Moon as a Launching Pad for Humanity

[NormandySR1]

Hello everyone, this is my first non-introductory post here and would like to purpose an idea and see any weaknesses in it.

It seems like all the news we see lately is about going to Mars and studying it more, and possibly staying there, but for me this is illogical.

What I see as the most logical path is creating a permanent Moon base, and starting a settlement there before we make any dedicated steps past probes and rovers to Mars.

I know there is people that will say what is the point of making this stop on the path. Here is my logic on this part.

First the logical.
The Moons gravity is about 1/6th of Earths if I remember correctly, launching off the Moon will be much easier and quicker. Getting materials on the moon won't be difficult once we have some manufacturing there to use the iron on the surface. Doing some more research I found there seems to be large amounts of titanium on the planet as well.

Energy initially will be a problem, but hopefully along with pursuing advances in space flight, we will be able to make advances needed to make Helium-3 fusion possible.

Other than advantages of materials and lower gravity, a base on the Moon gives us a test bed for Low Gravity Biological testing, which is not possible anywhere else.

If someone give me some good reasons on why am wrong or right that would be great.

If this is wrong section please change it.

[IsaacKuo]

Hello everyone, this is my first non-introductory post here and would like to purpose an idea and see any weaknesses in it.

Welcome!

I am one of those people who likes orbital space habitats rather than planetary habitats, so I'm going to point out what I see as weaknesses...or perhaps alternatives.

The Moons gravity is about 1/6th of Earths if I remember correctly, launching off the Moon will be much easier and quicker. Getting materials on the moon won't be difficult once we have some manufacturing there to use the iron on the surface. Doing some more research I found there seems to be large amounts of titanium on the planet as well.

The Moon has a lot of potential resources, but it will take a lot of research time and money to figure out how to utilize them. In the meantime, feasible plans for manned missions to either the Moon or Mars do not involve utilization of in situ resources for metal.

It's easier to process oxygen and/or rocket fuel and/or water. You don't need to process solids, nor do you need high temperatures. As such, in situ utilization for fuel, breathing air, and water is more practical. Unfortunately, the Moon is lacking in easily exploited fluid resources. Hopefully, this will change if we can find easily exploitable water resources as recent missions have suggested. We need more missions to try and find out.

But Mars and Earth have known plentiful fluid resources. I favor Earth because it's closer and easier to start exploiting. An atmospheric scooping satellite could scoop up nitrogen and oxygen in Earth's upper atmosphere, refining this into nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a useful monoprop in its own right, or it can be used as an oxidizer, or it can be simply split into breathing air. An LEO station could be supplied this way.

Mars has a CO₂ atmosphere which is the easiest fluid resource to start exploiting. One idea I particularly like is the magnesium-CO₂ rocket. The probe only needs to bring magnesium powder; local carbon dioxide can be compressed into a tank. This is a way to use in situ resources without any infrastructure.

Mars also has large underground water ice glaciers, which are a promising resource for water and hydrogen--which is lacking in the Moon. (Although hopefully...)

Energy initially will be a problem, but hopefully along with pursuing advances in space flight, we will be able to make advances needed to make Helium-3 fusion possible.

This is really a non-starter. We're at least decades away from any sort of fusion power, and this would be the far easier D-T reaction rather than the difficult D-He3 reaction. And even with D-He3 reaction, where do you get He3 from? The most practical source for He3 may be to manufacture it by making Tritium and waiting for it to decay into He3.

Other than advantages of materials and lower gravity, a base on the Moon gives us a test bed for Low Gravity Biological testing, which is not possible anywhere else.

Low gravity biological testing can be done in orbit, using a spin gravity habitat. This has the advantages of being cheaper and easier to get to/from, as well as providing multiple levels of gravity to test. In a spin gravity habitat, the level of gravity is different for different distances from the center of rotation.

[NormandySR1]

Hey, Sorry for the late response. But I see flaws in your plan tell me if I am wrong with the things I point out I am pretty new to this.

The Moon has a lot of potential resources, but it will take a lot of research time and money to figure out how to utilize them. In the meantime, feasible plans for manned missions to either the Moon or Mars do not involve utilization of in situ resources for metal.

It's easier to process oxygen and/or rocket fuel and/or water. You don't need to process solids, nor do you need high temperatures. As such, in situ utilization for fuel, breathing air, and water is more practical. Unfortunately, the Moon is lacking in easily exploited fluid resources. Hopefully, this will change if we can find easily exploitable water resources as recent missions have suggested. We need more missions to try and find out.

While you point out that the Moon has little useable resources, and we do not know how/or plan to utilize them currently, there are even greater things prohibiting the use of orbital habitats over planetary ones. Building the is the first large issue with parts taking months to years to reach the building destination(When talking about Mars) and from a orbital point we limit our selves greatly in the size we can build. Therefore greatly delaying any settlement plans. You cite cost as an issue for planetary bases, but building a large base far away from Earth would be equally costly if not more. At least with a planetary base we have the chance to recuperate costs with mining and settlement.

But Mars and Earth have known plentiful fluid resources. I favor Earth because it's closer and easier to start exploiting. An atmospheric scooping satellite could scoop up nitrogen and oxygen in Earth's upper atmosphere, refining this into nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide is a useful monoprop in its own right, or it can be used as an oxidizer, or it can be simply split into breathing air. An LEO station could be supplied this way.

Mars has a CO₂ atmosphere which is the easiest fluid resource to start exploiting. One idea I particularly like is the magnesium-CO₂ rocket. The probe only needs to bring magnesium powder; local carbon dioxide can be compressed into a tank. This is a way to use in situ resources without any infrastructure.

Mars also has large underground water ice glaciers, which are a promising resource for water and hydrogen--which is lacking in the Moon. (Although hopefully...)

While the Moon is more difficult to live on than Mars with our current knowledge, I believe it is smarter and safer for any kind of exploration to start closer to home where we can manage, with the moon we have Titanium, Iron, and Helium-3 readably available, which can be used to offset the cost, of settlement. You cite that Mars as a good reason to go there first but have even more research pointing to the Moon having water as you can see here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...discovery.html

While I am not sure about the Magnesium-CO₂ rocket, the oxygen problem can be solved with plants, if I remember correctly STS-121 was successful in growing plants in the space shuttle. With a large enough plant house growing enough plants to support initial life would not be difficult.

This is really a non-starter. We're at least decades away from any sort of fusion power, and this would be the far easier D-T reaction rather than the difficult D-He3 reaction. And even with D-He3 reaction, where do you get He3 from? The most practical source for He3 may be to manufacture it by making Tritium and waiting for it to decay into He3.

While fusion power is a long ways away, and D-T is easier, D-T leaves us with radioactive waste while D-He3 reaction has no harmful waste. As for the supply of He3 while today it is only found with D-T reaction(rare on Earth) He3 is common on the surface of the Moon and can be used as a cash crop of sorts for settlers on the Moon.

Low gravity biological testing can be done in orbit, using a spin gravity habitat. This has the advantages of being cheaper and easier to get to/from, as well as providing multiple levels of gravity to test. In a spin gravity habitat, the level of gravity is different for different distances from the center of rotation.

Testing can be done in that fashion but gravity is not consistent, and we are still not sure if it has the same effects biologically as natural gravity. Another problem, with space stations is we cannot use them as launching pads to other planets as I was purposing.

[IsaacKuo]

Hey, Sorry for the late response. But I see flaws in your plan tell me if I am wrong with the things I point out I am pretty new to this.

I'm not presenting a particular plan, but rather various possibilities. My own "plan" would not involve humans to either the Moon or Mars, except for maybe some vanity missions. I see the future of humanity in orbital space habitats for the forseeable future--let's bring resources to Earth orbit rather than shipping humans out there.

While you point out that the Moon has little useable resources, and we do not know how/or plan to utilize them currently, there are even greater things prohibiting the use of orbital habitats over planetary ones. Building the is the first large issue with parts taking months to years to reach the building destination(When talking about Mars) and from a orbital point we limit our selves greatly in the size we can build.

No, the parts take hours to reach the destination, at least at first. We will start by building space habitats out of resources from Earth.

