Author Topic: Why we need to go back to the moon  (Read 74262 times)

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #160 on: 12/18/2009 08:12 pm »
...What technology does Greenpeace and the Sierra Club support to deliver clean and cheap energy?
...
For what it's worth, "The Sierra Club opposes building new nuclear reactors, both fission and fusion, until specific inherent safety risks are mitigated by conservationist political policies, and regulatory agencies are in place to enforce those policies." (from Wikipedia, and validated by examining Sierra Club websites) So, Sierra Club's opposition to nuclear is not absolutely firm, but it is conditional. I disagree and think that it is worth it right now, but they aren't completely opposed to the possibility of safe, clean nuclear power.

Greenpeace, on the other hand, is completely opposed to nuclear power of any kind (other than solar power or perhaps geothermal). Although, one of Greenpeace's cofounders--Patrick Moore--is now pro-nuclear.

Assuming anything bad comes from global warming, we'll look back and blame ridiculously anti-nuclear people like Greenpeace for causing more carbon dioxide to be put in the air than any other lobbying group (by fighting tooth and nail against nuclear power and thus keeping us burning coal for decades when we could transition to nuclear power like France did).

Agreed. I believe nuclear waste is a lesser evil than greenhouse gases. It seems an increasing number of environmentalists are becoming nuclear power advocates.

I would like to preserve our environment as well as see continued rise in standard of living and economic growth. I suspect most environmentalists share this desire. I believe space development is a way to achieve both these seemingly contradictory goals.

Is it futile this promote this view? Will "environmentalists" ignore me because their thoughts are controlled by "environmentalists that matter", a group of illuminati who guide the environmentalist meme currents?

If I thought it was futile, I wouldn't be wasting my time and energy posting my views. I will continue to argue that space development is a way to preserve our environment and enjoy economic growth.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #161 on: 12/18/2009 08:22 pm »
...and I agree that it's OT, but I'm not complaining.

I'm complaining.

At one time space usenet groups were a good place to learn about and discuss space. But their signal to noise ratio was trashed by, among other things, political discussion irrelevant to space.

I don't mind if Davis wants to play Rush Limbaugh, so long as his comments are space related.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10975
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #162 on: 12/19/2009 02:19 pm »
The only reason I'm not complaining about the one comment is because I have a more inclusive outlook about the causes and effects which affect our space programs.  I think science, these days, is too reductionist, and the models that are created are too simplistic, even as their complexity exceeds my math capabilities.

And the proof of this contention is easy:  Science does not model politics, yet politics is perhaps the most important component of our scientific endeavors as implemented by our government.  Just as there is a greenie illuminati, so too is there a scientific one.

Anyhow, I'd say that Nevada may be all "crybaby" about the disposal, but if Uncle Sugar could grease a few more palms a bit more generously, they would be: "Get crackin' already!"
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10975
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #163 on: 09/28/2010 01:33 pm »
The HEFT mission is being compared to the lunar mission, and the suggestion keeps being made with a straight face that NEO is easier.

From:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22647.msg641122#msg641122

It was suggested:

Quote
I don't think the Moon is demonstrably easier. The HEFT asteroid mission develops capacity far above the minimum: four man crew, thirty day stays at the asteroid, and up to a year in space, plus high power SEP.

Carl G, in his infinite wisdom, locked that topic for drifting too far.  But I gotta say something.

Flags and footprint mission both scenarios, Moon and NEO. 

There's gotta be a lander/hab thingy for the Moon, so the astros can stay for two weeks.  These things aren't cheap.  Total mission, about three weeks, including travel time. 

NEO on the other hand, per the above suggestion, calls for thirty days on the rock and up to a year in space, with a new propulsion system and seven or so new spacecraft.  All this new equipment, which provides for up to a year in space, is seen as easier than similar equipment that provides for up to three weeks in space.

Assuming that testing is the same for both scenarios, six or so launches of the same rocket is seen as less expensive than two.

