First the simple answer.

BRAD: Lunar exploration has value in and of itself.

Anytime I hear somebody say “X has value in and of itself”, it usually means they don’t know what they are talking about. Building a base on the Moon is an “in order to”. You need to be able to answer “in order to WHAT”.

BRAD: Now will you do me the courtesy of responding to the actual content of my posts instead of putting words into my mouth?

OK, I have re-read your posts in this thread. I will give you a more complete answer.

1) Your posts do not make the case for the GENERAL value of the “human lunar exploration” over other places human could explore. You just assert it, but you don’t explain it.

2) In your first post, you do assert a specific value for “discovering the limits and dangers of long-term low-gravity conditions to human health.”

You then correctly state, in my opinion, “That information is absolutely vital to proper design of any deep space manned exploration missions, whether the destination is Mars or anywhere else”

However, you then go off the rails for this SINGLE specific benefit that you list.

I then challenged you, saying that IF this is the objective — and it was the ONLY specific objective you mentioned (go back and re-read your own posts — that we should have a general research program that finds out where the key biological factors kick in. You then state (starting the circular argument):

BRAD: But lunar missions provide low-G data as a free by-product of lunar exploration.

This presumes you have already made a case that justifies the cost of lunar base in the first place.

Which you have not.

Now you state:

Lunar exploration has value in and of itself. There are many interesting places to explore in the solar system. But reaching many of those other places requires information we don’t yet possess, and long term stays on the moon will aid filling that information gap. Therefore the next logical objective of manned space exploration is long term stays on the moon.

This is correct in only one case.

If long-term stays on the Moon are the CHEAPEST, QUICKEST, or BEST way, to acquire this health information. If true, you would have a case to make.

But that is just not true. There are alternatives for acquiring that information, and some of them are much cheaper, quicker and better.

– Al

Al, WTF?

I suppose I could just copy and repost my entire previous response but I suspect it wouldn’t do much good. Oh hell, maybe if a reword something.

Lunar exploration has value in and of itself. There are many interesting places to explore in the solar system. But reaching many of those other places requires information we don’t yet possess, and long term stays on the moon will aid filling that information gap. Therefore the next logical objective of manned space exploration is long term stays on the moon.

Now just because I agree with a lunar base as a logical next step DOES NOT mean I endorse any specific means by which NASA currently plans to achieve that objective. I do not agree with the ESAS architecture. Is that clear?

Now will you do me the courtesy of responding to the actual content of my posts instead of putting words into my mouth?

What makes you think that saying “spend over $100 Billion on human lunar exploration, and get free low-G data as a free by-product” is an effective sales tactic?

You completely ignore the STRATEGIC question of justifying why this nation should spend >$100 Billion on human exploration of the Moon, and get wrapped up in a sales TACTIC.

This may work for small retail sales, but it is not advisable for a national initiative of such huge scope.

It will be much more effective if we first figure out what our elected representatives want, and then figure out how to give it to them.

FWIW,

– Al

“Politics is not rocket science, which is why rocket scientists do not understand politics”

In the near term no one will spend the billions needed to keep men in space for 6-months plus stays in a LEO variable-G lab which only provides data on human biology. But lunar missions provide low-G data as a free by-product of lunar exploration.

I’m as eager as anyone else to get to Mars. But long term stays on the moon are the next sensible step in manned space exploration. If human presence is to expand into the Solar System (for any purpose whether it’s exploration, commerce or colonization) we need to advance in logical steps, learning what we need to suceed during the process.

All of these items point us at one thing- the Moon. We need humans in space- robots can’t do it all. We need to look at what 1/6th gravity does to a human over time.

If that is the problem, then there are many potential solutions, and they should all be evaluated.

If that is the problem, what we really need to figure out is WHERE does gravity kick in for turning on our biological mechanisms?

Does is work at 1/6th g? Does it work at 1/3 g? 1/2 g? 1/10g?

Can somebody sleep in a centrifuge for 8 hours at 1/X g, and get the health benefits needed for long-term (decades) survival in space?

The only way to complete this research is by having a variable G research facility. Putting people on the Moon will not answer all the questions — it only answers the questions for the Moon. Putting people on Mars will not either.

DAVID STEVER: We need to shield those bodies, and the Moon is rocked in rock and rubble that can be used for shelter.

Again, you are posing this as a general problem. There are many potential ways to shield bodies that need to considered. Using regolith only solves the problem for planetary bodies. We need to also solve the problem for longer trips in free-space. There are many options for shielding in free-space, but learning how to move/process regolith (a good thing to learn) does not solve that problem.

DAVID STEVER: we know we need gravity to keep our feet down and our heads up.

And why is this important?

BOTTOM LINE: These are straw man arguments to justify going to the Moon.

If it did not cost so much — $100 Billion being the starting price — I would say “Let’s do it”. But considering the huge cost — which the GAO estimates to be over $200 Billion — we need to really know why we are going to the Moon, and have a real plan to produce those results.

NASA, when asked “why are we going to the Moon?” can’t to this day give a compelling answer. Instead they give a long list of arguments developed by a committee. This laundry list reminds me of the long list of arguments that NASA used to give to justify Space Station Freedom in the 1980s.

FWIW,

– Al

Yes, you are correct, that is worth something. The problem is, that “something” is not something you can add to the balance sheet, take to the bank and use for collateral for a loan. You could increase the value of your “good will” on the balance sheet, but that is so often times exploited that banks discount that amount by 90 percent in some cases.

If the spot you picked that rock from, on the moon, was owned by you, if you owned the mineral rights to it you would gain several assets that could be immediately introduced to the market.

You could sell the mineral rights for the regolith, minerals by type and parcel off the land and sell lots. Just bringing that ONE rock home you have created several products for market PLUS the ASSET value of the land and each mineral right that you decide to sell from your holdings. All with can be used for collateral for loans from banks and investor groups.

Page 5 contains the statement:
“Among the conclusions of this group is that ‘the purpose of sustained human exploration is to go to Mars and beyond,’ and that a series of intermediate destinations, each with its own intrinsic value, should be established as steps toward that goal. The consensus statements and viewpoints expressed by this group of experts form the basis for the principles and recommendations contained in this document.”

This statement is a blatant and intentionally dishonest misrepresentation of the recommendations and sentiments of the group.

We had extensive discussions about what the conclusion of the workshop might be. While the conclusion reported in the Roadmap was clearly the predisposition of several members of the group, particularly the organizers, it was definitively and clearly not the consensus of the group as a whole. In fact, when these words (or words to the same effect) were suggested, the group clearly indicated to the organizers that they should not be used because they were inaccurate. However, the organizers chose to ignore the group’s wishes at the end of the workshop, at the International Astronautical Congress and in the Roadmap in portraying the results of the workshop. This has occurred despite the fact that members of the group pointed out after the workshop press release that such statements were inappropriate and incorrect.

All of these items point us at one thing- the Moon. We need humans in space- robots can’t do it all. We need to look at what 1/6th gravity does to a human over time. We need to shield those bodies, and the Moon is rocked in rock and rubble that can be used for shelter. The Moon is a ready source of much mineral and metal that we’ll need. There are smaller rocks that might be easier to breakup, but we have no experience in mining in a vacuum, and starting in microgravity is not how I would start.
This all points to one thing- The Moon. We land there, we figure out how to do things, and then we continue to move out. Yeah, we need the Lagrange points for fuel depots and observation points, but we know we need gravity to keep our feet down and our heads up.