Alan Boyle has a good roundup of the current state of play, with lots of links. As I've noted before, people who merely argue about destinations are missing the point.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10712
11 Comments
kert wrote:
So many comments for Alan's article, and so many of them are dangerously clueless. Obviously there isnt much good coherent information and analysis out there on the topic.
...which gives me more fuel for the destination issue I've been flogging. AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth. If you are looking forward to off this Earth manufacturing to take advantage of lower gravity for human expansion... well, this is a HUGE issue. Many hands making for lighter work.
I also agree with those that think international cooperation is a red herring. I'm not so sure national cooperation is such a good idea. We need more Bigelow's and Musk's, etc. that are independent of any government.
I just can't help thinking that a billion a year flying shuttles could be put to better use. We need more independent billionaires with independent visions for space. Obama should be good for that, huh?
kert wrote:
AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth.
Precisely what i said above. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Could you specify the dangerous cluelessness that you imply is mine?
You might want to click on my name and read my post before you reply.
kert wrote:
*sigh* Its not about you.
We (collectively) dont know if there are caverns or lava tubes on moon or mars. We dont know if lunar poles have water, or whether the hydrogen there is usable form or not. We dont know whether magnetic shielding will work or not for space colonies. We dont know if mammals can survive 6-month trip to mars and back. We dont know if ISRU techniques will work out with our current technology base ( due to who knows what unforeseen technical barrier ). We dont know if any NEOs on useful orbits will have useable volatiles.
There is so heck of a lot that we dont know at present about potential for colonizing other bodies at space, that making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
I am all for resolving all these unknowns sooner rather than later, and at far greater activity levels that we are doing now ( the last lunar surface probe landed in 1976, btw ). But this calls for a different approach than building another unsustainable Apollo program to any destination, be it moon Mars or sunny side of mercury.
ken anthony wrote:
Very well said Kert, forgive me for feeling that quoting me suggested that I was a target of your point (although I will include myself as among the targets since that is a humble viewpoint that is important to me. I am not offended.)
I think your point is that we learn by doing. If so, I certainly agree.
I also think the debate is somewhat mute. Moon first is pretty well set.
Setting policy on speculation can be a disaster, but we will never eliminate our ignorance. We can only choose the point where we jump off into the unknown.
We assume Mars has geologically recent volcanic activity and lava tubes that the Moon doesn't for a number of reasons, but you're right, speculation is not experiencing.
...making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
But that's exactly what we are doing, regardless of what destination we choose. The Mars direct advocates are saying going to the Moon first has a cost and are willing to argue on the chance we can avoid that cost. It's an opportunity cost, so it's a difficult argument.
unsustainable Apollo program [flags and footprints]
Please give the Mars direct group credit for wanting to avoid unsustainable as much as you and I do.
Big D wrote:
One of my problems with Mars Direct in recent years is that advocates are dead-set on proclaiming *anything* short of direct launch via BDB to be the equivalent of building ISS. I have heard a number of people suggest what I like to call "Mars Lego" designs where "construction" would amount to nothing more than docking and refueling prior to departure.
Just as with Constellation, LEO refueling would allow a mission to be made with existing boosters, negating the requirement to build a new BDB in the first place.
"AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth.
There's visual evidence consistend with *collapsed* lava tubes on the Moon (rilles). It's reasonable to think that there still exist some stable, uncollapsed ones.
Could an orbiting probe with ground penetrating radar prove/disprove this? Does the nature of the Lunar regolith lend itself to this kind of sensing?
kert wrote:
>>making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
But that's exactly what we are doing, regardless of what destination we choose.
So dont choose the One True Destination. Thats the whole point.
Edward Wright wrote:
There's visual evidence consistend with *collapsed* lava tubes on the Moon (rilles). It's reasonable to think that there still exist some stable, uncollapsed ones.
Could an orbiting probe with ground penetrating radar prove/disprove this?
I believe most ground-penetrating radars are designed for use close to or in contact with the ground. In any case, any positive results would likely lead to an endless cycle of debate (similar to the debate about polar water) that might be used to justify additional probes but in the end could only be settled by ground truth.
We think we know a lot about the Moon but the only ground truth we have is a few hundred pounds of rocks collected from less than a dozen locations and the observations of only 12 explorers, only one of whom was a trained geologist. This for a body with a surface area the size of Africa. We spent the cost of a small war just to get that. That fact shows why we must reduce the cost of access to space (and to the Moon) if we hope to acquire anything like a reasonably complete body of knowledge about it, much less exploit its resources. Ditto for Mars, which is even harder.
It's not about the One True Destination either. It's about a choice among alternatives that has to be made.
The reason for making Mars the goal is not and will not mean ignoring the moon. The whole point is to reduce cost and time by avoid undeniable distractions.
As far as lava tubes, it's not that the Moon doesn't have them, it's more a question of abundance. We have to find them if they are going to be any use to us.
I saw a National Geographic show regard JAXA's Moon satellite last night. It was pretty good. I was not aware of some of the internal moon structure issues that this show discussed.
Leave a comment
Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Rand Simberg published on November 16, 2008 8:47 AM.
So many comments for Alan's article, and so many of them are dangerously clueless. Obviously there isnt much good coherent information and analysis out there on the topic.
