Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?

From: AA Institute (abdul.ahad_at_ntlworld.com)
Date: 09/23/04 

Date: 23 Sep 2004 05:58:33 -0700

Joann Evans <bondage@frontiernet.net> wrote in message news:<41521907.2A6DC3A0@frontiernet.net>...
> AA Institute wrote:
> >
> > This is another 'space adventure' sort of fun question, but its fairly
>
<snip>
> You don't have to go to the trouble of trying to pressurize a cave of
> unknown (and possibly impractical) porosity. If suitable ones can be
> found, set up pressurized habitats within them. You still have the
> advantages of meteorite/thermal extreme/solar and cosmic radiation
> protection. Inflatables derived from Transhab could easily be used here.
>
Some thoughts I have personally on this 'fun' project:-

LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION

As with all real estate projects, there are three primary
considerations when it comes to investing in an *ideal* Moonbase:
location, location, location! And we only have one chance to get this
right. A Moon base is a far longer term endeavour than an orbital
station like Mir was or ISS is.

I would personally like to see the base established on the edge of the
Moon's near side disk (i.e. on the limb of the hemisphere visible from
Earth). There are a number of reasons why I would choose such a
location. Firstly, good for direct communications with Earth (subject
to windows permitted during the 'libration' cycle of the Moon of
course) as opposed to a complete far side location.

Secondly, for radio and dark sky optical observatories, a far side
location would be within easy reach via ground crawling manned rovers
from a limb-located lunar base. Locating observatories over the local
horizons from such a base would cut out the vast amounts of radio
noise and light glares coming from the blue-white globe of the Earth,
which will hang *permanently* in the lunar sky as seen from any
outright near side base locations. And the Earth would be a huge
glare. Not only is it huge in disc diameter, but with a mirror-like
37% albedo (reflectivity), it will dazzle you far more than what the
Moon dazzles us on Earth (lunar albedo: just 12%).

Thirdly, if Platinum-group metals and Helium 3 prospecting become key
commercial commodities for mining from the Moon, then these are likely
to be found in greater abundance on the lunar far side compared to the
near side. This is by virtue of the fact the far side is far more
exposed to both the solar particles and meteoritic impacts, since the
Earth itself acts as a large shield to much of Moon's the near side.

As to *where* (in terms of selenographic latitude) on the lunar limb
such a base is to be located is the big, wide open question at this
time. If near future scout missions identify water-ice on one or both
of the poles, then that will be an overriding driver for locating the
base at one of the two lunar poles.

However, I would point out that a polar situated Moon base may only
allow *half* the sky to be accessed for radio and optical astronomy
from lunar observatories, whereas an equatorially located base could
allow more of the sky to be surveyed.
The other point is possibly fuel. On a straight forward Earth-Moon
transfer departure from LEO, I think one arrives at the Moon on a
'normal' orbit of some standard inclination, as opposed to a polar one
- I'm not sure, but would it cost more fuel to land on a pole as
opposed to near equator? Someone can hopefully clarify. A base will
require frequent take offs and landings for regular servicing to and
from the Earth, costs will therefore mount up incrementally.
Safe passage through the Van Allen radiation belts is also a factor to
consider, as I think only certain trajectory geometries allow one to
pass safely. Whether they coincide with a polar capture orbit at the
Moon is something I'm not too sure about, but its a priority
consideration I think.

A polar base will not allow sufficient levels of solar 'insolation'
with weak sunshine at such locations for solar power to be an
effective electricity source, I think. Needs clarifying...

FIRST STEPS

Several Transhabs connected to a common solar array / nuclear power
source, situated in a regolith shielded environment, seems to me a
great idea. Some kind of natural infrastructure - be it a cave, a
rille, or deeply excavated crater will be necessary for shielding
against direct solar radiation.
These Transhabs could be launched using modified versions of the
Russian heavy-lift Protons or possibly a new breed of Saturn V-type
launch vehicles.

INFRASTRUCTURE EXPANSION

Once the base is fully established, with a sizeable nuclear power
station and biosphere, etc. then the lunar regolith could be utilised
for cement (or even bricks!), alloys and other necessary building
materials to expand the facility into a proper colony of lunar
"houses" with people, plants and animals.... sounded a bit like my
"Aster-Com" starship just then!

