The Space Review: NASA’s Journey to Mars and ESA’s Moon Village enable each other Comments

Coastal Ron

Thu, 21 Jan 2016 02:54:18 +0000

Just as a reference, NASA has been holding "all hands" meetings recently at KSC, and 1st hand reports from those meetings have stated that NASA is focusing all of it's departments on Mars, and that they have 13 international partners that are working with them on Mars too. No doubt more details will be publicly announced (or leaked), but as of today NASA has zero interest in the Moon. However, NASA is also anticipating a flat budget going forward, and there have been experts that have testified in front of Congress that have stated that NASA will never get to Mars with the flat budget it has today, so while NASA may be focused on Mars, I don't see any way that it can get there unless Congress decides to significantly increase NASA's exploration budget. And I don't see much chance of that happening anytime soon. However it does clarify for the purposes of this article and discussion that NASA has no active plans to return to the Moon.

Thomas Matula

Wed, 20 Jan 2016 18:42:46 +0000

Ken, You are right on target! The International Geophysical Year succeeded because it was focused exclusively on science, not economics. Any bases that were built were built for science, not as part of some economic development scheme. If the International Lunar Decade is to have any merit it must be just as narrowly focused on doing research on the Moon, not morph into a ten year Soviet style economic development plan as it seems to be doing. The other key to the success was the loose organizational structure that allowed scientists the freedom to do the research they wanted. It was a matter of free cooperation between the researchers, they were not forced into one size fits all organization model as proposed here. So I say let the scientists do their research and increase our knowledge of the Moon, and then let free enterprise freely use that knowledge to find ways to generate wealth.

Ken Murphy

Wed, 20 Jan 2016 07:22:25 +0000

When I was approached about this, the first thing that went through my head was that the ILD should really be a decade about furthering our understanding of the Earth and Moon as a system. Because that leads naturally to the concept of cislunar space as a domain for human activity. I'm a little disappointed at the extent to which science is glossed over to focus on infrastructure and ISRU. There is still a lot of really good science to be done on, of, and from the Moon, but that fact is not getting out. Some of my favorites: 1) Crater counting, sizing, and dating - the purpose of this exercise would be to get a handle on the impact history in near-Earth space, and to see if there is any cyclicality in the data. This would address the 30-35 Mn year cycle speculated about in some circles, from what little we've discovered here on Earth. This is also useful for other science. 2) SWIE Analysis - everyone knows about the 11-year Sunspot cycle, but are there other cycles we don't know about? This one is tough, because you have to analyse core samples layer by layer to find the SWIEs embedded during each layer's exposure to the Sun before being buried by ejecta from an impact. [q.v. #1, supra] The benefit is that we will get a better understanding of our Sun's output over time, and whether there are longer cycles we don't know about. 3) Radio Asttonomy - sorry, but if you're looking for signs of civilization around nearby exoplanets, the Moon is a great place to set up shop, at least until EML-2 starts getting crowded. I salute ESA for at least trying to take the lead on this. 4) Magnetotail interactions - what are the effects of the Moon's monthly passage through the Earth's magnetotail? On the Moon? On Earth? The Moon's wake in the Solar wind? So much potential here... 5) Pole-sitting Solar Sails - proposed in a NIAC study a few year's ago, a pole-sitting Solar Sail could provide comms into the everdark craters at the Lunar poles without mucking up the radio quiet on the far side. Seriously, this would be really cool technology with tons of applications. 6) NEO search - from EML-1, I can easily envision an instrument that would rotate around the Earth-Moon axis and over the course of a month would provide a full-sky survey, especially Sun-ward which is where all the blindsiders that we only find out a day or two ahead of time are coming from. Not only would this provide a better population survey of near-Earth objects, but also lay the groundwork for eventual exploitation. 7) Access to the Inter-Planetary Superhighways - just saying, a Solar system-wide network of probes doing stuff like, oh, say, watching for comets on the move, or Jupiter playing billiards with nearby asteroids, would be a good thing. Use the IPS to periodically bring them home for servicing and upgrade. We could get so much more data than our decadal billion-dollar boondoggles to this destination or that. That's just some of the science, and pretty much all of it DIRECTLY relevant to Earth. (if you want more esoteric questions, I suggest the Lunar Sourcebook) I point out a lot of this in my talks, and people can readily grasp why the science is important (big rocks from space, the Sun). The problem is that all of this needs to be considered in terms of cislunar space, in terms of the Earth and Moon as a system, and the space community just isn't there yet (let alone the general public Congress? ROTFLMFAO). The status quo still thinks in terms of Mars or Moon as individual entities, ignoring so much of what we've learned over the decades (like that orbital mechanics is far more subtle than just orbiting a CoM and Hohmann trajectories). At this point I'm becoming convinced that until there is a serious rejuvenation in the industry, then we're going to keep getting the same old reboots, remakes, re-imaginings, and bucket lists. The Moon is an natural log of Earth's history as a planet travelling through space. Let's go read that book.

