8 Reasons Why Going Back to the Moon Is Loony

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.