DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... NASA Eyes Plan for Deep-Space Outpost Near the Moon

http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-eyes-plan-deep-space-outpost-near-moon-023402627.html

NASA Eyes Plan for Deep-Space Outpost Near the Moon
By Leonard David, SPACE.com’s Space Insider Columnist
Space.com | SPACE.com – 13 hrs ago

Email
New: Now the email button gives you a quick and easy way to start a conversation.
1
Print

NASA is pressing forward on assessing the value of a "human-tended waypoint" near the far side of the moon — one that would embrace international partnerships as well as commercial and academic participation, SPACE.com has learned.

According to a Feb. 3 memo from William Gerstenmaier, NASA's associate administrator for human exploration and operations, a team is being formed to develop a cohesive plan for exploring a spot in space known as the Earth-moon libration point 2 (EML-2).

Libration points, also known as Lagrangian points, are places in space where the combined gravitational pull of two large masses roughly balance each other out, allowing spacecraft to essentially "park" there.

A pre-memo NASA appraisal of EML-2, which is near the lunar far side, has spotlighted this destination as the "leading option" for a near-term exploration capability. [Gallery: Visions of Deep-Space Station Missions]

EML-2 could serve as a gateway for capability-driven exploration of multiple destinations, such as near-lunar space, asteroids, the moon, the moons of Mars and, ultimately, Mars itself, according to NASA officials.

A capabilities-driven NASA architecture is one that should use the agency's planned heavy-lift rocket, known as the Space Launch System, and the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle "as the foundational elements."

Cadence of compelling missions

The memo spells out six strategic principles to help enable exploration beyond low-Earth orbit:

Incorporating significant international participation that leverages current International Space Station partnerships.
U.S. commercial business opportunities to further enhance the space station logistics market with a goal of reducing costs and allowing for private sector innovation.
Multiuse or reusable in-space infrastructure that allows a capability to be developed and reused over time for a variety of exploration destinations.
The application of technologies for near-term applications while focusing research and development of new technologies to reduce costs, improve safety, and increase mission capture over the longer term.
Demonstrated affordability across the project life cycle.
Near-term mission opportunities with a well-defined cadence of compelling missions providing for an incremental buildup of capabilities to perform more complex missions over time.

Quiet zone

According to strategic space planners, an EML-2 waypoint could enable significant telerobotic science on the far side of the moon and could serve as a platform for solar and Earth scientific observation, radio astronomy and other science in the quiet zone behind the moon.

Furthermore, the waypoint could enable assembly and servicing of satellites and large telescopes, among a host of other uses.

If NASA succeeds in establishing an astronaut-tended EML-2 waypoint, it would represent the farthest humans have traveled from Earth to date, the memo points out.

Extended stays at EML-2 would provide advancements in life sciences and radiation-shielding for long-duration missions outside of the Van Allen radiation belts that protect Earth, scientists say.

Next step

Gerstenmaier noted that moving forward on international, commercial and academic partnerships will "require significant detailed development and integration."

Moreover, Gerstenmaier added, EML-2 "is a complex region of cis-lunar space that has certain advantages as an initial staging point for exploration, but may also have some disadvantages that must be well understood."

A NASA study team is assigned the task of developing near-term missions to EML-2 "as we continue to refine our understanding and implications of using this waypoint as part of the broader exploration capability development," the memo explains.

The study is targeted for completion by March 30, 2012.

A working group of International Space Station members — a meeting bringing together space agencies from around the world — is being held in Paris this week with NASA’s EML-2 strategy likely to be discussed with international partners.

Proving ground

Bullish on the promise of telerobotics exploration of the moon from EML-2 is Jack Burns, director of the Lunar University Network for Astrophysics Research (LUNAR) Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder. LUNAR is funded by the NASA Lunar Science Institute.

Burns and his team have been collaborating with Lockheed Martin (builder of the Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle) for more than a year to plan an early Orion mission that would go into a halo orbit of EML-2 above the lunar far side.

"This is extremely exciting from both the exploration and science sides," Burns told SPACE.com. "This mission concept seems to be really taking off now because it is unique and offers the prospects of doing something significant outside of low-Earth orbit within this decade."

In collaboration with Lockheed-Martin, the LUNAR Center is investigating human missions to EML-2 that could be a proving ground for future missions to deep space while also overseeing scientifically important investigations.

