Improved lunar landing architecture

The art work coming out of NASA and other sources seems to imply an
Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch
most of your capsule back, and then discard it. At least the Apollo
program had the sense to leave the Rovers and Flags behind! The Apollo
ascent stage weighed 4.54 tons.

Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel,
making 2 tons to be landed. To land 2 tons on the moon needs about 15
tons in Low Earth Orbit. So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar
surface to Lunar Orbit.

So why not seek to minimise the mass launched from the lunar surface to
the orbiting CEV?

This could be done by landing on the lunar surface a standard 10 ton
pallet* consisting of a 7 ton habitation module, an asecender stage and
fuel for the ascender.

Given the astroanuts will need to suit up to leave the hab module, and
the journey from surface to CEV needs to be only and hour or so, an
unpressurised, unfueled ascender could weigh in at 1.5 tons, even with
a crew of 4.

The current approach can only land a 5 ton hab module as part of a 10
ton landing. Alos, with the proposed approach the hab module can be
reused for later missions, should these come to the same location. (As
they will when a proper base needs to be established)

Is this approach feasible or likely?

Alex
--------------
*I know US and English language differs quite a lot around trucking and
freight distribution, but I assume "pallet" is also a US word?

On 6 Aug 2005 02:05:28 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

The art work coming out of NASA and other sources seems to imply an
Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch
most of your capsule back, and then discard it.

It seems possible that they could go into orbit around the Earth and
to drop if off. That way they could reuse it, but that depends on
maintenance.

At least the Apollo program had the sense to leave the Rovers and Flags
behind! The Apollo ascent stage weighed 4.54 tons.

Obviously. They did take back a lot of moon rocks though.

Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel,
making 2 tons to be landed. To land 2 tons on the moon needs about 15
tons in Low Earth Orbit. So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar
surface to Lunar Orbit.

So why not seek to minimise the mass launched from the lunar surface to
the orbiting CEV?

The idea has hope.

This could be done by landing on the lunar surface a standard 10 ton
pallet* consisting of a 7 ton habitation module, an asecender stage and
fuel for the ascender.

Given the astroanuts will need to suit up to leave the hab module, and
the journey from surface to CEV needs to be only and hour or so, an
unpressurised, unfueled ascender could weigh in at 1.5 tons, even with
a crew of 4.

That makes 2.5 to 3 tons fueled then?

The current approach can only land a 5 ton hab module as part of a 10
ton landing.

They are sure to land their hab module, and more, as part of a cargo
only landing. Should they actually have the hardware to be able to do
that, which seems likely with a little foresight. No use linking
people and cargo into a locked joint system.

To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
planned.

Not that this seems like the best plan if you ask me.

Alos, with the proposed approach the hab module can be
reused for later missions, should these come to the same location. (As
they will when a proper base needs to be established)

So that is a one shot mission. Not the best idea to build a new man
rated vehicle for a one shot use. And what about when they want to
visit another location? No chance of them dropping a hab module down
every place that they go.

Is this approach feasible or likely?

You seem to forget the Apollo 13 problem. As just what would your
astronauts do if their CEV breaks down somewhere during this lunar
trip? Based on your idea they would die.

The Lunar Lander can be used as a back-up should the CEV break down.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:
On 6 Aug 2005 02:05:28 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

The art work coming out of NASA and other sources seems to imply an
Apollo approach, namely, land your capsule on the moon, explore, launch
most of your capsule back, and then discard it.

It seems possible that they could go into orbit around the Earth and
to drop if off. That way they could reuse it, but that depends on
maintenance.

After it's burned up in the atmosphere? Actually, it would be left in
lunar orbit. Could be retrievable, but unlikely.

At least the Apollo program had the sense to leave the Rovers and Flags
behind! The Apollo ascent stage weighed 4.54 tons.

Obviously. They did take back a lot of moon rocks though.

Approximately, to launch 1 ton from the moon requires 1 ton of fuel,
making 2 tons to be landed. To land 2 tons on the moon needs about 15
tons in Low Earth Orbit. So a 15:1 ratio from Low Earth Orbit to Lunar
surface to Lunar Orbit.

So why not seek to minimise the mass launched from the lunar surface to
the orbiting CEV?

The idea has hope.

This could be done by landing on the lunar surface a standard 10 ton
pallet* consisting of a 7 ton habitation module, an asecender stage and
fuel for the ascender.

Given the astroanuts will need to suit up to leave the hab module, and
the journey from surface to CEV needs to be only and hour or so, an
unpressurised, unfueled ascender could weigh in at 1.5 tons, even with
a crew of 4.

