Author Topic: Best use for the Moon?  (Read 33345 times)

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2637
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 711
  • Likes Given: 106
Best use for the Moon?
« on: 09/14/2016 09:33 pm »
There's pros and cons for venturing to different bodies of the solar system.  In the Moon's case, an obvious pro is it's nearby and a con is it's water-poor (sans perhaps the poles, but we're debating if the water's easily extractable).  I'm putting down a thread so Lunar supporters can discuss what'd be the best general purpose for the Moon regardless of SLS, ARM, and Mars.  The Moon is always going to be our immediate neighbor regardless whether NASA ventures to it.

The best use for the Moon, in my opinion, is science; particularly astronomy.  There are resources on the Moon and it is a more useful environment than open space (LEO or interplanetary), but compared to Earth and Mars it's nasty and bone dry.  However, the lack of an atmosphere and its moisture is useful for all forms of astronomical research.  It's probably cheaper to put satellite telescopes in orbit, but the Moon is stable and a human presence offers possibilities including longevity.

Add you own thoughts; I will elaborate on my own later regarding why I believe the Moon is a boon for astronomy (although there's more it can be utilized for).
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39824
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33668
  • Likes Given: 10416
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #1 on: 09/15/2016 06:23 am »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2233
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #2 on: 09/15/2016 01:38 pm »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.

Offline Bynaus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 562
  • Scientist, Curator, Writer, Family man
  • Switzerland
    • Final-Frontier.ch
  • Liked: 424
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #3 on: 09/15/2016 01:53 pm »
- regolith dust for in-space manufacturing (source of Al, Ti, U, Th, some other elements typically found in lower abundance in asteroids)

- Radio telescopes and other science (e.g., archive for Earth fragments; solar observation from peaks of eternal light, etc.)

- volatiles for fuel in cislunar space and beyond

- tourism

Perhaps (forbidden by outer space treaty now, but who knows...), military (missile) bases.

Perhaps, gravitational anchor point for asteroid resource retrieval.

Plenty of stuff to do!
More of my thoughts: www.final-frontier.ch (in German)

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4310
  • Liked: 888
  • Likes Given: 201
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #4 on: 09/15/2016 02:40 pm »
My pet idea is a "robotic colony" to experiment with ISRU and teleoperated industry (probably at the lunar poles)

My particular scheme to fund it:
* NASA creates a market for cargo delivery, paying say $0.25b/year, hopefully getting 2-3 alternate services.
* NASA does NOT pay for or specify cargo. Instead it hands out transport to the moon as the prize for the most interesting/useful project. Some sort of panel or voting system would give more points to projects that enable other projects, eg solar power, general purpose rovers, communications.

Companies and Universities recoup their investment from the prestige, just as car companies invest in Formula One. Ideally you want people who already have an interest in this field (solar power, robotics or whatever) and an intention to commercialise it.
Some portion of the cargo would also go to paying customers. similar to CubeSats. This could be businesses that print messages into the regolith or perhaps just some scientific instrument, along with renting time on one of the general purpose rovers to deploy it.
Possibly at some point paying customers would take over from NASA funding or fund additional landers.

Offline jstrout

  • Member
  • Posts: 58
  • Liked: 45
  • Likes Given: 61
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #5 on: 09/24/2016 12:35 am »
I'd say the best use for the Moon is as a tourism/entertainment center.

I'm thinking about lunar sports, like swimming, where with fins a good swimmer could leap 5 meters out of the water.



Similarly, gymnasts could launch themselves high into the air, and do amazing spins and whatnot on the way down.  Diving.  Ballet.  Maybe even strapping on wings and flying (though I haven't had much look finding detailed calculations about that).

All of that with good video production should generate some substantial revenue.  And then, of course, you have (initially) billionaires and (later) millionaires who want to go just to go.

Yes, these activities require a fairly big pressurized space.  Perhaps you could start smaller and work your way up to the larger venues, bootstrap-style.  Initially just do a reality TV show about half a dozen people living and working on the Moon, in a rough first-generation habitat.  I would certainly watch that.  I'd clear my schedule for it weekly (or daily if available), and go buy the products advertised in the commercials, too.