Roadways on the moon?

In a LUNAR Center white paper provided to SPACE.com, researchers note that an EML-2 mission would have astronauts traveling 15 percent farther from Earth than did the Apollo astronauts, and spending almost three times longer in deep space. [Lunar Legacy: Apollo Moon Mission Photos]

Such missions would validate the Orion spacecraft's life-support systems for shorter durations, could demonstrate the high-speed re-entry capability needed for return to Earth from deep space, and could help scientists gauge astronauts’ radiation dose from cosmic rays and solar flares. Doing so would help verify that Orion provides sufficient radiation protection, as it is designed to do, researchers said.

On such missions, the white paper explains, Orion astronauts could teleoperate gear on the lunar far side. For instance, the moon-based robotic hardware could obtain samples from the geologically appealing far side — perhaps from the South Pole-Aitken basin, which is one of the largest, deepest and oldest craters in the solar system.

Also on a proposed lunar robotic agenda is deployment of a low-frequency array of radio antennas to observe the first stars in the early universe.

Among a number of research jobs, the LUNAR team has been investigating how modest equipment could be used to fuse lunar regolith into a concrete-like material, which could then be used for construction of large structures, without the expense of having to carry most of the material to the lunar surface.

The ability to fabricate hardened structures from lunar regolith could also foster on-the-spot creation of solar arrays, habitats, and radiation shielding and maybe, even roadways on the surface of the moon.

Leonard David has been reporting on the space industry for more than five decades. He is a winner of last year's National Space Club Press Award and a past editor-in-chief of the National Space Society's Ad Astra and Space World magazines. He has written for SPACE.com since 1999.

Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

If there's money to be made out there, private industry will foot the bill. With the debt this country is in, money to the space program as well as many many other tax sucking ventures should be curtailed.

Pretty cool.

I had to read up on the L-point.

Thought I would share.

web page

I like this idea, a lot. Now it's just a matter of NASA pitching this to the government or a combination of corporations to get this going.

I believe that before we get to mars we need to learn how to live on a celestial body. Our first mission to mars should establish a livable outpost. Best place to learn how to do that would be the moon.

Yea lets take the money that would be used to explore human's eventual home and spend it killing each other in wars. At least that way we won't NEED to develop other possible homes for mankind.

I think of the resources humans have pissed away since crawling out of the water as pond scum, or being zapped here into the garden of eden ( you decide), and wonder what we could have accomplished if we could only get along. Then I'm reminded of how brutal and animal like we are and will always be when I watch the news or hear a neighbor complain about grass clippings getting blown a foot or two into "his" property line.


Sometimes I actually wish we were on a 10 year collision course with a large astoriod just to see ALL of mankind working together with one common goal and inspiration. Help and respect each other or die. If only.....

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 12 Feb 2012 at 10:14:52 PM GMT is: $15,367,820,172,249.97

The estimated population of the United States is 312,213,494 so each citizen's share of this debt is $49,222.15.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of $3.98 billion per day since September 28, 2007!

I think we need to clean up this mess first before we become Greece.

Then we can go play in outer space, it will still be there.

I share your enthusiasm, I really do.

I was a kid in the 60's. I lived in Tampa, FL and when the Apollo rockets would launch they would march us all outside so we could see the rockets flying away. When they landed in the ocean, they would bring in TV's into our classrooms and we'd watch the splashdowns.

I ate space food sticks, freeze dried ice cream and drank Tang by the gallons. I had a toy lunar lander, revolutionary at the time, that used air jets and you'd control a balloon in flight by adjusting the jets to make it land on it's target. I was a kid of the space age and I ate it up. Star Trek, Star Wars, Babylon 5, I could never get enough. I am a space junkie.

But this country has a problem that needs to be fixed and the space program as well as other funding sources like you mentioned need to be cut back or eliminated because we don't have the money. We can barely pay the interest on that massive debt.

Space exploration is a wonderful concept and surely one we should one day revisit, but today we have other more serious problems that need that money.

Quote:

---

But this country has a problem that needs to be fixed and the space program as well as other funding sources like you mentioned need to be cut back or eliminated because we don't have the money. We can barely pay the interest on that massive debt.

Space exploration is a wonderful concept and surely one we should one day revisit, but today we have other more serious problems that need that money.

