Lunar base options divide experts

Scientists are divided about the use of the Moon as a base to develop ways to travel to Mars, according to reports given to the US government.

Some have said the possibility of water-ice existing at the lunar poles would allow a moonbase to use the ice as rocket fuel for a Mars mission.

And there is disagreement about whether the moon is a good alternative to space as a base for advanced telescopes.

In January, President Bush redirected the US space effort sending astronauts back to the Moon and then onto Mars.

As the US prepares for its new direction in space a series of testimonies presented to it at a hearing entitled "Lunar Science and Resources," shows how opinion is divided when it comes to using water-ice discovered at the lunar poles as rocket fuel, and even in the value of the Moon as a base for scientific research.

"The discovery of accessible deposits of water on the Moon would profoundly affect the economics and viability of a lunar base," said Cornell University astronomer Donald Campbell.

But he added that recovering water deposits will not be an easy task, since they are likely to exist in the bottoms of very cold, permanently dark craters at the Moon's poles.

Meanwhile, Daniel Lester of the McDonald Observatory, University of Texas was not keen on using the Moon as a base for advanced astronomical telescopes. He believes space telescopes are better.

"In comparison to zero-g sites in free space the Moon, as a telescope platform, offers mainly dirt and gravity," he said.

"While dirt has been viewed by some as providing harvestable resources, it also translates into serious performance liabilities."

Dr Lester maintains that surface dust kicked up by both meteorites and activity near the telescope (whether blast waves from rockets or footsteps of astronauts) will degrade optical surfaces and reduce performance of loaded mechanical bearings on which such lunar telescopes would critically depend for precision motions.

"In short, we should ask whether dirt and gravity offer any general value to astronomy. The answer, I believe, is no."

He is also unimpressed by claims that the far side of the Moon is scientifically important as a radio-quiet site because on that hemisphere of the Moon there is never a line-of-sight to the Earth, so the strong human radio traffic and natural radio emission from our planet cannot interfere with astronomical observations.

"While this is potentially enabling, the scientific need for such a radio quiet site has never been entirely persuasive," he said.

He believes the polar ice can be mined to support human life on the Moon and in space and to make rocket propellant (by splitting it into liquid hydrogen and oxygen).

He also believes that the Moon is a testing ground, a small nearby planet where we can learn the techniques of the strategies and operations we need to explore the Solar System.

Telescopes erected on the lunar surface will possess many advantages over both Earth-based and space-based instruments, he says.

"Even during the lunar day, brighter sky objects are visible through the reflected surface glare. The far side of the Moon is permanently shielded from the din of electromagnetic noise produced by our industrial civilisation," he said.

Dr Spudis does not think lunar dust is a problem, "Recent suggestions that lunar dust poses unsolvable problems and difficulties for telescopes on the Moon are incorrect; lunar dust does not "coat" surfaces if left undisturbed."

Professor John Lewis of Arizona University did not think lunar ice would be easy to mine, he told the US government.

"I regard this suggestion with deep scepticism because of the immense technical difficulty of mining steel-hard and highly abrasive permafrost under conditions of permanent darkness, at the bottom of steep and rugged craters, at temperatures so low that most metals in the mining equipment are as brittle as glass."

"Further, the location of the hydrogen-bearing deposits (almost certainly dominated by water ice) at the poles is the most remote from sensible locations for a lunar base of any place on the Moon.

"The lunar ice deposits are of great scientific interest for the stories they can tell about comet and asteroid bombardment of the lunar surface. Scientific investigation of these deposits need not, and arguably should not, involve human presence."

He said that the use of lunar-derived propellants to support expeditions to Mars makes no logistic sense.

"The Moon is not "between" Earth and Mars; it is a different destination, poorly suited to function as a support base for travel to Mars."

In comparison to zero-g sites in free space the Moon, as a telescope platform, offers mainly dirt and gravity,"

This is complete nonsense. If this person knew of current goals and challenges of earth based telescope design - not to mention the challenges of free floating space based design, he would not make these sort of remarks.

The direction has moved from 8 to 10 meter class grouped in interferometer clusters to much larger instruments on the 25 to 50 meter class, and current plans have yet to advance interferometer cluster solutions as goals. To go to larger classes of instruments there are four big challenges - quality of optics, gravity, the earth's heat and , of course, developing adaptive optics solutions of this scale to resolve the problems of the earth's atmosphere. The European Southern Observatory has done studies on a 100 meter instrument call OWL and reached the conclusion that they cannot build it with current technologies.

A lunar scope greatly mitigates the challenges of the last four of these challenges and the possibility in the future of manufacturing glass in a near weightless and vacuum environment on the moon would in the long term reduces the optics change as well.

Space based telescope of this size pose whole new classes of design and maintenance problems and would most likely require a constant human presence at the site. They would also need to be out at Lagrange point or in orbits are out the moon to accommodated the sort of wavelengths that are now of interest in astronomy. True, they could be in LEO orbit if there were designed with the right cooling systems, but here again we have a significant design and maintenance issue.

Spaced based instruments of this kinds are decades away from pratical deployment.

Place on top of that the current direction in Radio Astronomy for extremely large and high powered arrays and you have a prefect match up for lunar based astronomy.

So comments like this seem to me to be motivated by other impulses. Surely this fellow is not that ignorant about what is going on in astronomy today. My guess is is that it is politically motivated. All most all of the criticisms of the new NASA plans come from the left; their problem seems to be the mere fact that it was proposed by the GOP. If a Democrat came up with this plan they would loudly proclaim it as a "grand new vision." It shows how corrupted by politics our national and international scientific and academic institutions have become.

There also seems to be another factor: It would again place us years ahead of anyone else, and there are forces in this world that do not like that notion at all. Some of these forces reside int the Democratic party.

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.