DailyTech - Bases or Hotels on the Moon?

Submit News

Blog: Science Bases or Hotels on the Moon?
Michael Hoffman (Blog) - January 18, 2007 12:48 AM

34 comment(s) - last by Tyler 86.. on Jan 22 at 9:18 AM

How long will it be before we have lunar bases and/or hotels on the moon?

While reading a copy of the Graduating Engineer & Computer Careers magazine during a boring train ride home, I noticed a couple of neat little articles in the magazine. As many of you are already probably aware, I post the majority of the space and science articles that are published here on DailyTech. Aside from new discoveries and neat pictures from space, there is something else that really interests me -- Lunar colonies and space tourism.

Although the magazine is filled with pretty neat articles and literature, it was a half-page little blurb that caught my eye. "Will There Be Hotels on the Moon?" was the headline that stood out the most to me. Space tourism, a topic that I am reading about multiple times per week now, is a topic that I find interesting. I posted a blog in September that noted that space tourism is the opportunity/trip of a lifetime -- one that the majority of us will never get to experience.

While hotels on the moon won't be required in the foreseeable future, it is obviously something that people are already thinking about. In fact, astronaut Kathy Thornton, a member on the Space Adventures advisory board, believes that engineers will be needed in a growing space tourism field. "There will be a need for 'people-people' to market, and a need for technical types to build and operate the systems that make it all possible," according to Thornton.

As nations with quality space programs continue to send more supplies and people into space, look for more space tourists to also blast off into orbit. Even though Space Adventures is the only company that has successfully launched private explorers into space, they aren't the only ones that are wanting to do so.

I guess it won't be long before those guys forking $20+ million for a trip into space want to shell out a couple more million for an extended stay in space.

Colonizing the moon is something that many people are considering to be the newest form of a space race. NASA would like to have a permanent lunar base sometime in the future, with returning man to the moon as a mission by 2020. JAXA and the Chinese space agency also have future plans involving people staying for longer durations on the moon.

Comments

Threshold

Username
Password
remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Question

By Spivonious on 1/18/2007 9:43:33 AM , Rating: 1

Did the article speculate on a timeframe for this? Because with current methods of space travel I can't see this happening ever. We'll need to invent some better way of getting into space.

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 10:42:59 AM , Rating: 1

We invented a better way decades ago-- nuclear power. We just haven't seen fit to use it yet.

Few people know that the US was designing nuclear-powered spacecraft as early as the 1960s and, had the anti-nuclear movement not grown so strong then, we might have made our first trip to the moon under nuclear power.

Parent

RE: Question

By AnnihilatorX on 1/18/2007 2:08:02 PM , Rating: 2

If such a craft had accidents which is quite a high chance in space flights; dangerous level of radiation will be released to the atmosphere

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 3:14:02 PM , Rating: 1

Its relatively simple to shield the nuclear fuel so that release is highly unlikely, even in the event of a catastrophic crash. In any case, even should fuel be released, there would be no "dangerous levels" in the atmosphere. You launch over unpopulated ocean...the fuel either sinks to the bottom of the ocean, or, if it burns up in the atmosphere, causes a extremely slight and temporary increase in the already vast amount of radiation already found naturally around the world. In either case-- no danger whatsoever.

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/18/2007 5:29:39 PM , Rating: 2

Which technology are we talking about? The already tested and proven safe use of nuclear material for power generation, or actual propulsion?

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 10:37:24 PM , Rating: 2

I'm referring to two different methods of nuclear propulsion actually. The first, pulsed fission, which was briefly considered for the Apollo program. It's incredibly simple, but is a bit too dirty for long-standing use...since it involves tossing atomic bombs out the back of your craft. A couple dozen launches wouldn't cause any problems, as long as you were launching in remote areas, but a few hundred would cause substantial increases in atmospheric radiation. The main advantage here is simplicity...such a system is actually much simpler than the chemical-powered rockets we use today. We could literally pull plans off a shelf, and with a crash program, have a working system in a year or less. It'd also have an incredible lift capacity...ten to one hundred times what one could get from the space shuttle.