From a ground ops standpoint, one year of continuous activity is seen as less expemsive than three weeks of continuous activity.

And SEP is a new propulsion system that is not yet proven reliable, demonstrated at the scale necessary, nor fully costed.   But this is seen as easier as well.

There is some kind of widely held disconnect here, not restricted to a solitary post, since it is fundamental to HEFT.

yada, yada, yada.  In my opinion, such suggestions were a deliberate effort to mislead Congress, in the effort to "sell" the shuttle.  yada, yada, yada

The same thing seems to be happening with this report, which is why I post my remarks here.

Mods:  If I should start a new thread, lemme know.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #164 on: 09/29/2010 02:30 am »
On Baut forum, a fellow who calls himself Kamaz posted a link to proposed landing sites for the Russian Indian lunar mission:

"I have made a map of the proposed Luna-Resurs landing sites using Kaguya altimetry data. You can download it here: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ixvd4g2v7athugy/luna-resurs.pdf  (PDF, 1.3MB)

Comments are welcome (both on the landing sites and the map itself). Enjoy :)"

Earlier Kamaz had mentioned the locations were 20 or 30 kilometers from the closest suspected ice sheets seen Chandrayaan-1 and LRO mini-SAR radar. He gives coordinates of their locations: Two places are considered: 87.2°S, 68°E (primary) and 88.5°S, 297°E (backup).

The thread where Kamaz makes these posts is at http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/106808-Moon-race-Russia-amp-India-vs-China

Offline Lampyridae

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2654
  • South Africa
  • Liked: 953
  • Likes Given: 2081
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #165 on: 09/29/2010 08:19 am »
Most of the mainstream environmentalism today would be pro-technology, i think, just not that aware of relevance of space to environmentalism.

BTW, isnt it annoying to see all the "THERE IS NO PLANET B" posters on COP15 marches in the news right now ? There are several planets, each probably useful to us in a different way.

With lift rates to LEO at $100 000 a kilo, they could be made of pure cocaine and wouldn't be economically significant to us.

We have to sort out the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem before it wrecks the economy and thus our access to space.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5362
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 2240
  • Likes Given: 3883
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #166 on: 09/29/2010 09:39 am »
neveda state being all crybaby about it
and all the other states that a train carrying the waste goes through

they're all insane and think it will kill them

The best place for the use of nuclear power is in space. If you can't use it there, then where the heck else?

But: in regards to waste: there are many viable plans and procedures studied in recent years to drastically reduce waste by mixing and 'reburning' it in new-design Thorium reactors so the end products drastically reduce their half-lives. Don't ask me to list all the isotopes now, I'd have to recompile that list carefully to do it right. But when doing research on the subject of Thorium reactors a few years ago for a short story, I was told that Thorium reactors would be great at consuming and reducing the Uranium and Plutonium waste stockpiles -- ending up with waste products whose half-life could be measured in decades, not millennia!!

Thorium reactors would certainly be less powerful and efficient than Uranium (10 percent or so less powerful; but still oodles better than coal!), but Thorium is more plentiful, less toxic and cheaper. And its very difficult to get bomb-grade materials from the end-use of it. So weapons manufacturing can't ride on it's coattails, eh?

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C0

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

http://lpsc.in2p3.fr/gpr/english/NEWNRW/NEWNRW.html#foot284
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #167 on: 09/29/2010 09:44 am »
.
With lift rates to LEO at $100 000 a kilo, they could be made of pure cocaine and wouldn't be economically significant to us.

We have to sort out the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem before it wrecks the economy and thus our access to space.

Or, we have to firmly establish access to space before the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem wrecks the economy.


"$100 000 a kilo"? For $3b a year, we could easily launch 600 tons at $5,000/kg to LEO.

With $10b a year, we could get the number into the low $100's or less, for tens of thousands of tons.

