What should the first Moonbase be for?

[Drunkrobot]

Recently, I started a poll on what humanities next big goal in space should be-a mission to Mars, or a manned base on the Moon.

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/showthread.php/39401-Return-to-the-moon-or-mars-landing-what-first

Two of every three who voted chose "Moonbase" (GO TEAM!). Let's imagine that the space programs of the world joined together to build a sustained habitat on the Moon. To justify the cost of the program, there needs to be decided a purpose of the base. Due to current budget constraints, only one venture can be explored (I know, it probably wouldn't be like this, I'm just trying to pose a question.).

What, then, should the base...do? The only constraint is that it is a manned, long-term station on the Lunar surface, similar in some ways to the ISS in that humans can live there months at a time, with resupply trips coming every six months with what the astronauts can't create or recycle themselves.

The six given are what I could think of. If your idea doesn't fit with any, leave it in a post, and if enough give it, I'll add it. Don't forget to say why you think your reason is the right one.

Edited July 14, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[ZedNova]

Helium 3 and a manned mars mission launch base.

[jwenting]

the only things the moon is good for is as an astronomical observatory (lack of atmospheric distortion) and hopefully a source of raw materials to build space habitats and other facilities in orbit that can then be used to tap the asteroid belt for even cheaper materials for more space based construction.

Saves a ton of money from having to haul it all out of the earth's gravity well.

[TheCanadianVendingMachine]

I think a Lunar base would be good if the world goes into a nuclear war, people can be safe and then go to earth when it's safe,

[Kerbface]

I think a Lunar base would be good if the world goes into a nuclear war, people can be safe and then go to earth when it's safe,

A huge moon-based economic centre that can survive independently, you mean... That's more than just a base and would cost countless billions or trillions. Plus if the whole world was in Nuclear war, what's to stop nukes being sent to the moon colony as well? Treaties? Doubt it.

[Themohawkninja]

First should be a mining station to persuade the government to fund one. Once the bureaucracy is passed, add on units for science experiments, and if technology allows, place an observatory on dark side (avoid interference with the Earth). While both are going on, record the inhabitant's health/strength to act as a long-term low-gravity environment test for future manned missions to Mars (I know Mars is much bigger, but AFAIK humans have only been in Earth gravity, and microgravity environments for extended periods of time, so the Moon might give us a slight idea of how Martian gravity might affect humans).

[Nibb31]

Helium 3 and a manned mars mission launch base.

We wouldn't know what to do with helium 3 even if we had it, because we can't produce power from fusion yet. Also, helium 3 is not "abundant"on the moon anyway.

The first thing to do is to experiment ISRU. At the same time, we need to monitor biology of organisms submitted to partial gravity and cosmic radiation and to find out if we can mitigate any problems and survive long duration BEO missions.

The results of those studies will tell us if it is relevant or not to pursue manned exploitation of the solar system.

[metaphor]

A moon colony would be relatively useless as a testing ground for a Mars colony. A Mars colony might even be cheaper than a Moon colony of the same size.

The Moon is a much harsher environment than Mars. It has 350-hour days of +100 degrees C and 350-hour nights of -170 degrees C. It's in hard vaccuum with no radiation protection and 1/6 of Earth's gravity. By contrast, Mars has a 25-hour day and night cycle with temperatures variations from -80 to +20 degrees C, not too different from a base in Antarctica. Mars also has an atmosphere which provides some radiation protection, and it has more than twice as much gravity as the Moon. The dust problem is probably less severe on Mars since its atmosphere rounds out the dust particles, making them not as harmful. It would be a lot easier to design a self-sustaining Mars habitat than to design a self-sustaining Moon habitat.

It also takes more delta-v to take a certain amount of mass to the surface of the Moon than to take the same mass to the surface of Mars. This means higher launch costs for Moon base parts and resupplies.

What a Moon base would have an advantage in is that it's relatively easy to get back from the Moon (still not that easy though). So it might be economical to have an outpost that does ISRU and sends fuel and materials into lunar orbit or the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, for use in interplanetary missions. The Moon is close enough that the equipment could be remote-controlled from Earth. The Moon is also good as a telescope observatory, so that could be one use for a base. And there's plenty of lunar science still to be done. It would just not be very useful as a precursor to a Mars colony, and would be more expensive than a Mars mission.

[Kerbface]

It also takes more delta-v to take a certain amount of mass to the surface of the Moon than to take the same mass to the surface of Mars. This means higher launch costs for Moon base parts and resupplies.

Really? Why is that?

