NASA's Artemis Program Updates and Discussion Thread 3

[deadman1204]

A proper lunar program to prepare for Mars would entail one or more multi-year stays on the lunar surface to demonstrate the ability to support conjunction-class stays on the Martian surface.  It’s not forever and ever.  But if you want long-term, multi-year stays are sure as heck better than the 30-day stays that Artemis is shooting for.

If you want decades and decades, then knowledge/understanding (science) and/or economic development (profit) are your best bets.  We’ve supported an uninterrupted, decades-long presence in Antartica for science.  Companies support uninterrupted, decades-long presences in remote locations like offshore oil platforms for profit.

Given what we know about the deleterious effects of low-g on fetal development and cosmic radiation on lifespan, I seriously doubt our species will ever have children or live out entire lives on the Moon or at Mars.  But there are reasons for to go temporarily and keep going.

In terms of cosmic radiation, there are solutions to that problem (lava tubes, water or ice protection layer). I am not sure if low-g prevents us from living on the Moon and Mars. We know that zero-G is a problem. But how much of a problem is the gravity of Mars and the Moon?

I disagree that we shouldn't be staying permanently in LEO, the Moon or Mars.

None of which is an Artemis program goal.

As discussed before, a permanent presence on the Moon was a goal under the prior Administration's Artemis plans but the current Administration is not as clear on this as it could be:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48676.msg2401764#msg2401764

I think there is the problem of wishful goals, and realistic goals. Permanent presence on the moon for artimis is totally hand wavey unfunded PR. Just like "moon to mars". Its total BS. There is no program of record that is actually pursuing full time lunar habitats beyond a few splashy websites. There aren't contracts and solid money for this - because there is no economic driver.
If china goes to the moon and pees on a US flag, then things change. However, the gov space industry is run by companies that are designed to milk nasa for every cent possible for the least amount of work. The current system is basically incapable of doing this.

[mike robel]

Regardless of how long they stay, what is the rationale/justification for putting astronauts back on the surface of the Moon?

The rationale is mostly to extend human presence to the Moon and also to build a lunar economy. While on the Moon, astronauts will do exploration, research and technology demonstrations but the main reason that they are there is to extend human presence in the solar system (i.e., to live and work on the Moon).

I think there is research to be done on the moon, after all, the place is bigger than Africa, but I wonder how long it would take to bring the moon to the industrial quality of the 21st century and supply a city of say 1,000,000 people.

Who will pay for the resources that need to be transferred from the Earth to the Moon (probably not the people on the moon, since they won't have any infrastructure for quite some time).  How long will it take to produce food on the moon?  Will it be limited to vegetarian?  How will crops be pollinated?  (Maybe they will only eat potatoes.)  Where will they get the fertilizer required?  Are there deposits of stuff on the moon that can be used for fertilizer?  How will the generate, purify, store, dispense, reclaim, and transport oxygen and water?  Is there stuff to operate a nuclear power plant?  After all, parts of the moon are dark about 50% of the time, so solar might not be the best way.

In another stupid question, is food grown in the Antarctic based camps?  Do the personnel eat penguins, seals, whales, or other sea life?  I imagine they melt the ice for the water needs.  How is there power supplied?  Nuclear might be smart. 

[clongton]

In a separate discussion, I’d argue that species survival offworld — meaning people living out lives and having and raising children in these low gravity and high cosmic radiation environments — is not possible.  Homo sapiens sapiens would have to fundamentally become something else to do that.  But if you ignore that, species survival offworld is a viable justification against a range of threats on Earth, not just environmental.
<Snip>
Given what we know about the deleterious effects of low-g on fetal development and cosmic radiation on lifespan, I seriously doubt our species will ever have children or live out entire lives on the Moon or at Mars.  But there are reasons for to go temporarily and keep going.

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

[whitelancer64]

Regardless of how long they stay, what is the rationale/justification for putting astronauts back on the surface of the Moon?

