Moon Base or orbiting moon space station 2020-2030

[jefferiestubes8]

Russia is also planning to send two unmanned missions to the Moon by 2020, the Luna Glob and the Luna Resource,

The project of a “prospective manned transportation system” to be sent to the Moon is currently being developed, the Roscosmos chief said.

There are two options, he said: “either to set up a base on the Moon or to launch a station to orbit around it.”

I can't see the appeal of an orbiting Moon space station except for future missions of actual landings on the Moon to provide backup communications as well as emergency options to pickup astronauts or send down food/water/oxygen supplies if the return vehicle from the moon's surface fails.

Russian Space Agency Roscosmos is in talks with its European and U.S. partners on the creation of manned research bases on the Moon, the agencies chief, Vladimir Popovkin, said on Thursday.

January 19, 2012
Roscosmos Revives Permanent Moon Base Plans
http://en.rian.ru/science/20120119/170840782.html

Is 2020-2030 going to be a golden age of lunar exploration? It sounds like other countries are seriously investing in it. It's easier than Mars but landing on other moons further out would allow us to explore beyond the Mars distance. Why not just push the ISS space station with an slow ion propulsion over to the moon and place it in high orbit?

related threads:
US retreat leaves China leading way in race to return to Moon
http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=120125
Japan taking humanoid robots to moon by 2015

Oh and for those who always like to bring up the funding & the politics of outer space exploration. There is already a thread for funding of a mission to Mars. You may as well post there too:funding for manned Mission to Mars [financial/political ONLY]

 

[sojourner]

That last thread you linked is over a year old. no reason to resuscitate it now.

ISS is too big to slowly move with ion propulsion out of low earth orbit.

The russians have less money than we do in regards to space exploration. Take any claims of manned exploration from them with a huge grain of salt.

Not sure what you mean by "it's easier than Mars but landing on other moons further out would allow us to explore beyond Mars distance."

The Earth-Moon lagranges are better locations than orbit of the moon to place a station for moon exploration.

 

[jefferiestubes8]

That last thread you linked is over a year old. no reason to resuscitate it now.

I am providing it for others to see the similar conversations on TrekBBS. Only Posting in an old thread is frowned upon. Linking to a thread is always relevant for it's content just like linking to any webpage outside of TrekBBS.
If someone feels they have something to add to another thread they will themselves see the date of the last post and decide what they want to do: post to an old thread, post something relevant to this discussion or start a new thread.
That old thread has a link to this specific relevant info which I'll detail here:

Russia plans to send a manned mission to the moon by 2025

A station that could be inhabited could be built there between 2027 and 2032, he said.

So that has been their plans for a long time.

ISS is too big to slowly move with ion propulsion out of low earth orbit.

Maybe in 10 years that will not be the case.[/QUOTE]

Not sure what you mean by "it's easier than Mars but landing on other moons further out would allow us to explore beyond Mars distance."

Landing humans on the moon and building a moon base and safely returning humans to earth is easier than doing it on Mars.
If we were to send humans further to another moon without atmosphere may give us more scientifically since all of the manned exploration in the late 1960s and since then with unmanned probes to the moon.

 

[sojourner]

Except for the part where you invited people to post in a dead thread. Yeah.
In ten years that won't be the case? why? are they going to break it into smaller pieces? Because no ion propulsion engine is going to be produced in the next 10 years big enough to move the ISS to orbit the Moon.

Yes, landing on low gravity moons is much easier than landing on Mars. That's a given.

 

[MacLeod]

One possible reason to set up a space station in Luna Orbit is to use it as staging point for a manned Mars Mission.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The russians have less money than we do in regards to space exploration.

That's been the case since Sputnik was just a doodle on Korolev's napkin, and yet their space program has been more active and more innovative than ours for the past sixty years. NASA is good at performing flashy high-profile missions severely overbudget (and only occasionally on-time) with very pretty spacecraft and very narrow safety margins; the Russians are good at performing innovative and sophisticated missions with butt-ugly spacecraft on a shoestring budget and safety margins wide enough to park a jumbo jet.

IF they do it, they'll find a way to do it cheaply (they don't have a choice), which means they'll be able to KEEP doing it for a long period of time.

The Earth-Moon lagranges are better locations than orbit of the moon to place a station for moon exploration.

Why? It only takes about 1100m/s Delta-V to get up and down from low lunar orbit, and the D-V to/from LEO is exactly the same as it would be for the lagrange points.

Except it's a bit harder to do a low-energy transfer to a Lagrange point (since you don't have this big dumbass moon to capture you with its gravity) and their remoteness makes them a pretty useless location as a support base since anything heading for the moon will take the better part of a week to get there (and vice versa, which makes the moonbase a non-viable destination if the space station has an emergency).

