Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Bigelow Aerospace Investigating Feasibility of Moon Base for NASA

Posted by Unknown on from the tea-time-on-the-moon dept.

littlesparkvt writes in with a bit from Space Industry News about Bigelow Aerospace's plans for the moon: "NASA and Bigelow Aerospace are in the initial planning phases for a moon base. 'As part of our broader commercial space strategy, NASA signed a Space Act Agreement with Bigelow Aerospace to foster ideas about how the private sector can contribute to future human missions,' Said David Weaver NASA Associate Administrator for the Office of Communications." Bigelow will be performing the study for free too. Robert Bigelow chatted with a radio host a few weeks ago about Bigelow's long-term space plans. They include refueling depots and a commercial moon base, since NASA isn't planning to go there.

24 of 140 comments (clear)

  1. Bring on Moonbase Alpha by maroberts · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Space:1999 a few decades late?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:Bring on Moonbase Alpha by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was thinking the personnel from this moon base should be organized into two elite moon unit divisions: Moon Unit Alpha and Moon Unit Zappa.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  2. What's the catch? Will they get to name it? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does NASA need alternate funding avenues?
    Space Base Bigelow's Gigolos -- A Sugar Cougar's One Stop Shop for Moon Poon Pleasure. Ask about our Zero-G Whoopee for Free!

  3. Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Unlike planet Earth, the moon does not have a lot of water to be wasted

    Sure, it got water (ice) but the amount is miniscule when compared to what we got right here on Earth

    What I need to know more is the exact definition of "feasibility" in that study

    If it means "can live on the moon for quite a while", of course, the amount of water on the moon is enough to support some people on the moon for some time

    We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries

    But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain

    Same thing on the moon

    We can build moon base today, it's entirely feasible to get enough water to let some people survive there for some time

    But if we do that, we are, inevitably, going to pollute the water, and diminish the amount of the already limited amount of water on the moon

    In doing so, we might negatively affect the future of the future generations for their own moon explorations

    That is why I am interested to know how they are going to define "feasibility" in their "feasibility study"

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We need to understand this --- it's like archeology --- what we do today might affect the future generations --- if we dig up the ancient grave today we might get X number of discoveries But if we leave that ancient grave untouched, and leave it to future generations who may have even better equipments and technologies to excavate that ancient grave, they may yield EVEN MORE INFORMATION than what we can obtain

      Tomorrow will always have better tech than today no matter what "today" you're talking about. If you always wait for tomorrow's tech, you'll wait forever; tomorrow never comes.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    2. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      A) Future generations can only get better at moon colonisation if we try, and learn, and maybe fail and learn some more. Just like today's archaeologists only got to be so good at archaeology because they stood on the shoulders of their less sophisticated predecessors.

      B) There is a HELL of a lot more water on the moon than you think. Yes, only a tiny fraction of the Earth's but still way more than we can deplete in a thousand years of missions/ bases on the scale being discussed here.

      C) The moon water will not be "polluted" or wasted away. Most of it will be recycled, ready to be re-used. Any sensible long-term moon plan will have water recycling as a core requirement. OK, some may end up scattered to the interplanetary void after being used as reaction mass or hydrogen fuel but again, not enough to be worried about.

      D) By the time we deplete the moon's water, we should be more than capable of picking up more from asteroids/ comets/ elsewhere in space and transporting it to the moon.

      Here's a classic sci-fi short story that deals with water as a (supposedly) limited resource for space travel and colonisation. It has hard numbers to help put the scale of the issue in context. Worth a read, and won't take too long: http://archive.org/details/TheMartianWay

    3. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      I really don't think many of you appreciate how hard it will be to actually get to the water on the moon (in any usable form, anyway). IIRC, it's scattered in tiny amounts and mixed in with regolith. Getting to it will be less like digging a well and more like industrial gold mining. Hell, we have a hard enough time doing desalinization in large quantities on earth, and that's a LOT easier.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    4. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by dywolf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No they didn't. What, you think it was a secret, or the knowledge just mysteriously vanished from peoples minds? The fall of Rome wasn't over night, it was over decades. And the people didn't just vanish, nor did the knowledge. The "Dark Ages" following the "fall" of Rome, wasnt really dark. Really the only thing lacking was this huge overarching unification and relative stability granted by being part of the roman empire, and even that was only in europe.

      Farmers have been making crude cement for thousands of years. You think they never noticed that when sandy/gravelly soil and clay soil mix (effort to loosen up the clay soil so it drains/grows better), it only gets worse, such that you can't farm? Then somoene got thebright idea...whoa...this stuff is hard...we can't grow with it...but we can cut it into blocks and make walls and homes from it!

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    5. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the oddities that people overlook in spaceflight, is that people with excess fat would make ideal colonists.

      I don't think there is a more cost effective means in terms of payload to transport 'food and water' in a form usable to humans than fat people. I'm not talking morbidly obese, but an astronaut with 20kg extra weight is carrying pre-processed nutrients/energy/water in a form that requires the least amount of energy to turn back into work. As the astronaut burns off the excess fat, the wastes produced can be collected and reprocessed into useful water and fertilizers.

      Consider the two options:
      A healthy astronaut with 20kg of fat
      A healthy astronaut with 0kg of excess and 20kg of food/water.

      kg for kg, the stored fat will be much more efficient than 20kg of extra food/water.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by morgauxo · · Score: 2

      I can imagine how that could work out.

      Generational colony ship leaves.
      Several generations later some form of FTL is invented. Colony ship is still generations away from any star system.
      People on Earth remember the colony ship from their history books. there is a huge public concern over their fate. The people of Earth regret having sent those poor people on this now 'pointless' mission. One of the first FTL ships is sent to 'rescue' their descendants.

      The descendants are happy to have visitors, see some new faces, get news of Earth. However, much to everyone else's surprise they have adapted. The ship is their home and they have their own way of life. Few return.

      In the very long run the colony ships (yes plural now) colonize more worlds than the Earthlings with their FTL. When they finally arrive at a star system with a usable planet they orbit for some generations. They gather supplies, repair and upgrade their ship. They allow their population to grow. They build more ships. A fraction do stay behind on the new planet but since ship life is now their nature many more fly on to the next worlds.

      Pointless mission indeed!

    7. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      this is actually one of the arguments for why we shouldnt wait for sometime in the future to make colony ships for interstellar exploration, but should instead start now.

      My problem with the idea of colony ships is that the only sort of people who are prepared to go on a voyage in a cramped, windowless tin box until they die, and their children, and their grandchildren and...die are essentially insane and shouldn't be allowed anywhere outside of a padded cell.

      The idea of being on a ship where everyone knew they were never going home frankly terrifies me.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Feasibility - in terms of what ? by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Future generations can only get better at moon colonisation if we try, and learn, and maybe fail and learn some more.

      That is begging the question of whether having a moon colony serves any useful purpose in the first place.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  4. Gravity? by RivenAleem · · Score: 2

    Is the gravity on the moon sufficient to prevent the bone de-calcification and muscle atrophy in humans there for a prolonged period of time? I know that people who go up to the ISS for a few months are irreparably damaged, though the idea of making a spinning station would counter most (if not all) of that. At 1/6 earth gravity, would humans suffer the same fate as they do in micro? Can they build a spinning habitat on the moon?

    1. Re:Gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Is the atmosphere on the moon sufficient to prevent the de-oxygenation and breathing atrophy of humans there for a few seconds? How about the lack of a magnetoshpere? What is this obsession with sci-fi golly-gee Tom Swift fantasies about space? It's a hostile radiation-blasted vacuum with nothing in it. You have to bring the world's most advanced technology just to breathe. And what is so important on the Moon? It's the same periodic table of elements as on Earth. Plus here you have every specialist and every industry right here to solve any problem you might have.

      This space stuff is just an extension of America's history of expansion and the "wild west", translated into the modern era with WWII technology and German engineers.

    2. Re:Gravity? by Cenan · · Score: 5, Informative

      According to NASA it has yet to be determined what causes the bone degradation. The damage is also not "irreparable", though bone mass is not fully recovered. From the link:

      The exact mechanism that causes the loss of calcium in microgravity is unknown. Many scientists believe that microgravity somehow causes bone to break down at a much faster rate than it is built up. However, the exact trigger for this rate change has not been found. Researchers are currently pursuing multiple lines of research, including hormone level, diet, and exercise, in order to determine exactly what causes -- and may control or prevent -- osteoporosis during space flight.

      On Earth we see the same thing happen from time to time (my mother used to have it). Bones suddenly become weak to the point of breaking at the faintest impact. Doctor's orders were to drink lots of milk and other high-calcium foodstuffs, and it apparently went away to a degree that she was declared "cured". If (the lack of) gravity was the sole cause, we would not see this on Earth.

      --
      ... whatever ...
    3. Re:Gravity? by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can repair a china cup. But it isn't fully recovered. As grandma will clearly notice.

    4. Re:Gravity? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Robert Zubrin, the "case for Mars" guy who seems to have thought a lot about months-long space journeys, believes that low-gravity bone loss can be mitigated by exercise. His data point is Shannon Lucid, who spent 179 days on the Mir space station, rigorously followed the prescribed exercise regime, and came back in significantly better physical condition than other members of her crew, who weren't as disciplined with their exercise regimes.

      Even if he's wrong, this is a problem to be solved, rather than a reason not to try.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    5. Re:Gravity? by RaceProUK · · Score: 2

      True. I mean, it's not like we ever got anything from space travel after all.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    6. Re:Gravity? by Skythe · · Score: 2

      Here is the "official" Mars One answer to bone issues (site seems to be down now so copy and paste from Google Cache):
      Prolonged weightlessness causes osteoporosis, which can be reduced by exercise and medicine. Research onboard the International Space Station has led to even better and more effective training programs being drawn up, and new machines being made specifically for astronauts. Conjointly, there have been major leaps forward in medications capable of partially preventing declining calcium levels.

      Recent study about 14 ISS astronauts, who were 4-6 month in space, showed a maximum bone loss of 1.5% / month in the most vulnerable (from bone loss point of view) region - the hip. Therefore the bone loss after arriving on Mars, after a 7 month flight, would be in the worst case scenario 10.5%.

      When they arrive on a planet with 62% less gravity, they would have 100% more bone density compared to humans under earth gravity.

      Google Cache link: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:YS4BxMBdYy4J:mars-one.com/en/faq-en/19-faq-health/193-will-the-astronauts-develop-osteoporosis+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au

    7. Re: Gravity? by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A HUGE problem for solar energy is not necessarily atmosphere, but dust. A massive array of panels/mirrors on Earth must be continually protected against sandstorms and dust accumulation. (This is because many of the massive mirror/panel arrays are placed in desert like environments, much like the moon).

      Without rain to wash the panels and plants to keep the dust storms down, solar panels must be protected/maintained.

      However, while the moon seems like it would be terrible due to the fact that it is basically one giant dusty (and sharp dust at that) desert, the lack of an atmosphere means that any panel placed will not accumulate any dust or suffer sandstorms absent nearby impacts with meteors.

      Long winded post short: I'd add that the moon has lots of open land that doesn't produce sandstorms in your positive category for solar power generation.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
  5. Re:Real Estate by BasilBrush · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Whoever can get there and defend it from invaders.

  6. Re:Hands off! by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

    please don't trample those footprints. I may want to gaze on them myself some day.

    I doubt you need to worry about either possibility.

    --
    The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
  7. The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by tehcyder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And I don't want a bunch of whacko libertarian might-is-right corporate yahoos in control of it.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  8. The future of space is private! by BlueCoder · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't care about the nay sayers. The problem with NASA is funding and politics. Space projects take decades and commitment. And for at least a few decades you can think of private space companies as nonprofits.

    It's better to just have NASA raise funds, devise national policy and sign contracts; an extension to what they were doing anyway. They just won't be micromanaging anymore. It also allows other governments or even individuals or corporations to contract with the same people and get it on the act.

    Having private companies allows more insulation from political influence. It allows them to better focus on achieving something rather than making politicians happy. The same people that would have worked at JPL will instead be working for private equivalents. It's the same people, just a different letterhead.