Author Topic: Best use for the Moon?  (Read 19724 times)

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #20 on: 09/26/2016 04:39 am »
"Moonlight"...that's all I got... Coming up on 50 years since we first landed no one has made an economic/scientific case worth the expenditure so far...

We've also been 'landing' on Mars and Venus for almost as many decades, and no economic argument to go to these places has been determined for those. Does that mean their only use is astrology? Scientific reasons to go to all three bodies are plentyful. Wether that requires human presence is debatable at best.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #21 on: 09/26/2016 10:26 am »
How about putting on the Moon some kind of backup repository to store all the DNA for all the world's different species, biodiversity, etc, including particularly a physical seed repository for all the world's plant life.

We could also have a data repository for all the world's existing knowledge, etc.

That way, if the Earth ever suffers a catastrophe, we have a backup.

EDIT: ah, I see ChrisWilson68 already said that.

Well, if there's going to be a lot of uploading to the Moon, will it get its own internet domain? And what would that be?

.luna?
.moon?
« Last Edit: 09/26/2016 10:29 am by sanman »

Offline moralec

Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #22 on: 09/26/2016 11:43 am »
Science (geology). Given that the moon lacks weather and volcanic activity,  it preserves deposits just below the surface that have remained unchanged for millions of years.

Probably not enough justification to start a full size colony, but enough resin to seriously consider a small outpost. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: 09/26/2016 11:45 am by moralec »

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #23 on: 09/26/2016 11:41 pm »
trying to find economic reasons to go to space will just make you frustrated. It is not like hopping a ship and heading to the new world to scratch out a living.

There are revenue streams that can be derived from going into space. But nothing that would make it profitable. Not sure if there is political will to ever drive us towards colonization of space. There is individual will to become a multi-planetary species though.

As for the OT. The Moon is perfect for a first stepping stone to become multi-planetary. A fuel station, a transportation hub, manufacturing hub, radio astronomy, tourism eventually. Could become a bread-basket for new o'neil-esque colonies popping up across the solar system.

Best use for the Moon? Everything, to get us out there.


But personally, I will stop there, and cheer on others going to Mars and asteroids. As Elon Musk wants to be born on  Earth and die on Mars, so I want to go to the Moon.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Offline sanman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5970
  • Liked: 1309
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #24 on: 09/27/2016 06:34 am »
It's always harder to make the economic case in the beginning, which is the bootstrapping phase. But once more activities are underway and in place on the Moon, the economic case will gradually open up, particularly as costs drop.

Robotic equipment for ISRU and construction activities will get cheaper and more capable, to bring the overall costs down.

Offline Hauerg

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 901
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 520
  • Likes Given: 2574
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #25 on: 09/27/2016 06:46 am »
Crazy idea: Why not use it to stabilise Earth rotation. Even better: Resulting tides could be used to transfer power  to Earth.
 :P

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #26 on: 09/27/2016 07:09 am »
It's always harder to make the economic case in the beginning, which is the bootstrapping phase. But once more activities are underway and in place on the Moon, the economic case will gradually open up, particularly as costs drop.
Well it's impossible to make economic case, if what you going to mine, lacks the exploration.
And it's NASA job to do exploration of space.
What is public paying about 20 billion dollar a year for. Pretty pictures?
False promises about exploring Mars?
Exploration of space is needed.
Not building large rockets or even large telescopes
Quote
Robotic equipment for ISRU and construction activities will get cheaper and more capable, to bring the overall costs down.
Yes, and so are the launch costs, but NASA not really doing much to lower these costs.
NASA should explore the Moon with robotic missions.
Then NASA should land crew on lunar surface in the polar regions, and return samples.
Then increase robotic Mars exploration and put crew on the Mars surface.
There is no sense to NASA planning lunar bases or lunar water mining. First the Moon should be explored
and don't need base put there before it's determined if there is minable water on the Moon.
And we don't need NASA mining un-minable lunar water.
So the moon could be destination IF it has minable lunar water, and that means "commercially minable" and that means profitable- and NASA doesn't do "profitable"- and has laws prohibiting such things [for very good reason].

Now, Mars might also be destination for future human settlements, but likewise we can't really begin settlement without first doing exploration which could get answers to numerous issues related having potential mars settlements.
One could get some private funded effort of landing humans on Mars, but this would mostly a stunt or landing and keeping crew alive rather than systematic program to explore Mars. Though having any humans on Mars could useful for space agency that wishes to explore Mars. Or an actual Mars exploration program plus a private stunt might work out. But it should not be needed, that private group does a stunt of landing people on Mars to get NASA involved in a serious Mars exploration program. It's really a failure of NASA were it to happen- but an even worst failure for NASA to decide to ignore such efforts.

« Last Edit: 09/27/2016 07:11 am by gbaikie »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #27 on: 09/27/2016 10:30 am »
trying to find economic reasons to go to space will just make you frustrated. It is not like hopping a ship and heading to the new world to scratch out a living.

Wrong comparison. The very first settlements were erected as a support base to explorers (think ISRU of fuel and supplies for the return trip). It took several attempts before the first colony broke even, and some of the more famous succesful settlements were started up to get away from unpleasant people in the old continent, not primarily to make money. Others ended up making money in unforeseen ways. And interestingly, some tried to recuperate some of the money by making products that could be made in Europe as well, because otherwise the ships would 'return empty'. There's a familiar ring to those words. Scratching out a living an ocean away was quite hard back then too. Incredibly high mortality rate and starvation even for those times, and they didn't even go off the planet.

Having locals with knowledge how to get food and having concentrated wealth for thousands of years helped a lot in both surviving and early profits to show people that it could be done.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #28 on: 09/27/2016 09:05 pm »
trying to find economic reasons to go to space will just make you frustrated. It is not like hopping a ship and heading to the new world to scratch out a living.

Wrong comparison. The very first settlements were erected as a support base to explorers (think ISRU of fuel and supplies for the return trip). It took several attempts before the first colony broke even, and some of the more famous succesful settlements were started up to get away from unpleasant people in the old continent, not primarily to make money. Others ended up making money in unforeseen ways. And interestingly, some tried to recuperate some of the money by making products that could be made in Europe as well, because otherwise the ships would 'return empty'. There's a familiar ring to those words. Scratching out a living an ocean away was quite hard back then too. Incredibly high mortality rate and starvation even for those times, and they didn't even go off the planet.

Having locals with knowledge how to get food and having concentrated wealth for thousands of years helped a lot in both surviving and early profits to show people that it could be done.

Rather than the past, we look at the present. According to:
http://www.sia.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/Mktg15-SSIR-2015-FINAL-Compressed.pdf
In 2015 the global satellite industry was 203 billion dollars
The launch industry part was 5.9 billion and making satellites was 15.9 billion, with largest portion being
the satellite servicing of 122.9 billion.

With lunar market we be doing something if got it to 50 billion dollar industry, and making rocket fuel was about 2 billion per year. Or similar to launch industry being a small portion of entire market, so would the lunar rocket fuel market a small part entire market. And if divide market into related to those living of visiting the Moon it might be a few billion dollars, and if include those living on earth doing thing relate to lunar activities
it would be the larger portion of the market.
It's my belief that we have space agency not because of Apollo but because of the satellite market, and that NASA to remain relevant should be focused on starting new markets in space.
The only actually important thing happenning in space at the moment is the satellite market, it is important to everyone living on Earth. And the poorest countries see the need to involved with satellites as way lowering their cost or said differently, capture opportunities which would otherwise to lost.
And the moon in the future could be as important to poorer countries as the satellite market is to them today.
That might hard to imagine, but it seems logical were the lunar market to be become more mature. Though it's easy to imagine that a markets related to the Moon and Mars would help the Earth satellite market- thereby indirectly help poorer countries.
But we did not make the satellite market specifically to help poorer countries, a major part of reason to develop the market was related to military security which remains a high priority.
Other than any lunar market will be related to earth satellite market and thereby related to military security, I don't think the Moon or Mars are directly related to military concerns.
Or I think the Moon and Mars are more directly related to political matters, ie "some of the more famous successful settlements were started up to get away from unpleasant people in the old continent" which is essentially about political freedom.
They are many ways the starting a market on the Moon would lead broadly towards greater political freedoms, and thru this pathway one would have greater "direct effect" upon "poorer nations".
« Last Edit: 09/27/2016 09:11 pm by gbaikie »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2535
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 96
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #29 on: 09/27/2016 09:42 pm »
Science (geology). Given that the moon lacks weather and volcanic activity,  it preserves deposits just below the surface that have remained unchanged for millions of years.

Probably not enough justification to start a full size colony, but enough resin to seriously consider a small outpost. 

I agree on that, a science outpost; that's why I started this thread although, before I elaborate on science, I'll first elaborate on what else the Moon may be of practical use for too...

The Moon is our closest neighbor, but the trouble is you can't argue for it to be an effective support base for (as an obvious example) Mars because gravity wells and propulsive needs suck up more propellant than it's worth.  From a fueling standpoint, you travel to Mars and Luna directly and separately to get the most bang for your buck.

As far as physical resources, there's basically 3 things the Moon can quickly offer: ice, regolith, and oxygen. 

Ice is extremely useful since it has use both as life support and propellant.  But because it is exclusive to the poles in potentially hazardous craters, I also see it as the most scarce; unlike others I'm not quick to jump on the ice train since it has its ups and downs.  A lot has to be invested before you can harvest it, as in exploration, safely land and sustain power in a sunless crater, and likely refine the ice especially if the ice is heavily intermixed with rock.  Ice may as well be uranium for the Moon; rare, a slight headache to handle, but a decent long-term investment.

Regolith is ubiquitous on the other hand.  It is essentially sandy dirt which probably varies to some extent region to region.  It also could be easy to work with, even without full fledged refinement.  With the advent of 3D printing, we're beginning the art of building things out of near-raw material.  There's even a variation of it that can use sunlight to turn desert sand into items; this could easily be applied to the Moon where the sun is unfiltered and shines for 2 weeks at a time.  The advantage: you can build structures and items directly on the surface with existing technology.  Hab modules may not be required as a long-term investment.

Oxygen would come from either regolith or ice, and has been advocated as a reason for harvesting the Moon for decades now.  For the reasons I stated earlier, I don't think lunar oxygen will directly aid Martian expeditions; it's more practical and efficient to get oxygen from Earth and Mars (where both can be obtained more easily).  However, it would be of great use toward lunar (obviously) and cislunar stations; easier to move off the Moon than Earth.  Potentially, this oxygen could find its way into an orbital depot for example and perhaps indirectly to Mars, but its greatest influence would be to ensure plentiful life support for any crew circling the Earth, and reducing that burden from Earth launches is a wise strategy.

In the very long run, something like a satellite-building-industry may emerge on the Moon, but even with the ice the Moon will be a harsh mistress.  It won't be easy to sustain, and not as attractive as Mars for a place to settle.  This is another reason I believe things will remain as a small outpost for the immediate future.

Science boils down as a big reason to go to the Moon, not purely resources for 'supporting Mars.'  As my first post in the thread states, I think this could readily include astronomy.  Radio astronomy would merrily benefit from the Far Side's radio isolation and x-ray to infrared telescopes could operate from a ground base with human care; imagine the Hubble's grandchildren except operating in a wider variety of spectra that, even in orbit, is rare to obtain.  Geology is the other counterpart science; after all, given how alien the Moon is from the Earth yet still in the same habitable zone and coexisting with it...you're bound to find some interesting history in lunar rocks surprisingly relevant to Earthly paleontology.

As far as resource management goes, don't think "Moon for Mars," think "Moon for Moon."  Whatever you dig up or refine will benefit lunar efforts, seconded by cislunar efforts.  The Moon is going to be a separate route from Mars, but it is just as great a long-term investment for human longevity outside Earth.
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #30 on: 09/28/2016 05:56 pm »
A "practical" case, without assuming any customers that don't(haven't) already exist(ed)? That would definitely be a cold-war era missile base, the original case for the (1960s) Orion spacecraft. Camouflaged lunar bases can be very difficult to locate and attack, especially if they are on the far side. But that isn't how you should look at space exploration, otherwise you'll come to the conclusion that geostationary earth orbit is the only place worth going to.

If we can take a somewhat higher risk and assume reasonably cheap transport such as Elon's proposed ITS, then the Moon and cislunar space becomes arguably the best place to set up shop at. It has lots of varied revenue streams that don't exist anywhere else. Instead of 10 uses per ship over two decades, a ship to the moon can be reused a large number of times every year. The need for consumables and space is much smaller, so you can pack passengers quite efficiently. Lunar poles ISRU gives you all you need to make methalox. Transporting people to the Moon on a large scale is much more practical than transport to Mars in this sense.

The larger the scale of your off-world operations is, the more attractive the moon becomes. In the right locations, ordinary lunar dust is incredibly rich in useful metals, in some cases rivaling low to medium yield ores on Earth. With an O'Neill type mass driver, it is a great source of materials to build space habitats or cyclers.

Exporting things from a lunar colony with a mass driver is really cheap energetically, by the way. If you make aluminium on the moon and used a mass driver to fire it into an orbit which intersects Earth, the energy cost of refining the aluminium is much larger than the cost of launching it. In fact, the energy cost of launching a ton of something from the moon to an earth interesecting orbit is comparable to the energy cost of shipping it from China to Europe by container ship. So if lunar-produced goods would ever be in demand on Earth, exporting  stuff from the Moon to Earth is perfectly viable.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #31 on: 09/28/2016 07:57 pm »
A "practical" case, without assuming any customers that don't(haven't) already exist(ed)? That would definitely be a cold-war era missile base, the original case for the (1960s) Orion spacecraft. Camouflaged lunar bases can be very difficult to locate and attack, especially if they are on the far side. But that isn't how you should look at space exploration, otherwise you'll come to the conclusion that geostationary earth orbit is the only place worth going to.