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2343
  • Likes Given: 2942
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #6 on: 09/24/2016 06:41 am »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.

That's probably true if metal production is established for other reasons. I doubt that establishing it for just a radio telescope is cost efficient.  A radio telescope can be shielded from earth in L2 and as it is in space it needs a lot less structural mass than even in low moon gravity. It can also be directed easier and in a wider range without concern for bending forces.

Offline Darkseraph

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 716
  • Liked: 485
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #7 on: 09/24/2016 07:45 am »
A research park to test out various propellantless propulsion techniques like mass drivers, sky hooks, space elevators and laser-pushed light sails.

The lower gravity and lack of an atmosphere is some advantage for these schemes.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." R.P.Feynman

Offline RonM

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3340
  • Atlanta, Georgia USA
  • Liked: 2233
  • Likes Given: 1584
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #8 on: 09/24/2016 01:49 pm »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.

That's probably true if metal production is established for other reasons. I doubt that establishing it for just a radio telescope is cost efficient.  A radio telescope can be shielded from earth in L2 and as it is in space it needs a lot less structural mass than even in low moon gravity. It can also be directed easier and in a wider range without concern for bending forces.

Yes, relatively cheap radio telescopes on the Moon assumes a local presence with some manufacturing capability. Fixed radio telescopes made by rolling out cables on the surface can be much larger than anything in space because they won't need support. Then again, if there is anything to the theory of the electrostatic levitation of dust during certain times of the lunar day, maybe rolling out kilometers of conducting cables isn't a good idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_soil#Moon_dust_fountains_and_electrostatic_levitation

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1331
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 352
  • Likes Given: 281
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #9 on: 09/24/2016 09:02 pm »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.
The same argument could be done for Phobos or Deimos, with the difference that the delta-v requirements would be less and that telescope structure could be far lighter due to lower gravity.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #10 on: 09/25/2016 12:53 am »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.
The same argument could be done for Phobos or Deimos, with the difference that the delta-v requirements would be less and that telescope structure could be far lighter due to lower gravity.
The moons are tidally locked to Mars but they turn relative to Sun, Earth, and Universe.
Phobos orbits Mars every 7.65 hours.
The Moon turns every 28 days, relative to Sun, Mars and Universe.
A large radio telescope near Mars, could useful to send tighter signal and receive weaker signal which if
had Mars settlements, which could reduce radio signal pollution in the solar system. Though probably want them in Mars L-4 and 5 which because widely spaced, allows allow more radio traffic when Mars is on another side of the Sun relative to Earth.

I think the Moon would good place to put Earthling optical telescopes, though, other then the signal delay, could also work with Mars or it's moons.
A thing about making large projects is one probably use a lot of teleoperation. One might have 100 hours of teleoperation per hour of non teleoperation activity. Or earth labor costs are relatively cheap, so you use that labor whenever possible.
The other side of it, users of lunar telescope could buy time at modest price- per minute or hour. And one wants a large amount of time to sell.
The Moon compared to Earth would have more time to sell per day/year.
One could have smaller telescopes in various locations- though one need a source of electrical power.
So a large telescope needs electrical power, so could have smaller telescopes in same area using the same source of power needed for larger telescopes. Or where ever there is source of dependable electrical power, one put telescopes.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Liked: 740
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #11 on: 09/25/2016 01:12 am »
I'd say the best use for the Moon is as a tourism/entertainment center.

I'm thinking about lunar sports, like swimming, where with fins a good swimmer could leap 5 meters out of the water.



Similarly, gymnasts could launch themselves high into the air, and do amazing spins and whatnot on the way down.  Diving.  Ballet.  Maybe even strapping on wings and flying (though I haven't had much look finding detailed calculations about that).

All of that with good video production should generate some substantial revenue.  And then, of course, you have (initially) billionaires and (later) millionaires who want to go just to go.

Yes, these activities require a fairly big pressurized space.  Perhaps you could start smaller and work your way up to the larger venues, bootstrap-style.  Initially just do a reality TV show about half a dozen people living and working on the Moon, in a rough first-generation habitat.  I would certainly watch that.  I'd clear my schedule for it weekly (or daily if available), and go buy the products advertised in the commercials, too.


