Lunar Development

Zubrin - Right Points, Wrong Conclusions

Robert Zubrin’s “Getting Space Exploration Right” has a few points I actually agree with although sometimes he comes to the wrong conclusion. He talks about how Apollo was goal driven and Shuttle was technology driven. That the technology driven aspect of NASA for the last thirty years is the cause of the stagnation. I agree and would add the cause of their failure is that they choose technologies beyond their reach. Since the Shuttle couldn’t do what it was suppose to NASA forgot the goals and concentrated on the technology.  NASA must get back to being goal driven because technology development without purpose is basically masturbation. Neither the shuttle nor the space station have space related goals outside of serving each other.

I agree with Zubrin in calling for speeding up the development of the CEV, it is basically 30 year old technology and any competent aerospace company should be able to build it before the 2010 cut off date for the shuttle. 

Zubrin also makes the point that trying to avoid developing a Heavy lift vehicle is a mistake. One proposal for the next human moon landing calls for 4 medium lift vehicle launches and on orbit rendezvous. If this approach was feasible the Russians would have beat us to the Moon. The precise reason why the Moon was chosen as a goal for the Space Race by Kennedy was while the Russians had the lead in small launch vehicles but landing humans on the Moon required such a large launch Vehicle, the superior National System of Innovation in the US could beat the Russian. If a Moon landing could have been accomplished by less than a Saturn 5 class vehicle the Russians would have done it by 1965.

While it is possible that modern technologies such as our superior computing and control technologies have made it possible, I am still very skeptical.  Before we go any further down that path I would like to see two independent analysis of the launch window requirement for such a mission.

One major concern I have is launch pressure causing bad launch decisions.  If the launch windows are tight and three of the four launches are in orbit waiting for the crew, there may be a tendency to minimize problems because of all the pressure to launch. Launch pressure was put forward as part of the reason for the Challenger disaster, but that pressure was exterior not designed into the system. Imagine the pressure to launch if the final possible launch window is closing and the three previous launches will have used to much fuel and have to be repeated if the forth launch is postponed any further.  Any system which places pressure on one launch because of another is putting pressure on flight controllers to lower safety standards. 

Another issue is that the launch failure rate is unrelated to the size of the launch vehicles and all launch vehicles which are kept in service for any length of time have failure similar failure rates. No vehicle is perfect but if any launch vehicle blows up more than a small percent of the time it is no longer used. So a mission requiring 4 launches instead of one will have 4 times the failure rate of a mission requiring one launch.

Also since a heavy lift vehicle will be required for real lunar development or a Mars mission why not just go ahead and build one. We know how, we have done it before. Zubrin favors shuttle technology, but since the shuttle is being phased out because it is too dangerous I am not inclined to continue to use the shuttle architecture for the next major launch vehicle.

Zubrin also asserts that Mars can be settled and Mars is where the science is, both points are wrong. Mars will never be anything more than a government supported lab or subsistence colony because it has nothing to trade and is so far away. The Moon is where the science is, Mars has too much atmosphere for a lot of the interesting astronomy and physics which can be done on the Moon. While Mars is worth visiting I don’t think there will ever be many people living there.

Dust in the Solar Wind, Metaphor and Reality

There is a lot of articles about Moon Dust Some as metaphore some about the reality.

There is a new book called Moondust: In Search of the Men Who Fell to Earth By Andrew Smith, about the remaining Apollo Astronauts and what they are up to.

Here are some reviews- Robin McKie ,Christopher Silvester,  Pat Kane

Now to the Reality. In Don't Breathe the Moon Dust the Health effects pf Regolith are discussed. Evdently Mars Regolith is especially nasty.

Martian dust could be even worse. It's not only a mechanical irritant but also perhaps a chemical poison. Mars is red because its surface is largely composed of iron oxide (rust) and oxides of other minerals. Some scientists suspect that the dusty soil on Mars may be such a strong oxidizer that it burns any organic compound such as plastics, rubber or human skin as viciously as undiluted lye or laundry bleach.

"If you get Martian soil on your skin, it will leave burn marks," believes University of Colorado engineering professor Stein Sture,

One thing to think about is that most modern cities are thoroughly paved rarely do people walk on open ground, so why should we assume that we will have unprepared landing pads and drive and walk through lose regolith? Paving landing pads, roads and walk ways will reduce dust exposure tremendously.

Also using lava tubes for radiation protection instead of burying surface structures in regolith will also reduce exposure to dust significantly.

Another idea of what to do with the Moon dust is make it into solar panels.

Here's how local scientists propose to power the first human outpost on another world: Launch a rover to the moon and melt its dusty soil into acres of electricity-generating solar panels. A year later, when astronauts arrive, all they have to do is plug into the grid.

If this machince could caught the nitrogen, noble gases and water coming off the regolith it would be perfect.

Jim Lovell will Donate Personal Collection to The Alder

James A. Lovell has announced he will consolidate his personal collection of NASA memorabilia and contribute it to the Alder Planetarium & Astronomy Museum in Chicago, IL.

This is great. We need to asure the preservation of arifacts of the greatest achievement so far in human history.

Interesting Moon Related Stuff

The Saturn 5 has been proposed as the Alabama State Symbol.

A new look at Apoll 13 in IEEE Spectrum by Stephen Cass called Apollo 13, We Have a Solution.

Lunar Resources articles

Aerospace America has a Frank Sietzen article Mapping the Moon's Resources.

Space.Com has a Robert Roy Britt article Perfect Spot Found for Moon Base

Science @ NASA has Moon Water

The Space Review has a Sam Dinkin Interview with David Criswell on Lunar Solar Power and an Article By Sam Dinkin, Rectifying the case for beaming Lunar solar power .

A NASA Administrator I can agree with

In a prepared statement Michael Griifin the New NASA Administrator has laid out is views and I strongly agree with the folloiwing quote.

The country has already demonstrated the consistent support that NASA must have over an extended period of time to execute a program of human exploration. We simply have been doing other things with that money.

Two New Books

There are two new lunar development books out Return to the Moon : A Practical Plan for Going Back to Stay by Harrison Schmitt and Return to the Moon Edited By Rick Tumlinson.

Japan's New plans for the Moon

JAXA has new lunar plans which are discussed in the following articles.

Japan Agency's Moon Base Dream Faces Funding Hurdle

Japan Unveils Plan for Flights to the Moon

Japan Announces Manned Moon Flight by 2025

Lunar Lander Simulation

The Eagle Lander 3D  (EL3D) is an authentic simulation of the Apollo lunar landings and includes accurate renditions of scenery, flight dynamics and the lunar module.

Looks cool.

Recent Articles

One Good April Fool's Day Article was Apollo bacteria spur lunar erosion.

On a more serious note Robert Zimmerman's article Space Watch: A Cultural Change At NASA? describes the lingering cultural problems at NASA.

The board's report also noted how "NASA's Apollo-era research and development culture and its prized deference to the technical expertise of its working engineers was overridden in the space shuttle era by 'bureaucratic accountability' - an allegiance to hierarchy, procedure and following the chain of command."

I think the shift from technical expertise to bureaucratic accountability was causes by the decsion to build the shuttle itself. The shuttle was a step too far, but NASA had committed itself too early to the shuttle by allowing the dismantling of the Saturn 5 assembly line. Once that was done NASA had to build the shuttle. The problem is they soon realized they had to push all the technical limits to do it, which meant it wouldn't be very safe or reliable. So, the technical experts turned to trying to cover themselves which endangered safety even more.

Hopefully, Michael Griffin as Administrator and the end of the shuttle/station era will help move the cultural back towards technical excellence.

We are already seeing the end of the shuttle/station era. In Notes from the NASA Integrated Space Operations Summit 2005 states that NASA already has enough of some things for the remaining 28 flights so some shuttle contracts will be coming to an end. This is the beginning of the dismantling of the shuttle culture.

In another interesting article Five Out of Five Researchers Agree: Earth's Solar System Specialwhich describes a debate among astronomers who all agree in the light of the recent evidence of planets around other suns the earth appear very unique. This is all the more reason we must become a space faring species. What if the development of intelligent life is such a long shot that we are it for the knowable universe. What if no matter how hard we search for other intelligent life we don't find it. If humans are the only intelligent species than we are a priceless irreplaceable artifact that must be preserved at all costs.

Finally there is the article Space Exploration Overhaul: Next Five Years 'Critical' , which describes the changes being made and that need to be made which are focusing NASA more on science.