If we sent human beings to the moon today, what would we do differently, and what would remain "tried and true" from the 30 year old Apollo program? Just curious. (Sorry if this was asked before...didn't find it in BABB search.)

I'd break it down between two broad categories:
(1.) "Tech" and (2.) "Objectives"

To start with, under category (1.) -
A. The spacesuits would be improved, maybe slightly less bulky. (The artist in me would wish for the more flexible aesthetically pleasing spacesuits as seen in the movie 2001 - (which ironically is about as old as the Apollo program!) But judging from what astronauts wear today during ISS EVAs, I think the new suits would strongly resemble the old ones.) Maybe better boots?

B. I think that due to advances in robotics, we'd want to perhaps bring and/or assemble and release little lunar rovers that could be controlled from Earth. (If you're thinking we don't need a "manned" lunar mission to do that, the criteria is "what could we do differently in a new human mission," and my point here is also more of a dividend, as in as long as we're sending humans to the moon for many other reasons, we might as well have them set these rovers up. The rovers would last months or even years, and could go where it's too dangerous for people. (i.e. Chesley Bonestell country.) They could also suppliment the human exploration. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

C. I think (and I might be wrong) that the basic large hardware layout would be similar: Command module orbits, lunar module lands. Maybe the specifics of the modules would be different, perhaps the LEM would be larger.

D. Some things would have to start back at the first step, like again landing a robot probe before the astronauts were sent.

E. New computers - both hardware and software.

Under category (2.) -

(A.) I think we'd want to go to new lunar locations, especially in light of post-Apollo research.

(B.) More specialists in lunar research, astronomers, and female astronauts should be in on this.

(C.) Saw this in a bad movie once - and in many good Sci-fi novels, we should land and set up self assembling (inflating?) prefab survival stations at various locations near the landing zones, in case of a serious emergency. (Something learned from Antarctic explorers.)

(D.) Perhaps they'd want to stay longer. Where would you like people to land? what new experiments?

That's all I have time for right now....Hope others could suggest better ideas...[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Chip on 2002-10-14 16:48 ]</font>

Dang, as soon as I read your post, I thought of a couple of things. Then you went and listed your suggestions. I had something like 2B and C in mind.
2B is sort of self explanatory. We ladies need to get into this.
There's a little more wiggle room with 2C. How about a small structure that can be added to with subsequent missions? Yes, the arctic is an excellent example of this. When I was a "P" mountain near Thule Greenland, I could tell where corridors and rooms had been added over the years.

<a name="JD2452562.LUc"> page JD2452562.LUc aka Date$
On 2002-10-14 17:30, Lisa wrote: To? October 14, 2002
I do wish I could do this in the correct order:
There are three lunar cycles I would like to get
LONG TERM data on
3? The moon is at first 1/4 ? curent Cycle 29 plus days
2? The moons past Perigee Cycle = Longer than line above?
1:? The moon will be farthest North In Nov ....
So yeah, I admitt I know little, like on what day did the Moon
fron new to new have an orbital period of 29? 28? 20? 7.69 days ?hmm?

Maybe a modest surface structure to start with, then later we bring up bigger tools and dig trenches, insert beams, and cover them over for underground rooms.* Basically lighter equipment leads to heavier equipment assembled on site from lighter parts. Eventually, we could have a partially solar powered station.

* Not like crude dark caves inside. We'd have nice walls, tile, good lighting, ping pong [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] but, like the polar bases on Earth, maybe we'd apply some local materials in construction. Can concrete be made from lunar soil? (I bet NASA has long ago researched this.)

Equipment could perhaps be set up and programmed for long term data collection.

If one of the main objects of a new mission was to set up a preliminary research station, the revolving lunar staff would have long term observational projects, including observing changes as seen from the moon.

For long term stays I'm sure we'd send ready to use habitat modules and such, unmanned, and then when they were down on the surface send the crew. Maybe even use robotics to deploy solar panels and stuff, have everything on auto so the crew would just have to land and hike/drive there.

For longer stays subterranian habitats would probably be necessary, send in a module or two with heavy equipment, could be controlled by robotics as well, and then even the subterranian habitat could be done before the crew got there.

Then again, you could always use the LM if something went wrong (if you didnt wait for the robotics to take care of everything). And the ready to use habitat modules could be used if there was a problem with the LM.

Oh well, I'm just rambling...

A much longer stay time would be essential. It seems daft to spend six days just travelling to and from a destination to only spend a maximum of 3 days actually exploring. I think Apollo would have caught more of the public's immagination if the crews had stayed a month or so.

Having a base built up in bits, with each successive stay adding another part or digging another hole would be a good idea, but this leads you to being confined to one area of the Moon.

There's also job of getting all this stuff there in the first place. The Saturn V was a seriously big and expensive piece of kit, both to buy and to use, yet it could only manage to put a lightweight LM with two guys and a minimum of accessories on the surface of the Moon, and only for 3 days. We'd need an even bigger booster to get any kind of serious stuff to the Moon. I don't think people realise just how far away it is. Remember, the booster used to get the Apollo spacecraft out of Earth orbit and on it's way to the Moon was the size of Skylab.

