US: Moonstruck

[Mr Awe]

Yes, the experience is important but even before that, having the tested technology in hand is a prerequisite for gaining the experience. You've got the right idea but the wrong order of doing things. Tech first, then use it.

It's neither, actually. Obviously you need some tech first, but what really will drive development is practical usage and infrastructure. The first PCs came with some software, but it was increasingly common usage that spurred both technological and software development. We have the tech right now to get that process started with space travel and settlement.

Actually, you do need an initial amount of tech. If you don't have it, then space colonization is just too expensive for any colonization to get started. We're still at the point where our tech is just not good enough to let this stuff get started via market forces. We don't have enough technology figured out to reduce the costs of space travel to a level where private industries could profitably use space. We don't have enough details worked about how to build a colony cheaply and safely. We have not solved the health risks with prolonged exposure to non-Earth conditions.

Sorry, we're just not there yet and it will be quite some time, decades, before we are. We're still taking baby steps. The fundamentals of how to make it profitable and self-sustaining are still not worked out.

You use the analogy of computers. Mechanical computers had been around since at least WW2, the 40s. Yet, it took about 4 decades until it was economically feasible for a decent number of homes to have them. It takes time to make advanced technology affordable. But, I agree, once you get it to a certain affordable level, man, it really starts to develop very quickly. We're not at that point yet with space travel.

Mr Awe

 

[Triskelion]

^ 4 decades. 40 was windows 3.0

 

[Meredith]

We need to send construction and mining robots along with ore processing and material construction equipment, all automated to the moon first.

Then send people back there and move them into already constructed huge safe lunar habitats.

That would be great, but I think it would require a level of AI that we're not close to yet.

I think we have the tech now and even if the robots were not 100% AI, we could have people on the ground controlling them, the 2 to 3 second lag would be annoying but just have the system be automated unless it enters an unknown condition where it would ask for guidance from the ground and the ground controller would then decide for it. Or just have some people who are used to playing on PvP game servers who are used to 3 second lag to run the robots, but tell them they can't do battle bots with them.

On person on earth could probably direct 2 -3 robots as most instructions would be: "Drive over to X coordinates and scoop up lunar regolith until you are full and return to ore processing center." My sony aibo can walk itself to it's recharging station just fine, so why can't a wheeled robot with a scoop and bucket do the same.

They need to start doing experiments in automated mining and ore processing and manufacturing in the desert first so we can perfect it, and they can start by using a solar powered factory in the desert to power robots who can build more stands and support infrastructure for mounting solar cells and maybe even make solar cells themselves. Make a self replicating robotic structure in the Shara that can grow itself to meet all of africa and europe's solar power needs with minimal cost.

 

[RJDiogenes]

We don't have enough technology figured out to reduce the costs of space travel to a level where private industries could profitably use space. We don't have enough details worked about how to build a colony cheaply and safely. We have not solved the health risks with prolonged exposure to non-Earth conditions.

Private industry is developing reduced-cost space travel now with only tourism as impetus. With a government-subsidized infrastructure in place, that development would accelerate dramatically. As for knowing how to build a colony cheaply and safely, I think we do; at least something along the lines of McMurdo. The full-scale colonies will come later. But for the Moon, all you need is robust cylinders that you can bury in regolith as the basis for the station; something basic and versatile. Then let things evolve.

You use the analogy of computers. Mechanical computers had been around since at least WW2, the 40s. Yet, it took about 4 decades until it was economically feasible for a decent number of homes to have them. It takes time to make advanced technology affordable. But, I agree, once you get it to a certain affordable level, man, it really starts to develop very quickly. We're not at that point yet with space travel.

Well, space travel has been around for 50 years; we went to the Moon 40 years ago next month.

On person on earth could probably direct 2 -3 robots as most instructions would be: "Drive over to X coordinates and scoop up lunar regolith until you are full and return to ore processing center." My sony aibo can walk itself to it's recharging station just fine, so why can't a wheeled robot with a scoop and bucket do the same.