[NovaSilisko]

Really? Why is that?

No atmosphere on the Moon to slow you down. On mars all you need is a good trajectory, an aeroshell, a parachute, and a little bit of fuel to do the final descent. I think the difference between trans-lunar injection and trans-mars injection is quite small due to the oberth effect. Once you're on course for mars you're set, but with the moon you have to land on rockets alone, unless you devise some sort of rough-landing canister that can withstand impact velocities of several km/s and still have its cargo in a recognizable form.

Edited July 15, 2013 by NovaSilisko

[Nibb31]

A moon colony would be relatively useless as a testing ground for a Mars colony. A Mars colony might even be cheaper than a Moon colony of the same size.

The Moon is a much harsher environment than Mars. It has 350-hour days of +100 degrees C and 350-hour nights of -170 degrees C. It's in hard vaccuum with no radiation protection and 1/6 of Earth's gravity. By contrast, Mars has a 25-hour day and night cycle with temperatures variations from -80 to +20 degrees C, not too different from a base in Antarctica. Mars also has an atmosphere which provides some radiation protection, and it has more than twice as much gravity as the Moon. The dust problem is probably less severe on Mars since its atmosphere rounds out the dust particles, making them not as harmful. It would be a lot easier to design a self-sustaining Mars habitat than to design a self-sustaining Moon habitat.

It also takes more delta-v to take a certain amount of mass to the surface of the Moon than to take the same mass to the surface of Mars. This means higher launch costs for Moon base parts and resupplies.

What a Moon base would have an advantage in is that it's relatively easy to get back from the Moon (still not that easy though). So it might be economical to have an outpost that does ISRU and sends fuel and materials into lunar orbit or the Earth-Moon Lagrange points, for use in interplanetary missions. The Moon is close enough that the equipment could be remote-controlled from Earth. The Moon is also good as a telescope observatory, so that could be one use for a base. And there's plenty of lunar science still to be done. It would just not be very useful as a precursor to a Mars colony, and would be more expensive than a Mars mission.

A Moon base makes sense because it is still quicker and easier to get to, which makes crew rotations and supply ships more feasible. The launch window for Mars resupply missions is every 2 years, which means that you need to send larger space craft. Heavy payloads mean that you need a powered landing, which requires more complexity, and more mass added to the payload.

Many of the solutions for problems of living on the Moon are not needed for a Mars mission, but a lot are needed for the actual journey to Mars (hard vacuum, cosmic radiation). Others are needed for Mars (partial gravity, ISRU, closed-loop life support, reusable landers). The complexity of building a Moon shuttle capable of transferring between the lunar surface and back up to lunar orbit is much simpler than building a mars shuttle.

[jwenting]

I think a Lunar base would be good if the world goes into a nuclear war, people can be safe and then go to earth when it's safe,

Given that it would need to be supplied with food, water, air, medical supplies, everything basically, from earth, you'd just starve, asphyxiate, dehydrate, rather quickly.

Of course once you're talking about a large scale munar colony, think a few tens of thousands of people, with hydroponic farms, factories, mining, air and water generation, maybe it can work.

But that's a long way away.

[Nuke]

going there to mine he3 is a bad idea. first of all we will likely get d-d or d-t fusion working first. those require less energy to fuse. an alternative to he3 fusion, pb11 fusion uses more abundant materials and has all the aneutronic properties of all known he3 reactions. he3 is very overrated.

thats aside from the point that with fusion power also comes fusion propulsion, which provides much easier lunar access, and he3 ends up being what you use to fire up your moonbase reactor.

while we are waiting for fusion to become viable we should be extracting lunar ice for fuel production, and then doing metals and lunacrete production as well, to further colonization efforts.

[Whirligig Girl]

You could generate and beam up power by using the vacuum of space for cheap solar panels. Then you uise a maser to beam the power back to Earth.

[Nuke]

you could do that. but they will have fusion reactors working on the ground before the moonbase reactor even gets crated and put on a rocket. its a chicken and the egg type problem. we dont need the he3 to have fusion. the he3 on the moon would be more cheaply used for space applications. there is plenty of heavy water on the earth to extract deutrium from, more cheaply than returning he3 from the moon.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Nuke

[Kimberly]

You could generate and beam up power by using the vacuum of space for cheap solar panels. Then you uise a maser to beam the power back to Earth.

Because it's tidally locked to earth, the moon spends a lot of its orbit in darkness. You'd be much better off placing the solar panels in orbit around earth than to put them on the moon.