For true nuclear propulsion, you need something more advanced. A self-contained nuclear reactor that doesn't release radiation during operation, and operates by heating some propellant (usually just water) to ultra-high temperatures. We have the science to build such craft, but there would have to be a fair amount of engineering done. But such propulsion systems are unbelievably efficient, when compared to chemical rockets. Their high specific impulse lets you carry a vastly larger payload-to-fuel ratio. That means you don't neccesarily need to launch at a crushing acceleration of several g's...you could launch at just over a gee, so the ride would be far more gentle. You also wouldn't need to aerobrake, meaning you don't have to withstand blazingly high temperatures on reentry.

So overall, a nuclear-powered craft would not only have a far higher payload, it would be much safer and more reliable as well. The spacecraft itself wouldn't have to withstand strong accelerations nor enormous temperature extremes, fuel costs would be much lower, and operational turnaround and launch costs a tiny fraction of those of a chemical rocket.

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/18/2007 11:49:18 PM , Rating: 2

I had heard about the pulsed fission idea before, but the second one is entirely new to me.

That provides, from your description, an almost Star-Trek like level of capability.. I can see where many would fear such a system, but thats a matter of public education. It also sounds expensive.. or perhaps not. Still, I fear those that would fear it is why not many have heard of it.

I can think of all sorts of interesting applications.. If launch costs were so cheap, water could be tankered in to orbit and used to do cheaply all sorts of things on a much larger scale than previously made possible.

What keeps the idea on the shelf? The cost, or the fact it has the word "nuclear" associated with it? Or is work being done by some private industry leader already?

That was an interesting read. Something to look forward to and to keep an eye on.

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/19/2007 12:21:37 AM , Rating: 2

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocke...

Of course, wikipedia is infallible and always complete with the latest information.. but not bad light reading, in case I'm not the only one that thought it sounded interesting.

Wouldn't shock me if some rogue defense agency like the NRO wasn't playing around with something like this in a white-noise filled hangar in the middle of nowhere, now that I see it's not merely a pipe dream but something Apollo-era engineers had down pretty well already -- and they didn't even have Core 2 Duo's to crunch their numbers.

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/19/2007 1:04:57 AM , Rating: 2

The Wiki article looked fairly accurate to me. Some of the 60s-era testing material didn't correspond to my memory...but then, its been a long time since I looked through sources, so its probably me at fault, not the article.

And yes, it was political factors than shelved nuclear propulsion, not technical ones. The Orion project was forbidden outright as part of the Nuclear Test Ban treaty with the Soviets...and the dreaded "nuclear" word ensured that thermal designs would face intense public censure.

In any case, such designs are a long way from a "star trek" level of capability. They open up the entire solar system to manned spaceflight-- flights to Mars in a few days potentially, and the outer planets in a few weeks. But they're entirely infeasible for interstellar travel...unless you assume travel times of 100+ years, in giant Ark-sized ships.

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/19/2007 7:58:13 PM , Rating: 2

Haha, I know I said 'Star Trek' level but from a realistic perspective, in comparison to current technology which has changed little in a quarter of a century. Perhaps a better analogy is the creation of highways in ancient Rome, or the automobile, and how they reduced travel time and difficulty.

Someone said any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic; Star Trek seems like magic, so, I wasn't being entirely serious. Definitely cool stuff -- especially because it's not some dream but something that's actually been operated. I know ion engines are getting attention but they're not exactly speed demons.

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/20/2007 3:08:49 PM , Rating: 1

> "current technology which has changed little in a quarter of a century..."

Try this analogy on for size. The 'current technology' we use for rocket propulsion has actually changed little in thousands of years. Its still the basic technology of chemical combustion, the same we've been using since mankind first discovered fire.

Nuclear power is the first new thing to come along in centuries...and humanity is too afraid to use it.

> "Someone said any sufficiently advanced technology seems like magic.."

I think that was Clarke who, interestingly enough, is credited with first popularizing the idea of geostationary satellites.

Parent

RE: Question

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 1/21/2007 2:20:23 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
I think that was Clarke who, interestingly enough, is credited with first popularizing the idea of geostationary satellites.

The idea was already floating around. He is creditted with using geosynchronous satellites for communication.

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/21/2007 7:59:56 PM , Rating: 2

You're right...which is why I said he "popularized" the idea. :)

Before Clarke's seminal paper on satellite communication, no one had seen any particular use for geostationary satellites.

Parent

RE: Question

By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 9:16:38 AM , Rating: 2

Well, don't say no one...
Thanks Clarke, for 2001: A Space Odessey, and the Clarke Belt...