That makes 2.5 to 3 tons fueled then?

Yes

The current approach can only land a 5 ton hab module as part of a 10
ton landing.

They are sure to land their hab module, and more, as part of a cargo
only landing. Should they actually have the hardware to be able to do
that, which seems likely with a little foresight. No use linking
people and cargo into a locked joint system.

Could be. My way, one luanch puts down a 10 ton hab module. The next
two launches put up a lunar orbiting CEV, and a ten ton pallet
consisitng of a 3 ton ascender stage and 7 tons of supplies and
provisions. That would enable a stay of several months.

To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
planned.

Yes. A base should be established as soon as possible, though they
might need a bit of exploration to establish the optimum site. Most of
this exploration should be robotic though.

Not that this seems like the best plan if you ask me.

Alos, with the proposed approach the hab module can be
reused for later missions, should these come to the same location. (As
they will when a proper base needs to be established)

So that is a one shot mission. Not the best idea to build a new man
rated vehicle for a one shot use. And what about when they want to
visit another location? No chance of them dropping a hab module down
every place that they go.

No this is not a one shot mission. Whether you want to visit a place
once, or establish a base, the logic of taking off from the moon as
light as possible remains. i.e, don't take your house with you. Also,
when you visit a potential future base, it makes sense to leave behind
your hab module.

Is this approach feasible or likely?

You seem to forget the Apollo 13 problem. As just what would your
astronauts do if their CEV breaks down somewhere during this lunar
trip? Based on your idea they would die.

The Lunar Lander can be used as a back-up should the CEV break down.

Not really. The lunar lander would be stuck in lunar orbit till the
crew die. With my approach the crew would of course only leave the
lunar surface if the CEV reports all systems OK. Ultimately of course,
a CEV arrives, drops a crew off and picks up another crew at the same
time. They just need to remember to leave the doors unlocked, or at
least hand over the "keys".

On 6 Aug 2005 04:14:16 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
It seems possible that they could go into orbit around the Earth and
to drop if off. That way they could reuse it, but that depends on
maintenance.

After it's burned up in the atmosphere? Actually, it would be left in
lunar orbit. Could be retrievable, but unlikely.

It sounds workable. It would be a shame to throw away such expensive
hardware, when it would only need a servicing.

Could be. My way, one luanch puts down a 10 ton hab module. The next
two launches put up a lunar orbiting CEV, and a ten ton pallet
consisitng of a 3 ton ascender stage and 7 tons of supplies and
provisions. That would enable a stay of several months.

Sounds nice.

To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
planned.

Yes. A base should be established as soon as possible,

Yes, we know that don't we. NASA instead prefers to build up slowly.

I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

though they
might need a bit of exploration to establish the optimum site. Most of
this exploration should be robotic though.

Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.

No this is not a one shot mission. Whether you want to visit a place
once, or establish a base, the logic of taking off from the moon as
light as possible remains. i.e, don't take your house with you. Also,
when you visit a potential future base, it makes sense to leave behind
your hab module.

NASA certainly won't have more than two bases. These extra bases would
also need to be filled. So a main base and then a second base should
they find somewhere that they want to spend a lot of time at.

The Lunar Lander can be used as a back-up should the CEV break down.

Not really. The lunar lander would be stuck in lunar orbit till the
crew die. With my approach the crew would of course only leave the
lunar surface if the CEV reports all systems OK.

You overlook about what happens if the CEV breaks down only when it is
on it's journey. That is a lot more likely than something happening
while in orbit.

The crew of Apollo 13 would have died had they rode on your system,
which is my point. You need to send two entire craft that can keep
astronauts alive just in case one fails.

Ultimately of course,
a CEV arrives, drops a crew off and picks up another crew at the same
time. They just need to remember to leave the doors unlocked, or at
least hand over the "keys".

It could well be a long time before NASA does that.

You would also have to keep a backup plan in case your hab module
fails. One base, two hab modules.

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On 6 Aug 2005 04:14:16 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

To begin with though they won't bother with a hab module at all. Just
a usual land, look around, and depart. NASA I guess is unlikely to
think "base" until 2020. That is if they land on the Moon in 2018 as
planned.

Yes. A base should be established as soon as possible,

Yes, we know that don't we. NASA instead prefers to build up slowly.

I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.

I agree. If the Chinese were smart, they could use this approach and catch
us off guard. Many American politicians would be in a state of denial until
they launched their astronauts.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

With budget cuts, it's hard to do. ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people.
Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program. I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.

Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.

I would guess both. You need some nuclear to survive the night, but the sun
would allow you to do more in the daytime. You could have some solar
powered vehicles that don't do anything at night.

