Should NASA return to the Moon instead of doing ARM?

[Bill Phil]

How about building something in LEO, infrastructure, that would allow NASA to do what it pleases?

[Dkmdlb]

The Moon is ultimately an easier place to launch from for missions like ARM. Figuring out how to launch a rocket from the Moon would be a tremendous boon to society as a whole in space exploration. The moon can support bigger payloads with lighter gravity. The need for fairings or aerodynamics goes away. Launches can go directly into the gravity turn with no air resistance to stop them.

Unless you are proposing hardcore ISRU - like fabrication of rockets and rocket fuel from ore found on the moon - then you're forgetting that launching from the moon first requires a launch from earth, then a landing on the moon. Why not just launch from earth right to the destination?

[Greenfire32]

Greenfire: You read my answer?

Yep just took me a bit to type a reply:

The only way to discuss what has more science value is to look in the long term also. If we can not do that, then there is nothing to discuss.

That's a good way to look at it as well.

We already take that baby step, this will be like support the apollo moon conspiracy, is like said.. we was there.. but we forget how to accomplish that. I need to hear a good objective before support this.

Well for starters, we haven't been to the moon in over 40 years so I feel like the practice would be beneficial. But as I said, the only way to accurately learn the effects of Lunar (low) gravity on the human body is by putting one on the moon. We already know that micro gravity is harmful after extended periods of time, but what about low gravity? There's more gravity on the surface of the Moon than there is in LEO.

Then there's the issue of lunar dust. If man were to have some kind of permanent settlement on the moon, what happens to the body when lunar dust is accidentely inhaled? What are the effects? What are the treatments? etc etc.

Long story short: we can learn more about how to live in a hostile environment by just doing it. Not saying there shouldn't be robotic missions involved, just saying that's the only way we're going to master it.

mmm I dont know.. is a valid point, at least for mars as the next step. But why we can not sent a robot missions direct to mars and experiment the best way to do ISRU directly in mars conditions. Of course this does not provide manned or colony experience.. But the colony experience in the moon is similar than in the ISS, without the mining possibilities or the dust issue.

There's nothing that says we can't do all that. All I'm saying is that when the time comes for an off-world "colony," would you rather have at least some experience with the environment, or would you rather it all be a surprise?

Why? we need to build the spacecraft, reach LEO, go to the moon and land (which require deltav), just to fill our tanks and gain a little extra deltav? Plus the time lost and the risk added?

No, you're missing the point. The idea of a launchpad on the Moon is for rockets to be built, assembled and launched from the moon. First we have to determine the viability of such an en-devour (which is why a manned mission to determine these things would be necessary). Then we have to refine the techniques of doing something like that in a low gravity environment. And then we have to actually do it.

The idea is to make it completely self-sufficient over time. Which means that launching from the moon would cut dV requirements tremendously.

Name one NASA Venus or Mars mission with anything like that as an official objective.

...there isn't one. Hence the topic of the thread. Should NASA continue its ARM or should it relocate its resources elsewhere.

How about building something in LEO, infrastructure, that would allow NASA to do what it pleases?

For a while, yes. But then you run into the problem that AngelLestat pointed out. Launch materials to orbit costs money. Assembling in orbit costs money. Launching from orbit costs money.

So for the immediate future, that would be the way to do it. But in the long term, an off-world base (preferably with less gravity and no atmosphere like the Moon) would be ideal for launching crafts. Costs would be basically nill compared to what they are here since you wouldn't need HUGE rockets to fight against gravity and atmospheric drag.

This, of course, is assuming that the materials to not only build the rocket, but its fuel as well currently exist on the moon. Again, another reason why a Lunar mission would be of importance. Is this even feasible? Can this even be done? I don't know. Let's go find out.

[Motokid600]

Problem is there's far too many idiots these days. What's the point of going to the moon at all if it's just going to be claimed as fake or a massive waste of money? Both most likely.

Seriously though... If we do send humans back to the moon it can't just be to wave a flag. Those astronauts better have some brick and mortar for a base foundation or don't bother.

[JedTech]

Caught myself thinking they should land on Venus's moon.... "wait what is the Gilly equivalent? Oh ya.. there isn't one."

Gave myself a laugh. Too much KSP I guess.

