Presidential Announcement on NASA TV 15:15 Eastern

[billvon 2,998]

>Presumably learn how to mine, refine and produce materials on
>another planet.

Again, why? I'm all for space exploration, but if you are going to spend billions on a base, mars makes a lot more sense. It will _never_ make any sense to build TV's on the moon and ship them to earth; the only way that will ever make sense is if you make them for people living on the moon. That means people have to live on the moon, people who want TV's. And it's ten times easier to live on mars than on the moon.

There are a few possibilities for science and technology on the moon that you can't do most other places. A farside radiotelescope, for example, or a linear accelerator launcher for deep space payloads. If we want to do that, we should do that. But learning to refine basalt into aluminum is sort of a waste of time - it's not even economical to do here.

>All things required for moving beyond pretty pictures and on to
> commericalization.

To be a commercial success, you have to generate things that are so valuable that it's worth it to spend the millions per pound to haul the stuff back. I can't think of anything that people can build on the moon that they can't build on earth more easily; most things are much, much harder. Most of the advantages space confers (as a great parking spot for communications antennas, a good place to get solar power etc) don't need people to exploit them.

[quade 4]

I was thinking more basic mining and manufacturing processes. Things we should be able to get out of the local area, but would just be stupid/expensive to send up to the Moon or Mars.

For instance, without being able to manufacture materials, if you wanted to go to Mars and get back, a HUGE amount of the payload you'd send to Mars would be the propellant to get you back to Earth. If you can learn how to manufacture just the liquid oxygen part out of indigenous rock, you've saved about half of that.

This, by the way, is one of the schemes for a Mars mission they're working on.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

>The Moon Base sounds promising though.

What would we do with it?

Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

never pull low......unless you are

[billvon 2,998]

> if you wanted to go to Mars and get back, a HUGE amount of the
> payload you'd send to Mars would be the propellant to get you back
> to Earth. If you can learn how to manufacture just the liquid oxygen
> part out of indigenous rock, you've saved about half of that.

>This, by the way, is one of the schemes for a Mars mission they're
> working on.

I think you are thinking of Mars Direct, where a return vehicle lands on mars with a small amount of hydrogen. The hydrogen is reacted with martian air (CO2) to create methane (CH4) and oxygen (O2.) This happens over the course of six months. At the end of that time, it sends a signal back, and the first expedition leaves from Earth. They land, explore mars, then use the (now fueled) return vehicle to return to earth.

[billvon 2,998]

>Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Where would we get the fuel? The moon is mostly rock; most of our propulsion systems require more volatile fuel.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>The Moon Base sounds promising though.

What would we do with it?

Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Didn't know there oil wells on the Moon. Halliburton?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

>Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Where would we get the fuel? The moon is mostly rock; most of our propulsion systems require more volatile fuel.

Take it up there and store it. Think gas station in space.

never pull low......unless you are

[SkydiverRick 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

>The Moon Base sounds promising though.

What would we do with it?

Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Didn't know there oil wells on the Moon. Halliburton?

I don't remember saying that there were.

never pull low......unless you are

[billvon 2,998]

>Take it up there and store it. Think gas station in space.

If that's what you want to do, why not just park a tanker in orbit? We've done that before with the Agena vehicle. Since just about every mission starts and ends in earth orbit (to some degree or the other) why not put the fuel there? Heck, if someone has to keep an eye on it, park it by the ISS.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

>Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Where would we get the fuel? The moon is mostly rock; most of our propulsion systems require more volatile fuel.

Take it up there and store it. Think gas station in space.

How is that more efficient than leaving it in orbit? The Moon is in a fairly deep gravitational potential well of its own.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

That is one of several scenarios that are possible.

Certainly on the Moon you don't have the atmosphere to play with, but some of the water ice they have detected in craters would be useful.

I also seem to remember there being some specific rock they were talking about being able to extract O2 from on Mars.

I'd have to look it up.

Here are some resources.
http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/rtr-lv.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[bsoder 0]

You don't launch from the Moon to go to Mars. You store stuff/whatever at Lagrange points and go from there. Why fight the gravity well twice?

The Moon would be a test bed for the technologies to use on Mars.

[billvon 2,998]

>Certainly on the Moon you don't have the atmosphere to play with,
>but some of the water ice they have detected in craters would be
> useful.

Turns out that was a false alarm. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/11/12/moon.water.ap/


>I also seem to remember there being some specific rock they
>were talking about being able to extract O2 from on Mars.

Works with just about any rock. Basalt is mostly silicon dioxide (SiO2) aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (FeO.) You have to heat it a _lot_ to get the oxygen out; it takes a lot of energy to do so.

[billvon 2,998]

>The Moon would be a test bed for the technologies to use on Mars.

I don't see that. How is a planet with 336 hour days, no atmosphere, very high radiation levels, much lower gravity, much higher daytime temps, and a completely different chemical environment good practice for mars? Mars has an atmosphere, lower radiation levels, higher gravity etc. Antarctica is probably a better place to practice for mars than the moon.

