NationStates Jolt Archive

Does anyone have any ideas on how a moon base can support a mars mission or other space exploration?

Quote from an article posted earlier:

Unveiling a new vision of NASA-led space exploration last year, U.S. president George W. Bush said that a moon colony could be used as a "stepping stone" for missions into deeper space.

Bush said the soil of the moon contained "raw materials that might be harvested and processed into rocket fuel or breathable air. With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon, we will then be ready to take the next steps of space exploration -- human missions to Mars and to worlds beyond."

I'm afraid I don't understand how a moon base could help a mars mission. The most technically feasible thing I can think of at the moment would be to launch some sort of reusable fuel tug that would land on the moon, mine ice at the poles with a robot, convert it to rocket fuel, then launch itself into low earth orbit, where the mars rocket would be assembled, then return to the moon to repeat the process. Unfortunately, due to the laws of physics, it could only deliver less than 10% of the fuel it started with on the moon, which makes the process kind of inefficent. Currently we don't have a reusable space vechile that doesn't need extensive maintenance between launches. I don't see how the cost of developing and deploying it would be less than the cost of just launching the fuel from earth. Getting other materials from the moon seems even more difficult.

Am I missing something here?

It could be something like a more permenant international space station I guess...

I don't think Bush fully understand the importance of the moon. He seems to want it more for political reasons, than scientific. Anyways.

First off, if you are able to build ships on the moon, that's extra fuel you save instead of having to boost something into Earth's orbit. Materials made in space can be machined more precisely, due to the lack of gravity, also. Second, you simply can't, at this stage, feasibly launch large scale exploration/colonization ships from the surface of the Earth, due to fuel costs and weight. Third, if you do it on the moon, you could likely do a "slingshot" maneuver, boosting speed, reducing the amount fuel you'd need for the (and you could likely do the same on the way back).

Maybe when they decide to set up a mining/exploratory operation on the moonbase they'll uncover some ancient alien horror and the Earth loses contact with it.

Then the fun starts.

First off, if you are able to build ships on the moon, that's extra fuel you save instead of having to boost something into Earth's orbit.
That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

Materials made in space can be machined more precisely, due to the lack of gravity I don't understand how the lack of gravity helps you machine materials more precisely, but let's assume you are correct. Current earth bound processes already machine materials to fine tolerances. Improving on that probably wouldn't even allow you to reduce the mass of your mars ship by 1%.Third, if you do it on the moon, you could likely do a "slingshot" maneuver, boosting speed, reducing the amount fuel you'd need If you can do a slingshot from the moon, why not start from the earth, then go to the moon and do a sling shot? However, I don't see how a sling shot from the moon works.

...snip...
I had an answer typed for you, but it got eaten by the PC. :(

I had an answer typed for you, but it got eaten by the PC.

Naughty PC! No beer for you now!

Naughty PC! No beer for you now!

Yeah, no beer for my PC, I (the other PC) will have to drink it all.

That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

I don't understand how the lack of gravity helps you machine materials more precisely, but let's assume you are correct. Current earth bound processes already machine materials to fine tolerances. Improving on that probably wouldn't even allow you to reduce the mass of your mars ship by 1%. If you can do a slingshot from the moon, why not start from the earth, then go to the moon and do a sling shot? However, I don't see how a sling shot from the moon works.

We'd have to send things up in sections, but I'd like to think it'd pay itself off in sections.

The problem with building things on Earth is when you want to build perfectly curved surfaces, for mirrors and such. Gravity tugs on the surface of what you're building, skewing the alignment ever so slightly, but when you're working with something for a laser, that's a bit important. Otherwise, yes, you're right. Yes, I suppose you could do the slingshot from the Earth, but if your ship is already being built on/at the moon (in its orbit), why do that? Unless it significantly boosts your velocity, which, considering the gravity of the earth, may be likely.

That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

Space elevators?

Gah..I completely forgot about those. Yes, those could work, but I can't remember whether we have the tech to build one at this point. I've a feeling we do..it's simply a lack of funding, I'd wager.

Space elevators?

If we had a space elevator, getting stuff from the moon's lower gravity well would no longer be an advantage.

It would make building industry on the moon easier, but it would also so make sending the mars mission direct from earth easier.

One possibility that I can think of is that, since it supposedly would take a huge amount of fuel to get to Mars and back, one of the proposed methods for conducting a trip would be to only take the fuel for the first leg of the journey with you, and then produce the fuel for the return trip on mars itself. Since this would supposedly take some time (in the order of several months), Astronauts would need some experience of living and working in that kind of hostile environment for long periods.

The way I understand it from the way he says "With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon", is that the moon will supposedly be used as some kind of testing ground for this kind of mission, rather than a springboard for the mission itself.

In my opinion, a completly automated base on the moon would do as well. Robots aren't depended on precious oxygen and water like humans - both which are scarce on the moon (which was mentioned in the thread yesterday, anyways). There are however large amounts of iron, manganese and titanium in certain regions on the moon which could be mined.

Considering easily accessible deposits on Earth will eventually deplete, this may be an interesting alternative in the long term. Similar goes for near-Earth asteroids.

The way I understand it from the way he says "With the experience and knowledge gained on the moon", is that the moon will supposedly be used as some kind of testing ground for this kind of mission, rather than a springboard for the mission itself.

Is that a good way to go about it? Let's say the mars astronaughts have a 20% of dying if they don't practice on moon and a 10% chance of dying if they do practice on the moon. It sounds safer, only only if you forget that there is a good chance that astronaughts will die practicing on the moon.

Another problem is radiation exposure. An astronaught who had spent time on the moon might be too irradiated to risk further radiation on a mars trip.

We are already quite familiar with conditions on the moon and mars. It should be a lot cheaper to build a large vacuum chamber on earth that can simulate conditions on Mars to practice in than go to the moon.

Getting fuel on mars is a good idea, but I wouldn't risk humans unless a robot had already successfully collected fuel on the surface. There are too many things that could go wrong. I would also wait until a robot tug had collected fuel in the asteroids and then successfully arrived in mars orbit.

Robot miners in space are something we can do in the future, but I doubt it will ever be worthwile to return the material to earth. Robot miners could mine stuff for us deep in the crust, and we may have switched to making buidings and cars etc. out of artificial diamond (okay, carbon compounds) by then, reducing our need for metals.

Could I be cynical and suggest that perhaps science had nothing to do with that proposal? That just maybe it was a political speech that was likely to remain unfunded, its only purpose to further the image of a "visionary" presidency?

Just a thought.

Could I be cynical and suggest that perhaps science had nothing to do with that proposal? That just maybe it was a political speech that was likely to remain unfunded, its only purpose to further the image of a "visionary" presidency?

You could be onto something here, Medici.

You could be onto something here, Medici.

You know, you really live up to your name.

For those of you who don't know what my name means, its Italian for "assh*le who talks much" ;)

For those of you who don't know what my name means, its Italian for "assh*le who talks much" ;)

lol..I just thought you were making a reference to the Medici family.

Is that a good way to go about it? Let's say the mars astronaughts have a 20% of dying if they don't practice on moon and a 10% chance of dying if they do practice on the moon. It sounds safer, only only if you forget that there is a good chance that astronaughts will die practicing on the moon.

I think that's rather silly. For a start, those random figures have nothing to do with anything, and where space travel is concerned, it is better to practice everything to the nth degree, a hundred times over, than send people off on a dangerous 2 year mission without any idea of the kind of things they can expect.

Another problem is radiation exposure. An astronaught who had spent time on the moon might be too irradiated to risk further radiation on a mars trip.

Since the duration of a Mars trip will likely be greater than a year, it won't be happening at all, unless some solution is found to the problem of radiation.

We are already quite familiar with conditions on the moon and mars. It should be a lot cheaper to build a large vacuum chamber on earth that can simulate conditions on Mars to practice in than go to the moon.

A vacuum chamber will not help anyone practice for survival on Mars, in the same way sitting in an ice box will not help anyone practice for survival in the arctic.