No this is not a one shot mission. Whether you want to visit a place
once, or establish a base, the logic of taking off from the moon as
light as possible remains. i.e, don't take your house with you. Also,
when you visit a potential future base, it makes sense to leave behind
your hab module.

NASA certainly won't have more than two bases. These extra bases would
also need to be filled. So a main base and then a second base should
they find somewhere that they want to spend a lot of time at.

I can see having temporary habitats in addition to a permanently manned
base. Suppose that astronauts land at the equator, go to a hut to change
clothes and then drive down to the permanent base near the south pole. You
could also have a temporary hut near a mining location.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.

I agree. If the Chinese were smart, they could use this approach and catch
us off guard. Many American politicians would be in a state of denial until
they launched their astronauts.

Well, it is still a little early for the Chinese to beat NASA, one
launch done and all that. Still, if they can reach the Moon, then
there is hope.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

With budget cuts, it's hard to do. ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people.

No it was not. It is running on 2 people anyway, unless Discovery
dropped off one person that is, which seems doubtful.

So I can say that 7 people is the end objective, which the ISS can
only support once fully complete. The ISS usually runs on 3 people
now, but due to the shuttle being out of action for 2.5 years, then
they reduced it to 2 people to reduce demand on the supplies.

Congress has agreed that NASA can complete the ISS in a more mini-ISS
format, but they are asking NASA to justify why the ISS cannot be
fully completed to the 7 people level.

So had NASA wanted to fully complete the ISS, then it seems likely
that congress would pay for it. If it had been up to me, then I would
ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS.

"Eat your greens" and all that.

Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.

Mars is the main goal here. Some people would prefer a more direct
route, without going to the Moon first. They believe that the Moon
programme simply delays, and puts at risk, the Mars programme.

I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.

The CEV is designed into a modular system, where it can also be the
head end on a larger Mars craft.

Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.

I would guess both. You need some nuclear to survive the night,

The night? That is what batteries are for. Also there is no "night",
which is why they call it "the peak of eternal sunlight". Kind of like
the Arctic on Earth, but without the seasonal wobble.

NASA needs nuclear not for keeping their crews warm and powering the
equipment, but for achieving the extremely hot temperatures needed in
their refinery plans. Mostly making use of the lunar regolith.

but the sun would allow you to do more in the daytime.

Nothing that an overhead floodlight would not cure. You seem to be
pointing out problems that were solved long ago.

You could have some solar powered vehicles that don't do anything at night.

Or you could just fit them with a big battery.

Anyway, you can rest assured that the Sun never sets on "the peak of
eternal sunlight", which is why this place would make a good location
to build a base. Also it is not too far from the assumed water.

I can see having temporary habitats in addition to a permanently manned
base. Suppose that astronauts land at the equator, go to a hut to change
clothes and then drive down to the permanent base near the south pole. You
could also have a temporary hut near a mining location.

Well a TransHab is not exactly a hut. Also what you currently overlook
is that your TransHab needs to be buried under a nice thick layer of
lunar regolith.

That is done to keep your astronauts alive when a powerful solar storm
washes over the lunar surface. So if you desire to move a temporary
base about, then that is a lot of work to dig it up and then to bury
it again.

From your snipping I guess that you also now see how you would have
killed the Apollo 13 crew.

Cardman.

Cardman wrote:
On 6 Aug 2005 04:14:16 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.


Well, that's the approach I've taken he
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/C...stellation.pdf

On page 14 of 66 you'll see the crew are just the 8th delivery to the
polar base. Once the crew arrive, there's a commitment to regular
supply and support flights.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

I've put in water mining and electrolysis, and general base development
initially.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 19:26:48 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
. ..
I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.

I agree. If the Chinese were smart, they could use this approach and
catch
us off guard. Many American politicians would be in a state of denial
until
they launched their astronauts.

Well, it is still a little early for the Chinese to beat NASA, one
launch done and all that. Still, if they can reach the Moon, then
there is hope.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

With budget cuts, it's hard to do. ISS was cut down from 7 to 3 people.

No it was not. It is running on 2 people anyway, unless Discovery
dropped off one person that is, which seems doubtful.

So I can say that 7 people is the end objective, which the ISS can
only support once fully complete. The ISS usually runs on 3 people
now, but due to the shuttle being out of action for 2.5 years, then
they reduced it to 2 people to reduce demand on the supplies.

Congress has agreed that NASA can complete the ISS in a more mini-ISS
format, but they are asking NASA to justify why the ISS cannot be
fully completed to the 7 people level.