There's also the fact that the only water resources on the moon are in the polar regions and a space station in polar orbit would be in a really good position to support an expedition to the polar regions while a space station at L4 or L5 would face some penalties sending payloads to or from a lunar polar orbit.

Except for the part where you invited people to post in a dead thread. Yeah.
In ten years that won't be the case? why? are they going to break it into smaller pieces? Because no ion propulsion engine is going to be produced in the next 10 years big enough to move the ISS to orbit the Moon.

VASIMR could, if you gave it a big enough power supply.

OTOH, breaking it into smaller pieces might not be such a bad idea. You could use an ion-powered space tug with a large solar array and haul the pieces into lunar orbit a few at a time; Start with Node-3 and Leonardo, then send over Columbus and the Japanese Experiment Module and dock those to the side ports and leave the space tug with its solar panels attached as a power supply. ISS begets LSS, and then we send replacement modules up to BOTH of them, until they grow large enough that we can split them again to spawn LSS-2 and -3.

 

[throwback]

I will believe it when I see it.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Because no ion propulsion engine is going to be produced in the next 10 years big enough to move the ISS to orbit the Moon.

You can still attach multiple ion engines and fire them at the same time. Why is there a need to separate the parts before you do it? I don't think that an ion engine is going to cause ISS enough stress to break it, so the multiple engines can fire at the same time moving the whole thing, because if they are placed at the right places they would cause even less stress.

I still think moving the ISS to a Moon orbit is a pretty interesting and doable exercise that would gain us some knowledge and experience, and would prove that we are capable of doing something unusual and unplanned, which is somewhat important if we want to pursue doing random things in space. Pretty useless as a whole though.

I'd go with moving it to a higher orbit that doesn't decay like the current one. Live it there as an artificial moon for future space archaeologists. An actual preserved sections from the second decent space station we've ever had is going to worth something. They are probably going to pull it, attach it to some space colony and reinforce it. It will be amazing.

 

[sojourner]

It would be a heck of alot easier to build a new one in lunar orbit than to try and move ISS.

Also, Van Allen Belts. Not sure the ISS is constructed to survive a long slow trip through them. You might end up with a burned out husk on the other side.

 

[23skidoo]

I will believe it when I see it.

I was going to post the exact same thing. I've been disappointed by many aspects of the so-called "future" I now live in, and the biggest is the fact space exploration by humans has failed to live up to the billing and excitement of the 1960s. I grew up with a science book (I think put out by either NASA or National Geographic) saying we were going to be on Mars by 1982. And that by the time I reached my 30s going to a space station for a holiday would be as commonplace as flying to Vegas. What a load of manure we were sold.

Now I'm 42, and I've frankly given up any expectation of seeing humans on the moon again in my remaining lifetime, never mind Mars. I'm sure it will happen eventually. But even the so-called "privatization of space travel" that Space-X and all that promised doesn't seem to be happening very well (i.e. if they can't get a rocket to the ISS, how are they going to ever build a hotel on the moon?). The only way I expect to ever witness (never mind experience) space travel is for someone to invent a time machine and let us check out the year 2112. And right now the way things are going we stand a better chance of seeing someone invent a functioning TARDIS than landing on the moon anytime soon...or setting up a space station that even remotely resembles what was saw in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

Moving the ISS isn't realistic. It's not designed for existing that far out (ie. radiation belts), and it was only designed with maybe a 10 year life cycle anyway, so it'll have crashed into the Pacific long before they get around to doing anything like this.*

Alex

* Which brings up the question - what is the exit strategy for when the ISS does begin to deorbit? Considering the fear and panic when Mir and Skylab reentered and that Soviet satellite came down the other week, are they just going to let the whole thing come down, or are they planning dismantling missions?

 

[MANT!]

A Moonbase, as God and Robert A. Heinlein intended...


Lagrange point stations might be oK..but in periods of solar activity, they may be functionally useless...as the crews will be in radiation shelters...

at least with a Moonbase, one can use lunar regolith as a shielding medium..or as speculated, a mostly underground Moonbase...

 

[Dukhat]

Now I'm 42, and I've frankly given up any expectation of seeing humans on the moon again in my remaining lifetime, never mind Mars.

I'm not so sure about that. I think that in ten years, there will be humans on the moon. But they will most likely be Chinese.

But even the so-called "privatization of space travel" that Space-X and all that promised doesn't seem to be happening very well (i.e. if they can't get a rocket to the ISS, how are they going to ever build a hotel on the moon?).

But the delays aren't just SpaceX's fault, are they? NASA is equally to blame, not to mention the Progress that crashed.

Which brings up the question - what is the exit strategy for when the ISS does begin to deorbit? Considering the fear and panic when Mir and Skylab reentered and that Soviet satellite came down the other week, are they just going to let the whole thing come down, or are they planning dismantling missions?

From what I've heard, the Russians eventually want some of their modules dismantled in order to reuse them for a future station. Whether that actually happens or not is another matter.

