What should they do when (if) they get there?

Assuming NASA gets to the moon with its proposed architecture, any
suggestions for a programme of activities?

The NASA architecture seems to be optimised for putting 4 crew on to
the moon for 1 week. NASA has identified 10 sites worthy of visiting.
If that's all they do, they'd better take a lot of golf balls.

On the other hand, there are some signs of intention to establish
operations, and perhaps a base:
- NASA has stated that the architecture can land 20 tons of cargo (but
I've seen no mention of a lander that can achieve this)
- Some of the prizes NASA is offering are quite interesting; especially
the one to extract oxygen from lunar rock.

My view is that short visits of 1 week aren't much use, and NASA should
move as fast as possible to establishing a descent base (or two).

Site prospecting should be done from orbit, and by robotic landers
(which could also test out some equipment). Are there any plans for
these? How would they be launched?

How and when is NASA planning to confirm (or deny) the presence, and
form, of water at the poles?

Thoughts?

Check out lava tubes; map their interiors for possible base sites (much
easier than plowing regolith for shielding a base and much less dusty
an environment), look for frozen volatiles inside.

Yes, staying for a week is lame. Even the old Apollo program, with
changes proposed by Freeman Dyson (in the '80s, long after the end of
the program) could have had stay times of months. See the thread
'Dyson's Apollo Program'. I later made a slightly different proposal
as follows:

I will assume that President Kennedy's speech was slightly different:
"..I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the
goals, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the Moon and
establishing a permanent scientific base on our nearest celestial
neighbor." .

Science, as a goal, would not have helped sell this version to Congress
but safety and international politics could have. Landing 18 tons of
material, including life-support, prior to a manned landing could be
promoted as increasing safety; if a crew had difficulties, it could
await rescue weeks later. A permanent base could be sold for its
utility in international politics as an ongoing thumbing-of-the-nose to
the Soviets and as a venue of international cooperation, involving
foreign astronauts and equipment.

I propose the following six mission profile:

1)Freight Lander, unmanned, delivers 18 tons to surface, signals
readiness, provides radio beacon for next mission.
2)Same as #1, landing a moon buggy's drive away.
3)Freight Lander with three man crew, but no means of return, lands on
surface delivering perhaps 16 tons of cargo.
4)As soon as possible; same as #3. Now we have 68 tons of cargo and
six men on the surface so, at 40 man-days/ton of cargo, total mission
capacity would be 2,720 man-days (75 times 'old' Apollo) and total
possible manned-mission duration of 450 days (25 times 'old' Apollo).
5)400 days after mission #4 lands (leaving a 50 day 'cushion' for
launch delays) two men arrive in lunar orbit. They've brought a
capsule similar to one designed for the later (in our world) Apollo
Applications Program, with five seats rather than three. Actually,
it's a bit larger than that, to allow for increased life support as
well as rock samples. One man remains in orbit, while one descends to
the surface in a lander a bit bigger than the lander in our world.
Immediately after unloading 2 tons of supplies and loading hundreds of
pounds of rock samples, four of the 'Old Guard' crewmen depart in the
ascent vehicle, rendezvous with the Command Module and pilot, and leave
for Earth. This leaves two experienced lunar astronauts to mentor one
new arrival and provides an Earth-gravity-fresh pilot to handle the
high-gee reentry. We now have 400 man-days of supplies at the surface,
enough for a 133 day, 3 man, mission.
6)100 days later, another two men arrive, as in #5, to pick up the
three from the surface and return to Earth.

The complete mission set = 2,700 man-days (75 times 'old' Apollo) and
total mission duration 500 days (27 times 'old' Apollo). This scenario
provides more cargo mass and man-days, deals with the problem of the
lonely crewman, puts more cargo down earlier, and increases utility and
safety. It has two flaws (at least): it requires sending men to the
moon without a means of returning them safely immediately if something
goes wrong, as in Apollo 13, and the time required to develop an
additional, larger, freight-carrying, automatic lander could endanger
meeting the political deadline of 12/31/69.

The above could be adapted to the capabilities of the CEV.

Keep going there until long after the space cadets (and the general
public) get bored and start wondering what's the point of going to a
base that only goes around in circles, costs way too much, and doesn't
provide the scientific results promised.

Then go on to Mars and restart the same cycle (space shuttle, space
station, Moon, Mars, Beyond)

DJV

wrote:
Check out lava tubes; map their interiors for possible base sites (much
easier than plowing regolith for shielding a base and much less dusty
an environment), look for frozen volatiles inside.

Nice idea. This is also an where humans have a clear advantage over
robots.

