will have to move quickly to find a replacement for us to enable it (if it still can) to transport or spread the life it nurtured for so long to other worlds else everything that has happened on this planet since the start of life was for nothing as the sun heats up and expands to engulf the earth and everthing left on it.

Sorry other may belive that we are destined to blow ourselves up or that some God will bring the world to an end but i belive their is more to what this our life ( all life not just us) is destined for more. If for thoughs who belive in god do not belive he intended for us to move out into the universe to populate it with other alien races wherever then why create all of it? Why so much? All the Galaxies and solar systems and worlds just for what? Us to look at? Him to occupy his time till he decides that ok he's had enough of our foolishness and arogance it's time to bring down the hammer on planet earth his only (yeah right what fool belives that one given all the universe mentioned) experiment or place he decided to grace with life?

Sorry i choose to belive we are meant for more or capable of much more than destroying ourselves.

Sorry off topic i got on a rant.

Bottom line unless we adopt a policy of Zero population growth or minus population growth or get into some serious heavy world wars every century or so things are nver going to get better because their will just be to many of us and not enough earth to go around. Our only other option is to get off earth fast and leave it for whatever time it has left to try and start again with some other spiecies and hope it can bring them to space travel within 20 million years otherwise it's pretty much over for earth it's out of the goldilock zone (not to cold and not to hot it's just right) at which point it starts to heat up and everything roasts.

Heck for many if not most spiecies we may be their only hope to save their genes or get their kind off earth since were likely to take at the very least DNA samples if not actual specimens of most kinds of life at least thoughs we deem worthy of saving (doesn't sound so bad to be a cat or dog or a cow, pig etc. now does it? sure your food or pets now but when we leave we take our food and pets and other worthy life with us so your kind spreads out and grows in size and evolves)with us into space to again preserve them from such a firery end. Think about it have you ever seen a wild bovine (not only here in the US but in Europe where bolvines orriginate)? Would cows have

To hell with Mars!

[argent]

We have unfinished business on the moon!

And beyond the moon, the asteroid belt is a much easier place to get raw materials from. Mars still looks like it has just enough atmosphere to be trouble, and not enough to really help... and it's got a deep gravity well.

Let's get established on the moon, then worry about the next step. I suspect that by the time we've solved the problems there, Mars won't be nearly so attractive.

why via the moon?

[ocie]

delta v for various trips (km/s) borrowed from http://www.pma.caltech.edu/~chirata/deltav.html:

earth-moon 15.2
moon-mars 2.9
earth-mars 13.5
therefore, earth-mars via moon 18.1

Why would you spend the extra delta-v to go to Mars via the moon? If they meant to go to the moon in order to practice, then maybe it would work.

The only way it seems to make sense is if you could build a huge ship out of lunar materials and then just send the people and some lightweight materials from the earth. As far as I know, the lunar materials are not the right stuff (pardon the pun) to build and fuel a spacecraft.

Re:why via the moon?

[thedletterman]

The idea that immediately strikes me when i hear moon colony is, practice for mars colony. I think the idea of which is more hostile is sort of subjective, but there are a few benefits to trying one on the moon before trying one on mars. We can get to the moon cheaper and faster. We will face many of the same challenges on the moon, but we will be closer to home, and could be more responsive to these challenges. Scientific experiments are the only viable way to make this base "permanent", and yes, that does make private sector investment viable. Corporations (like drug companies) spend millions to have research done aboard the space shuttle and the ISS.

Re:Seeing is believing. NASA == cancelled projects

[tsotha]

I'll believe this when I see it. More and more I think that under this administration NASA is a PR flack that cancels anything practical, but spins dazzling visions of the future (as long as there isn't any budget requirement).

You must be young. This has been going on for as long as I can remember. NASA has done the groundwork for at least seven or eight systems since it became clear the shuttle would never live up to its billing in the early 1980s. They never happen because the shuttle employs 20,000 people, and while the next program, whatever it is, may employ the same number of people, they won't be the same people in the same congressional districts.

Look at CEV. Instead of using cheaper, lower performance (but certainly adequate) boosters, the current plan is to use SSME. Why? So all the current shuttle workers can work on the next project, and the same contractors can stay on the gravy train working under the same NASA project managers. Without that CEV would never happen either.

NASA has become an agency all about self-preservation. It doesn't matter who's in Congress or the White House, the first priority of any established bureaucracy is to grow. Sci-fi writer Jerry Pournelle calls it "Pournelle's iron law of bureaucracy: Those whose interests are in furthering the organization rather than its goals always get in charge of any bureaucracy."

