new moon base site

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2005-04-14 07:51am

perfect place found for moon base
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/0 ... rfect.html

Researchers have identified what may be the perfect place for a Moon base, a crater rim near the lunar north pole that's in near-constant sunlight yet not far from suspected stores of water ice.

Permanently sunlit areas would provide crucial solar energy for any future Moon settlement, a goal for NASA outlined last year by President George W. Bush. Such sites would also have resort-like temperatures compared with other lunar locations that fluctuate between blistering heat and unfathomable cold.

Equally important, in the permanently shadowed depths of craters around the lunar north pole, water ice may lurk, according to previous but unconfirmed observations.

I love it the perfect place yet only may have water sounds like they are jumping the gun a little

Edit hum maybe I should have put this in science

Done ~RI

Mayabird · Post by **Mayabird** » 2005-04-14 10:42am

Solar power, bah! Bring on the nuclear power!

SyntaxVorlon · Post by **SyntaxVorlon** » 2005-04-14 11:51am

Mayabird wrote:Solar power, bah! Bring on the nuclear power!

Why spend that much money sending the machinery for creating extremely complex facilities for storage, reaction etc, when you can just make large solar panels that are light and mean instant power generation.

Ra · Post by Ra » 2005-04-14 02:09pm

Solar power restricts how big one can make a moonbase, as the base would reach a point where it needs a bunch of ridiculously huge panels to even run. Solar is good for powering tiny satellites, not bases that need power, water, life support, communications, scientific instruments, etc.
"Make it Nuclear."
- Ra

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-04-14 04:37pm

But look, when starting up, they don't need a nuke generator, they just need a simpler solar thinggy. Later on when they're building death-fortresses and installing lasers, they can plop themselves a nuke generator. By then, it'd be easier, anyway.

Master of Cards · Post by **Master of Cards** » 2005-04-14 06:51pm

forgeting helium-3 are we?

Drooling Iguana · Post by **Drooling Iguana** » 2005-04-14 07:00pm

I'm just looking forward to the day I can look up at the night sky and say "That's no moon, it's a space station."

Hawkwings · Post by **Hawkwings** » 2005-04-14 09:08pm

lugging uranium to the moon, plus all the precisiion stuff, the controls, and the framework... ugh

solar power is fine for a while. When we're built in, we can install a nuke generator and crank out the power.

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2005-04-14 09:12pm

Master of Cards wrote:forgeting helium-3 are we?

Good as a suggestion that may be, you're forgetting we haven't sustained a fusion reaction for more than milliseconds yet where it even breaks even.

Castor Troy · Post by **Castor Troy** » 2005-04-14 09:14pm

The moon has helium-3, which could be used in fusion reactors. Couple that with solar panels, perhaps nanomachine self assembled solar panels, and that would greatly help.

A problem I would see is bringing the helium-3 down to Earth. I suppose a space elevator could be made. Or maybe just ferry it down in some tanker shuttles.

Shinova · Post by **Shinova** » 2005-04-15 12:09am

Of course, any mention of the word nuclear will send the enviro-lobbyists crowing at Washington and get it to scrap any plans for nuclear power in space.

Nephtys · Post by **Nephtys** » 2005-04-15 12:20am

Castor Troy wrote:The moon has helium-3, which could be used in fusion reactors. Couple that with solar panels, perhaps nanomachine self assembled solar panels, and that would greatly help.

A problem I would see is bringing the helium-3 down to Earth. I suppose a space elevator could be made. Or maybe just ferry it down in some tanker shuttles.

That's not the issue. Fuel is not the issue. Actually being ABLE to make practical fusion reactors is though.

Ra · Post by Ra » 2005-04-15 01:19am

We'd be lucky to make a practical fusion reactor by 2100. Anyway, the best way to get nukes in space is to lie

. MRI's were originally called "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" devices, and changed because of the public's anti-nuke paranoia. Just rename a nuclear power source a "Uranium Induction Battery" or something.
Anyway, yes, starting a base with solar power is the best idea. However, a nuke would evenually be needed to power a large base.
In addition to government science bases, we need commerical mines and even resorts up there, not just science stations frequented by some elite astronauts. Problem is, it would take a long time and a lot of tech development before commerical operations on the Moon are even practical. Until then, the Moon will be a money vacuum like the ISS is today.
On the subject of resources, there is a lot more up there than helium-3. Lunar legorith (dust) has lots of rare minerals and metals that can be harvested. In fact, plants have been grown in moon dust. It's highly fertile. Growing food and naturally replinishing oxygen wouldn't be a problem. There may also be lots of stuff underground, since lunar topography is similar to Earth's in a way.
- Ra

Zor · Post by **Zor** » 2005-04-15 01:40am

Best thing about a Nuclear Reactor on the moon is waste disposal, Aka, Get a rover, go to some crater 30km away and dump it. Hell, i could see the Moon as (latter on) becoming a big Nuclear waste dumping zone.

Zor

dragon · Post by **dragon** » 2005-04-15 01:45am

Zor wrote:Best thing about a Nuclear Reactor on the moon is waste disposal, Aka, Get a rover, go to some crater 30km away and dump it. Hell, i could see the Moon as (latter on) becoming a big Nuclear waste dumping zone.

Zor

Hell just use a mass driver to drop it into the sun. Also with the new robots NASA are building will help build any facilaties we need.