Luna 27 - new lunar mision
Discussion
They know there is a high likelihood of water ice in this region. A number of orbiting and impact probes have sent back strong indicators of its presence. The problem is that the bulk of it may be quite a bit below the surface. So far no probe has dug more than a couple of feet into the lunar surface. Even the Apollo astronauts had limited capability to make deep trenches or core samples.
The only way to find out what is deeper than a couple of feet is to land and start drilling. This probe will be able to drill down two meters.
Of course it should have been done sometime soon after Apollo. However, the indicators from the Apollo samples originally indicated that the moon was bone dry - and that dampened enthusiasm for any follow up unmanned missions. Also, the political climate had changed considerably and there simply was no appetite for any further probes to the moon,. The other moons and planets of the Solar System beckoned.
The moon therefore dropped of the agenda for almost three decades and it is only now that new findings are beginning to entice scientists and space agencies back.
The only way to find out what is deeper than a couple of feet is to land and start drilling. This probe will be able to drill down two meters.
Of course it should have been done sometime soon after Apollo. However, the indicators from the Apollo samples originally indicated that the moon was bone dry - and that dampened enthusiasm for any follow up unmanned missions. Also, the political climate had changed considerably and there simply was no appetite for any further probes to the moon,. The other moons and planets of the Solar System beckoned.
The moon therefore dropped of the agenda for almost three decades and it is only now that new findings are beginning to entice scientists and space agencies back.
Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
Should we be contemplating a 'moon base' at all, or concentrating on Mars? Would the first be an aid the other in any way (gravity wells etc)?
The moon is too close to ignore.Do both.
And how do we turn water into fuel?
The Moon most definitely has NOT been "done". It's been scratched - that's all.
The Moon, Mars and plenty of other places are all worth visiting on their own merits.
Each one of these locations are unique, stand alone worlds, in their own right.
As for water, it's H2O - the two ingredients of which are both, of course, invaluable components of rocket fuel. But going to the Moon is not about making rocket fuel. It's about the Moon itself - living there, exploiting what it's got and learning more about it as a world.
The Moon, Mars and plenty of other places are all worth visiting on their own merits.
Each one of these locations are unique, stand alone worlds, in their own right.
As for water, it's H2O - the two ingredients of which are both, of course, invaluable components of rocket fuel. But going to the Moon is not about making rocket fuel. It's about the Moon itself - living there, exploiting what it's got and learning more about it as a world.
Edited by Eric Mc on Saturday 17th October 22:35
Eric Mc said:
The Moon most definitely has NOT been "done". It's been scratched - that's all.
WE know that, but as far as Joe Public is concerned it's been 'done'. There won't be nearly as much enthusiasm for going back as there would be for a Mars mission - and Joe Public votes in the people who make the decisions.Eric Mc said:
As for water, it's H2O - the two ingredients of which are both, of course, invaluable components of rocket fuel. But going to the Moon is not about making rocket fuel.
I thought the whole point of going to the south pole was for the water. Any base is going to need energy, lots of it. To electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen takes a lot of electricity. So take a nuclear reactor to make the electricity to split the water into 2H2 and O2 to make... - no, b
ks, just take the reactor.Sorry, it's not going to fly any which way. Put the effort into Mars. And I'd be surprised if that happens in the next 100 years.
Simpo Two said:
Eric Mc said:
The Moon most definitely has NOT been "done". It's been scratched - that's all.
WE know that, but as far as Joe Public is concerned it's been 'done'. There won't be nearly as much enthusiasm for going back as there would be for a Mars mission - and Joe Public votes in the people who make the decisions.Eric Mc said:
As for water, it's H2O - the two ingredients of which are both, of course, invaluable components of rocket fuel. But going to the Moon is not about making rocket fuel.
I thought the whole point of going to the south pole was for the water. Any base is going to need energy, lots of it. To electrolyse water into hydrogen and oxygen takes a lot of electricity. So take a nuclear reactor to make the electricity to split the water into 2H2 and O2 to make... - no, bks, just take the reactor.Sorry, it's not going to fly any which way. Put the effort into Mars. And I'd be surprised if that happens in the next 100 years.
One thing that is hugely in abundance on the moon is unmitigated solar power. At the south pole they can get 6 months of uninterrupted power. The same at the north pole.
Finally, it was the AMERICANS who sent men to the moon in the 1960s. It is the AMERICANS who might argue "been there, done that". The Chinese, Russian, Indian and European space agencies have patently NOT "been there and done that" and it is those agencies that are making the most efforts to send unmanned and no doubt later, manned missions to the moon.
Luna 27 will be a joint effort between the European Space Agency and Roscosmos.