NASA has done some good work in the past, and until very recently NASA made progress with robotics and even scramjets. But the manned space program is the one that's easiest to sell to the public, so it's become "the monster that ate the budget". Over the next few years manned spaceflight will become the only thing NASA does.

Unfortunately, real progress will have to happen under the USAF as black projects the bureaucrats at NASA don't know about, and thus can't kill.

I've said it before and I'll say it again

[kimvette]

I've stated this several times in threads, but I'll say it again:

If there is ANY validity to the FTL/warp engine, they ought to put all of NASA's research and development dollars into that kind of system (not to mention shielding against radiation, etc.) . I'd love to see Saturn and Jupiter up close. I'd love to see interstellar exploration happen in my lifetime. If FTL is possible, I'm sure that if we throw enough resources at it a practical working engine could be developed fairly quickly.

A moon base? This has been a dream for decades, but what's the point? I'm sure it could be argued that you could have a really high resolution observatory on the moon, but on that same token we could also have a far more mobile solution, like the Hubble, but only better.

Or, it could be argued that it would be a fun vacation spot? Sure, but relax FAA restrictions and leave the rest up to private industry. Make space flight attainable for anyone with the technical means to accomplish it. In the meantime public funds, if spent on space at all, should be more ambitious. We've been to the Moon already. We have a few worthless basalt rocks as a result. Now let's get some rocks from Mars, Jupiter's moons, or even Titan. If FTL is practical at all, then a trip to Mars would only be a few weeks, with the vast majority of trip time (all but a few hours) spent exploring the planet.

And in response to TFA: "Will working in one-sixth of Earth's gravity for a year cause crippling health problems?"

Haven't the soviets put men up in space for over one year with little to no ill effects? One-sixth of the gravity will surely be better than near-zero gravity, and what's more, all you need is a bowflex or other workout machine to stay in shape regardless of lack of significant gravitational pull. The explorers simply need to be displined enough to work out. I'd be far more concerned about radiation (mentined in TFA) and lack of entertainment (I'd guess the primary psychological problem would be boredom).

Why is Dubya so bent on going back to the Moon? Is it because China is pledging to send a mission to the moon? Whoop de shit. Landing a non-reusable spacecraft on the moon, bouncing a round a bit and getting a modest rock collection and bringing it back is so 1960s. ;)

The worst part of it all is we're going right back to 1960s technology to do the whole thing over again. The Shuttle was a great intermediate learning tool - let's take the best of the Apollo missions (the Saturn V rocket - forget the POS fire-and-lose-control Shuttle booster, take the Saturn V design and modify it to be reusable and to use hydrogen or maybe peroxides and catalysts instead of Kerosene) and the best of the Shuttle or Spaceship One (Honest-to-goodness reusable gliders) and throw away the worst of both technologies.

Aside from reentry problems the Shuttle exhibits, I'd say the very worst part of the Shuttle program is the solid rocket booster technology: it uses a material which is very bad for the environment when burned, once you light it there is NO changing your mind until you're in the lower reaches of space, and there is little to no control over the flight path. This IMHO was a huge leap backward from the Saturn V, which being liquid-fueled, you can turn off, adjust the thrust, or even control the vector of the thrust if new nozzles are designed. Sure, they are more complex (very reliable high-volume pumps are required) but pump technology is hundreds of years old now, and seals and materials for extreme temperatures have improved vastly even since the days of the Apollo missions.

Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again

[vidarh]

Haven't the soviets put men up in space for over one year with little to no ill effects

In one word: no.

There were certainly ill effects from their experiments, such as fairly significant loss of bone mass and muscle mass. Whether those ill effects were serious enough to be a problem, that's another issue.

Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again

[16K Ram Pack]

We need a quantum leap in technology. I've been in meetings where people won't bite the bullet and replace things with something much better, and instead, try and continue to tweak what's there. That's the situation we've got with Mars and beyond.

Right now, Mars is a folly. Other than "because it's there" there's little reason to go, and the current technology means huge times and costs (carrying a years food, dealing with issues like someone getting seriously ill a month into the mission, taking 2 years out of your life). If we look at the great human journeys, the drivers were far more than "because it's there". Columbus sailed the atlantic seeking a short trade route, the space race was about cold war propaganda.

FTL and the like are the next thing, what we should be putting research money into. It's the only way we will find a planet with a genuine possibility of colonization or other life.

