Question Feasibility of an "International Lunar Base"?

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

Probably because the only real gain a politician can see in spaceflight is national prestige...

In that case, what would you say were the reasons for JFK proposing the moon programme? Do you think he was serious about all of the other points he mentioned, or was it all really a band-aid on Americas pride?

---------- Post added at 02:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:59 PM ----------

Just had a :idea:

Maybe we could start a collaborative project like the Iron Hill Project (real-time, scenario handed off between members, etc.) to simulate building an ILB in a realistic site (say one of the lunar poles). I would love to start it, but Ive already commited to the Iron Hill-B Crew. anyone interested?

 

[jedidia]

Do you think he was serious about all of the other points he mentioned, or was it all really a band-aid on Americas pride?

To be honest, I don't know the speech. I would not consider the space race a band-aid on America's pride either, but rather a part of the cold war. Space holds a significant strategic value (intelligence, not bombing platforms), which gets diminished to almost zero if your opponent has access to it, so the US had to drive their space technology at least as far as the Russians, otherwise the Russians would have had a tremendous advantage if the war got hot. Second, I think it was very necessary for the morale of the American population to score some kind of victory in this war, some sign of "yes, we still have the upper hand, no need to be afraid".

 

[fsci123]

Technically feasible: Yes, absolutely. There are thousands of ways already how to configure such a base.
Financially feasible: Yes, even despite the economic crisis
Economically feasible: Yes, it could even bring economic growth if properly handled.
Politically feasible: No way.

And there it stops.

Seriously, the only problem that speaks against a ILB is a lack of political will. nobody wants to be responsible for it, nobody wants to share the fame if built and nobody wants to explain his voters why builing a ILB is necessary and good for them all.

We live in a world, in which stupidity is cultivated. Voters are caught with simple slogans and simple "truthisms", because if you can't explain your message in a 30 second TV spot, you aren't elected. The complexity of the real world is so much shoved aside to experts to handle them, that nobody even dares to discuss reality in politics. We only discuss a political world, that exists independent of the real problems.

Well we could easily gather public support and large sums of money to build a lunar base. All we have to do is send the entire cast of jersey shore up there for some new reality tv show called "Jersey Shore vs Survivor: Moon walking edition". But then there would be no real economic output coming from the base as all the scientific and mining equipment would be covered in cheap colone and malt liquor.

What about some challenge to the masters of video here... produce a 30 second clip why we should build a moonbase.

Im up for the challenge.:thumbup:

To look up at the Moon and know there are humans there, all the time, would be fantastic.

You know, I actually think a lunar base idea would catch on very quickly with the public. A lunar base, however, would be something that people could look up into the sky and say ``its right there``

Well the sad part is that sometimes when i go on one of my nationalist rants at school and say how we landed "right there"(pointing at the moon) my peers still dont care no matter how simple i make it...

 

[FADEC]

Emphasis mine.

What did I miss? :blink:

Century

I'm rather exhaustet currently, when I return home from my new work...

---------- Post added at 02:28 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:22 PM ----------

What is problematic is always the answer to the question: Who will provide the funding?

And above all: why?

 

[Codz]

You know, I actually think a lunar base idea would catch on very quickly with the public. One of the issues inherent with getting funding for say, the ISS, is that it lacks the "real for me" factor with the general public. Ive never seen the ISS with my own eyes, and while I do believe that it is up there, the inability to know exactly where it is, makes it less of a real place than an an abstraction to me on the ground.

Problem solved.

http://www.n2yo.com/?s=38348

 

[Grover]

a "real to me" factor isnt really needed, we need a "USEFUL to me" factor, and right now, there isn't much USE to being on the space station, or on the moon. and even if people HAD the cash to get there, they wouldnt want to put up with the travelling times and overall rigmarole necessary, just for a billionaire's holiday.

so, theres a few things we need before it can be worth getting people into space, and therefore money to fund projects:

a cheap way of getting there, for people, equipment and large objects (lunar hab modules for example)
a practical use for lunar bases. simply "being there" isnt much use (except for tourism, if we can attract enough people), we need to find a reason for being there, like a financial benefit
education: people need to know that we CAN get there, and that once they are, that they can make use of it (add into this the reasurrance of "nothing can go wrong" and you're just about done)


this isn't going to happen overnight, possibly within my lifetime, but i certainly won't be surprised if i never leave earth


pessimistic i know, i seriously WISH i could leave earth, but the reality is that ill probably never get as far away as 40,000 feet from the ground

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

a "real to me" factor isnt really needed, we need a "USEFUL to me" factor, and right now, there isn't much USE to being on the space station, or on the moon. and even if people HAD the cash to get there, they wouldnt want to put up with the travelling times and overall rigmarole necessary, just for a billionaire's holiday.