---

We're just gonna have to disagree. We obviously agree on the size and overreach that the Federal Government has made. I just put a very high priority in NASA. You can probably tell i'm a fan of all that too.

I'm going to be working on ships on the seas. And who do I idolize, Jean Luc Picard. In fact, I use the phrase "Make it so" all the time when people tell me they're going to do stuff on tugs. For example (i'm on the bridge and an engineer or deckhand calls to let me know), "Pete, I'm headed to the barge to go work on some things" and I say "Make it so". When I have a helmsman on a ship, you can bet I'll figure out a way to say "engage" all the time also.

Space is the great unknown and it gives us challenges that are exciting to achieve. Land some people on Mars, now talk about national prestige. Do we really want to just give that one to the Chinese? Hundreds of years from now, who's going to be the country that put the first colony on the moon, the first men on a DIFFERENT PLANET. The way we're going, not us. And that's just lame

Yes, we will have to disagree on this one and it's not because I don't appreciate your point of view. It's just this planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and the space you're wanting to explore has been there at least 11 billions years. If we can focus on fixing what's broken in our economy so tomorrow everyone can live a similar lifestyle that I've enjoyed, space will still be there waiting for us. It's not going anywhere soon.

Unless of course you subscribe to the Mayan theory in which case we're all screwed and it's moot!

Quote:

---

I believe that before we get to mars we need to learn how to live on a celestial body. Our first mission to mars should establish a livable outpost. Best place to learn how to do that would be the moon.

---

I'm one of the believers.... we never got to the moon...

I think space is cool...and the ocean bottoms are cool ...

When we can put people living on the Ocean Floors..Then I might believe they can live in Space...

Quote:

---

With the debt this country is in, money to the space program as well as many many other tax sucking ventures should be curtailed.

---

How short sighted ....

NASA's budget will account for roughly .5% of the national budget this year cite. If you look on that page, back in the 60's, NASA's budget accounted for 2.29 - 4.41% of the total budget. Also at the start of the 60's, for the first time in the country's history, the government started granting money to researchers at universities all over the US in large amounts. During that 7 year span, that specific time period, the amount of money poured into education and the sciences laid the foundation for the next 50 years of technology. Many of the things we take for granted at the start of this decade had their beginnings in the space race. The space race and the money that was spent by the government during that time is what kept the US at the forefront of history after World War 2. That's why the US was the world leader for so long.

There are two ways out of this economic and emotional stupor that's sunk it's claws into the US. One is to cut back spending, stifle the already anemic economy, and start rebuilding after the dust settles. The other, is to shift money into things that are safe investments and always give a return on the money put in, that's research and development. Innovation brought this country out of the world wars and put the US into it's position as the role model for the rest of the world. So, you say you want to see America return to its former glory? Pull itself out of the slump that it's currently in? Then freaking fund education, the sciences and NASA! Give people something to like about this country again!

Quote:

---

It's just this planet has been here for 4.5 billion years and the space you're wanting to explore has been there at least 11 billions years.

---

And all it would take to wipe out us and our civilization is one errant comet/asteroid. It's cliche, but it's not a matter of if ... it will happen again.

Quote:

---

I'm one of the believers.... we never got to the moon...

---

You're kidding right? Which part don't you believe and why?

Short sighted?

From someone with a sig that reads "there are no sacred cows"?

That tag line is just dripping with irony.

Then you mention asteroids like you just watched Armageddon for the 50th time, "it will happen again". Dude you are funny!

Quote:

---

That tag line is just dripping with irony.

---

You think this is my sacred cow? Please. Prove me wrong, I'm willing to listen and change my mind if necessary. Did you even read the wiki page I linked?

Your comments are short sighted. You fail to see the big picture that includes the miniscule amount of funding that NASA gets, and instead say it should be axed because we "shouldn't be playing around in space with our current problems" When in actuality it makes up an insignificant part of the overall budget. You're suggesting a solution to a problem that is illogical and doesn't actually accomplish the goal you have in mind.

The other part of your short-sightedness is you fail to see what funding research and space exploration did to this country a few decades back, and don't see how it could help us get out of the rut we're currently in. NASA is one of the governmental programs that made this country an object of envy over the years. Now what do we have?

