SpaceShipOne

[vitualis]

Actually, the vast majority of moon probes have crashed, including the most recent ones which are definitely after the manned moon landings and also definitely after the moon has been extensive mapped.

Simply put, autonomous landings are technically difficult. There's a reason we have pilots in planes...

As for Biosphere 2, I don't think we can use it as a model for a Biosphere on another other planetary body. It was arguably a failure as a completely closed ecosystem and it is no longer used as such: http://www.permanent.com/s-bio2m1.htm

As for "soil", the lunar surface doesn't have "soil" in the sense of the word. "Not very nutrient rich" is an understatement. It has no nutrients required for plants at all. The best you can do with lunar "soil" is to use it as a matrix for growing plants, but you will have to bring along (i.e., send from Earth) all the required nutrients -- e.g., phosphates, nitrogen, etc. To be actually able to create a mostly self-sustaining closed ecosystem would require a huge number of plants which in turn requires a lot of true soil. I would think that in reality, for a moon base to work, it would have to use CO2 scrubbers to remove the CO2 and some sort of O2 generation ... possible from the lunar "soil". Growing even enough plants for food would be an enormous task.

And let us not forget about water... The moon surface is just about bone dry and water is not something we can easily generate from lunar materials.

Regards.

[Doramius]

I agree with there being no water and many nutrients would have to be brought up to make the soil have the ability to grow plantlife. However, how is it proposed to keep astronauts alive inside a floating space station? Bio2 had understandable problems, but they knew about species problems from the get-go as well as air leaks. This absolutely cannot happen if we are to build something similar on another planet. However, the Bio2 did prove that a self sustaining system can allow people to survive for an extensive period of time without requiring outside help. Honestly, a self sustaining station only would only need to keep people alive without outside help for 3-6 months. After that, outside supplies and adjustments may be made. The moon will be much trickier than building it on the earth, but the moon has the similar solar and darkness contrasts that a satellite has or a space station would receive. If something happens on the outside of a space station, a space walk is required and is a very delicate process, for both station and walker's safety. The moon station would be several times safer. Also several people could help in a repair, rather than 1 or 2 on a spacewalk. Again, we're not looking to move every specie of animal to the moon. We'd only need to move enough to sustain a small scientific crew for about 3-6 months.

Lets say they have provisions for 6 months. A new shuttle arrives every 4-5 months with new provisions, filters, fertilizers, etc. for them to sustain for the next 6 months. As time goes by, they'll have some storage of filters and other items that could possibly hold them over for 2 years, if needs be for an emergency. In that time they will most likely discover new ways of sustaining life in a lunar station on the moon. This will be most helpful in the development of a station on some other planet.

[vitualis]

...but the moon has the similar solar and darkness contrasts that a satellite has or a space station would receive.

This is actually not quite true. Each day/night cycle would last about a month. Another thing adding to signifcant difficulties.

Regards.

[BJ_M]

the moon doesnt spin so how would it have day night cycles? unless i misunderstood what you were getting at....

[yoda313]

the moon doesnt spin so how would it have day night cycles? unless i misunderstood what you were getting at....

Hello,

Doesn't it orbit the Earth which in turn orbits the sun??? So some of it would turn to and away from the sun as the earth rotates around it. My theory anyway

Kevin

[BJ_M]

Daytime on the lunar surface lasts for a period of 14 'Earth' days in that regard

[Doramius]

What I meant was that the moon is in space with virtually no atmosphere. The Dark Side of the moon is not really dark. The moon itself doesn't spin. It goes around the earth. The side that faces the earth, always faces the earth. Sometimes the moon is eclipsed by the earth and sometimes the moon eclipses the earth. The moon has solar and darkness periods, just like man made satellites. The moon itself is a satellite of the earth. It wouldn't add any difficulties at all. It's easy to create panels that darken and lighten depending on how much light is available. When there is no natural light, you use artificial light. None of this is new to space programs. They just aren't doing it. I have no problem in exploring Mars, but it would be nice to figure more about our own moon. Next step could be a Mars Station.

[vitualis]

Unlike an artificial human satellite where we can set just about ANY day/night cycle length, on the moon, the "day" would last 14 Earth days and the night would last 14 days.

The "day" cycle wouldn't matter but the night cycle would. 14 days of not facing the sun on the lunar surface means EXTREMELY COLD conditions... not to mention the fact that an lunar base would almost certainly be run on solar power. Unlike a satellite that can have solar panels eternally facing the sun, a lunar base would have to collect and store enough power for 14 "dark" days --> supplying not only standard power, but also enough power for heating.

The only other way to power a moon base would probably be some sort nuclear generator/battery, but as before, this would be extremely difficult (and risky) to send up into space in the first place and difficult to install.

Regards.

[Doramius]

It wouldn't require a nuclear generator/battery. And nuclear technology isn't very risky anymore. Nuclear generators also aren't the only thing that can be put on the moon to provide heat and power aside from solar. A nuclear submarine could stay underwater almost indefinitely. Unfortunately, people need food, and fishing underwater at extreme depths is not recommended.

[yoda313]

Hello,

fishing underwater at extreme depths is not recommended.

So why don't they just open that screen door on the submarine???

Kevin

[Doramius]

When they have them installed, they may.

[vitualis]

A nuclear submarine has a fission reactor and I don't think you'll find much support from anybody for sending a fission reactor into space. It is RISKY sending that much radioactive material into space (with the possibility of the launch vehicle blowing up and contaminating a large area).

Not to mention that it would be extremely heavy and furthermore there is the issue of nuclear waste on the moon.

A nuclear battery (e.g., like the ones that power space probes) is MUCH safer.

As for:

Nuclear generators also aren't the only thing that can be put on the moon to provide heat and power aside from solar.

... what "other" things can you think of that doesn't require a continuous supply of fuel (which would certainly be cost prohibitive if you need to ship it from the Earth)?

Regards.

[Doramius]

Fission isn't risky. "IF" the shuttle blew up, the material would be in the standard protective casing that it's in in the nuclear subs. If it happened at a low altitude, you'd basically received a large object falling towards the earth, just like the rest of the ship. Where are you finding transport of nuclear materials risky. This isn't the 1970's. Nuclear waste in space and on the moon is a heck of a lot easier than storing it on the earth. It's also matter and can burn up completely in an atmosphere without spreading over a large area and harming people. It's radiation would be less harmful than UV from the sun, if it made it to the earth. And that's "IF" it was released that way.

[MOVIEGEEK]

It's radiation would be less harmful than UV from the sun, if it made it to the earth.

Different kind of radiation my friend,Uranium and Plutonium are highly toxic and can remain so for many years(depending on the isotope).
But I agree with you about nuclear power being the most efficient power source.

[Doramius]

You're going to tell me a fist sized rock of plutonium is going to fall from orbit and make it to the earth and spread it toxic radiation?

[yoda313]

You're going to tell me a fist sized rock of plutonium is going to fall from orbit and make it to the earth and spread it toxic radiation?

Hello,

Well you wouldn't want it to land on your house would you???

Kevin

--that does seem improbable but remember, accidents can and do happen--

[Doramius]

If a shuttle blew up in an accident close enough for nuclear material to reach your house, the containers for the material would not degrade. Meaning, you'll have a large sealed and heavy container landing through your roof and you wouldn't feel any radiation effects from it. Any higher up and the container and material would both burn up in the atmosphere before it makes it to anyone. The containers are made this way, in case we bring something back from space that might be harmful to us.

[flaninacupboard]

But it wouldn't be in a shitty shuttle, it's be on top of a saturn 5, only way to get to the moon remember. you'd have to build a pretty thick casing to survive -that- exploding underneath you.

[Doramius]

Let's use existing technology, rather than the new technology we have the ability to come up with in a short period of time. Let's say we get a Shuttle, with payload, to be launched with boosters. Once in earth orbit, it awaits the launch of a Saturn V carrying a remade lunar module and a large amount of fuel. We do have 3 shuttles, so multiple launches of the shuttles at one time could be made. One shuttle could have an extremely large amount of fuel as it's payload. The shuttle alone does have the ability to make a 5 day trek to the moon on current fuel capabilities. The time would be slightly less getting back. A lunar lander can be manned by one person and can carry a payload of 2 tons on the earth. It would leave the lunar orbit with thess weight than arriving. The lunar lander can dock with the shuttles. A similar act, minus the lander, would be required for a space station. It is known that a shuttle does not require a booster to leave the surface of the moon like it requires to leave the earths surface. The runway would need to be 7-10 miles in length for current style space shuttles to land and take off. However, we may not be too far away from not requiring boosters at all. We're probably about 50> years away from using anti-matter as a propellant, too. The boosters wouldn't really be required and an anti-matter engine can be retro-fitted to a regular engine.

Here's one site on it. We already know that it will cost less in the near future and will be easier to make. Very few people have looked into using it because of it's short lifespan. The time is perfect for reaching the moon and coming back, however, I doubt they would take it at the speeds the site is talking about. Maybe half to one full day. 24,000MPH might be a little scary for myself. http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Shadowlands/6583/project297.html

[vitualis]

The shuttle alone does have the ability to make a 5 day trek to the moon on current fuel capabilities.

Do you have any evidence of this?

The reason the Saturn V launch vehicle can send something to the moon (almost directly) is because it can accelerate its payload to the sufficient velocity to leave Earth orbit. The vast majority of the fuel used in the Shuttle launch vehicle can only get it into low Earth orbit. The amount of fuel that you can jam into a shuttle is a pittance compared to the launch vehicle... and getting the shuttle from a 200 km orbit into (e.g.) a 400 km orbit is almost as hard as the gravitational force exerted by the Earth on the craft is just about the same as on the surface.

I somewhat doubt very much that the Shuttle with its current lauch vehicle can accelerate to the velocity to break Earth orbit even if mostly converting its payload to fuel.

In addition, you are again mixing up concepts. If you are thinking of going to the moon "the way the crow flies" (which means the shortest trip in terms of time), it is MUCH more fuel efficient to do it in one constant accelerative step towards the moon. Going into Earth orbit first and then heading towards the moon will require a lot more fuel on that second step.

A possible way to get to the moon is to get into orbit FIRST (thus escape the effect of FRICTION) and then use a much more circuitous route to the moon by GRADUALLY increasing the orbital distance with slower controlled burns. A few "gravity-assist" (more accurately, angular momentum assist) manoeuvers would make it even more efficient but again, would further prolong the trip to the moon.

This, BTW, is how we've managed to get most of the current space probes all over the solar system. You need a hell of a lot of fuel to go "as the crow flies", but the other cost is in time. This is where it is difficult for humans as life support on any space flight is very energy costly (in terms of O2, water, food, habitation space, etc.) Astronauts are probably happy to poo in their pants for a 3 day space flight for the moon but they won't tolerate it for a several month trip...

As for nuclear energy, imagine even getting up a small submarine nuclear reactor to the moon. There may not be much fissile material, but no amount of cladding is going to stop the highly radioactive material from probably disintegrating and spreading over a largish area if the launch vehicle explodes at an altitude of a few kilometers (i.e., near the launch site). Perhaps a limited risk in absolute terms but a public relations disaster if it ever occured. No matter how safe a nuclear sub is, there is always the comforting fact that if worse comes to worse, it will sink to the bottom of the sea. If a nuclear reactor blow up in the air, it will fall back down to the ground (where people are).

Furthermore, look up the actual specs of a nuclear reactor. For the minimum weight of some enriched uranium or plutonium, there are tons and tons of infrastructure. This would be damned difficult to launch into space (and for the transport and CONSTRUCTION) to be safe to the astronauts.

Nuclear waste is not a minimal issue as you suggested either. Every bit of extra construction and infrastructure on the moon is vastly magnified in logistic cost. Digging a pit for the safe storage of nuclear waste on the moon? Again, probably as big a project as creating the moon base itself.

As I stated before, creating a moon base is a hell of a big engineering project. I think that power would undoubtedly have to be supplied by an array of solar panels with an extremely good battery system for the fortnight long "nights". I would assume that there would be a system of backup nuclear batteries as well (i.e., similar to power systems used on space probes).

"Anti-matter engines" in 50 years?

That is a DREAM. We can barely make anti-matter and we certainly can't contain it. In addition, the only attempt I know so far to make anti-hydrogen (i.e., by combining anti-protons with positrons) yielded some strange results... with the positrons not being bound to expected orbits as per a hydrogen atom. Anti-matter is a LONG way off. Your storage systems in your link are basically traps for either positrons or anti-protons only. There is no way to get any sufficient density of either, just like you can't produce a "trap" for any significant amount of naked electrons or protons -- charge gets in the way. Thus, the creation of antimatter atoms is a must for any reasonable storage.

For long space flight where efficiency is the key, ion engines and probably nuclear engines would hold the fort in the short to medium term. The "anti-matter assisted" nuclear engines (mentioned in your link) are exciting as you need much less anti-matter and much less fissile material as well. For example, a system could work by firing a beam of anti-protons at a uranium target. Fission can be achieved by annhilation of the anti-protons with the protons in the nuclei of the uranium atoms. The benefits of such a system is that the mass of the uranium can be FAR from near critical (indeed, the mass can be tiny) -- meaning the system is very safe. It can be designed that it can never go "critical" as simply disengaging the beam of anti-protons shuts down the reactor (as opposed to more classic designs that would required an ACTIVE intervention... e.g., control rods... to get the system under control). There is, however, the prerequisite of either an efficient (and for a rocket rather than a ground based system, efficiency is in both energy cost and additional weight) method of either generating anti-protons "just-in-time" or some anti-proton storage.

However, where high amounts of thrust is required, there is nothing that beats a simple chemical rocket -- a technology that despite over 100 years of innovation and technical advance is still the only one available. This is unlikely to change in the next 50 years either.

Regards.

[Capmaster]

There may not be much fissile material, but no amount of cladding is going to stop the highly radioactive material from probably disintegrating and spreading over a largish area if the launch vehicle explodes at an altitude of a few kilometers (i.e., near the launch site).

This isn't a true statement.

We have already launched many satellites with RTGs (radioisotopic thermoelectric generators) for power. They are small units that convert the heat from decaying Plutonium-238 oxide (not bomb-grade, that's Pu-239) and using a stack of thermocouples to turn the heat into electricity.

They last forever, because ......they are encased in a hermetically-sealed cavity inside several inches of solid 304 stainless steel. All possible accident scenarios have been tested for, including impact with a solid steel block at Mach 1+, impact with irregular objects, long-term fuel fire, explosives in excess of anything present during their mission, reentry into the atmosphere, etc.

NO material will disseminate. Ever. If it lands in the desert or in the ocean, or bounces off Mt. Everest and lands in a jet fuel fire ( )it will remain sealed.

[yoda313]

Hello,

it will remain sealed

I hope there's a manual release during construction!

Wouldn't it suck to be the guy who installed it wrong and couldn't open it up again, EVER???

Kevin

[Capmaster]

Hello,

it will remain sealed

I hope there's a manual release during construction!

Wouldn't it suck to be the guy who installed it wrong and couldn't open it up again, EVER???

Kevin

Once it's sealed, there's no going back into it ...without completely destroying it.

So the answer is ...no. They're not reworkable

I'll see if I can dig up an unclassified drawing of the unit's physical characteristics. Nothing secret about that

[DereX888]

"Spaceship ONE" sounds hell like a President's spaceship

What is it with those rich people paying millions to get just few hundreds clicks up above? Its not like they get trip to Mars, or Moon at least, LOL.
"Ive been in space" - so what? Have you brought some piece of galatic vacuum with you as a souvenir?

[vitualis]

There may not be much fissile material, but no amount of cladding is going to stop the highly radioactive material from probably disintegrating and spreading over a largish area if the launch vehicle explodes at an altitude of a few kilometers (i.e., near the launch site).

This isn't a true statement.

We have already launched many satellites with RTGs (radioisotopic thermoelectric generators) for power. They are small units that convert the heat from decaying Plutonium-238 oxide (not bomb-grade, that's Pu-239) and using a stack of thermocouples to turn the heat into electricity.

They last forever, because ......they are encased in a hermetically-sealed cavity inside several inches of solid 304 stainless steel. All possible accident scenarios have been tested for, including impact with a solid steel block at Mach 1+, impact with irregular objects, long-term fuel fire, explosives in excess of anything present during their mission, reentry into the atmosphere, etc.

NO material will disseminate. Ever. If it lands in the desert or in the ocean, or bounces off Mt. Everest and lands in a jet fuel fire ( )it will remain sealed.

Dude, read my last post in its completion...

I concur with you (mostly), but I'm not talking about nuclear batteries. Nuclear batteries have been used for decades and if you see from my last post, I believe that any viable moon base will probably have these in reserve (and lots of them too).

Doramius is talking about a nuclear reactor on the moon (i.e., generates magnitudes more power than a nuclear battery) and there is no way you can store the fissile material in a "hermetically-sealed" manner, simply because it will have to be transported in parts (enough fissile material to actually run a reactor in one place = critical mass = boom ) and then fitted into a reactor. DANGEROUS. Would YOU trust nuclear fuel for a nuclear reactor flying ("safest" way to travel) over YOUR house? Nuclear fuel is always transported by road and sea for good reason ... in the event of an accident, it is still mostly a contained situation. Flying is not and rocket propulsion is even worse.

Regards.

[yoda313]

"Spaceship ONE" sounds hell like a President's spaceship

What is it with those rich people paying millions to get just few hundreds clicks up above? Its not like they get trip to Mars, or Moon at least, LOL.
"Ive been is space" - so what? Have you brought some piece of galatic vacuum as a trip's souvenir with you?

Hello,

You're saying you wouldn't want to go if you had the chance????

Heck I think it would be cool just to go Mach 1 or faster I feel the need, the need for SPEED!

Kevin

[DereX888]

"Spaceship ONE" sounds hell like a President's spaceship

What is it with those rich people paying millions to get just few hundreds clicks up above? Its not like they get trip to Mars, or Moon at least, LOL.
"Ive been is space" - so what? Have you brought some piece of galatic vacuum as a trip's souvenir with you?

Hello,

You're saying you wouldn't want to go if you had the chance????

Heck I think it would be cool just to go Mach 1 or faster I feel the need, the need for SPEED!

Kevin

Well, you reach quite few Machs right here, within earth's atmosphere. For For less than $20Mil or so they've paid for it anyway.

Yes, I would love to go - on Moon, or Mars, or anywhere (however with our technology only 1 of these 2 is possible ). But just to go slightly higher than military crafts go - whats the point? I really think its stupid. However its great that some rich idiots pay for it, at least thanks to their payments those underfunded, no-budget Russians can still get it going
NASA should do it as well, every flight of SS should include one rich moron for $20Mil

[Capmaster]

Dude, read my last post in its completion...

I concur with you (mostly), but I'm not talking about nuclear batteries. Nuclear batteries have been used for decades and if you see from my last post, I believe that any viable moon base will probably have these in reserve (and lots of them too).

Doramius is talking about a nuclear reactor on the moon (i.e., generates magnitudes more power than a nuclear battery) and there is no way you can store the fissile material in a "hermetically-sealed" manner, simply because it will have to be transported in parts (enough fissile material to actually run a reactor in one place = critical mass = boom ) and then fitted into a reactor. DANGEROUS. Would YOU trust nuclear fuel for a nuclear reactor flying ("safest" way to travel) over YOUR house? Nuclear fuel is always transported by road and sea for good reason ... in the event of an accident, it is still mostly a contained situation. Flying is not and rocket propulsion is even worse.

Regards.

I read every word of it.

My point was that where there is a risk of heat or explosion or impact, a suitable, safe container has already been designed. The RTGs were cited because they are an example. And they are also referred to as a "reactor" which is the correct term for anything that takes a material's reaction and converts it into usable energy. A nuclear reactor is only one type of reactor. As a doctor you know that a human cell is also a reactor of sorts.

Designs also exist for fission reactors to be taken into space. And they don't weigh as much as you'd think. Vessels and containers have been designed to survive, just as the RTG survives. But rocket boosters are very expensive so modern payloads use small, light, low-power electronics and do not require megawatts of power to operate. At one time they did, and designs were made to accommodate launching much larger reactors. But, as with everything else, we've gotten more efficient and don't require that kind of energy anymore.

For something like what is being discussed, a larger power source would be needed, but a safe one that won't disintegrate during a launch explosion has already been designed ......many variants of it, in fact.

[vitualis]

My point was that where there is a risk of heat or explosion or impact, a suitable, safe container has already been designed. The RTGs were cited because they are an example. And they are also referred to as a "reactor" which is the correct term for anything that takes a material's reaction and converts it into usable energy. A nuclear reactor is only one type of reactor. As a doctor you know that a human cell is also a reactor of sorts.

I'm using the term in the vernacular sense of course. There is a qualitative difference between a thermoelectric nuclear battery and the transport of the parts and fuel required for a nuclear "reactor" in the conventional sense.

Designs also exist for fission reactors to be taken into space. And they don't weigh as much as you'd think.

They would weigh enough and the is the issue of construction and containment on the moon as well. It isn't enough just to bring uranium or plutonium to the moon, but also all the parts required to make the actual reactor + facility + waste disposal + contingency plans. A fission reactor of any usefulness would probably require the transport of a minimum of tens to low hundreds in kilograms of fissile material. I'm sure designs exist... probably many designs. The fact remains however that a conventional fission reactor is dangerous to send into space... or at least, cost prohibitive to do so safely.

Regards.

[Capmaster]

Unfortunately it's the only feasible option. Look at the alternatives for providing a power source on the moon:

Solar: Nope. Only if you cover a huge area of the sunlit surface would you have enough power because of the low efficiency of photovoltaics. And the panels would have to be transported there. Lots and lots of panels. The same low efficiency has kept solar here from hitting mainstream.

Fuel cells: Nope. You need liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen. Granted the by-product is water, which is also necessary there, but that's a lot of weight to have to keep shipping to the moon. It would make the weight of the reactor vessel pale in comparison. To try to generate the LO and LH in situ would require even more weight be launched.

Fossil fuel: Nope. Requires oxygen to burn. You'd not only have to transport the fossil fuel, but the oxygen as well. And in herculean quantities.

That's about it for alternatives. Unless the public gets over its phobia about nuclear energy, we'll never colonize the moon, or anywhere else. Or even construct a biosphere of any beneficial size.