Rationale for a Lunar Base

[JohnHunt]

Our primary motivation for a lunar base should be to, as quickly as possible, develop a self-sustaining home as a form of life insurance against human self-extinction on Earth via nanotech, biotech, chemtech, or AI.

The risks of self-extinction are real and significant. We are making rapid progress in each area. It would be more expensive, more risky, and take longer to establish a self-supporting base on Mars. If ice is found on the Moon then it has the resources necessary to sustain life.

Scientific exploration of the Moon isn't sufficiently compelling. We've already done that several times. There is no grand goal to maintain financial committment whereas the investment of a partially finished base would be strong reason to continue. Science exploration also doesn't get us closer to a self-sustaining colony.

A nearby lunar base would also have significant spinoffs such as industry for low-Earth orbit, vacation destination, and mining. It can then serve as a launching point for the colonization of Mars.

[Rhyshaelkan]

No real reason mankind cannot colonize every rock in this solar system and beyond. Some rocks are better for chewing up and using though.

I just watched that "End of the World" program on the History Channel. One more good reason to leave the cradle. Not having all of mankind's eggs in one basket.

Using propellants made from Lunar regolith, Luna could easily become the hub of human transport.

For those financially minded yes that could lead to resorts, hotels and restaurants set up on Luna to take care of passengers that are in transit.

While there has been some research in micro-gravity chemistry. A full on laboratory is not possible yet. With construction of a research complex/depot at L1 or L4&5 out of Lunar materials. Who knows what true space age materials we could unlock. Fabled "transparent aluminum" :p.


Since the near side always points towards Terra. A domed city in the crater of an ancient impact. A dome constructed of double walls of clear material with 10 meters of water in between the layers. Highly radiation proof. With beautiful views of Terra.

[Boxy]

I question the usefulness of building lunar bases when there are huge asteroids which take significantly less delta-V to reach and exploit. In short, the same reasons that might bring us to the Moon would also lead us to Near Earth asteroids.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Time could be an issue and factor. Luna is less than a weeks travel. Even with '60s technology. Once Lunar fuel comes into play an OTV can mule cargo for pennies. Depending on how automated the fuel refining process would be.

Time is the stuff life is made of. I see asteroid exploitation as step two in mankind's leaving the cradle. With Lunar materials and fuel you can launch a plethora of probes to sound asteroids and select those that have what you are looking for at that time.

I read somewhere that it is 22 times less expensive to lift the same payload of Luna than Terra. What that was based on, I do not know all the particulars. Lack of atmosphere and substantially less gravity you could either build probes with less fuel more payload. Or same fuel burned faster to get results more quickly.

[Boxy]

But... less delta-V!

I suppose time constraints might make a mote of sense. However, I still see energy consumption and being able to plop asteroids into LEO as being a major plus. But the gravity of the Moon, even if it is a sixth of normal Earth gravity, would still be more of a long-term solution than asteroids.

Okay, so let me say this: when we need to manufacture something for the Earth orbital infrastructure, the lower delta-V's (and thus energy consumption) needed to get the material to Earth means that asteroids would prove the better option. When we're talking about long-term settlement in space, the Moon would prove a more viable option than asteroids, as there's already useful amounts of gravity that you wouldn't have to synthesize with spinning space stations.

[Rhyshaelkan]

One more benefit of a Lunar landing would be communication.

For the initial stages you could use tele-operated machines of various forms to prepare for the coming of humans. Thus requiring no cargo to be spent on habitation/life-support. With a delay of just under 3 seconds to send and receive. "Showing up to work" might entail sitting at a terminal with joysticks and buttons to manipulate machines from a comfy office.

How large of asteroids would be moved into LEO? I find this a dangerous and time consuming prospect as best.

[Boxy]

Once we start towing asteroids into LEO, there's an even shorter radio delay. I'm just saying is all ;)

[Rhyshaelkan]

Here is another good reason for going to Luna to settle. http://www.patrawlings.com/detail.cfm?id=987

Human powered flight.

[Boxy]

That makes me so freaking happy. Thank you for making my day.

