China Plans to Build a Moon Base Near the Lunar South Pole

It would take a modern version of the Apollo Program to even go back there again. And as of this time, we do not even have the capability to make the Saturn V rocket. All of those that built those monsters are long retired (if they are even still alive), and the skills and techniques they used in a great many cases are now lost.

So it would take an entirely new rocket, at this time that would be the NASA Space Launch System. At this time, the schedule has Exploration Mission 2 doing a lunar fly-by in 2023. If it works, that will be 51 years after the last Apollo lunar mission.

And after that, they are not even planning on going to the moon. Exploration Missions 3 through 11 (2024-2030+) will be deddicated to building and supporting the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway (LOP-G), a permanently manned space station in lunar orbit. With an eventual Mars launch after 2033 via the Deep Space Transport.

But even that mission will not land on Mars. It will also be a fly-by, of first Venus, then Mars before returning to LOP-G. Actually landing on Mars is not expected until 2040 at the soonest.

We have a lot of technology to recreate first. We do not even have a lunar lander, let alone a Mars lander. And the DSP will have to be redesigned to be able to handle it as well (at this time it is simply an Orion capsule connected to a habitation and propulsion module. The lander module has not even been designed yet.



And yea, I have been following this since it was announced in 2011. As I did the previous Constellation program from 2005 (which was cancelled in 2009). As I did the many STS missions of the Shuttle, and the previous Skylab (the last use of the Saturn V in 1973), the missions to put men on it as well as the Apollo-Soyuz and the original Apollo missions. I do not remember the Gemini program as I was to young. I often find it a shame we likely will not return to the moon before most of those who walked upon it are dead.

 

Oh yes, that is where the Selenites live. How silly of me to forget.

 

I don't know where the deep dust thing came from, but dust is a significant problem on the moon. It is fine enough to permeate pretty much everything and is bad news to inhale. It's believed that dust particles are cycling above ground level and falling back to the surface, leaving something of an "atmosphere" of minute particles smaller than talc. The force for this is thought to be electrostatic and involve incoming radiation. So, they are electrostatically charged and clingy. Heat differences due to sun exposure could be moving these particles in streams across the surface. There is evidence of this from sensors left on the moon on previous missions.

We should hold off on laughing about moon dust.

Also, there is radiation (which is much more serious than for the SST, which is still protected by our magnetosphere), resupply, evacuation, etc.

Perhaps one could also ask why these humans would be on the moon.

 

At this point I don't think it's out of line to request a link to said information.

 

Great analysis! The gateway idea clearly offers opportunity for a wider range of uses than does descending the lunar gravity well.

I'm still concerned with the cost of humans in space, as it has clear potential to swallow the NASA budget, which includes significantly important science objectives.

Launching a human is just monumentally more expensive that launching incredibly capable machines.

And, it's really unfortunate that commercial enterprise hasn't killed the need for the NASA SLS.

 

Sure, although I am sure you will just ignore it and continue with your fantasy.

https://www.livescience.com/61911-trash-on-moon.html

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/factsheets/Apollo.html

https://www.damninteresting.com/the-physics-of-quicksand/

In fact, outside of a laboratory, "dry quicksand" has never been found. It is known now that gravity simply does not allow such to exist (and indeed typical "wet quicksand" is almost never a threat to humans.

So there are several links. How about your links from credible sources that state that it exists.

And BTW, this is the last time I am doing research for you. If you are not willing to provide sources to back up your own claims, maybe you should stick to Conspiracies where nobody expects such things as "facts".

 

Interesting.

Well, I was going by some information in an educational game from my childhood:

 

I am well aware of the hazards of lunar dust. They seem to have some unique characteristics, including being fine and very electrostatic. After the Apollo astronauts returned to their CM it was a constant problem, getting into everything.

Not unlike dust here on Earth, but there is no danger of sinking into it.
​

Well, manned exploration of Mars has a great many intrigued, including geologists here on Earth.

