Comments on: NASA unveils lunar strategy

By: Irishman

Irishman — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 19:11:49 +0000

I watched the press conference. This is still very early in the planning stage for the Lunar landing. They discussed they just held a planning strategy session with NASA, academic community, industry, and current and potential international partners (including China!), where they looked at what goals and interests the different parties have. They have formulated the basic philosophy as building an outpost rather than individual sorties (like Apollo). They have specifically set the goal to allow for missions to any point on the moon – including polar and far side. In fact, the current plan is to look for polar locations, either north or south which will be determined after robotic surveys. The reasons are driven from engineering and operational concerns, but also scientific ones.

1. Temperatures are more moderate at poles.
2. Extended sunlight exposure allows use of solar power for an earlier start. Nuclear power sources could be developed later.
3. Polar sites give access to craters in perpetual shadow, which may contain volatiles, including possibly water ice. These volatiles could be very useful.
4. Scientifically, the poles have not been explored and may be significantly different than the areas already visited by Apollo.

They emphasized that the key to buildup is to maximize the payload for weight ratio. Thus the ascent stage is projected to be as light as possible.

The primary plan will be to build the outpost with each mission. They outlined key areas that NASA will lead to make their fundamental requirements, but also encourage other partners to contribute. The partnership agreements and even architecture has not been finalized and will be worked out this coming year.

The missions will begin by assuming a 4 person crew per mission. The ultimate goal is to build the outpost large enough to begin a permanent presence similar to ISS, with rotating crews.

This was very preliminary, with a lot left to be determined. Still, it is very exciting.

By: Caledonian

Caledonian — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:43:58 +0000

The Moon is one of the very few places in the Solar System where telepresence is a viable strategy. Properly-designed robots can do most of the things humans can, with humans controlling them, in realtime – and they’re a heck of a lot cheaper than humans, not to mention more expendable.

This is of course assuming that the NASA talk is more than hot air.

By: Ray Gray

Ray Gray — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 02:36:29 +0000

Human + Robot = HUBOT
Robot + Human = ROMAN

All roads lead to ROME, lunar or otherwise.

By: Matt J

Matt J — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 20:07:00 +0000

Stepping on the throat of science? Huh? Elaboration, please! Will science be unable to communicate findings to the world if NASA steps on its throat? Will it not be able to eat delicious science-flakes for its breakfast of knowledge? How will NASA accomplish its devious goal of throat-stepping-on? These questions must be answered, Phil! But not if it means stepping on Science’s throat to do it ^_^.

By: Gary Ansorge

Gary Ansorge — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 17:47:15 +0000

I’d like to leave you with a link to an article about a space lauch ring, unfortunately, I just saved the article to my computer w/o the link. It’s from the NewScientist.com news service dated 3 Oct, 2006. I did some very rough calculations that suggested it could be scaled up to a launch ring diameter of 567 km, to provide launch acceleration forces of about 3-Gravities, tolerable for humans and satellites. I wonder if that would still keep the launch price under $ 1000/kg.

GAry 7

By: Kristopher

Kristopher — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 16:55:29 +0000

Pushing robots over human exploration is very short-sighted, in my opinion.

If human occupation of the solor system becomes permanent, the science will eventually and inevitably get done, regardless of funding.

If human occupation of the solar system never happens, the science will only continue as long as the funding for robots continue.

By: Stuart

Stuart — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 10:55:38 +0000

I think the issue about sending humans rather than robots revolves around your goals.

If you just want “science”, i.e. scientific examination of geology, meteorology, etc, send the robots: They’re cheaper, get there faster and last longer (even if they are slower at the job once they get there.) Cheap and fast.

BUT, if your eventual goal is to leave the planet (for colonisation or resource exploitation) you need to be sending humans up now, even if it’s “just” to the moon. You need all the experience/knowledge/research you can get, if you’re ever going to learn enough to make the longer trips to e.g. Mars, the asteroid belt, etc.

Not that I’m advocating on policy over the other: There are a mass of conflicting pressures – financial, political and scientific – that would affect which, if any, approach will be preferred over the other.