You forgot sex.

Offline Bob Shaw

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Liked: 740
  • Likes Given: 678
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #12 on: 09/25/2016 01:14 am »
The gravity well and Lunar dust probably makes the Moon a poor site. L-2 is probably the best place for space telescopes.

True, but the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth. Early systems can be cables rolled out on the lunar surface. Steerable antenna can be very large with the Moon's low gravity.

Once metal needed for construction is manufactured on the Moon building large radio telescopes will be far cheaper.
The same argument could be done for Phobos or Deimos, with the difference that the delta-v requirements would be less and that telescope structure could be far lighter due to lower gravity.

The Moon is also. from time to time, within the Earth's magnetotail and also looks out through the various L points. Like everything else, pristine is relative...

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10586
  • NASA Educator Astronaut Candidate Applicant 2002
  • Liked: 4549
  • Likes Given: 13523
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #13 on: 09/25/2016 01:15 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...
"The laws of physics are unforgiving"
~Rob: Physics instructor, Aviator

Offline scienceguy

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 839
  • Lethbridge, Alberta
  • Liked: 158
  • Likes Given: 285
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #14 on: 09/25/2016 01:17 am »
A research park to test out various propellantless propulsion techniques like mass drivers, sky hooks, space elevators and laser-pushed light sails.

The lower gravity and lack of an atmosphere is some advantage for these schemes.

One more vote for the laser-pushed lightsails
e^(pi*i) = -1

Offline Phil Stooke

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1434
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1518
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #15 on: 09/25/2016 01:50 am »
"...the Moon is a great place for radio telescopes. Placed on the far side, the Moon will block radio signals form Earth...

... The same argument could be done for Phobos or Deimos ..."

Phobos and Deimos are in no way shielded from radio signals to and from Earth, given all we have going on at Mars these days.  And if we were in a position to put radio telescopes near Mars we would be doing even more there.  So the lunar far side remains uniquely shielded in that respect.  There have been proposals to protect a zone of the central far side for that purpose.  But all the talk about L2 stations, far side elevators and so on will not fit with that scenario. 

Best use for the Moon? I would go with the first post, best use is science, but focus on geology and geophysics rather than astronomy, and then throw in technology testing and development as well.

Offline VIY

  • Member
  • Posts: 24
  • Liked: 15
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #16 on: 09/25/2016 03:18 am »
High energy physics. Earth is getting too crowded for these toys, and open space has its own issues, like micrometeorites, thermal environment, lack of support structure, etc.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #17 on: 09/25/2016 06:10 am »
High energy physics. Earth is getting too crowded for these toys, and open space has its own issues, like micrometeorites, thermal environment, lack of support structure, etc.

No way.  Large colliders are huge and need an enormous amount of maintenance.  They'd be many, many times more expensive on the moon, and for no real benefit.  I don't know where you got the idea that Earth is "too crowded" for them, but that's not true in any way.  The LHC was built underground, as are all big colliders.  You can build a large collider underground virtually anywhere on Earth.

Offline ChrisWilson68

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5261
  • Sunnyvale, CA
  • Liked: 4993
  • Likes Given: 6458
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #18 on: 09/25/2016 06:16 am »
The best use I can think of for the moon is as an archive.  We can put documents and artifacts underground on the moon and they'll last millions of years.  A lot of previous civilizations have had their remains purposely destroyed by other cultures after they were gone.  An archive on the moon would be immune from that except by space-faring civilization, who would hopefully be less likely to want to destroy evidence from the past and more likely to want to learn from it.

We could even potentially build a long-lived transmitter to continuously broadcast the archive data on a loop, so future civilizations wouldn't have to reach the moon to learn from it.

Offline Saage

  • Member
  • Posts: 6
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #19 on: 09/25/2016 09:57 am »

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1684
  • Europe
  • Liked: 838
  • 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: 6315
  • Liked: 1491
  • 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: 6315
  • Liked: 1491
  • 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: 905
  • Berndorf, Austria
  • Liked: 522
  • Likes Given: 2576
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: 1684
  • Europe
  • Liked: 838
  • 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: 2637
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 711
  • Likes Given: 106
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: 1174
  • Liked: 593
  • Likes Given: 708
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: 1684
  • Europe
  • Liked: 838
  • 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: 254
  • 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: 1206
  • Liked: 755
  • Likes Given: 989
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: 564
  • Liked: 34
  • 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: 7447
  • Germany
  • Liked: 2343
  • Likes Given: 2942
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.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #40 on: 10/04/2016 01:33 am »
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 .

The moon has economic value if the cost to use the Moon is lowered. Currently it doesn't have economic value,
nor does Mars [or Venus or Mercury or any known asteroid]. Though it's conceivable a way could be found to lower the costs. Or many earth orbits have economic value [and are used].

The argument or debate is how or whether cost to use moon can be lowered.
I would say one needs to mine lunar water and make rocket fuel to lower the costs of using the Moon.
And this is not mostly about lowering earth launch costs, or launch costs could be twice their present costs and this could still be done. And would say lower Earth launch costs in regard to mining lunar water is largely
about lowering some kinds of economic risks [it also increases some kind risks- lowering launch lowers short term risk, lower launch cost increases some longer term risk. Short terms risks are more important/significant].
I also would say mining lunar water is mostly about the financial risk and this risk can be lowered- and is the same thing as lowering costs. Or reduce risk = lower cost.
Accordingly I think NASA can lower cost/reduce risk by exploring the Moon. Or someone needs to explore the
Moon before the Moon can be mined.
Many think NASA should explore the moon and mine the Moon and/or put a base on the Moon [presumably one builds a base in order to do more "exploration"]. And I think idea of NASA mining the Moon as dumb idea. Or it's setting NASA up to fail- it's war which they have no chance to win. Suicide. Waste of time. Etc.
And it's backwards, one explores first, before deciding to mine, anything. And particularly foolish when one considers it involves a large bureaucracy. One needs to be wildly optimistic about bureaucracies, otherwise it should scare you silly. Plus the Congress simply will not allow it [maybe, if optimistic of Congress, because they deal with bureaucracies all the time.]
Next I think NASA should explore the Moon at low cost and to do it quickly. So in terms of time, about the time taken by Apollo and a lot cheaper than Apollo. And far more exploration done.
So total cost 40 billion and finished within 10 years- or average cost of about 4 billion per year.
And part of this lunar program is the cost of making depot in LEO, operational.
And as far as adding to NASA yearly budget, somewhere around 2 billion. Or NASA has to make budget choices
in order to spend 4 billion per year on the program. Cuts of some sort- despite adding 2 billion per year.
A big part of doing it would start by getting depot made and operated cheaply. There many ways NASA might do this.
But it would start by focusing on LOX depot rather than LOX and H2 [or whatever] depot. NASA over the years has probably spent more money thinking about depots rather the amount it should cost to do it.
Next NASA needs to start making robotic missions to the Moon which will use the depot.
If does not screw up this beginning part- maybe it get more from Congress to spend on the silly stuff it wants to spend money on. But that would optimistic. Another way might be to ask for more money for ISS use. Make a plan to end ISS by 2024, and not de-orbit ISS. Spend more money to save ISS plus NASA gets out business of paying for ISS after 2024. Or Congress might like the idea of ending ISS without having to crash into the Pacific.
Anyhow explore the moon and determine if and where there is minable lunar water in lunar polar region, then by around 2025, start Mars exploration.
And while NASA starts Mars exploration program, parties can evaluate the result of NASA exploration of the Moon and decide if possible to risk the capital needed to mine the Moon.
« Last Edit: 10/04/2016 01:55 am by gbaikie »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39824
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 33668
  • Likes Given: 10416
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #41 on: 10/04/2016 06:32 am »
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.

Instructional historical video of how this could be done.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Lunadyne

  • Member
  • Posts: 57
  • EML-1. the crossroads of cislunar space
  • Liked: 50
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #42 on: 10/05/2016 01:00 am »
The question of "The Best Use for the Moon?" is not entirely apt, being comparable to asking what's the best use for a computer?

