The Case for the Moon

[JohnHunt]

Here is an e-mail that I just sent to one of the Moon Society officers. I look forward to any constructive comments you might like to make about any part of it.

------- PART I ---------

THE CASE FOR THE MOON

Hi. I would like to suggest that someone (perhaps you) write a book titled, "The Case for the Moon". This would obviously be in contrast to the book and concept, "The Case for Mars". Since Obama has committed his administration to bypass the Moon, I think that this book needs to be written quickly if that decision is to be overturned before too much planning and money is spent.

From my perspective, the Moon is a far better place for us to go to first. There are large benefits which the Moon will bring us which Mars, by its nature, cannot. Also, as the case for Mars is placed under the microscope, each idea is either refuted or turns out to not be so important after all. This also holds true for any adventure to an asteroid or the moons of Mars.

Here's my case for the Moon.

One must start by looking at the rationales. Here are the primary rationales for each:
- Moon: Resources, economics, safety, power, a stepping stone, and survival.
- Asteroids & martian moons - Glory, science, and relatively inexpensive.
- Mars - Glory, science, the ultimate destination, and atmospheric resources.

RESOURCES
Clearly, the Moon is probably the best source of resources. Its lunar poles offer water ice while other areas offer He-3. and metals. Since it is only three days away from LEO, the Moon could completely open up LEO and the rest of the solar system by providing bulk materials (i.e. water, oxygen, fuel and structural metals). One could argue that asteroids could provide these things but, since they are months away, expensive transporting craft would be tied up many times over compared to the Moon. The Moons of mars are not even worth mentioning in this respect.

SAFETY
Since both an asteroid and Mars is so far away, it becomes far more dangerous to travel to. Once you have departed from Earth's gravity you are committed to a journey lasting months or even years. If anything happens (e.g. Apollo 13) Americans could be watching our astronauts experiencing an excruciating death and then their bodies left to orbit somewhere in the solar system. What do you suppose that would do to set back the space program? It could derail it entirely. But if something goes wrong on a lunar trip, the Moon itself can return them within a matter of days.

Lunar astronauts would be exposed to much less solar flare radiation than during a longer trip. Compared to an asteroid, regolith is easier to work with on the Moon due to the presence of at least some gravity. Launch windows during a solar maximum may need to be bypassed for health reasons thereby creating a gap in the program.

POWER
The Moon could provide direct power to the Earth by means of solar-powered beamed microwaves. Neither asteroids nor Mars could do this. Likewise, He-3 is only readily available on the Moon. The global warming alarm could be noted at this point.

INSPIRING SCIENCE CAREERS
Much is made of the need to inspire kids to pursue science by having them witness astronauts going to new places. There are several problems with this logic. First, there is not just one way to inspire kids. Kids can be inspired by robonauts. If need be we can give them names and make them look sort of cute. We could even make them be able to speak if that is felt important. Many copies of the robonauts could be taken to high schools where kids get to meet an interactive robonaut along with the engineer who helped construct it. The kids could even don virtual reality gear and experience what it is like to be and control a robonaut. Lunar development would be happening on an ongoing basis

Also, if we choose to go to the Moon first, we will have routine flights, not flights every two years. This will give students more real-time exposure to exciting landings and take-offs. Also, if the purpose of the lunar landings is to develop a base then there would be meaningful milestones achieved on a regular basis. This is something that even the Apollo program didn't have.

Finally, an inspiring space program isn't the only thing which increases the number of American scientists and engineers. For example, today, many of our universities have researchers (often from other countries) who were born well after the Apollo program. Yes, a space program can inspire the next generation, but apparently there are other ways of increasing the number of scientists and engineers working in the US, paying US taxes, building US companies, etc.

Only the Moon would open up space to large numbers of people. Having a few astronauts every couple of years does not give children the idea that they could realistically grow up to be an astronaut. But there is a real potential for mining operations and a space hotel market opening up on the Moon. Private enterprise will always go to the Moon before they go to Mars. Having NASA open the way to the Moon would be like the creation of the first transcontinental railroad which served as a backbone from which entrepreneurs built the rest of the country. Importantly, if the US doesn't develop the Moon, other countries will likely do it and possibly before the US is able to develop a colony on Mars. What? Are we going to be buying orbiting fuel from the Chinese because we refused to recognize the economic potential of lunar ice?

