7 ms·

How about a moon base we could use as a base camp for missions to the outer solar system or mars? H3 mining is another thought. Edit: other ideas * Autonomou

How about a moon base we could use as a base camp for missions to the outer solar system or mars? H3 mining is another thought. Edit: other ideas * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split into H and O for propellant. * Mining of other materials to be used on site or sent back to earth. * Attempt to get people to be self sufficient on another world, even if it took a hundred years. * Depot for deep space asteroid mining ships/drones to drop off their cargo and refuel/repair without having to drop all the way down to Earth.

lorenzhs 9y ago
Unless you can make propellant on the moon, that’s going to be less economical than going directly. There’s nothing to be gained by going down another (albeit not very deep) gravity well. The base camp analogy doesn’t really apply.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  You could make propellant on the Moon (from water). The Moon is also a good place to test Mars-related procedures (couple dozen hours of travel beats couple dozen months in case of an emergency). Finally, I imagine building a telescope on the "dark side" is astronomers' wet dream.
  - lorenzhs 9y ago
    Hm, hydrolox could indeed be possible. Didn’t think of that. But you’d still need a very large number of missions to make construction and maintenance of the moon base cheaper than just directly going where you want to go. It’s probably going to be a while before a moon base makes sense for economical reasons. Also, the moon does not have a dark side. It has a far side that never faces the earth, but the sun shines there just like it does on the other side.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      > you’d still need a very large number of missions to make construction and maintenance of the moon base cheaper than just directly going where you want to go. We can't forever just launch point-to-point missions from Earth's surface. The Moon meshes up well with industrial space activities around Earth, which we'll need anyway, and which'll create plenty of demand around itself for missions and resources. > It has a far side that never faces the earth, but the sun shines there just like it does on the other side. Sure, but a) lack of atmosphere while still having stable ground underneath helps, plus b) lack of RF noise from Earth would really help radiotelescopes, which was what I was thinking about when writing my previous comment.
      - gnarbarian 9y ago
        >The Moon meshes up well with industrial space activities around Earth, which we'll need anyway, and which'll create plenty of demand around itself for missions and resources. This is essentially my argument. Short term it doesn't offer many advantages but without it, it makes the really big and cool industrial space projects more difficult.
    - oldcynic 9y ago
      Why can't it make sense on economic grounds? I would imagine that once there was a moonbase there would be a number of rather wealthy people who would like to visit. After all if Blue Planet can cause interest in luxury $4m submarines[0] I don't see why the moon would be an exception. Who knows, seeing Earth from outside might even trigger some activity to keep it viable for us! [0] https://www.slashgear.com/aston-martins-next-luxury-vehicle-is-a-submarine-28502041/ https://www.slashgear.com/aston-martins-next-luxury-vehicle-...
      - TeMPOraL 9y ago
        You can't hope to maintain a Moon settlement off the back of ultra-rich peoples' vacation fads. For one, the whole scheme would collapse once the super-rich get bored. A moon base needs better and more stable funding, and for that it needs a reason. Science will not be enough, but the demands of a cislunar economy (propellant, off-world settlements for workets) just might.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
TaylorAlexander 9y ago
I guess that feels a little like England setting up a base in Greenland as a supply depot to stop at before crossing the Atlantic to the new world. There’s way more stuff at their home base so it’s hard to see how adding a far off stop in a desolate place will help.
- akvadrako 9y ago
  Well for one Greenland is outside the massive gravity well of England. So you can save a lot of fuel only shipping things back to Greenland between missions.
- gt_ 9y ago
  Or like England setting up a base at Sealand before crossing the Atlantic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
- gnarbarian 9y ago
  I'm thinking more long term. Things I'd like to see: * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split into H and O for propellant. * Mining of other materials to be used on site or sent back to earth. * Attempt to get people to be self sufficient on another world, even if it took a hundred years. * Depot for deep space asteroid mining ships/drones to drop off their cargo and refuel/repair without having to drop all the way down to Earth.
  - lorenzhs 9y ago
    The moon’s inclination is 5 degrees to the ecliptic, you’d have to try really hard to find a worse place to put solar panels. Self-sufficiency would require manufacturing complex organical compounds and is total science fiction stuff, and will likely remain that way for a looong time.
    - 9y ago
vkou 9y ago
Practical applications for He3 have been 30 years away for the past 50 years.
zipwitch 9y ago
SF author Charles Stross has a couple of damning criticisms of He3 mining on the moon, found here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshine.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshin... In short: Nobody's built any useful (for power generation) fusion reactor yet, much less one running He3. There isn't actually much He3 on the moon, just more than here on Earth. It's doubtful that mining on the moon would be cheaper than just making it here.
Maybestring 9y ago
Some lunar base advocates push the "exploration base camp" narrative. But I find it disengenuius. It's too far away in terms of energy cost, and too close in terms of travel time.

