Comment by Kim_Bruning

Comment by Kim_Bruning 2 months ago

Well, the Moon is an entire world.

We're still doing science on the planet Earth, because there's still plenty to learn, and we actually live here with billions of people.

We've only sent a handful of folks to the Moon so far. We've literally barely scratched the surface, and only a few tiny patches of it as that.

Exploring new places has always lead to all sorts of interesting new discoveries. No reason to think a whole new world mightn't hold a few interesting (and/or potentially lucrative) surprises.

TheRealPomax 2 months ago

Yeah but the Earth is a geologically active planet hosting life. The moon is neither of those things, it's a ball of rock in orbit that we can explore all of "several square feet at a time", so once you've done that a few times: what's left to do? Realistically?

Sure: if we had the ability to actually send a proper mission that can drive around the entire thing, with a pop up lab (arctic research style) on the moon itself, that's a different matter, but we are nowhere near that level of proficient at space science yet, and going to the moon a few more times won't make a difference to that aspect.

Reply View 4 replies

Kim_Bruning 2 months ago

Arctic style base on the moon would be 200 to 500 metric tons of materials to ship. That's 2-5 SpaceX Starship return trips if/when they become operational in a few years time.
There's a number of reservations wrt the practicality of SpaceX Starship of course. That said, it allows us to say there's at least one company projecting a 100 metric ton payload spacecraft in the near future (with prototypes already being tested).
If/when they get it working, remember that SpaceX tends to mass produce their spacecraft, so it wouldn't be just a one off single landing by a one off single lander.

Reply View | 3 replies
- TheRealPomax 2 months ago
  
  No, it's 5 return trips just to get the materials there. That's like... the least problematic part of assembling and running an arctic style base. Especially given that the Arctic has quite a lot of water and oxygen available. And it takes less than a day to send a rescue mission over. The moon has none of that.
  
  Reply View | 2 replies
  
  Kim_Bruning 2 months ago
  
  So in the very near future it looks like we'll have the logistics capability to ship 100-150 tons to the moon every 6 months, at a conservative start.
  So quick computation: 5 trips is 2 and a half years, and then shipping supplies and then people another year or so. At 100-150 tons per year you can supply (back of envelope[1]) 10-20 'overwinterers'[2] with a fairly comfortable margin for a year, as well as equipment and parts.
  There's also no technical reason not to reserve a landing pad for an escape craft that you can rotate every 6-12 months.
  So it seems like the technical capability will be there at least. Then it becomes the question of whether that's financially viable already.
  Can you elucidate further logistical challenges?
  (ps. this post will likely date quickly, since NASA seems to be planning an actual Artemis Base Camp [3])
  [1] Back of envelope suggests something like 3 tons of essential supplies needed per person, assuming the modest oxygen and water recycling as available on ISS, and use of nuclear power.
  [2] By analogy with the arctic base: 10-20 permanent crew for year-round maintenance, with occasional surges 'on season', bringing their own supplies and equipment.
  [3] https://www.nasa.gov/humans-in-space/nasas-artemis-base-camp...
  
  Reply View | 0 replies
  
  [removed] 2 months ago
  
  [deleted]
  
  Reply View | 0 replies