Getting fuel on mars is a good idea, but I wouldn't risk humans unless a robot had already successfully collected fuel on the surface. There are too many things that could go wrong. I would also wait until a robot tug had collected fuel in the asteroids and then successfully arrived in mars orbit.

There are 'too many things that could go wrong' in any space mission. Nobody expects it to be a walk in the park. In any case, a trip to mars will likely allow for an extended stay on the surface, simply because if it takes 9 months to get there, and 9 months to get back, you might as well make the most of the opportunity. Therefore, astronauts will need preparation for living and working on a hostile planet for extended periods.

lol..I just thought you were making a reference to the Medici family.

Yah. The Medici family, plus Niccolo was the first name of Machievelli, who dedicated "The Prince" to a member of the Medici family.

That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

I don't understand how the lack of gravity helps you machine materials more precisely, but let's assume you are correct. Current earth bound processes already machine materials to fine tolerances. Improving on that probably wouldn't even allow you to reduce the mass of your mars ship by 1%. If you can do a slingshot from the moon, why not start from the earth, then go to the moon and do a sling shot? However, I don't see how a sling shot from the moon works.
Build a nuclear rocket and lift a million pounds of automated foundry and construction equipment onto the moon a few times after we've figured out how deal with the wear an tear on machine parts and tools better. It is more expensive. But you can do more interesting things. And you can do things more cheaply over many iterations.

Gravity is a pain in the butt. Google about the mirror of the hubble telescope. It makes it hard to make microchips cheaply too. Since the moon has gravity 1/6 the strength of earth waffers could easily be at least 3 times bigger. More chips per waffer means much lower costs. It makes all kinds of hard to make things easier to make. Best of all you can mine stuff on the moon and fling it to a foundry or fab in microgravity relatively cheaply. Making some of the problems with nanoarchitectured materials vanish.

But the big win is once you lift the industry out of the gravity well you don't have to lift its products out of the well. While you can do a slingshot from the earth without going to the moon, you still have to get out of the well. The advantage of the moon isn't that it allows you to reduce the mass of a ship to mars, it's that it allows you to drastically increase it because you're not so deep in the graviational hole.

If your goal is to send a manned mission to mars once or twice, a moon base as a first step is a bad idea. If your goal is to make such expeditions a regular occurance and a prelude to getting humanity off this rock (or at least onto another), it's the only way to go. In the near term a moon base is probably more interesting that anything on mars short of colonization, terraforming, or finding life. Sadly, Bush means it every bit as much as his father did, and he's just being a political whore.

And space elevators are out there. In the far flung future. We'll all be driving fusion powered flying cars before we have a space elevator.

I think that's rather silly. For a start, those random figures have nothing to do with anything, and where space travel is concerned, it is better to practice everything to the nth degree, a hundred times over, than send people off on a dangerous 2 year mission without any idea of the kind of things they can expect.

If people have a good chance of dying during practice, then you might be better off not practicing and just do it. Also, you might want to consider sending a suicide mission anyway. Not returning the astronaughts could save over half the cost of the trip.

Since the duration of a Mars trip will likely be greater than a year, it won't be happening at all, unless some solution is found to the problem of radiation.

A meter of lead or the equivilant amount of protection in equipment should do the trick. Also, a robot could be sent in advance to build a shelter for the astronaughts to stay in. Then the astronaughts could explore mars from the safety of the shelter via remote controlled robots. Of course it would still be possible to spend time on the surface in space suits.

There are 'too many things that could go wrong' in any space mission.

I agree. We should think carefully about the safest way to do it.

Well if one could harvest Hydrogen wed be sweet.

But more importantly less Gravity to launch against which equals less fuel consumed equals more distance.-In Theory.

Well if one could harvest Hydrogen wed be sweet.

But more importantly less Gravity to launch against which equals less fuel consumed equals more distance.-In Theory.

No, it means more acceleration, not distance. Spaceships don't stop when out of fuel.

It is really an easy concept. We want to make some Star Destroyers, but they can't enter atmosphere. So, to make these giants and to start conquering the galaxy, we need to build huge shipyards on the moon. I imagine we could make TIE fighters on Earth, though.

