Operating Robots on the Moon from Earth-Moon L2.

[fredinno]

I'm wondering if operating lunar rovers, sample return missions, or lunar far-side telescopes (from Earth-Moon L2) would be advantageous, (and be worth it) if a crew had already been place there (to test interplanetary travel conditions, for example. This is a proposal that has been thrown around multiple times for the SLS, and I find it very interesting.

[Nibb31]

The difference in latency between teleoperating a Moon rover from EML-2 and from Earth is negligeable and not really worth the cost of setting up a manned EML-2 outpost for that purpose.

Teleoperation a robot on the surface from Mars or Venus orbit is something that might be considered, but even then, robots are more and more autonomous so latency is becoming less of a problem. The sheer cost of sending a manned mission to Mars orbit, the limited duration, and the risk involved to the crew, outweigh any enhanced capabilities that you might get from reducing teleoperation latency.

[HoloYolo]

The only thing we need on the Moon at this point is a base/colony. They can do the science at the base, and we don't need to worry about latency because they're people. We can get a lot more from a base then a robot.

[AngelLestat]

Yeah, is not enoght to command it as a first person shooter game, but it would be enoght

2.5 seconds would be the ping, even in the other size over relay.

That is one of the reason I said its kinda pointless manned missions to the moon. Better use that money in manned missions to Mars or Venus where you can not take real time decisions.

[SargeRho]

I think if we already have an EML2 station, testing the teleoperation systems would be a good experiment to perform on it, but it's not worth building an EML2 station just to remotely operate robots.

[John FX]

Interesting fact, it would cost less to send a man to the moon than it would to make a film about sending Bruce Willis to the moon. Sort of puts things into perspective.

[pincushionman]

Does fredinno mean "use L2 as a relay point for a rover on the far side"?

[Kryten]

Interesting fact, it would cost less to send a man to the moon than it would to make a film about sending Bruce Willis to the moon. Sort of puts things into perspective.

The most expensive film ever cost about $400 million to produce. Even without adjusting for inflation, that's not enough for a Saturn V, nevermind the lander and all the rest of it.

[John FX]

The most expensive film ever cost about $400 million to produce. Even without adjusting for inflation, that's not enough for a Saturn V, nevermind the lander and all the rest of it.

Ah, you are right I was not adjusting for inflation and overestimating film costs. The Saturn V cost $494 million per launch which is a fair amount more in todays money although not that much more than the film you mentioned.

Lets try a different comparison.

At the height of the Iraq/Afghanistan war around 2005, the cost was $25 billion a month if you include all costs, not just on the ground operations. Adjusted for inflation the cost of the entire Apollo program including all the launches and R&D was 133 Billion in 2007 dollars. This means the entire apollo program, including all launches could have been started twice a year and each program could run for ten years and have multiple moon landings.

This means the Iraq war cost over 15 Apollo programs.

This chart I have found is interesting as an inflation adjusted comparison of costs.

You may notice that just the interest on the federal debit in 2008 was higher than the inflation adjusted costs of the entire moon landings.

People say that going back to the moon would cost too much. Higher costs than that are happening year on year. I would support any mission to the moon or further as the cost of doing so gets relatively less each year especially when compared to things that the public money is being spent on these days that provide literally no benefit, interest payments for example.

Edited July 3, 2015 by John FX

[benzman]

Picture doesn't show for me, which is a pity as it sounds like an interesting graph.

[AngelLestat]

This means the Iraq war cost over 15 Apollo programs.

Depending the amount of revenues they got from that war, but even with that, funding science and exploration creates higher revenues.

They would not have so many scientist and entrepreneurs in US without the apollo program.

Also today you dont need a saturn5 for a manned mission to the moon.

I guess a Falcon Heavy would be enoght. All things are lighter today.

[78stonewobble]

Ah, you are right I was not adjusting for inflation and overestimating film costs. The Saturn V cost $494 million per launch which is a fair amount more in todays money although not that much more than the film you mentioned.

Lets try a different comparison.

At the height of the Iraq/Afghanistan war around 2005, the cost was $25 billion a month if you include all costs, not just on the ground operations. Adjusted for inflation the cost of the entire Apollo program including all the launches and R&D was 133 Billion in 2007 dollars. This means the entire apollo program, including all launches could have been started twice a year and each program could run for ten years and have multiple moon landings.

This means the Iraq war cost over 15 Apollo programs.

This chart I have found is interesting as an inflation adjusted comparison of costs.

https://blog.christopherrcooper.com/assets/fed_projects_v_apollo.jpg

You may notice that just the interest on the federal debit in 2008 was higher than the inflation adjusted costs of the entire moon landings.

People say that going back to the moon would cost too much. Higher costs than that are happening year on year. I would support any mission to the moon or further as the cost of doing so gets relatively less each year especially when compared to things that the public money is being spent on these days that provide literally no benefit, interest payments for example.

Hmm... Then there is also... what you actually got for the money.

There's the often quoted thing about the apollo program giving work to 1 million(?) people over how many years?

Interesting to compaire to the atleast the F-22 raptor program and eg. interstate highway system.

And then comes spin off technologies and other benefits of the programs.

[fredinno]

Depending the amount of revenues they got from that war, but even with that, funding science and exploration creates higher revenues.