so, theres a few things we need before it can be worth getting people into space, and therefore money to fund projects:

a cheap way of getting there, for people, equipment and large objects (lunar hab modules for example)
a practical use for lunar bases. simply "being there" isnt much use (except for tourism, if we can attract enough people), we need to find a reason for being there, like a financial benefit
education: people need to know that we CAN get there, and that once they are, that they can make use of it (add into this the reasurrance of "nothing can go wrong" and you're just about done)


this isn't going to happen overnight, possibly within my lifetime, but i certainly won't be surprised if i never leave earth


pessimistic i know, i seriously WISH i could leave earth, but the reality is that ill probably never get as far away as 40,000 feet from the ground

Well, for a why reason, check the market price of Helium-3. Obviously theres still a lot of work left to be done, but Fusion reactors are probably the best solution for world energy needs, and the lunar regolith is rich in Helium-3, not to mention the possibilities of Low gravity metallurgy. haha, definitely wont be many tourists there :lol:

 

[jedidia]

Obviously theres still a lot of work left to be done, but Fusion reactors are probably the best solution for world energy needs

We have to get them to work first...

 

[BruceJohnJennerLawso]

We have to get them to work first...

Again, theres supposed to be one in the US just hitting the break-even mark in terms of energy in-out, no?

 

[jedidia]

Again, theres supposed to be one in the US just hitting the break-even mark in terms of energy in-out, no?

Do you have any sources? As far as I know, ITER is still a good deal away from break-even.

But even if we hit break even, it's not such a big deal. We need surplus, and the way we have been fighting for every Watt we got closer to break even for the last few decades is ample reason to believe that we'll be fighting just as much, if not more, for every Watt beyond.

 

[Tychonaut]

Do you have any sources? As far as I know, ITER is still a good deal away from break-even.

According to Wikipedia, the goal is for first plasma at ITER in 2019. So we're a long way away from a market for He-3. That's if, as you say, we can make the thing work at all.

Regarding visibility of the ISS, I've seen it a number of times myself. It's a cool experience, watching it zoom past and knowing that point of light is a large space station with a crew aboard. Doubly so, having seen videos taken from the station as they go by to compare with.
But, although it's not that hard to see, it's still just a point of light, and it's gone in a minute or two. For most people that means looking for it is not worth the bother. Luna, on the other hand, is the second most conspicuous thing in the sky and is easy to see for much of its orbit. I'm not saying that would justify putting a base there, but it would be a bonus.

 

[T.Neo]

Isn't He3-D fusion a good deal more difficult to do than the D-T reaction that has been studied by most serious fusion powerplant studies for the last several decades?

 

[Tychonaut]

Isn't He3-D fusion a good deal more difficult to do than the D-T reaction that has been studied by most serious fusion powerplant studies for the last several decades?

Yes, indeed. ITER is to be a deuterium-tritium design. [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_power"]The wiki[/ame] has some information comparing the processes. Given the timeline for ITER doesn't see D-T operation beginning until 2027, it seems unlikely we'll be needing industrial quantities of He-3 for decades, if ever. Any plan for an ILB is going to need a better rationale.

 

[sorindafabico]

Just had a :idea:

Maybe we could start a collaborative project like the Iron Hill Project (real-time, scenario handed off between members, etc.) to simulate building an ILB in a realistic site (say one of the lunar poles). I would love to start it, but Ive already commited to the Iron Hill-B Crew. anyone interested?

I'm in.

 

[Urwumpe]

What you should not ignore as reason: You don't learn swimming without entering the water.

Or in spaceflight terms: You don't learn to survive for years in space without Mama Earth being only minutes away, if you don't slowly increase the distance and learn to become independent.

The stepping stone for Mars argument might sound annoying and really a divertion of funding away from Mars, but practically speaking: Moon is the best place to learn it.

In Orbiter, you only deal with trajectories. You have often futuristic vehicles, that have complexity, but not always realism. It is no comparison to real spaceflight problems, when you have to design a space mission. Think of the question "How many spare parts do we need?" Do you already know the only answer? Sure not. There is not just one, but actually many correct answers for it. How many spares do you need when? What about logistics?

We have no health problems in Orbiter as well. Think of an astronaut who got his fingers crushed during an IVA. Happens pretty often on Earth, is no big deal, often you will get your fingers back into shape by a doctor. But how to you work like that on the moon? You can't start with a 100 person hospital with CT and X-Ray machines. If you are lucky you will have just enough laboratory equipment to make a simple blood test.

On the moon, you can at least still use experiences from handling Antarctic bases. The German base for example is completely disconnected from the rest of the world during the winter season. 6 months of darkness. On the moon, you could in theory get resupplied every week - on Mars you would have to wait for 18 months. The only place, where we can learn surviving on a foreign planet for 18 months by gradually increasing the time, is the moon.

 

[jedidia]

Indeed. When people hear "stepping stone", they think "we have a better launch window from there", but that really is a very secondary concern for a mars mission. We can deal with that once we know how to pull off the stuff we yet have no idea of pulling of. And for that, a moon base would be extremely valuable.
The ISS, after all, is also not an orbital port intended to construct vessels and launch missions from. Instead, it's the only large manned spacecraft with long-term stays we have, and the knowledge gained from that is significant.