.... SEE NEXT POST FOR THE REST ...

[JohnHunt]

...

MAINTAINING SUPPORT
Much is also made about the need to do something particularly novel so as to ensure that the public continues to support America's space program. But is this really the case? Is NASA's budget a rollercoster going up or down depending upon whether the manned space program did something interesting recently?

It is expected that NASA's budget will stay around the same size to continue its current programs. Few of the Space Shuttle missions had anything particularly novel about them. Reports from the ISS were mainly about the fact that a module was installed or that a spacewalk took longer than expected. So NASAs budget will continue to be maintained while robonauts have just prepared a habitat for soon-to-come astronauts, or that the robonauts have succeeded in harvesting food in preparation for the soon-to-come astronauts. After such work has been completed, like the ISS, the project will have to be continued. When one starts achieving meaningful milestones, everyone will insist that it continues rather than give up all that has been accomplished.

DEVELOPMENT
Clearly the Moon is far more easily and safely developed than the Moon. With a three or so second time delay, robonauts can work on the Moon 24x7 using crews working in shifts. How many robonauts can operate simultaneously? However many you can land on the Moon. How many robonauts can work on the martian surface? At most two and not 24x7 if there are three astronauts on a martian moon teleoperating them. Compare the price of sending martian teleoperating crews to Phoebos verses having lunar teleoperating crews simply drive to work. And when the martian astronauts leave, the robonauts' work slows to a crawl.

SCIENCE
This is one of the biggest red herrings. It is now said that we need to send astronauts to an asteroid because asteroids are like time capsules from the beginning of the solar system. Fine. But why risk the lives of the astronauts and potentially the entire vision when the same rocks can be had for far, far less money, sooner, and infinitely more safely by sending a robotic sample return craft? The science argument for a manned mission to an asteroid doesn't hold water at all.

Then, there's the argument that we must go to Mars because there is a chance to detect life on that planet. It is said that a geologist astronaut could do the work of the twin rovers in a week. Fine. But how many rovers, to specific locations, with drills and labs could be sent? Probably at least dozens if not a hundred. Three astronauts can be sent only to one or maybe two nearby locations. But dozens of rovers can be sent to dozens of locations. Again, what if something goes wrong during travel, entry into the martian atmosphere, during the year + on the martian surface, on take off, again during travel, or upon reentry into the Earth's atmosphere? Would the science have been worth it if we could have sent dozens of rovers for the same price and collect the same samples? What sample can humans get that a rover can't?

Science isn't the real reason to go either to an asteroid or to Mars.

GLORY
Here it is. This is the real reason. We should go to Mars instead of the Moon because....because we've already been to the Moon. No more glory there. If we are going to stay in the lead in space then we have to do something which no one else has done. Hence an asteroid and Mars.

We are being told that the choice is either the Moon or Mars. We can do one or the other but not both. By choosing Mars first, we are probably committing ourselves to multiple missions there. A "boot print and flag exercise" is no longer considered appropriate. There will be no money to substantially develop the Moon. However, the other competing nations are clearly setting their sights on the Moon with manned missions likely. If they decided that they want to do something that the US had never done then they could begin to develop the Moon. This would place them in the lead when it comes to a cis-lunar economy. They could conceivably be able to provide lunar water to LEO for fuel, water, and oxygen. Would the US choose to launch EDS fuel at $10,000/lb when the Chinese are selling said fuel and it is already in LEO? The same could be imagined for large metallic structures in LEO or GEO.

They could also begin mining He-3 and selling it for research at considerable price. If we are still spending all our space money trying to build up a martian base in the 2050s, might we have developed a functioning fusion reactor by that point and making a sizable market for Chinese He-3?

If we see other countries developing the cis-lunar market and figure that we should get in on that, wouldn't we be jeopardizing the whole martian effort while also admitting that we should have started with the Moon?

