Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?
From: Alex Terrell (alexterrell_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: Jud McCranie: "Re: Titan III (and IV) Engine Operation Question"
- Previous message: bob haller: "Re: Moose could be very useful...."
- In reply to: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Next in thread: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: Rodney Kelp: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Sep 2004 15:39:26 -0700
abdul.ahad@ntlworld.com (AA Institute) wrote in message news:<adbf5bc1.0409230458.40f8e1d@posting.google.com>...
> LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION
>
> 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.
Against this, free space is a much better location for most
astronomical observations, since your equipment is unencumbered by the
moon's gravity, and you're not so restricted to where you point your
device. I think the lunar surface is overated for this, apart from
some narrow radio bands.
> 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.
>
This is not the case except for very fast impacts, such as comets,
which are low on these. Impacts from NEOs would follow curved
approaches through both the Earth's and Moon's gravitational field,
and could equally land on the Earthside.
> 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.
>
Agreed. However, the optimum location for a lunar catapult is on the
equator. The best solution I can think of is two bases. Liquid
Hydrogen is sent ballistically to the eqator.
> 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.
Discussed in sci.space.policy before. It appears that fuel differency
is negligible, but launch windows are not as frequent - though I'm not
sure why.
>
> 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...
>
Lunar polar is overstated as a location for solar power, at least on a
large scale. This is because solar power stations there need a
vertical axis whch limits their size.
Same goes for Lunar Satellite Solar Power from L1. However, if a
large, Earth pointing slope can be found in high latitudes, then this
could be used for a rectanna, with cables providing the last leg of
transmission.
>
> 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.
See my schedule above. There is a large manifest to consider. A cave /
lava tube would be nice, but shielding can also be provided by filling
in the layer between an outer and inner shell.
> 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.
>
I think NASA should NOT make this decision. They should say: We need
15 20-ton modules to be delivered to Lunar Orbit over the 3 years of
.... All sensible bids will be evaluated. We expect a similar need
over the next decade.
>
> 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!
>
LOX and Fe production, plus "mooncrete" come first. Fe can be extruded
to form habitat modules which can then be buried. Also - solar panel
production.
>
> 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?
>
Experience of multinational projects like eurofighter and the ISS
indicate the financial costs of cooperation outweight the benefits.
But NASA could do a lot cheaper by not doing it all, and buying
services such as cargo placement, rather than specifying hardware.
>
> 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.
First, give them a reasonable, but secure launch manifest to bid for.
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...
>
Zero-g is much more fun. Lunar stuff is a stepping stone to your
low-g, surround pool.
> 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.
>
Maye, but one day the first moon base will encased in a bubble and
turned into a tourist attraction.
> 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!
>
Not quite. I can make them work with some assumptions and using NEO
resources, rather than lunar. But I can't get a positive NPV from the
moon at any reasonable discount rate. It's up to the US Government -
for now.
>
> Please... this is all just my own, informal thoughts presented here
> rather fancifully IMHO, IMHO... of course!
Keep the ideas coming
>
> AA Institute
> http://uk.geocities.com/aa_spaceagent/astronomy.html
- Next message: Jud McCranie: "Re: Titan III (and IV) Engine Operation Question"
- Previous message: bob haller: "Re: Moose could be very useful...."
- In reply to: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Next in thread: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: Rodney Kelp: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