The Chinese have expressed a desire to land probes on the far side of the moon - which remains completely untouched by human efforts and is still geologically, largely unknown.
Edited by Eric Mc on Sunday 18th October 09:24
Eric Mc said:
So, I don't think the "cost" of any lunar missions being run today will be argued on the basis that cost was already incurred 50 plus years ago
No, they will be argued on the grounds of the actual cost. And every $1 spent digging holes in the moon (why?) is $1 less for going to Mars.Eric Mc said:
One thing that is hugely in abundance on the moon is unmitigated solar power. At the south pole they can get 6 months of uninterrupted power. The same at the north pole.
The original article said: 'Luna 27 will land on the edge of the South Pole Aitken (SPA) basin. The south polar region has areas which are always dark. These are some of the coldest places in the Solar System. As such, they are icy prisons for water and other chemicals that have been shielded from heating by the Sun.' And even if they weren't, a few solar panels aren't going to melt ice, electrolyse water, make rocket fuel and keep any subsequent base warm enough for habitation.Simpo Two said:
The original article said: 'Luna 27 will land on the edge of the South Pole Aitken (SPA) basin. The south polar region has areas which are always dark. These are some of the coldest places in the Solar System. As such, they are icy prisons for water and other chemicals that have been shielded from heating by the Sun.' And even if they weren't, a few solar panels aren't going to melt ice, electrolyse water, make rocket fuel and keep any subsequent base warm enough for habitation.
It's a "finding out" mission. It's not an industrial extraction or commercial mission. We need to know what's there and how much there is of it. If we don't do the research, we won't know. You seem to think we know everything about the moon already. We sure as hell don't.
You will note that the quote is "the south polar region has areas which are always dark". That does not mean that the entire south polar region is always dark. The areas that are dark are at the bottom of steep walled craters, trenches, ravines etc. There are also places that get their six months continuous sunshine - as I stated. Often these permanently dark and permanently sunshine regions are right next door to each other.
If and when any industrial extraction processes start being used on the moon, you can be sure the power won't be coming from "just a few solar panels".
And the "panel farms" could be on the equator. The good thing about electricity is that it can flow through cables - over hundreds of miles if required.
The moon is only 250,000 miles away. It would be lunacy (no pun) to ignore its potential - and the nation that does exploit it will be laughing.
I hope we do , I was born in 71 so have only really witnessed the rise and fall of the Shuttle, and that, when I was 10 was heralded as the brave new world.
If we don't get back to at least the moon in my life time I will very disappointed, always assumed I would see it but I am not so sure now.
If we don't get back to at least the moon in my life time I will very disappointed, always assumed I would see it but I am not so sure now.
I was born in 1958 and I certainly expected a permanent lunar colony by now. Having been brought up on the Apollo missions and the film "2001" it seemed inevitable. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
Eric Mc said:
I was born in 1958 and I certainly expected a permanent lunar colony by now. Having been brought up on the Apollo missions and the film "2001" it seemed inevitable. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
It all goes to show how unrealistic some expectations are and 2001 was fiction However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
A Wiki set of Luna missions outlined for the next few years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proposed_mis...
Space exploration is hard, colonisation harder which is why private space flight is a bit of a joke at the moment. Any mission has to be around hard science and if its government R&D which it has to be justified to the tax paying public.
Eric Mc said:
However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
I'd have said Chinese, but the Chinese economy is a bit wobbly at the moment.Toaster said:
Eric Mc said:
I was born in 1958 and I certainly expected a permanent lunar colony by now. Having been brought up on the Apollo missions and the film "2001" it seemed inevitable. It hasn't quite worked out that way.
However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
It all goes to show how unrealistic some expectations are and 2001 was fiction However, I am pretty sure humans will be walking on the moon within 20 years. They probably will not be Americans.
In the 1990s NASA spent as much money as it did in the 1960s, but did not send people below low earth orbit, it developed no new technologies to speak of, flew only about ten planetary probes, created no important new centres of research, and hardly inspired anyone. In 2002 NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe said 'NASA should not be destination-driven'. And so we have gone nowhere. Gene Krantz famously declared 'Failure is not an option'. In the rudderless modern NASA it might be said 'failure is not a problem'.
(partially quoted from 'Mars on Earth' by Robert Zubrin)
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 22 October 23:53
Correct. It was attributed to him after Apollo 13 and he admits he never actually said those exact words. However, he decided it was such a good expression and as people associated the words with him, he would use it as the title of his book - which is excellent by the way.
As for moon colonies etc, we have had the technology to do this for 40 years. We haven't had the will.
As for moon colonies etc, we have had the technology to do this for 40 years. We haven't had the will.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff