Lunar space station after the ISS?

[78stonewobble]

Hmm I think space stations further away is reaching too far at the moment.

If it were up to me I'd go for the following spacestation:

1: Robust, as in designed for a lifetime of atleast 50 years.

2: Expandable, as in designed to be able to carry ie. centrifugal living quarters. or orbital assembling or manufacturing facilities.

3: Be able to service sensitive scientific equipment nearby or satelites faraway with a dedicated spacecraft.

4: Far enough above the atmosphere that it will not need as regular boosts as the ISS does.

[Transits]

The Moon has mascons. Which means that orbits have to be kept up a lot and so a space station would not work very well and be dangerous.

[Transits]

I was told that, and someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I was told that the moon has these random pockets of intense gravity. Pockets strong enough to force any orbiting station to constantly burn fuel to repair its orbit, making the moon a terrible location for a space station.

I think I read that on wikipedia.

The moon has mascons (mass concentrations) because of its lower gravity, it has higher density in some areas than in others. So a space station would have to use a lot of fuel constantly wich would not only cost a lot, but meddle with crew timetables.

[Drunkrobot]

Before you can get to the Moon, or anywhere else in the Universe, you have to first get into Low Earth Orbit. Even with all the experience we have, and will have by the time ISS is decommissioned (hopefully not too soon), we just don't have a system in place to get modules, supplies, fuel, astronauts etc. into orbit from the surface of the Earth.

Hang me if I offend you, but all this talk about SpaceX "cutting out red tape" and "simplifying operations" sounds a bit like a dead end to me. Falcon is a multistage rocket, a technology based on ballistic missiles meant for nuclear war, something you only need to do once. If we're going to go back to the Moon, we need a transportation system, something we can use again and again and again, not a single-use bomb delivery platform.

We need something big and new and crazy, not a re-branded package of the same old thing. I don't know what it will be, an elevator, a space-plane, or we grow and train space-dragons, but whatever we build, we need it before we get serious about the Moon or anywhere else, not after.

[K^2]

I bet someone said something similar about wooden ships to the people who set out to colonize the New World.

[Ralathon]

Before you can get to the Moon, or anywhere else in the Universe, you have to first get into Low Earth Orbit. Even with all the experience we have, and will have by the time ISS is decommissioned (hopefully not too soon), we just don't have a system in place to get modules, supplies, fuel, astronauts etc. into orbit from the surface of the Earth.

Hang me if I offend you, but all this talk about SpaceX "cutting out red tape" and "simplifying operations" sounds a bit like a dead end to me. Falcon is a multistage rocket, a technology based on ballistic missiles meant for nuclear war, something you only need to do once. If we're going to go back to the Moon, we need a transportation system, something we can use again and again and again, not a single-use bomb delivery platform.

We need something big and new and crazy, not a re-branded package of the same old thing. I don't know what it will be, an elevator, a space-plane, or we grow and train space-dragons, but whatever we build, we need it before we get serious about the Moon or anywhere else, not after.

Of course, it sucks that we're in such a deep gravity well. But a lot of really smart people have thought about this problem very hard for more than a century, and for now rockets are the least insane method they've come up with. Any other idea just doesn't have the materials to be feasible for now. That shouldn't mean we should stop space exploration though.

[ZooNamedGames]

I'm obviously quite a bit late, but I'm gonna say this nonetheless and you can correct me then:

A Lunar Space Station is very... Inconventional as seen by the comments prior to me due to the poor gravity wells. However, ignoring all facts relating to the poor gravity wells and the cost to resupply it with a SLS everytime. If you ignore all the cons of the idea, it is quite feasible (obviously). The idea was possible all the way back in Gemini.... Most feasible doing Apollo (my idea would need some of the equipment used doing the Apollo missions). The idea was called the Apollo Moon Station (AMS). It would be launched from a Saturn V. It would be a CSM and instead of a LM, a docking core module with multiple docking ports.

Launch by launch, you would bring up more and more parts (like they did for the ISS). Putting it together until you have everything you need. The idea is possible. Expsinsive, yes. Problems with gravity? Yes. But the idea does and can exist, just not in reality. It could in reality, if we would be willing to fund it.... A lot of it...

[Idobox]

The surface of the Moon has a lot of things the orbit doesn't. For one, it has a lot of rocks, that can be used as construction material, and both NASA and ESA are working on 3D printers that could turn regolith into concrete.

Second, it has a lot of aluminium oxide, which can easily be turned into aluminium and oxygen. Although it would have a not so good ISP, and dealing with pure aluminium as a fuel is not easy, but it is considered a reasonable option.

Third, it has water. Of course it is found near the poles, which mean more deltaV and less sun power. But it means plenty of excellent rocket fuel.

But the best use of the Moon is to mine mass:

With a rotovator in LLO, and a momentum exchange tether in LEO, you could throw rocks or bags of sand from the Moon to Earth and use their momentum to send ships from sub-orbital trajectories to LEO or even higher.

[K^2]

You don't need fuel to get off the Moon. Moon's no Earth. It doesn't have an atmosphere or anything else to prevent you form launching things with magrail.

The actual problem with lunar surface base is that there is no way to obtain enough of everything you'd need for habitation. Not with current tech and without deploying entire city-worth of industrial equipment. So you will have to bring stuff down to the surface. And landing on the Moon is going to be very expensive. We do not have what we need in place for this kind of spending to have any advantage.

[ZooNamedGames]

I think Mars would hold greater knowledge than that of the Moon. Besides, the moon is dangerous. The moon lacks any atmosphere to protect against the violent rays of the sun. It is +1000 degrees in the sunlight, -200 in the shade, that's hazardous for a constant stay. Also, due to the way the moon is (thankfully), it is pounded with meteors. I understand that those strikes are rare and very specific, but they are still dangerous (I've seen the crators first hand, their big.... Even from here, they ARE BIG). Whereas Mars (still cratored) is still less dangerous. It has an atmosphere (granted thin and useless), but it is some protection from the suns rays (however slight). It also can keep a more regulated temperature (however erratic) and... The biggest reason we SHOULD go is... We've NEVER been to a planet before! Never! We've been to a orbiting satalite (fancy talk for, the moon), but never a real planet.

[cantab]

If we're going to go back to the Moon, we need a transportation system, something we can use again and again and again, not a single-use bomb delivery platform.

We had one, the Space Shuttle, and NASA retired it because it was too expensive.

There are situations where it's cheaper and easier to just build a new machine rather than repair the old one for reuse. We're all familiar with this in electronic devices, and spacecraft have tended to be the same way though for different reasons.

That said, you mention SpaceX, well they are working on making the Falcon reusable, planning to land the core and boosters under power. Time will tell whether that actually brings the launch costs down.

[78stonewobble]

Before you can get to the Moon, or anywhere else in the Universe, you have to first get into Low Earth Orbit. Even with all the experience we have, and will have by the time ISS is decommissioned (hopefully not too soon), we just don't have a system in place to get modules, supplies, fuel, astronauts etc. into orbit from the surface of the Earth.

Hang me if I offend you, but all this talk about SpaceX "cutting out red tape" and "simplifying operations" sounds a bit like a dead end to me. Falcon is a multistage rocket, a technology based on ballistic missiles meant for nuclear war, something you only need to do once. If we're going to go back to the Moon, we need a transportation system, something we can use again and again and again, not a single-use bomb delivery platform.

We need something big and new and crazy, not a re-branded package of the same old thing. I don't know what it will be, an elevator, a space-plane, or we grow and train space-dragons, but whatever we build, we need it before we get serious about the Moon or anywhere else, not after.

From where I'm sitting, reuseable is the dead end.

A reuseable single- or multi-stage to orbit only makes sense, if it can be made sturdy enough to not require significant work between launches and does not inhibit the payload to weight ratio too much.

There is nothing out there can do that. Yet... I hope spaceX or that british project can make something like it work, but I'm not that optimistic about them.

[ZooNamedGames]

From where I'm sitting, reuseable is the dead end.

A reuseable single- or multi-stage to orbit only makes sense, if it can be made sturdy enough to not require significant work between launches and does not inhibit the payload to weight ratio too much.

There is nothing out there can do that. Yet... I hope spaceX or that british project can make something like it work, but I'm not that optimistic about them.