[Drunkrobot]

Yes, you need more ÃŽâ€V to get to the Lunar surface than to the Martian surface. But, that leaves out a design point that at this moment must be blindingly obvious. A manned craft going to Mars must be far heavier, and needs more fuel getting a Trans-Mars injection than the craft going to the Moon with the same payload.

Let's imagine a reusable "Moon shuttle" that continuously goes from LEO to LLO (Low Lunar orbit). It can carry, say, six people and a sizeable payload, like a lander, or a base building to be carried down by infrastructure in Lunar orbit. What would the mass of this vehicle be? The vehicle itself, enough fuel for a round-trip, the payload, enough consumables for the people on board to last, say, two weeks, shielding against a solar flare etc. Now, what would the mass of a Mars transfer vehicle be? The crew would be in there for months at a time, so it would need more space-per-crewmember, and more consumables. That slight increase in mass alone means a lot more fuel in the initial stage.

Edited July 15, 2013 by Drunkrobot

[Themohawkninja]

and would be more expensive than a Mars mission.

Would the extra fuel needed, really offset the cost of all of the extra food needed?

[JakeGrey]

Proof-of-concept for the technologies and methods needed to establish permanent settlements on Mars and beyond. Most of its known mineral resources can be acquired more easily down here on Earth, and if we need true microgravity for manufacturing then we might as well build the necessary facilities in near-Eath orbit.

[Fractal_UK]

A Moon base makes sense because it is still quicker and easier to get to, which makes crew rotations and supply ships more feasible. The launch window for Mars resupply missions is every 2 years, which means that you need to send larger space craft. Heavy payloads mean that you need a powered landing, which requires more complexity, and more mass added to the payload.

Many of the solutions for problems of living on the Moon are not needed for a Mars mission, but a lot are needed for the actual journey to Mars (hard vacuum, cosmic radiation). Others are needed for Mars (partial gravity, ISRU, closed-loop life support, reusable landers). The complexity of building a Moon shuttle capable of transferring between the lunar surface and back up to lunar orbit is much simpler than building a mars shuttle.

Yes, we really need to gain an understanding of creating long term habitats on the moon before we risk doing it on Mars. Returning people from the Moon has been demonstrated and is feasible to do quickly if something should go wrong. Mars does not have that going for it. When we send a habitat off to Mars, we need to be damn sure it's going to work reliably or we risk just sending astronauts to their deaths.

Any kind of base on Mars is best accomplished by opting for a stepping-stones approach. First prototyping technology on the moon, then deploying equipment and infrastructure to one of the Martian moons, then going to the Martian surface from there.

The challenges needed to be overcome to operate a lunar base successfully would be very similar to those posed by doing the same thing on Phobos, for example. In that respect, it would excellent preparation for Mars mission.

[ANWRocketMan]

If I were to do this I would:

1. Set up facilities to test the possibilities of creating a base that is self sufficient. e.g. Recycling systems for water and Oxygen. Testing systems for growing crops and the feasibility of such. Do expedriments of the effects of low-gravity and locomotion in small spaces.

2. As previously mentioned, start doing research into the availability and usability of Helium-3 and testing possible mining systems for it.

3. Explore options of mineral mining on the moon for metals and such that could be useful on Earth and for future expansion into the Solar system.

4. Astronomy etc. could be done very feasibly with little radio pollution from the surface of the moon.(the not-visible-from-earth side).

[metaphor]

A Moon base makes sense because it is still quicker and easier to get to, which makes crew rotations and supply ships more feasible. The launch window for Mars resupply missions is every 2 years, which means that you need to send larger space craft. Heavy payloads mean that you need a powered landing, which requires more complexity, and more mass added to the payload.

Many of the solutions for problems of living on the Moon are not needed for a Mars mission, but a lot are needed for the actual journey to Mars (hard vacuum, cosmic radiation). Others are needed for Mars (partial gravity, ISRU, closed-loop life support, reusable landers). The complexity of building a Moon shuttle capable of transferring between the lunar surface and back up to lunar orbit is much simpler than building a mars shuttle.

Crew rotations between the Earth and the Moon might be faster than rotations between Earth and Mars, but they would probably be just as expensive. You always need a powered landing on Mars for anything bigger than half a ton, but you can still save a lot of delta-v by aerobraking.

The solutions for the problems of going on the actual journey to Mars (vacuum, radiation) are better tested in deep space than on the Moon anyway. Maybe on a space station at L1 or L2 (Lagrange points).

