Wow, so many sling and arrows. How to deal with them all?

EPG<<Top problem with the Moon is dust>>

That's one of them, sure, but even over the short term additions to the lunar atmosphere are likely to be significant, which while not likely to block any of the spectrum it may attenuate it somewhat, meaning another thing to factor in. If it were up to me I'd put the scopes in the tallest walled crater (meaning relative to the surrounding terrain {whoops! Uh, selenain, lunain, landscape, yeah, landscape, that's the ticket}, not the bowl).

I read somewhere that each Apollo mission effectively doubled the ambient atmosphere of the Moon. I've always cast a hairy eyeball at that one, but it is an important point, especially once industrial operations commence. A permanent base to service the telescopes brings with it all kinds of attendant problems, two of which are leakage "corrupting" the ambient lunar environment and associated telescopic observation therethrough, and consumables supplies, neither of which is to be taken lightly.

EPG, I do recognize that the initial emplacement can be uncrewed but tended. Still, with the talent and resources that we seem to be working with right now you're still talking a very ambitious program. And that was meant as a challenge, not an insult.

Mark{{No one is proposing a Mars based asteroid detection system.}}

I'm certainly not, 'cept maybe at MSL-2. I was comparing agendas, and when you compare the "Mars" agenda with the "Moon" agenda you can't compare them on even the most fundamental terms because they have such divergent goals, a divergence that seems to create chasms rather than new territory to explore between them. No one is going to Mars to build asteroid detection systems, just as no one is going to the Moon to look for life. When you compare these goals on a priority basis, perhaps looking for life or water on Mars is not as much of a priority as developing a better understanding (beyond computer models) of the risk of impact.

Mark{{The problem is many people are saying the same thing after 5 years of discussion without ever bothering to look up the details of delta V, ISRU, or any of the manned Mars mission plans. Far too much time is spent on repetition and re-explanation of clearly established fact and reasonable extrapolations to go on to more legitimate differences of opinion on priorities, paths of least resistance, and public support.}}

Well, I've considered dV, looked at ISRU, have read Mars Direct and others (Actually, really cool, I helped to arrange for an ISU alum to donate copies of the Case for Mars by Zubrin to each of the students and staff at the NASA Academies for each of the last two years, and hopefully a tradition that will continue into the future. Now if I can just figure out an inexpensive way of getting them copies of The Once and Future Moon by Spudis...), and I'm not convinced that Mars is the best answer for us right now. Medium sooner rather than later, just Not Right Now.

Buster: \\We can't afford .....? Baloney. NASA is not even 1 % of the federal budget and a large portion of that is being wasted on low value missions. We can afford to do a lot by just refocusing NASAs current expenditures and a lot more for a tiny fraction of the US budget. How on Earth can you claim we can't afford to spend a fraction of NASA's budget on what its supposed to be doing?//

Buster, we've got a lot of things we're spending money on right now, and space ain't really on the first page of the priority list. It should be, but it's not.

Asteroids are something that we really should be spending "real" money on, but we're not. Just know better, by whatever means possible, is something that can be done relatively quickly, but even there there's no consensus because the shrinking pie yields no crumbs, and each special interest will fight savegely by whatever means possible to save it's few meager scraps of the space dole. This means no sharing for something else or something better. It can't even make it onto the agenda.

The last couple of asteroid near fly-bys were blindsiders, coming out of the Sun. This is a global issue, no question about it.

But you know, other folks have more pressing agendas. Did you know that the water industry estimates that over the next ten years some $250.0Bn will need to be spent just in maintaining our current water system? Not upgrading, not growing, just maintaining. The core stuff we have now is mostly fifty to a hundred years old. At one point the city of Dallas couldn't account for some ridiculous percentage of water it was pumping each month. In NYC the water periodically turns orange as brick dust is knocked loose in the 100-yr old infrastructure. Electricity is an entirely different matter, as are the highways and bridges and rail lines.

None of that crucial infrastructure is exactly in great shape, taken as a whole. We've got foreign adventures we have to fund. The aging population needs to be taken care of with the best medical traetment available. The fat ranks of management squat heavily on the workers (ooh, that sounds so socialist), desperately trying to ensure a retirement in the manner to which they've become accustomed, and in ten years there won't be enough folks to fill all the jobs.