@YasuMiura1

Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:54:01 +0000

"condtions" for "conditions" correctly._ _(Comment) Space explorations and base settlements of the Moon and Mars (with small bodies) are first step of our human future continued anyway (because our Earth is mainly own system and only acceptable from outside cautions) Good luck more!

Katibu Maduka

Wed, 20 Jan 2016 02:51:10 +0000

“Key to opening a frontier is the capacity to “live off the land” for in situ resource utilization.” The key to opening a lunar frontier is to stop over thinking safety issues of unknowns and simply go to the moon and take a chance. Activities in space will remain limited to Low Earth Orbit as long as the return to Earth mindset remain the dominate way of thinking. Science and other space related research should not be the only reason to go to the moon. How can anyone learn to make bricks on the moon without going there? In the long term, self-sustaining space economies will consist of intellectual property largely independent of inputs from Earth. The next giant leap will take more than a decade not because of the lack of ability but because of the lack of will power. If the will power were there, a lunar base could exist within 6 months of today. With the lack of courage come unfounded excuses like: cost too much, unreliable power and communication, radiation shielding, science and technology not ready yet and many more.

Devlin Spaceler

Wed, 20 Jan 2016 01:28:16 +0000

Awesomely delusional space cadetry. If you want to go to the moon, just go. And soon.

Greg Anderson

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 19:51:38 +0000

Terrific article. We are so close as a people to creating a new civilization based on an economy of expanding wealth, not managing shortages. The next century or so can be remarkable.

Barnsey123

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 10:09:10 +0000

Regarding the health issues: We have a diverse gene pool on Earth and it may be that certain people are genetically better suited to low G environments and may make ideal colonists (we won't know until we try though). In addition, there are people who's mobility is restricted in 1G any may find low G beneficial - perhaps to the extent where the benefits outweigh the drawbacks. People with dwarfism may be ideal candidates. Other likely colonists include retired people who's final days may be more productive on say, the Moon. What an adventure that would be, sort of a second life! I envisage one-way trips, these people will perform some valuable pioneering function and, when they expire they will contribute to the biomass of their adopted home. Just my tuppence.

Marcel F. Wiliams

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:59:45 +0000

Of course, we already know how deleterious sedentary behavior is here on Earth. But we really don't know how deleterious low gravity environments will be to human health and reproduction. Maintaining Earth-Man strength on the Moon and Mars may simply require regular exercise (weight lifting and sprinting) or periodically wearing weight vest. But that's part of human pioneering and exploration. We need to find out what the effect of living on low gravity worlds like the Moon and Mars is going to have on the human body. It may turn out that rotating artificial worlds may be the only way to keep humans healthy in the New Frontier. But, again, we really won't know until we finally have people and other animals trying to live and reproduce on low gravity worlds. Marcel

Marcel F. Wiliams

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:41:10 +0000

Lunar ice would provide water for drinking air and rocket fuel. Water, of course, can also be used to grow food. What lunar pioneers won't have to deal with is predatory animals, alien diseases, and hostile local populations. Marcel

Brett

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 06:23:34 +0000

I'm not a Mars colonization enthusiast, either, and that's one of the reasons for it. The other is the radiation that everyone living there (including new children) would take unless they spend nearly all of their lives in bases shielded by at least 1-2 meters of rock/dirt. Mars' atmosphere knocks out about half of what they'd be taking in space, but it's still a huge life-time dose. Colonization in general seems unlikely in the near future, although I wouldn't put it past a group to try out a Mars colony that eventually fails. In the longer run, we'll probably have the robotics and automation to grab some of the countless Near Earth Asteroids below 1 kilometer in size to reprocess into habitats, if some group decides they want to live off-world. Or they'll use lunar material launched up, if that ever becomes cost-effective.

Thomas Matula

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 03:50:06 +0000

Because the Moon's low gravity means it is probably impractical for humans to stay there for long periods without major health issues. And it also means reproduction, the other requirement for settlement, is unlikely to be successful. Even if its possible to successfully give birth there the children will likely face real development issues with their muscles in the low gravity. Moon advocates recognize this and so see they Moon for what it is, an excellent place for remotely operated industry and mining but not a place to settle. By contrast the Mars advocates just close their eyes to the health issues of settling a low gravity world and believe on faith it will be possible to do so. That is the basic difference between Mars advocates and lunar advocates. Mars advocates live prefer to live in a world of fantasy while lunar advocates live in the world of reality.