[JohnHunt]

Wow, human powered flight. Awesome!

Can I get you guys back on track? How compelling is the need for a lunar base as extinction insurance?

[Rhyshaelkan]

Not very compelling. Ever since the, 1920's give or take, mankind with it's technology has been able to kill itself in ways and degrees rarely paralleled before that time.

The powers that be do not care much more now as they did then. Avoiding annihilation sounds all well and good. But it is not a good selling point. To shake up the status quo, you have to make people want to be shaken up.

Thus my standpoint for a Lunar base is the quality of life that you can achieve from it. Including such "silly" things as human powered flight.

[joertexas]

Wow, human powered flight. Awesome!

Can I get you guys back on track? How compelling is the need for a lunar base as extinction insurance?

As a first step, I don't think a lunar expedition is the right way to go versus an asteroid extraction mission. The complexity involved in landing on the moon isn't worth the investment it would require at this point.

As a long term solution, I think that Mars would be a better place to live than the moon. The moon does have usable resources that we will need, but there are factors which make it a poor choice as a colony site.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Ever since the, 1920's give or take, mankind with it's technology has been able to kill itself in ways and degrees

Self-replicating technology is fundamentally different that other technologies. I'm not concerned about the degrees of death but whether technology has the property of being able to kill the last human. Even at the height of the Cold War we did not have enough fire power to kill 100.0% of humans with the initial blase effects or the nuclear fallout. A typical full exchange would have killed about 19% of the world population. But, how long would humanity survive if growing plants exposed to the atmosphere were not possible?

Joertexas,

Can you explain your statements?

Would we get to self-sufficiency with an asteroid faster than by landing on the moon, or do you even feel the need to achieve self-sufficiency ASAP?

We have already landed on the moon. Why is that too complex?

Would we get to self-sufficiency by going to Mars earlier than by going to the Moon? Don't Mars missions cost more than lunar missions? Wouldn't we be able to launch many more lunar missions than Mars missions for the same price. Isn't a lunar mission safer than a Mars mission (i.e. less likely to loose funding due to the loss of an astronaut) because it is much closer to Earth?

I'm not looking for long-term solutions. I am looking at achieving off-planet self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Wouldn't a lunar base be the most logical location to achieve that goal?

[joertexas]

Joertexas,

Can you explain your statements?

Would we get to self-sufficiency with an asteroid faster than by landing on the moon, or do you even feel the need to achieve self-sufficiency ASAP?

We have already landed on the moon. Why is that too complex?

Would we get to self-sufficiency by going to Mars earlier than by going to the Moon? Don't Mars missions cost more than lunar missions? Wouldn't we be able to launch many more lunar missions than Mars missions for the same price. Isn't a lunar mission safer than a Mars mission (i.e. less likely to loose funding due to the loss of an astronaut) because it is much closer to Earth?

I'm not looking for long-term solutions. I am looking at achieving off-planet self-sufficiency as soon as possible. Wouldn't a lunar base be the most logical location to achieve that goal?

For the moment, we don't have the lift capacity available to carry a moon mission. We can, and should, focus on getting a LEO base set up and supplied. Then, we can go from there.

JR

[JohnHunt]

JR, you really didn't answer my questions. And what about Ares V?

[Boxy]

Or the Atlas V. That's in operation right now, and it can scoot pretty much whatever it needs into orbit.

How much of a payload would they need for another lunar mission? Anyone have data on the Apollo missions, which might give us a ballpark figure?

[JohnHunt]

Ares V - 71 tons to the Moon
Saturn V - 45 tons to the Moon

So, again, how strong is the rationale for a self-supporting lunar base for the purpose of purchasing an "insurance policy" against human extinction due to self-replicating technology? Also, is it correct to say that this can only be done by going to the moon or is it better to do it in LEO which requires less fuel from Earth but where resources have to be brought to.

[Rhyshaelkan]

What are you asking John? Are you seeking investors in this goal? Are you trying to find government support for the survival of humanity? Who gets to be part of this ark? Are you seeking just an ark or are you talking about human colonization?