They would not have so many scientist and entrepreneurs in US without the apollo program.

Also today you dont need a saturn5 for a manned mission to the moon.

I guess a Falcon Heavy would be enoght. All things are lighter today.

Technically, a bare-bones lunar mission would have been possible in the 60s too with the Gemini rather than Apollo using a Saturn C3 which had a similar capacity to the Falcon Heavy. A completely bare-bones to the moon could be achieved with 2 Falcon 9s today and Ion Drives.

In reality, a lunar mission today will probably use Saturn 5 level capacity or higher (by Earth Orbit Rendevous) due to the fact that the missions themselves would do more. (4 instead of 2 people, more complex scientific experiments, base construction, etc.)

But I agree. Space exploration resulted in massive spin-off techology for the world (velcro is one.)

- - - Updated - - -

Does fredinno mean "use L2 as a relay point for a rover on the far side"?

I meant using L2 to operate rovers/ sample return missions/ lunar telescopes on the far side or poles.

- - - Updated - - -

The difference in latency between teleoperating a Moon rover from EML-2 and from Earth is negligeable and not really worth the cost of setting up a manned EML-2 outpost for that purpose.

Teleoperation a robot on the surface from Mars or Venus orbit is something that might be considered, but even then, robots are more and more autonomous so latency is becoming less of a problem. The sheer cost of sending a manned mission to Mars orbit, the limited duration, and the risk involved to the crew, outweigh any enhanced capabilities that you might get from reducing teleoperation latency.

What if it is operating a telescope or rocer on the far side, where communication from earth is more difficult, but easier @ Earth-Moon L2?

[Pipcard]

(velcro is one.)

No, it wasn't. It was useful for the space program, but it wasn't a spinoff.

[fredinno]

Ok.i'm an idiot. Whoops.

[John FX]

Picture doesn't show for me, which is a pity as it sounds like an interesting graph.

It`s from here

https://christopherrcooper.com/blog/was-the-apollo-program-a-prudent-investment-worth-retrying/

EDIT :

at the time of writing (2008) "A single year of interest paid currently would pay for the entire original Apollo program or the cost of the future Moon program and still have enough to produce most of the F-22 project."

If it was not for the interest paid on debt, the entire apollo program could happen every year, year on year. Hundreds of moon landings per decade, including all R&D, training and launches.

Bit sad really.

Edited July 3, 2015 by John FX

[AngelLestat]

Technically, a bare-bones lunar mission would have been possible in the 60s too with the Gemini rather than Apollo using a Saturn C3 which had a similar capacity to the Falcon Heavy. A completely bare-bones to the moon could be achieved with 2 Falcon 9s today and Ion Drives.

In reality, a lunar mission today will probably use Saturn 5 level capacity or higher (by Earth Orbit Rendevous) due to the fact that the missions themselves would do more. (4 instead of 2 people, more complex scientific experiments, base construction, etc.)

I dont understand what bares bones means..

But again, all the equipment and module can be much more lighter, the only thing that dint change much is the proppelent to land and take off. Hydrogen is great for that.

And even if you want to carry more stuff, why you need a saturn 5?? Just launch multiple falcon heavy. Inside the fairings of a falcon heavy can enter a bus, the cost of a SLS launch vs falcon heavy there is not comparison.

[fredinno]

I dont understand what bares bones means..

But again, all the equipment and module can be much more lighter, the only thing that dint change much is the proppelent to land and take off. Hydrogen is great for that.

And even if you want to carry more stuff, why you need a saturn 5?? Just launch multiple falcon heavy. Inside the fairings of a falcon heavy can enter a bus, the cost of a SLS launch vs falcon heavy there is not comparison.

Bare-bones: "Reduced to or comprising only the basic or essential elements of something."

Constructing things in orbit from multiple launches adds weight (each docking port can be 0.5 T), complexity, risk, and cost. Just ask the people who assembled the ISS.

[AngelLestat]

you dont need so many launches.. In fact 2 would be enoght to carry more equipment that the one used in one of the apollo missions.

If your equipments weight is reduce it to half, then your proppelent is also reduced, and instead use 300s isp as the apollo program, you can use hydrogen with 450s.

Computers and all kind of cameras or sensors weight a order of magnitud less that in those times.

Inflatable modules, etc.

[fredinno]

you dont need so many launches.. In fact 2 would be enoght to carry more equipment that the one used in one of the apollo missions.

If your equipments weight is reduce it to half, then your proppelent is also reduced, and instead use 300s isp as the apollo program, you can use hydrogen with 450s.

Computers and all kind of cameras or sensors weight a order of magnitud less that in those times.

Inflatable modules, etc.

Judging by the FH's ....ty Vaccum Capacity, I wouldn't be so sure. On the other hand, we can never be sure unless Elon decides to make TLI estimates for Falcon Heavy. It would still probably be less ambitious than Constellation's lunar missions, or even the proposals being made for SLS Lunar Landers. (I have the reports to both.)

[SargeRho]

Wouldn't 2 SLS Block II be enough to send first a base-building 3d printer to the Moon, and then once the 3d printing robots are done printing space houses, send the crew? The SLS Block II and the Saturn V both have the same payload, don't they?

[fredinno]

Block II has 10 T more payload to LEO than Saturn V. To answer your question, in theory, yes. Whether we can get that to work is another question.