We are not able to focus enough on the issue, and the space community is too divided to guide everyone to it.

EPG<<Actually, this depends on who the "We" is. The best architecture I could figure out differs from that of Mazanek, as it has foreign participation. Better yet, this architecture does not put any one nation in the "critical path". For example, if need be it could be done by Japan, Europe, Russia, Ukraine, China, and/or others, with absolutely no US participation at all.>>

I'm talking we as in the human race. After all, the cosmos is indifferent to our extinction or survival, at this point on a planetary scale. That's the one thing that a telescope array has going for it on an international scale. People are becoming increasingly aware, at least, of the problem globally.

Does it have to be done by a government or inter-governmental organization? No, it could be a private endeavour that then sells the data acquired from the array on a subscription basis. Parties interested in the data (IGOs, NGOs, governments, universities, private organizations, people with no more interesting hobbies, etc.) would pay for it.

No one would fund it though, look what kind of reception the idea gets here in the space community. Investors would take one look at the sentiment and go "No Way!". Besides, the scientific community would probably try to hijack the data for free distribution in the name of intellectual freedom. That kind of thing will put a company right out of business and chase even more money away from the space industry.

I am aware of the paltry sums spent on efforts thus far. I'm not convinced that the danger is so imminent that a major resource allocation needs to be spent on a full-blown Moon facility. I could be wrong and we could get smacked tomorrow (after all, Dallas has been hit before. Actually twice if you count some of the footage in, I think, Tycus). I'm not

"WE CAN AFFORD A SMALL SPECTRAL TELESCOPE ARRAY TO PUT AT EML-1 (DESIGNED TO BE SERVICED AND UPGRADED)"

And I stand by that remark, and I believe that if the space community got its act together we could remotely put one up there within five years. It'd be nice to get it checked out at the ISS before sending it on its way, but it could be sent en directe from the surface.

"The Baseline Detection Concept for CAPS advocates:

1) High-res telescopes w/advanced detector arrays
2) Coordinated telescope control for NEO surveying and tracking (I assume that means multiple telescopes)
3) rapid spectral imaging for NEO identification and characterization
4) Interferometric techniques to obtain precision orbit determination when required
to this list I would add
A) Rapid slewing ability to acquire sudden objects of interest (i.e. Gamma Ray Bursts or novas)
B) Full spectrum analysis as quickly as possible. "

<<Your list leaves off Moon based Lidar - the small ones ( the ones most likely to strike next) are so damn small and dark the only way to see them is to "paint them" - and for that you need power>>

Well, I'd lump Lidar in with full spectral analysis equipment.

"I would give an EML-1 #s 1, 3, A, and B."

<>

You mean A? But again you have better Three-Dimensional FOV capability in orbit, which allows for rapid acquisition of objects of interest, and vibrations can be dampened. I think the ISS has a little toy called ARIS used to actively counteract vibrations, possible a technology of interest. As noted, the Hubble does just fine, thank you very much, in the accurate positioning realm, and I have no doubt we could do better here nigh fifteen years on. Too bad it's trapped in the orbit that it's in.

"It's far harder to quantify the value that's been returned by the (Hubble) human-tended and upgraded scope."

EPG<<It is important to remember that Hubble is human tended - you have to count total life cycle operational costs for the impactor detection system, so that's another reason for the Moon.>>

B\\Your cost assessments are prime examples of forgotten costs. In a place without resources you have to pay a premium for every resource. Every resource you can extract from the point of interest at a low cost versus shipping it has a major impact on mission cost.

Buster, I've quoted no cost assessments here. I've spoken strictly in terms of value-added. You're looking at where the cash is going, I'm looking at where it's coming from.

EPG, we're talking at each other here. I use Hubble and human-tended closer together in my sentence than do you in yours. I would argue that the operational costs are determinable for both types of systems, but that logistically (a value-based argument, not cost), the EML-1 is something we can do more quickly, sustain more easily, and develop a broader array of capabilities for more readily (for Moon AND Mars AND cis-Neptunian space) than a Moon-based infrastructure. Both should be built in time, and even more as I've consistently maintained, but right now we, humanity, have a lot of constraints of what we're capable of achieving right now.