Considering that a simple lunar regolith pole would be quite easy to launch and make quite a dent when reentering from lunar orbit at full speed, lunar missile bays would indeed be quite easy to hide. All we need is a criminal mastermind looking for an evil lair.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #32 on: 09/29/2016 06:05 pm »
Mining platinum group metals and rare earth elements could eventually become profitable.
They're difficult to get on Earth but on the moon ore is just sitting on the surface in the form of meteorites.

It may even become a necessity in the near future as terrestrial sources are running out.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2016 06:08 pm by Patchouli »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #33 on: 09/29/2016 11:30 pm »
Mining platinum group metals and rare earth elements could eventually become profitable.
They're difficult to get on Earth but on the moon ore is just sitting on the surface in the form of meteorites.

It may even become a necessity in the near future as terrestrial sources are running out.

It seems if there is lunar water to mine, then the PMG could be mined.
If there is rocket fuel at lunar surface, this could allow PMG to be mined on Moon without dramatic lowering of earth launch costs. But were earth launch cost to lower- Musk idea of very low launch cost in order have mars settlements- then such lowering of costs could allow mining of Moon of PMG.
One would need to develop transportation from the Moon which used less rocket fuel or no rocket fuel- quite risky and expensive in terms infrastructure costs, but if it worked, it could have low cost per lb/ton and if shipped enough thousands of tons per year, it could pay for the high up front costs.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #34 on: 09/30/2016 12:13 am »
Mining platinum group metals and rare earth elements could eventually become profitable.
They're difficult to get on Earth but on the moon ore is just sitting on the surface in the form of meteorites.

It may even become a necessity in the near future as terrestrial sources are running out.

It seems if there is lunar water to mine, then the PMG could be mined.
If there is rocket fuel at lunar surface, this could allow PMG to be mined on Moon without dramatic lowering of earth launch costs. But were earth launch cost to lower- Musk idea of very low launch cost in order have mars settlements- then such lowering of costs could allow mining of Moon of PMG.
One would need to develop transportation from the Moon which used less rocket fuel or no rocket fuel- quite risky and expensive in terms infrastructure costs, but if it worked, it could have low cost per lb/ton and if shipped enough thousands of tons per year, it could pay for the high up front costs.

Some old ideas. Since PMG cares about re-entry temperature and vacuum a metal heat shield can be used - such as platinum or sintered regolith.

From the Moon's surface ISRU aluminium and LOX can be used as propellant.

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #35 on: 09/30/2016 06:25 pm »
One wonders if PGMs could be stored on the Moon and still be traded as futures. Only delivering on debts to terrestrial banks as required. While terrestrial institutions would need proof of delivery at the start. Perhaps in time they would work on faith of payment alone. Thus not requiring the costly shipment to Earth.

However, the PGMs are not needed just as currency, but more practical applications. Fuel cells, catalytic reactions. So delivery might be a must after all. Using disposable reentry shields from lunar materials, return of PGMs to Earth should not break the bank.

I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Offline KristianAndresen

  • Member
  • Posts: 36
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #36 on: 10/01/2016 07:52 am »
Well, the moon has mass and vacuum and sunlight, which is good for linear accelerators. Usually those accelerators are just described as infrastructure for doing other things. But what if they are the main show? Serving both as landing strips and launch points, what if this transportation infrastructure over time gets increasingly connected, eventually forming a ring all the way around the equator? The equator is very well aligned to the plane of the solar system, so this would be an efficient launch system for travel elsewhere. And if you have a loop of material in continuous motion around the track, it is also an efficient energy storage system.

Offline hkultala

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1198
  • Liked: 748
  • Likes Given: 945
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #37 on: 10/01/2016 08:24 am »
Use it as a gigantic reflector to reflect sunlight to places where sun is currently not shining to decrease amount of artificial light needed?




Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #38 on: 10/03/2016 07:34 pm »
The Moons economic value is that it is a handy close gravity well and has plenty of resource to support humanity as we move from a teck 1 civilisation to a teck 2 . 

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7438
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2332
  • Likes Given: 2891
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #39 on: 10/03/2016 08:14 pm »
Am I too far OT when I say the best moon is a full moon on a warm summer night with your girlfriend outside?

And then get her to sign up for a stay at the lunar station with you.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0