NASA: Moon Base begins in 2020

Why colonize the Moon before going to Mars? PhysOrg

Helium-3 Wiki



It's about time we started actually using our backyard for something besides sats, probes and rovers. Ralph Kramden didn't know how right he was..hehe

[edit on 4-2-2007 by Regenmacher]

I think it is great NASA is going to build a moon base too bad it looks like a piece of trailor park trash. I understand that this is probably the most viable and affordable option available to NASA at the current time, but how long do they think a POS like this can last?
Why don't they do it right and build a permanent base the first time around? Might it be cheaper in the long run to build a permanent base 1st?

Does anyone have any idea of what a permanent base costs compared to the Martian trailor park concept? What's the best bang for the buck?

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Low Orbit]

Originally posted by Low Orbit
I think it is great NASA is going to build a moon base too bad it looks like a piece of trailor park trash. I understand that this is probably the most viable and affordable option available to NASA at the current time, but how long do they think a POS like this can last?
Why don't they do it right and build a permanent base the first time around? Might it be cheaper in the long run to build a permanent base 1st?

Does anyone have any idea of what a permanent base costs compared to the Martian trailor park concept? What's the best bang for the buck?

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Low Orbit]

What I don't understand is why don't they use some of the the thousands of existing facilities that are supposedly already all over the moon? Why build some piece of trash like that, that isn't even suitable for the homeless people on the moon, let alone for top notch "famous by the media research people" that may be heading up there? All of those cities on the moon that people talk about here, you would think that there would be some appropriate "housing by Hilton" establishments that the researchers could stay at, no?

I enjoyed some of the out of the box thinking that came from the article, specifically turning martian top soil into roads with "lunar lawnmowers" and I often wonder if they could do the same thing with the soil in order to make some sort of brick. And if they could automate this process they would in theory of created a lunar brick factory from which they could build larger more spacious structures, than the lunar mobile park.
The more NASA uses Martian resources the more they will prosper on Mars.

[edit on 5-2-2007 by Low Orbit]

I think it's essential we colonize other habitats rather than relying soley on the resources of Earth to preserve the human race. Maybe when humanity concentrates more on a new frontier, we will be less apt to fight and war over the current one.

Wont this cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and contribute to global warming? What is the point?

Originally posted by Soitenly
Wont this cost hundreds of trillions of dollars and contribute to global warming? What is the point?

How would a lunar outpost contribute to global warming? You lost me there...

Originally posted by Low Orbit
Does anyone have any idea of what a permanent base costs compared to the Martian trailor park concept? What's the best bang for the buck?

I don't think it's realistically possible to just start building a permanent right away. The costs would be extremely high and the US Government isn't exactly giving lots of money to NASA. Best to start small and work your way up I think.

Originally posted by IronDogg
What I don't understand is why don't they use some of the the thousands of existing facilities that are supposedly already all over the moon?

Perhaps this should be a clue that all those supposed bases and mining operations that people claim to see in fuzzy zoomed in images is utter nonsense?

As for the current concept, why do you two think this is some "trailer trash PoS"? What do you think would be better? (take into account the budget, the amount of resources you can bring per rocket, etc.) You can't expect large lunar outposts straight out of some sci-fi movie right off the bat. You got to do it one step at a time.

I propose we send a miniture "brick making kiln" to the moon from which larger structures can be built for a fraction of the cost it would take to get all those resources to the moon via rockets. I propose we don't even send human's to the moon until this automated process has finished the first several steps constructing a moon base structure. So my concept would include airstrips and roads as the article talks about but I would add to that an automated brick kiln. We could make the Moon a more automated process than eating at McDonald's if we want to. If we built a brick structure on the moon I'm guessing it would last for hundreds of years whereas this lunar trailer park will probably just last a couple decades. Taking time into consideration I think cost over time becomes quiet affordable for a project like this.

How can NASA call the trailer park a permanent base? Look at it, the only thing that makes it permanent is gravity? Im sure if NASA wanted they could move that POS hence proving their base isn't permanent.

I think NASA says it's a "permanent base" to build up the civilian's interests and expectations. Is NASA trying to confuse people into thinking they are getting more bang for their buck by labelling it "permanent?"

If you know of a better idea then go tell them, I'm sure they will take it into consideration if they haven't already thought of it.

what exactly do you expect them to do with a miniature brick making kiln? make bricks? then what? If by any chance you are able to make bricks on the moons surface you'll need a crap load of robots to move them, another machine to make the cement or whatever you want to use to glue them together. Then by some miracle 100 years later if you happen to finish it theres absolutely no guarantee that its even air tight, not that you'll have any air unless you send an air making machine. In the end it would cost a lot more to do what your suggesting with no guarantee it will even work.

The Moon's soil is rich in oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen. There is a chemical reaction that will produce an H2O1/2 mixture.O2 From Moon Soil

Its clear that this picture is nothing more than an artist's concept of what a moon base might look like. The actual plan appears to be to use inflatable habitats covered in lunar soil. If so, it will look nothing like this concept.

I'm not really sure why it matters what the thing looks like, anyway. Just as Rome wasn't built in a day, it'll also take time with a lunar outpost. You have to start somewhere, and that start will likely be small and probably won't be aesthetically pleasing.

Nasa's plan of using inflatable modules is probably the best option of the available alternatives. They're lighter than conventional metallic habitats and would cost less to launch. This likely would mean the base using inflatables would be significantly larger. The modular design also allows for easy expansion. And, of course, it doesn't require any new and/or unproven technology and can be thoroughly tested on earth.

Originally posted by vor78
Its clear that this picture is nothing more than an artist's concept of what a moon base might look like. The actual plan appears to be to use inflatable habitats covered in lunar soil. If so, it will look nothing like this concept.

Yeah there's not much of a point about getting worked up over a conceptual rendering of something that hasn't even been finalized yet and is at least still over a decade away from happening.

And I like the idea of going with the inflatable habitats. Like you said, they are lighter and can be bigger. It should be interesting to see what they come up with.

I suppose then that maybe sending a rocket to the moon at a cost of one hundred trillion dollars won't use up a bit of fossil fuel here on earth? Wow, we are so smart.

Originally posted by Soitenly
I suppose then that maybe sending a rocket to the moon at a cost of one hundred trillion dollars won't use up a bit of fossil fuel here on earth?

Wow, we are so smart.

No rocket launch costs hundreds of trillions of dollars, not even billions. And depending on the rocket, some do use fossil fuels like RP-1 in the first stages of the boosters, but a lot of the fuel is Liquid hydrogen and oxygen. In other words, not fossil fuels. And for example, 97% of the Shuttles exhaust is water vapour. So how does this have anything to do with global warming?

[edit on 7-2-2007 by jra]