5 ms·
NASA funds 11 moon projects to help mission to 'live off the land
- redeux 3y agoLiving off the land: Listen up folks! The lunar day is roughly 29 1/2 Earth days, the length of a lunar month, and the time of which includes a full day-night cycle. During that time the temperatures can vary from 120° C in the day to -130° C. So consider dressing in layers for a more comfortable moon experience.
- hulitu 3y ago> During that time the temperatures can vary from 120° C in the day to -130° C. The perfect environment for a heatpump.
- api 3y agoLunar settlements would probably be underground or "hobbit homes" piled over with regolith. Nobody's sunbathing on the Moon.
- redeux 3y agoWell, not for long anyway!
- tjoff 3y agoYou just need to have a rolling house going at around 15 km/h to be somewhere in the transition sweetspot all the time!
- albert_e 3y agois that really the approx. speed needed to circumnavigate the Moon in 30 days? Or is this somewhere conveniently nearer the poles :)
- inglor_cz 3y agoThe Moon is about a quarter of the Earth in size (not in weight!), so its equator should be ~ 10 thousand km long. 30 days are ~ 720 hours. Yeah, 15 km/h should do it even on the lunar equator. Ofc the terrain isn't exactly flat, so even 15 km/h might translate into a very bumpy ride.
- swarnie 3y agoA very slow atomic train you say?
- BurningFrog 3y agoPack a beach umbrella.
- ourmandave 3y agoWithout continued support like this, the Moon economy would be cratering.
- KineticLensman 3y agoThe NASA actual announcement is at https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-partners-with-american-companies-on-key-moon-exploration-tech https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-partners-with-americ... I notice that the projects all seem to be hardware focussed (construction, power, etc). There don't seem to be any that look at the biological requirements of 'living off the land'
- hulitu 3y ago> There don't seem to be any that look at the biological requirements of 'living off the land' They want to send robots instead of humans. The AI is there with ChatGPT so they only need some HW to run the LLM. /s
- fnordpiglet 3y agoOxygen and water are discussed, as well as infrastructure for earth imports. That’s probably the basic framework, and the terrariums come later.
- coffeebeanHH 3y agoGlad they didn't put more money into Starshit
- Shawnj2 3y agoDon’t worry, under the current NASA plan NASA can’t land people on the moon until both Starship and Starship HLS are ready
- coffeebeanHH 3y agoThat means NASA won't ever land a human on the moon again. I wouldn't bet my money into scam like that. THere are way more sane options to bet on. And on the plus side Starshit won't probably get human rated anyway. Would you hop on a bomb knowing that you're just part of an idiots interpretation of rapid development and also knowing you're doomed and with 100% certainty going to die in any case of failure? No thanks! Not enough that they're going to destroy the whole wildlife at boca chica and not feel any need to clean up their mess. Honestly I wish them to be grounded at starbase until they handpicked and cleaned every single piece of dust they produced in the area.
- zizee 3y ago> 11 companies that received awards are required to invest their own money to pay at least 10 to 25 percent of their projects’ costs. I'm curious to know if these award "winners" expect to make money on terrestrial applications, or they believe they can make money on the moon. Or perhaps these companies are happy to chip in their own cash for the bragging rights of helping humans return to the moon?
- fnordpiglet 3y agoI am going to conjecture that this is development cost funding and equipment acquisition funding includes profit margin.
- adastra22 3y agoFollow-on purchases from NASA would more than make up for that investment cost. If they are successful and win follow-on contracts.
- Oarch 3y agoThe heart of the article appears to be about BlueOrigin, which has the same owner as the WaPo (the article does note this in fairness)
- fnordpiglet 3y agoThey’re also the big “winner” in the allocation so it seems reasonable.
- vrosas 3y agoThey've been pitching and winning a fair few moonshot (heh) projects as of late, mostly due to their war chest and lobbying power. As a space company they've yet to have a spacecraft (or even one of their BE-4 engines) make it to orbit.
- fnordpiglet 3y agoI think it’s fair though a space economy has more than lift capability companies. Landers, in situ production, habitats, etc, will require a large variety of companies with vastly different specializations. Perhaps blue origin is meant to focus elsewhere ? Reading their Wikipedia page sounds like their real success is in engines but their launch vehicles are delayed but on track for 2024 missions.
- Beached 3y agoI'd hardly say they have been having success in engines either. they can't get working engines to ULA and they keep exploding on the test stand. they also can't seem to hit a deadline they set for themselves.
- urda 3y agoThis is a VERY exciting time in Space!
- queuebert 3y agohttps://web.archive.org/web/20230726145615/https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2023/07/25/nasa-moon-artemis/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230726145615/https://www.washi...
- WhereIsTheTruth 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Research_Station https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Lunar_Research_S... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Prog... NASA's plan seems too shy and selfish in contrast
- raldi 3y agoI don’t understand what you mean; could you elaborate?
- panick21_ 3y agoMan, why can't we just build nuclear reactors. Land a big nuclear reactor and you have enough power for a very, very large base. We don't need to live of the land anytime soon if we can land 100t of cargo per flight.
- hulitu 3y agoNuclear is dirty energy. To be green we need to build wind and solar farms on the moon. /s