 

[Brolan]

News report:

In what was perhaps one of the more lively GOP debates among the entire spectrum of showdowns thus far, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney lampooned rival Newt Gingrich for his proposal to colonize the moon and accused the former House speaker of pandering to Florida’s Space Coast.

“I spent 25 years in business. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired!’” Romney said matter-of-factly.

Mocking the prospect of using private entities to fund a lunar colony, Romney added, “The idea that corporate America wants to go off to the moon and build a colony there, it may be a big idea, but it’s not a good idea.”





Apparently Romney would have fired Kennedy when he came up with the his "go to the Moon" idea. He sure does like to fire people. And is short-sighted for a presidential candidate.

 

[RAMA]

So Chinese on the moon...as a citizen of planet Earth,I think it could be great thing. As a citizen of the US, I can't help but wish it would start a new "Space race".

RAMA

 

[Crazy Eddie]

It won't start a new space race. Mainly because the Chinese have no particular need to get there first. Apparently they've realized that it's not the GETTING to the moon that's the problem, but the STAYING there.

 

[JB2005]

[Removed all the irrelevant Romney Bashing]

Show a need to build a base on the moon - going there because no one has done it is a million miles from establishing a permanent presence - unless there's a practical reason to do it then corporate America would never do it...

 

[Brolan]

[Removed all the irrelevant Romney Bashing]

Show a need to build a base on the moon - going there because no one has done it is a million miles from establishing a permanent presence - unless there's a practical reason to do it then corporate America would never do it...

Are 180 reasons enough for you? http://www.businessinsider.com/180-reasons-nasa-thinks-we-should-have-a-moon-base-2012-1

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Show a need to build a base on the moon - going there because no one has done it is a million miles from establishing a permanent presence - unless there's a practical reason to do it then corporate America would never do it...

It doesn't matter whether a base on the moon is needed.

Romney mocked a scientific endeavour involving the advancement of mankind. Many scientific endeavours, even very expensive ones, make little business sense, especially in the short and middle term. If it wasn't for some lazy bastards out of touch with reality doing lame math exercises for millennia, Bain Capital would have been making its investment decisions with an abacus and prayer.

And if something doesn't make a lot of business sense, that doesn't make it a bad idea. In fact, a part of the government's job is to do the things that make little business sense but are a great idea nonetheless.

His analogy, whether it's the time for a moon base or not, proves that you don't want him to make such decisions for you.

Besides, among SpaceX's current stated aims is building a permanent colony on Mars. It will be so lovely if they ever succeed, proving Romney wrong.

 

[JB2005]

[Removed all the irrelevant Romney Bashing]

Show a need to build a base on the moon - going there because no one has done it is a million miles from establishing a permanent presence - unless there's a practical reason to do it then corporate America would never do it...

Are 180 reasons enough for you? http://www.businessinsider.com/180-reasons-nasa-thinks-we-should-have-a-moon-base-2012-1

Look I'm really disappointed in you Brolan, because rather than discussing Romney in a political thread elsewhere on the board, you instead are derailing this one...you could have just put up your 180 reasons and left it at that, but instead you first make a post mocking Romney that contributes nothing to the subject that's being discussed...

I counted 10 of those reasons that might interest a CEO because they involve profit...it's all very well everyone saying that it's about the betterment of mankind and so on, but the fact is that it's not going to be business that carries out the scientific things NASA wants to - unless there is some profit in it- those are going to be carried out by not-for-profit organisations and foundations and the government...

The Corporations will get on board with mining, manufacturing, tourism and other service industries on the moon, but the pure science will always be something outside of the business sector...

The businesses may contribute money to the not-for-profits that carry out the scientific research, but there will always be a have massive divide between the two, because they fundamentally differing goals!

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Corporations will get on board with mining, manufacturing, tourism and other service industries on the moon, but the pure science will always be something outside of the business sector...

Unless, of course, you make a business case for the science itself. There are alot of astronomers and a lot of universities that would pay good money for, say, limited access to a space telescope on the far side of the moon, or the use of a laboratory complex on the lunar surface for geologic, cosmological and particle energy experiments. Low gravity and vacuum experiments in materials science and atomic physics also have some seriously useful applications, especially when you can perform large scale experiments using large amounts of x-rays and scary radiation without worrying about scatter from the atmosphere or public reaction to the fact that you just irradiated everything for a quarter mile around the lab.

The businesses may contribute money to the not-for-profits that carry out the scientific research...

OR they can pay to build and develop the scientific resources and then LEASE those resources to the not-for-profits at exorbitant prices. Which Robert Bigelow was planning to do with his space station once it became clear that a Space Lab For Hire is a lot more interesting to foreign governments than an orbiting playground for the Kardashians.

Point is, you COULD make a business case for the scientific aspect. Just takes a little imagination and a little appreciation of the risks.