Our steps back to the Moon continue. NASA announced recently that the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO, the first step in returning to the Moon, has been awarded a launcher contract. Lockheed Martin (what a lot of folks call, tongue-not-so-in-cheek, LockMart) got the contract, and will use an Atlas V 401 rocket. The launch window opens on October 31, 2008. Boo.
In other Moon news, the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program, or RLEP, has been renamed to Lunar Precursor and Robotic Program. I actually approve of this. A name gives you a clue about what the thinking behind a program is, and in this case the program to send robotic probes to the Moon, of which LRO is the first, are now part of the precursor of putting people back there. They aren’t stand-alone missions like Clementine or the Lunar Prospector were.
I support going back to the Moon, as should be obvious from my posts here. NASA does appear to be doing some shuffling of projects and such in an attempt to make this a reality, but I’m still concerned that with the Shuttle standdown and the phenomenal amount of time and effort spent on the space station, this will get back-burnered, or worse, Congress may defund it. We’ll be getting a new President around the time LRO is supposed to launch as well. This launch will inaugurate the return to the Moon. I hope whoever is our next President will consider this to be an adventure on par, or greater, than what our nation achieved with Apollo.
I have a lot more to say about this> it’s a complicated issue, and I’ve seen many people trying to oversimplify it. Stay tuned; as time goes on I’ll write more.
Incidentally, Japan has announced that they want a moonbase by 2030. That may not be as odd as it sounds; they do have a space program, and it’s not like they’re hurting for cash. India, China, Japan… we’d better dang well put some effort into this, or we’ll be one of the very few space-faring nations looking up at that great gaudy light in the sky and knowing we aren’t there to share in its exploration.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:49 pm
I don’t want to incite a riot like I did last time I brought up this topic, but I still don’t understand why people belive we should make returning to the moon our current goal. I’ve read previous comments from topics like this on BA and other Blogs, but I have yet to find a compeling reason.
And before you bring it up, yes, I’ve heard the claim that we need to use the moon as a test bed for Martian technology, but that argument is fallacious. The moon is nothing like Mars.
Martian explorer will likely be doing geological and atmospheric work on Mars, and places like Antartica offer a more realistic test bed than the moon for such sciences.
So why do people advocate returning to the moon when Mars has so much more to offer. My mind and browser are open and I’m willing to here new arguments.
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:57 pm
I wonder, can we have some links to the project? Will the robots be like the Mars rovers, or will they be more hands-on, since the OWL time to our moon is only about one second versus the 5-20 minutes of OWL time to Mars. The Lunokhod rovers from the Soviet Union were operator-controlled.
August 3rd, 2006 at 6:33 pm
Lockmart indeed. They own everything these days in defence and space it seems. I know the sonar I use is mostly all lockeed martin these days with various other stuff sub contracted out. Their stuff is generally ok
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:37 pm
Max, they’re both destinations that require crossing space and that’s probably one of the most important similarities–supporting people across space over extended periods of time.
The moon makes this less of a challenge than Mars will, and thus give us a chance to learn a good deal from it.
The trick with Mars will be sending supplies before they’re needed, since it will take a good deal longer to get there. Basically, they’d have to be predetermining their needs before they arise which will probably be easier once they’ve had some similar experience with it on the Moon.
And I’m sure there are plenty other reasons, but this is just seems to be a rather good one.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:13 pm
Iv’e heard this argument before as well, and I’m sorry Scott, but I must disagree. We won’t learn what we need on Mars by living on the moon. The Martian explores greatest reasource will be the atmosphere, from which they can manufacture or extract water, oxygen, and methane for fuel. These technologies will be completely un-testable on the moon. So there is no way to determine acuratelly what they will need on Mars from living on the moon.
As for crossing interplanetary space, who says we need more experience with that? NASA was able to prepair for the Apollo missions while still in orbit, why not again?
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:27 pm
I’m for it but I wonder how we will really pay for it since we already seem to be spending ourselves into oblivion right now with the war.
Of course, there are other things we need to be doing to like rebuilding our infrastructure not to mention upgrading our electrical infrastructure from
1950’s technology to 21st century technology.
Some of this stuff can’t wait any longer but we also can not let the space program go either.
At the rate we seem to be outsourcing jobs it’s a wonder there will be anything left for a new president to work with.
August 4th, 2006 at 4:49 am
Good old Lockmart. Our statement was “Always the lowest wages, Always”
Max,
While you are correct that some technologies are not testable on the moon, many others are, radiation shielding for example. The best arguement, though not scientific is that the Moon is not likely sellable in Congress, while going directly to Mars is not.
August 4th, 2006 at 6:42 am
I thought the idea of using the moon as a staging post/ depot was the economy of resources. It would be far more cost effective to transport the parts of an interplanetary spacecraft and assemble them at a moonbase, then send it off to Mars taking advantage of the much lower escape velocity from the Moon, than the humungous rocket assembly that would be required to launch said spacecraft from little old Cape Canaveral.
The Moon makes an effective ‘hub’, hopefully not in the sense of what domestic airlines in the US have foistered on the travelling public. That would develop next century if private ‘enterprise’ has its way, if it is allowed. But I hope not! Pan Am may be gone but there could be the Moonbase Hilton, Tranquility Holiday Inn and the Black Obelisk Sheraton.
Seriously though, I think it would be an advantage to have these construction bases in both polar regions, as they would be in almost perpetual light, with the Sun either just above or just below the horizon ‘24/7′. That would ensure continuous operations, but I’m not sure of the temperature gradients because of that. I guess the Sun would not impart enough energy anywhere on the moon at best, so probably a nuclear power station would be required anyway, for heat and energy.
