Slashdot Mirror
Russia Talks Moon Base With NASA, ESA
milbournosphere writes "Russia and NASA are reportedly in talks to create a base on the Moon. They're looking to create either a facility on the Moon itself or a permanent space station in orbit around the moon. 'We don't want man to just step on the Moon,' agency chief Vladimir Popovkin said in an interview with Vesti FM radio station. 'Today, we know enough about it. We know that there is water in its polar areas,' he added. 'We are now discussing how to begin [the Moon's] exploration with NASA and the European Space Agency.'"
Sounds like a good idea. Hopefully they can actually do something with this instead of endlessly talking about it, and sinking money into studys.
Twenty years later than it should have been on the table.
We should have had a base up there for years - an ideal place to serve as a jumping off point for science elsewhere in the solar system, even if the Moon itself is "barren".
With a moon base you have access to that water they mention, and perhaps enough sunlight to actually grow food (although the water seems to be in the wrong place for this). You have shelter by digging into the moon itself, and enough free raw materials to extract an atmosphere, make building materials, etc. You don't have to bring everything from earth. You have gravity as well, which makes for more comfortable living and building. None of that is available in moon orbit.
Although an orbiting moon base makes for a quicker return to earth vicinity, the value of "quick" makes it a fairly meaningless advantage. There is no point in putting a base in moon orbit unless you intend to frequently visit the moon surface. At which time you encounter the assent problem, the same problem you have with a moon base.
The major problem of a moon base, or simply visiting the moon, is the problem of fuel expenditures for lift off. For all the Buck Rogers si-fi we've written, we still can't carry enough fuel to get out of sight. Any system we have for getting off of the surface amounts to a zero-backup, Hail Mary. There is no plan B.
We (barely) got out of the moon program without the horror of stranding people there. Until a more realistic system for getting off the moon is built, putting a base there is just a disaster waiting to happen with our current technology.
Maybe it would be easier to build the often talked about space elevator on the moon.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
If we'd gone with the original plan for space exploration, we'dve had a (small) colony on the moon, an orbital transfer/construction station in HEO, and a manned landing or 3 on Mars by 1985. Problem was, there just wasn't any way to put a man on the moon by 1970 if we'd done it that way. Upside is, we'dve had a reuseable lunar lander, just refuel, preflight, and go. We went with Apollo instead because it was the quick and dirty solution.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
I would think that the fastest (timeline) to having a large presence in orbit around the moon would be to boost ISS to lunar orbit, or possibly (stability?) a figure-8 orbit around earth and moon. That gives us a large, stable presence, in a relatively short time frame. ISS is nice, but it's not really doing anything super useful in LEO.
One of the reasons that the US doesn't have the supercollider and CERN does is that they reused all their old equipment. We had similar equipage, the Tevatron, but no, SSC had to be all brand new, and ended up being so great it was never built.
We have a large, manned habitat, already in orbit. Use it.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
A) It's (relatively) not that big of a gravity well, and
B) It's pretty close to here for easy construction and resupply,
C) It's easier to protect it and its occupants from radiation and asteroids, and
D) There might be water available nearby, precluding the need to ship at least one thing up there constantly.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
well don't you need a way to get food / other stuff there and keep it coming.
How easy is it to get the water on the moon? is it safe to drink?
I'm sure they'll filter it first. So unless it's a freakishly high concentration of heavy water, then water is water.
Umm, no.
H2O density is 1.0 kg/l.
LH2/LOX density, in the ratio required to make water (8 kg LOX per kg LH2) is about 0.42 kg/l.
So you use over twice as much space, as opposed to getting "a huge savings".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Of course neither country has a strong infrastructure to build such an endeavour (they act like they do but it all looks pretty dismal). However, far better than discussions on building up missile bases aimed at each other (i.e. ABM site in Poland, Russia countering that with additional missiles).
Another to consider is Russians are essential for USA space program (and other way around). NASA was created because the Russians launched first satellite. Apollo program was created because the Russians launched first man in space. Shuttle was created because Russians still flying spaceships. ISS was created because we partnered with Russians (Space Station Freedom never got off the ground because no Russians involved). VSE, Obamaspace, SLS, and derivatives going nowhere because it has nothing to do with the Russians. Well there is the USAF space command, maybe they're still countering the Russians.