There are many things we have learned about Mars, but many things we do not know. We now know it once had free-flowing water, but not how much, how long it was there, and when it vanished. We also know it is a "dead planet", where the core has largely solidified and the magnetosphere is largely non-existant. These are things we need to learn about, because it can have dire consequences in our own future (although we will likely long be gone by then).

At this time, all of our research into such has only come from a single planet, and there are still more questions than answers. And then there is the question of possibly terraforming the planet. And a lot of the research into that now involves trying to find a way to return an artificial magnetosphere.

And our machines (like any machines) have limits. They can only do what was built into them before they were launched. And both the turn-around time of data/commands and limits of even the most advanced computers today make them very limited.

And to give an idea how limited, the Sojurner only traveled 100 meters before communications were lost 2 months later.

Spirit traveled just under 8 kilometers in the 7 years before communication with it was lost.

Opportunity traveled an impressive 40 kilometers in the 15 years before it was lost.

Curiosity is the only remaining functional rover. And in 7 years it has covered 20 kilometers.

In comparison, in 1972 the Apollo 17 Lunar Rover covered just under 36 kilometers in just 3 days. Carrying astronauts, their tools, equipment, and other scientific instruments a distance that was only surpassed by Opportunity over 15 years.

And with modern technology, we could make a more updated rover that could continue the mission robotically after we have left.

Myself, I see programs like the SLS, LOP-G, and DST as critical to expanding our knowledge of the Universe. And while I admit that a permanently manned outpost on the Moon is not really worth much, the same can not be said of Mars. It has an atmosphere, and maintaining life there is much easier than it would be on the Moon.

And it could be a springboard (like the LOP-G) for future exploration. Of particular interest for future exploration is Europa (Jupiter) and Enceladus (Saturn). Both are believed to have both liquid water, as well as a hydrogen-oxygen atmosphere. Also propects are Ganymede (Jupiter) and Triton (Neptune).

These are not likely within my lifetime, but they are possible within that of my grandchildren.

 

Interesting diagram.

I doubt there will be windows as that would allow penetration by gamma rays and other electromagnetic bombardment that would be critical for humans to avoid pretty much at all cost.

For the same reason, those building walls look impossibly thin for radiation protection - probably even if they were made of some super dense material that would be monumentally difficult to launch. Think lead.

Building materials would need to be pretty much limited to moon regolith I would think. So, I wonder where all those vertical slabs would come from.

I don't understand the need for perimeter fencing.

My bet is this is closer to what a lunar base will look like, using moon regolith to protect against radiation and supply insulation:

 

Here is a chunk of reality:

 

Yes - lava tubes!! Good vid!

I wonder how long someone can stand on the moon in a spacesuit before they are in serious medical trouble and not just from cancer.

https://observer.com/2016/07/space-radiation-devastated-the-lives-of-apollo-astronauts/

 

I read today Japan is going the join NASA and other
with the Lunar Orbital Station NASA is planning,


I like Moon base more.
If there are no handy lava tubes, perhaps tunnels could be dug.
I like the idea of living under ground for added long term protection.

 

It started as a program with the US and Russia. Since then the European Space Agency, Japan, and Canada have joined in. Essentially it is being seen by all of them as a continuation of the ISS mission. Which it essentially is, since all of the ISS partners are also LOP-G partners.

 

This could get very interesting.
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/30/international-space-station-privatize-japan-1132889

 

I read today that trump is planning to build a military base on the dark side of the sun.

 

YES!

But the Moon Orbital Station instead of a Moon Base

stupid is as stupid does

​

Moi

Make Pay
It's Fair Share!​

 

It also looks like the new space shuttle is about to go online:
https://newatlas.com/nasa-dream-chaser-plane-production/57823/

 

It's okay though...he's going at night.

 

Yes, that is the plan. And that is what the LOP-G is, an orbital station.