Chris writes: ~~The Lagrange points are superior to the Moon for all kinds of reasons not least of which is the lack of a dust problem or the easy of resupply or the field of view or easy comms with Earth (L1)...~~

And the use of the initial solar power satellite test equipment to beam power to the Moon once the Earth's done with it, which I hadn't thought of until this discussion.

B\\You talk frequently about low delta V from Langrangian points, but seldom if ever mention the delta V to reach them. You can't ignore key steps and build a convincing case.//

ME: Really? I thought you claimed to be able to do delta V calculations on your own. I've never been taught how, but the delta V values are well documented in various sources despite the number of people here who wish to ignore them. Is there some other much bandied about engineering issue you consider vague? What are the economic issues you consider questionable? Again rather strong statements with absolutely no support. They didn't teach me to make conclusions that way in my science and engineering classes.

So the only agenda is dV? You're proving my point.

One of the things I did early on was sit down with a piece of paper and sketch out the dV requirements to various points of interest. Luckily there are a few good books to help provide that information.

Human SMAD has a great little table, as does the Lunar Base Handbook. Figure about 4.0 km/s to get from LEO to EML-1. Return is less than 1 km/s. You don't have to worry about plane change requirements, though, which is a definite plus, and from EML-1 your deep space escape is 140 m/s. The difference between going to Mars from LEO or to EML-1 is going to vary roughly between 500 m/s and 1 km/s.

Now, if you design a vehicle that has a 6 km/s dV capability you can:
-get to GEO and back (LEO) from ISS
-service most MEO and HEO orbits (some LEO?)
-get to EML-1 and back.
-get from EML-1 to GEO and back
-get to the Moon's surface and back
-get to Mars (or anywhere else in deep space)

If you have fuel stockpiled/available at each of ISS, EML-1, and the Moon you only need 4 km/s dV capability to do all of the above.

As silly as it's going to sound, the ideal model for an orbital maneuvering vehicle is the Eagle from Space:1999: propulsive and pilot functions on a frame, attach either cargo or people module. QED. Raoul's idea isn't bad, and one I've seen before, but I'd like to have a can around my pilot assets.

As for the economic issues, or as I phrased it faux-economics, I was referring to the bandying about of supposedly absolute economic theories that so often occurs. I do know a thing or two about economics and finance. That's also why I've tried so hard to stick to the concepts of value and capabilities and value-added. Anything else is really ju

Chris~~Well they used NEO detection as one of the selling point for NExT.~~

Yes, I've seen some of their literature. Actually, I sat through a presentation by some of the NExT folks to the NASA Academy during our visit to Johnson. A couple of my ISU classmates that had done their internships working on NExT lit into some of the aspects of my Cislunar Infrastructure Project during our presentations.

They haven't really done an effective job on selling that point, primarily because they're trying to keep it as high level as possible. I do like the pretty picture of the "L1 Gateway-Building Telescope", but while a picture may be worth a thousand words, I'd like to see the words, thank you very much. Besides, which L1 point? ES, EM?

One pamphlet distributed at the WSC, which mentions nothing about NEO search, notes:
"Earth's neighborhood encompasses the region out to the Sun-Earth Lagrange points, as well as the Moon, locations where NASA may undertake major scientific exploration . This is the first 'stepping stone' beyond LEO, where human and robotic systems will prepare for deeper voyages in space".

Long on generalities (What major scientific exploration? Deeper voyages where?), but short on specifics, and EML-1 isn't even mentioned.

There was another handout, "Quick facts on asteroids", but no mention there either of NEO detection. There was one on Lagrange points as well where they goofed between the graphic and accompanying table of values.

Having just moved, I haven't managed to dig out my NASA Academy notes, but I know there's not much in there, either, with regards to NEO detection.

I think what we're talking about here is a sense of primacy with regards to asteroid detection and its use as a means to develop a permanent infrastructure that can let us do the many things I've elaborated on here and more.

Ken<<The >The Moon offers a wealth of industrial and scientific opportunities which are far too casually dismissed by, well, pretty much everyone.

Chris writes: No, it does not. Without an infrastructure nothing in space offers anything of valve to Earth, period!

Gary##The Moon can not be colonized and has no resource value.##

Case in point. But what happens once you put that infrastructure in place? Infinite possibilities if it's done right. Even the ISS offers utility in a larger sense, but you have to be receptive to the potential.