SURVIVAL
Sometimes mentioned is the idea that humanity might be threatened with extinction and that having an off-Earth colony would be prudent. I buy this argument. But if this is the reason, then what we should be doing is attempting to achieve a self-sustaining colony as fast as possible given the same amount of money. People may not like to think about this reason but it would be imprudent not to.

Most often the idea is that we need an off-Earth colony because Earth might get hit by a dinosaur-killing-sized asteroid. But this is unreasonable.

First of all, humans would survive an event even of that size. Humans have general intelligence and can utilize technology (e.g. grow lamps) which dinosaurs were completely unable to develop. Secondly, we know of the orbits of the large majority of large asteroids and, when detected, we will likely have decades of time to divert it, evacuate from ground zero, store supplies, move underground, prepare energy sources to power greenhouses, etc.

A far greater risk is that someone on Earth will develop self-replicating technology (even accidentally) which destroys humanity directly or indirectly. At that point the Earth would have to be considered to be contaminated and the off-Earth colonists ought not to attempt a return. I believe that we will be facing self-replicating or accelerating technology (e.g. self-replicating chemical, artificial life, nanotech, or AI) starting about mid-century. We really need to be developing an off-Earth colony really ASAP. If a martian colony would take a couple of decades longer to create than a lunar colony then this might make a critical difference.

I am inclined to believe that eventually, Mars will be humanity's second largest civilization (after the Earth). But in the immediate and even intermediate frame it is entirely possible that the Moon will be the largest colony. This is because it is so much cheaper and safer to send people to the Moon and because the Moon is near the Earth and has less gravity and therefore, economically, private enterprise will develop the Moon well before much of an economy develops between the Earth and Mars. People and companies move to where the economic opportunities are.

Now, the argument is that Mars has all the materials necessary to sustain a colony whereas the Moon doesn't. This is not technically true. For example, carbon and nitrogen are present in lunar soil but at pretty low concentrations. We now know that there are abundant supplies of hydrogen. But regardless, I did a calculation of how much carbon and nitrogen would need to be transported to the surface of the Moon in order to establish a Biosphere 2 on the Moon. It was about what two Ares Vs could deliver to the lunar surface. That project involved 5 biomes (I think) and was probably far larger than was necessary. The point is that colonies on the Moon can be supplied their deficiencies. By recycling these materials, they could arguably maintain a colony for a long time while they develop technology to escape to Mars. Given the low gravity, this wouldn't be impossible.

ALTERNATE PLAN
Now, what should be done if the Obama administration is not convinced by The Case for the Moon. I believe that the goal of lunar development is so important that one should consider an alternate space program. It could be a combination of corporations, private individuals, non-profits, and any willing countries.

I believe that a relatively cheap alternate plan could be developed which would be far less expensive than the Constellation lunar program. I would try to do everything through medium lift rockets (e.g. pairs of Falcon 9 Heavies = EDS + lander + cargo). There should be an undercarriage lander on top of which would go robonauts, spare parts, equipment (e.g. ISRU, solar panels, etc), supplies, or an ascender. After having been tested with equivalent mass, the undercarriage could then land astronauts. When landing an astronaut there wouldn't need to be a capsule, supplies, much life support, nor fuel for ascension.

NEED FOR A REFERENCE MISSION
I think that the book should contain a reference mission with estimated costs and comparisons with Mars Semi-direct.

Hopefully, the book would cause people to see that we need to go to the Moon first.

Thanks for your consideration,

John

[moonus111]

We should write a book, well he just did that for us!

[Rhyshaelkan]

I am very interested in replying to this. But currently I am tied up.

But in short you have very nice arguments there John. Why not try and write a book yourself. If you do not like your paragraph or sentence structure, that is how editors earn their pay. ;)

More later.

[platinumwolf]

I guess this is a response to the Obama speech last week. I think moon missions would be good as well, but I can't see complaining, since Obama is intending to increase NASA's budget, and is cancelling a program which was only intended to maintain LEO access, not push us to the moon.