Is reusable possible? Yes, in fact it is. It's just the SPACE SHUTTLE, was a poor example of the possibilities. I don't need to be the first to say, the shuttle had MANY problems revolving to repair, and or care. The space shuttle was VERY delicate. The thermal tiles on the belly of the spacecraft could break if someone poked it.

Alternatively, the shuttle planned to use ceramic tiles, but the glue didn't hold and the ceramic was too heavy (I believe that's right). So they decided to use the lighter carbon-carbon tiles. This is different from the Apollo/Gemini and Mercury capsules, in that they ALL re-entered using ablative shielding as their protective layer. The ablative shield would protect the space craft and with some repairs could be more easily protected against the shock heating of the atmosphere.

The Space Shuttle (after STS-107) added a new maneuver after reaching space which is where they would fly the spacecraft mutiple times doing 360s as people on the space station and a crew person on the OBS would check the hull of the shuttle for damage. However using a smaller capsule and implementing the same protocol (however unnecessary, because the cause of the fatal blow to Columbias wing was a styrofoam strike to the wing during launch, which wouldn't... Correction: COULDN'T happen on a capsule (maybe the SM, like Apollo 13, but not a wing)).

[SargeRho]

The Shuttle uses Ceramic tiles on most of the belly, and CC tiles on the leading edges.

The STS was also a massive failure, failing to meet most of the important project objectives.

SpaceX already has it working for the most part. The last, and the next bunch of F9 launches are testing the first stage reusability.

[ScallopPotato]

Considering the issues with requiring a whole SLS for a crew rotation at the station, it might be useful to combine any surface missions with a stay at the station. I'm thinking of this design.So the crew could arrive at an L2 station where the lander is waiting for them, take the lander down to LLO, land on the moon, do the surface SCIENCE for ~14 surface stay, launch again to LLO, then go back to the L2 station for station-y things. Or vice versa. The stays would probably be 6-12 months long.

[78stonewobble]

Is reusable possible? Yes, in fact it is. It's just the SPACE SHUTTLE, was a poor example of the possibilities. I don't need to be the first to say, the shuttle had MANY problems revolving to repair, and or care. The space shuttle was VERY delicate. The thermal tiles on the belly of the spacecraft could break if someone poked it.

Alternatively, the shuttle planned to use ceramic tiles, but the glue didn't hold and the ceramic was too heavy (I believe that's right). So they decided to use the lighter carbon-carbon tiles. This is different from the Apollo/Gemini and Mercury capsules, in that they ALL re-entered using ablative shielding as their protective layer. The ablative shield would protect the space craft and with some repairs could be more easily protected against the shock heating of the atmosphere.

The Space Shuttle (after STS-107) added a new maneuver after reaching space which is where they would fly the spacecraft mutiple times doing 360s as people on the space station and a crew person on the OBS would check the hull of the shuttle for damage. However using a smaller capsule and implementing the same protocol (however unnecessary, because the cause of the fatal blow to Columbias wing was a styrofoam strike to the wing during launch, which wouldn't... Correction: COULDN'T happen on a capsule (maybe the SM, like Apollo 13, but not a wing)).

Well I didn't say it was impossible, the shuttle proved that. I said that it, sofar, has been uneconomical and impractical, due to it adding weight, complexity, manpower requirements and thus cost.

I'm not adverse to ie. reusing a capsule with a 1 time use heatshield. I presume it's relatively easy to design the capsule itself for multiple uses, compaired to a reuseable heat-shield/management system, which has to withstand much higher temperatures.

Rocket stages and engines on the other hand.... Large, bulky things, that are hard to land... I'd wager that it's hard and expensive to make them reuseable.

Edited April 8, 2014 by 78stonewobble

[hugix]

Yes, we should do a Lunar space station, the ISS has proven / is proving that it's possible for us humans to live in LEO. Now we should step it up a bit and see if we can endure long periods farther away from our home.

Yes, the moon has lots of problems for a moonbase. But none of these are problems we can't tackle. Building a moonstation presents us with lots and lots of challenges, the answers to these challenges can be re used to help our daily lives here on Earth. Think of all the great technological advantages that we got from the Apollo project. Smaller computers, useful composite materials, the non-stick coating on your pots and pans.

All these problems named in this thread are reason to do it! Lets invent!