Quote:

---

Then you mention asteroids like you just watched Armageddon for the 50th time, "it will happen again". Dude you are funny!

---

Well, lets see, this is from wikipedia.

Quote:

---

Small objects frequently collide with the Earth. There is an inverse relationship between the size of the object and the frequency that such objects hit the earth. The lunar cratering record shows that the frequency of impacts decreases as approximately the cube of the resulting crater's diameter, which is on average proportional to the diameter of the impactor.[2] Asteroids with a 1 km (0.62 mi) diameter strike the Earth every 500,000 years on average.[3] Large collisions – with 5 km (3 mi) objects – happen approximately once every ten million years. The last known impact of an object of 10 km (6 mi) or more in diameter was at the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event 65 million years ago.

Asteroids with diameters of 5 to 10 m (16 to 33 ft) enter the Earth's atmosphere approximately once per year, with as much energy as Little Boy, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, approximately 15 kilotonnes of TNT. These ordinarily explode in the upper atmosphere, and most or all of the solids are vaporized.[4] Objects with diameters over 50 m (164 ft) strike the Earth approximately once every thousand years, producing explosions comparable to the one known to have detonated above Tunguska in 1908.[5] At least one known asteroid with a diameter of over 1 km (0.62 mi), (29075) 1950 DA, has a possibility of colliding with Earth on March 16, 2880, but the Torino scale only works for impact possibilities within 100 years, and thus cannot apply to this asteroid.

Objects with diameters smaller than 10 m (33 ft) are called meteoroids (or meteorites if they strike the ground). An estimated 500 meteorites reach the surface each year, but only 5 or 6 of these are typically recovered and made known to scientists.

---

So yeah. It'll happen eventually. Maybe in our lifetime, maybe not. Right now it would mean the end of civilization, but with a bit of funding over a very short time, this would cease to be an issue. Do I fear for my life right now because of the possibility of this scenario? No. But a disaster like this can be avoided quite easily if the proper infrastructure were in place.

The thing I have trouble with is the wording "Deep Space"

What? Just who considers that deep space? To earth's moon?? Heck, I don't even think Saturn is deep space.

I understand what you are saying, but it would be a point further away than simply going to the moon.

Guess you have to take it in steps.

Just a general reply ........

As much as I hate the excessive spending in Washington ...... this is the kind of thing that the government should be undertaking. Scientific research is valuable, and the cost is rather minor compared to the overall budget. We have also gained many advances from our space program that we otherwise might have missed out on.

The whole purpose of having a federal government is to have an entity to handle, for the country as a whole, those projects that cannot be done individually by the states. Things like an interstate transportation systems, and interstate trade. I think that space falls into this category ....... at least peripherally. This is the kind of scientific research we should pursue as a country. Who knows ..... maybe we'd even come up with a far superior solar panel design as a result ....... and not have to worry about investing in companies that have almost no chance of succeeding.

Yeah, deep space refers to the gulf between stars, not planets.

Quote:

---

But we can cut so many things. Social spending, military spending, cut these government officials trips. Stimulus check after stimulus check, Obamacare. That kind of stuff takes up huge amounts of money.

---

People want different things.

some want free health-care
others want programs like social security
others want unemployment benefits extended.
others want to save the world by forcing their morals on people
some want to explore space.

The list could go on, and on...

Space is cool no doubt. I can remember seeing the first space shuttle launch. There are certainly benefits that we have gained. Satellites and and i'm sure other things.

The problem is, that NOBODY wants all those things. We have no right to say what WE want is more important than what someone else wants.

Personally i don't want my tax dollars spent on something like that. They are even talking in the article about a committee for reasons why we should go. Roads on the moon? How about fix the ones here.

You know why people went to California during the gold rush? There was gold, and they wanted it. The government didn't have to pay to go look for it. Whats the benefit to me?

And why is this a competition as to get get to the moon first? Who cares? Sounds more like a competition for who can go broke first. "Were here!"..."What are we going to do now?"....."dunno"


As tulsa pointed out...this country is broke...way more broke than what he even listed...the promises are way worse than that.

The federal government has become something that it shouldn't have.

Who gets to decide whats important? Cause it looks to me that they are going to give everything to everybody, whether we can pay for it or not.

Quote:

---

It's gonna have to be mining resources on other planets/moons, and that's not happening for A REALLY LONG TIME

---

The thing is, it's cheaper to mine things here on Earth, rather than mine something on the Moon and ship it back. Unless we find some crazy alloy that's a result of some specific chemistry going on, it would be cost prohibitive to mine something on the moon, then ship it back. I used to think that it would be mining that would get investors into space, but the more I think about it, that may only be part of the equation. I think the end draw will be the zero G environment that could be used for the fabrication of some (currently) hypothetical materials and also a zero regulation aspect. Making batteries? Just dig a ditch in regolith and then seal it over, no need to worry about disrupting the ecology, there isn't any.

That being said, it would be extremely cost-effective to have the moon as the central mining/fabrication facility that ships to the rest of the solar system, rather than the homebase being somewhere here on Earth. The amount of energy/money it would require to get a large payload out of the gravity well of the moon is vastly less than it would be for the Earth.

Quote:

---

As tulsa pointed out...this country is broke...way more broke than what he even listed...the promises are way worse than that.

---

I said it before, the easiest, and cheapest way for the country to become solvent again is to fund our R&D department. Give money to the people who innovate and create new technologies for a living and the country will make more money through the creation of companies and jobs generated by these new companies. During the 60's the US government spent around 6% of the GDP on research and education, and that stimulated the growth and prosperity the country as a whole enjoyed up to this last decade.

i agree that we should always fund some of the R&D projects. which ones and how much is always up for debate, but it's vital.

you got out of that...spend more?

Back in the 1960's our governments debt was nothing like it was today.

debt to gdp

In the 60's it looks like it went from 58% down to 38% of GDP. Today it is over 100% of GDP.

If the government had a balanced budget, then maybe you would have a point. Even then its not the peoples job to fund someone else s research, so they can then get rich.

The government decided that NASA was part of the defense of our country, or for the general welfare of all. Fine. The economy was grown along the way.That's not the point. Back then most stuff was made here too.

We invented phones...they are made overseas.
We invented tvs....they are made overseas.

They could invent whatever, and it's not going to be made here. Corporations want one thing....profit.

We are spending more than we are taking in. We have to spend less. We already have around a projected 1.2 trillion dollar deficit for this year alone. So first we need to cut 1.2 trillion....then cut more than the interest on the debt to actually start paying it down.

Even if your idea would work...where do we get the money? More taxes? How much more can they take? They aren't cutting nothing...that ticks off a voter.

They will print it. Common sense, and history, says that doesn't work. If it did then why even bother to research anything.....just print the money...hand it out, and we won't need anything...except a new currency.

Quote:

---

you got out of that...spend more?

---

No, I'm saying spend wiser. We're so busy trying to prop up businesses that fail, or coddling defense spending like we actually are at war, that we're no longer focusing on what made this country the admiration of the globe. I mean, could you imagine what science could do with the amount of money that went into TARP? Remember, money that goes into research is an investment, sometimes you don't get anything in return, but the majority of the time you come out ahead. So what I'm saying is this: take part of the defense budget and put it towards NASA with the goal of really exploring our solar system. We're talking an extra 30 billion a year for a decade. It'll make the last technological boom that resulted from the space race seem like a light breeze. The government won't make any money directly from NASA, but they will off the taxes of the new space companies and people part of those companies. Make the plans for any tech readily available to companies willing to put jobs on American soil, or American space.

Creating the telephone, and the internet, and the internal combustion engine is the reason the rest of the world is in the shape that it's in now. Our country has shaped the world more than any other country in history not because of its military (although that comes in a close second) but through our technological mastery and innovation, and our desire for more. We can be that again, and this is one proactive way to do it.

Quote:

---

Even then its not the peoples job to fund someone else s research, so they can then get rich.

---

Wait, this is the same argument for corporations and trickle down economics. Give the money to the job creators so they can put money back into themselves to create more jobs. We give tax cuts to corporations so that they can reinvest in themselves, to hire more people. Those tax dollars go to people who innovate, create new job markets, and then hire people. How is this a bad thing? It makes just as much sense, if not more, as increasing corporate tax cuts.

Regardless, its those federal grants that have us to this point technologically. The miniscule amount of money that goes into research is why we have the quality of medicine and other modern advances that we do. So we would be worse off as a country if this money weren't present.