But as yet there's no will or consensus to do it.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2010 09:55 am by kkattula »

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #168 on: 09/29/2010 09:56 am »
.
With lift rates to LEO at $100 000 a kilo, they could be made of pure cocaine and wouldn't be economically significant to us.

We have to sort out the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem before it wrecks the economy and thus our access to space.

Or, we have to firmly establish access to space before the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem wrecks the economy.


Sorry, but if an ecosystem is so important to the economy, why do you think the Moon is our salvation?

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10975
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #169 on: 09/29/2010 02:04 pm »
... Enjoy...

I did.  Very much.  Thanks for posting.  Plus, your website is pretty good too.

This map is great!  How is this done?  Fifteen years ago, I asked Paul Spudis for an AutoCAD map of Shackleton crater, based on the Clementine data.  He didn't provide it, and I have a terse email somewhere from him to the effect of:  "map the shadow projections yourself", as if it were an easy thing to do.  Obviously, it can be done.

...if an ecosystem is so important to the economy, why do you think the Moon is our salvation?

I interpreted his statement differently, but more wordily.

If we develop a space based economy which would support an independent colony on the Moon, we will have had to perform enough prospecting to know where the useful mineral deposits are; we will necessarily have to sufficiently solve the ISRU problem and also have a closer working approximation to the closed cycle life support problem; we will have to solve the power generation problem; have a sufficient ability to manufacture spacecraft and habitat on the Moon; and a host of other things.  For many decades at the beginning of this consensual human activity, most of the manufactured product will have to come from Earth. 

For a lunar colony to be independent, it will have to re-create an ecosystem of some sort, and in all probability this ecosystem will be a drastic subset of Earth's, even if it has a large genetic database kept in storage somehow.

The way humanity is progressing at this time, it seems that, over the 50-100 years that such an independent ecosystem could by created, that the terrestrial ecosystem will severely degraded.  In a possible "topia", midway between dystopia and utopia, it is conceivable that the Earth's agricultural ecosystem might suddenly collapse, and the ensuing human chaos might end the vast majority of human life on Earth, leaving the colony as the survivor.

The utopian outcome would be Garden Earth, Industrial Moon.  The dystopian outcome would be wasteland Earth, and uninhabited Moon.

So his statement makes sense to me, in my interpretation.
« Last Edit: 09/29/2010 02:19 pm by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #170 on: 09/29/2010 02:14 pm »
Or, we have to firmly establish access to space before the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem wrecks the economy.


Sorry, but if an ecosystem is so important to the economy, why do you think the Moon is our salvation?

I just want us to go to space.  So I'm in favour of opportunism. Never said the Moon is our salvation, it's just cool.

That's enough justification for me.  YMMV
« Last Edit: 09/29/2010 02:14 pm by kkattula »

Offline Hop_David

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1656
  • Ajo, Arizona
    • Hop's Gallery
  • Liked: 147
  • Likes Given: 60
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #171 on: 09/29/2010 08:27 pm »
... Enjoy...

I did.  Very much.  Thanks for posting.  Plus, your website is pretty good too.

The drawings were done by a fellow named Kamaz, not me. I tried to give him attribution and enclosed his words in quotes. Certainly hope my post doesn't come across as trying to take credit for his efforts.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10975
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #172 on: 09/29/2010 09:08 pm »
Certainly hope my post doesn't come across as trying to take credit for his efforts.

I for one, was not confused by who the artist was, but I did want to extend thanks to you for posting those drawings.   They're very informative.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Celebrimbor

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 414
  • Bystander
  • Brinsworth Space Centre, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 6
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #173 on: 09/30/2010 12:40 pm »
Or, we have to firmly establish access to space before the massive destruction of Earth's ecosystem wrecks the economy.


Sorry, but if an ecosystem is so important to the economy, why do you think the Moon is our salvation?

I just want us to go to space.  So I'm in favour of opportunism. Never said the Moon is our salvation, it's just cool.