lorenzhs 9y ago

Unless you can make propellant on the moon, that’s going to be less economical than going directly. There’s nothing to be gained by going down another (albeit not very deep) gravity well. The base camp analogy doesn’t really apply.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
You could make propellant on the Moon (from water). The Moon is also a good place to test Mars-related procedures (couple dozen hours of travel beats couple dozen months in case of an emergency). Finally, I imagine building a telescope on the "dark side" is astronomers' wet dream.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  Hm, hydrolox could indeed be possible. Didn’t think of that. But you’d still need a very large number of missions to make construction and maintenance of the moon base cheaper than just directly going where you want to go. It’s probably going to be a while before a moon base makes sense for economical reasons. Also, the moon does not have a dark side. It has a far side that never faces the earth, but the sun shines there just like it does on the other side.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    > you’d still need a very large number of missions to make construction and maintenance of the moon base cheaper than just directly going where you want to go. We can't forever just launch point-to-point missions from Earth's surface. The Moon meshes up well with industrial space activities around Earth, which we'll need anyway, and which'll create plenty of demand around itself for missions and resources. > It has a far side that never faces the earth, but the sun shines there just like it does on the other side. Sure, but a) lack of atmosphere while still having stable ground underneath helps, plus b) lack of RF noise from Earth would really help radiotelescopes, which was what I was thinking about when writing my previous comment.
    - gnarbarian 9y ago
      >The Moon meshes up well with industrial space activities around Earth, which we'll need anyway, and which'll create plenty of demand around itself for missions and resources. This is essentially my argument. Short term it doesn't offer many advantages but without it, it makes the really big and cool industrial space projects more difficult.
  - oldcynic 9y ago
    Why can't it make sense on economic grounds? I would imagine that once there was a moonbase there would be a number of rather wealthy people who would like to visit. After all if Blue Planet can cause interest in luxury $4m submarines[0] I don't see why the moon would be an exception. Who knows, seeing Earth from outside might even trigger some activity to keep it viable for us! [0] https://www.slashgear.com/aston-martins-next-luxury-vehicle-is-a-submarine-28502041/ https://www.slashgear.com/aston-martins-next-luxury-vehicle-...
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      You can't hope to maintain a Moon settlement off the back of ultra-rich peoples' vacation fads. For one, the whole scheme would collapse once the super-rich get bored. A moon base needs better and more stable funding, and for that it needs a reason. Science will not be enough, but the demands of a cislunar economy (propellant, off-world settlements for workets) just might.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

TaylorAlexander 9y ago

I guess that feels a little like England setting up a base in Greenland as a supply depot to stop at before crossing the Atlantic to the new world. There’s way more stuff at their home base so it’s hard to see how adding a far off stop in a desolate place will help.

akvadrako 9y ago
Well for one Greenland is outside the massive gravity well of England. So you can save a lot of fuel only shipping things back to Greenland between missions.
gt_ 9y ago
Or like England setting up a base at Sealand before crossing the Atlantic. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand
gnarbarian 9y ago
I'm thinking more long term. Things I'd like to see: * Autonomous vehicles sent ahead of time to build habitats for people. * Large underground bases dug into the bedrock positioned at the poles collecting solar energy. * Long tracks to launch things into space/earth electromagnetically. * Mining of ice which could get split into H and O for propellant. * Mining of other materials to be used on site or sent back to earth. * Attempt to get people to be self sufficient on another world, even if it took a hundred years. * Depot for deep space asteroid mining ships/drones to drop off their cargo and refuel/repair without having to drop all the way down to Earth.
- lorenzhs 9y ago
  The moon’s inclination is 5 degrees to the ecliptic, you’d have to try really hard to find a worse place to put solar panels. Self-sufficiency would require manufacturing complex organical compounds and is total science fiction stuff, and will likely remain that way for a looong time.
  - 9y ago

vkou 9y ago

Practical applications for He3 have been 30 years away for the past 50 years.

zipwitch 9y ago

SF author Charles Stross has a couple of damning criticisms of He3 mining on the moon, found here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshine.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/08/moonshin... In short: Nobody's built any useful (for power generation) fusion reactor yet, much less one running He3. There isn't actually much He3 on the moon, just more than here on Earth. It's doubtful that mining on the moon would be cheaper than just making it here.

Maybestring 9y ago

Some lunar base advocates push the "exploration base camp" narrative. But I find it disengenuius. It's too far away in terms of energy cost, and too close in terms of travel time.