[Sam Fraser]

John, I like the whole concept of "alternate space program" involving "corporations, private individuals, non-profits, and any willing countries". The science is settled. We have the technology. People just need to know this! This is a way to generate jobs, wealth and prosperity without trashing the planet. Especially now, with seemingly insurmountable environmental and economic problems, people need to know there is a way out. This is real hope and change we can believe in that doesn't require throwing our children and grandchildren into the maw of the Debt Monster. The many billions poured into subsidies for "green technologies" and "carbon credits" would be better spent on lunar development. No ecosystems to pollute or native peoples to exploit there, just clean carbon-free solar power beamed back to Earth. Space isn't black, it's green!

I don't think writing a whole book is necessary. A series of funny clips on YouTube that "make you think" or some kind of poignant e-mail campaign that goes viral. We just need to tap into that raw desire for something new and different and cool that raised Obama $600m in a few months.

[JohnHunt]

> Space isn't black, it's green!

That's the best line yet!

> I don't think writing a whole book is necessary.

You might be right. But books do get attention especially if it is coming from someone with some credibility. The latest news that I can share is that this description of the book was forwarded by a prominent lunar society leader to a publisher. We are awaiting a response. Cross your fingers!

But your point is still well taken. There are other popular methods to generate movement. I did create a lunar ark petition and sent it to 20 or so thought leaders in the space blog world. None of them signed it though so I'm not sure that it will go viral. There are a number of decent YouTube videos about lunar development already, nothing viral yet.

> Obama...is cancelling a program which was only intended to maintain LEO access, not push us to the moon.

Well, Obama has done more than just chosen to fund commercial access to LEO. About the moon he said, "Bluntly, we've been there before" so it seems to me that he has already decided to axe the moon. However, because he said so not directly and because Holden said that the path forward includes the moon then I'm hoping that there's still some openness there if we can make the case that returning to the Moon is not just about reliving old glories. I really don't think that Obama understands just how much potential the moon holds and how our last trip there did nothing at all to capitalizing on that fact.

But yes, I began developing the alternate moon mission plan because I was getting suspicious that Obama might want to go to an asteroid and a martian moon instead.

Rhyshaelkan, I look forward to your reply when you get some time.

> Why not try and write a book yourself

There are better people to write the book. People with better writing abilities and most importantly, people in a position which would be newsworthy. For example, The Case for Mars was newsworthy not just because of the content but also because it was written by the president of the Mars Society who also has worked for years as an aerospace engineer. But I am committing to help bring together material for the book.

[JohnHunt]

One more thing...
> I think moon missions would be good as well, but I can't see complaining

Platinumwolf, The Case for the Moon could be made from a strictly positive perspective. But if we are to get NASA to direct its considerable funding towards a lunar mission then the reality is that it is not an unlimited budget. If we return to the moon, in all likelihood it will mean deferring going to an asteroid and Mars. So, we can't just give the positives about the moon but rather address the competing arguments which have been made in favor of Obama's new vision (the flexible path).

But perhaps, you make a good point anyhow. If we can make the argument that we can go to an asteroid, go to Mars (i.e. one of its moons) and still receive all of the benefits of returning to the moon (albeit in a very inexpensive approach) then perhaps the administration will go for it. But I am afraid that time is running out.

Probably what needs to be done even before the book is written is to create a consortium of sorts of various organizations (maybe throw a few Apollo astronauts in as well) and present a scaled down lunar colonization plan to be included in the new vision.

[asteroid-wildcat]

John,

Thanks for making the case for the moon - Good to have a firm objective goal. My understanding of this goal is – “Build a safety net on the moon if all goes really BAD here on Earth”.

We are not alone with a goal of going back to the moon. Check out Lunarpedia. It looks like some other folks are working towards the same goal.

http://www.lunarpedia.org/index.php?title=Main_Page

Another notable person to include in the conversation is the only lunar astronaut and geologist that visited the moon. Harrison Schmitt – He is and has been an advocate for going back to the moon for a while. Bio here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Schmitt

What needs to happen?
We need to build the infrastructure to make - A sustainable moon base a reality.

How do we do this?
We need to overcome the current obstacles. We must put the necessary infrastructure in place. We must, also influence the public to support the objective.

What are the next steps?

We currently have the technological abilities to make a sustainable moon base a reality. With an unlimited budget, we would already have a base on the moon. What we lack is – How to make it economical.