I think we should just cover the moon with tinfoil and make it look like a death star. Then nobody would mess with us.

It is really an easy concept. We want to make some Star Destroyers, but they can't enter atmosphere. So, to make these giants and to start conquering the galaxy, we need to build huge shipyards on the moon. I imagine we could make TIE fighters on Earth, though.

Not seen epi2, episode 3, or "Clone Wars", have we? The predecessors found it easy enough, what with the vast runways for them and all. And they weren't much smaller.

Where are the landing gear on the star destroyers? Would they need cradels to land on? Then again, they could just keep their antigravity on all the time. That should work.

(Hmmm... Perhaps I should make another mars thread. That's the trouble, I enjoy talking about star wars too much.)

I'd imagine they'd be kept inside, like they are in all the other movies..
the earlier ISD designs could float as well.

Abandon the manned space program. There are so many challenges on this planet that could use the funding that manned spaceflight swallows, manned spaceflight is just not cost effective. Stay with robotics for the forseeable future instead.

sigh.

not much science in this thread so far. Seems like most was learned from a picture-book than from a science class.


Lets start with the beginning - the Apollo program. I'm sure you've all seen Apollo 13. You may remember the size of the Saturn V - the rocket that took the exploreres to the moon. The thing was HUGE. If you've ever been to the Kennedy Space Center they have a replica of one on it's side. Frigin monster.

Now, remember the lunar lander (the "Eagle"). That thing was tiny compared to the Saturn V. However, because of the much lower gravity of the moon, it was all that was needed for the return voyage home.

Consider that for a few, you have the 36 story tall 800 ton Saturn V to get out of the Earth's gravity, and the 6.4 meter 15,000 kg lunar lander to get out of the moon's gravity. That's more than just a little difference.

That's the trouble of space exploration, getting away from Earth's gravity takes a huge amount of fuel. Once you're out the rest is a relatively free ride.

Now you also have the biosphere problem. There is currently no way to create a self-renewing environment - which would be needed for any long-term space voyage or colony. The biosphere 2 currently does not work. If there is an environmental control failure on the moon it is far safer to return from there than if it occurs on a voyage to mars - which at this time would be a certainty.

Radiation, however, is currently a mamageable problem. If not then we would not have the International Space Station, global space shuttle orbits, or the Russian Mir space station.

A 'space elevator' is a great concept if it worked, but the engineering is not yet ready. There are a multitude of problems. One is the tether. Buckey cables (similar to Buckey balls) have been proposed as a posible material (though there is currently no way to manufacture them in bulk). They could anchor a counter-weight for use as a cable to space. The entire structure would be huge. As I recall the base alone would need to be twenty stories tall. Then there is the difficulty of the Earth not being perfectly round. The tension on the cord would fluctuate each orbit, rapidly causing a de-orbit of the entire structure. A sophisticated pulley system may alleviate this, but it'd be one hell of a didaster if it failed.

Last trouble is the weather. The base would have to be mobile. It does not take much imagination to see the problem with moving a 100 mile high structure around the Earth's surface. A floating platform has been proposed, but then the tension on the line becomes a much more difficult matter (waves and tides).

This is why creating a moon base is important. Considerable reduction of fuel, opportunity to refine living techniques, and, for the same reason as for going to Mars, an expansion of human territory. A permanent lunar colony is the first step towards colonizing the moon.

It is easy to call someone ignorant if you have no firm grasp on the issues. The president has all of NASA to consult with, it is sensible to presume that they have guided (if not determined) his decisions on space exploration. In contrast, it is obvious that few here have given more than a cursory consideration of the complications involved. Sadly I suspect that is how most posters on this forum them have determined other of their political opinions as well. That is the true shame of America; the delegation of opinion. It is a rare pleasure to meet people who have actually deeply considered the facts in determining their opinions - regardless of their conclusion.


http://www.oswego.edu/~schneidr/CHE300/envinv/EnvInv01.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module
http://www.saturnrestoration.org/history/requiem/

Does anyone have any ideas on how a moon base can support a mars mission or other space exploration?