Very good points to consider.

Here's some information on lunar building material from the Nasa.gov website.

Just to clarify - it was the energy required to put the spacecraft on the right path that required such a huge booster, not the distance to the moon. There are near earth asteroids that are usually much farther away from us than the moon, yet are easier to reach energy-wise.

On the other extreme a commet can get very close to earth and yet be hard to reach because of the huge delta-v(loosely - speed) change required to match its orbit. If you can't afford that much energy - you may be able to get close by for less, but your probe's orbit arround the sun will be nothing like the comet's. This will produce a very fast flyby and not a far more scientifically desirable rendevous.

In short - speed and energy matter far more in orbital mechanics than raw distance does.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cloudy on 2002-10-15 01:37 ]</font>

If we went back, I'm sure it would not be with single stage missions like Apollo. I'd like to see us shuttle up and assemble a much larger kit in orbit, probably at the ISS, then boost our way there when we are ready. Maybe even set up a kind of supply run system, shuttling people and equipment back and forth between Earth orbit and the Moon.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Can you play ping pong on the Moon?

I'd love to be the one to find out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Seriously though, probably not much different - given the light weight of the ball, gravity probably doesn't come into play much, especially in high speed play.

chip wrote

" Can concrete be made from lunar soil? (I bet NASA has long ago researched this.) "

concrete requires water which is both relativly heavy - atleast in the quantity required and incompressible


NASA did file proposals in IIRC 1973/4 for a cool looking tunneling machine which would in theory cut a shaft and seal its walls thermally forming a glassy coating that is airtight

http://www.cowan70.freeserve.co.uk/s...n_the_moon.htm

tells part of the tale

i saw a pic in a kooky mag and the first thing i thought was " that looks heavy "

YRS - APE

If there's no ice found on the Moon, it's enough only to bring hydrogen to the Moon. There is plenty of oxygen in the rocks. And oxygen is the part that makes the water heavy.

Outdoors?

Maybe a little bit boring, as the ball always will follow a nice parabola. But it would still make sense to give the ball a spin so your opponent gets trouble to retarget it when hitting.

Maybe we'll see when the Chinese do their first manned lunar landing. When Al Shepard could play Golf...

A shuttle system to the Moon and back seems like a good idea until you try to figure how to get it back into Earth orbit on it's way back. That would again need a booster the size of Skylab just to slow it down. Unless we could use some form of aerobraking, but then we'd need to get our Metric and Imperial measurements sorted first. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]
As for the energy budget to get stuff to the Moon and to asteroids etc, the Saturn V could barely get the CSM/LM to the Moon. By design, it got the Apollo craft to a point where the Moon's gravity pulled the craft the last bit of the way. The SIVB that has recently been recaptured was in a Solar orbit, and one barely different to the Earth's orbit. I wonder if Eagle's acsent stage will make a comeback some day?

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: johnwitts on 2002-10-15 10:01 ]</font>

Engines the size of Skylab? Would you be using chemical or nuclear rockets? A Saturn V sized booster would be suffient. But a Sea Dragon type launcher would be better(http://astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm). And I'm surprised no one suggested that a primary objective of returning to the moon would be to determine if ice is truely there. Although, I think robots could do this. But they would have to be nuclear powered, since they would probably venture into places where darkness reigns.

I wonder if it's at all possible (and if those good folks at NASA or JPL have done it already) to calculate a free trajectory that alternately swings past the earth and the moon in either an elliptical or figure-8 loop-the-loop. Put a large transfer vehicle on such an orbit and we only need use fuel to transfer to and from it.
Seems too simple to not have already been tried and rejected.

_________________
Pushing the envelope (into the out-tray).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Senor Molinero on 2002-10-16 01:18 ]</font>

First thing to do is find a small cave to use as shelter. The cave should have a small opening for ease of sealing. The use of small remote rovers to assist in the exploration of likely areas would be most effective in finding the right cave. Then an accordian type tube large enough to enter the cave with small equpment is expanded into the cave mouth. A polycarbonate foam is then activated and expanded in the mouth of the cave around the tube to seal the mouth of the cave and then an air lock like the one on the Shuttle is installed on the inside of the tube. The cave is pressurized and can be used for shelter of men, equipment and tools. Used as a base more equipment can be brought up and left there so we don't have to lift a whole new set of the same tools/supplies every time. Then heavier nuclear/solar powered vehicles could be lifted and used to explore the rest of the moon in economical weeks long excursions from the base rather than as enormously expensive days long excursions from the Earth. Of course more bases can be set up in areas of scientific or commercial intrest more econonomicly by borrowing equipment from the first base.
As to getting back to the moon agan. While economies of fuel are important to some extent, the expense of the container of the fuel (the spacecraft) is by far the greater expense. Reusing the spacecraft by leaving it in space and only expending lift effort to refuel it is by far the most economical way to go in creating a sustainable presence on the moon.