FUNDING

Establish my dream vision of a "World Space Agency" (WSA) asap. Get
every spacefaring nation in on the act. Why does China want to spend
the next 30 years developing its own *primitive* space station around
the Earth... something the Russians and Americans have already done
and dusted decades ago? Why does India want to launch *primitive*
lunar orbiters 10 years from now, when that's all old hat too?! Has
anyone actually *offered* an attractive proposition to those nations
for an opportunity to fly their flags high and proud on the roof of a
major, 21st century, hi-tec lunar base?

ATTRACTIVENESS

Get those FAT CAT private companies involved. Don't give them bland,
black and white pictures of dismal looking *scientific* bases though.
They wont fall for those. No, give them plans of luxury apartments,
open top swimming pools, glazed domes looking out into a star-studded
sky where the Milky Way stretches from horizon to horizon, palm trees
growing on the tranquil shores of the "Sea of Fertility" or the "Bay
of Rainbows".... Imagination! The ancients didn't give the Moon's
features such fancy names for no reason. The Moon is a very bland,
black and white kind of world, where some colour is desperately
needed...

A Moon base is not for the next 30 years or 50 years (like the ISS
will be). A Moon base is a *permanent* off-Earth colony, to be
designed and built with hundreds if not thousands of years ahead with
future civilizations in mind. It's worth spending those extra few
$trillions to make it nice and plush. That way you'll get private
millionaires queing up to stake their claims on the luxury apartments
yet to be built there.

If you do the capital investement appraisals with discounted cashflows
and what not kinds of models, you will see positive paybacks at the
end. Okay, it may be 500 years from now, but *payback* a good, well
designed lunar base will generate...guaranteed!

ISS DISPOSAL

If we want to move forward towards a Moonbase, the question here is
what do we do with this multi-billion dollar, sixteen nation project?
Well, I once had this rather *cranky* idea, we could strip it in orbit
now and fire it to the Moon for use as an initial Moon base!
See:

http://tinyurl.com/6usdv

That was a rather *cranky* idea, now that I look back on it after so
long.

KEEP MARS ON THE *EDGE* OF THE MANNED EXPLORATION WINDOW FOR NOW

By all means I think Mars should be kept as the *next* step, but we
shouldn't let Mars be too much of a distraction at this stage. Let us
learn to walk before we can run. If you look at this blueprint:-

http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars/mars_crew.html

I think Mars is still very much on the *edge* as to current
technological feasibility. 40 years of our manned spaceflight
experience only scratches the surface and a manned mission to Mars may
be too large a step within 30 years. It can be done I suppose as
another 'flags and footprints' job but nothing more.

Please... this is all just my own, informal thoughts presented here
rather fancifully IMHO, IMHO... of course!

AA Institute
http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Why go back to the moon?
    ... > I agree that the soil/rock radioactivity of an underground lunar ... > habitat that's sharing whatever background TBI dosage is going to be ... > bad solar day and we're down to talking of minutes instead of hours ... Which orbits at the same distance from the Sun as the Moon ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: USA urges scientists to block out sun
    ... across) located at L1, 1.5 million km away from Earth, would intercept ... Plainly, getting to orbit is easier on the moon than Earth, Earth ... Ejecting the debris using solar ... These vehicles as I said could also launch the parts for a moon base ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: Why go back to the moon?
    ... I agree that the soil/rock radioactivity of an underground lunar ... Even at a TBI daily dosage of 100 mr is going to give your crew more ... bad solar day and we're down to talking of minutes instead of hours ... In other words, the closer to the moon you get, the more ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: The Apollo Hoax FAQ
    ... > record and video footage shot by NASA astronauts and questions ... > What does it take to prove we went to the Moon? ... > The Lunar surface brightness misconception. ... On Earth the pilot could eject in cases ...
    (sci.astro)
  • Re: Apollo
    ... > record and video footage shot by NASA astronauts and questions ... > What does it take to prove we went to the Moon? ... > The Lunar surface brightness misconception. ... On Earth the pilot could eject in cases ...
    (sci.astro)