Or rather, we already have started building space habitats out of resources from Earth. We have decades of experience with orbital space habitats, and zero experience with a lunar or martian habitat. That right there should indicate something about the relative difficulty involved.

You cite cost as an issue for planetary bases, but building a large base far away from Earth would be equally costly if not more. At least with a planetary base we have the chance to recuperate costs with mining and settlement.

There is hardly anything which can be mined which could be sold back to Earth. About the only thing that might be viable is space based solar power. But the big issue is this--if there's anything worth mining out there, it's worth mining with robots, not humans. The extra overhead of life support systems, food, air, water, and sleep all count heavily against using human workers.

The economic potential of settlement is more interesting. People on Earth might pay a certain amount of money to emmigrate to an off-world colony. But I see this economic potential as higher for orbital colonies than planetary colonies. An orbital colony offers 24/7 sunlight, everyday access to zero-gee, and awesome views. The Earth, close up, is the most beautiful body in the solar system except perhaps Saturn.

While the Moon is more difficult to live on than Mars with our current knowledge, I believe it is smarter and safer for any kind of exploration to start closer to home where we can manage, with the moon we have Titanium, Iron, and Helium-3 readably available, which can be used to offset the cost, of settlement.

No, titanium and iron are cheap enough here on Earth, and Helium-3 is not readily available. Even if it were, it is not economically valuable.

You cite that Mars as a good reason to go there first but have even more research pointing to the Moon having water as you can see here: http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...discovery.html

We know there is some water on the Moon, but we do not know if it's possible to practically exploit this water. Nor do we know if there's enough water for sustainable habitation. In contrast, we know there is a lot of water on Mars, and the underground glaciers would be practically limitless supplies of readily exploited water.

Again, I'm not in favor of establishing habitats on Mars, but I do admit that the known factors of Mars are generally favorable.

While fusion power is a long ways away, and D-T is easier, D-T leaves us with radioactive waste while D-He3 reaction has no harmful waste. As for the supply of He3 while today it is only found with D-T reaction(rare on Earth) He3 is common on the surface of the Moon and can be used as a cash crop of sorts for settlers on the Moon.

A D-T fusion reactor would not generate significant amounts of radioactive waste, but that's not really the issue. The issue is that it is hard to make a fusion reactor which generates energy (as in more energy than it consumes), even with most favorable reaction: D-T.

The D-He3 reaction is even harder than the D-T reaction. Banking on selling He3 because of its theoretical potential as fusion fuel is wishful thinking.

Testing can be done in that fashion but gravity is not consistent,

Spin gravity is perfectly consistent.

and we are still not sure if it has the same effects biologically as natural gravity.

So what if there are? My interest is in determining the lower limits of what sort of spin gravity is needed for safe long term habitation. This is because an orbital space habitat with a lower level of artificial gravity can be lighter, bigger, and cheaper.

Another problem, with space stations is we cannot use them as launching pads to other planets as I was purposing.

Why not? The delta-v cost from an orbital habitat in an elliptical Earth orbit is actually far lower than the delta-v cost from the surface of the Moon...about an order of magnitude less delta-v.

For example, to go from a 10-day elliptical Earth orbit to Mars requires about 450m/s delta-v. From the surface of the Moon would require about 3200m/s delta-v.

[NormandySR1]

Wow, that makes a lot of sense I am not trying to be sarcastic, but I had never looked at it that way.

But I have to point out a few problems you have to consider, getting a station in LEO or HEO is not the same as getting orbital station around the Moon or Mars the distances are much greater so there is not much comparison getting the tonnes and tonnes of materials across those distances would require a cargo ship of space.

When it comes to Helium-3 I suggest watch this powerpoint: http://web.mit.edu/22.012/www/presen...ersion%202.ppt

This is pretty conservative compared to other reports you can find easily online, so the Moon is extremely viable economically.

Then the launching pad issue again, how will you get the rocket to an orbital base? By launching it from Earth so it nullifies the purpose of launching from space, but from a planetary base, we can make parts and assemble parts on the surface, only flying out needed parts.

I think if we use a combination of orbital and planetary bases it will be the best. It would give us the best of both worlds.