NASA Says It Will Set Up Polar Moon Camp

[Sikon]

Associated Press

NASA Says It Will Set Up Polar Moon Camp
Dec 04 4:10 PM US/Eastern
By SETH BORENSTEIN
AP Science Writer

NASA announced Monday it will establish an international base camp on one of the moon's poles, permanently staffing it by 2024, four years after astronauts return to the moon.

It is a sweeping departure from the Apollo moon missions of the 1960s and represents a new phase of space exploration after space shuttles are retired in 2010.

After consulting more than 1,000 experts from 14 different countries, NASA decided on what deputy NASA chief Shana Dale called a "fundamental lunar approach" that is sharply different from its previous moon missions in nearly everything but the shape of the ship going there.

NASA chose a "lunar outpost" over the short expeditions of the '60s. Apollo flights were all around the center of the moon, but NASA decided to go to the moon's poles because they are best for longer- term settlements. And this time NASA is welcoming other nations on its journey.

The more likely of the two lunar destinations is the moon's south pole because it's sunlit for three-quarters of the time, making solar power easier, and has possible resources to mine in dark areas nearby, said associate deputy administrator Doug Cooke.

To get to the moon, NASA envisions an all-purpose lunar lander that could touch down anywhere and can be the first part of a base camp, said exploration chief Scott Horowitz.

"The nickname I use for the lander is, it's a pickup truck," Horowitz said in a Monday news conference from Houston. "You can put whatever you want in the back. You can take it to wherever you want. So you can deliver cargo, crew, do it robotically, do it with humans on board. These are the types of things we're looking for in this system."

In the wake of the space shuttle Columbia accident, President Bush announced in 2004 a plan to return astronauts to the moon by 2020. His plan would take 16 years, twice as long as NASA's first trip to the moon took in planning. NASA has refused to estimate a price tag for the project.

Although the return to the Moon has been planned for some time, the recent announcement gives some more details.

The "possible resources to mine in dark areas nearby" mentioned in the article above must be a reference to lunar ice. There is thought to be up to billions of tons of lunar ice at the pole, based upon neutron spectrometer results that implied the presence of much hydrogen. Deposited by old comet impacts, ice would plausibly stay around in a few locations, kept cold by some regions of polar craters being permanently shadowed, with little heat transfer other than by radiation in the vacuum environment. Such is significant, as otherwise the lunar surface is so dry that terrestrial concrete would be a water source in comparison. Another news article of today mentions planned production of hydrogen and oxygen fuel.

This is more interesting than the regular trips to earth orbit and back.

[Talanth]

Any word on how they plan to solve the health isues relating to gravity deprivation?

[K. A. Pital]

How would they move up all the material for continous rad-protection?

Though cool. "Planet ES" is definetely going to be moving out of the near science-fiction realm into clear reality.

What is interesting, however, that the mass of resources needed to maintain a moon base is greatly overwhelming those of the Apollo project, and would be perhaps the most expensive space project... which means, vast potential for money-laundering...

[Cao Cao]

2024? Well let's see, given that this is NASA we're talking about the base will begin construction in 2150.
Yes. I am a cynical bastard.

[K. A. Pital]

And manned mission to Mars is scheduled on what, 2030? Tackle two super-huge projects like that, including a new re-entry spacecraft? Yeah, looks a bit strange. On the other hand, exploratory spacefaring may really enter a stage of reinvigoration after years of still aging.

[dragon]

How would they move up all the material for continous rad-protection?

Though cool. "Planet ES" is definetely going to be moving out of the near science-fiction realm into clear reality.

What is interesting, however, that the mass of resources needed to maintain a moon base is greatly overwhelming those of the Apollo project, and would be perhaps the most expensive space project... which means, vast potential for money-laundering...

While the initial setup cost will be expensive especially since its a goverment agency once the bases is set up there are several ways that it'll pay for itself. One is they'll be able to mine He3 from the lunar regolith and ship it back to earth as the stuff is worth more than platinum.

and as D. Pettit wrote in Expedition Six Space chronicicles

Like the way culture and language influences our ability to creatively think, being free from gravity will entice thoughts never before possible for the human mind, and thus give opportunities for new art and scientific discoveries

as for the long term effects of low gravity theres a worse problem and that is of cosmic radiation in the form of heavy ions. These will travel through most materials unless its several meters thick. And since these heavy ions will creat double strand DNA breaks its not good for living tissues.

