As an advocate of his position, I’m mad that he doesn’t support it well. He makes 5 arguments:
1. It’s the gravity, stupid!
If humans are ever going to settle the heavenly worlds that dot our sky, then we need to find out whether our bodies are suitable to survive long term off world.
No. Artificial gravity is as easy as a carnival ride. Mars has gravity so this doesn’t speak to Moon before Mars.
2. Gravity Well Hell
Lets face it, space is expensive.
It’s an open question whether the Moon should be settled before LEO which is poorly addressed. Again, Mars has air, water and land so why is the Moon better?
3. Drill, Baby Drill!
He says we need drill the Moon to harness asteroid wealth. Huh? Can’t we do this on Phobos or Deimos?
I’m totally in favour of a Moon base before a Mars base. Clayton even leaves out one of the most important reasons: ISRU, particularly of lunar oxygen. Another reason is incrementality. This is related to the Moon as a trial run for Mars, but it is not the same thing. It is also about getting partial return on investment sooner and for less money.
But for exactly that same reason, even before we (and by ‘we’, I mean ‘you the US taxpayer’ 🙂 ) build a moon base, we should build an L1/L2 base.
It is the cheapest and least technologically risky step beyond LEO that is possible. It could be done within 5 years. For that reason it is also the destination that’s most accessible to commercial and international players. It could be resupplied by EELV, Falcon 9 or Ariane V.
A properly modified Altair ascent module precursor could serve as a first version of a man-tended gateway station. In that way, you get a staging post that you can reach without needing a monstrous new EDS. An existing Delta IV upper stage can get even the exceedingly heavy Orion to L1 with enough fuel to do both the final insertion burn and the TEI to get home. A Dragon sized vehicle could likely get there by Centaur.
Later on it would serve as a staging point on the way to the moon, but for true incrementality it would need immediate applications as well. These could include research into radiation dosimetry and shielding methods. This would be crucial for long term missions beyond the van Allen belts: Moon, NEO, Mars and asteroid missions are all served by this. A simple L1 station could also support telerobotic operation of drillers and maybe even telerobotic repair of components of a robotic ISRU pilot plant.
Resupply would be facilitated by tugs, which would in turn profit from a propellant depot (which itself profits from being resupplied with the help of tugs). Propellant depots are a good and long overdue idea anyway. The simplest, cheapest and least risky depot possible would be a hypergolic depot. Orion ‘already’ uses hypergolics, so the depot would have immediate customers. Plausible other near-term customers include evolved versions of ATV, Cygnus or refuelable Russian Fregat stages.
A next step could be to develop a reusable hypergolic shuttle as a precursor to a full lander. It would significantly simpler since it wouldn’t have to deal with the complexities of landing itself and would therefore faster to develop.
It could take people to lots of interesting places in near-Earth space (LLO/L1/L2/L4/L5/GEO), particularly SEL-2, which would be a crucial staging place for interplanetary missions. The first missions could be to a NEO, which is important for ISRU as well, since it is unclear whether lunar ISRU or asteroidal ISRU would be more promising. Such missions have been proposed by NASA Ames, though starting in LEO with a Centaur as an EDS combined with propulsion by a lander precursor. With L1 and SEL-2 staging, it would work even with hypergolic propulsion.
I would argue for doing at least a couple of NEO missions before building a lunar outpost. Especially since that gives you some time to reap the fruits of investment in the shuttle as a lander precursor.
So yes, a lunar base before a Mars base, but a lot of other things first. The key is to choose precursor systems judiciously and to deploy new elements in one to two year spirals.
Hi Martijn!
I’ve been flogging reusable landers here for a while – for example, see this link from August 2006:
My position hasn’t changed much since then except that I no longer use the term r-LSAM but have moved on to RLL (resuable lunar lander) to avoid annoying Edward Wright.
As I wrote back then:
. . . The LSAM should be single stage LOX & ?? from the very beginning. A handful of RL-10s may be sufficient for this r-LSAM although better choices from Masten or Armadillo et. al. will surely exist soon enough.
LOX and ?? – – > H2? CH4? Some alcohol or another? I dunno.