The rationale is mostly to extend human presence to the Moon and also to build a lunar economy. While on the Moon, astronauts will do exploration, research and technology demonstrations but the main reason that they are there is to extend human presence in the solar system (i.e., to live and work on the Moon).

I think there is research to be done on the moon, after all, the place is bigger than Africa, but I wonder how long it would take to bring the moon to the industrial quality of the 21st century and supply a city of say 1,000,000 people.

Who will pay for the resources that need to be transferred from the Earth to the Moon (probably not the people on the moon, since they won't have any infrastructure for quite some time).  How long will it take to produce food on the moon?  Will it be limited to vegetarian?  How will crops be pollinated?  (Maybe they will only eat potatoes.)  Where will they get the fertilizer required?  Are there deposits of stuff on the moon that can be used for fertilizer?  How will the generate, purify, store, dispense, reclaim, and transport oxygen and water?  Is there stuff to operate a nuclear power plant?  After all, parts of the moon are dark about 50% of the time, so solar might not be the best way.

In another stupid question, is food grown in the Antarctic based camps?  Do the personnel eat penguins, seals, whales, or other sea life?  I imagine they melt the ice for the water needs.  How is there power supplied?  Nuclear might be smart.

Food has been grown in Antarctic bases for over 80 years, both to supplement food supplies brought along, as well as for providing the morale boost of having fresh food. McMurdo Station has a greenhouse in which food is grown year round. It's also commonly used as a place to relax since there is so much refreshing greenery.

Antarctic soil is very poor in nutrients and most food crops grown there are using hydroponics systems.

NASA has been running food growing experiments in Antarctica for nearly 20 years.

Currently, NASA and the German Space Agency DLR are running a container-sized experiment in Antarctica that mimics the conditions of growing food on the Moon. 

https://eden-iss.net/

From 1962 to 1972, McMurdo station had a nuclear reactor - the only nuclear reactor to ever operate on the continent. It was very unreliable and had frequent power production failures and other malfunctions.

Almost all Antarctic bases primarily run on diesel generators. Several have solar panels for supplemental power. McMurdo station had nine wind turbines installed in 2019

There is one station, the Princess Elisabeth Antarctica Research Station (a Belgian research facility), that is entirely zero emissions, running on solar panels (taking advantage of the constant sunlight in the summer) and wind turbines.

[clongton]

... Is there stuff to operate a nuclear power plant?  After all, parts of the moon are dark about 50% of the time, so solar might not be the best way...

Lunar Prospector data shows that Thorium is abundant on the moon. Thorium is the preferred nuclear fuel for a LFTR reactor. So to answer your question, there is enough nuclear fuel on the moon to power any number self-sustaining locations that we might care to create. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

[mike robel]

Thanks for the information.  I appreciate the education.  Sometimes I am just too lazy to look things up.

[yg1968]

In a separate discussion, I’d argue that species survival offworld — meaning people living out lives and having and raising children in these low gravity and high cosmic radiation environments — is not possible.  Homo sapiens sapiens would have to fundamentally become something else to do that.  But if you ignore that, species survival offworld is a viable justification against a range of threats on Earth, not just environmental.
<Snip>
Given what we know about the deleterious effects of low-g on fetal development and cosmic radiation on lifespan, I seriously doubt our species will ever have children or live out entire lives on the Moon or at Mars.  But there are reasons for to go temporarily and keep going.

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

It's speculation. The cosmic radiation can likely be resolved. The effect of partial gravity is unknown. We have data for 1G and zero-G but nothing in between. In any event, this is the kind of research that we need to do.

Some of these issues are discussed in the book by Christopher Wanjek, Spacefarers.

[deadman1204]

In a separate discussion, I’d argue that species survival offworld — meaning people living out lives and having and raising children in these low gravity and high cosmic radiation environments — is not possible.  Homo sapiens sapiens would have to fundamentally become something else to do that.  But if you ignore that, species survival offworld is a viable justification against a range of threats on Earth, not just environmental.
<Snip>
Given what we know about the deleterious effects of low-g on fetal development and cosmic radiation on lifespan, I seriously doubt our species will ever have children or live out entire lives on the Moon or at Mars.  But there are reasons for to go temporarily and keep going.