Yeah, but what do you do with the ore once it's processed? You're really talking about setting up a fully automated mini-industry up there. That's a pretty complex endeavor at this point.

 

[SeerSGB]

Ore processing is something I see coming after we have a foothold on a planet. Shipping it back to LEO so that it can be shipped down to the planet. But only after several years "on site" and expansion on an exsiting habitat.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Developing Lunar industry is really one of the big reasons we need to go; I think it's something that needs people on site to cultivate.

 

[Brent]

Yeah, this is a pretty awesome development. Now lets hope that NASA is given the funding that it deserves in order to carry this out

That is their biggest problem, funding. Their budget is tiny compared to what it use to be, its sad really, we technologically have the capability to have a moon base/colony right now, we just don't have the money to do it, money is holding back progress

 

[Mr Awe]

RJDiogenes, I think it's safe to say that we disagree on our basic view about the complexities and cost of space travel & conlonization. It's an interesting and complex topic and it'll be fascinating to see where it goes. Just a couple of quick responses.

You want market driven space demand, but you want subsidies. That's a bit contradictory. In my ideal world, the government funds the basic research that yields the the technology which private industry can manufacture and use.

Space travel is a bit more complex, expensive, and dangerous than personal computers! I'd expect it to take longer!

McMurdo = moonbase. A moonbase is about a million times more complex than McMurdo. Shoot, the air can leak out of McMurdo and people will still live! I don't agree with that analogy.

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

The level of tech is surely different, but something along the lines of McMurdo is what I'd expect to see on the Moon as our first attempt. And there's no real contradiction between subsidies and the private sector; think of it as the government building the Internet and the private sector building the computers and developing the software-- and finding unexpected uses for it.

We do indeed disagree, but we clearly want the same thing, so it's cool.

 

[RJDiogenes]

By the way, I found out today that Science Channel has this show, Exodus Earth, on On Demand. I haven't watched it yet, but it looks pretty cool and should be of interest to those Posting in this Thread. Actually, it looks like it's showing on regular Science Channel, too.

 

[Mr Awe]

I think it terms of the basic simplicity, sure, a moonbase may be similar to McMurdo. It's still going to be many times more complex just to keep things running. The ISS is basically orbitting tin cans and look at all the issues and complexity in just keeping that running. So much so that the science stuff was basically reduced to nothing.

RJ, I think what you describe about the internet vs the commercial applications that run on it is what I'm talking about as my preferred model. That the government develops the basics science and underlying stuff while companies use it. But, I don't think that's the model we're using. Instead, we have NASA purchasing and using hardware based on current tech. They have some projects that are trying to develop the tech but that's a small portion of the budget. Take the space shuttle, that was cobbled together using current technology of the time. Ditto with the ISS. I think we've got that backwards. NASA should be the producers of the basic science and technological development, not the consumers of it for their projects.

Thanks for the heads-up for that program!

Mr Awe

 

[jefferiestubes8]

Moonbase

I do think that what we need to learn about how to live off world will be best learned on the moon before Mars, simply because help is close at hand. 3 days versus 6 months....

I understand what you are thinking. NASA would have redundant systems and backup plans when they goto Mars. See the thread manned Mission to Mars discussion started this month.

As far as the Moonbase itself and training I believe NASA should be doing more hostile environment long term living experiments such as in the Arctic during the Winter NOT summer with real spacesuits. rather than these:
http://arctic.marssociety.org/arctic/images/photojournal/2007-08-05/1.jpg

and Less than 1 day away.
http://arctic.marssociety.org/arctic/images/Kobrick_SatComInukshuk.jpghttp://arctic.marssociety.org/arctic/images/photojournal/2007-06-08/imgp0222.jpg
http://arctic.marssociety.org/arctic/2007/
as well as underwater:
Aquarius Underwater Laboratory, part of NASA's Extreme Environment Mission Operations (NEEMO) program

A Moon colony is a long way off. Families in space? a long way off.

 

[RJDiogenes]

^^ An actual colony with families, yeah, that's a ways off.