Any ’ship’ coming or going would have direct communication with either base no matter where, and that the other base would be connected otherwise, providing back-up.
So I see the Moon as a depot, shipyard, store, hotel, head office, communications center, research facility, hospital…. etc. And there will be a miriad of things that will need developing and then improving to ensure as safe as possible future in Space.
The other advantage would be that the missions to other planets could also embark from the Moonbase, so duplication for each trip would not happen; the construction facility is already there, and they could be taylor-made as required, even importing raw material from another source in space in the not too distant future.
So, for me first and foremost, the Moonbase is necessary.
Ivan.
August 4th, 2006 at 7:09 am
Fagin and Icemith:
Luna is a resource base. It was originally proposed as the source for Satellite Power Systems construction materials by Dr. Gerard K. O’Niell back in the ’70s. Had we been able then to mount such a construction program, there would not today be much question of how we were going to continue using energy at an exponential rate. Escape velocity from orbit is a lot less than from the moon, however, Luna does have lots of nice rocks(silicon, oxygen, aluminum, etc). also, the intensity of sunlight in orbit or the lunar surface is the same,,,ie, about 1450 watts per square meter or about 4 times more intense than what we receive at earths surface. You can do a lot with such a continous power supply.
Methane on Mars? For fuel??? Nah, it’s really only good for feed stock, as in the manufacture of complex carbohydrates, plastics, etc. Plus the H2 can be removed for making H2O, etc. For power we will likely need a nuke power plant, as solar radiation there is about what we recieve on earths surface and rather inconsistant at that, what with dust storms, night time, etc.
We need the moon as a resource base and it’s soooo close,,,just reach out and grab it.
Gary 7
August 4th, 2006 at 8:37 am
Whenever you make a new ship, you have to take it out for test runs, and then the maiden voyage. It isn’t a great idea to set off across the ocean on the first time out, but rather cruise around the harbor, make a little day trip out and back, get a feel for how it handles and how it’s put together.
The Moon is a good destination for preliminary runs with the space craft. Don’t go on a 2 year trip with no extended autonomous experience, cruise for a week to the Moon and back. Get used to how things work.
Okay, there’s bound to be technology differences that the Moon can’t prepare for Mars. Still, there are some bits that should be the same. Plus, you build up an experience base of astronauts.
Using the Moon as a launch point makes less sense. Use a heavy lift vehicle to drop 2 or 3 big modules and assembly in LEO, much more efficient than a pit stop to the Moon’s surface. The only reason to stop off at the Moon is if they have some resources we need for the trip. Not likely.
Think of it from a politician’s mindset – Mars is far away and risky. Far better to wet our feet on the Moon (so to speak) and then ease our way to Mars later (when I’m retired).
August 4th, 2006 at 8:44 am
Thanks Gary, for the info. But there are advantages for Luna Polar bases, ie., particularly the almost everpresent ability to be in direct line of sight communication, especially as most journeys would be in Earth’s, and also the other planets’ orbital plane. The disadvantage is that the Sunlight at the poles is much less than at the Moon’s equator, as happens on Earth. Then it follows that the energy available is much less too, and the sight of huge solar collectors in the form of fences running around the poles – concentric circles, a degree or so apart in latitude – nah, this is getting ridiculous, as is stringing a couple of thousand kilometers of high tension power lines across the Moon from near the equator. A nuke power station locally, is a given, by extension it could also supply heat to provide a comfortable shirt-sleeve environment.
Granted, raw minerals would available on the Moon, but not all. So back-loading from a source elsewhere, be it planet, moon or asteroid, or even a comet, would have advantages. We could even dismantle that impending Earth bound heavenly body and kill… no, save two birds with one stone, so to speak.
I would also have thought that the Solar radiation on Mars would be less than half that which falls upon Earth, due to the extra distance from the Sun. I seem to remember that the surface temp on Mars in ’summer’ at the hottest, approaches a mild winter day here on Earth in the Temperate zone. Then I could have got that from an early Ray Bradbury Novel!
Ivan.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:14 am
jrkeller, did you mean,
“…the Moon is more likely sellable in Congress, while going directly to Mars is not.”?
Ah, Politics, rears its (ugly) head again. But I guess what ever gets the task going these days, is the way to go.
Ivan.
August 4th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
I also am a little worried that a future prez will cut the moon return mission in favor of some other junk.
Hopefully, they’ll leave well enough alone. It would be cool to have regular missions to the moon as we do with the ISS. Then, we can have an international moon base.
And while we’re at it, we can visit the old Apollo sites and hopefully shut up the moon hoaxers.
August 4th, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Yes actually, methane is an incredibly useful rocket fuel. It has been used as such for the last 20 years.
And from a purelly fuel point of view, it’s actually easier to go from earth to mars then it is to stop on the moon. Remember, there is no way to slow down once you get to the moon. You have to burn fuel to enter orbit.
The political argument is the best argument I’ve heard in a long time, thanks for introducing it.
August 5th, 2006 at 5:34 pm
A comment from Bob Park, the man who doesn’t know what he is talking about.
4. SPACE STATION: NASA THREATENS TO SHUT DOWN RESEARCH ON ISS.
For a year, yesterday’s Nature says, to save money. This is the “Washington Monument ploy.” WN predicted a year ago that NASA would try it (WN 11 Mar 05) , but there is no meaningful research on the ISS to shut down.