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

Since they are unknowns, people
1. hand wave away all radiation issues saying "it'll be solved".
2. totally ignore the gravity part because we don't know, so they just assume everything will be ok.

#1 can be solved if you are deep enough underground I suppose (many meters, not just a splash of dirt on your habitat). However, this then brings up the problem of living in a box forever, and adding space will be VERY expensive, because it requires significant excavation to add a single room.

[Robotbeat]

The radiation level isn’t very high on Mars proper. Living in a multistory building already provides plenty of shielding. A few feet of water on the roof (not that heavy since the gravity is lower) provides even more shielding. In northern climates, we already have to build houses with substantial snow loading capacity.

Plus the whole base area could be shielded additionally with an electromagnet shield.

There are zero technical showstoppers here, and I’ve done the calculations needed for low levels (and people underestimate how much radiation they’re exposed to already… mars could actually be lower than some places on Earth people live healthy lives), sorry concern-trolls. But I don’t expect it’ll be fully solved in a practical sense before we go.

[spacenut]

One of the problems someone talked about was human survival in low G and radiation environments.  Well, no studies have been done at 0.4 G to see if low gravity, but some gravity would have on human or animal survival.  1/6 G of the moon would be more problematic than the 0.4 G of Mars.  Also, Mars has a 24-1/2 hour day that would be easier on human sleeping cycles.  The moon does not. 

The moon on the other hand is close to earth and easier to rotate out crews for work, mining, or manufacturing.  Mars is not but has more gravity. 

If humans can live and sustain life on Mars, then Ceres and the larger moons of Jupiter and Saturn are not out of the question. 

Otherwise, large Babylon 5 or O'Neil cylinders would have to be built near these planets and moons for rotations to the planets. 

Water storage on the roofs of Martian buildings is a good idea, as Robotbeat said.  Provides shielding as well as gravity pressure for plumbing below.  There are ways around radiation, but gravity, well, at least Mars gravity might be ok for humans. 

[Cherokee43v6]

In a separate discussion, I’d argue that species survival offworld — meaning people living out lives and having and raising children in these low gravity and high cosmic radiation environments — is not possible.  Homo sapiens sapiens would have to fundamentally become something else to do that.  But if you ignore that, species survival offworld is a viable justification against a range of threats on Earth, not just environmental.
<Snip>
Given what we know about the deleterious effects of low-g on fetal development and cosmic radiation on lifespan, I seriously doubt our species will ever have children or live out entire lives on the Moon or at Mars.  But there are reasons for to go temporarily and keep going.

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

Since they are unknowns, people
1. hand wave away all radiation issues saying "it'll be solved".
2. totally ignore the gravity part because we don't know, so they just assume everything will be ok.

#1 can be solved if you are deep enough underground I suppose (many meters, not just a splash of dirt on your habitat). However, this then brings up the problem of living in a box forever, and adding space will be VERY expensive, because it requires significant excavation to add a single room.

Reading this part of the discussion I am strongly reminded of the notation that sometimes appears on medieval maps of the known world.  Beyond what was known was:

Here there be dragons

Just maybe Homo Sapiens Sapiens is meant to evolve into Homo Sapiens Astra?

The argument that we know it will fail so we should not even try is self-fulfilling and thus invalid.

[VSECOTSPE]

In terms of cosmic radiation, there are solutions to that problem (lava tubes, water or ice protection layer).

Three issues:

1) Lava tubes are speculation at this time.  We need ground truth, but even if ground truth confirms that the remote sensing and images are what we think they are, I’d be skeptical that lava tubes will be accessible enough, stable enough, and in the locations where we need them.

2) Water shielding is a solution for relatively small spacecraft, not a sizable settlement, especially on a world where water will be much more scarce than any location on Earth.