So had NASA wanted to fully complete the ISS, then it seems likely
that congress would pay for it. If it had been up to me, then I would
ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS.

I would abandon ISS and concentrate on the moon.



"Eat your greens" and all that.

Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.

Mars is the main goal here. Some people would prefer a more direct
route, without going to the Moon first. They believe that the Moon
programme simply delays, and puts at risk, the Mars programme.

I don't see it as a goal during my lifetime.

I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.

The CEV is designed into a modular system, where it can also be the
head end on a larger Mars craft.

If there are going to be many launches to the moon, then you want something
that is optimized for the task. If the Mars launch is 40 years away, why
add a bunch of bells and whistles that are useless for a Lunar program? I
don't know what the CEV design is.



Yes, where the first step is to find the water. A base on or near the
so called peak of eternal sunlight would be good. Although I hear that
NASA is planning on nuclear instead of solar.

I would guess both. You need some nuclear to survive the night,

The night? That is what batteries are for. Also there is no "night",
which is why they call it "the peak of eternal sunlight". Kind of like
the Arctic on Earth, but without the seasonal wobble.

NASA needs nuclear not for keeping their crews warm and powering the
equipment, but for achieving the extremely hot temperatures needed in
their refinery plans. Mostly making use of the lunar regolith.

but the sun would allow you to do more in the daytime.

Nothing that an overhead floodlight would not cure. You seem to be
pointing out problems that were solved long ago.

I was talking about energy, not lighting. You are thinking in terms of a
large amount of nuclear energy on the moon. Given the perceived risks
involved in launching anything nuclear, that may be hard to do. We need to
figure out how to make things out of Lunar resources and solar panels strike
me as something that can be made on the moon. Once we have that figured
out, we may have nearly unlimited daytime energy. Once we have plenty of
energy, other tasks, such as mining, become easier. People on Earth will be
able to launch equipment without solar panels.

You could have some solar powered vehicles that don't do anything at
night.

Or you could just fit them with a big battery.

Anyway, you can rest assured that the Sun never sets on "the peak of
eternal sunlight", which is why this place would make a good location
to build a base. Also it is not too far from the assumed water.

I can see having temporary habitats in addition to a permanently manned
base. Suppose that astronauts land at the equator, go to a hut to change
clothes and then drive down to the permanent base near the south pole.
You
could also have a temporary hut near a mining location.

Well a TransHab is not exactly a hut. Also what you currently overlook
is that your TransHab needs to be buried under a nice thick layer of
lunar regolith.

That is done to keep your astronauts alive when a powerful solar storm
washes over the lunar surface. So if you desire to move a temporary
base about, then that is a lot of work to dig it up and then to bury
it again.

I wasn't thinking in terms of moving them. By temporary, I meant that it is
usually unmanned, but is manned when there are tasks to be performed at that
location.

From your snipping I guess that you also now see how you would have
killed the Apollo 13 crew.

Strange criticism.

On 6 Aug 2005 15:00:29 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
On 6 Aug 2005 04:14:16 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

I would much prefer to have the base all up and running even before
the first astronaut steps foot on there. They could have a rover do
some required assembly.

Well, that's the approach I've taken he
http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/C...stellation.pdf

On page 14 of 66 you'll see the crew are just the 8th delivery to the
polar base. Once the crew arrive, there's a commitment to regular
supply and support flights.

Yes, I had a quick read through it, mostly picking up on interesting
points.

And the one thing that NASA won't grasp or do in a million years is to
actually keep people there to live and work. Construction seems like
the first priority. Communication, electricity, water (hopefully) and
to pave over the entire area to keep that pesky regolith out.

I've put in water mining and electrolysis, and general base development
initially.

The reason why I mentioned that this regolith dust matter should be
tacked early on, is because it poses a real toxic hazard for both
people and equipment. Not to mention that it is good at getting in
every fold and gap.

Since the main output from your chemical processing is bricks and
glass, then so is it easy to include paving slabs in this plan. And by
paving over the area around your base, then you both minimise the
regolith problem and it makes driving a damned lot easier.

From your document I noticed a few things, like how you often lack
backup facilities in case of failure.

Next would be that NASA is not a commercial company and thus they
won't ever become a dominant player in the energy market. How much
NASA allows commercial companies to do work remains to be seen.

I also noticed your plan to build a very long train track between
bases, where my thought was that there is only one ideal train system
for the Moon. That would be MagLev.

What I mean is that if you keep your track out of the sunlight, then
so do you have the perfect temperature for superconductivity. And to
top that off doing this in a void results close to zero friction.