There is no free lunch.

But that doesn't mean that that might not be the best way of doing it. Hey, you could have shops, clubs, bunks, maybe even a putting green on it. I betcha the coriolike effect on a thirty-footer would be a bugger.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: GrapesOfWrath on 2002-10-19 12:04 ]</font>

I think we need to spend more time examining the far side. Maybe even set down in a couple of places and take samples. We still haven't examined it as carefully as the near side, and I don't believe there have ever been any landings there.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<a name="2-10-20.DE"> page 2-10-20.DE aka Disclaimer in Effect
On 2002-10-19 12:03, David Hall wrote: to? 5:59 A.M.
maybe its still math hour & maybe not
anyway what i will do is offer a challange to
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, MD 20771

301-286-1258

david.r.williams@gsfc.nasa.gov
to appearhere & explain 2me why0Y can NOT i find Lunakhod2 photos of FLAT ROCK 7:44 A.M. ok thats done?
top of thread
what I would DO
<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-20 22:27 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HUb' on 2002-10-21 10:22 ]</font>

No, there haven't, either manned or unmanned. Trick is that you need some sort of relay satellite to get communications back to Earth.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Unfortunately, such an orbit would not be stable. The orbiter would either be flung off into far space or sent crashing into the earth or moon in a relatively short amount of time (probably <25 orbits or 2 years)

I posit that any construction done on the moon would have to be automated or the structures would have to be totally pre-fab and dropped into place, with minor adjustments by crew to get them just right, and here's why:

Amongst my varied career background I include a LOT (too much) construction and labor work. Here, on earth, on dinky little construction jobs for free-standing 7-11 type structures, people die in horrible fashions - scalded by hot roofing tar, crushed by badly-placed stacks of materials, electrocuted by wiring they just knew wasn't "hot", impaled on rebar they slipped and fell on, falls from as little as five feet, but enough to get turned upside down and land on their skulls...

Construction is dangerous. Here on Mother Earth, in a "safe" environment, unfettered by space suits with no radiation or vaccuum dangers, and doing the same basic work we've been doing for five thousand years of civilized history.

Now, take that same job. Put it on the moon.

Firstly, the environment itself is incredibly hostile. Nowhere else in this solar system will Mother Nature try and succeed in killing you so quickly as there. Next, you're far removed from advanced medical care. Presuming a suit puncture or rip can be repaired, how do you not die from the bends, when the closest hospital with a hyperbaric chamber is maybe on the ISS, a few hundred thousand miles away?

So the environement is extremely hostile, and medical care is sketchy. Next problem? You are, odds on, working with construction materials that are 100% purpose built strictly for the job you are doing right then. There's no "Go cut another length of 2x4 to put here". So even given briefings, simulations and meetings about what you're going to handle, you will not know what to expect until you get it there. That brings up the second possible hazard - the methods used to bond the materials together. Heat? Special glues? Special fittings? All X-factors.

Now, I realize some of you might say "well, the Space station was built without injury or death, as was Mir" but those were done in a largely automated and pre-fabricated fashion.

Construction on the moon - the kind of "dig a trench, build a dome" heavy construction we'd need to get a quantifiable number of pepole living there - will be much much harder than we can possibly fathom.

All IMO, of course.

_________________
I'm a Christian.
I believe the world is millions of years old. Why? Because God gave me COMMON SENSE!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bill S. on 2002-10-21 13:57 ]</font>

Bill S., good point, except for this:
What, as opposed to, say, the surface of Venus? Pluto? The upper atmosphere of Jupiter? The Sun? Maybe nowhere else in the Solar System that humans have so far visited. But then again, undersea research would be a daunting environment, too.

Also, they would definitely have a pressure chamber nearby. The airlock on their vessel, or the cabin itself, would be pressurizable. We're not talking needing higher pressures than earth normal as earth hyperbaric chambers. All they need is pressure to the level they were at. The death from a hole in a suit would be far more likely an immediate occurrence rather than a case of the bends. You survive the puncture and get back to a module or whatnot, the bends won't really be a problem.

<a name="2-10-22.NN"> page 2-10-22.NN aka Nitrogen Narcosus
On 2002-10-22 06:43, Irishman wrote:





the bends won't really be a problem.

IN FACT THERE WOULD BE NO nitrogen.

Point taken. I used "The bends" interchangably with "complications arising from sudden decompression".

__________________
I am a common-sense Christian.

You're right. A bit of dramatic license there on my part, I apologize. It'd just be a damned dangerous place to hang drywall, that's for sure...

(BTW, does anyone know if there were quantities of gypsum found in lunar samples?)

__________________
I am a common-sense Christian.

To say nothing of soil compression, any ideas on how to build a decent structure up there had better first better figure out how to make the regolith dense enough to support it or any heavy structure up there is going to collapse when the dirt its built on settles under it.