Lunar LOX extraction should commence as soon as possible as a high priority item. And remember that some of the combustion products from every landing and launch (H2O and C02) will accumulate on the regolith underneath the landing pad.
If we intend to sift regolith for He3, why not sift for H2O and CO2 to make methane, while we are at it?
= = =
EML-1 and EML-2 strike me as the only logical places to park an r-LSAM between uses.
Posted by Bill White at August 16, 2006 01:12 PM
Also, the Helium-3. Well, if Polywell fusion works out that is.
Josh,
The Boron with proton (PB-11) reaction is better for the Pollywell design, as it gives off no neutrons, and is what Dr. Richard Nebel recommends. Helium-3 is a backup for all fusion reactions, of course.
Hey Bill, good to see you here. I know I’m playing catch-up with this sort of stuff. When googling I occasionally find very interesting threads in the old version of this blog. It makes me want to jump in, but that’s kind of weird with threads that have been dead for two years, and pointless since nobody would see it…
It makes me want to jump in, but that’s kind of weird with threads that have been dead for two years, and pointless since nobody would see it…
Too bad this isn’t a forum, where they could pop back up to the top with a new post …
None of his five arguments are strong. I even feel they make the opposite case. In particular being three days away. I see that as a huge problem. The Moon is fine as a test area. The problem is we need to be thinking colony and not base. A colony implies self sufficiency that a base doesn’t. It’s not total, but it is a totally different perception.
I’d like to see colonies everywhere, but to give it any kind of chance at independence we have to ask… where is the most Earth like environment outside the Earth. That question has just one answer.
You can make a lot of different arguments but we need to realize they do not all carry the same weight. Independence from Earth should be a core priority. Again, not total, but as much as possible. That will create new markets faster than anything else. It will bootstrap other colonies. It will mitigate the risk that a political change in the winds will shut down progress. Independence is key. The Moon is just too close.
As an advocate of his position, I’m mad that he doesn’t support it well. He makes 5 arguments:
1. It’s the gravity, stupid!
If humans are ever going to settle the heavenly worlds that dot our sky, then we need to find out whether our bodies are suitable to survive long term off world.
No. Artificial gravity is as easy as a carnival ride. Mars has gravity so this doesn’t speak to Moon before Mars.
2. Gravity Well Hell
Lets face it, space is expensive.
It’s an open question whether the Moon should be settled before LEO which is poorly addressed. Again, Mars has air, water and land so why is the Moon better?
3. Drill, Baby Drill!
He says we need drill the Moon to harness asteroid wealth. Huh? Can’t we do this on Phobos or Deimos?
4. The Moon [is] only three (3) days journey away
Here’s a good reason finally. Here’s what I say on the subject: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/221/1
5. observing someone live upon the Moon would be good.
Or on Mars. But you can see the New Moon lit by a settlement from Earth with a naked eye.
Ken Murphy’s Twenty-five Good Reasons To Go To The Moon..
I’m totally in favour of a Moon base before a Mars base. Clayton even leaves out one of the most important reasons: ISRU, particularly of lunar oxygen. Another reason is incrementality. This is related to the Moon as a trial run for Mars, but it is not the same thing. It is also about getting partial return on investment sooner and for less money.
But for exactly that same reason, even before we (and by ‘we’, I mean ‘you the US taxpayer’ 🙂 ) build a moon base, we should build an L1/L2 base.
It is the cheapest and least technologically risky step beyond LEO that is possible. It could be done within 5 years. For that reason it is also the destination that’s most accessible to commercial and international players. It could be resupplied by EELV, Falcon 9 or Ariane V.
A properly modified Altair ascent module precursor could serve as a first version of a man-tended gateway station. In that way, you get a staging post that you can reach without needing a monstrous new EDS. An existing Delta IV upper stage can get even the exceedingly heavy Orion to L1 with enough fuel to do both the final insertion burn and the TEI to get home. A Dragon sized vehicle could likely get there by Centaur.
