Slashdot Mirror
NASA: Lunar Pits and Caves Could House Astronauts
An anonymous reader writes: Astronomers have documented hundreds of holes on the lunar surface. These aren't simply craters, but actual pits ranging from 5 to 900 meters across. Scientists suspects many of these will lead to underground cave systems, which NASA says would be great spots for an astronaut habitat once we get back to the Moon. "A habitat placed in a pit — ideally several dozen meters back under an overhang — would provide a very safe location for astronauts: no radiation, no micrometeorites, possibly very little dust, and no wild day-night temperature swings," said Robert Wagner of Arizona State University. He says it's time to send probes into a few of these pits to see what they're like: "Pits, by their nature, cannot be explored very well from orbit — the lower walls and any floor-level caves simply cannot be seen from a good angle. Even a few pictures from ground-level would answer a lot of the outstanding questions about the nature of the voids that the pits collapsed into. We're currently in the very early design phases of a mission concept to do exactly this, exploring one of the largest mare pits."
Only if the US could get it's space program off mothballs... But there's no room in the budget for that due to the black budget takeover...
Newt Gingrich isn't getting any younger, and that Moon-town needs a Mayor.
...hich NASA says would be great spots for an astronaut habitat if we get back to the Moon. "A habitat placed in a p...
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Which is code for "extremely cold all the time".
I attended a talk by Dr. Red Whittaker (from CMU) after robotic exploration of the moon. His team is going after the Google Lunar X Prize. They're planning on sending their robot down into a crater to peek into one of these caves.
Sounds like a cool idea to me, but it seems a bit like a cosmic joke that we would in a way be reverting to a past we had here on earth by living in caves. The symbolism is nice, though; starting over in a new environment.
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Scientific films of yesteryear have informed us that any lunar caves are inhabited by insect men. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt00...
Yep. It'd be in shadow all the time which means it would be perpetually cold. 26 to 35 Kelvin cold.
That means to maintain the habitat, you'd have to have a perpetual power source. To me, that says you look at the poles with an eye towards building mirrors to reflect sunlight onto a heat collector. The poles are more likely to have a site that has both a pit and more or less full time sun. Unless of course, you want to ship a nuclear reactor to the moon in which case you'll need political will which is scarcer than perpetual sunlight.
This is exactly what I said a few weeks ago.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Yup.
The space program is a lot more productive now than when we were focused on a retarded war with the Russians. Unlike the 60's, we're actually doing basic science and planetary science missions now instead of chest thumping bravado.
The movie 2001? They land on the moon and descend into a pit.
Time to re-read _A Fall of Moondust_
sPh
I was unaware that there was any verification that caves even exist on the moon.
And considering the processes that form practically all natural caves here on earth (that I am aware of) involve moving water, or at least glacial movement, I'm not sure how anything like that would ever form on the moon.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Darn... hit submit too soon. The instant I clicked it I realized I had neglected to mention caves formed by volcanic activity. I don't think the moon ever had that either, however.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Video games and movies have been doing this for along time, either on the moon or an asteroids.
The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I only suggest it because to suggest otherwise, which is that humanity will stay here until we are destroyed, is to project that certain extinction-level events will definitely strike our species before we can ever try. I'm only making the assumption that humanity will continue to make progress in the coming decades and centuries... which is less a statement of enthusiasm and more of an inevitability, barring something else happening here which hasn't been foreseen wiping us all out first. The latter is certainly possible, but there's also no reason to conclude that it's particularly likely... except over a very prolonged period, during which time human civilization can continue to advance technologically. So the notion of thinking that we'll get off of this rock before we're wiped out should be seen as at least as probable.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
That is correct. Evolution is still happening. There were no humans here two million years ago and there won't be any in another two million years.
What's the big deal? You think our little oil-powered party has any meaning on geological and evolutionary time-scales?
Civilizations have collapsed before, who are you to say that the humans in a hundred years will have the same level of technology and cheap energy we have now? We very likely won't, and we won't even have anything like the Pyramids to show for it. Just some vague memories of stunts with big rockets.
And the fact that you use the key phrase "this rock" means you are a Space Nutter, and you have a religious fervor associated with space that has nothing to do with reality.
"This rock" IS the bounty and it's in space already.
Your precious "asteroid of doom" that your priests talk about would still leave the Earth a thousand times more hospitable than space.
Why not colonize the bottom of the ocean?
And who are you to say with any certainty that they won't be any better than they are now? I only suggest that it's at least as probable as not because in the timescales that are involved to make it genuinely unlikely, progress can still continue to happen.
Also, I'm not disputing that evolution is still happening, but I'd dare suggest that whatever kind of species that replaces us will still refer to themselves as human, and will refer to *US* as being some simpler life form.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The astronauts had better hope that there are no Lunar sarlaccs.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
It's also possible that your grandchildren will need to know how to shoe a horse. That's far more probable.
You really need to learn more about human history and realize that this idea that everything "progresses" towards some "better" goal is a recent idea. As recent as coal and oil... See what I mean?
I think a far more likely future scenario will be simpler lives, less materialism, more hardship. Is that so hard to believe?
Space is a fantasy that won't die for the same reason religions won't die. It appeals to some basic human instincts and has a nice narrative.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the...
I say that things won't be any better than they are now with the same certainty that we won't have faster than light spaceships.
I have the same certainty that we don't even have supersonic air travel anymore!
Could I be wrong? Maybe. But where would you place your bets?
Sci-fi fantasies? Or physical reality?
If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
Probably the first men in the moon will be McDonalds, for their new McMooncalf burger.
Um, no. We're not going to the moon or anywhere like it. The economy will likely collapse again before the end of the decade. There won't be the money or the resources. Sending robotic missions makes more sense. Sending people is a dumb idea. We evolved to live here. We are expensive to travel and hard to settle. Machines are constructed to do certain things in certain environments. They are more capable than humans in that regard. Send them to get fried by coronal mass ejections.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
When you bring up climate science (and the people who advocate climate science) on an article about moon caves it makes you sound like a deranged cultist.
Just save your hateful sniping for the next climate change article. Slashdot has at least one every week.
Warning: This sig is not thread safe. For more information see Slashdot's sig policy.
The space program is a lot more productive now than when we were focused on a retarded war with the Russians. Unlike the 60's, we're actually doing basic science and planetary science missions now instead of chest thumping bravado.
Much of the science and tech of today's planetary missions are the result of military tech and those glory days of NASA manned missions. Those manned lunar missions were preceded by various robotic lunar missions.
The cold war greatly benefited the space program, it funded its tech. That chest thumping got the public behind all that spending on space. NASA and the US space program suffer today because of a lack of interest by the people. Fortunately the civilian commercial space industry seems to be coming along quite nicely.
>> it's time to send probes into a few of these pits to see what they're like
Great! Finally we will now discover all the moon-alien hives and secret Nazi UFO moonbases!
By us, of course I mean our machines, not physical humans - the distinction between abstracting 'our' presence via a machine or by the physical presence of a bunch of humans we've never met and are not related to us is purely arbitrary. What makes humans distinct from other creatures is that we can abstract our intent into machines that fulfill that intent: ploughs, swords, trains, coaches, treaties, man pages, computers, space probes. We are not limited by the limitations of our physical bodies.
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
And as for extinction-level events, life survived; we are here. Who are you to decide what life will survive on this planet millions or billions of years from now?
The one and only known species that is aware of this issue and can have a conversation about it and can do something about it, i.e. not limit itself to this one planet. That's a pretty special species.
Oh, how absurd of me to think that somebody will think of something that nobody has thought of before.
It may not happen in my lifetime, or even my kids lifetime... but it's going to happen, someday... and the cynicism that you are so clearly hold dear to will eventually be seen as just as absurd and outdated as what scientists less than 200 years ago were saying when they suggested that we could never travel faster than the speed of sound.
As for the comfort that you no doubt seem to think that believing otherwise gives me... it may surprise that it doesn't... because I don't expect it to happen in my own lifetime. I say what I do not because it makes me feel better, but because if there is anything that is constant about humanity, it is change. Betting against that is going to be a losing proposition. Every time. Unless, as I said... you know of something that will wipe us out before that can actually happen.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There's just an opportunity in Siberia - just opened up this week. Current theories are giant sandworms, graboids, pingo's, ufo's or an alien missile base:
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/myst...
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
so you mean to tell me that after thousands of years and billions of dollars that we're going to go to the moon to be cave men? Talk about coming full circle.
I'm fairly sure Columbus heard similarly-themed arguments before he went sailing. Why bother? We've got everything we need right here.
I guess the short version is that, if you're going to stop aspiring, you're only going to start existing. You'll live a life of drudgery, which for some of us just isn't worth living.
This is not a juvenile fantasy, it is a driving need for the creative members of the race. The juvenile aspect of this whole thread is your pressure for everyone else to give up their ideals and adhere to yours.
So you, give up your computer, ditch your car, buy a plot of land and start your farming. The rest of us enjoy pushing toward something better - even though we don't know what it is.
Time for you to mature a little, Internet Tough Guy.
To suggest that we, ill adapted to flight as we are, ought to go physically into the sky instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
Hate to be the one to tell you, but no matter how hard you flap your arms, you won't leave the ground. Machines can fly - humans can't. To suggest that we ought not take flight because of the physical limitations of our bodies is, indeed, absurd.
We will finally have the first men IN the Moon after all.
And will they meet the insectoid creatures called the Selenites?
Tracy Johnson
Old fashioned text games hosted below:
http://empire.openmpe.com/
BT
That, I think, was the poster's point.... that it is just as absurd as suggesting that we should not go into space merely because of how ill-adapted we are to it.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Problem with that argument... private enterprise operates on PROFIT. Private enterprise has taken 40 years to even get to a point it is considering manned space flight. Space exploration is too costly and returns are doubtful especially on the quarterly schedule that business operates on. How does private industry justify for investors the expense when a payoff may not even be realized, fortunes lost or it takes another generation to see any profit? Investors won't go for that. The ONLY entity capable of consistent investment (including experimental failures) in such endeavors is the taxing power of government. I just don't see Musk, et. al. Competing in any realistic way with the Chinese government. Who is planning a manned settlement on the moon. Anyone who thinks that the be all and end all is private enterprise is not being realistic when the power of government as a competitor is factored in. In fact, the only reason the U.S. even had a space program is because of the funding and taxing power of government. Not one single private corporation at the time (or even now) had or has the financial resources to develop the technology required for manned exploration. Even Musk and other so-called private enterprises looking at space development is dependent in large part upon government contracts.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
Rather than focus on arbitrary distinctions, we ought to focus on non-arbitrary distinctions i.e. the gap in capability between human bodies and robots. In space, robots are far more capable than human bodies - to the extent that humans rely entirely on machines to survive.
I don't see why it's embarrassing or unsatisfactory to apply a machine to achieve a particular purpose e.g.
I need to plow my field,
I would like to fly to New York,
I need to write an essay
We use machines all the time. Therefore, why did we decide we needed to arbitrarily send human bodies into space, rather than use a machine to explore, unburdened by lumps of flesh? How would carting a lump of flesh to Titan, for example, have enabled Huygens to explore it more?
But who is suggesting that? Sounds to me like a subtle strawman. The distinction between a robot landing on Titan and a robot which contains a human is arbitrary.
You complain about strawmen, then string together a strawman of your own. Nobody is suggesting that humans need to travel to Titan.
"mark-t" was absolutely right. Your statement was absurd, and my parody illustrated it's absurdity. Our unsuitability to space is entirely irrelevant. You're right in pointing out that there are many aspects of space exploration which are best done by machines; you're completely wrong when you take that idea and present it as an absolute for why no human should ever go into space.
The fact that mark had to explain my comment to you is ... rather embarrassing, but not unexpected.
It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,
I would like to fly to New York...
Or....
I would like to travel into space.
The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.
Really.... did I have to explain this twice?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There's just an opportunity in Siberia - just opened up this week. Current theories are giant sandworms, graboids, pingo's, ufo's or an alien missile base:
The ideal finding, of course, would be all of the above.
"Visitors: to ensure optimum relations with the locals, no anal probes will be allowed beyond this point. You may check them in at Customs and reclaim them on your return home.
"Mind the sandworms."
You complain about strawmen, then string together a strawman of your own. Nobody is suggesting that humans need to travel to Titan.
Except for the OP whose views you irrationally decided to defend, despite (apparently) not agreeing with them. Here the OP said (quote) The next manned lunar landing will not be so much for scientific exploration there as much as to start laying the foundations for stepping further into space. implying that our efforts stepping further into space: New Horizons, Voyager, Cassini Huygens, travelling to Pluto, Mercury, Jupiter, Titan - even to the edges of the solar system itself somehow don't count as "stepping into space". What an absurdity.
Your statement was absurd, and my parody illustrated it's absurdity. Our unsuitability to space is entirely irrelevant. You're right in pointing out that there are many aspects of space exploration which are best done by machines; you're completely wrong when you take that idea and present it as an absolute for why no human should ever go into space.
Thanks again for burning the strawman.
It's not embarrassing to apply machines as all.... as you say,
I would like to fly to New York...
Or...
.
I would like to travel into space.
That's what I said.
The fact that we are ill adapted to survive in space should be no more of a justification that we shouldn't go there than the fact that we are unable to fly without machines should be a justification to never get into an aircraft.
That's what I said. Just because our physical limitations prevent us from bodily travelling any significant distance through space, doesn't mean that we should not go further than those physical limitations practically allow. We just need to accept that, like ploughing is best performed by machines, so travelling in space is best done by machines. Thus: the term "we travelled to Jupiter" or "we landed on Titan" does not imply that our physical bodies are located near Jupiter nor on Titan, anymore than saying "I ploughed my field" implies that I did so with your hands, or saying "I flew to New York" requires me to have flown there using my arms.
Really.... did I have to explain this twice?
You didn't need to explain it at all. I have a clear memory of what I said.
How does private industry justify for investors the expense when a payoff may not even be realized, fortunes lost or it takes another generation to see any profit?
It won't take a generation to see a profit. Consider space tourism, it is currently outrageously expensive but that is OK. The handful of people willing to pay such sums exist. Such willingness to pay is a tried and true factor that supports initially expensive products and services.
Investors won't go for that.
The quarterly focus that you assume is for publicly traded companies. Privately held companies can have longer perspectives.
In fact, the only reason the U.S. even had a space program is because of the funding and taxing power of government.
That is just a phase. A necessary phase, but one that people move beyond. Just as sailing from Europe to North America was once only an activity that governments could afford.
Living in a cave on the moon? Why?
Of course, the same argument could be made for, as a previous poster had said... flight. Obviously human beings can't fly no matter how hard they flap their arms, but that's no reason to not get into an aircraft. And nobody disputes that it's equally obvious that space is an extraordinarily harsh environment that no human being could hope to survive in for any more than a brief instant... but if the argument that we shouldn't let the fact that we must use machines to achieve something keep us from doing it, then why the heck should human beings be kept from going into space merely because we can't survive there without sophisticated life support?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
What I said was:
To suggest that we, ill adapted to space as we are, ought to go physically into space instead of sending a machine is absurd - like saying that a field is only plowed if dug by hand, or the only correct calculation is done without the aid of a computer, calculator or abacus.
This is in response to the OP's assertion that the boundaries of our push into space are actually defined by how far our physical bodies have travelled - which is an absurdity. To suggest that the discoveries of Voyager, Pioneer, Spirit and Opportunity, Cassini/Huygens are somehow trivial because they didn't happen to contain any meat is deeply insulting: insulting to us as humans. The presence of meat, or lack thereof is an arbitrary scale for judging achievement. If you don't think this scale is arbitrary, if you don't think the O.P's comment was absurd, then explain why. Don't burn strawman.
Wow. Zero to pure IDH (Ideology Driven Hate) in two posts. Remarkable, even for /.
Well played, party trolls. I particularly like the way fools like me pile on and continue to ignore the actual topic.
--- Say something clever. Pretend it was me. Thanks.
All research and development companies ultimately become public. They can't sustain growth and competition without investor funds. Elon Musk exhausted his own personal investment and nearly went belly up had it not been his award of a government contract. Ultimately though his company and his competitors will have to go public to compete. Thus your private company assertion doesn't really hold water as those companies will eventually become dependent upon investors and quarterly returns. Also I think it's premature to assume a cottage industry dependent upon the 1%. Most of them have more terrestrial concerns such as making more money and investing in space tourism is not only very expensive but also dangerous. Liability alone will discourage many of those who could afford it to avoid it.
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
SpaceX is growing without going public. It has received $200M from investors and $800M from contracts, both development and launch. It has won contracts, both government and commercial. I believe they currently have dozens of launch contracts, most of them commercial, representing several billion dollars in potential revenue. SpaceX seems to be growing and successfully competing quite nicely without wall street.
Regarding tourism, that is just a convenient way to make money in the short term. The current expense of tourism is temporary, and that's OK. As technology improves and experience is gained and costs come down it will become available to a wider audience. The commercial tourism efforts are essentially walking down the willingness to pay curve extracting the maximum amount from the participants. $10 million is extracted from those willing to pay $10 million, $1 million is extract from those willing to pay $1 million, etc. What is one day limited to the 1%'ers will one day be available to the 2%'ers, then the 3%'ers, and that is non-linear growth.
Regarding the long term. One major expense is lifting necessities to orbit. However when asteroids can be harvest then water, oxygen, fuel and raw materials for constructions can be sourced "locally". That will represent a huge cost savings. Look at the various projections for lunar bases. There are huge logistics and cost savings if water is available in the shadows of craters. Again, I'm talking decades not years. And the first such base will probably be a government effort. However I think commercial efforts will dominate earth orbit by then. Short of reactors fueled by He3 a lunar presence would most likely be scientific in nature. A telescope on the far side would be amazing. And practical for spotting those pesky city-killer and dinosaur-killer asteroids.