Ken wrote: From a strategic standpoint, once you get your power generation capabilities into space, they're much harder to tamper with, at least in the near-term.

Chris~~and so much less likely to be repaired if you have launcher problems.~~

Well, if you have orbital maneuvering capability, the kind of thing that would be used to take the infrastructure out there in the first place, you can go out and fix it. Are you assuming that we'll build all of our infrastructure capability robotically? I've consistently maintained that any kind of infrastructure should be at least human-tended in some way, shape or form.

Ken wrote: My concern is that if the Chinese get to the Moon first they'll grab the prime real estate at the South Pole. While they can't claim sovereignty, by the same treaty once they have a base there it CANNOT be interfered with. First come, first served (The Chinese know this, too).

Chris ~~Ken it isn't going to happen. The Chinese have a very different agenda than you seem to think they have. They wanted to join a club. Not start a interplanetary war!~~

Um, who said anything about war? My point is that if they get to the South Pole and establish a base there before we do they will have snagged the most valuable piece of real estate on the Moon, and may or may not be amenable to sharing/offering access to the benefits of their strategically located assets. Simple strategic fact. I sure hope it's not a prelude to war!

Chris ~~We don't have a prefect record in almost anything related to spaceflight. Each Apollo had a minor or major problem. But there would be several launches of automated equipment to Mars before any manned mission would even be started. And I think you exaggerated the fears. I've talked to a few folks in the business of MODELING [emphasis added] Mars' atmosphere and the big worry over all this is building a better MODEL [emphasis added] of it. This will happen long before we send any large equipment using areobraking.~~

I've stated elsewhere how I feel about models. They offer their utility, but they have to be taken with a big dose of skepticism and lots of bent metal. I know someone that can sell you a model of the stock market. Guaranteed profits!

Now, if you've got a small flotilla of dirigibles floating around at various heights in the Martian atmosphere, then I might buy into the model. Otherwise, I'll hedge my bets.

C~~Depends on what you mean by benefits. The benefits I seek from Mars are a cultural gestalt not monetary. Maybe it is time to face a possible unpleasant truth. We are in an age of discovery and exploration with space not an age of commerce.~~

There are those who profited even in the earliest days of exploration, from the hunter who found a bounty of deer over the next ridge, to the shipbuider who constructed the Nina, Pinta and Santa Maria. The two are inextricably entwined, the question is how to best make everyone happy. Culture does exist in the commercial environment. Every workplace I've been in has a different culture to it. And I haven't really discussed money here. I've talked about value, and value-added.

C~~I don't think you have listened then. Martian life if different from our answers some question and add tons more. If it is the same as ours ditto. It is important as evolution was or learning the Earth orbits the Sun. You didn't spend much time in biology?~~

One of the few classes I made an A in in my early years in college (couldn't even do that in French)!. What kinds of questions and how are they applicable? Are you proposing new medicines or pharmaceuticals? Are you proposing that we'll get some particular insight into the functioning of human biology that we somehow won't get from the life that shares our biome? I just haven't gotten a clear answer to that one from anyone. I have to believe that the resources are better deployed mastering more of Earth biology before Mars (maybe) biology becomes a priority. This is an extraordinary claim, I require extraordinary evidence.

ME{{I'd like to add that evidence of a second genesis on Mars as determined by a significant variation from Earth DNA or even just ribosomal structure would be just as significant as finding evidence of life in a comet. Either way indicates life is not unique to Earth and is most likely common. Since you can get the same result either way the appropriate method to answer the question is to search where you are most likely to find the answer.}}

Actually a cogent argument. Hmm, on a life evidence/area needed to be searched speculation I'd have to go with the comet. Now second genesis by significant variation in DNA that may or may not be found on Mars, but if it is, yes, that is a significant development. Hmm, harvesting them for unique proteins that our bodies can't produce but can nevertheless process. Interesting...

Chris ~~It isn't at all apparent that life is out there and the "hurry" is at best 20 years away...~~

Sorry, I'm thinking on a 100+ year timescale, so for me 20 years is a "hurry". 40-60 years seems more reasonable for a serious, sustained effort to really establish ourselves.