Tell us more before you ask if we agree.

I for one want humans to expand their horizons. But this includes everything I have posted so far. Manufacturing, exploitation, human-flight, entertainment, riches, micro-gravity chemistry. The whole shebang.

An ark against the annihilation of humanity would require the infrastructure to perpetuate itself. You cannot have that infrastructure by just saying "Is it a strong rationale?"

[JohnHunt]

Are you seeking investors in this goal?
No, of course not. If anyone had invested in Noah's ark, they would have personally lost everything (i.e. their life) even though the mission was successful. Also, a lunar base is insurance against an extinction event. We hope that it will be unnecessary. But if it is unnecessary, investors still loose their investment. This is not a place for investors. Rather, this would be for government (primarily) and also donors (for the good of humanity).

Are you trying to find government support for the survival of humanity?
I may not have made this sufficiently clear. I would like to see survival-of-humanity via a self-supporting lunar base as being the primary motivation for NASA's initial vision for lunar development (i.e. VSE, Constellation, Ares V, etc).

Who gets to be part of this ark?
Only selected (e.g. representative) individuals. They would be selected based upon their contribution to the survival of the base and their contribution to the new human civilization. The size of the group would initially be determined by the capacity of the initial self-sustainable base (i.e. fairly small such as the ISS crew).

Are you seeking just an ark or are you talking about human colonization?
The ark is the initial goal. However, after self-sustainability were to be achieved, then it could provide the base from colonization (of the Moon or Mars) could be established. But the initial focus would be strongly that of survival.

I for one want humans to expand their horizons. But this includes everything I have posted so far. Manufacturing...The whole shebang.

We all want this. But PERMANENT recognizes that there are emerging risks in the form of biotech and nanotech. I believe that such self-replicating technology will be present about mid-century. This doesn't give us a great deal of time to achieve an off-Earth self-sufficient base. Whether we achieve that capability by mid-century could well be determined whether we place that as first or third priority. You would probably agree that riches, entertainment, and even manufacturing have little value if humanity goes extinct. Secure humanity if even in an ark form and we can then proceed to develop the rest including large-scale interplanetary travel of people from Earth.

An ark against the annihilation of humanity would require the infrastructure to perpetuate itself.
Excellent point. You may essentially be saying, "Self-sufficiency will come eventually as we develop infrastructure, so it doesn't have to be the initial priority". But I would say, "No. Time is of the essence here. Let the initial infrastructure and manufacturing capability be guided by the need to achieve self-sustainability rather than by any other priority."

A related question is, "What is the fastest (and most inexpensive) infrastructure necessary to achieve sustainability"? I don't believe that we need to be able to produce integrated circuits on the Moon to achieve sustainability, for example. We can use technology which is more easy to produce. We also don't need to spend countless missions (and money) learning more about the origins of the solar system. That time and money could be spent transporting lathes, ovens, earth-moving equipment, etc. Our priorities could drastically change our initial mission plans.

Tell us more before you ask if we agree.
Do you now understand what I am proposing? If not, ask more questions.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Excellent stuff there, and I agree all are valid points. Finding out the age of the solar system or even if there is life on Mars or Europa does nothing to help the survivability of mankind. Or even to enhance the economy. I see way too much waste in the current projects regarding space.

If you are asking me to sign a petition of any government adding my voice to say "WE MUST GO NOW!". I would be all for it. Even if I were not selected as a survivor.

Any ark would need breeding stock of 10000 some individuals. So I see, at least what I envision for even the near term to encompass much of what I previously discussed in this thread.

Manufacturing from Lunar resources being chief among those. It would allow for the construction of habitation for the people. Fuel for orbit transfer vehicles to ship up more required material. Optics made of Lunar glass for the detection of incoming doomsday asteroids. Almost everything discussed will lead to your ark, and more.

Once Luna grows in population and manufacturing capability. Then more arks can be created on Mars, Ganymede, Titan(strike Titan, too cold flowing with rivers of liquid methane), EML4, EML5. I see it as all part and parcel.