The reasons to pursue human activity on the Moon are manifold, ranging from scientific and engineering to commerce and trade, even cultural advancements.

The problem is that human activity on the Moon best makes sense in the context of an active cislunar econosphere (remember, space is 3D), one that is making much fuller use of GEO and EML-1, even the other Lagrange points.  The hideous cost of lifting matériel out of Earth's gravity well to do things like salvage GEO scrap and service Solar system probes on the Interplanetary Superhighways will quickly drive demand for lower cost supplies from the much, much less deep gravity well of the Moon.  I discuss this concept more fully over at The Space Review in my article The Cislunar Econosphere:
Part 1: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2027/1
Part 2: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2033/1



Focusing on the Moon proper, we can consider a number of the many different reasons to set up shop there.

Science
This is generally broken down into Science of the Moon, Science on the Moon, and Science from the Moon.
Science of the Moon is the study of the Moon's evolution to its current state, distribution of materials, and so forth.  Still a lot of work to do here.  One of the most important things to study is the cratering record, conducting a comprehensive census to size and date the craters of the Moon.  The reason this is important is that here on Earth the paltry impact record we have is settling into an odd 30-35 million year cycle.  So about two cycles ago was when the dinosaurs were wiped out (by a combination of factors, but a big smack didn't help), see where this is going?  This oddity can be easily discredited by studying the impact record on the Moon.  Space science that's actually directly relevant to Earth and its well-being.

Science on the Moon is generally considered as science that would take advantage of the conditions found on the Moon as variables in research.  15,000,000 square miles of really high quality vacuum, 1/6th gravity, wicked temperature swings, ultra-cold environments in the everdark craters.  Eventually researchers will be clamoring for access. 

Science from the Moon covers things like the already noted radio astronomy, with the far side of the Moon as good as it gets in the Solar system for radio astronomy with only specular reflections of Earth noise from other bodies.  The everdark craters at the poles would be excellent for IR astronomy.  Even the regolith offers up something, in that it contains the record of the Sun's output over time trapped in the soil in the form of Solar Wind Implanted Elements (SWIEs).  Coupled with the cratering record (which will provide an age structure for the different layers created by ejecta from impacts), we will be able to look back at the output of the Sun over time, and perhaps unveil longer Sun cycles than just the 11-year sunspot cycle.  Again, space science that is directly relevant to Earth and its well-being.

Engineering
The engineering standards manual for the Moon has yet to be written.  The environment is so different that it will require different thinking about how to get things done.  How tall can we build Solar Power Towers at the poles?  How do we get machinery to not lock up in 40° K everdark craters?  If you use a mirror to shine sunlight into the everdark craters will you get an explosive volatile response?  How far apart in 1/6th gravity can you put your support towers for a monorail?  How tall do the ceilings of residences need to be so that people aren't constantly beaning themselves?  How high up can you put the next step in a stair?  How thick does the sealant need to be in the lava tubes to prevents leaks and blowouts?  So many questions, so very little to work with...

Commerce and Trade
Trading, it's what people do.  We've been at it since the Stone Age, we'll be doing it well into the future.  Some folks see the market as a place to do fair and open business, others as a place to hunt and prey.  Not much is likely to change in that regard, even on the Moon

The first identified export from the Moon was Oxygen.  The Moon is 40-45% oxygen by mass, so there's plenty of it there, irrespective of the water at the poles.  Because of Earth's ridiculous gravity well (One gee!  Gaah!), some models have even shown profitable shipment to LEO as compared with from the Earth's surface.  LUNOX would play a huge role in opening up cislunar space, as you could then ship up 8x as much hydrogen from Earth for use with LUNOX.

After that, things get a bit mushy.  The slag from oxygen processing could be formed into radiation cladding for spacecraft and stations.  Metals could be extracted, potentially extruded into useful forms.  Obviously, before you do anything else you want to get the SWIEs out of the soil.  Lots of useful stuff there.