Chris~~If you think this fossil you look for is more important than finding current life on Mars or Europa or some place extra Earth...I would call you a bit clueless.~~

You can call me that, it wouldn't be the worse thing I've been called. To the point, what makes your science more important than my science? Proof of pre-Solar System solar systems in the ~10Bn years before our little neck of the woods developed, and proof of life developing in that time? I would say that that would answer more than a few questions, and raise many more. And I believe my claim was that That Would Be Really Cool.

ME{{What's your basis for the secret fantasy claim? I think it's a safe bet that a large portion's fantasy is finding life on Mars, but that is based on a sense of curiosity and wonder not vanity. Again you w[a]nder into some far fetched speculation with no rationale to back it up. The Mars Society is composed mostly of scientists, engineers, and educators who are keen to search for life on Mars and/or strongly believe that it is the clear first choice for colonizing space based on its abundance in resources compared to other near term alternatives. It is not a group of hollywood or music industry stars (or even your typical joe blo these days) fixated on fame.}}

Sorry, I presumed to speculate that some folks might have a hidden agenda. I stand chastened.

The Moon is rich in resources as well, just perhaps not for the same priorities. I'm not just talking minerals either.

C~~And I would love to go to the Moon just not on false pretenses and with no chance of making it be a permanent return. The odds against a large impactor hitting the Earth in the next 100 years is so great as to make lotto look like a good bet! I wouldn't pin hopes on the same star Ed does. No congress or sane POTUS will buy the poke without looking for the pig in it.~~

One, we don't really know what the odds are. We have not identified everything out there, and we won't know until we go out and look. You know how I feel about speculation based on hypotheses (a/k/a computer models). And yes, I did take statistics in college - part of why it always gets the hairy eyeball from me.

I'm not pinning my hopes on Ed's star. I've disagreed with much of what he proposes. I am capable of developing my own ideas based on extensive research and analysis.

EPG<<Actually, my thinking is that the cosmologists hands will have to be pried free from the reins controlling public astronomy funding - they will not relinquish control any other way. This is real money, after all, and you know how some people can get about that.... My plan is simple: tell the public how little the cosmologists are spending to find the next impactor, and their elected represenetative will pry the cosmologists hands off...>>

I'm not entirely of accord with that strategy. I think a better approach is to assure the cosmologists that our existing Earthbound facilities will remain in place. After all, who else wants to build anything on mountaintops? However, R&D dollars for stuff like adaptive optics, and monies for new facilities will be redirected towards the design and construction of space-based scopes in conjunction with monies spent on asteroid search scopes in conjunction with monies spent on the other missions we've all discussed here. In other words, their interests will not be forgotten and they will get to share in the wealth. The planet hunters will probably be some of the easiest to sell on Lunar facilities.

"Consumables will be an issue for a while though, but you get the benefit of being able to conduct crater counting and dating to establish periodicity, or even if it exists, in the impact history much better than our guesses here on Earth."

<<Periodicity is going to come in a lot faster than that... maybe 2-3 years, outside 4-5 years - studies using varying analytical techniques will converge ->>

Well, I'm figuring that they're going to have to actually go out and date real samples, and most of the priority early on is going to be getting everything up and running. Perhaps it can be made a mandatory part of shelter building as the zone of operations expands. But my point is that I firmly believe that any periodicity in asteroid threat will stand out in bold type once we undertake this task on the surface. And that alone is a compelling reason to go back to the Moon sooner rather than later.

"For true cometary survey I'd want something out around Jupiter (maybe JSL-2 or JSL-3?), and by the same token I'd want something out at Mars, at MSL-2, to scan the asteroid belt. These could also come back to EML-1 on low-energy trajectory orbits for servicing and upgrade with the others in the network." -

Couldn't have said it better myself. If we can't get lunar facilities, then this is the combo, along with perhaps some MSX in LEO for small impactor detection and warning

MSX? Please refresh me on that one. As for LEO, I don't see why something can't be bolted on the ISS relatively quickly. Probably of limited use, but what do we have to lose finding out?

<<On microwaving solar power, for Earth the ozone and other concerns would have to be examined by experiment - but for the Moon, this is THE WAY to get around a number of those problems you bring up>>

See! Kill two birds with one stone. PLUS, if you're also using the EML-1 facilities to fetch dead satellites out of GEO (a good deal all around), you can salvage the solar panels and cobble them together into small arrays. If the Moon base sponsors some of those salvage runs to GEO they could certainly be expected to benefit ASAP from the scavenged solar panels.