If we track the first 50 years of manned air travel, mostly outside of governments, we went from people experimenting, to having scheduled air trips. The massive advances that took place were because of individual experimentation and profit motives. Space has gone nowhere. The state-of-the-art is the shuttle and the Soyuz, both 20+ year old technologies that put very few extra people into space than they did 20 years ago (and maybe less). We need the Bransons of this world to get competitive space travel going, something that will create innovation.

Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again

[Big_Breaker]

We don't even have the physics for FTL. From a technology perspective we are closer to immortality or hibernation as a means of getting humans to distant planets. We should concentrate on climate stability research, bio-tech and global "tranquility". That will give us the time needed to develop the tech necessary to sponsor self-sustaining colonies.

Any missions right now will not be self sustaining. They will all rely on supply from Earth. Because of that we should start by make sure earth is safe for the next 100 years or so and use the time to develop the techonolgies needed to fight entropy in different environments. We can't even life self sustained in the ocean, let alone the moon.

Re:I've said it before and I'll say it again

[16K Ram Pack]

I agree with what you are saying about dealing with the problems we can deal with.

I'm suggesting more that if you're going to go into space, research into the physics of FTL are probably a better expenditure. If you want to deal with creating sustainable economies in space, the first place to work with it is on the ground. It's possible to create more isolated environments (like biosphere 2) in order to learn lessons than to go into space with things like the ISS.

life on mars

[zogger]

Not enough O2 on Mars to worry about rust. Heck, rust on cars in the US is only bad in northern states that spread a lot of salt on the roads, or in areas directly on the seashore. but inland, nope, rust isn't much of a problem. I live in georgia and you see plenty of old cars pretty much rust free here, and we have a lot more atmospheric water vapor and O2 than what Mars has.

Now dust might be a different problem, although I think the main ones on mars would be temp extremes and solar radiation. Machinery can be hardened, but we still don't have suits capable of allowing humans to go outside and work day in and day out, they are short exposure suits only, like the ones for EVA, and the astronauts take some radiation while they are out, part of the deal. A few hours, maybe semi OK, a colonist thinking permanent work on the surface..not yet, we need better materials science.

I'm all for space exploration, but...

[YouHaveSnail]

I'm all for space exploration, but maybe we should figure out how to pay for all the spending that the current administration has been doing (tax cut, prescription drug benefit, war in Iraq, war in Afghanistan, and so on) before we spend tens or hundreds of billions of dollars on pie in the sky.

Even just talking about colonizing the moon or Mars or space gives people an excuse, no matter how lame, to act as though protecting our own environment here on Earth doesn't matter.

Obligatory "And it'll be on a zero bid contract"

[NeuroManson]

... By Halliburton.

Vanity is a worthwhile reason for manned space

[tjstork]

What's the practical purpose of feeding poor people live through government assistance? Why bother with giving stupid people the right to vote? I mean, in the 2000 election, the biggest democratic complaint was that poor, stupid, ex-cons did not get their votes counted twice. Or that, there weren't busses for people who were too poor to vote to take them to the booth. Helping the poor through government is aid is not to their benefit really. At the end of the day, most people are poor are poor because they make bad decisions, and, history has shown that, even when you shower these people with money (just follow lottery winners), they STILL make bad decisions. Helping the poor is a vanity effort, it's more so that the people doing the feeding of the poor, through taxes, can basically make some sort of minimal effort, not be engaged, and still feel good about themselves even though they cheat on their spouses, neglect their kids, and buy foreign cars. It's a total vanity thing for those that buy into it. "I'm in favor of raising taxes on someone who isn't me in order to help the pooor, and that shows I'm more responsible than you." If that's not vanity, I don't know what is. Well, I tell you what. I want a manned base on the moon, I'm on board with Bush's space exploration initiative, and I'd like to even shower more deficit bucks on it. I think we should have people walking around on the moon, because I think it would be cool, and that's the only reason that you need to have for space flight, if not anything. It's ALL vanity.

Re:Vanity is a worthwhile reason for manned space

[abhisri]

You have in a single paragraph(and what a long paragraph!) argued very successfully for abandonment of following ideas at their conception itself:

1. Research in medical science(why bother saving the poor? It is all vanity in any case)

2. Research in aviation(Oh those damned Wright brothers! Trying to get all these poor masses to fly in air. It will have no practical application! Flight will be of no use to mankind... it is all vanity.)

