US: Moonstruck

[Triskelion]

The USA is going back to the moon! To orbit for a year in order to look for water, make a big explosion, and find suitable landing sites for...a COLONY!

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-moon-launch19-2009jun19,0,4591157.story

An orbiter will spend the next year cruising 31 miles above the lunar surface, looking for the best place to land and build Earth's first off-world colony.
NASA took the first concrete step toward returning human beings to the moon Thursday, successfully launching the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter on a mission to find the best place to land and build Earth's first off-world colony.

The 19-story-high, two-stage rocket and spacecraft launched at 2:32 p.m. Pacific time. As the huge first-stage Atlas V rocket roared to life at Cape Canaveral in central Florida, NASA spokesman George Diller called it "America's first step in a lasting return to the moon."

 

[MANT!]

Well a moonbase really...colony maybe MUCH later...

 

[Mr Awe]

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. All that is happening now is the orbiter, much like what we have around Mars. While the data it collects can be used for the activities that are mentioned, this doesn't guarantee that they'll happen any time soon. Those are other projects for another day, and, more importantly, another budget!

Personally, I'm not sure I see the value of a moon colony anyway. That would be a money pit far worse than the ISS. I'd rather increase robot exploration of our solar system. More rovers to Mars, more probes to the outer solar system, and how about a probe that'll get under the ice of Europa? That would all be money better spent than an enormously expensive colony on the moon!

If we must have a manned mission, which NASA pushes for due to industry pressure based on the jobs, then how a manned mission to Mars should have priority over a freaking moon base!

Besides, didn't we learn anything from Space: 1999?

Mr Awe

 

[RJDiogenes]

No, we definitely need to have a permanent presence on the Moon before jumping ahead to Mars.

 

[Lindley]

The biggest problem I see with Mars is having the capability to get off it again once you're there. Its gravity is much less than Earth's, but it would still take a nontrivial amount of rocket fuel, and that represents additional weight to get there in the first place.

The moon, in addition to being more accessible due to distance, has less of a problem in that regard. Thus the initial efforts should be there in case something goes wrong.

 

[MANT!]

Von Braun had it like the following, Earth Orbit, Space Station, Lunar Orbit, Lunar Landing, Moonbase, Mars Orbit, Mars Landing, Lunar Colony, Mars-Base, Mars Colony...and so on..a natural progression, instead, we kind of did it leap-frog fashion jumping from political goal to political goal..I can see a Mars landing, then public apathy, then 30 years of LEO again...

Not for me..it should be like the progression outlined above..each step leads to the next step..

 

[Mr Awe]

No, we definitely need to have a permanent presence on the Moon before jumping ahead to Mars.

No we don't. And, once we start on a permanent moonbase, that'll be such a huge money pit that it'll delay a Mars mission by decades. It'll be like the ISS but much worse. A ton of money spent with very little science return. In fact, like the ISS, the complexity of just setting the base up and keeping it running will eliminate the time for science. But the moonbase would be orders of maginitude more expensive and complex.

Nope, robotic exploration and a direct Earth to Mars human flight are the way to go in terms of the most science for the buck.

There's really no reason for a moonbase before going to Mars anyway. What do you think the benefits would be?

Mr Awe

 

[Mr Awe]

The biggest problem I see with Mars is having the capability to get off it again once you're there. Its gravity is much less than Earth's, but it would still take a nontrivial amount of rocket fuel, and that represents additional weight to get there in the first place.

The moon, in addition to being more accessible due to distance, has less of a problem in that regard. Thus the initial efforts should be there in case something goes wrong.

There's multiple huge problems with a manned Mars mission. At least with getting off of Mars there are known engineering solutions. They *can* built a vehicle that is capable of getting them off Mars. They can even preposition the vehicle before they arrive. That's just engineering, mission planning, and proper financing.

There are, however, larger problems where the solution is just unknown. Boneloss. Huge problem with no known solution. An astronaut one month in zero G looses about as much bone as an elderly lady with osteporosis in a year. With an extended mission the boneloss becomes unaccaptle and the risk. The treadmills and exercise help with retaining muscle but, unfortunately not bone mass, which was hoped.

There's radiation too.

We've got a number of major problems to solve before we can get to Mars. Spending a wad of money on a moonbase only means less available to solve these other problems.

Mr Awe

 

[Maestro]

Money pit or not, this is still damn cool.

