Gen 1 moon base/lab idea

[Reddragon]

From what I remember a single module laboratory on the moon was mentioned as a possibility for the SLS program as a possible long duration mission in the late 20's early 30's. It's still possible and would make sense but the real question is the lander and it's costs. Boeing proposed a reusable lander for such tasks but all of these are just concepts.

[RainDreamer]

Just for fun, I quote a random Youtube comment i remember from years ago:

'Why don't we just land the ISS on the Moon????!!!!!! Easiest way to have a moonbase!!!!!'

THe best thing is that...we can actually do that in KSP!

[xenomorph555]

From what I remember a single module laboratory on the moon was mentioned as a possibility for the SLS program as a possible long duration mission in the late 20's early 30's. It's still possible and would make sense but the real question is the lander and it's costs. Boeing proposed a reusable lander for such tasks but all of these are just concepts.

It was also part of the Apollo applications program, a lander that had it's ascent engine and fuel replaced with life support. It would house a crew for 15 days.

[Rakaydos]

There are so many things wrong with Liftport idea, it's not coming 2020 that's a definite.

That's a bold claim. Would you care to elaborate on what is wrong with the liftport idea?

[xenomorph555]

That's a bold claim. Would you care to elaborate on what is wrong with the liftport idea?

Sure thing, lets use the video they created to show the problems-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9XVHhkWxpI:

Giant magic ropes that can extend from L1 to the moon, lack of gravity on the lunar surface, suddenly giant space station out of nowhere around the base sat, giant magic elevator out of nowhere and finally MONEY, there is no way these people could finance this and there is definitely it could be ready 5 years.

[Rakaydos]

As I understand it, the 5 years is just to get the money- that's when construction is supposed to BEGIN, not end.

Magic ropes? I wasn aware Dupont had used magic to create Kevlar in the 60s.

[Reddragon]

It was also part of the Apollo applications program, a lander that had it's ascent engine and fuel replaced with life support. It would house a crew for 15 days.

It's interesting, I didn't know that. Well, future programs are aiming for longer stays on the moon. ESA on the other hand has a cool concept for '3D printing' a base but that's probably still 20-30 years away. Cool technologies are developing for lunar operations that's for sure.

[xenomorph555]

As I understand it, the 5 years is just to get the money- that's when construction is supposed to BEGIN, not end.

Magic ropes? I wasn aware Dupont had used magic to create Kevlar in the 60s.

Yes but Dupont didn't create a length of rope that stretches between planets.

[Tommygun]

It's interesting, I didn't know that. Well, future programs are aiming for longer stays on the moon. ESA on the other hand has a cool concept for '3D printing' a base but that's probably still 20-30 years away. Cool technologies are developing for lunar operations that's for sure.

Apollo Applications Extended Lunar Surface Missions:

They had quite a bit planned before future funding started to get cut:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aesrbase.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apomtaxi.htm

[xenomorph555]

Apollo Applications Extended Lunar Surface Missions:

http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/l/lmschusa.gif

They had quite a bit planned before future funding started to get cut:

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aesrbase.htm

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/apomtaxi.htm

To explain the different ships:

The LEM taxi was going to be a stripped down LEM that can land the crew, get switched off for 15 days, take the crew back to orbit. The crew wouldn't stay in it since it had little life support.

The LEM shelter was the 15 day life support lander with no ascent stage. The crew would live here.

I believe the MOLAB was the new dedicated lab module that could support the crew of 3 for a month on the moon.

The Truck was similar to the Constellation rover/buggy/truck.

[Wanderfound]

Any Moonbase has the same problem as other interplanetary exploration: for the cost of establishing and sustaining one human base, you could send up a thousand robotic rovers.

Yes, there are many things where having humans on site is better, but it's generally not a thousand times better. And that margin is increasing, not decreasing: remotely controlled exploration vehicles get better every year, but the costs of supporting humans off-world are relatively fixed.

Sure, a Moonbase would be really cool, but the net effect of creating one would be a severe impairment of scientific progress.

[Rakaydos]

Any Moonbase has the same problem as other interplanetary exploration: for the cost of establishing and sustaining one human base, you could send up a thousand robotic rovers.

Yes, there are many things where having humans on site is better, but it's generally not a thousand times better. And that margin is increasing, not decreasing: remotely controlled exploration vehicles get better every year, but the costs of supporting humans off-world are relatively fixed.

Sure, a Moonbase would be really cool, but the net effect of creating one would be a severe impairment of scientific progress.

