US Plans Lunar Motel 355
OffTheLip writes "The US is planning to build a permanent lunar base which will support future visits to Mars. The living conditions on the moon presents a variety of challenges from medical to construction. Contingency planning would be critical but some feel the challenges presented on the moon will be less than Mars. The moon is closer to Earth, the atmosphere is less harsh and, unlike Mars, water does not exist. Is this the start of the next space race?"
Less challenges on the moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Less harsh? (Score:3, Interesting)
Near vacuum is "less harsh" than thin C02? How so? And even though water does exist on the moon, its absence would be a minus, not a plus. The "weather" on the moon may be marginally less objectionable (it depends on your tastes, I suppose) but you're not going to be out in the weather much on either of them. And as for the distance, the real question is the depth of the gravity well, on which standard I'll grant that the moon is somewhat nicer.
Even so, an Earth-crossing asteroid would probably be a better choice, or something in one of the L-points (from which you could use the superhighway for cargo that wasn't marked "Rush").
-- MarkusQ
Less harsh ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Moon pressure (none or nearly none) [hawaii.edu]
Less harsh is a kind of misnomer. You would probably have the same kind of problem between a wall separating 1 atm air and 1/100 atm CO2, as with a wall separating 1 atm air and 0, nada...
Re:Less challenges on the moon? (Score:5, Interesting)
If you suffer from a power/oxygen/water/etc. system failure, all you need is a few weeks supplies in the shelter on the moon. Wheras, you need to ensure that at all points in time, you've got 2 years worth of shelter supplies on Mars.
Also, the lowered gravity and nearly-nonexistent atmosphere means that a moonsuit from the 60s still works out well enough.
Also, given that you have only 3 days outside of the earth's magnetosphere to get there, you'll accumulate a lot less radiation on the way there than you would going to Mars.
Of course, that also would require piling lunar soil and rocks on top of whatever the lunar base ends up being made out of to provide sufficent mass.
But, still... Because of all of these things, it's easier to get a toehold sooner on the Moon.
The problem is that NASA has yet to grasp the idea of a fully independent spacecraft. It works out reasonably well to have astronauts swap out complete assemblies in LEO, where you can send up and down the stuff, if you are talking about going to Mars or Io or Titan or even near-earth-asteroids, you are going to be too far to pull stunts like that. We barely know how to weld and solder in space and nobody's ever tried to make a set of machine shop tools for space like lathes and mills. The moon would be a great place to research such things, but that also depends on NASA breaking with tradition and not blowing a good chance yet again.
Re:Space Race (Score:1, Interesting)
And wouldn't it be nice if we had flowery meadows and rainbow skies, and rivers made of chocolate, where the children danced and laughed and played with gumdrop smiles? Jesus Christ, are you so delusional as to think that global co-operation on a project this size is even remotely possible? Lets all hold hands and sing kumbaya.Competition is a good thing. It's what drives us forward. Competition got us into space in the first place. Competition brought us government, and countries, and law. All progress is driven by competition.
To answer the original poster's question, no, this will not be the begining of the next space-race. There is no military advantage to building a spa on the moon. If however, someone wanted to build a laser on the moon, then yes, there would be another space-race.
Re:Less challenges on the moon? (Score:3, Interesting)
*I just realized that air is necessary for the cooling of everything above, except possibly shop tools. However, I imagine it's pretty unlikely that much fabrication would be done in airless environments. The risk of cutting off a finger is bad enough when earth is so far away, but it'd be even worse when you weld or cut a hole in your spacesuit in a depressurized area.
I assume that these tools would be used for fabrication; raw materials would be kind of difficult to come up with. Better to load 1 ton of easier-to-fabricate materials than 1 ton of equipment, maybe? Think fiberglass-like materials. Sure, we can fabricate new parts for the Mars base out of Bondo!
Re:I hope it does mean a new space race (Score:2, Interesting)
The space race was merely a way to put a pretty public face on the development of rockets powerful enough to boost nuclear weapons into a ballistic arc from which they could strike other continents, otherwise known as ICBMs. As with all "epic" war programs, this one primarily enriched the defense contractors involved, although it did actually create several usable weapons systems, unlike bigger boondoggles such as the Star Wars missile defense system.
The space race was ignited by Cold War hysteria on both sides, and perpetuated by politicians and defense contractors. The purpose of the space race was not to land on the moon, or orbit the first human, or any other such milestone. It was a way for the Soviets and Americans to very publicly show off the lift capacity of their rockets, demonstrating exactly how many megatons of destruction they would be capable of raining down on the other. American politicians had the added benefit of being able to bring jobs and prestigious facilities to their districts (ever wonder why most of NASA's major facilities are in the south? That's where the powerful politicians of the day hailed from.)
Re:Less harsh ? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Atmosphere? (Score:5, Interesting)
An atmosphere on Earth provides us with many benefits. First, it gives us oxygen to breathe (duh). Second it provides us with ambient pressure so our liquids don't boil. Third, it holds water in solution so we don't dry out. Fourth, it protects us from radiation from space. Fifth, it maintains a livable temperature so we don't boil or freeze. This doesn't include a host of useful and non-immediate applications, like carrying voice communication or supporting airplanes, or providing an environment for us to grow food.
The atmosphere of Mars does none of these things (except mild but inadequate radiation protection) so it's little better than a true vaccum. What it does do is leech heat out of anything it touches. It also carries microfine dust which will make it hell to keep anything mechanical working. So, yes, the "atmosphere" of the Moon (or ultrahigh vaccum, or whatever) is, in fact, less harsh than the one on Mars.
Re:Less challenges on the moon? (Score:5, Interesting)
I am imagining something like porcupine quills, only much bigger. The moon-based construction equipment shoots a couple into the ground when it needs purchase. If the construction were planned well, the equipment could be detached and the quills used again when something else needs to work in that same spot.
For a bulldozer, you could use the quills as mount points for a modified railroad track that was added on to as the bulldozer needed to move further. Unlike a railroad track on Earth, this one would also be anchoring the vehicles that ran on it.
The dust and problems with hydraulics are big concerns, though. I think it will be interesting to see how those are overcome.
Re:Atmosphere? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Less challenges on the moon? (Score:2, Interesting)
Moonquakes (Score:3, Interesting)
They also have to take into account possible moonquakes [nasa.gov]. They seem to be quite common and are powerful enough to move furniture.
Don't believe a word of this (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure, they're talking. Talk is cheap. They're drawing pretty pictures, writing nice things... but I'd bet a rather large sum of money that they'll not build anything at all on the moon for the next twenty years.
They will get several more budget cuts and generally become even more bureaucratic and immobile. There will be less and less useful things happening, and (except for all the top-secret military stuff) will be able to do less and less.
Pity about the SPACEX problem, but I'd give them much higher chances of actually getting anywhere.
Besides, hey, nobody outside the USA expects the USA to carry on like they do now. They'll collapse economically in a major way withing a few years - we just hope that they'll do it without killing everybody else. The russians set a nice example, only ruining themselves in the process.