[bsoder 0]

Quote

>The Moon would be a test bed for the technologies to use on Mars.

I don't see that. How is a planet with 336 hour days, no atmosphere, very high radiation levels, much lower gravity, much higher daytime temps, and a completely different chemical environment good practice for mars? Mars has an atmosphere, lower radiation levels, higher gravity etc. Antarctica is probably a better place to practice for mars than the moon.

It's better in that it has the possibility of capturing the public's imagination in a way that going to Antarctica will not. Aside from that, it's better than Antarctica in that if your shelter isn't airtight on the Moon, you die, just like on Mars.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Aside from that, it's better than Antarctica in that if your shelter isn't airtight on the Moon, you die, just like on Mars.

Yup. I often wonder why we use a hanging harness for practicing emergency procedures, when we could practice them in the air and die if we got them wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I don't see that. How is a planet with 336 hour days, no atmosphere, very high radiation levels, much lower gravity, much higher daytime temps, and a completely different chemical environment good practice for mars?

Because companies like Haliburton and others that have ties to the administration will get to sell the equipment to NASA.....duh!

[Beerlight 0]

Chances are, you come into contact with items/products on an everyday basis that were invented by NASA or a NASA contractor. I mean everyday, getting through the day items.... Things that make life easier.

And to think, it all started back in the 60's with a President directing us to go to the moon.

So, I believe we will once again be on the receiving end of some awesome products and materials that will come directly from R & D geared toward the new Moon/Mars mission.

Plus, I need the work...!!!!!!!!!

[MarkM 0]

Quote

Use it for refueling. It requires a lot of fuel to exit earth's gravity.

Or we could just look into more effecient ways to get stuff up into orbit in the first place. Space evelators are projected to cost 6 billion, which I'm sure is quite a bit less than what this moon project will cost.

Currently it costs $10,000-40,000 per lb to put an object into orbit. A space elevator would bring that down to $100 per pound. And that low price would be available to everyone on earth, corporations, governments, even hobbyists.

The problem with a moon base is that you have to the friggen moon to use it. That isn't cheap, unless you had something like, oh I dunno, a space elevator...

[bsoder 0]

Quote

Quote

Aside from that, it's better than Antarctica in that if your shelter isn't airtight on the Moon, you die, just like on Mars.

Yup. I often wonder why we use a hanging harness for practicing emergency procedures, when we could practice them in the air and die if we got them wrong.

Exactly. I'm glad you understand. In many ways if not most, an arctic site would be a better testbed. I'm wondering about the support from the public aspect tho. Would it be greater if the pictures from the testbed site came from the Moon or from Antarctica? Or would it matter at all?

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

>Certainly on the Moon you don't have the atmosphere to play with,
>but some of the water ice they have detected in craters would be
> useful.

Turns out that was a false alarm. http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/space/11/12/moon.water.ap/


>I also seem to remember there being some specific rock they
>were talking about being able to extract O2 from on Mars.

Works with just about any rock. Basalt is mostly silicon dioxide (SiO2) aluminum oxide (Al2O3) and iron oxide (FeO.) You have to heat it a _lot_ to get the oxygen out; it takes a lot of energy to do so.

I seem to recall that the dissociation pressure of Alumina at 1000C is around 10^-21 atmospheres, so even in interplanetary space the low pressure is not much of a help. Energy of formation of alumina is -1.7MJ/mol (standard state), SiO2 is -910kJ/mol, neither of which seem very promising to me.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[quade 4]

Quote

Currently it costs $10,000-40,000 per lb to put an object into orbit. A space elevator would bring that down to $100 per pound. And that low price would be available to everyone on earth, corporations, governments, even hobbyists.

Isn't that predicated on there being a material that you could actually make it out of?

I thought that there simply wasn't one in existance at this time.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SkydiverRick 0]

I seem to recall that the dissociation pressure of Alumina at 1000C is around 10^-21 atmospheres, so even in interplanetary space the low pressure is not much of a help. Energy of formation of alumina is -1.7MJ/mol (standard state), SiO2 is -910kJ/mol, neither of which seem very promising to me.

[Beerlight 0]

Quote

I seem to recall that the dissociation pressure of Alumina at 1000C is around 10^-21 atmospheres, so even in interplanetary space the low pressure is not much of a help. Energy of formation of alumina is -1.7MJ/mol (standard state), SiO2 is -910kJ/mol, neither of which seem very promising to me.

Seems reasonable.

[vonSanta 0]

Just curious: aren't you poor Americans already in enough debt? And are you ready for some more so you can have the prestige of being ahead the Chinese (they're coming strong)?

The money the government borrows will have to be paid back. And we'll be at the mercy of our children then. If they're too pissed, guess who goes into a low quality "nursing" home?

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst