Posted on 12/01/2013 10:02:45 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Nasa has announced plans to grow plants on the moon by 2015 in a project designed to further humanity’s chances of successfully colonising space.
Plant growth will be an important part of space exploration in the future as NASA plans for long-duration missions to the moon. NASA scientists anticipate that astronauts may be able to grow plants on the moon, and the plants could be used to supplement meals.
If successful, the Lunar Plant Growth Habitat team will make history by seeding life from Earth on another celestial body for the first time, paving the way for humans to set up more permanent habitation. “If we send plants and they thrive, then we probably can,” says Nasa.
Scientists, contractors and students will work together to create a small 1kg “self-contained habitat” containing seeds and germination material to send to the moon. To get there Nasa plans to ‘hitchhike’, delivering the payload via the Moon Express lander, a commercial spacecraft enrolled in the Google Lunar X Prize. “After landing in late 2015, water will be added to the seeds in the module and their growth will be monitored for 5-10 days and compared to Earth based controls. Seeds will include Arabidopsis, basil, and turnips,” said Nasa.
This will be the first life sciences experiment on another world and an important first step in the utilization of plants for human life support. Follow up experiments will improve the technology in the growth module and allow for more extensive plant experiments.
http://www.space.com/20557-nasa-moon-missions-bolden.html
US Won’t Lead New Manned Moon Landings, NASA Chief Says
8APR2013
NASA chief Charles Bolden says the space agency won’t be sending astronauts to land on the moon any time soon, according to press reports.
The U.S. space agency won’t lead the way back to the moon in the foreseeable future in order to maintain its focus on manned missions to an asteroid, and eventually Mars, Bolden said during a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and the Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board last Thursday (April 4), according to a SpacePolitics.com report by Jeff Foust.
“NASA will not take the lead on a human lunar mission,” Foust quoted Bolden as saying. “NASA is not going to the moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.”
Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done,” Bolden said. [Most Amazing Moon Missions in History]
Bolden’s comments on new manned moon missions came in response to a suggestion that the scientific community, as a whole, is not enthusiastic about pushing ahead with a manned mission to an asteroid by 2025 — an idea endorsed by President Barack Obama in 2010.
In April 2010, Obama called on NASA to pursue the manned asteroid mission as a precursor to sending astronauts to Mars in the mid-2030s. That new space vision, unveiled just after Obama canceled NASA’s moon-oriented Constellation program, which sought to send astronauts on new lunar landing missions, in favor of the asteroid and Mars plan.
During the April 4 meeting, Bolden apparently made it clear that NASA does not plan to lead the charge back to the moon’s surface.
“I don’t know how to say it any more plainly,” Bolden said, according to Foust. “NASA does not have a human lunar mission in its portfolio and we are not planning for one.”
With Obama now in his second term, Bolden also warned that if the next presidential administration chooses to make another major course change in NASA’s human spaceflight program, such a change would mean “we are probably, in our lifetime, in the lifetime of everybody sitting in this room, we are probably never again going to see Americans on the moon, on Mars, near an asteroid, or anywhere. We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.”
I can’t get over the action off of Wallops Island. Don’t know if this is new or not, just moved here. But I’ve seen three rockets take off just since September.
If they are in specialized containers with elements all from earth, they aren’t really seeding another celestial body.
A person posted on an earlier thread, they could have done this on the space station.
Good to see you’re getting some action on the island!
Will that work? -I don’t think there is enough CO2 on the moons surface to propagate ANY vegetation.
Hemp Moon Cheese
Forget plantin’ plants.... Let’s plant some Nuclear cannon there and intimidate every thug nation in existence.... Food will be of no use after a rogue nation starts a nuclear war...
“ARABidopsis”
Why am I not surprised?
Eat your Moon vegetables, kids, you don’t want to grow up with only one head and two arms like Dad.
Agree with your comment with the caveat that growing the plants on the Moon would probably provide useful locale-specific information on the amount and strength of sunlight, received radiation, etc. The always Earth-ward face of the Moon has an electromagnetic spectrum environment that is different from the earth-orbiting space station.
On a completely silly note, I am glad to see no kudzu seedlings are in the experiment. Not a pleasant thought to imagine discovering that species could survive on the Moon. Even worse if it escaped containment.
I’m wondering if creating an atmosphere on the Moon is a good thing.
Is it possible such a transformation might affect Earth’s physical relationship with the Moon, such as altering the Moon’s tidal effect on Earth?
Total insanity. Nothing there worth the cost of getting there.
The USDA pays out billions to keep American farm land out of production—and now we are going to grow stuff on the moon. Got it. Genius.
no - as long as the mass stays the same it wouldn't cause any tidal changes, but don't worry. It isn't possible anyway.
Yes, but what about the long lunar night? 354 hours of darkness. I don’t think the plants can survive that without man-made lighting.
The sensible thing to do for the Moon, and then Mars, is to send a nuclear powered, horizontal shaft mining robot. From that point, all missions are cumulative.
When people are not there, it continues to dig horizontal tunnels to make a tunnel system for future expansion.
When they are there, they have a habitat and abundant energy. They are out of the vacuum, cosmic and enhanced radiation, extremes of heat and cold, and very abrasive lunar dust.
Because the tunneling robot is on a one way mission, its lander can be designed to be cannibalized for pressure doors, reinforcing rod, roof, walls and flooring. Once the robot has tunneled, it can insert reinforcing rod in the ceiling and spray the inside of the tunnel with sealant against micro fissures.
Even if it just tunnels one inch a day, in a year the tunnel would be over 30 feet long. Once it installs the pressure doors, it could even pressurize and heat the tunnel to see how long it retains pressure and heat.
One other benefit is that because astronauts would not have to bring a long term habitat, they could devote much more room and weight to supplies and equipment. Missions could be much longer and far more could be done in each mission. When they leave, the tunneling robot would continue to expand the tunnel system, so visits could last longer and longer.
Tunneling machines have been around for quite a while and some of them are pretty amazing. The USAF uses such machines for its underground installations, and even the US Navy has considered using them to build undersea installations.
One designed to work in a vacuum on the Moon or Mars would be considerably smaller because of cargo lift limits, but that would not be a problem given its extended work cycle.
It would likely start inside a crater, as that would give more even day and night temperatures.
Something like a conveyor belt beneath it and running far behind it, so as it slowly cut into the rock, it would be conveyed outside the tunnel. Much of its operations on the Moon would be directed from Earth.
As a bonus, when people arrived, its nuclear power source could provide ample energy for their habitat, so they would need less fuel.
I aasume you meant this to be sarcasm and forgot the tag?
Not in the slightest sarcastic. A realistic proposal, even if not done by the US government, but by another nation or even a private business interest.
Why did you think it was not genuine? It is pretty much existing technology, and would save a huge amount of money in the long run.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.