Thomas Matula

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:53:02 +0000

I was wondering how long it would be before someone living in the past would combine NASA’s 1950’s inspired Journey to Mars with ESA’s Moon Village into a grand dead end space vision. The two things the ESA’s Moon Village and NASA Journey to Mars have in common are that neither one has the financial support to be anything more than power point shows and the goals of both are so distant in the political future politicians know they won’t be held accountable for them and are able to give lip service to both without having to worry about spending their political capital to make them happen. Combined that is a sure formula for failure. 0 + 0 = 0. Then add in the “poison pill” of the failed Moon Treaty as part of the scheme and you ensure that the private firms that might make a return to the Moon possible, and might work with ESA in reaching the Moon won’t touch it now with a quarter million mile long pole. Neither will nations like China and India that are considering lunar mission as their goals. The world of space policy is changing with the development of reusable launch vehicles and billionaires focusing on the economic development of space. The days of space goals being driven by geopolitics and science are coming to an end. Add in enabling legislation like the CSLCA that allows private firms to freely mine the Moon without being forced to give half their ore to third world nations, as the LOS requires, and one sees just how outdated this scheme is. It is sad that its authors are not able to envision a future where the Moon/Mars are freely incorporated by space entrepreneurs into humanity’s economic sphere and instead are only able to view it from the business model of Europe’s colonial past when the Europeans cooperated with each other to carved up Africa among themselves. Frontiers thrive on chaos, not on the centralized planning proposed here. Their developments, and the wealth created, should belong to those willing to risk their lives and fortunes to develop it, not some European bureaucrats and third world dictators.

Coastal Ron

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:47:11 +0000

"In Mars' case, the answer will be "if there are people on Earth willing and able to pay to go live on Mars, then it might happen"." I agree. I just don't see governments wanting to spend their money to send away taxpayers, because that's what it means to set up permanent installations away from Earth. But there are lots of people that are interested in going to Mars and trying to live there. Too early to know how much they could afford, and whether it could be a successful effort. But all I hear about the Moon is how to mine it, not to live there.

Archibald

Tue, 19 Jan 2016 01:00:36 +0000

WHY??????????, so the "WHITE BASTARDS" man can impose their thieving depriving bullshit on every other poverty trading nation they have created on the earth to conform to their will, Let's blow up the MOON. We cannot live peacefully on earth, how the hell do you all think we are going to accomplish that in Space, Moon, Mars...Lets fix the earth first...before we take weapons and terror and extend it to barbaric infinity.

selvaarchi

Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:56:11 +0000

What I do not see much in the article is the elephant in the room - China. It is the country that has real money for missions to the moon right now. It has Cheng'e 5 next year. This will bring to a close, their 3 steps plan to explore the moon. Then just last week, they announced that Cheng'e 4 will be the start of the next phase of their moon exploration ambitions. http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2016-01/15/c_13... The announcement also stated Cheng'e 4 will now launch in 2018. In other words they are bringing forward their plans for the moon. The good news is, China has said they welcome international involvement in their missions. I am sure ESA and Russia are already in touch with them.

Brett

Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:06:09 +0000

In Mars' case, the answer will be "if there are people on Earth willing and able to pay to go live on Mars, then it might happen". Otherwise, there really isn't one - aside from scientific discoveries and technological innovation in the project process, it's hard to see what the gains are for any potential financier (state or private) back on Earth. With the Moon, I just don't see it all. Nobody wants to live on the Moon permanently.

Brett

Mon, 18 Jan 2016 23:03:23 +0000

Lunar ISRU's got some serious issues. It does have one big advantage, in that the "peaks of eternal light" areas that don't go through long dark periods are close to the lunar south pole. Even then, though, you need to have a nuclear power source down in the crater to melt and purify the ice, followed by a set of pumping stations to send the water kilometers away to a base at higher elevation. It might be better to just temporarily ignore the polar ice except as an object of scientific study, and ship up a lot of water from Earth that can then be heavily recycled at a lunar base. Get a couple hundred tons of water up there and you're probably good for supporting dozens of peoples on site. ISRU on Mars is much more straightforward, even if it's farther away. The bulk of the ice is at the poles, but there's a lot of permafrost that might contain water (albeit highly saline water) all over the place.

Bejo

Mon, 18 Jan 2016 22:59:57 +0000

There is always at least one person who feels compelled to point out the obvious differences between space and white English speaking people settling the contiguous 48 states. Then someone else discusses the Scandinavian (Norway via Iceland and Greenland "Vinland" escapades of 500 years earlier. Then someone might mention Antarctic bases, which have closer parallels; cold, no food, difficult environments etc. To what end?

Coastal Ron

Mon, 18 Jan 2016 21:50:50 +0000

The authors said: "There would have been no pioneers on the American frontier if they had to carry everything with them." True. But those pioneers also didn't have to bring their own air, food, habitats, etc. So it's not just water, or rocket fuel - the Moon provides very little compared to what our forefathers had to deal with. As to going to either the Moon, Mars or anywhere, we still have the same basic challenges - who is going to pay, and why would they want to pay? For instance, if the goal is to set up a colony on the Moon that could eventually be self-sustaining, what motivation would Congress have in spending U.S. Taxpayer money to do that? What "value" or ROI does the U.S. Taxpayer get in return? Build a freeway here and you can see the value being returned, but building a road on the Moon? Private efforts to set up colonies on Mars have their own challenges, but at least their investors understand what they are funding. Ask everyone around you if they would want any of their tax money to go towards setting up a colony on the Moon that would no longer be part of the United States of America. And I am a firm supporter of expanding humanity out into space. But we have to understand WHY we want to do that, and get buy-in from those that are going to be footing the bills. That hasn't happened yet. But maybe we are getting closer by understanding what the surrounding issues are, and how we could deal with them...