NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 23:58:29 GMT, "abracadabra"
wrote:

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
roups.com...
Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do.

What could we exploit on the moon that would worth the shipping cost (OK, I
know it takes a lot less energy to break lunar orbit than to break terran
orbit, but still!)


And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list
of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed.

A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could
have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

*sigh*
I remember staying up late to see men walk on the moon. I slept through it,
but I'll never forget how everyone in the USA (in my little world of
elementary school) saw everything differently the next day.

There was barely anything to see ... the TV pix were
horribly contrasty. The semi-decent stuff they show
today is what they got after carefully image-processing
the tapes.

On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Brian

On Mon, 19 Sep 2005 21:25:49 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

NOT GOOD ENOUGH.

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Brian

I'm sure on some counts, NASA productivity since 1972 has fallen 75%.
Besides, how do you measure productivity if there's no defined outcome?
Kg of moon rock returned? Golf balls hit? Astronaut bounces? TV
audience? Holes dug? Or how about: O2 extracted? Tourists hosted?
Catapult launches? Km2 of solar arrays built?

But again - for what? The only justification for a short stay mission
should be to confirm a site for base. In other words, robots select a
shortlist of base sites. A crew visits each of the sites to make the
final selection.

If the base sites are all near each other (e.g. South Pole) one mission
lasting about 6 weeks could explore them all. The NASA architecture
doesn't even enable this (though I suspect the new rover will be SUV
derived).

On 21 Sep 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Brian Thorn wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Besides, how do you measure productivity if there's no defined outcome?

What you do with the time is a irrelevant, but the ESAS moon program
should provide 200% more surface time than Apollo. How's that?

If the base sites are all near each other (e.g. South Pole) one mission
lasting about 6 weeks could explore them all. The NASA architecture
doesn't even enable this (though I suspect the new rover will be SUV
derived).

Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure. A specialized version of the Lander
could be used to "hop" anywhere else on the moon and come back...
essentially Apollo missions which start and end at the Base. Fuel for
the hopper could be landed by cargoless versions of the Earth
Departure Stage or Tanker versions of the Lander, if not manufactured
in-situ.

Brian

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 18:26:32 -0500, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

Well, over 200% more. (2x crew, 2.25x stay time.)

Besides, how do you measure productivity if there's no defined outcome?

What you do with the time is a irrelevant, but the ESAS moon program
should provide 200% more surface time than Apollo. How's that?

Pitiful, considering the cost.

If the base sites are all near each other (e.g. South Pole) one mission
lasting about 6 weeks could explore them all. The NASA architecture
doesn't even enable this (though I suspect the new rover will be SUV
derived).

Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure.

Not if the infrastructure to make it affordable to visit it is
nonexistent.

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 21 Sep 2005 00:07:40 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Once you have a base on the Moon, it would open up exploration of the
entire surface at your leisure. A specialized version of the Lander
could be used to "hop" anywhere else on the moon and come back...
essentially Apollo missions which start and end at the Base. Fuel for
the hopper could be landed by cargoless versions of the Earth
Departure Stage or Tanker versions of the Lander, if not manufactured
in-situ.


Also a nice starting place to build missiles.


Brian

On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do.

I question our ability, and motivation, to exploit the
moon WITHOUT a substantial number of humans present. As
I see it, the commercial exploitation will follow along
naturally as lunar colonists begin to exceed their own
needs and have surplus material to export.

And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list
of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed.

Maybe ... but probably not. IMHO, everything can be done
using bots unless there's some really complicated fix-it
job required on an excavator or drilling machine or
whatever.

A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could
have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

"A little more" isn't worth doing. This is going to be EXPENSIVE
and somewhat DANGEROUS - so let's make it WORTH the pain. The
moon isn't going anywhere. We can wait a bit longer if necessary
or refocus our existing timeline on colonization and commercial
exploitation rather than 'tourism'. I want the moon to be a
money-maker, or at least self-supporting. The prime first products
will be exotic minerals and electricity (microwaved back to earth
and/or space-stations).

Using bots to do 98% of the set-up work is sensible and economical.
Yes, some little inflatable moon-hab could be dropped down so
people could do maintenence visits, but the bots should dig the
first mines, drill the first wells, assemble the BIG habitat
for the initial wave of colonists.

Ought to be able to use solar heat to sinter lunar soil & rock
into standard interlockable structural components. Just spray the
inside with a sealant afterwards ... could even make THAT there,
if water for making the silicones is availible. If NO water is
availible then a lunar colony probably isn't worth it and we should
either leave it to the bots or arrange to crash a nice wet comet
gently into the moon.

AlienGreenspawn wrote:
On 19 Sep 2005 15:32:23 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:

Almost agree. It doesn't need colonisation; exploitation would do.

I question our ability, and motivation, to exploit the
moon WITHOUT a substantial number of humans present. As
I see it, the commercial exploitation will follow along
naturally as lunar colonists begin to exceed their own
needs and have surplus material to export.

What do you mean by substantial. I mean this:

http://fp.alexterrell.plus.com/web/C...stellation.pdf

The crew would be company workers, not colonists, at least for several
years. Ultimately, IF it works for the rats, and then the chimpanzees,
people might be allowed to have kids on the moon.

And there might be a case for sending manned crew to visit a short list
of chosen base locations, before the base is deployed.

Maybe ... but probably not. IMHO, everything can be done
using bots unless there's some really complicated fix-it
job required on an excavator or drilling machine or
whatever.

Maybe. Perhaps NASA should figure this out before designing an
architecture to continue Apollo.

A descent cargo lander could have landed a mobile base, which could
have been crewed on an adhoc basis. As it is, each mission will do just
a little more than Apollo did 50 years before it.

"A little more" isn't worth doing. This is going to be EXPENSIVE
and somewhat DANGEROUS - so let's make it WORTH the pain. The
moon isn't going anywhere. We can wait a bit longer if necessary
or refocus our existing timeline on colonization and commercial
exploitation rather than 'tourism'. I want the moon to be a
money-maker, or at least self-supporting. The prime first products
will be exotic minerals and electricity (microwaved back to earth
and/or space-stations).

Agree. Though first materials might be Oxygen and Water.

Using bots to do 98% of the set-up work is sensible and economical.
Yes, some little inflatable moon-hab could be dropped down so
people could do maintenence visits, but the bots should dig the
first mines, drill the first wells, assemble the BIG habitat
for the initial wave of colonists.

I know its sci-fi, but Mike Combs story here is great:
http://members.aol.com/howiecombs/tnbttbt.htm

You'll see in my routemap I state the bulk of the work the crew do is
repairing machines. Actual machine and base operation would be done
from Earth, or by computers. The crew will be one Scientist, ten super
mechanics, and a doctor.

Ought to be able to use solar heat to sinter lunar soil & rock
into standard interlockable structural components. Just spray the
inside with a sealant afterwards ... could even make THAT there,
if water for making the silicones is availible. If NO water is
availible then a lunar colony probably isn't worth it and we should
either leave it to the bots or arrange to crash a nice wet comet
gently into the moon.

Or use lava tubes. Or just use big inflatable structures, with regolith
for shielding.

Actually,

The Hubble telescope recently spotted the Titlelist that Buzz Aldrin
was was whacking around. Ever golf fans, the republicans want to
finish the round...

But on a more serious note -- we will not be alone when we go back up
there, the chinese will be up there. In reality it's a
military/industrial/complex take and hold the higher ground at any cost
thannnggg...