8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony by MARGARET WERTHEIM

Hi All
Saw this article and thought I'd post it for comments.
Point 1 make me laugh, granted we need to take budget estimates with a
grain of salt and a OMB(or GAO?) audit shows that NASA(as well as DOD)
projects only over run by 30%. Doesn't the author remember that the
Russians were brought into the ISS in hope to save money as well as
keep there scientist from selling their services to 3rd world powers.
See how well that worked out. Of course without the Russians we would
not be able to continually crew ISS, we may not even have a space
station. Wether or not that is a good or bad thing I'll leave up to
the reader. Points 2 & 4 are just statements of fact. Where ever you
go beyound Earth's atmosphere you are going to need to BYO Air & Water
or extract it locally. Unless the author has some bias against HSF, but
then why don't come out and just say it? 3 is a valid concern, but if
you pile enough regolith on your shelter you can give yourself enough
shielding. Another strawman argument.
Point 5, just seems to be another statement of fact, that is cost money
to launch stuff from Earth. Well that is true, its going to be a while
before we can have the infrastructure in place to build and launch
stuff anywhere else for a while. Or is this the author's bias against
space exporation in general?
Point 6, granted that mining the Moon(or Asteroids for that matter) is
not like mining on Earth, so its going to take new techniques to do
this. And people have looked at how to make Lunar cement/bricks
without water.
Point 7, even though I think its a cool idea, but I do feel the
importance of Helium 3 is over rated, once we have master Nuclear
Fusion (of any kind) then I'll start taking Helium 3 more seriously,
thou, someone in this group(Henry Spencer?) pointed out that what he
heard from some experts in the field that the prospect of any kind of
controlled fusion may be unobtainable. Which is a depressing thought.
The author seems to ignore or unaware of the O'Neils idea of using
Lunar resources to build SPS and forgeting the limitations of ground
based Solar Power. As far as getting power from the Moon, I like Dennis
Wingo's argument(unproven, but testable) about possible PGMs on the
Moon from Asteroid impacts and using them for Hydrogen Fuel Cells to
power cars & homes, of course then you need a source for all the
hydrogen, which may involve using Nuclear power plants to crack water
for it.
Point 8, of course with any government program there is always a
boondoggle factor. So I think this is the only creditable argument
against it.

What do you think?

Just my $0.02

Space Cadet

derwetzelsDASHspacecadetATyahooDOTcom


Moon Society - St. Louis Chapter

http://www.moonsociety.org/chapters/stlouis/

There is only one (maybe 2) basic core reasons for humans to go
beyond LEO, That is for the establishment of space settlements or a
space based civilization. Everything else are details.

Gary Gray 11/9/2005






http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/07/fe...ns-reasons.php

8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony
by MARGARET WERTHEIM



In January 2004, President Bush committed the U.S. to returning to the
moon by 2020. No human has set foot on our celestial satellite for 30
years, but many space enthusiasts believe the moon should be our
staging post for journeys to Mars, a destination Bush has also made a
NASA priority. Space wayfarers dream of establishing a permanent colony
on the moon and of mining the lunar surface for materials to build the
local infrastructure and to provide power for long-ranging spacecraft.
Others imagine sifting through the lunar dust for helium 3 to fuel
fusion power stations here on Earth, or placing giant telescopes on the
far side to scan the cosmos for clues about the Big Bang. The vision is
mighty, but so are the barriers. During the last three decades, the
furthest man has ventured into space is 386 miles, about the distance
from Washington, D.C., to Boston. Though the Starship Enterprise
effortlessly cruises the galactic byways, in real life getting to the
moon is really, really hard. Building there will be even tougher. Below
are eight good reasons we should think seriously before indulging our
Seleneum dreams:

1. Cost. Though no official figures have been given, knowledgeable
pundits put a return to the moon at around $100 billion. But NASA's
track record on fiscal restraint invokes skepticism even among hardcore
fans. Arizona Senator John McCain has quipped that the agency's
acronym stands for "never a straight answer." In 1984, when Ronald
Reagan announced that we would build a space station to rival the
USSR's Mir, the estimated price tag was $8 billion. By the time the
International Space Station (ISS) is finished in 2007, the bill will
stand at over $100 billion, despite being scaled down in size and
scope. By comparison, the USSR built Mir for $4.3 billion and its
operating costs were just 3 percent of the ISS. Prudence suggests that
if we do go back to the moon we should recruit the Russians as
partners.

2. There Is No Atmosphere. With just one-eightieth of the Earth's
mass, the moon has commensurately lower gravity, which is great if you
want to play trampoline but lousy if you need to breathe, not to
mention work. Too gravitationally weak to hold an atmosphere, the
moon's face is a vacuum, so moon colonists will have to make their
own air.

3. Radiation. The lack of an atmosphere means the lunar surface is
bombarded by powerful radiation from cosmic rays. No human could ever
spend more than a few months on the moon during his or her entire life.
It will be a settlement of continual newbies.

4. Lack of Water. Again, due to low gravity and no atmosphere most
water long ago evaporated into outer space. Some scientists believe
there may still be pockets of ice hidden deep in shadows around lunar
mountains, but moon colonists should be planning to bring or make their
own H2O.

5. The Gravity Well. Proponents of space travel, including President
Bush, tout the moon's low gravity as a boon for launching crafts to
other planets - lunar escape velocity can be achieved for just 1/22nd
of the energy required to send a vehicle from Earth. But before you can
launch a craft from the moon you have to get it there. Either all the
parts have to be shipped from Earth, annihilating any energy saving, or
you have to make components on the moon itself from resources found
naturally there - a dim prospect considering the barren nature of the
lunar terrain.

6. Lack of Accessible Resources. Space enthusiasts are increasingly
championing In-Situ Resource Utilization - to wit, mining and
processing lunar materials. Specifically, they are interested in using
lunar regolith, the fine dust covering the moon's surface, as a
construction material. Unfortunately, moon dust is akin to a glassy
volcanic ash - to do anything with this stuff we'll have to
radically reinvent the building code. But who knows what wealth lies
beneath the lunar surface? In his 2004 speech, Bush enthused about the
moon's untapped and unknown mineral potential: "We may discover
resources . . . that will boggle the imagination," he declared. In
practice most mining relies on huge quantities of water for separating
different mineral components. In the absence of H2O, mining on the moon
is going to require a major technological revolution.

7. The Myth of Helium 3. Of all the moon's advantages, none is touted
more than its high concentration of helium 3, which is an ideal fuel
for nuclear fusion reactors. A helium 3 reactor would make an excellent
propulsive source for a Mars-bound spacecraft, but there is only an
estimated 10 kilograms on Earth. On the moon there's tons of the
stuff, so why not mine it in-situ? Proponents suggest that we could use
helium 3 not just for spacecraft but also to fuel terrestrial power
stations. The problem is that in order to get one pound of helium 3 you
have to sift through 200 million pounds of moon dust. If you are
willing to pay for that kind of infrastructure we'd be far better off
developing solar-power technology. Like helium 3 (which also comes from
the sun), there's enough sunlight to power all of humanity's needs
and it's freely available here on Earth.

8. The Moondoggle Factor. When President Bush launched his moon-Mars
vision, he justified the endeavor by claiming that "the fascination
generated by further [space] exploration will inspire our young people
to study math and science and engineering to create a new generation of
innovators and pioneers." Is the moon really that inspiring? NASA's
annual budget ($16 billion) is already three times that of the National
Science Foundation, and American children's science proficiency
continues to slide. In 2005 Congress actually cut the NSF's budget
and refused to fund another round of national Science and Technology
Centers because, in this age of burgeoning budget deficits, the nation
supposedly can't afford them. If we really want to inspire kids to
study math and science, investing in these areas directly would make a
whole lot more sense than sending spam in a can to mine ash in a
waterless vacuum.

"Space Cadet" wrote in message
oups.com...

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/06/07/fe...ns-reasons.php

8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony
by MARGARET WERTHEIM

1. Cost.

Any manned space program is going to be expensive. This is more expensive
than maintaining the status quo, but the status quo is starting to seem a
bit pointless.

2. There Is No Atmosphere.
4. Lack of Water.

All near term space destinations have these problems.

3. Radiation.

Easily dealt with by keeping humans in habitats protected by lunar regolith.
This means that you won't have humans bounding about on the surface very
much, but that's OK. I think that a lot of work will be done in garages
where humans will interact with robots that have been wandering around on
the surface.

6. Lack of Accessible Resources. Space enthusiasts are increasingly
championing In-Situ Resource Utilization - to wit, mining and
processing

If we are going to make significant progress in space, we have to master
this one. Sure, it's difficult, but it is a step that needs to be done.

Specifically, they are interested in using
lunar regolith, the fine dust covering the moon's surface, as a
construction material. Unfortunately, moon dust is akin to a glassy
volcanic ash - to do anything with this stuff we'll have to
radically reinvent the building code.

What building code?

In
practice most mining relies on huge quantities of water for separating
different mineral components. In the absence of H2O, mining on the moon
is going to require a major technological revolution.

On Earth, they use water because it is readily available. On the moon, they
will look at alternatives. This is what you hire engineers for. Engineers
might fail, but we should make an attempt to figure this one out. If there
is a good method of recycling water, we can use water.

7. The Myth of Helium 3.

It's not something I was counting on.

Originally Posted by Space Cadet

Hi All
Saw this article and thought I'd post it for comments.
(...)
Point 7, even though I think its a cool idea, but I do feel the
importance of Helium 3 is over rated, once we have master Nuclear
Fusion (of any kind) then I'll start taking Helium 3 more seriously,
thou, someone in this group(Henry Spencer?) pointed out that what he
heard from some experts in the field that the prospect of any kind of
controlled fusion may be unobtainable. Which is a depressing thought.(...)
.

Hi,
Since a few days I am very optimistic!
http://www.spacebanter.com/showthread.php?t=70567
Rémy

On 6 Jan 2006 12:42:34 -0800, "Space Cadet" wrote:

What do you think?


It's not the first time an article like this has surfaced. There
seems to be a knee-jerk reaciton by some people that anything aimed up
is somehow crazy. I remember an article on the Wall Street Journal
before the first Pegasus launch that referred to OSC' founders as
"three space nuts" -- it had the same basic "this is crazy!" tone.
Now someone is saying this about President Bush' Moon mission. Yawn.

None of the technical problems -- lack of air, water, etc. -- are
showstoppers, only challenges we have to address. The guys actually
working on the mission plans are already aware of them, so it has to
be a slow news day if you expect people to be surprised by the idea
that you have to bring your own air and water to the Moon (although
now that I think about it, she may be unaware of the fact that
scientists have been looking for water at the lunar poles).

The political and budgetary concerns are more problematic, but not a
showstopper unless you are a Democrat who has hated GW since before
the 2000 election. OTOH, that's where an article like this could have
an impact.




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Michael Gallagher wrote:

None of the technical problems -- lack of air, water, etc. -- are
showstoppers, only challenges we have to address.

No, just the 100 billion price tag for four guys to put footprints on the moon while
developing no credible space infrastructure, while throwing away all of our SSMEs and
trashing the ISS, STS and life sciences research, and firing all of our talented
engineers All minor little technical nits.

Yes folks, we're going to ... mars.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

I could certainly add a few reasons as to not be wasting talents and
resources upon the moon. However, for each and every naysay there's a
good dozen must-do and should-do reasons why our moon is worthy of
becoming our salvation.

Without my involving NASA/Apollo, I can argue that lunar related
benefits are significant and reasonably obtainable.

Obviously church folks don't want humanity to realize upon what our
'once upon a time' icy proto-moon had accomplished on behalf of
transferring life onto Earth. They(aka God freakologest being 100%
anti-intelligent design) can't stand the soon to be bloody thoughts of
ET intelligent design having run amuck, any more so than the fact that
our extremely salty-ice covered proto-moon had been acquired from a
nearby solar system that's nearly 3.5 fold as massive as ours, plus
having been many fold greater yet in hosting the right kinds of solar
energy (all that's needed is a home world that has a thick and fully
cloud covered atmosphere, and you're good for go).
-
Brad Guth

Thomas Lee Elifritz; Yes folks, we're going to ... mars.
Good for you, Elifritz. On your taxable nickel and, please do remember
to take along sufficient body bags.

Since we can't seem to deal with the microbes and spores we've got,
whereas if you should try to return with anything from Mars, expect to
be greeted by a few SBLs/ABLs.
-
Brad Guth

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:15:09 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:



No, just the 100 billion price tag for four guys to put footprints on the moon while
developing no credible space infrastructure, while throwing away all of our SSMEs and
trashing the ISS .....

Like SSMEs won't have to be put into production for the boosters?
Yes, they will be "thrown away" after each launch because the rockets
will be expendable, but they will be produced.


..... STS and life sciences research .....

The CEV will be used to service the space station when it is put into
service.

..... and firing all of our talented
engineers.....

Unlikely (unless you know something I don't) as they will be needed to
build the CEV, boostes, mission modules, etc. ....

..... Yes folks, we're going to ... mars.


Yes, we are!



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 13:15:09 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:



No, just the 100 billion price tag for four guys to put footprints on the moon while
developing no credible space infrastructure, while throwing away all of our SSMEs and
trashing the ISS .....



Like SSMEs won't have to be put into production for the boosters?
Yes, they will be "thrown away" after each launch because the rockets
will be expendable, but they will be produced.



That's kind of like throwing away four Trent 970s after every A380
flight, at 15 million apiece, only worse.

Everything else you say is laughable after that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz,
Here's a perfectly good reason why we'll need to at least get
microsatellites orbiting close to that sucker, or eventually robotics
actually safely deployed upon the surface and doing their thing,
whereas the sooner that's accomplish the sooner we'll be able to clean
out the perpetrated cold-war trash that has been sucking the life out
of the heart and soul of humanity, plus having polluted our environment
to a global warming fairlywell along the way.

Actually, I'd have to further conclude that the rocket-science smarts
of your warm and fuzzy Third Reich, along with all of their
collaborating Jews, was certainly a highly productive technological
phase in humanity, as well as extremely profitable basis of knowing thy
enemy and thereby snookering thy humanity to boot. Especially somewhat
of a win-win for the old Skull and Bones gipper if you were on the
collaborating side of the perpetrated cold-war equation.

donstockbaue; Oh, come on, Braddie. When I was there it wasn't
that bad. Except for Randall Tunstall and Hector Garcia And SAIC's
"Ms. Wednesday". Give'em a break. They've done some good for the
World, at least.
I've never said that your brown-nosed Third Reich, SS minions or even
that of their boss (aka Hitler) were not sufficiently smart, and thus
having indirectly contributed some worth to humanity. I believe even
Godzilla has some redeeming points. Of course, if you're dead,
prematurely dying off or just having to live within a lower standard
because of that effort, as such you might place a somewhat different
value upon such Skull and Bones achievements.

I'm simply stipulating that you supposedly kind and all-knowing folks
need to be telling us poor and uneducated village idiots what's what.
As it was your very own pagan NASA/Apollo cult having claimed as to
what's still so unbelievably fantastic to start with.

Instead of using my numbers, I'm stuck with using the NASA/Apollo
numbers, plus those of other supposedly honest rocket-scientist that
you've bet your sorry life upon. Thus it's your very own laws of
physics and of your own hard-science that sucks and blows.

There's simply too much hocus pocus, as in perpetrated cold-war cloaks
and daggers, plus ample smoke and mirrors that's keeping us common folk
away from adding up their own numbers, as to how the heck our Saturn-V
even managed GSO with such a back-breaking 52.67t initial payload. At
the supposed utmost liftoff mass; I believe that's an impressive 58:1
ratio that shouldn't have been capable of GSO, especially way back then
having the greater inert/dry mass of the Saturn-5 being what it was,
and especially without benefit of SRBs instead of that pathetic
LOX/RP-1 first stage (at the officially reported liftoff mass, Saturn-V
actually gets this task closer to their having a 55:1 translunar
capability).

LOX/RP-1 simply doesn't even come anywhere close to SRBs. There are
many of our best and extremely powerful rockets configured as per using
SRBs that can't even be effectively utilized for accomplishing GSO
deployments, that is unless they're into using the 4 stage method. It
takes considerably more of and of somewhat bigger SRBs, plus the likes
of a composite 4-stage Proton method of 122:1 via the liftoff mass of
691,272 kg, whereas that's nearly the best rocket bang we've got to
work with, that's only capable of getting relatively small payloads of
5.645t into GSO.

Since anything of a 58:1 translunar capability simply isn't within the
Saturn-V cards, or within any other new and improved stacked set of
cards, as such why don't you do the math. Then you tell me how the hell
we managed to pull off those NASA/Apollo missions.
-
Brad Guth