[joertexas]

JR, you really didn't answer my questions. And what about Ares V?

I answered that we don't have the lift capacity right now to do anything more than LEO operations on any meaningful scale - outside of the asteroid operation we're discussing at the moment. That precludes consideration of your other questions for the time being.

The Ares V is still on the drawing board, and even the Ares I won't be ready for another four or five years. SpaceX's Falcon 9 should fly by the end of the year, and that may mean the Falcon 9 Heavy will soon be available. Further, the Ares launchers will be exclusively available for NASA, as far as I'm aware. Depending on their lift capacity is probably an exercise in wishful thinking.

JR

[Sam Fraser]

Any ark would need breeding stock of 10000 some individuals.

.....

Then more arks can be created on Mars, Ganymede, Titan(strike Titan, too cold flowing with rivers of liquid methane), EML4, EML5. I see it as all part and parcel.

One argument some could make against this is the children and grandchildren of such a colony would have lower bone density and muscle strength on low-gravity moons and might be unable to cope with Earth gravity. A case could still be made for gene banks sunk deep down into the moon's crust, since it's not geologically active. That would require at least human custodial presence on the moon.

[Rhyshaelkan]

You could always have an O'Neil-esque EML4&5 space station which maintains an 1G or higher gravity for children through the end of puberty. Much like a boarding school. Where kids can come home(to Luna) for a couple weeks every few months.

It would also be useful to have such a station so that, in addition to an aggressive exercise regimen on Luna, adults can visit the station(s) on a rotating basis. So that they can keep their Terra-formed physiology up to par.

However speaking for myself. While I have not experienced it, yet ;), I think I would not mind living on Luna permanently. With the aforesaid visits to Terra and space-stations to keep my Terra-born musculature. As well as "visit the cradle" and enjoy the scenery.

But for many peoples living in such urban areas as New York City. Living on Luna, or other off-world area, might have the same feel to it. Without all the pollution ;) And no one wanting to wash your windows when you pull up to a stoplight.

[joertexas]

You could always have an O'Neil-esque EML4&5 space station which maintains an 1G or higher gravity for children through the end of puberty. Much like a boarding school. Where kids can come home(to Luna) for a couple weeks every few months.

It would also be useful to have such a station so that, in addition to an aggressive exercise regimen on Luna, adults can visit the station(s) on a rotating basis. So that they can keep their Terra-formed physiology up to par.

However speaking for myself. While I have not experienced it, yet ;), I think I would not mind living on Luna permanently. With the aforesaid visits to Terra and space-stations to keep my Terra-born musculature. As well as "visit the cradle" and enjoy the scenery.

But for many peoples living in such urban areas as New York City. Living on Luna, or other off-world area, might have the same feel to it. Without all the pollution ;) And no one wanting to wash your windows when you pull up to a stoplight.

I downloaded Celestia and put the coordinates for my Dirty Dozen into it. The program doesn't do any plotting, but it will take you anywhere you want to go in the star catalog. With all stars on and set to show as points, the universe is indeed God's jewel box, and I would never tire of seeing it, no matter the conditions.

JR

[JohnHunt]

JoeRTexax,

> I answered that we don't have the lift capacity right now...That precludes consideration of your other questions for the time being.

The time to discuss what direction NASA should go is now while it is being considered and before too many more funds are spent. If we wait until everything is built and proven then it's probably too late to say, "Hey, you're headed in the wrong direction". So I would still appreciate your critical examination of my proposal and rationale.

Besides, Ares V may or may not come to reality but it sure looks like Ares I is quickly coming to reality:
http://www.universetoday.com/2009/08/14/ares-i-x-fully-stacked/

Rhyshaelkan,

> Any ark would need breeding stock of 10000 some individuals.

