Desperately Seeking: Moon First Advocate


As it seems Paul Spudis isn't going to respond I am left without a sparring partner. Anyone who wants to pick up the gloves and make the case for returning to the Moon, come at it. The ground rules are simple: you must make an argument as to why we should return to the Moon first. It would also be good if you could explain how NASA can do it within a time frame that can be sold politically and within the current budget profile, but I'll settle for a why that makes sense. Note that if you just preach the dogma of someone else, you're unlikely to be able to defend it, so, please, only apply if you've got the stones.

Comments

  1. Bill White7:53 AM

    Would deploying an EML-1 transfer station count as "Moon First" or not?

    ReplyDelete
  2. QuantumG10:22 AM

    Bill, your book is entirely about commercial development of the Moon, so you're taking an end run around the question :)

    But if you were advocating for NASA to dedicate its limited resources to developing an EML-1 transfer station and then landers, before going beyond cis-lunar space, if at all, then yes, I think you'd be in the Moon First camp.

    Now, if you were advocating an EML-1 transfer station, lunar ISRU provided robotically, with a focus on deep-space capability, then I'd put you in the Flexible Path camp, even though you advocate more infrastructure than is envisioned by the new NASA direction.

    To be clear:

    Mars First = let's stay home until we're ready to land on Mars.
    Moon First = let's stay home until we're ready to land on the Moon.
    Flexible Path = let's go to low gravity destinations in deep space until we've got landers for the Moon or Mars or both.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bill White1:25 PM

    What I advocate "in real life" is an EML-1 facility that can simultaneously support:

    a) Lunar exploration and ISRU development (do as much with robots as is feasible and add people as is necessary). I note that a reusable lunar lander that parks at EML-1 between missions could deliver and recover Robonauts and rovers anywhere on the lunar surface as well as deliver people to various points on the lunar surface.

    b) Use the Gateway to stage exploration beyond cis-lunar space (whether NEOs or Phobos/Deimos or Mars). Recall that fuel, supplies (radiation shielding?) and equipment needed for sending humans beyond cis-lunar space can be stockpiled at EML-1 (or EML-2) efficiently using low delta v / high delta v trajectories.

    c) Task the EML-1 Gateway to support several spacefaring nations simultaneously.

    Whether "Moon First" makes sense (IMHO) is a function of how difficult it will be to harvest lunar water for rocket fuel.

    Also, how much of that lunar ISRU will be human or robotic is currently unknown (again IMHO) and therefore we should be willing to consider human presence for ISRU but curtail that if the robots can succeed without us.

    In any event, delivery of lunar water to EML-1 or EML-2 for use as rocket fuel would be a significant game changer, also IMHO, as always.

    Therefore, I am tentatively "Moon First" subject to amendment based on early results of robotic precursor missions.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Bill White1:33 PM

    PS -- I am somewhat surprised by the NewSpace support for FY2011, given the relative lack of in-space infrastructure found in that proposal.

    ReplyDelete
  5. QuantumG1:39 PM

    Thanks for the clarification Bill. I recommended your book to someone today and they seemed interested enough to buy it.

    He did ask: where's SpaceX?!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bill White1:49 PM

    Where's SpaceX? In my novel?

    Never explicitly mentioned but "ITAR restricted" and thus unavailable to my protagonists would be a reasonable inference to draw from the text.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Neil Halelamien6:02 PM

    Hmm, I had a longer response written, but I seem to have lost it due to a closed window or some-such. The gist of it is that one could make an argument that the Moon is a better mid-term target for commercial ventures, and so if one wanted to do a public/private exploration partnership of some sort the Moon might be a better option. Maybe.

    ReplyDelete
  8. QuantumG7:44 PM

    Neil, absolutely, and that's what a number of people do, including Dennis Wingo and Dr Phil Harris. To which, I have to ask, isn't it begging the question? The Moon is close to humanity's *current* home, but will it be relevant to our *future* homes? See http://quantumg.blogspot.com/2010/07/future-mines-of-humanity.html

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Disabling OS-X Device Removal Warnings In Yosemite

Image
If you're anything like me you've probably seen the Disk Not Ejected Properly message so many times that you've forgotten how annoying it is.. despite the fact that you never even wrote anything to the usb drive that you're yanking out of your Mac the operating system insists that you remove it "correctly". You're supposed to click the eject button. Why? I dunno, Apple seems to think that if you can write to it then the operating system might have written to it - and being Apple, they probably have. Well ya know what? Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me. Note: this will not fix your external drive disconnecting when your Mac goes to sleep. For that problem try disabling "put hard drive to sleep when possible" in both the Battery and Power Adapter tabs of the OS energy saver settings. What appears below is a dirty hack for deliberately removing a warning that Apple insists on showing you every single time you yank out a usb stick.
Read more

Rebirth Of The Spaceship

Image
Over the last year the space advocate community has splintered into two major groups in answering the question "where should we go next?" Moon First or Mars First . This division was present in the Review of Human Spaceflight (aka Augustine) committee's final report in late 2009, with the surprising conclusion that there isn't the funds for either, suggesting a number of intermediate destinations first - including asteroids. However, as few people consider asteroids to be truly interesting destinations for the human utilization of space ( except me! ), the debate rages on. Many Moon First advocates are "Mars Next" advocates while most Mars First advocates are "Moon Again?" detractors. The former claim that Mars exploration will benefit from lunar exploration, particularly in experience and risk reduction, and perhaps the procurement of propellant. The latter claim that lunar exploration is just a distraction and want to avoid the risk of be
Read more

Mars Direct Without Super Heavy Lift

Image
For a decade or two now the proponents of Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct have been bemoaning the lack of super heavy lift (any vehicle that can lift more than 50 ton to LEO). While few advocates claim a heavy lift launch vehicle is the only component of the Mars Direct plan which is missing, most consider it a necessary prerequisite. Before I tell you why I think that's simply wrong, let's just make a quick list of all the other things we still need: decent life support, space suits for Mars, rovers that run on methane/LOX, the ISRU propellant production system, bigger entry/descent/landing systems than have ever been flown, portable field equipment for the science mission, artificial gravity generation, and the habitat itself. Oh yeah, and a space rated nuclear reactor. The beautiful innovation of the Mars Direct plan was the use of the Mars atmosphere to produce the return propellant so it doesn't need to be carried all the way from Earth. Without this simple idea t
Read more