3. All works of art and literature, cinema etc.. (Entertaining the masses ? Who wants these poor folks to be entertained ? They are a pox on us, I tell you! Wanting your name to live on, after you are dead ? Vanity! It is all vanity, I tell you!).

4. Research in navigation and seafaring.(Bah! Trying to get all those poor teeming masses to float on water and go to some place farway. Discovering new searoutes and lands ? What for? Who cares about whether these damned undeserving poor folks go to this place called the New World and establish some country called America... or populate some place called Australia. America...bah! who needs it!)

Get a clue. You might be actually be right about things being done for sake of vanity. And yet the results are usually of great benefit to mankind, that seem inconceivable at worst, and farfetched at best.

If your forefathers had thought like you, there would be no America or Australia. And you wouldn't be here preaching to us about vanity and questioning the rights of those less fortunate than you, to exist.

Re:Vanity is a worthwhile reason for manned space

[FleaPlus]

2. Research in aviation(Oh those damned Wright brothers! Trying to get all these poor masses to fly in air. It will have no practical application! Flight will be of no use to mankind... it is all vanity.)

3. All works of art and literature, cinema etc.. (Entertaining the masses ? Who wants these poor folks to be entertained ? They are a pox on us, I tell you! Wanting your name to live on, after you are dead ? Vanity! It is all vanity, I tell you!).

4. Research in navigation and seafaring.(Bah! Trying to get all those poor teeming masses to float on water and go to some place farway. Discovering new searoutes and lands ? What for? Who cares about whether these damned undeserving poor folks go to this place called the New World and establish some country called America... or populate some place called Australia. America...bah! who needs it!)

Besides, say, the National Endowment for the Arts, how much are any of these things government-funded? The Wright Brothers certainly didn't get Federal money to build their plane.

burmashave

[sl4shd0rk]

I hear they are buying up lunar roadside realty already

Pneumonultramicroscopicsilicovolcaniconiosis

[big_groo]

I love that word. Abe Simpson even said it once..

what's the point?

[j1mmy]

how does the moon provide a better base for supporting mars missions? everything we'll be sending to mars will have to come from earth in the first place, unless they're planning on manufacturing spacecraft up there.

10+ years for 3 days vs 6 months

[jerryodom]

So it takes us three days max to find out if the Moon mission succeeds vs. 6 months to Mars after putting 10 years+ into setting it up? How is it more forgiving? If you're screwed you're screwed regardless if you fail at the max time. Should say "Ultimately we just want to cut the Chinese off at the Moon being that'll be their next stop."

Low-gravity sex motel!!

[erroneus]

Oh I think I'd love to visit there some time!! Low- and zero-gravity sex has been on my list of things to do for quite some time. Could it be possible in the next 10 years? I hope so!! Guess I better start saving now.

Motel rates?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Uh, does this 'Lunar Motel' charge...by the hour?"

- Capt. Kirk

Re:Seeing is believing. NASA == cancelled projects

[HiThere]

No, I'm not young any more. I've been disappointed many times. This current administration is the worst in my memory.

There goes the money for Universal Heath care

[Anonymous Coward]

Any resources not wasted in Iraq will go to Nasa.

"Do we borrow money to kill people or put a few on the moon?" I have an idea - let's gut all the social programs so a few people can dream about space travel, it will take there minds off the kids hunger crying.

Good going Bush & friends.

Bush bought a clue?

[Fishbulb]

Maybe, just maybe, Bush (or someone else in the administration, more likely) got a clue and read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress'?

Suddenly one-upping China by going to Mars instead of the Moon was overshadowed by the possibility of China pounding the bejezus out everyone else with moon rocks.

Hmm.

That or Halliburton just bought a hotel chain.

Re:NASA May Be Kinda Dumb But...

[Concerned Onlooker]

As the bumper sticker says, "Licensed Contractors Build Confidence!"

Oh, yeah? A licensed contractor built our condo. It leaks like a sieve.

Moonquakes

[floki]

They also have to take into account possible moonquakes. They seem to be quite common and are powerful enough to move furniture.

Obligatory

[Old Wolf]

Shouldn't we at least land on the Moon before we start talking about a moon base ?

Correction: Fewer challenges on the moon?

[WillerZ]

First pedant post.

Don't believe a word of this

[KlausBreuer]

You can't tell me that NASA is planning something major such as this in all seriousness.