Think of it as a permanent Command Module. They can then create a reusable lander to go from there to the surface and back. And it makes a lot more sense, an orbital platform is a lot easier to build and maintain than a base on the surface itself. Plus it is the planned assembly and launch platform for the future Mars mission.

Any kind of "moon base" is going to take a lot more exploration first before they even consider that step.

 

Agreed. I doubt there would be many trips down to the Moon due to the cost of launching payloads back to space, but that would work itself out. I like your point about a stable space platform for construction outside the gravity wells of earth and moon.

Plus, it's possible that it could provide an improvement in space communication in that communication to satellites would be somewhat easier from lunar orbit. Today, each satellite has to have the equipment and power to communicate all the way to Earth and then through our atmosphere. I've heard knowledgeable people say we could save in the long run by some investment in a space based communication grid.

 

@Mushroom
@WillReadmore

Better a Moon Base.
Not haphazardly placed but
after some exploratory efforts including
boots on the ground.

Orbital Moon station is just so
very . . . . in so many ways.

A big question on the way to Mars is
survivability & sustainability on another ground based "system".
Moon or Mars.


Moon Base First!
There is enough of the South Pole
to accommodate two!

 

We are a very long way from a Mars base, and I don't see any reason to believe that a Moon base is a necessary first step.

We don't have solutions for allowing astronauts to live through a trip to Mars and back - even if they don't land. It takes 6 to 8 months to get to mars. From there, one must get back. The radiation exposure during such a trip will be far more significant than what is today harming those in our space station that is still inside Earth's protective magnetosphere.

The health concerns are more than just cancer. Scientists are finding serious heart damage, for example.

Let's figure out why were doing these things and put them into a sensible and cost effective timeline. Why do we want a man on the Moon? Why do we want a man on Mars? How much do we value science, which could so easily have its financial LIFE sucked out by these stupendously expensive efforts?

Let's preserve our scientific exploration of our solar system and our universe.

 

It is about sustainability of "us"
on another solid, planetoid, Moon or Mars
development.
I like to believe living under ground has advantages
from various cosmic rays our "magnetosphere" deflects.


Mars.
Is it go and come back as fast as possible
per your proposal above?

 

If by "sustainability of us" you mean perpetuating our species after some Earth calamity, we would have a FAR larger problem in that perpetuating the species on another planet is FAR harder than simply building a base in a lava tube. In order to achieve that, we would have MAJOR resource issues relating to sustaining such a population. We don't have to go there in order to understand those problems or work on solutions. Our unmanned exploration of Mars is completely adequate to gather the required information.

I agree with you about living underground. Humans won't be able to spend all that much time on the surface, as space suits of today don't protect against radiation.

I'm not proposing that humans go to Mars at all. I'm just pointing out that the length of the trip there and back could well be fatal given current capabilities - even without a landing. We see the damage done to those from Apollo missions and our space station. It's dangerous enough that we populate our space station with human guinea pigs and study the health damage to these people.

In my opinion, robots are rapidly improving in capabilities and manned missions are stupendously more expensive than robot missions. Today, it's so expensive to land a human on our space station that we haven't done it. I push for us to continue with science, and I'm concerned, because any of these manned Moon or Mars projects doesn't effectively advance science and is of a size that would wipe out NASA's science budget - including it's study of earth, which earthly agriculture and others put to serious use.

 

When humans explored the United States and elsewhere seeking new colonies, we had no choice but to live off the land. We got our food and resources locally because it was not possible to carry what we needed and built homes from trees or mud we could build with...that is how we expanded west in the U.S. and left Africa millions of years ago. If we are to do this we will need to do the same thing, but in space. Trying to do this by building on any planetary body or moon will instantly present major issues unnecessarily as a space station allows for far more freedom to control Gravity and resources.
Once we understand and make it viable to gain resources (Asteroid mining....etc...) we will be able to begin this new expansion and become the people we need to be for survival.

NASA has thought about this for quite some time, before we had a SpaceX.