 

[ShamelessMcBundy]

"The Moon belongs to America, and eagerly awaits the arrival of her astromen."

 

[Maestro]

In all seriousness, I don't know what kind of scientific value a colony on the moon might have. However, in terms of humans branching out into space, it's a logical step, and not in terms of just a little NASA base, but in terms of a home for humans.

You have to crawl before you can walk. Having a permanent human establishment on the moon, where humans can live, is our space administrations' first opportunity at getting it right and learning lessons that will help them on Mars, then the moons of Jupiter, and all the way to Alpha Centauri. We may not learn much about the universe, but we may learn very quickly what types of building materials will be necessary for our structures so that humans can dress in street clothes inside with out being bombarded by radiation.

It's also wise to have the first colony close at hand so that we can send help, if necessary. It should also drive development of a more "airplane" style space vehicle.

 

[Mr Awe]

Money pit or not, this is still damn cool.

The satellite thas was launched is very cool. No argument there. Any hypothetical moonpit, er, moonbase is another matter. And, despite how the article is worded, any such base is very speculative right now. This is just an orbiter being launched. The data it collects can be used different ways. The questions it can answer is damn cool.

You have to crawl before you can walk. Having a permanent human establishment on the moon, where humans can live, is our space administrations' first opportunity

And this is where a lot of people go wrong . . .the assumption that we are destined to live in space means leading into a we should bases and colonies NOW attitude!

Yeah, we probably will be living off the planet at some point in the future. If we never do, it means something bad happened to our species. However, that does not mean that we should have off world bases right now. Space flight is extremely complex and expensive. And, with today's technology, there is no way to get any return on the investment.

Colonization must be profitable in order for it to sustainable. We need much better technology to both lower the costs and reap benefits from space. Right now it's just too early technology wise for a moonbase or what not to be anything other than a money pit. Right now is the time to be developing that technology to make space flight/colonization cheaper and simpler and to collect scientific information about the solar system and beyond. That way, we will be well positioned with both technology and information to start bases and colonies then.

To try it now is just putting the cart before the horse.

Mr Awe

 

[Maestro]

I don't know if we're moving too quick, but 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.... better that we start with the moon ... and then maybe our stellar drive technologies will be better developed enough so that the trip to Mars is shorter than 6 months.

 

[MeanJoePhaser]

Astro-Base Go!!

We only wanna go back because the Chinese decided they want to go there. Without competition, the space program stagnates.

 

[Maestro]

In that case, let's hope that India, Vietnam, and Iran aren't far behind.

 

[clint g]

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

 

[RJDiogenes]

There's really no reason for a moonbase before going to Mars anyway. What do you think the benefits would be?

In addition to the science, which can be done much better by people on site, Maestro is quite correct about the value of experience and the need to proceed in logical steps rather than doing another Apollo. In addition, the Moonbase will drive infrastructure development, including better access-to-space tech, and private sector participation (which will really drive infrastructure development and better access-to-space tech).

 

[Lindley]

There are, however, larger problems where the solution is just unknown. Boneloss. Huge problem with no known solution. An astronaut one month in zero G looses about as much bone as an elderly lady with osteporosis in a year. With an extended mission the boneloss becomes unaccaptle and the risk. The treadmills and exercise help with retaining muscle but, unfortunately not bone mass, which was hoped.

I don't think they've tried the centrifuge design, have they? Practically, I mean. I know it's common in fiction. I'm sure there are problems with that, but if it's effective at stopping bone loss then it puts the issue back into the realm of engineering.

There's radiation too.

That's just a matter of developing shielding which is light enough to lift. Engineering again.

 

[RJDiogenes]

They've been experimenting with tethers to simulate gravity. There's also research into medication to prevent bone loss.

 

[Mr Awe]

There's really no reason for a moonbase before going to Mars anyway. What do you think the benefits would be?

In addition to the science, which can be done much better by people on site, Maestro is quite correct about the value of experience and the need to proceed in logical steps rather than doing another Apollo. In addition, the Moonbase will drive infrastructure development, including better access-to-space tech, and private sector participation (which will really drive infrastructure development and better access-to-space tech).

We've already got the space station for that. And, really, developing a moonbase isn't the best way to improve access to space tech. First, do the R&D, extensives development, of that tech, and then make a base when it would be more affordable. Making a base now would just hugely jack up the costs and problems.

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.

Mr Awe