That said, I'm in favor of a manned Phobos mission. Hopefully with the intent of sticking a permanent laboratory there.

[Bill Phil]

If NASA set up infrastructure, they could lower costs to orbit.

But, if the set up a base on the Moon, it needs supplies. Sure, maybe you could get water from the moon. And recycle lots of it. But what about food? Replacement equipment? And everything else? You'll need a rather large rocket to get something decently sized to the surface.

LEO is just easier to do things in.

Basically, everything in space costs money. Bases on the Moon cost money. Launching from the Moon costs money. Launching from Earth costs money. But an object in space is just that, an object in space.

[Guest]

Other: Stay at home.

What astronaut can do on the moon or near-Earth asteroid, that robotic mission cannot? Signal delay is very small, and assortment of cameras and scanners is better then naked human eye. Not even Khajiit eye.

Plant the flag?

[Fel]

No, you're missing the point. The idea of a launchpad on the Moon is for rockets to be built, assembled and launched from the moon. First we have to determine the viability of such an en-devour (which is why a manned mission to determine these things would be necessary). Then we have to refine the techniques of doing something like that in a low gravity environment. And then we have to actually do it.

We can capture a 50m asteroid (70% water), redirect that using the same water as propellent plus gravity assists. Locate it in LEO (which may take several years of propulsion), that is equal to 65000m3, 70% --> 45000 tons of water. We need to do 1000 falcon heavy launchs to carry that amount of fuel to LEO. Doing this we have our fuel station right in our doors.

So, just to confirm, if we change LEO to Low lunar orbit, then we could move ore bearing asteroids to the moon which removes all the "issues" of transporting materials up (if the dv requirement for moving the asteroids isn't absurd). Build foundries, greenhouses, steel factories, pretty soon the lunar colony could actually be turning a profit.

Best of both worlds, we build a moonbase, and we use ARM to supply it.

**Nitpick**

Why does everyone keep talking about how we need to resupply a lunar colony instead of developing technology to create a sustainable ecosystem? While yes, earth will be the only producer of silicon based technology for a long time, if we cannot develop sustainable living on the moon, how can we develop it elsewhere?

Edited April 22, 2015 by Fel

[AngelLestat]

Name one NASA Venus or Mars mission with anything like that as an official objective.

Havoc Venus mission (fifth step, permanent colony).

Then almost all mars mission are to smooth the way for a manned mission.

the only way to accurately learn the effects of Lunar (low) gravity on the human body is by putting one on the moon. We already know that micro gravity is harmful after extended periods of time, but what about low gravity? There's more gravity on the surface of the Moon than there is in LEO.

We can have a big spinning habitat in the ISS (without windows to not vomit all) to experience different types of gravity effect, like moon at 0.1g or mars 0.3g. One ring to rule them all.

Then there's the issue of lunar dust. If man were to have some kind of permanent settlement on the moon, what happens to the body when lunar dust is accidentely inhaled? What are the effects? What are the treatments? etc etc.

Long story short: we can learn more about how to live in a hostile environment by just doing it. Not saying there shouldn't be robotic missions involved, just saying that's the only way we're going to master it.

All those are valid points, but if we take this route.. its mean that before go somewhere else.. we need to spent 10 or 20 years with a colony in moon, why we dont skip the boring tutorial and we jump into the adventure.

If that level of safety is needed to do anything from now.. then why ever bother to find qualify people to do the missions.. just choice me..

The edge will be always risky.. If we dont take risks we go nowhere.

Take as example the past.. There is already a lot of evidence than points that the Easter Island were originating colonize from some islands from the Polynesia. This without knowing how much your travel it will took before reach a place.. and using stars to navigate before colombus times.

Now NASA or other agencies needs 100% of sucess before move a finger.

No, you're missing the point. The idea of a launchpad on the Moon is for rockets to be built, assembled and launched from the moon. First we have to determine the viability of such an en-devour (which is why a manned mission to determine these things would be necessary). Then we have to refine the techniques of doing something like that in a low gravity environment. And then we have to actually do it.

You know how much money, launchs, and factories you need in the moon to manufacture each component of a rocket? And the moon is not close either.. To sent something there you need almost a similar deltav than mars.

Also if you want a permanent habitat in the moon, you will need extra gravity.. I dont need to know the results how harm is moon gravity for us.. 99% sure it will be also bad at long term.