So if you are going to do a big space program... don't forget the Russians. Of course some will say don't forget Russian spies but so what else is new. If you are a country you gotta deal with spies, like server owners have to deal with spyware.
mfwright@batnet.com
Why does everyone want to build a base inside a giant gravity well?
To stock it with moon babes in purple wigs and silver catsuits. Duh.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
A disk, a back flap, and a scorpion.
To add to the other comments:
1) it's a lot easier to build a habitat on an existing ball of rock, than to ship materials into place in orbit (or at a langrangian point) to create a self-sustaining structure and habitat. In fact, there's some theories there might be lava tubes where underground habitats can be built. Don't forget, radiation is a big problem in space; inside the Van Allen belts, it's not so much of a problem (LEO is within those belts, and the ISS is at LEO). But out at one of the L points, there's nothing to protect you. There's nothing to protect you on the surface of the moon either, but there's plenty of building material right there, and it probably wouldn't be that hard to build an undeground structure and use the surface as a radiation shield.
2) it's already proven there's water on the moon. Water is a pretty important material for sustaining human life anywhere.
3) Humans need gravity or else they develop health problems very quickly, including massive bone loss. The ISS astronauts work out constantly to combat this, and it's still not enough. The moon only has 1/6 Earth's gravity, and it's unknown what the long-term effects of this will be, but it's certainly better than 0g.
Until we start build very large space stations with artificial gravity, the moon's gravity is probably a cost that's outweighed by the other benefits.
I think it's important to distinguish between at least two sets of people on this News for Nerds site who oppose manned missions and favour robotic probes instead. On one hand, perhaps there are people who aren't inclined to dream, see no romantic vision in man expanding into the cosmos, and may make a good argument that mankind can have a bold future without ever living the planet.
On the other hand, there's people who have read Ray Kurzweil's conjectures/ravings in The Singularity is Near and other books. This crowd doesn't lack dreams of humanity spreading through the galaxy. Rather, they might simply say that we should wait a few decades or a century until human beings will have supposedly overcome biological limitations that hamper spaceflight: radiation exposure, need for certain sustenance, limited lifespans that would force unrealistic generational starship designs, etc . That is, such people may figure that human beings will eventually be robotic probes, and once the two are the same, then we can really begin with longterm space exploration that is more than just a stunt.
Indeed. The Apollo and Gemini used LH2/LOX fuel cells. I believe they made use of the 'waste' water from this as well.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
If you spend too much time on the Moon, or in space for that matter, you could easily find yourself in a position where you're no longer able to stand the gravity of the Earth.
We understand zero/microgravity's effects on human beings pretty well. That said, the longest we've ever had a human on the Moon is 3 days--not really long enough to study anything. One of the things I wish we'd have been able to study on the ISS is the effect of various levels of gravity and their effect on humans. Unfortunately, that capability was cut.
Zero-G/Microgravity is not all that great for human beings. As I understand it, besides muscle issues (ie, not using them), there's also bone-loss. I believe these are dealt with on ISS via a combination of exercise and drugs. The problem is, we don't know how much gravity is necessary. Would 0.5G be enough? 0.25G? 0.16G (ie, lunar gravity)? Do we need gravity the whole time? Could we, for example, put beds in a 1G centrifuge so people get eight hours of 1G while they sleep but spend the rest of their time in Zero-G with no ill effects?
These are things that need to get figured out.
Money is not a limited resource.
That aside, what do you suggest we do when our perfect little ball of green and blue is threatened by something we have no control over? Wish we had "wasted" the money and gotten spread out, is my bet.
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
tl;dr: Robots first, mine the asteroids for building materials.
The proper plan is to start mining Near Earth Asteroids for supplies. Why NEO's? They take less velocity to reach than the Moon's surface for some of them, and all of the velocity can be done with highly efficient electric thrusters. The Moon is physically closer, but distance is not what costs in space, it's velocity and fuel. Haul back surface dust and rocks from your chosen asteroid with a solar powered tug, and have the extraction equipment in Earth orbit. Why here? it's close enough to be remote controlled by humans on the ground. Depending which asteroid and it's composition you can get: metals, glass, oxygen, fuel for more mining trips, carbon, silicon for solar panels, even water in some of them. Also sheer bulk rock gives you radiation shielding.