We should also pay attention to the Rare Earth Elements, as they have many uses in industry.  Stuff like Thorium and Uranium, generally found in the lava flows, should be aggregated as well.  The Moon is a great spot for advanced nuclear research, because if it goes boom, hey, just another crater on the Moon.  I'm also in favor of moving all biohazard research to the Moon as a more effective quarantine zone.

Agriculture is likely to flourish, providing a whole new source of foodstuffs for the hard-working folks of the Moon and cislunar space.  And unlike Mars, we do know that plants can grow in the lunar regolith, and even seem to like the stuff.

Small, craft  trade goods are likely to be an early export.  Lunar jewelry, glasswork, odd stuff like that.  Even raw regolith could be an export product.  Fundamentally, it will start out with low-value-added goods like raw materials and commodities, and as activities progress we'll see more and more value-added products brought to market.

Culture
The Moon has the potential to alter human culture, in a good way.  Not just in leisure activities like swimming and flying, either.  The Overview Effect is well-established as a concept, and the Moon provides an excellent contrast to the vibrancy of Earth.  Honeymooning on the Moon can be a thing, and what would be more beautiful than a Moon night bathed in Earthlight?  Music, poetry and art will find new inspirations on the Moon.

Ultimately, the Moon is our sandbox mode for the rest of the Solar sytem.  It's where we will prove out procedures and equipment for use beyond translunar space, and where we will test the mettle of those we send.  We can either use it as a step to becoming a true space-faring species, or we can keep watching it pass through the sky as what once was and is again...unobtainable.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #43 on: 10/05/2016 05:32 pm »
The question of "The Best Use for the Moon?" is not entirely apt, being comparable to asking what's the best use for a computer?

The reasons to pursue human activity on the Moon are manifold, ranging from scientific and engineering to commerce and trade, even cultural advancements.

I think the reason the moon should be of interest, is because we could lower the cost of going to the Moon.
Because one could commercially mine water and make rocket fuel. Or if can't do this, there is not a reason that the Moon should be of interest, presently.
A long focus has been to lower access to space- making it cheaper to leave Earth. I think lowering the cost of going to the Moon is a separate issue from lowering the cost to get to orbit or leave earth.
Separate or independent or parallel track but obviously related, similar to sub orbital travel [joyrides to 100 km].
Another less separated track to lunar water mining is a rocket fuel market in space- depots. Or lunar water mining is more dependent or related to a rocket fuel market in space- as compared to CATS.

Offline mitresaw

  • Member
  • Posts: 17
  • so ca
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #44 on: 11/01/2016 05:06 pm »
the best use for the moon will be metal production and refinement.  solar electric furnaces and foundries can produce usable material from the first long day.  that material, pot metal or better and sintered tile, can be used to fashion deep space vehicles on a grand scale at fractions of the cost from earth.  if you really want to colonize mars, you can build an arc or two.  smaller, custom space yaugts, or bubbles of rubble, are certainly possible at economic rates.  one poster says "the moon, there's nothing there" another "the basic components of the universe in powdered form".  oh yes, and for free.  well after you pay for the ticket   

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #45 on: 11/01/2016 05:20 pm »
It's the obvious place to manufacture rockets and necessary industrial products for interplanetary civilization. For the simple reason that launching stuff from the Moon is many times cheaper than from the Earth. At some critical volume of needed cargo, it makes economic sense to produce aluminum, titanium, steel, other metals, oxygen on the Moon. (It's a pity Moon has little volatiles to manufacture fuel).

Offline turbopumpfeedback2

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 29
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #46 on: 11/01/2016 09:46 pm »
This is a very nice video that really gives a feeling how life at lunar base at poles will look like:



Imagine for example a base at 10 o'clock at the rim of this crater.

My take on the best use of the moon for the next 100 years:
International lunar base studying the feasibility of human settlement.


« Last Edit: 11/01/2016 09:50 pm by turbopumpfeedback2 »

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1004
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Best use for the Moon?
« Reply #47 on: 11/01/2016 11:42 pm »
Moon has a tremendous potential as a very economic source of energy. I propose we use it.
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

 

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