You will need something like this:

http://s20.postimg.org/jdf1f7a7x/Moon_Artificial_Gravity.jpg

The idea is to make it completely self-sufficient over time. Which means that launching from the moon would cut dV requirements tremendously.

If we manage to build skylon, which for sure it will come faster than a full rocket factory in the moon, then our launch cost problem will be solve or it will be at pair to the moon.

Other: Stay at home.

What astronaut can do on the moon or near-Earth asteroid, that robotic mission cannot? Signal delay is very small, and assortment of cameras and scanners is better then naked human eye. Not even Khajiit eye.

Plant the flag?

This is a good point also..

Best of both worlds, we build a moonbase, and we use ARM to supply it.

I guess you can find almost everything you need in the moon it self. An asteroid have more use in LEO.

The only problem is that we can not use the earth atmosphere to capture asteroids because it will be too risky.. Maybe with small ones..

Edited April 22, 2015 by AngelLestat

[Kryten]

Havoc Venus mission (fifth objective permanent colony).

Can you not distinguish actual missions from study concepts?

Then almost all mars mission are to smooth the way for a manned mission.

Show me a formal objectives list that includes anything about colonisation of anything.

[Bill Phil]

**Nitpick**

Why does everyone keep talking about how we need to resupply a lunar colony instead of developing technology to create a sustainable ecosystem? While yes, earth will be the only producer of silicon based technology for a long time, if we cannot develop sustainable living on the moon, how can we develop it elsewhere?

A sustainable ecosystem? We've tried that on Earth before, and failed. Once we get successful on Earth, then we can try in LEO, closer to home, and then the Moon.

I would think that Earth's ecosystem has a limited number of days. Life has inefficiencies, too. However, Earth is big, so big that the ecosystem is fine for many millions of years. But, if the ecosystem is too small, then problems may occur much more rapidly.

[xenomorph555]

A sustainable ecosystem? We've tried that on Earth before, and failed. Once we get successful on Earth, then we can try in LEO, closer to home, and then the Moon.

You don't need an ecosystem like Biosphere-2 or anything like that. You only need a fully closed life support system, these have been successful on Earth in the past, a recent example would the Yuegong-1 in China. It was able to sustain a crew of 3 for a year. And it isn't limited like the ISS's air/water system, it covers everything, even down to the food creation. In-fact it has been developed to the point that Tiangong-3 will have a prototype system FOR USE IN SPACE, when that happens I agree we can set up shop on the moon.

My point is that we are a lot closer then you claim.

[Bill Phil]

You don't need an ecosystem like Biosphere-2 or anything like that. You only need a fully closed life support system, these have been successful on Earth in the past, a recent example would the Yuegong-1 in China. It was able to sustain a crew of 3 for a year. And it isn't limited like the ISS's air/water system, it covers everything, even down to the food creation. In-fact it has been developed to the point that Tiangong-3 will have a prototype system FOR USE IN SPACE, when that happens I agree we can set up shop on the moon.

My point is that we are a lot closer then you claim.

That's not an ecosystem. That's closed loop life support. Nowhere close to an ecosystem.

Closed loop life support also has some problems, but as long as it can last long enough without opening the loop temporarily you're fine.

[Nibb31]

The sole reason for the existence of the ARM mission is to give something for Orion to do. There is no other rationale for it. The scientific goals of the ARM can be reached without any manned presence for a fraction of the cost. Grabbing a small rock and moving it around is a stunt that has no real application in terms of mining or asteroid avoidance.

Orion was designed for cislunar exploration, to support 4 crew members for 21 days and to reenter from the Moon. When Constellation was cancelled, NASA was specifically ordered not go to the Moon, so the only mission they can propose under the current administration is ARM. I suspect that this will change after the presidential election.

I'm personally in favor of a new series of Moon landings with some critical objectives:

- Studying and developing techniques for closed loop habitats, hydroponics, and ISRU.

- Studying and developing techniques for using and maintaining exploration equipment off-world.

- Studying and developing mitigation techniques around the biological impact of partial gravity and cosmic radiation.

The idea of "colonies" is stupid, but these objectives would probably benefit from some sort of semi-permanent lunar outpost or lab facility. Something equivalent to one or two ISS modules would allow long duration experiments to run unattended between manned visits.