The probelm is that the space station is protected by the earth so its hard to test materials against the effects. But since Valeri Polyakov spent 483 days in space and after a period of a few months of physical therapy when he came back and was fine then astronauts should be able to spend 6 months to ayear on the moon with less side effects. Plus they have room to build centrifuges to simulate gravity for exercies.

[Pelranius]

Frankly, I'd like to see some more substantial evidence fo the HE3 deposits before banking completely on that idea.

Well, here's to NASA.

[Molyneux]

Fucking FINALLY!

Though, I doubt that we're going to beat the Japanese effort at this rate. They've set a date of 2030, but I doubt they'll meet as many delays as NASA...

[dragon]

Frankly, I'd like to see some more substantial evidence fo the HE3 deposits before banking completely on that idea.

Well, here's to NASA.

Scientists estimate there are about1 million tons of helium 3 on the moon, enough to power the world for thousandsof years. The equivalent of a single space shuttle load or roughly 25 tonscould supply the entire United States' energy needs for a year, accordingto Apollo17 astronaut and FTI researcher Harrison Schmitt.

from
He3

There has been many studies done and they all point to the conclusion that there is enough He3 on the moon to last for a long time.

[Junghalli]

2024? Well let's see, given that this is NASA we're talking about the base will begin construction in 2150.
Yes. I am a cynical bastard.

Unfortunately you're probably right. At the rate we've been going the last forty years it'll be centuries before we've got any kind of serious space development.
Here's to the success of the Chinese space program and the various private ventures out there. NASA needs some competition to get it off its lazy ass.

[aerius]

Will they name the base Moon Unit Zappa?

I'm somewhat pessimistic, I'd love to see them pull it off but unless they really get things in gear it ain't happening.

[Guardsman Bass]

Any word on how they plan to solve the health isues relating to gravity deprivation?

The moon still has 1/6 the Earth's gravity. That's not a lot, but it'd be enough to keep you from developing the bone and muscular atrophy that happens to you if you spend too much time in orbit.

[Broomstick]

How would they move up all the material for continous rad-protection?

Dig.

Dig deep.

Build underground, use the regolith for shielding. You'll need something like that for solar flares anyway. Why move shielding from the Earth when you've got stuff to use right there? Dirt and rock might not be the most efficient shielding but so what - you've got a LOT of it just lying around.

You're going to be mining anyway, right?

[Cao Cao]

Plans for potential Mars and Lunar bases I've seen in books nearly always start with landing small capsules and burying them in soil.

[Molyneux]

Plans for potential Mars and Lunar bases I've seen in books nearly always start with landing small capsules and burying them in soil.

Doesn't soil require plants?

[Pelranius]

You could get away by introducing microbes into the Martian terrain to get dirt, but I'm not so sure about the moon, given it's relative/absolute lack of atmosphere and water.

[Darth Servo]

Cool but not really worth it. At least not with current technology. Its amusing to make stories about lunar colonies and stuff like that but don't we have bigger concerns at the moment and strapped for cash enough as it is?

[Stark]

Doesn't soil require plants?

Soil as in dirt, professor. Moon dirt.

[Battlehymn Republic]

Politically speaking, aren't recent ambitious space program plans a bunch of smoke screens to take away attention from the Administration's failures? I thought that was established since the 2004 State of the Union Address. I mean, what are we going to use to fund this program, the reward the international community will pay us for finding Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?

[Broomstick]

Cool but not really worth it. At least not with current technology. Its amusing to make stories about lunar colonies and stuff like that but don't we have bigger concerns at the moment and strapped for cash enough as it is?

Well, if we weren't fighting a couple wars we might be able to spend that money on exploration, hm...?

[Sikon]

It looks like others already answered the earlier questions of Talanth and Stas Bush. The minor bit I would add is that the Mars mission spacecraft would have to have a solar flare shelter, but that doesn't mass much.

-------------

Frankly, I'd like to see some more substantial evidence fo the HE3 deposits before banking completely on that idea.

Your basic thought about banking on He3 not being the best idea is correct but only for a different reason. It is sure that there is He3 in the lunar dirt. However, the existence of He3 does not necessarily equate to it being of great value.