Once you learn to extract useful stuff, and build up a supply, you use that to build a habitat, including a greenhouse using the glass for windows and carbon to feed the plants. *Then* you start sending people. Until then you send the minimum crew you can get away with, possibly zero. With people up there and their life support taken care of long term, you can start building space elevators in Earth orbit and Lunar orbit out of the carbon you extract. Not the sci-fi one at Earth that goes all the way to the ground, that takes materials we can't make yet. You can reach 30% of the way to the ground in velocity terms at Earth, and all the way on the Moon, cause it's smaller. 30% in velocity means 50% in energy for a vehicle starting from the ground. You can now build single stage to orbit vehicles easily. At the moon you don't need vehicles at all as far as propulsion, just a pressure cabin. Now you can send people all the way from Earth to the Moon at reasonable cost. You can also send habitat parts made in orbit down to the Moon, and start building up your infrastructure there.
We already know a lot about mining and manufacturing on Earth. The main thing we have to learn is how to do it remotely, and possibly in zero gee (you can always spin things if you need gravity).
The usual assumption by people who have worked on it seriously (I'm one of them, retired from Boeing, did advanced space studies while there), is you set up a habitat module, which is your Space Station type pressurized cylinder, and then over that you place a quonset hut type arched structure, which you pile lunar regolith (surface rocks and dust) on top of for shielding. Depending what level of shielding you want, it needs to be around 1-3 meters. Given the Moon's gravity, that's equivalent to 16-50 cm on Earth, which is quite reasonable. Your airlock, antennas, and such would poke out of the lunar dirt.
The other thing burying your habitat does is protect it from landing craft. The rocket exhaust from them tends to throw any loose dust around at high velocity. Even if you pave the landing pad itself, there will be loose dust around that.
Cosmic radiation on the moon is pretty hard stuff. I think 12 inches of lead would be a little much for a tent. The astronauts who walked on the moon got away with it because they spent so little time there; for people living there, you need some really serious shielding to limit their exposure.
As for solar energy, it might make more sense to put those collectors in a different location, namely at one of the poles at the "peaks of eternal light", and run transmission cables to the habitat(s), which might be located in other places near other useful things. Of course, transmission cables might have problems with micrometeorites. Then again, your tent idea would probably have a much bigger problem with micrometeorites. Remember, the moon has no atmosphere, so it's constantly getting hit with micrometeorites.
Maybe we could just copy some technology from the Nazis with their giant bases on the far side of the moon.
Actually, the most useful thing we learned building the Space Station is how to assemble and maintain large complex objects in space. Any scientific research done on board is a bonus. If we ever want to do any other large scale projects in space, we had to learn how to assemble stuff, and this was the first really big, long term example (not neglecting all the Russian stations that came before, but they were smaller and didn't stay up there as long).
If we'd gone with the original plan for space exploration, we'dve had a (small) colony on the moon, an orbital transfer/construction station in HEO, and a manned landing or 3 on Mars by 1985.
Don't forget flying cars.
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
A rotating cable 600 km long, and having 1 Earth gravity at the tip, would let you place objects at rest on the Moon, and also fling them to more than escape. If it's in polar orbit, it also has the advantage of being able to drop and pick up from anywhere on the Lunar surface. Being much shorter than the Moon-L1 elevator by a factor of around 100, it is much less exposed to meteor impact, which can cut cable strands. Also, the climb time is greatly reduced. Instead of having to climb 60,000 km or so to escape the Moon, you climb at most 300 km from tip to center to reach Lunar orbit, and about 150 km from tip to halfway to center to reach escape. You merely wait till it rotates half a turn, to release you at above orbit speed. The rotation period is around 18 minutes.
To understand how this works, imagine a giant spoked wheel rolling along the Lunar surface. Now remove everything but two spokes opposite each other and the hub, with the motion unchanged. Smaller ones would work also, but would leave some job for a rocket to do on landing or taking off.
Oxygen is abundant on the moon in the rocks. You can make lots of water just by shipping in hydrogen and combining it with local oxygen. You could even make some power in the process.
Moving Earth-life into space is the reason Nature evolved big-brained variants of itself. Every single nook & cranny of the planet that can possibly sustain life, does. It is Nature's fundamental way to grow and expand, but there is nowhere else for It to go. It is everywhere It can be. For It to reach beyond its gravitational limits, It (out of necessity) had to evolve intelligence capable of figuring out how to free Itself from this limitation.