A couple of things. One, we survived and now have a lot of genetic diversity even though there have been bottle necks in the past with far fewer than 10,000 individuals. Secondly, as Sam Fraser notes, you don't have to have 10,000 living individuals to ensure genetic diversity. You can have a "gene bank" (e.g. frozen sperm and ova) with specimens selected for genetic diversity. If you were to have twelve individuals then children at the 5th generation would share only 1/32nd of their genetic material. This means that typically, at that point, it would be more likely than not that a new couple would not share any genetic material at all. So if you were to modestly expand the number of colonists and/or introduce genetic diversity through frozen sperm/ova or utilize genetic testing and counseling in mate selection then inbreeding could be entirely avoided.

> You could always have an O'Neil-esque EML4&5 space station...

Rhyshaelkan, clearly you're not addressing the point of my original post on this thread. An EML4&5 space station makes no sense as an insurance policy against human extinction. Why separate your colony from resources such as O2? A lunar base makes much more sense from this perspective. And Terra visits would probably not be possible after an existential event. Maintaining bone health would have to be done through exercise and centrifugal force.

[jsteele235]

...

I read somewhere that it is 22 times less expensive to lift the same payload of Luna than Terra. What that was based on, I do not know all the particulars. ...

Here's the way it works out: Escape velocity from earth is 11.2 km/s versus 2.4 km/s for the moon, so the ratio of these is 4.67 : 1. Energy varies as the square of velocity, so the ratio of energies is 21.8 : 1. Put another way, escape from the moon's surface requires 4.6% of the energy required for escape form earth. The ratios work out exactly the same if you're concerned with orbital velocities rather than escape velocities, because orbital velocity is just escape velocity divided by the square root of 2.

[moonus111]

I prefer to think in terms of structural mass, although there is inherent error involved because of Isp [specific Impulse], the numbers are more easily understood. To launch from earth into orbit 95% of the vehicle mass must be used to attain orbit with the 5% left over (unless we're talking movies and Hollywood). To launch from the moon into orbit the percentage is almost reversed.

The sentence: The delta-V to get from the moon to an asteroid is much less than earth to an asteroid.

Can be translated to: It's easier to get anywhere in the solar system from the moon than from earth.

I've spent much time trying to explain a lot of time trying to explain the ideas to non enthusiasts, and non- aerospace engineers. What I've learned is that a lot of the jargon doesn't translate very well without lengthy lectures...

[Sam Fraser]

Hi Moonus. I'm hopeless at math. Consider me your test subject layman. :) How many pounds of fuel to lift 1 pound from Earth to orbit vs. how many from the moon? As a person's weight is a frame of reference anyone can understand, ask whoever you're talking to what their weight is and then say it would take X number of fuel tankers of fuel to launch them into space from the Earth, but from the moon, only Y. After that, mention water ice exists on the moon, which we can produce a very powerful fuel - liquid hydrogen and oxygen like the Space Shuttle uses - on site. This means no burning huge amounts of fuel in order to transport fuel from Earth to the moon just so we can then launch things from the moon, which is just crazy! We can therefore make and launch much larger or heavier things (like shielding) using a lot less fuel and for a lot less cost if we do it from the moon. You can even launch the water itself, obviously vital for a human crew, much more cheaply than from Earth.

[JohnHunt]

Sam, this might be helpful.

The lunar ascent module was 4,547 kg. It burned 2,243 kg of fuel. So essentially 1kg of fuel gets 1kg to lunar orbit.

The Falcon 1 is 27,670 kg at liftoff and delivers 1,010 kg to LEO. So 26 kg of fuel is burnt for each kg to LEO.

So, perhaps it takes roughly 25 times more fuel to reach LEO than lunar orbit. I'm presuming that the rocket equation keeps things proportionate but I might be wrong about that. For example, I could imagine that if you start with 10 kg of fuel on Earth, absolutely nothing will make it to orbit.

[Sam Fraser]

Thanks, John, those are useful numbers to start with. Don't you mean 0.5 kg of fuel to lift 1 kg for the moon? An almost perfect 1:2 ratio?

[JohnHunt]

Don't you mean 0.5 kg of fuel to lift 1 kg for the moon? An almost perfect 1:2 ratio?

No, maybe I should have been clear. As far as I can tell the ascender number includes the fuel. So it's a 1:1 ratio.