To make a moon base economical we need an economic way to fuel traffic to and from the moon. Asteroid mining seems to be the logical choice to fulfill this need both in Luna and terrestrial orbit. Consider that ANYTHING mined from asteroids will be useful.

Public support… Now here is a real problem.

Mark Prado has remarked that “people” are more interested in themselves. I’m paraphrasing Mark’s comments but in my own experience this is true. “People do not really care about reality just about vanity”.

We have other forces against us. There is a growing perception that making money is BAD. Look at the recent sale of “AVATAR” DVD’s – the movie where the “Evil corporation is vanquished in the battle”. We cannot make a profit on our ventures when the public sees it as BAD and there is growing momentum towards public perceived as “BAD”.

I recently viewed a movie that sums it up. The movie is “Moon”. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1182345/ The movie won some awards and got some stuff right. Processing large amounts of regolith to get He3… BUT I did not see the massive parabolic mirrors needed in the process to make it work right. In the end it was all the BAD corporations fault.

NASA is not going to do it for us. We must do it for ourselves. We need the help of the public too.

Maybe “Beyond Darwin is Our Future”.

[JohnHunt]

Hi Wildcat, Good to meet you.

Thanks for the Lunarpedia tip.

If I'm not mistaken, Schmitt is for the moon but only for Science. I believe that he's adamantly opposed to Development. YouTube "lunar development" it "lunar colonization".

You make the argument that a significant economy is necessary before a self-sustaining colony is possible. Others have said the same. I can only hope this is not the case as that might introduce a 20 or so delay. A self-replicating chemical or accelerating AI might be developed during that period. I hope that a self-sustaining colony will be the initial goal (NASA or consortium of others). But if that doesn't happen then, yes, by growth of the lunar economy.

Re: making money is bad...There might be ways around this. Telerobotics can be kid-friendly, moon-based solar energy and He-3 can be considered to be green, survival is reputedly the main motivator behind global warming concerns. Also, SpaceShipTwo is very much about profit but seems popular with the public.

[moonus111]

How do we do this?
We need to overcome the current obstacles. We must put the necessary infrastructure in place. We must, also influence the public to support the objective.

I'm completely convinced that the main obstacle standing in our way is that people do not know the merits of a moon colony/Space Power Satellite plan. If people knew then it would be much harder to railroad any development the way it has been railroaded since the 60's. Only after the dimmest among us (politicians/leaders) are enlightened about the facts can we start to build infrastructure.

The merits are ginormous, and the detracting reasons are limited. So it shouldn't be to difficult to produce material videos, podcast, blogs, websites, etc. The difficult part is driving viewers to the content. Making the content flashy and adding controversy are the only ways to do this, we can't hold our tongue for fear.

For now most that advocate moon development are disunited. I would like to work on this, but it'll have to be a side-dish for the time being. Besides grassroots movements aren't monolithic, and it would be better if this was grassroots because then we can have different creeds in our coalition.

[JohnHunt]

Hi Logan,

The difficult part is driving viewers to the content. Making the content flashy and adding controversy are the only ways to do this

This is very true. I would suggest that if you knew how to insert overlaying pictures as you are talking about a particular subject that it would enhance your YouTube videos significantly. There might be a copyright issue there but it sure seems like a lot of people grab pictures from around the web and nobody requires them to take it down.

For now most that advocate moon development are disunited...Besides grassroots movements aren't monolithic, and it would be better if this was grassroots because then we can have different creeds in our coalition.


This is also true. However, using the Mars Society as an example, I would say that they are pretty united. In a sense. In actuality, if one were to really probe them, they would probably have a lot of differences on getting to Mars, landing, what should be the first activities, the process of exploration and colonization, etc.

But they have an appearance of unity because, IMO, Zubrin wrote the book (The Case for Mars), he is and has long been the Mars Society president, he has played a prominent public role, and, importantly, he advocates a specific, named plan.