A lunar outpost would also benefit from some sort of supply-line infrastructure, with a reusable lander, a fuel depot, maybe commercially operated.

The Moon is the easiest and most obvious place we can get to. It's within our reach, with a lot of (relatively) low-hanging fruit.

Edited April 23, 2015 by Nibb31

[xenomorph555]

That's not an ecosystem. That's closed loop life support. Nowhere close to an ecosystem.

Closed loop life support also has some problems, but as long as it can last long enough without opening the loop temporarily you're fine.

I know it isn't an ecosystem, that's why I said "You don't need an ecosystem like Biosphere-2 or anything like that.".

Also I found better terms for it other than closed loop, "Controlled ecological life support system" or "bio-regenerative life support system".

Edited April 23, 2015 by xenomorph555

[YoetoJoe]

I think we need something like the constellation program (

). If we want to get anywhere in space we need to do it in a series of steps. That is what happened during the space race. Every major product we have ever undertaken in history has been through baby steps and that is how it will most likely continue in the future.

[FishInferno]

I think we need something like the constellation program (

). If we want to get anywhere in space we need to do it in a series of steps. That is what happened during the space race. Every major product we have ever undertaken in history has been through baby steps and that is how it will most likely continue in the future.

this. so much this. constellation was way better than SLS in my opinion.

[Bill Phil]

this. so much this. constellation was way better than SLS in my opinion.

Except...

Ares I was insufficient to launch Orion.

Ares V's upper stage had problems in the design, specifically involving the loiter time.

At least SLS is actually going to happen. At least for one launch.

[Nibb31]

Constellation as in "Let's tell NASA to go to the Moon but don't give them money to actually do it" had some merit as a PR stunt.

Constellation as in "Let's build these deeply flawed rockets that are designed to make our contractors happy" had to be put to death without mercy.

Constellation was supposed to be Apollo on steroids. SLS is Constellation on life support.

[Stone Blue]

I think Mars should definately be pushed back, and Moon operations slightly over ARM.... The rest of the world is aiming for the Moon, and as far as science and ecomics go, we are going to get left in the dust...

I kind of see it as if the Moon were the "New World", and Mars as Antarctica...What if Columbus had gone for Antarctica instead of the New World?

[Bill Phil]

I think Mars should definately be pushed back, and Moon operations slightly over ARM.... The rest of the world is aiming for the Moon, and as far as science and ecomics go, we are going to get left in the dust...

I kind of see it as if the Moon were the "New World", and Mars as Antarctica...What if Columbus had gone for Antarctica instead of the New World?

He didn't. He went for India.

[Stone Blue]

^^ OK...but he ended up discovering a whole new, resource-bonanza in the New World that was much easier to get to and worth more in the long run....

[AngelLestat]

Can you not distinguish actual missions from study concepts?

Now you will hide behind technicalities? In that case all these missions that we are talking now are also under study and none was approved yet..

Show me a formal objectives list that includes anything about colonisation of anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_(rover)#Goals_and_objectives

http://mars.nasa.gov/msl/mission/science/goals/ (curiosity)

http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/science/goals.html (oportunity and spirit)

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/IAC-14-A5_1_1-Gates.pdf (ARM mission)

I can also quote many nasa scientisc saying the same thing, like the last mars documentary in netflix.

What you will do now?? Hide behind words saying that objective is not the same than goal? Than me, a non english speaker, I need to choose the perfect word just to point the difference between a long term objective?

Also the objective will not be called "analize the amount of water in the region for future human settlement", because you dont know if you will choose that place for that purpose, so is always called "analize the amount of water".

[Bill Phil]

^^ OK...but he ended up discovering a whole new, resource-bonanza in the New World that was much easier to get to and worth more in the long run....

It caused Spain to have huge inflation...

The only advantage was more territory and bringing more modern science to the New World.

[Kryten]

Now you will hide behind technicalities? In that case all these missions that we are talking now are also under study and none was approved yet..

There's a difference between a mission that at least being proposed, and... that thing. It's not even a mission study, it's a concept study. You claim NASA missions are sent to support colonisation, I just want one objective for a mission (not some concept study that might as well be on the back of a napkin) that mentions colonisation. At all. Of anything.