I don't think I actually felt his significance untill reading this stuff, but I always seemed to have his name floating around in my head when it came to space travel and satellites, and this appears to be the culmination of those thoughts.

Parent

RE: Question

By ted61 on 1/18/2007 8:29:39 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
Its relatively simple to shield the nuclear fuel

LOL, relatively simple compared to what? Something like eating an ice cream cone?

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 10:41:21 PM , Rating: 2

A bit more complex than eating an ice cream cone. However, the stresses involved in a catastrophic breakup aren't hard to calculate. You simply need an armored shell capable of making it intact from near-orbit to the ground. That sounds difficult...but its only hard if you have a tight mass budget to work with (as we do on chemical-powered rockets). If you have the lift capacity of nuclear power, its not that hard.

We launch radiothermal batteries into spacecraft all the time...a couple of those launches have ended catastrophically, and there has yet to be any release of radiation.

Parent

RE: Question

By Tyler 86 on 1/22/2007 9:18:34 AM , Rating: 2

Let's just say, you would be amazed at the mathematical complexity of eating an ice cream cone.

Parent

RE: Question

By Kuroyama on 1/19/2007 6:01:58 PM , Rating: 2

Just out of curiosity, if it is so easy to do then why didn't the Soviet Union do this? I rather doubt that during the space race they would have put this aside if it were such an amazingly efficient option as you suggest. Chernobyl shows us that the anti-nuclear crowd was not particularly influential in the USSR.

This is not meant to be a rhetorical question. It's just that there are so many conspiracy theories around about technology, like "a 100mpg engine was developed in the 60's but GM and Ford shut it down", that it makes me highly suspicious of any claims of divine intervention being thwarted by the forces of evil.

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/19/2007 8:01:00 PM , Rating: 2

Google 'Buran', and you'll discover the Russians were neck and neck with us. God bless capitalism (and voluntary rather than forced industrialization); we simply had mountains of money to their mole hills.

I provided a wiki link above to the tech he mentioned, which includes photos and references of actual examples of the tech working back in the 60s.

Parent

RE: Question

By Futurespacetourist on 1/18/2007 11:25:17 AM , Rating: 2

With regards to returning humans to the Moon, what do you mean exactly when you say “with current methods of space travel I can't see this happening ever. We'll need to invent some better way of getting into space”?

In the late 60's and early 70's while traveling from the Earth to the Moon, each mission was carried out having used technology that can today be surpassed by the common digital watch (which in fact sells for under $40.00).

NASA proved that the United States had the ability and technology back then to successfully sustain a permanent human presence on the lunar surface.
Reasons for not setting up a lunar base or improving on the methods for getting our astronauts there, at that time had nothing to do technically and had everything to do politically.

Today the ability to develop a more advanced and robust vehicle for the purpose of returning astronauts to the lunar surface and for establishing a permanent lunar base dose not need to be invented because it already exists and has existed for years. It was only within the past few years when the President of the United States chose to call for a government supported lunar program with its every intention of returning humans to its surface by the year 2020 did everyone in the community of space exploration smile and say “It’s about time” got up, started working on the plan, and haven’t stopped since.

As for a “time-frame” I would recommend going to the NASA web site located at www.nasa.gov Their you and everyone interested can learn more about NASA and keep up to date on all current and future programs manned and unmanned. -DMJ

Parent

RE: Question

By cochy on 1/18/2007 1:45:54 PM , Rating: 2

I believe he is referring to launch technology. It takes a lot of power and speed to overcome Earth's gravity and get into a rendezvous with the Moon. The largest rockets every built were used for Apollo, much more power is needed than sending shuttles to low orbit. So back and forth travel between the Moon won't be very feasible until we have a technology which will replace the super expensive Saturn V rockets.

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 2:09:56 PM , Rating: 2

> "much more power is needed than sending shuttles to low orbit..."

Actually, as the saying goes, once you're in NEO, you're halfway to anyway in the solar system. It requires a dV of 9.7 km/sec to get to NEO, and an additional 2.5 km/s. From there, it's only an additional 1.4 km/s to lunar orbit, or 3 km/s if you want a surface landing.