Partial gravity? The gravity on the Moon as compared to Mars is the same ratio as the gravity on Mars compared to Earth, so there's a pretty big difference between the two. So testing a proposed Mars-gravity system on the Moon would give about as much information as testing it on Earth. Closed-loop life support for Mars would be much easier to test on Earth or even in deep space than on the Moon.

A reusable shuttle from orbit to surface and back would be much easier on the Moon than on Mars. But you only really need reusability if you're planning on using ISRU. Same applies to a shuttle between LEO and LLO.

ISRU - Yes! This would be the thing that would make a Moon base worthwhile. If rocket fuel could be extracted from the Moon, it would break the tyranny of the rocket equation and allow us to go further into the solar system for a lot cheaper, as well as cheaper transportation to/from orbit (but not for refueling things in LEO: if you wanted to go from the Moon to LEO without aerobraking, you would use up at least 80% of your fuel just getting there; to refuel something at L1 or L2 you could only use 1/4 of your fuel, needing the other 3/4 to get up and back from the surface of the Moon, assuming ~400 Isp). But that would be a lot cheaper to do robotically since the Moon is close enough to remote-control assets on its surface from the Earth.

It seems to me that, other than ISRU, a human outpost on the Moon is about the same as an outpost in deep space, except it's harder to get to since it's at the bottom of a gravity well. Mars seems like it's a much more hospitable place to put humans.

[DerekL1963]

Proof-of-concept for the technologies and methods needed to establish permanent settlements on Mars and beyond

That's like placing a proof-of-concept base for a Antarctic habitat two hundred feet down in the Atlantic off of Charleston - you'll spend 90% of your budget solving the engineering issues unrelated to your proof, and leave 90% of the things you need to prove untested. Apples and the thing most unlike apples you can imagine.

[metaphor]

Yes, you need more ÃŽâ€V to get to the Lunar surface than to the Martian surface. But, that leaves out a design point that at this moment must be blindingly obvious. A manned craft going to Mars must be far heavier, and needs more fuel getting a Trans-Mars injection than the craft going to the Moon with the same payload.

Let's imagine a reusable "Moon shuttle" that continuously goes from LEO to LLO (Low Lunar orbit). It can carry, say, six people and a sizeable payload, like a lander, or a base building to be carried down by infrastructure in Lunar orbit. What would the mass of this vehicle be? The vehicle itself, enough fuel for a round-trip, the payload, enough consumables for the people on board to last, say, two weeks, shielding against a solar flare etc. Now, what would the mass of a Mars transfer vehicle be? The crew would be in there for months at a time, so it would need more space-per-crewmember, and more consumables. That slight increase in mass alone means a lot more fuel in the initial stage.

How would you make a reusable shuttle from LEO to LLO? Where does the fuel come from? You need 4 km/s of delta-v to go from LEO to LLO; assuming an Isp of 400, that's at most 1/3 of your shuttle's mass being usable payload, probably less accounting for structure, engines and empty tanks. And that's one way. If you also wanted to go back the other way without refueling, you would need a shuttle at least 10 times bigger than your payload. If it carries people, it needs life-support and other systems. The Orion crew capsule is 9 tons, its service module is 12 tons and it's capable of 1.6 km/s delta-v. It has enough room for 6 people to LEO, but probably fewer than that to LLO. So if you scale it up to a shuttle capable of carrying 6 people from LEO to LLO and back, it would have to be around 200 tons! And that's not including a lander. So I'm not really sure what you mean by a reusable "Moon shuttle".

For cargo, you could use high-efficiency low-thrust propulsion, but the transit times are too long to take up crew the same way.

A Mars transfer vehicle would probably be something like an ISS module, a little bigger to support 6 crew. The food needed is not that much, something like half a ton per person per year. So maybe 5 tons for the journey to Mars and back, with the habitat weighing another 30 tons or so. A way to make it partially reusable would be to use an Aldrin cycler along with crew-carrying spacecraft to go to and from it. The habitat would therefore not need any fuel except for course corrections. If you use an Orion-like spacecraft like with the lunar shuttle (carrying the crew and the provisions), you would need around a 60 ton rocket in LEO to get the ~4 km/s required to rendezvous with the habitat. Landing on Mars takes around 1 km/s delta-v. Taking off from Mars and rendezvousing with the habitat again takes around 6.5 km/s. So that part would probably not be reusable.

Anyway, there's a lot of possible architectures for both a Moon shuttle and a Mars shuttle. If you only do a single long-duration mission to the Moon or to Mars, the mass in LEO requirements would not be too far off between the two.