I think it terms of the basic simplicity, sure, a moonbase may be similar to McMurdo. It's still going to be many times more complex just to keep things running. The ISS is basically orbitting tin cans and look at all the issues and complexity in just keeping that running. So much so that the science stuff was basically reduced to nothing.

Well, I think in many ways they overthought the ISS. I think the Space Station could have been a lot simpler, leaving more time, as you say, for the R&D and science. Also, I think a Moonbase could be a lot simpler than a Space Station just because it's on the ground; no orbit worries, no rendezvous worries, no space junk worries, etc.

RJ, I think what you describe about the internet vs the commercial applications that run on it is what I'm talking about as my preferred model. That the government develops the basics science and underlying stuff while companies use it. But, I don't think that's the model we're using. Instead, we have NASA purchasing and using hardware based on current tech. They have some projects that are trying to develop the tech but that's a small portion of the budget. Take the space shuttle, that was cobbled together using current technology of the time. Ditto with the ISS. I think we've got that backwards. NASA should be the producers of the basic science and technological development, not the consumers of it for their projects.

I think in some ways it can be both. I think part of the problem with the manned Space Program is that they always want everything to be made out of next decade's technology. Stuff could be, and should be, built with today's or yesterday's technology. Skylab was a modifed Saturn V 3rd stage; we could easily put two or three of those up there (the only challenge being the industrial base) and trick them out with modern PCs and so forth. Or beef up some external tanks and carry them all the way to orbit; add an external module and you've got a customizable shell the size of an office building. Then you've got a destination for the private sector to go to, for vacations or science or whatever.

Thanks for the heads-up for that program!

No problem. I hope they're good.

 

[Mr Awe]

Well, I think in many ways they overthought the ISS. I think the Space Station could have been a lot simpler, leaving more time, as you say, for the R&D and science. Also, I think a Moonbase could be a lot simpler than a Space Station just because it's on the ground; no orbit worries, no rendezvous worries, no space junk worries, etc.

Simplification is the way to go. I'm not sure if a moonbase would be simpler than the ISS however. It's further away, which means less resupplying, which means more of everything. It may also mean production facilities for water, which can produce oxygen, hydrogen, growing crops, etc.

I think in some ways it can be both. I think part of the problem with the manned Space Program is that they always want everything to be made out of next decade's technology. Stuff could be, and should be, built with today's or yesterday's technology. Skylab was a modifed Saturn V 3rd stage; we could easily put two or three of those up there (the only challenge being the industrial base) and trick them out with modern PCs and so forth. Or beef up some external tanks and carry them all the way to orbit; add an external module and you've got a customizable shell the size of an office building. Then you've got a destination for the private sector to go to, for vacations or science or whatever.

I'm thinking about what you write here. This will probably come out as clear as mud, but here goes . . .

I agree that any sustainable space exploration will use either today's or yesterday's technology. However, I think today's technology is not up for the task of sustained space exploration. We have to develop that basic tech for deeper space exploration before space is affordable. Before the benefits can outweight the costs. Developing this technology will allow us to reach a point where "today's technology" is sufficient for sustainable, profitable space exploration. Right now we're just not there.

I think the Russian's are a great model for using yesterday's technology for relatively cheap space access. Soyuz is old tech at the core but it's a reliable, cheap platfrom that's been slowly perfected over years. The Russian's can get stuff into space much more cheaply than we can with our high falutin Shuttle. Also, MIR was essentially the tin cans that you described and for the most part performed well. But, that kind of old technology is only good for accessing LEO, not deeper space.

We should focus on developing that tech that gets us beyond LEO more affordably.

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

The Russian approach is exactly what I was thinking of: Capsules and tin cans. Although with more "evolution" as experience is gained and advances are made in areas such as materials science. An Apollo-like transport system could be made much better today with more modern materials and engine design.

A Moonbase could be constructed in much the same manner: Blockhouses instead of tin cans. The main challenge would be the excavation equipment, because you'd want them to be at least partially buried to protect from radiation. Once you have that secure space, though, you already have all the technology you need to run the base.