Such trains in Earth already hold the world speed record, but this is
nothing compared to what you could do in a void. I am not even sure
how fast you could really go, where I guess that comes close to
unlimited, but a speed of like 7000 kph is certainly possible.

So instead of taking you 24 hours to move between bases, then this
could well take less than 1 hour. Certainly this is a more complex
system than your 100 year old technology, but then you are already on
page 54/66 at this point.

MagLev was born for the Moon. To not actually use it in this perfect
environment would be insane.

That bring me on to the other point not covered in your document,
which is death, disaster, crime and family emergency. Even this MagLev
system would produce a stunning display should it ever seriously go
wrong. Half your train doing 7000 kph aerobics into the side of some
hill, while your other half sends passengers, goods, and farm yard
animals, into deep space.

Sounds like a plan with a lot of good points anyway. I am just
doubting that NASA could even come close. More like a blow-up tent
that they spend 1 week at each 6 months.

Your large domes would find another interesting use it seems. Give
people wings and they could fly like the birds. Sound like a good
first lunar sports event. Throw in a ball and all that.

Cardman.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:13:47 GMT, "Michael Rhino"
wrote:

"Cardman" wrote in message
.. .
Congress has agreed that NASA can complete the ISS in a more mini-ISS
format, but they are asking NASA to justify why the ISS cannot be
fully completed to the 7 people level.

So had NASA wanted to fully complete the ISS, then it seems likely
that congress would pay for it. If it had been up to me, then I would
ban NASA spending on a Moon base, until they had finished the ISS.

I would abandon ISS and concentrate on the moon.

Nice. Then later on you would pop back up and say that they should
abandon the Moon and concentrate on Mars.

Like it or not NASA needs the ISS. That is the only current place
where they can simulate a trip to Mars and back. Except that NASA is
too girlie to let them go beyond 6 months, even though the Russians
want to do longer.

Mars is the main goal here. Some people would prefer a more direct
route, without going to the Moon first. They believe that the Moon
programme simply delays, and puts at risk, the Mars programme.

I don't see it as a goal during my lifetime.

Depends on how old you are. NASA should be heading to Mars somewhere
between 2030 to 2040. Maybe even the Chinese or the Tourists could
beat them to it.

And yes NASA moves so slowly that you could indeed die before their
plans come about. They could have made it to Mars back during the 70s,
or early 80s, but here we are.

I think that CEV should be designed as a Lunar rocket and
nothing else.

The CEV is designed into a modular system, where it can also be the
head end on a larger Mars craft.

If there are going to be many launches to the moon, then you want something
that is optimized for the task. If the Mars launch is 40 years away, why
add a bunch of bells and whistles that are useless for a Lunar program? I
don't know what the CEV design is.

A nice looking "cone". Good launch, fair space work, questionable
reentry.

From this they will add on further sections to extended their stay in
space. Then they will add on a suitable lander, for where ever they
desire to go.

It would be nice if they made an CEV add-on section out of TransHab,
which would provide plenty of space for whatever they needed.

Nothing that an overhead floodlight would not cure. You seem to be
pointing out problems that were solved long ago.

I was talking about energy, not lighting. You are thinking in terms of a
large amount of nuclear energy on the moon. Given the perceived risks
involved in launching anything nuclear, that may be hard to do.

Piece of cake. They won't actually turn their nuclear power planet on
until it is installed. Since people at home often get electricity from
nuclear, then they would understand.

We need to
figure out how to make things out of Lunar resources and solar panels strike
me as something that can be made on the moon.

That they could, but reaching the high temperatures required for their
refinery would be a lot more difficult.

Nuclear is good. Strong power source for their base.

Once we have that figured out, we may have nearly unlimited daytime energy.

I am sure that NASA has already worked out the numbers.

Once we have plenty of energy, other tasks, such as mining, become easier.

We will have to see if NASA does actually "mine". Currently they seem
more interested in processing the regolith. A mine would be good, but
first you have to find an application for your ores.

People on Earth will be able to launch equipment without solar panels.

Even with nuclear they could still make solar panels.

That is done to keep your astronauts alive when a powerful solar storm
washes over the lunar surface. So if you desire to move a temporary
base about, then that is a lot of work to dig it up and then to bury
it again.

I wasn't thinking in terms of moving them. By temporary, I meant that it is
usually unmanned, but is manned when there are tasks to be performed at that
location.

Your temporary bases also cost money. Like any colony plan they need
to find out where all the good resources are and then to put a base
right in the middle. Or at least close to what they most need early
on.

Strange criticism.

Sorry, that was a comment to Alex Terrell. I forgot who I replied to
for a second.

Cardman.