Here are the four hypothetical future events that would have to all come to pass for major use of He3 power:

• Fusion reactors are developed within a relevant timeframe.
  Hopefully that happens, and research is certainly worthwhile. But that is just a possibility, considering how fusion power has seemed 2 or 3 decades away throughout the past 50 years.
• The fusion reactors can use D-He3 instead of only D-T.
  It is easier to ignite and sustain a reaction in deuterium-tritium. There is less of a barrier to overcome for D-T as illustrated by T = 13.6 keV for it versus T = 58 keV for D-He3 (table). Fusion with helium-3 has some potential advantages with reduced neutron emissions and with charged particle products, but it has the disadvantage of it being harder to make a D-He3 reactor have net energy gain and work in the first place. Neutron radiation can be much less a problem for fusion power than simply the difficulty of obtaining ignition and sufficient net energy gain. Nuclear fission power plants of today manage to deal with neutron radiation. D-T reactor concepts involve making use of the neutrons by having them hit lithium around the reaction chamber to make more tritium.
• The fusion reactors not only can use He3 but actually do use it.
  As implied before, that is only a possibility compared to other fusion fuel like D-T. Using He3 eliminates one of the potential advantages of fusion power, making reactors dependent upon an expensive, uncommon resource instead of only the practically unlimited quantities of deuterium in seawater that can be combined with relatively abundant lithium. Some radiation shielding is still needed with D-He3, with even some neutrons still produced. The primary reaction would be aneutronic by itself except for that more than one reaction occurs in practice (some D-D fusion too, etc.).
• The resulting He3 fusion reactors outcompete alternatives.
  Other fusion power plants using D-T fuel instead of D-He3 are only part of the competition He3 power could face. For example, there are also regular nuclear fission power plants, which have cheap fuel (including unlimited uranium from seawater if necessary), low operating costs, and possibly just as good or better capital costs than the He3 reactors. Among potential uses of space, there is the possibility of solar power satellites.

So He3 having much value for power generation is possible but only if all four of the above occur someday. The 1976 study suggesting solar power satellites was better. There are uses of space and the Moon other than He3 that would have much more guaranteed potential.

Sending lunar dirt and ice to earth orbit would be a more guaranteed market of great value. With today's launch costs, material in space is worth thousands of dollars per pound, like its mass in gold. It would still be worth some amount even if launch costs from earth decrease in the future as would be desirable. Potential markets would include space tourism hotels, components of commercial satellites, and more. (Not all satellite components are fancy electronics, and much of their mass like structure, batteries, thruster fuel, etc. could be made even by small facilities in space if extraterrestrial material was available). Lunar dirt could provide not only radiation shielding but also aluminum and more for construction. Lunar ice gives hydrogen and oxygen for rocket fuel and consumables.

For launch, an illustration is 8800 tons for a lunar linear synchronous motor (mass driver) system including nuclear reactor and mass catcher. That could launch 0.5 million tons in a few years. Perhaps better yet, just a 11-ton nuclear ice rocket could launch 3800 tons per year of lunar ice over repeated flights. Unfortunately, NASA doesn't seem to be planning anything like the preceding.

As far as I can see, there haven't been many of the details of NASA's plan announced yet. However, the general plan is implied in this quote from a NASA web page:

NASA's Lunar Architecture Team, chartered in May 2006, concluded that the most advantageous approach is to develop a solar-powered lunar base and to locate it near one of the poles of the moon. With such an outpost, NASA can learn to use the moon's natural resources to live off the land, make preparations for a journey to Mars, conduct a wide range of scientific investigations and encourage international participation.
[...]
As currently envisioned, an incremental buildup would begin with four-person crews making several seven-day visits to the moon until their power supplies, rovers and living quarters are operational. The first mission would begin by 2020. These would be followed by 180-day missions to prepare for journeys to Mars.

[Lonestar]

Fucking FINALLY!

Though, I doubt that we're going to beat the Japanese effort at this rate. They've set a date of 2030, but I doubt they'll meet as many delays as NASA...

How'd you come to that obviously well-thought out conclusion? Have you never seen or heard of Japanese government progams like the F-2?

[Molyneux]

Fucking FINALLY!

Though, I doubt that we're going to beat the Japanese effort at this rate. They've set a date of 2030, but I doubt they'll meet as many delays as NASA...

How'd you come to that obviously well-thought out conclusion? Have you never seen or heard of Japanese government progams like the F-2?

Not having any real information about Japan's track record, I was focusing on NASA's shitty ability in the past to get things done in any reasonable time frame.

[Shroom Man 777]

They've fucked up the ISS. Why should this crap be any better?