Later on it would serve as a staging point on the way to the moon, but for true incrementality it would need immediate applications as well. These could include research into radiation dosimetry and shielding methods. This would be crucial for long term missions beyond the van Allen belts: Moon, NEO, Mars and asteroid missions are all served by this. A simple L1 station could also support telerobotic operation of drillers and maybe even telerobotic repair of components of a robotic ISRU pilot plant.
Resupply would be facilitated by tugs, which would in turn profit from a propellant depot (which itself profits from being resupplied with the help of tugs). Propellant depots are a good and long overdue idea anyway. The simplest, cheapest and least risky depot possible would be a hypergolic depot. Orion ‘already’ uses hypergolics, so the depot would have immediate customers. Plausible other near-term customers include evolved versions of ATV, Cygnus or refuelable Russian Fregat stages.
A next step could be to develop a reusable hypergolic shuttle as a precursor to a full lander. It would significantly simpler since it wouldn’t have to deal with the complexities of landing itself and would therefore faster to develop.
It could take people to lots of interesting places in near-Earth space (LLO/L1/L2/L4/L5/GEO), particularly SEL-2, which would be a crucial staging place for interplanetary missions. The first missions could be to a NEO, which is important for ISRU as well, since it is unclear whether lunar ISRU or asteroidal ISRU would be more promising. Such missions have been proposed by NASA Ames, though starting in LEO with a Centaur as an EDS combined with propulsion by a lander precursor. With L1 and SEL-2 staging, it would work even with hypergolic propulsion.
I would argue for doing at least a couple of NEO missions before building a lunar outpost. Especially since that gives you some time to reap the fruits of investment in the shuttle as a lander precursor.
So yes, a lunar base before a Mars base, but a lot of other things first. The key is to choose precursor systems judiciously and to deploy new elements in one to two year spirals.
Hi Martijn!
I’ve been flogging reusable landers here for a while – for example, see this link from August 2006:
http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/007545.html
My position hasn’t changed much since then except that I no longer use the term r-LSAM but have moved on to RLL (resuable lunar lander) to avoid annoying Edward Wright.
As I wrote back then:
. . . The LSAM should be single stage LOX & ?? from the very beginning. A handful of RL-10s may be sufficient for this r-LSAM although better choices from Masten or Armadillo et. al. will surely exist soon enough.
LOX and ?? – – > H2? CH4? Some alcohol or another? I dunno.
Lunar LOX extraction should commence as soon as possible as a high priority item. And remember that some of the combustion products from every landing and launch (H2O and C02) will accumulate on the regolith underneath the landing pad.
If we intend to sift regolith for He3, why not sift for H2O and CO2 to make methane, while we are at it?
= = =
EML-1 and EML-2 strike me as the only logical places to park an r-LSAM between uses.
Posted by Bill White at August 16, 2006 01:12 PM
Also, the Helium-3. Well, if Polywell fusion works out that is.
Josh,
The Boron with proton (PB-11) reaction is better for the Pollywell design, as it gives off no neutrons, and is what Dr. Richard Nebel recommends. Helium-3 is a backup for all fusion reactions, of course.
Hey Bill, good to see you here. I know I’m playing catch-up with this sort of stuff. When googling I occasionally find very interesting threads in the old version of this blog. It makes me want to jump in, but that’s kind of weird with threads that have been dead for two years, and pointless since nobody would see it…
Too bad this isn’t a forum, where they could pop back up to the top with a new post …
None of his five arguments are strong. I even feel they make the opposite case. In particular being three days away. I see that as a huge problem. The Moon is fine as a test area. The problem is we need to be thinking colony and not base. A colony implies self sufficiency that a base doesn’t. It’s not total, but it is a totally different perception.
I’d like to see colonies everywhere, but to give it any kind of chance at independence we have to ask… where is the most Earth like environment outside the Earth. That question has just one answer.
You can make a lot of different arguments but we need to realize they do not all carry the same weight. Independence from Earth should be a core priority. Again, not total, but as much as possible. That will create new markets faster than anything else. It will bootstrap other colonies. It will mitigate the risk that a political change in the winds will shut down progress. Independence is key. The Moon is just too close.