3) Whether it’s lava tubes, water, meters of sandbags, or something else, we’re talking about a subterranean environment (or effectively so), and we as a species just don’t live out years and decades of our lives underground.  The subterranean option has always been there terrestrially, but we’ve never taken it except for short periods of time.  This includes even our prehistoric ancestor/sister species (Neanderthals, Denosivans, etc.).   It’s hard to see members of our species giving up our unbounded, sky-filled, surface lives for lives in caves or their functional equivalents.
 
I think our species could/will visit Earth orbit, the lunar surface, Mars, asteroids, etc. in increasing numbers for periods up to a couple or few years.  But given that radiation damage is cumulative over time, the resulting damage and cancers reduce lifespans by decades, and the alternative is a subterranean existence we’ve never undertaken to protect against cosmic radiation, I don’t see our species living out decades or entire lives in these environments.

The harsh reality is that our species only temporarily visits — and does not live in — environments that can kill us even on Earth.  Adventure tourists regularly climb Himalayan peaks where the air is too thin to sustain our health, but no one lives there, not even the sherpas.  Oil rig workers do multi-month rotations to deep ocean platforms, but no one lives years or decades on one.  Researchers do seasonal tours in Antarctica and a few even overwinter (oversummer?) there, but no one lives out their life on that continent.  Until we can download our consciousnesses into machines or reengineer our genomes or create terraformed environments, these are the likely models for Homo sapiens sapiens activity in space for the foreseeable future.

I am not sure if low-g prevents us from living on the Moon and Mars. We know that zero-G is a problem. But how much of a problem is the gravity of Mars and the Moon?

We know from experiments with mammalian (mice and rats) reproduction and gestation that microgravity — both in space and simulated via clinostats — causes deleterious effects in most foetal subjects, including fewer implantations in the uterine wall, errors in blastocyst folding, defects in sensory organs, and voids in brains.  Other negative impacts are seen during juvenile development.  Our biology is finely tuned after billions of years of evolution to leverage Earth’s 1g environment.  We need to do more research with centrifuges and/or on other planetary surfaces.  But it’s unlikely that these effects suddenly fall off or even mitigate much at 0.16g (Moon) or even 0.38g (Mars), especially in even more complex organisms like ourselves.  (I’d grant 0.9g at Venus.)  We should brace ourselves for the likelihood that we will not be able to bear or raise children in these environments.

I disagree that we shouldn't be staying permanently in LEO, the Moon or Mars.

It’s not a “should we” question.  It’s a “can we” question.  If by “permanently” you mean individuals and families living out decades or their entire lives in these low-g, high radiation environments and bearing and raising children there (vice rotating crews), the answer so far is probably no, we can’t do that (at least not without horrifically shortened lifespans and high incidences of major developmental defects).

In the Moon to Mars objectives, the lunar infrastructure goal would create a utilization infrastructure... In terms of the NASA Charter, here is what the statutory notes to the U.S Code says:

You’re stringing together Artemis text about infrastructure for international and industry partnerships for the purposes of a lunar economy, science objectives, and Mars testing with a passing reference to settlement in the _notes_ of a law.  It’s a stretch, at best.

It's speculation. The cosmic radiation can likely be resolved. The effect of partial gravity is unknown. We have data for 1G and zero-G but nothing in between. In any event, this is the kind of research that we need to do.

We have a lot more than speculation about the impacts of cosmic radiation and low gravity environments on human lifespan and mammalian foetal and juvenile development.  While we do need to check more boxes on this research, we also need to be sober about the results to date, which are far from promising.

Some of these issues are discussed in the book by Christopher Wanjek, Spacefarers.

This is only a popular science book from a journalist, and the bulk of it is about temporary visits in the vein I described above:  “hotels in low-earth orbit, mining and tourism on the Moon, and science bases on Mars.”  Even the publisher warns that these could be “possibly followed” by “full blown settlements” but only with “gravity permitting”.

[Robotbeat]

Imagine the huge hurdles that ancient humans had as many of them left Africa. Traveling vast, vast distances through a medium that would suffocate them in seconds and for which they had not evolved (the ocean). Traveling to frozen lands where a couple minutes of unshielded exposure would also be fatal. & to do all this without the benefit of modern technology or written language or modern science. Yet indigenous people all around the world developed ways (pre-metallic technology, social technology, agriculture, hunting techniques, fire, etc) to do it.