Which is why a Lunar Lagrange elevator would be such a gamechanger, as it would objectively reduce the costs of supporting humans on the moon, by bypassing the rocket equation for lunar landing and return. The marginal cost of a moonbase would only be slightly more than the cost of maintining the ISS, and lunar resource exploitation, such as water, Helium 3, and cheap bulk construction mterials, would provide a greater benifit than a mere LEO zero-g expirimental facility.

[NERVAfan]

Any Moonbase has the same problem as other interplanetary exploration: for the cost of establishing and sustaining one human base, you could send up a thousand robotic rovers.

I think that's quite an overstatement; each of the MERs was something like $400 million and MSL was something like $2 billion, and something small scale like what is being proposed in this thread (a "lunar Tiangong/Salyut" instead of a "lunar Mir/ISS") would not cost $400 billion-$2 trillion unless it was done with truly hideous inefficiency.

Yes, there are many things where having humans on site is better, but it's generally not a thousand times better.

You can do initial exploration vastly cheaper with unmanned stuff, yes.

But the thing is that a robotic mission that actually gave you comparable capability to a human mission probably wouldn't be nearly as much cheaper -- and probably wouldn't be possible at any price with current tech given the slowness and limitations of current rovers.

IE the robots will begin to hit diminishing returns.

(And we can't rely on better robotic tech to solve that problem; the acceleration of computer tech can't continue forever.)

And that margin is increasing, not decreasing: remotely controlled exploration vehicles get better every year, but the costs of supporting humans off-world are relatively fixed.

Not really. Humans are more expensive largely because they require more mass. So as launch costs decrease, it will shift in favor of humans.

I expect the picture to look very different in ~5 years, with reusable Falcon 9 first stage, Commercial Crew vehicles and possibly Bigelow stations.

Sure, a Moonbase would be really cool, but the net effect of creating one would be a severe impairment of scientific progress.

That assumes fixed money that can go either to human or unmanned exploration. But I don't think that's a valid assumption -- with humans, there will be more interest and therefore more money. People lost interest in Apollo because of vast social disruptions around 1970 and also because it was set up just "to get to the Moon" with no long term goals. I don't think the same would happen to something like this, unless it got historically unlucky like Apollo did.

[kerbiloid]

Seems that while you have only chemical engines, any permanent base will be too much expensive and unacceptable.

And when you have new-clear ones, it's no problem to build a large and full-featured one at once.

So, such single-module station will appear only as builders' temporary cabin for first few weeks, while they are leveling the ground with a huge bulldozer.

Then a mass drop of supplies will happen, and you look something like in Iron Sky (I mean, a size, not a shape).

[trekkie_]

Seems that while you have only chemical engines, any permanent base will be too much expensive and unacceptable.

And when you have new-clear ones, it's no problem to build a large and full-featured one at once.

So, such single-module station will appear only as builders' temporary cabin for first few weeks, while they are leveling the ground with a huge bulldozer.

Then a mass drop of supplies will happen, and you look something like in Iron Sky (I mean, a size, not a shape).

That's why a large vehicle with all the tools to base build and a live-in crew cabin would be the optimal choice. And with nuclear power, there would be no issue of running it, since it would run for years, capable of building bases the whole time, or wherever is needed, while still being able to house a crew for the entire duration. So you could build two bases on two opposite ends of the moon without having to worry about traveling back and forth, if you wanted....while also exploring and doing science.

Of course, you could create automated base building robots, but if they needed maintenance, you'd have to go through the trouble of getting to them for human repair. With humans on site, you can make optimal decisions and repairs on the fly, again, while still being able to do science. definitely a lot easier to land one object on the moon rather than two, not to mention there would be weight savings, since a separate base and builder rover (which would need to be manned to some extent, even if only sometimes), would offer overall weight savings in the long run.

to have automated base building robots, you'd need at least 3 objects sent to the moon; a live-in base, a rover to get around, and the base building robots. obviously, the larger the bot, the quicker things get done, and a crew cabin would be a good weight offset too, so you could easily put a large set of tools on the front, from drills to shovels, and lift a lot more weight without having to add more dead weight.

since solar flares hit the moon all the time, it would be best to be able to have a roving base that you could simply park under something or in a crater or man made cavern, at least until you could build a decent underground base. Any permanent base on the moon would have to be buried to some extent, to protect from radiation and erosion. moon dust is highly corrosive, able to erode away stuff like air tight seals. and while there isn't wind on the moon, solar flares and magnetics kick up tons of moon dust. I once made a real-time video of a solar flare hitting the moon, and you could literally see it with the naked eye, kicking up hundreds of tons of moon dust across the whole sun-facing surface of the moon, tens of miles high or more. and this happens regularly.

Edited December 15, 2014 by trekkie_