So they don't have much life left (but may just need a good cleaning)! So they're a little beat up! Who cares! They're effectively free, because you're making the money by cleaning the garbage out of GEO, making satellite operators and insurance companies happy, plus you're providing the engineering services for post-launch inspection for proper service before final emplacement, perhaps a bonded certification sort of thing. Oh, and you're examining the dead sats for weathering affects. Who builds the best satellites? The company that knows from actual engineering data what a satellite goes through in GEO, what materials work and which don't - Because they have the forensic data.

The spare parts left behind are just a hobby for the bored spacers. But potentially a very profitable hobby. POS solar arrays for the Moon. Asteroid probes from old GEO buses. All kinds of fun stuff that none of us here can imagine.

There is more than 600 metric tons of dead material up in GEO. I know, I sat down and figured it out. Oh, wait, a couple more sats went belly up this year. That number has definitely gone up since I did the work back in '01.

Chris writes: ~~Yeah, you respect him because you agree with Raoul! Civil, huh! You try being civil to people who call you a circle jerks and a Mars nuts!~~

Well, I've been called a few things in this and other discussions, and I most certainly not entirely in agreement with Raoul on a number of issues, especially one of my, and apparently Mark's, hot buttons: robots. But after almost five years of off and on discussion I've never received anything but courtesy and a fair debate. Effectively, we've agreed to disagree on some things. I respect him because of his courtesy and fair debate.

Miscellaneous filler:

" I do remember the RASC concept from last year, though, and have seen the pretty graphics (I'll bet those cost a pretty penny in cost allocation accounting)."

<<Nah, in terms of total NASA graphics the cost for these was zip.>>

Yeah, but I was talking about for that particular project. Just another little goodie to blow budget on instead of bending metal.

"I believe that we are going to find out some REALLY interesting stuff about these objects once we're free of the spectral blanket of the Earth's atmosphere."

<<Like terrestrial planets and/or intelligent communication signals? Yeah, of course you could do all that really well from the Moon - but remember Congress spiked NASA's SETI budget about 13 years ago and no one seems to be in a rush to restore it>>

Um, no, I meant about the asteroids we're going to be tracking. Stuff like "Gee, when you look at that really dark one in far infrared you can see the heat bleeding off the rim into deep space as it turns. Set the computer to look for that. Good Lord in Heaven! there's ten bajillion of the little buggers out there!" That sort of thing.

\\You sound like a wet behind the ears PhD chemist who doesn't know what a valve looks like.//

Bwaa, Ha , Ha, Ha! Well, I've been called a lot worse.
supposedly well educated?
questionable analytical ability?

<<Lot's of theoretical knowledge and but noticable lack of development in pragmatic skills.>>

Skills such as?

Buster, ad hominem arguments are the weakest form of rhetoric. Question the ideas, not the person. Please.

ME{{I agree. The atmosphere here would be far better if certain people weren't allowed to post outrageous slanders on a routine basis, but I and most others feel there is a free speech principle to uphold and occasional value from those posters. It would also help if everyone bothered to get the facts straight from reliable sources rather than repeating the same ad-hoc arguments over and over. Frustration as well as irritation leads to a combative atmosphere. I think the forces at work here exist in the space interested community at large as well for the most part. There are several well known figures (who shall remain nameless lest they erupt spewing on this board again) in the space community that like to make a fuss over any failureby othe rleaders in the space advocacy community just as EP and BD do here and many of us do to a lesser degree}}

As far as the sourcing of data goes, I'm not going to footnote everything I say so that others can see where everything came from. However, I do try to use reliable sources to the greatest extent possible.

If you'd like to peruse my library of Moon related books you can pay a visit to:

http://www.space-frontier.org/cgi-bin/BBS/MoonBase/read/472

When I'm talking Moon stuff I'm drawing from those sources. I really don't feel like sitting down and compiling the rest right now. I'm not that far along in the insurance process, and I've got other projects I'm working on.

ME{{Sure if vigorous debate constitutes playing nice... I welcome your input even if I strongly disagree with some of your comments. You appear to have a technical if inexperienced background..}}

Given the shrinking of the space industry workforce in the U.S. you'd better get used to that.

Cheers,
Ken