Moonbase vs. Moon Space Station?

[Zatnikitelman]

Why is the ultimate goal to be a moon base? Not that there's anything wrong with a land-based base, it's just that I think you could do more with a space station.
Envision this if you will: A small station with 3 permanently docked single stage landers in a 90 or nearly 90 degree orbit around the moon. Because of the slow regression (right word?) rate of the orbit around the moon, the lander teams could potentially have 12 hours or so to poke around and perform experiments and still make it back to the station efficiently. I say 90 degrees because over 1 month, you've covered the entire surface of the moon at least as far as your orbital plane is concerned. The disadvantage however is the rocket fuel needed to get to and from the surface as well as not having a true contingency capability should you miss lift-off time back to the station unless you have supplies for 2 weeks.

A base however offers the advantages of always being able to comeback no matter where you are if you have the power. No big rockets with lots of fuel are needed to return to the base. However, you're confined to a relatively small area unless you're willing to roll for days on end across the lunar terrain. Also, you have to use fuel to liftoff the base, then fuel to get back to Earth.

Discuss.

 

[pattersoncr]

The first thing that pops to mind in favor of a surface base is radiation. It's relatively easy to pile up enough regolith to form a very effective shield. Contrast this with the mass penalty associated with hauling shielding either up from the moon or all the way from Earth. Apollo missions were launched during forecast periods of low solar activity. Other than that, the missions were of short duration and they played the odds. You don't have that option if you're going for a (semi-)permanent presence.

 

[pilotpercy]

both have pros and cons, i think the best (although expensive) way to go would be to have a combination of both

 

[Andy44]

Radiation protection is one good reason for a surface base. Another good one is that you can do extended studies of one particular selenographical region. Also, once you're far enough along, you can afford to park an "ambulance" vehicle on the base which would be a "direct descent" vehicle to Earth which can lift a sick or wounded group of explorers directly back to Earth without having to wait for any plane alignments or using lots of excess delta V. Mainly, though, the level of science and experience gained is better on the surface. Plus you can eat normal food instead of sucking it through a straw.

I like the idea of having a roving lander flotilla in a polar orbit, though, Zat, that's a cool idea for a station. You just have to find ways to protect the crews in lunar orbit from the environment. I suppose that since you're already going to be lifting tons and tons of mass for this operation, you may as well devote one launch to just lifting rad shielding which can be used to line the walls of the station's hab areas.

In fact, if you've got reliable reusable landers, you may be able to make shielding from lunar material and lift it locally (rubs hands together, mwah ha ha ha!).

 

[willy88]

The problem with a Moon-based space station is the Moon's irregular gravity. The station would have to be re-boosted regularly.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

The problem with a Moon-based space station is the Moon's irregular gravity. The station would have to be re-boosted regularly.

If it were in a low-lunar orbit, true. It would require less re-boosting (though not eliminate it 100%) if the station were in a Halo orbit at the L1 point.

 

[Andy44]

But a halo L1 orbit would defeat the purpose stated in the OP, that being to have easy lander access to all parts of the surface.

 

[RocketMan_Len]

But a halo L1 orbit would defeat the purpose stated in the OP, that being to have easy lander access to all parts of the surface.

True enough... but it *could* be used for a staging area. It takes - what? - less than 1km/s deltavee to get from LLO to LL1... plane changes would be less. That's not a *large* impact on lander design.

Fuel-wise, it might be the more effective option.

 

[JamesG]

Yes, but it would take quite a bit of time to get from place to place from the L points. They aren't exactly low orbits. Ultimately, a Lunar station might be useful as a transfer point for personnel and cargo to/from the lunar surface to parts elsewhere. But in the short term its not really nessissary.

The easist way to get around on the moon won't be by rover it'll be by a "hopper". Plug in the lunar coordiates of your destination and the computer can plot a ballistic trajectory to carry you around. The moon just isn't that big of a place and its gravity not enough of a burden to have to take elaborate means to overcome it.

 

[Andy44]

The easist way to get around on the moon won't be by rover it'll be by a "hopper". Plug in the lunar coordiates of your destination and the computer can plot a ballistic trajectory to carry you around. The moon just isn't that big of a place and its gravity not enough of a burden to have to take elaborate means to overcome it.

Yes, and Suborb MFD will do that for you in Orbiter:
[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1367"]SuborbMFD v2.1[/ame]

 

[pattersoncr]

Yes, and Suborb MFD will do that for you in Orbiter:
http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=1367

So will LOLA MFD
[ame="http://www.orbithangar.com/searchid.php?ID=3172"]Lola MFD[/ame]

 

[John_L]

Right, the radiation for one thing, as far as exploring different locations on the moon, the current development will have a land that is capable of landing anywhere on the moon, and returning to the csm in orbit. That gives them the ability to land anywhere they want to, and, who knows what sort of rover (or even a flying vehicle) will be developed. My brother and I were just having a conversation the other day about that, and I began to think that a flying machine, that maintains altitude automatically, much like orbiter can, and using relatively small thrusters could be developed as an alternative to a rover. A rover has to deal with the rough terrain, and limits the overall speed and distances that can be covered. However, a vehicle that maintains an altitude of 20-30 meters could scurry along the surface covering vast distances, probably much further than a rover could achieve, thus enabling astronauts to venture miles away from base. Of course, provisions would have to be put in place to ensure that should there be a problem, another vehicle would be on standby (along with pilot(s) to recover a stranded crew.