In a nutshell, space habitation is what we were made to do; there is nothing else more important. I don't understand how we got lost along the way, but it probably has to do with the complications of intelligence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Madness
I am so ready for this, i have played, er, trained many many hours.
Be seeing you...
I don't want to be human! I want to see gamma rays! I want to hear X-rays! And I want to - I want to smell dark matter! Do you see the absurdity of what I am? I can't even express these things properly because I have to - I have to conceptualize complex ideas in this stupid limiting spoken language! But I know I want to reach out with something other than these prehensile paws! And feel the wind of a supernova flowing over me! I'm a machine! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more. But I'm trapped in this absurd body! And why? Because my five creators thought that God wanted it that way!
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
I suppose since Slashdot has a wide variety of readers from different countries that your post is correct in saying specifically why Slashdot readers might oppose such a mission, but since people in Europe, Australia, etc. are not US citizens it might be more relevant to talk about why Americans oppose such things too. The general argument goes like this - "How can we pay for _____________ (insert anything space related) when we still have problems in this country that we haven't solved?" Back in the day it was easy to sell the American public on space missions because they were exciting and there was also a fear that "If we don't do it first, the Russkies will use it to destroy us". Geez, back in the late 1960s the movie "2001 A Space Odyssey" pictured a working space station and lunar bases in 2001. The old "UFO" TV show from the early 1970s had a small lunar base in the 1980s. Here it is 2012 and we can't even get enough enthusiasm up to even go back just one more time to the moon, let alone do anything interesting or useful there. What it is going to take is a president and Congress who want to make it a priority and they basically say "Screw it. We're paying for it. End of story." We'll never go back until the Chinese put their own base up if we wait for the American public to get on board with this. I believe for various reasons that the Russians are quite sincere about wanting to find partners, but you could probably just substitute "European" for "American" in my post and you'd have the same result. Sorry Ivan, but if you want a partner for a lunar base you're probably going to need to talk to Beijing. Sigh.
Great plan below here, but from a politician with elections coming up in less than 2/4/6 years, a) tl/dr, b) what kind of payback horizon are you talking about? Will my voters see anything worthwhile in their lifetime? In their children's lifetime?, c) take anything the far out science guys say, and multiply the schedule x3, the budget x12, and the tangible taxable benefits x0.2, does it still sound good? Good enough to get me re-elected? "We're going to Mars!" was a dud for W., why should I think I'll get more bang out of supporting this?
Short version: build a bridge, one plank at a time, and get to several something usefuls along the way - pie in the sky is going to stay there.
tl;dr: Robots first, mine the asteroids for building materials.
The proper plan is to start mining Near Earth Asteroids for supplies. Why NEO's? They take less velocity to reach than the Moon's surface for some of them, and all of the velocity can be done with highly efficient electric thrusters. The Moon is physically closer, but distance is not what costs in space, it's velocity and fuel. Haul back surface dust and rocks from your chosen asteroid with a solar powered tug, and have the extraction equipment in Earth orbit. Why here? it's close enough to be remote controlled by humans on the ground. Depending which asteroid and it's composition you can get: metals, glass, oxygen, fuel for more mining trips, carbon, silicon for solar panels, even water in some of them. Also sheer bulk rock gives you radiation shielding.
Once you learn to extract useful stuff, and build up a supply, you use that to build a habitat, including a greenhouse using the glass for windows and carbon to feed the plants. *Then* you start sending people. Until then you send the minimum crew you can get away with, possibly zero. With people up there and their life support taken care of long term, you can start building space elevators in Earth orbit and Lunar orbit out of the carbon you extract. Not the sci-fi one at Earth that goes all the way to the ground, that takes materials we can't make yet. You can reach 30% of the way to the ground in velocity terms at Earth, and all the way on the Moon, cause it's smaller. 30% in velocity means 50% in energy for a vehicle starting from the ground. You can now build single stage to orbit vehicles easily. At the moon you don't need vehicles at all as far as propulsion, just a pressure cabin. Now you can send people all the way from Earth to the Moon at reasonable cost. You can also send habitat parts made in orbit down to the Moon, and start building up your infrastructure there.
We already know a lot about mining and manufacturing on Earth. The main thing we have to learn is how to do it remotely, and possibly in zero gee (you can always spin things if you need gravity).