 

[Mr Awe]

I do like the capsule and tin can approach myself. I'm so glad that our new Ares system goes back the capsule approach. The over wrought, overly complex Shuttle just wasn't cutting the mustard and they were limited to LEO.

I think capsules and tin cans will both get us to the Moon and beyond and provide the structure. But, there's still a lot of complexity. You have to have those processing plants on the moon, for example, or else you're running loads of supply ships all the way to the moon, which would be extremely expensive. There's the radiation and bone loss issues. A moonbase, even if made from tin cans, would be more complex than the ISS, which scares me when you know how that turned out.

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

Well, radiation shouldn't be a problem on the Moon with buried bunkers. Bone loss; I'm not sure how much of a problem that will be in low gravity, as opposed to microgravity. That's one reason to go, I suppose.

The Moonbase systems would surely be complicated, no doubt about it; but I wonder if it would really be as complicated as ISS. For one thing, it's on the ground, so no worries about stability or rendezvous or orbital decay or space junk. No worries about microgravity. Plus, a lot of the ISS systems are no doubt overly complex and could be simplified or redesigned just based on the experience we've had so far. A Moonbase would be far simpler than an interplanetary mission.

The resupply issue is an important one. But that could be handled by unmanned supply ships. A lot of stuff could be recycled and I think we pretty much have the technology to acquire water and oxygen on the Moon. It's really just McMurdo writ large, and doable with mostly off-the-shelf technology.

 

[Mr Awe]

It would be great if it was McMurdo writ large but I have my doubts. I think we have a lot yet to figure out. New tech to develop. Etc. Particularly on the processing side. But, we've got time to figure it out if the 2020 date holds. I'd like to say that a simplified, smaller scale version of ISS, but on the moon's surface, would be the way to go. But, any lunar processing that needs to occur will defeat those goals.

The alternative is to transport everything in. This would save on surface costs but adds to the transport costs. The fact that the distance is so much greater and that the resupply ship would have to land on the moon's surface rather than just docking in orbit adds complexity and cost. The ship also couldn't land too close to the moonbase thereby adding time, effort and complexity on the recovery of the supplies.

I guess in the end, I'd just rather spend the money on developing improved technology. Say like a gas core nuclear rocket that could get us to Mars in 30 days. Now that would be awesome. And, more money spent on the unmanned probe mission where you get the most science bang for your buck. But, of course, they haven't asked me what I think!!

Mr Awe

 

[jefferiestubes8]

McMurdo = moonbase. A moonbase is about a million times more complex than McMurdo.

“Some of the strategic challenges [for housing] we have are very similar to what you have in the Antarctic,” said Larry Toups, with NASA’s Constellation Program Lunar Surface Systems Project Office at Johnson Space Center.

NASA erects lunar habitat at McMurdo Station to test structure's hardiness in polar climate
http://antarcticsun.usap.gov/science/contenthandler.cfm?id=1350
That lunar habitat could only be a 2nd or third backup for very temporary quarters. Pressurized modules will be the only thing acceptable to NASA as a habitat. With no atmosphere there and the temperatures a heated & pressurized unit(s) are needed.

LSSPO Habitation Element development plan. Three specific areas of development that address Lunar Architecture Team (LAT)-2 and Constellation Architecture Team (CxAT) Lunar habitat design issues or risks will be focused on

3/20/2009
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=16303.0

actually this NASA spaceflight forum looks very interesting:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php

 

[Mr Awe]

^^ Ok, but saying that Antarctica is the testing ground doesn't mean that building a moonbase is like McMurdo! Again, there's either the processing on the lunar surface or the resupply ships. Either would be expensive and complex. We'd have at least the complexity level of the ISS and look how that has turned out. Over budget, late, and very little science.

I just think we have a lot of basic tech to develop. Sure, we can do a lot of it now. But, we need to do it more cheaply, more simply, with less weight, etc. But, these are solvable problems.

Mr Awe