Space Policy Debate is a multifaceted jewel.
Debate allows us to enumerate some of the issues (and hopefully the important ones) until funding and implementation make debate a side issue.
I'd like to see the waste reduced. I'd like to see us get out of the one step forward, fall back mode.
Those are a lot of links to surf but they did lead to this article...
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/solarsystem/mars_caves_000321.html
...which gives me more fuel for the destination issue I've been flogging. AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth. If you are looking forward to off this Earth manufacturing to take advantage of lower gravity for human expansion... well, this is a HUGE issue. Many hands making for lighter work.
I also agree with those that think international cooperation is a red herring. I'm not so sure national cooperation is such a good idea. We need more Bigelow's and Musk's, etc. that are independent of any government.
I just can't help thinking that a billion a year flying shuttles could be put to better use. We need more independent billionaires with independent visions for space. Obama should be good for that, huh?
AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth.
Precisely what i said above. Little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Kert, I didn't write the article at space.com.
Could you specify the dangerous cluelessness that you imply is mine?
You might want to click on my name and read my post before you reply.
*sigh* Its not about you.
We (collectively) dont know if there are caverns or lava tubes on moon or mars. We dont know if lunar poles have water, or whether the hydrogen there is usable form or not. We dont know whether magnetic shielding will work or not for space colonies. We dont know if mammals can survive 6-month trip to mars and back. We dont know if ISRU techniques will work out with our current technology base ( due to who knows what unforeseen technical barrier ). We dont know if any NEOs on useful orbits will have useable volatiles.
There is so heck of a lot that we dont know at present about potential for colonizing other bodies at space, that making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
I am all for resolving all these unknowns sooner rather than later, and at far greater activity levels that we are doing now ( the last lunar surface probe landed in 1976, btw ). But this calls for a different approach than building another unsustainable Apollo program to any destination, be it moon Mars or sunny side of mercury.
Very well said Kert, forgive me for feeling that quoting me suggested that I was a target of your point (although I will include myself as among the targets since that is a humble viewpoint that is important to me. I am not offended.)
I think your point is that we learn by doing. If so, I certainly agree.
I also think the debate is somewhat mute. Moon first is pretty well set.
Setting policy on speculation can be a disaster, but we will never eliminate our ignorance. We can only choose the point where we jump off into the unknown.
We assume Mars has geologically recent volcanic activity and lava tubes that the Moon doesn't for a number of reasons, but you're right, speculation is not experiencing.
...making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
But that's exactly what we are doing, regardless of what destination we choose. The Mars direct advocates are saying going to the Moon first has a cost and are willing to argue on the chance we can avoid that cost. It's an opportunity cost, so it's a difficult argument.
unsustainable Apollo program [flags and footprints]
Please give the Mars direct group credit for wanting to avoid unsustainable as much as you and I do.
One of my problems with Mars Direct in recent years is that advocates are dead-set on proclaiming *anything* short of direct launch via BDB to be the equivalent of building ISS. I have heard a number of people suggest what I like to call "Mars Lego" designs where "construction" would amount to nothing more than docking and refueling prior to departure.
Just as with Constellation, LEO refueling would allow a mission to be made with existing boosters, negating the requirement to build a new BDB in the first place.
"AFAIK, the Moon doesn't have caverns and considering radiation that could be a huge advantage to the rate of colony growth.
There's visual evidence consistend with *collapsed* lava tubes on the Moon (rilles). It's reasonable to think that there still exist some stable, uncollapsed ones.
Could an orbiting probe with ground penetrating radar prove/disprove this? Does the nature of the Lunar regolith lend itself to this kind of sensing?
>>making decades-long policy decisions about destinations around half-hunches, guesses and shoddy confidence intervals is silly, at best.
But that's exactly what we are doing, regardless of what destination we choose.
So dont choose the One True Destination. Thats the whole point.
There's visual evidence consistend with *collapsed* lava tubes on the Moon (rilles). It's reasonable to think that there still exist some stable, uncollapsed ones.
Could an orbiting probe with ground penetrating radar prove/disprove this?
I believe most ground-penetrating radars are designed for use close to or in contact with the ground. In any case, any positive results would likely lead to an endless cycle of debate (similar to the debate about polar water) that might be used to justify additional probes but in the end could only be settled by ground truth.
We think we know a lot about the Moon but the only ground truth we have is a few hundred pounds of rocks collected from less than a dozen locations and the observations of only 12 explorers, only one of whom was a trained geologist. This for a body with a surface area the size of Africa. We spent the cost of a small war just to get that. That fact shows why we must reduce the cost of access to space (and to the Moon) if we hope to acquire anything like a reasonably complete body of knowledge about it, much less exploit its resources. Ditto for Mars, which is even harder.
It's not about the One True Destination either. It's about a choice among alternatives that has to be made.
The reason for making Mars the goal is not and will not mean ignoring the moon. The whole point is to reduce cost and time by avoid undeniable distractions.
As far as lava tubes, it's not that the Moon doesn't have them, it's more a question of abundance. We have to find them if they are going to be any use to us.
I saw a National Geographic show regard JAXA's Moon satellite last night. It was pretty good. I was not aware of some of the internal moon structure issues that this show discussed.