Sure, they're talking. Talk is cheap. They're drawing pretty pictures, writing nice things... but I'd bet a rather large sum of money that they'll not build anything at all on the moon for the next twenty years.

They will get several more budget cuts and generally become even more bureaucratic and immobile. There will be less and less useful things happening, and (except for all the top-secret military stuff) will be able to do less and less.

Pity about the SPACEX problem, but I'd give them much higher chances of actually getting anywhere.

Besides, hey, nobody outside the USA expects the USA to carry on like they do now. They'll collapse economically in a major way withing a few years - we just hope that they'll do it without killing everybody else. The russians set a nice example, only ruining themselves in the process.

Atmosphere

[ZoOnI]

Yes the food is good but there is no atmosphere.

Re:Is there hope?

[x2A]

I have developed a new bomb, capable of destroying all life on earth, and it's set to go off in 100 years.

The only way the human race will survive is if it spreads off world in time.

There's ya race ;-)

Moon atmosphere?

[Sigg3.net]

It's got an air of cool indifference, I'd say.

Re:How about we explore something closer to home?

[x2A]

You're free to. However, NASA is a SPACE agency.

Yes, but

[Sigg3.net]

Yes, but they're dead.

Hyped to the Nth degree

[intnsred]

I think /. should eliminate 2/3 of articles relating to future NASA plans. Not that I dislike NASA, but just because more gov't propaganda and lies don't sit well with me. This is simply hype and mindless PR.

After all, didn't King George tell us a year or so ago that we'd be going to Mars with a mission first to the moon? Does anyone think that will actually happen due to Bush's push? Call me a cynic, but with the US bleeding red ink, losing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, I think Bush's announcement was little more than feel-good propaganda. If we ever do get to Mars it'll be due to some future president's budget and emphasis. Even the article admits that Bush's original 2020 date is unrealistic. Duhh! :-(

NASA plans are simply hype. They should not be "news". (Note: Fully funded NASA programs are another matter.)

Myself, I have plans to marry several supermodels and engage in a life of polygamy. I also have plans to get rich by curing cancer. Anyone want to read "news" about that?

Infrastructure, Robotic Builders, er, Profit?

[AGMW]

Well, it's about time!

Here's what I'd do ... start by setting up the infrastructure for life on the Moon. We have a pretty good communications and GPS network on Earth, let's setup something similar for the Moon allowing high bandwidth communications and accurate location for anywhere on the Moon.

Right, now we'll know where we are and we can communicate with Earth. That's a good start, and something we can kick off now.

Next, the Moon Base. I think others have said it's probably best if we can get it underground. Can we not send a bunch of remote vehicles to dig out a bunker? Do we know if there are already any caverns we could tunnel into perhaps? I know there are problems with earth (er, moon?) moving equipement in low G, but the devices could anchor themselves (fire exposive bolts to shoot anchors into the ground?), then dig.

And all this without sending/risking any people yet!

Also in orbit around the Moon should be a Space Station. We should have something similar orbiting Earth. Send stuff up to the Earth Station using whatever technology gets us out of the gravity well the best. Have a different vehicle that chugs back and forth between Earth and the Moon, and another vehicle designed specifically for getting from the Moon Station to the Moon and back (and this _may_ be similar to the Earth vehicle).
Could we build a Moon Space Elevator, or use other technologies in the lower G to make getting up and down from/to the Moon cheaper/quicker/safer?

Once we have the Moon Base (Alpha?) built, we should send unmanned vehicles with supplies before we send any people, so when they arrive there is plenty of ozygen, water, and food.

We should probably at least double up on the Moon and Earth Stations, and the craft that ply the various routes (Earth to/from Earth Orbit, Earth orbit to/from Moon Orbit, Moon Orbit to/from Moon)

So a lot of this is directly (re-)usable for a Mars Mission. The Earth Station and Earth to Orbit systems would be the same. The communications and location system and the Mars Station could be identical technology, and when we get to Mars, it's all been in use on or around the Moon for 5 or 10 years!

Thoughts?

Re:Fix earth first

[Ellis D. Tripp]

Nice idea, but the 2 biggest polluters are power generation and terrestrial transportation. Kinda hard to move either of those to the moon, no?

Re:The moon may be more difficult than Mars

[x2A]

"A moon base would be useless" ... "Our current level of technology" ... "that we could achieve presently"

Yes, a moonbase might presently be useless, but since when has technological breakthrough been at a standstill? It's not, because it happens when we're trying to achieve goals, and this is one. Advances in technology will need to occur to get a base on the moon, it's not like they're trying to put the base on the moon before they have the technology to do it.

And one other important thing: not being able to see a use for something usually says more about you, than the people who can.

Re:Space Race, with standards?

[Sean Riordan]

For the record the silly comment wasn't in reference to your comment as much as to my initial reaction to it, it struck me as funny until I actually thought about it. No offense intended.

In adddition to increased safety and such as mentioned, it would also lower the bar for non-traditional interests to contribute inovation.

Orbiting Rondele

[pyser]

With thanks to Moxy Fruvous...

You will go to the moon
You'll probably be heading there soon
Someday flowers will grow there
But first you've got to go there
Oh, You will go to the moon

You will live in the stars
Your backyard will probably be Mars
You will ride a crater scooter
And eat off your computer
Oh you will live in the stars

Your stellar smile will always beam
Knowing you're home and home to stay
And you'll look down upon the earth
And say, "I can't believe we ever lived that way!"

You will go to the moon
There's plans for a hotel and a lagoon
You'll be savoring a star fruit
And kicking off your moonboot
Oh you will go to the moon.

Hey, you will go to the moon
A paradise to rival Cancun
And one side's always sunny
You'll be raking in the money
Oh you get paid on the moon

It's been our most abiding dream
And a dream is an easy sell
And when the tourists come in droves
You'll be the big cheese on that orbiting rondelle

You will go to the moon
Daring pioneers will call the tune
Ah someday flowers will grow there
But first you got to go there
Oh you will go to the moon
I'm gonna tell ya, you will go to the moon
One more! You will go to the moon!

Re:Is there hope?

[perfessor multigeek]

The definition of 'Race' requires two or more competitors, so no, this would not be another space race.
Dude, you're kidding, right? With China, India and the E.U. each positioned to show NASA's manned space program up for the contractor-dominated, politically-driven bunch of creaky old bureaucrats, hasbeens and wannabes they are, I need not even mention the several multibillion dollar private entities in this particular "race".

Race, hell, with the short-sighted, technologically illiterate, feeble-minded crew we've got in the White House, the ADHD afflicted legislative branch, and Northrop and friends pulling the strings to guarantee maximum costs, we'll be lucky to get a goddamned Cabbage Patch doll up there before the Indians have opened their first moon- based technical college, the Japanese have painted half the craters odd shades of pink and green, and the Chinese have built five Lunar missile bases, three brothels, and a sweatshop.

I hope Rutan's people get moving 'cause the go-alongs in NASA sure as hell won't.

-Rustin

I was serious, vanity is a good reason

[tjstork]

You missed the point of what I wrote: Vanity is indeed the reason we do things, we just don't have the stones to admit it. For each of your issues:

1. Research in medical science(why bother saving the poor? It is all vanity in any case)

Vanity by doctors.

2. Research in aviation(Oh those damned Wright brothers! Trying to get all these poor masses to fly in air. It will have no practical application! Flight will be of no use to mankind... it is all vanity.)

Vanity by Wright Brothers.

3. All works of art and literature, cinema etc.. (Entertaining the masses ? Who wants these poor folks to be entertained ? They are a pox on us, I tell you! Wanting your name to live on, after you are dead ? Vanity! It is all vanity, I tell you!).

Vanity by artists. Come on, do you think the likes of Picasso, Dahli, etc, were humble people? Or for that matter, Bob Dylan. Art IS vanity!

4. Research in navigation and seafaring.(Bah! Trying to get all those poor teeming masses to float on water and go to some place farway. Discovering new searoutes and lands ? What for? Who cares about whether these damned undeserving poor folks go to this place called the New World and establish some country called America... or populate some place called Australia. America...bah! who needs it!)

Empire is the vanity of Kings.

On all of those things you mention, people did them because they thought they would be cool, and it would make them look good. You can even see the proof of this in the world today. In societies where the people are allowed to be expressive to the point of arrogance, great advances are born. This is particularly true in the western world, and even more so in the United States, where Vanity is King. Even in asian cultures, vanity rules. On the other hand, if you look at those cultures whose people are forced to be humble, or, an autocracy where only one person is allowed be vain, such as in Islamic countries North Korea respectively, then, nothing happens.

There's nothing wrong with vanity in some degree. I just wish you lefties would stop trying to deny the full extent of what you are, and see that some emotions are better harnessed than suppressed. Really, you liberals need to be as introspective and self aware as we right wing lunatics!