Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Sunday September 02 2018, @04:12PM   Printer-friendly
from the a-billion-here-a-billion-there dept.

Going Back to the Moon Won't Break the Bank, NASA Chief Says

Sending humans back to the moon won't require a big Apollo-style budget boost, NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said. During the height of the Apollo program in the mid-1960s, NASA gobbled up about 4.5 percent of the federal budget. This massive influx of resources helped the space agency make good on President John F. Kennedy's famous 1961 promise to get astronauts to the moon, and safely home to Earth again, before the end of the decade. NASA's budget share now hovers around just 0.5 percent. But something in that range should be enough to mount crewed lunar missions in the next 10 years or so, as President Donald Trump has instructed NASA to do with his Space Policy Directive 1, Bridenstine told reporters yesterday (Aug. 30) here at NASA's Ames Research Center.

The key lies in not going it alone and continuing to get relatively modest but important financial bumps, he added. (Congress allocated over $20.7 billion to NASA in the 2018 omnibus spending bill — about $1.1 billion more than the agency got in the previous year's omnibus bill.)

"We now have more space agencies on the surface of the planet than we've ever had before. And even countries that don't have a space agency — they have space activities, and they want to partner with us on our return to the moon," Bridenstine said in response to a question from Space.com. "And, at the same time, we have a robust commercial marketplace of people that can provide us access that historically didn't exist," the NASA chief added. "So, between our international and commercial partners and our increased budget, I think we're going to be in good shape to accomplish the objectives of Space Policy Directive 1."

We're talking about the surface of the Moon, right? Not the mini-ISS in lunar orbit that would give the Space Launch System somewhere to go?

Previously: President Trump Signs Space Policy Directive 1
2020s to Become the Decade of Lunar Re-Exploration
NASA Cancels Lunar Rover
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine Serious About Returning to the Moon

Related: Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
NASA Administrator Ponders the Fate of SLS in Interview


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Sunday September 02 2018, @06:18PM (6 children)

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Sunday September 02 2018, @06:18PM (#729600) Journal

    Depends on what you mean by investment.

    People could live on the Moon without significant resupply from Earth. They could use lunar ice to get water and oxygen, and grow crops indoors. They can build structures using regolith, or dig tunnels. After the initial investment(s), they at least don't have to starve.

    Settlers would also need tools, drugs, computer chips, etc. They could probably make bioplastics from plant waste at the least. Chemputers could be used to make some, if not all, necessary drugs and chemicals. More complex stuff will have to be launched from Earth.

    Ideally, the BFR would reduce the cost per kilogram to such a degree that sending a shipment of stuff to the Moon once in a while won't cost too much. Maybe we can get 25-50 BFR loads there for $1 billion. That's a lot of equipment and supplies for a small team of researchers, if not a full colony.

    Some people would pay to live on the Moon, even if is worse in almost every aspect than living on Earth. Once living there, they will have an incentive to expand industrial activity if their needs aren't constantly being met by Earth. It's unclear that the Moon would trade with Earth (although there's still talk about helium-3 [fortune.com]), but people on the Moon could do research, build, operate, and maintain telescopes, film for TV and movies, and maybe perform other services.

    We could get a lot done for a few billion dollars, assuming fully operational and human-rated BFR launches are on the table. If the total amount of money being wasted on SLS was redirected, we could get even more done.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @03:11AM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday September 03 2018, @03:11AM (#729732)

    Some people say they would pay to live on the Moon. Extremely few of those would. It's all fun and games until reality sets in after the novelty wears off.

    What happens when people start paying more to come back to Earth?

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Monday September 03 2018, @04:04AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday September 03 2018, @04:04AM (#729743) Journal

      What happens when people start paying more to come back to Earth?

      Then you have an even better business opportunity. "Get me the fuck off this god-forsaken rock! I'll pay anything!"

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:40AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:40AM (#730085) Journal

      Some people say they would pay to live on the Moon. Extremely few of those would.

      The question is not whether they would pay, but how much? Extremely few would pay what it currently takes. But when it gets a lot cheaper, you'll get more customers as expected.

      It's all fun and games until reality sets in after the novelty wears off.

      Just like the novelty of visiting natural places has worn off for us? I believe there are a fair number of mountains, for example, that have been visited by the locals for thousands of years.

  • (Score: 2) by eravnrekaree on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:17AM (1 child)

    by eravnrekaree (555) on Tuesday September 04 2018, @01:17AM (#730057)

    Is there really all that much water there? Sounds like residue, not oceans. Also, where is all of the energy going to come from to do all this, the amounts of energy needed are massive

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:12AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 04 2018, @02:12AM (#730075) Journal

      Solar energy, which is nearly constant near the poles, and is at a significantly higher intensity than on Earth [wikipedia.org]:

      At most about 75% of the solar energy actually reaches the earth's surface, as even with a cloudless sky it is partially reflected and absorbed by the atmosphere. Even light cirrus clouds reduce this to 50%, stronger cirrus clouds to 40%. Thus the solar energy arriving at the surface can vary from 550 W/m² with cirrus clouds to 1025 W/m² with a clear sky.

      Kilopower [soylentnews.org] has also been suggested.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light [wikipedia.org]

      Some points get over 80% sunlight per year, and could be combined to reach nearly 95% annual illumination.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water [wikipedia.org]

      In March 2010, it was reported that the Mini-SAR on board Chandrayaan-1 had discovered more than 40 permanently darkened craters near the Moon's north pole that are hypothesized to contain an estimated 600 million metric tonnes (1.3 trillion pounds) of water-ice.

      Once some water is collected, it could be reused repeatedly in a closed system, like on the ISS.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 04 2018, @07:18PM (#730414)

    People could live on the Moon without significant resupply from Earth. They could use lunar ice to get water and oxygen, and grow crops indoors

    Water and oxygen are not enough to grow anything though. Among other things, nitrogen is absolutely essential for growing any kind of crop. We don't know exactly how abundant it is on the moon it could very well be virtually nonexistent [lunarpedia.org]. To get a rough idea of the requirements here, corn takes about 1lb of nitrogen from the soil per bushel (56lb) of grain [farmersbusinessnetwork.com]; i.e., roughly 20g per kg. 1kg of crop is probably sufficient to sustain an adult human for a day or two, so that gives our lunar farm a ballpark nitrogen requirement of 20g per human per day.

    On Earth virtually all of the nitrogen used in agriculture comes indirectly from the atmosphere (via nitrogen fixation). That should in principle be possible on Mars as well as nitrogen is present in the Martian atmosphere in about 2% concentration [wikipedia.org]. That appears to be the current direction of research for agriculture on Mars missions [agriculture.com].

    Practical upshot of this is that growing crops on the moon is likely going to require radical new methods or a continuous resupply of fertilizer from Earth.