I realize that there are different people with different visions for the moon. But I believe that there is a vision which makes a lot of sense and is advocated by probably the most prominent and qualified advocate for lunar development - Dr. Spudis. If he were to write a book, articular a specific, named plan for the development of the moon, develop that proposed mission in the context of NASA funding, and then go public (sometimes seeking a fight) then the case for the moon could be the nidus for a movement in support of including a moon program or establishing an alternate (i.e. non-NASA) program if that became necessary.

[JohnHunt]

Incidentally, I watched your YouTube videos and was pretty impressed with your content and also your manner of speaking. Again, the inclusion of graphics might help a lot.

[JohnHunt]

> I am very interested in replying to this. But currently I am tied up.

Hi Rhy, did you want to take the opportunity to respond to this Case for the Moon post?

[Sam Fraser]

Why we should colonize the moon with Dennis Wingo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_LEm2X4UnU

(This one's for you, Logan. :rolleyes:)

[JohnHunt]

Yes, I found Wingo's interview of the Parabolic Arc Blog.

I'm writing Dennis to address some issues. I think that he is one of the leading proponents for the development of cis-lunar space and so generally support his views. I have, however, a few points (or emphasis) which are different.

His position seems unclear on NASA incentives for commercial space development versus companies funding it entirely temselves. I think that the way forward is formally locking in a set percent (e.g. 15-20%) of NASAs budget to incentivize the commercial development of space. Think about how much has been accomplished in a relatively short period of time with the COTS/CRS/CCT approach.

He was also not entirely clear re: the use of robots. On the one hand he makes it sound as though humans need to be physically present if robots on the Moon will work. But then he speaks about telepresence but doesn't clarify if this is an adequate substitute for the physical presence of humans on the Moon. I believe that it is. The two reasons that he says humans are needed for is to prepare the worksite and provide repairs. I see no reason why teleoperated robonauts could do these things.

He also doesn't make a good argument that sustainable space development can be done on the cheap - particularly when it comes to lunar development. It's not clear that he understands what all can be done with rendezvous of two Falcon 9 Heavy payloads (total of 64,000 kg). This should allow the delivery of 3,000 to 5,000 kg to the lunar surface. With that amount of payload we ought to be able to land an autonomous lander, power systems, robonauts, ISRU, an ascender, or supplies. After in-situ oxygen fuel (for ascending) is produced, I believe that the mass of the lander would be small enough to even land a human.

In the interview, it is clear that the interviewers are not clear on the specific plan. There are lots of ideas but what exactly is the plan, how much profit is made at what point, what's the order of activities, etc. There needs to be a plan for sustainable space development and the plan needs a name too.

[moonus111]

Why we should colonize the moon with Dennis Wingo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_LEm2X4UnU

(This one's for you, Logan. :rolleyes:)

Thanks! It was awesome!

[Rhyshaelkan]

http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2010/07/23/space-resources-asteroids-and-the-moon/

A recent post by Dr. Paul Spudis. It rehashes many of the same points I like to argue for going to Luna first. Then the asteroids. Then Mars.

A silver, blue(black, brown), then red plan.

[JohnHunt]

Yes, I am convinced that the proper path is Moon --> (Asteroid) --> Martian moon --> Mars.

For me the cost-effectiveness and initial safety of teleoperated robots (only possible on the Moon) is the deciding factor when considering what to do first. But also, the great potential that lunar-derived fuel for facilitating all further exploration and development of the solar system is a second great reason to go to the Moon first.

Yet there is a third rationale which, I believe, is greater than the first two. By mid-century we will be facing self-replicating technology of our own making. The earlier we purchase an insurance policy by having a self-sustaining, off-Earth colony the better. I believe that we can achieve that on the Moon at lower cost and so earlier than on Mars.

I don't think that it has to be an either/or proposition. I am fine with NASA pursuing a manned asteroid mission ONLY if enough money is left to incentivize commercial companies to develop cis-lunar space.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Personally and honestly. I do not want to see government controlled space. I want private ventures to make it happen.

However in time, those private ventures will have to govern themselves. Not everyone gets along. While that can be kept low by prescreening applicants. It might still happen. Extraterrestrial bases/colonies will have to have their own security and methods of dealing with those that do not follow the rules. Whether that is someone not showing up to work, stealing, fighting, maiming or killing someone.

But that is a topic for a different thread.