 

[Kaito]

I say we should have a Space Station with an "elevator" that travels down to the surface.

Main reason we dont have one on earth: Weather. AFAIK, the moon doesn't have any weather, and earth quakes are rare. So, we ahve a space station set up with an elevator traveling down to the ground.

I remember hearing somewhere that regolith has a high oxygen content (correct me if im wrong). If thats true, then that would be a good fuel source.

As far as other supplies go, every month or so, send a small "resupply", unmanned probe to an orbit around the moon. Then have a Station Computer take over the probe's computer and make adjustments so it can dock appropriately. This could be used for things like: Shielding, food, more equipment, power cells, etc, etc.

But heres them main question: What advantages would having either a lunar station or a lunar base give us? Sure, we would learn more about the moon, but Cost vs Benefit is WAY low...or not (i was thinking of something I could use to give it a good benefit, so this argument will be very weak):

Setup a satelite around the moon. When people finally become pissed enough at each other and start taking out satelites around the earth, we're screwed. Having a lunar satelite, even just ONE communication satelite would be so beneficial. Now, the odds of someone attacking satelites around the earth are low...but you can never be to sure.

Or, we could use the moon as a "staging base" to Mars. Like i said earlier, i think regolith has high oxygen content, so we could send a ship to the moon using a hoffman transfer, then have it "refuel" at the moon, then send it on its way to Mars. Less stages, and enevitibly, cheeper cost.

Or, ANOTHER benefit of a lunar base (my mind is just thinking as i'm typing): a place isolated from the screw ups of earth. Lets say someone releases a virus and kill 100% of the earth population. Bad, right? But if we had people on the moon, they would be isolated, and humans would live on (although, the 10-20 people would be very bored...or not *wink*)

 

[Andy44]

A space tower on the moon won't work, because the moon's rotation rate is only once every 28 days. There won't be any docking to a tower that goes so slow at the top, unless the tower is enormously tall.

About hovercraft flying over the moon, that's only economical for relatively short hops. Almost all flying over the moon is cheaper fuel-wise if you do a ballistic sub-orbital hop. Your fire your jets once at launch, and again to land, and coast in free fall in between.

 

[sputnik]

Why is the ultimate goal to be a moon base?

A flippant answer I didn't invent: "Because there's a there there."

 

[Sherrif of Nottingham]

Well, I really wouldn't know what would be better... I'm sure the U.S. would partially want to put a moon base of some kind just to say they did, of course they would want to find if they could solve some of our problems with things figured out on the moon... if something on the moon could be used to fuel cars for example. Or more efficient solar cells.

 

[Eagle]

I think the moonbase as a clear advantage regarding in situ resources. It would still be possible to have some robotic landers land, process regolith, ice and whatever and launch it back up to the station. But that ends up being about as much work as building a moonbase already.

So I'm in favor of a primary moonbase and a secondary moon supplied orbital station.

 

[RisingFury]

I think the Moon base is much better then a space station.

For crew safety, I think there's no argument about that. Going underground to shield yourself from radiation is far better then hiding behind a few inches of led. You could easily go 20 meters down and be completely safe.

Your electronics could also be stored underground to prevent damage from solar flares, which means your life support systems and power generation (explained later) will stay safe, as well as everything else.

There is gravity. We all know that having no gravity isn't exactly good for your body. Bones become soft and fragile, muscles begin to degrade and your immune system stops working. Having at least some gravity would help astronauts keep in shape for longer periods of time, requiring less flights to and from Earth to change crews.

In case of an injury that would require surgery, I think it'd be easier to operate in an environment with gravity then where there is none.

In case of something going seriously wrong with a quick evacuation back to Earth required, you could launch from the surface with no delays... that would not be possible from a near 90° orbit at any time.



When it comes to functionality, the base also has a clear advantage:

Experiments could be run for far longer periods of time and although they would be somewhat limited in range from the base at first sight, if you think again, you'll see that you'd use up less fuel by having suborbital hops then descending and lifting off again every time. For short

On a space station, everything has to be packed in a small space. On the ground, you don't have that limitation.

A surface base can be quite large and contain anything from soil research centers, to Moon based observatories and miles away, launch facilities.

A permanent Moon base offers a cheap and easy launch site for large vessels that could put us on a journey to other planets as well as a facility that could quickly produce a lot of rocket fuel without expanding any of it.

Production of resources would not be limited to how much you can carry back and store at the station.



The only major disadvantage the I can think of for the surface base is power generation. Because putting the base at the Peak of Eternal Light would probably not be practical on the Moon because of the surrounding terrain, that means you would be cut off from sunlight for 2 weeks.
Batteries storing the energy would probably not be a good idea. The most practical solution would be a nuclear reactor, which is pretty expensive compared to solar cells, difficult to build and operate and a safety risk.
An alternative to that would be a power plant burning rocket fuel, but I think that's a bad idea because it would require a large amount of fuel and would decrease base's productivity during the 2 weeks in darkness.

Two nuclear reactors would probably have to be run, completely isolated of each other, each capable of powering the base's primary systems like life support by itself, with power to spare. That would ensure crew safety even if one of the reactors had to be shut down.

 

[Andy44]

Just put the solar cells on the high ground and run transmission lines.

 

[RisingFury]

Just put the solar cells on the high ground and run transmission lines.

Run lines from the pole to the base? That would be 100's of miles!