That's enough justification for me.  YMMV

Ok great - me too. Lets just not fall into the trap of believing our own propaganda...

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #174 on: 09/30/2010 08:53 pm »

The way humanity is progressing at this time, it seems that, over the 50-100 years that such an independent ecosystem could by created, that the terrestrial ecosystem will severely degraded.  In a possible "topia", midway between dystopia and utopia, it is conceivable that the Earth's agricultural ecosystem might suddenly collapse, and the ensuing human chaos might end the vast majority of human life on Earth, leaving the colony as the survivor.

The utopian outcome would be Garden Earth, Industrial Moon.  The dystopian outcome would be wasteland Earth, and uninhabited Moon.

So his statement makes sense to me, in my interpretation.
The way I put it, "if we don't get off this rock soon, we're dead meat. I'm just not sure if "soon" is 30 years or 300 years".

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39284
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25279
  • Likes Given: 12125
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #175 on: 09/30/2010 09:19 pm »

The way humanity is progressing at this time, it seems that, over the 50-100 years that such an independent ecosystem could by created, that the terrestrial ecosystem will severely degraded.  In a possible "topia", midway between dystopia and utopia, it is conceivable that the Earth's agricultural ecosystem might suddenly collapse, and the ensuing human chaos might end the vast majority of human life on Earth, leaving the colony as the survivor.

The utopian outcome would be Garden Earth, Industrial Moon.  The dystopian outcome would be wasteland Earth, and uninhabited Moon.

So his statement makes sense to me, in my interpretation.
The way I put it, "if we don't get off this rock soon, we're dead meat. I'm just not sure if "soon" is 30 years or 300 years".
Or 300 million years.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1978
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #176 on: 10/01/2010 01:23 am »
The Kamaz work does deserve special mention -- those plots are great!  It's really nice to have maps of the sites they show, which were identified by Slyuta et al.  The one overlooking Shoemaker and Faustini looks like particularly prime real estate!

For context, Slyuta's paper includes maps showing these two locations on full south-polar views.  It is available at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2010/pdf/1141.pdf.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10975
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1258
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #177 on: 10/01/2010 02:39 am »
If we don't get off this rock soon, we're dead meat.

Like I said, I interpreted his statement differently, but more wordily.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7715
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #178 on: 10/04/2010 08:25 pm »
I'm starting to wonder if this has been the intent of HEFT: concentrate on the moon by showcasing the proposed high costs of a NEO mission. I'm certainly not defending HEFT, or championing a permanent lunar pressence, but I'm starting to get nagged by the about-face done by the NASA administration, especially by Lori Garver, backed by rumours that Gen Bolden could be on his way out.

What is best served by a choice of destination:

1. Multiple short trips to the moon, supported by a COTS program that includes propellant depots & cargo re-supply (as a follow-on to ISS capabilities)

or

2. A single-shot NEO mission way out in the future, risking future mission funding in the process?

Perhaps one could make the case that a NEO mission could harden us to the realities of a Mars or Phobos mission, but even if we undertook such a challenge, it still needs a lunar precursor, something I have believed in from the start. Sort of 'get your feet wet' again mentality. Could a lunar-based program be done in conjunction with hardware development for a NEO/Phobos/Mars mission? I think so, if the right tools & capabilities were developed ahead of time.

I'm going to mull on this for some time, but thought of throwing it out there for discussion.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7221
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2072
  • Likes Given: 1978
Re: Why we need to go back to the moon
« Reply #179 on: 10/04/2010 10:48 pm »
In her press conference after passage of S. 3729, Garver seemed to be paving the way (or testing the waters) for an EML space station.

Garver says, "Hopefully additional space stations unique to what we do in space."

Attached audio of the "teleconference" with Lori Garver here.

My understanding would be that politically, she couldn't advocate for lunar surface missions so soon after the President's BTDT comment.  But by shifting focus now from NEO to EML, she can pave the way for a shift to a lunar surface destination a few years from now.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Tags:
 

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