Yes, staying for a week is lame. Even the old Apollo program, with
changes proposed by Freeman Dyson (in the '80s, long after the end of
the program) could have had stay times of months. See the thread
'Dyson's Apollo Program'.

For pre base exploration, it might be possible to land a mobile hab
module (solar or isotope powered). NASA's architecture claims it can
land 20 tons (mine does 14 tons). This could support a crew of 4 for
six weeks covering 100km per day. A second crew could then replace
them. Three missions (one to land the mobile unit, two crew missions)
and they'd achieve more than the whole of the current planned program.

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
ups.com...
Assuming NASA gets to the moon with its proposed architecture, any
suggestions for a programme of activities?

The NASA architecture seems to be optimised for putting 4 crew on to
the moon for 1 week. NASA has identified 10 sites worthy of visiting.
If that's all they do, they'd better take a lot of golf balls.

On the other hand, there are some signs of intention to establish
operations, and perhaps a base:
- NASA has stated that the architecture can land 20 tons of cargo (but
I've seen no mention of a lander that can achieve this)
- Some of the prizes NASA is offering are quite interesting; especially
the one to extract oxygen from lunar rock.

My view is that short visits of 1 week aren't much use, and NASA should
move as fast as possible to establishing a descent base (or two).

Site prospecting should be done from orbit, and by robotic landers
(which could also test out some equipment). Are there any plans for
these? How would they be launched?

How and when is NASA planning to confirm (or deny) the presence, and
form, of water at the poles?

Thoughts?

One question is what order should things be done in? Tasks to be
accomplished:
1. Land people on the moon.
2. Select a site for a lunar base.
3. Have manned or unmanned vehicles travel about on the moon looking for
good places to develop.
4. Set up a manned base.
5. Set up unmanned bases.
6. Mining and manufacturing.

Michael Rhino wrote:


One question is what order should things be done in? Tasks to be
accomplished:
1. Land people on the moon.
2. Select a site for a lunar base.
3. Have manned or unmanned vehicles travel about on the moon looking for
good places to develop.
4. Set up a manned base.
5. Set up unmanned bases.
6. Mining and manufacturing.

1. Orbit the moon with every scanner possible. Look for water and lava
tubes. Make very detailed maps. Select a long list of interesting sites
2. Land explorer robots at sites of special interest. These would be
"ton-class" robots able drive several km, dig into lunar regolith,
analyse soils etc.
3. Land experimental packages. These would be a follow on of NASA's
prizes, e.g. a unit to extract oxygen from regolith, a unit to extract
and electrolyse water from polar soils.
4. Select a short list of sites for a base.
5. Send crew to shortlisted sites, maximum of three missions.
6. Land equipment for base: Power Station, Utility Module, Mining Gear,
Soil Processing Unit, Fuel handling equipment, Hab Module, Repair
shack, Rovers, assembley Robots. This is about 140 tons, or 7 unmanned
missions with NASA architecture.
7. Send crew.
8. Start mining and manufacturing. The main role of the crew is then to
repair equipment - hence the importance of the repair shack - big room
with big airlock.

New Scientist has an article on prospective landing sites. First
paragraph is at..

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825194.200.html

Basically, they say its not clear why we're going to the moon, so its
not clear what we'll do there. The lunar Scientists would like as many
bases as possible, the Explorers / Expoliters / Mars fans would like a
base as soon as possible.

Michael Rhino wrote:

One question is what order should things be done in? Tasks to be
accomplished:
1. Land people on the moon.
2. Select a site for a lunar base.
3. Have manned or unmanned vehicles travel about on the moon looking for
good places to develop.
4. Set up a manned base.
5. Set up unmanned bases.
6. Mining and manufacturing.


Easy:

0. Establish low-cost access to LEO.

Without that, nothing else we want to do will be truly sustainable.

--

You know what to remove, to reply....

http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"Joann Evans" wrote in message
...
Michael Rhino wrote:

One question is what order should things be done in? Tasks to be
accomplished:
1. Land people on the moon.
2. Select a site for a lunar base.
3. Have manned or unmanned vehicles travel about on the moon looking for
good places to develop.
4. Set up a manned base.
5. Set up unmanned bases.
6. Mining and manufacturing.


Easy:

0. Establish low-cost access to LEO.

Without that, nothing else we want to do will be truly sustainable.

But that means spending money to go someplace we don't want to go. Why not
skip LEO, fly straight to the moon and work on low cost access to the moon?

"Michael Rhino" wrote:

But that means spending money to go someplace we don't want to go.

Over the STS/ISS years, the growth of whining about "all we're doing
is going around in circles" seems to have caused a lot of people to
forget the point of "LEO is halfway to anywhere."