Author
|
Topic: Towards a near-term, low-cost moon base
|
SpaceAholic Member Posts: 5246 From: Sierra Vista, Arizona Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-10-2016 11:49 AM
A special issue in the journal New Space summarizes a workshop led by NASA astrobiologist Chris McKay that found that we can set up a permanent, inhabited base on the moon, soon, and without breaking the bank, reports Popular Science. "The reason all the previous plans for going back to the moon have failed is that they're just way too expensive," says McKay. "The space program is living in a delusion of unlimited budgets, which traces back to Apollo."...the New Space papers, by contrast, conclude that we could set up a small lunar base for $10 billion or less, and we could do it by 2022. "The big takeaway," says McKay, "is that new technologies, some of which have nothing to do with space — like self-driving cars and waste-recycling toilets — are going to be incredibly useful in space, and are driving down the cost of a moon base to the point where it might be easy to do." |
cspg Member Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-10-2016 01:22 PM
Why build an inhabited base? |
Robert Pearlman Editor Posts: 50516 From: Houston, TX Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 03-10-2016 01:30 PM
The New Space article, Lunar Station: The Next Logical Step in Space Development, addresses this question in the context of the workshop's findings. A Lunar Station can provide many benefits to NASA and the country. It would serve as a necessary step between our current capabilities in LEO and our aspirations to establish a permanent presence on Mars. It can provide a testing and proving ground for a variety of important advanced technologies and capabilities, including robotics, ISRU, resource depots, deep-space crew habitats, closed-loop life support, in-space propulsion, optical communication, and space-additive manufacturing to name a few. Its unique lunar environment, including large permanently shaded craters with temperatures as low as 40°K (-388°F), offers opportunities for new scientific observations, exploration, investigation, and learning. The Lunar Station will give our space program a much-needed logical next step to strengthen its relevance to the U.S. public, its leadership in the international community, and its technical cutting edge. |
perineau Member Posts: 368 From: FRANCE Registered: Jul 2007
|
posted 03-13-2016 08:59 AM
I believe NASA should make a permanent international lunar base their top priority for 2025 as the ISS will probably be phased out in 2024. The other goal within our technological reach would be a martian robotic sample return mission in that same time frame. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-13-2016 03:36 PM
Going to Mars should certainly be a goal, as is the development of cheap fusion energy. Unfortunately, like cheap fusion energy, landing astronauts on Mars remains "about 30 years away."Going back to the Moon to develop the techniques for living off the Earth makes far more sense than putting all the eggs in the Mars basket. |
Philip Member Posts: 6217 From: Brussels, Belgium Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 03-24-2016 10:26 AM
Just a random slide with one reason to go back to the Moon... |
cspg Member Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-24-2016 10:58 AM
Oh the Helium-3 thing again...Nuclear reactors on Earth use nuclear fission (break the atoms) to produce electricity. We don't know how to master nuclear fusion (join the atoms). Right now fusion consumes more electricity than it produces. We are a long, long way to master this technology. Add a dose of Fukushima over the whole thing to make it a little bit more dubious. It's always funny to me when countries or agencies talk about mining another celestial body when they can't even lift someone into low Earth orbit. Europe has no experience in that domain and the U.S. hasn't done much in manned mining for 44 years and counting. |
mode1charlie Member Posts: 1410 From: Honolulu, HI Registered: Sep 2010
|
posted 03-24-2016 04:36 PM
You're correct that Helium-3 is probably a dead end since aneutronic fusion is more feasible using hydrogen and boron (H-B11). Your skepticism of fusion's medium-term prospects may be based on ITER, which is turning into a bureacratic boondoggle. But that skepticism may not be well-founded, as there are some very promising new approaches at various places in the U.S. and China (and possibly Europe, but I know less about those programs).As for "Fukushima": you're thinking of fission. Fusion doesn't produce the kinds of dangerous radiation outside the immediate containment vessel, and it can't meltdown. |
Blackarrow Member Posts: 3604 From: Belfast, United Kingdom Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 03-24-2016 05:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by cspg: It's always funny to me when countries or agencies talk about mining another celestial body when they can't even lift someone into low Earth orbit...
It must have sounded extremely funny to the Soviets and others when President Kennedy tasked NASA to land a man on the Moon within 8 years when America "...couldn't even lift someone into low Earth orbit..." |
cspg Member Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-25-2016 05:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by mode1charlie: Your skepticism of fusion's medium-term prospects may be based on ITER, which is turning into a bureacratic boondoggle.
One is being built in France, in Sweden costs are skyrocketing and consequently the one(s) in Britain have been dropped. quote: Originally posted by mode1charlie: As for "Fukushima": you're thinking of fission.
I brought up Fukushima because that incident added another nail to nuclear energy coffin. The public's support for such energy will be hard to obtain. |
cspg Member Posts: 6347 From: Geneva, Switzerland Registered: May 2006
|
posted 03-25-2016 06:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by Blackarrow: It must have sounded extremely funny to the Soviets and others when President Kennedy tasked NASA to land a man on the Moon within 8 years when America "...couldn't even lift someone into low Earth orbit..."
I don't know if they were laughing or even skeptical. It would be inappropriate to use the 60's and Apollo as a benchmark for future projects. There is no urgency in building a moon base and thus no deadline like in Apollo required and I don't think that NASA will ever get 5% of the federal budget ($4,000 billion, $200 billion per year for NASA?!?!) anytime soon. The last one to offer a schedule and yearly budget ($20 billion for 25 years) was the Pioneering the Space Frontier report (post Challenger, if I recall correctly). And it was rejected because deemed outrageously expensive (among other reasons). |
NukeGuy Member Posts: 106 From: Irvine, CA USA Registered: May 2014
|
posted 03-26-2016 09:09 AM
The (fission) reactors being built in France and Sweden (actually Finland) are a design that has four instead of only three backup safety systems. This and other design features has made these plants more complex and expensive to construct.Unfortunately, the commercial nuclear power industry does not follow the business model of the commercial aviation industry. Boeing will propose a new design and solicit interest among the airlines. There will be pre-orders and Boeing will proceed with design, flight testing and certification. Much of the development cost will be paid by Boeing. There is not much, if any, involvement of the public in the design process. Production is then done on an assembly line basis where economies of scale drive down the price. In commercial nuclear power, each aspect mentioned above is addressed in the exact opposite manner. Throw in state regulators and things get more complicated. There is no Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos equivalent in commercial nuclear power. The system is stacked against innovation. |