Parent

RE: Question

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 2:24:59 PM , Rating: 2

edit: and an additional 2.5 km/s to GTO (a geosynchronous transfer orbit)

Parent

RE: Question

By cochy on 1/18/2007 2:46:14 PM , Rating: 2

Yes I was going to make that addition. The toughest part is always going from 0 (off the ground) to speed (orbit). Once there a spacecraft already has a large velocity. From there it would (i assume) take comparatively little (comparing to being on the ground) acceleration to get to the Moon. Either using the same vehicle or stopping off at some space station and transferring (kinda like they did in 2001: Space Odyssey) to another craft for transit to the Moon.

Parent

RE: Question

By CheesePoofs on 1/18/2007 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 2

SpaceX is the answer. Their sole purpose is to reduce the cost to reach orbit, which they're already doing significantly. 2nd launch of a Falcon 1, their smallest rocket, should be Monday :)

Parent

RE: Question

By Ringold on 1/18/2007 5:53:22 PM , Rating: 2

I wouldn't be shocked at all that if within a relatively short period of time (say, 10 years?) the price of taking a trip to space, be it to orbit or to the moon, will not be high due to any actual launch costs, but rather demand utterly swamping supply.

The number of people being raised to millionaire status every year is staggering, and the rise of the middle class of the BRIC nations will swell the ranks of the wealthy even quicker. There wont be a shortage of early adopters, IF the industry manages to make it appealing.

The problems that small companies will face in scaling up to a whole fleet of space craft with high safety and reliability will constrain supply. Yeah. They'll get swamped. But not a bad problem to have for guys like SpaceX, right?

Parent

Why?

By Beckett on 1/18/2007 3:14:33 PM , Rating: 2

Am I the only one who isn't jumping up and down to go spend time on the moon looking at the rocks? I mean... what is on the moon that is worth visiting for your average Joe Schmo? "Watch the sunrise from orbit", wonderful, but you don't have to go all the way to the moon for that now do you? The moon is made up of rock. Boring, uninteresting rock. Why would you even want to go?

I understand there may be reasons for a colony of some kind on the moon, that's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about the tourism aspect of it.

RE: Why?

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 3:29:09 PM , Rating: 2

> "Am I the only one who isn't jumping up and down to go spend time on the moon..."

You very well may be, yes. Personally, I'd find a trip to the moon far less 'boring' than laying on a beach somewhere, trying to get a case of skin cancer.

Parent

RE: Why?

By Beckett on 1/18/2007 3:44:03 PM , Rating: 2

You may be right about that, but just because something is more fun than staring off into space getting skin cancer doesn't mean it's fun. It's just... less boring. But it's still not my definition of fun.

Unless they build a theme park on the moon that utilizes the low gravity to create big fun, in which case, sign me up.

Parent

RE: Why?

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 4:19:34 PM , Rating: 3

So riding a spaceship, visiting an entirely new body of the solar system, seeing the earth from outside its orbit, etc, is less interesting to you than riding loops in a roller coaster somewhere in Podunk, USA?

Well, tastes vary. For my part, I'll take the space trip.

Parent

Masher2

By ted61 on 1/18/2007 8:32:34 PM , Rating: 1

I think Michael writes these space posts just to see how many cool comments he can get from masher2.

masher2 must be a rocket scientist in his spare time.

RE: Masher2

By masher2

(blog) on 1/18/2007 10:52:36 PM , Rating: 1

Hoffman writes these blogs when he wants me to lose a day's work :)

And I'm just a dilettante, but thanks for the compliment. I have a physics degree, but its seen far too little use since I left school.

Parent

RE: Masher2

By KristopherKubicki

(blog) on 1/19/2007 1:08:11 AM , Rating: 2

It's getting more use than my math degree!

Parent

its time for cooperative competition

By kattanna on 1/18/2007 10:27:17 AM , Rating: 2

this time in our "race" back to the moon, i am seeing a far more cooperative spirit in it. NASA has basically said hey we can get back there..but we need you all to really flush it out. There is nothing really wrong with some competition, but as long as it is within an overall cooperative framework, then this time it should produce a lasting reward.

the single most inspiring moment for me that we are finally just maybe going to get ourselves back into space in a meaningful way was being there watching that first space shot of spaceship one. It sounds corny to compare it to Lindbergh crossing the Atlantic, but thats what a lot of us there have to say it felt like. some even compared it to kitty hawk.

being a product of celebration of apollo 11, hehe, i have always wanted to get myself into space, but i honestly did not see that happening in my life time in an afforable way. Until spaceship one. Now..i am hopefull that i just might be able to one day feel the awe of watching a sunrise in low earth orbit. it is a dream i have.