Mars is easy in comparison.

[VSECOTSPE]

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

If our understanding and research to date proves true and we really can’t live out entire lives and have children in these high radiation, low-g environments, I don’t think that negates the entire purpose of the US civil human space flight program.  The program has never been justified on that basis, and we temporarily send people to dangerous environments on Earth for all sorts of reasons.  The foreseeable human future in space just looks more like arctic research, deep ocean oil platforms, and adventure tourism than the family from Lost in Space or Starfleet crews and their families.

I’d note that there are also environments besides the Moon and Mars.  The right altitude range at Venus is intriguing because it provides high-g, protection from cosmic radiation, a one bar atmosphere, Earth-ish temperatures.  It has a different set of problems (corrosion, surface, resources) and is still dangerous like the Himalayan peaks.  But it’s not trying to kill you and your children in as fundamental way as the lunar and Martian surfaces.  Another glimmer is the startup company Vast which is working on a small rotating space station, which obviously starts to address the low-g issue.  Maybe that’s the beginning of something scaled up decades later that begins to look like O’Neil cylinders (or pick your favorite spinning, high-g, well-shielded space station design).

[mike robel]

I think our species could/will visit Earth orbit, the lunar surface, Mars, asteroids, etc. in increasing numbers for periods up to a couple or few years.  But given that radiation damage is cumulative over time, the resulting damage and cancers reduce lifespans by decades, and the alternative is a subterranean existence we’ve never undertaken to protect against cosmic radiation, I don’t see our species living out decades or entire lives in these environments.

The harsh reality is that our species only temporarily visits — and does not live in — environments that can kill us even on Earth.  Adventure tourists regularly climb Himalayan peaks where the air is too thin to sustain our health, but no one lives there, not even the sherpas.  Oil rig workers do multi-month rotations to deep ocean platforms, but no one lives years or decades on one.  Researchers do seasonal tours in Antarctica and a few even overwinter (oversummer?) there, but no one lives out their life on that continent.  Until we can download our consciousnesses into machines or reengineer our genomes or create terraformed environments, these are the likely models for Homo sapiens sapiens activity in space for the foreseeable future.

This is much better stated than I tried to do.  Thanks.

It’s not a “should we” question.  It’s a “can we” question.  If by “permanently” you mean individuals and families living out decades or their entire lives in these low-g, high radiation environments and bearing and raising children there (vice rotating crews), the answer so far is probably no, we can’t do that (at least not without horrifically shortened lifespans and high incidences of major developmental defects).

Just because we 'can' do a thing doesn't mean we "should" or must do a "thing".  I think in some (many) cases we do things just because we can without a lot of thought to the new problems which may arise.  (Somewhat swiped from Star Trek VI and Jurassic Park movies.

[Robotbeat]

I'm really surprised that these two (2) statements of yours didn't elicit more reaction. They are, after all, totally fundamental to the reason that we would do any of this.

If our understanding and research to date proves true and we really can’t live out entire lives and have children in these high radiation, low-g environments, I don’t think that

Um, that’s the opposite of what our understanding and research states today.

Don’t spread misinformation.

Being conservative with assumptions does not give permission to just lie.

[Robotbeat]

So much completely baseless claims about radiation in this thread. Do you some basic research first. Start at oltaris.nasa.gov

Y’all are not smart for making baseless concern trolling claims about radiation. I know being “skeptical” to the point of just literally making up falsehoods is popular these days, but it won’t pass muster here.

[mike robel]

Imagine the huge hurdles that ancient humans had as many of them left Africa. Traveling vast, vast distances through a medium that would suffocate them in seconds and for which they had not evolved (the ocean). Traveling to frozen lands where a couple minutes of unshielded exposure would also be fatal. & to do all this without the benefit of modern technology or written language or modern science. Yet indigenous people all around the world developed ways (pre-metallic technology, social technology, agriculture, hunting techniques, fire, etc) to do it.

Mars is easy in comparison.

The issue with traversing the cold of space versus the more benign continents or oceans (except for Antarctica) is when those people commenced their journeys, they did not have to think about air to breathe, there was water or they knew how to find water, and they were pretty sure, although probably not totally sure, that they could find food.  They did not need protection from radiation, indeed, they didn't even know about it. Some brought food with them and they were in some cases able to hunt, fish, or scavenge from the environment in order to sustain their journey and grow/breed additional crops/live stock once they got "there".

Thousands, perhaps millions died in and from the effort and when they ran into people they didn't know about.

These are not reasons to just stay put on Earth, but the difficulty is much different than for those earlier peoples.  We are pretty sure there is noone like us in the rest of the solar system although I imagine it is possible there could be biological hazards for which we are unprepared similar to those faced by indigenous peoples in the Americas from European populations.   On the other hand, it doesn't mean there are those hazards either.  We simply don't know.

[VSECOTSPE]

Imagine the huge hurdles that ancient humans had as many of them left Africa. Traveling vast, vast distances through a medium that would suffocate them in seconds and for which they had not evolved (the ocean). Traveling to frozen lands where a couple minutes of unshielded exposure would also be fatal. & to do all this without the benefit of modern technology or written language or modern science. Yet indigenous people all around the world developed ways (pre-metallic technology, social technology, agriculture, hunting techniques, fire, etc) to do it.

Mars is easy in comparison.

I’m sorry, but this is totally misleading.  Every environment Homo sapiens sapiens settled on Earth had a breathable atmosphere, could support fire, and had naturally occurring food sources.  Nowhere on Earth is there an environment where persistent radiation from the sky will cut your lifespan to a fraction of its potential or where the gravitational field induces major developmental defects in mammalian foeti and juveniles.  The health threats at Mars (and on the Moon) are not only quantitatively much higher and more difficult to overcome, they strike much more deeply at the underpinnings of Earth biology and that makes them qualitatively different, much more pernicious, and more fundamentally dangerous to human health.

That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t visit the Moon and Mars temporarily for a variety of very good reasons.  That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t conduct research to see if there are reasonably safe and acceptable ways of living out lifespans and having children in these environments.  But we need to be sober about the threats and realities here.  The Moon and Mars are nothing like accidentally tracking an animal herd to a new continent, Polynesian island hopping, or even an ice age Europe.  These environments are deadly in ways and magnitudes that no settled environment on Earth is or ever was.

[VSECOTSPE]

Um, that’s the opposite of what our understanding and research states today.

No, it’s not.

Experts today debate whether it is ethical to send professional astronauts to Mars for just a couple/few years, forget decades:

https://www.unlv.edu/news/release/study-collateral-damage-cosmic-rays-increases-cancer-risk-mars-astronauts

And the negative impacts of low-g on mammalian foetal and juvenile are known:

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-1729/11/2/109/htm

Don’t spread misinformation.

I’ve provided these and other sources to you before in terraforming threads that your comments got deleted from the site.  Your refusal to accept these sources doesn’t mean they’re misinformation.

Being conservative with assumptions does not give permission to just lie.

Debating whether it is ethical to expose professional astronauts to the radiation from a couple/few years Mars trip is conservative.  Claiming that it’s safe for families to live out entire lives and bear/raise children in that environment is a ridiculous lie.

So much completely baseless claims about radiation in this thread. Do you some basic research first. Start at oltaris.nasa.gov

That’s just a mathematical model for radiation shielding.  That’s not a study of the effects of these environments on mammalian health.

Y’all are not smart for making baseless concern trolling claims about radiation. I know being “skeptical” to the point of just literally making up falsehoods is popular these days, but it won’t pass muster here.

You claimed before to work in this field.  So show us the research papers claiming that not only is it perfectly safe to expose professional astronauts for a couple/few years of these environments but that non-professionals and families could live out entire lives and bear/raise children in these environments with few or no major health impacts.