I'm afraid I don't understand how a moon base could help a mars mission. The most technically feasible thing I can think of at the moment would be to launch some sort of reusable fuel tug that would land on the moon, mine ice at the poles with a robot, convert it to rocket fuel, then launch itself into low earth orbit, where the mars rocket would be assembled, then return to the moon to repeat the process. Unfortunately, due to the laws of physics, it could only deliver less than 10% of the fuel it started with on the moon, which makes the process kind of inefficent. Currently we don't have a reusable space vechile that doesn't need extensive maintenance between launches. I don't see how the cost of developing and deploying it would be less than the cost of just launching the fuel from earth. Getting other materials from the moon seems even more difficult.

Am I missing something here?
Yes. The moon has a considerably lower gravity than the Earth and no atmosphere. This makes it much, much easier to loft payloads into space. There have even been proposals for something called a "mass driver," which would use a type of rail gun to loft unmanned payloads without the use of rockets or fuel or any kind.

I think there may be some confusion on this thread between a mars mission in the short term and the colonization of space over the long term. Maybe going to the moon is a good idea for the colonization of space, but if I was instructed to send a crewed mission to mars, I wouldn't see the need to go to the moon first. Going to the moon would cost money we could spend on the mars mission instead.

If I was instructed to colonize space, then my priorities would be different. I would spend the money on research first, such how to use resources in space, manage life support, and develop a cheaper way into space.

No, I am not going for those wussy things from ep. II and III. I am talking the Imperator class, from the original trilogy. Those bad-boys can't make planetary landings.

I think there may be some confusion on this thread between a mars mission in the short term and the colonization of space over the long term. Maybe going to the moon is a good idea for the colonization of space, but if I was instructed to send a crewed mission to mars, I wouldn't see the need to go to the moon first. Going to the moon would cost money we could spend on the mars mission instead.

If I was instructed to colonize space, then my priorities would be different. I would spend the money on research first, such how to use resources in space, manage life support, and develop a cheaper way into space.
Baby steps, the challenges of setting up a base on the Moon would translate well into a Mars mission, life support (including how to keep a crew fit and not lose musscle mass) will be a criticle challenge, and as it was pointed out, it's easier to come back from the Moon than to abort and come back from Mars. Also training for a Mars mission would be better conducted on the Moon, Earth just doesn't have too many places that come close to simulating Mars.

For space ships, the Moon's lesser gravity means a lot less fuel would be needed to get it pointed in the right direction and accelerating. Also, being able to construct a ship on the Moon means that we can experiment with different and more economical ship designs that cannot be done in a gravity well (I think I remember reading that a spherical ship would be the best design out there, especially if we resort to a spinning chamber to simulate gravity in part or all of the ship. However, you cannot launch a sphere from Earth).

For fuel, NASA thinks that there might be frozen water on the Moon, if so, that is a ready source of hydrogen and oxygen (power the space shuttle with the same set up).

It really does make sence to safely get a crew to Mars and back without screw ups, we hope.

I wonder how the NASA would be supposed to finance this... And a Mars mission? Mhmmm... surely... With which rocket and with which money? Heck, they can't even launch a manned ship to the moon, since there's no rocket powerful enough for this and there are no blueprints of the Saturn V thanks to the US cold war paranoia.

Of course the moon has a lower gravity than earth, but the problem is, you have to get all the stuff for a Mars mission to the moon first so you don't really win anything with that.

I wonder how the NASA would be supposed to finance this... And a Mars mission? Mhmmm... surely... With which rocket and with which money?

Yes, NASA's budget is limited and there is little hope of increase with the large budget deficits the U.S. is running. If people go to the moon it will suck money out of the mars mission and if people go to mars it will suck money out of the moon base. Maybe we should start a thread on private funding for humans in space. Maybe the movie rights and TV rights could help pay for a mars trip. Temptation Planet, anyone? Or maybe Big Brother? Where the astronaut voted out of the mission gets flushed out the airlock?

Actually, the best thing for space exploration may be to balence the U.S. budget. (Where is our Anakin who can bring balence to the budget?)

Actually, the best thing for space exploration may be to balence the U.S. budget. (Where is our Anakin who can bring balence to the budget?)

I'm afraid that with capitalist domination of your economy (and so budget, to a degree), that the balance will take the form of removing a major party (the one you dislike the least) and replacing them with hard-line communists. It's what he does, you know.

That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

I don't understand how the lack of gravity helps you machine materials more precisely, but let's assume you are correct. Current earth bound processes already machine materials to fine tolerances. Improving on that probably wouldn't even allow you to reduce the mass of your mars ship by 1%. If you can do a slingshot from the moon, why not start from the earth, then go to the moon and do a sling shot? However, I don't see how a sling shot from the moon works.

By building an initial base, you save long-term costs of martian exploration (and possible colonization). The initial inbestment is huge, however, subsequent operations are chum-change...

It's like building 1 massive base for 1 Trillion, and then spending measly 1 million sums per mission afterwards; vice spending 1 billion per mission.... Sure, a single 1 billion mission might "cost less".... but you're only saving, assuming you plan on not ever going back, or only making a "few" trips. Mars is only usefull, long term, if we have constant presence and usage... That requires bases on both ends, which necessitates either a massive space-station (which makes the present station look like a joke), or an operating moon base. As a "flight point" for low cost missions.

Hey, if we start with a moonbase we can then move onto space colonies. We'll be that much closer to a Mobile Suit Gundam future! :)

If people have a good chance of dying during practice, then you might be better off not practicing and just do it. Also, you might want to consider sending a suicide mission anyway. Not returning the astronaughts could save over half the cost of the trip.

Why are you so obsessed with the idea of people dropping dead while practicing on the moon? The idea of testing techniques and equipment on the moon, is to increase their safety; it has to be done, or the same risks will apply to Astronauts going to Mars. Testing everything on the moon first seems a sensible way to identify and remove many of the problems that could spring up, that aren't immediately identifiable on Earth. Once the equipment and practice of putting people on the moon is more efficient, as it would have to be in order to make a permanent moon base practical, the risks involved would be reduced immensely.

Also, when I say that the moon should be used as a testing ground for this kind of mission, I don't necessarily mean that it should be a Mars Astronaut Boot Camp (although, no doubt Mars Astronauts would be better off having spent time on the moon). Astronauts going to Mars would benefit from the experiences of other Astronauts who have refined the techniques and technical requirements for living in a hostile extra-terrestrial environment.

No, it means more acceleration, not distance. Spaceships don't stop when out of fuel.
sure i guess your right but they would out further quicker so when they do start floating they would be further.......

Does anyone have any ideas on how a moon base can support a mars mission or other space exploration?

Quote from an article posted earlier:



I'm afraid I don't understand how a moon base could help a mars mission. The most technically feasible thing I can think of at the moment would be to launch some sort of reusable fuel tug that would land on the moon, mine ice at the poles with a robot, convert it to rocket fuel, then launch itself into low earth orbit, where the mars rocket would be assembled, then return to the moon to repeat the process. Unfortunately, due to the laws of physics, it could only deliver less than 10% of the fuel it started with on the moon, which makes the process kind of inefficent. Currently we don't have a reusable space vechile that doesn't need extensive maintenance between launches. I don't see how the cost of developing and deploying it would be less than the cost of just launching the fuel from earth. Getting other materials from the moon seems even more difficult.

Am I missing something here?

A moon base really isn't for the first mission. Its for future missions in space. We really aren't hoping to just do one Mars landing. But to continue future expeditions.

That's true, but the industrial base required to build the space shuttle was huge. How do we get something onto the moon that can build space ships? That sounds muchmore expensive than a direct trip mars. In the far future something like that might be possible.

Piece by piece...


If you can do a slingshot from the moon, why not start from the earth, then go to the moon and do a sling shot? However, I don't see how a sling shot from the moon works.
For the current speeds of our space craft the earth is simply too large to execute a proper slingshot. You'd just waste all of your fuel. But then I'm assuming that the space craft used will be something equivalent to a next generation of our current space shuttle, but who knows what kinds of technology will be available by the time we're ready to send a mission to mars?