Researches find ideal spot for moon base
By Robert Roy Britt
SPACE.com
Wednesday, April 13, 2005 Posted: 4:51 PM EDT (2051 GMT)

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/space/04/13/nasa.moon.base/custom.moon.jpg


Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott salutes the American flag at the the Hadley-Apennine lunar landing site.

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2005/TECH/space/04/13/nasa.moon.base/vert.apollo.moon.jpg




(SPACE.com) -- Researchers have identified what may be the perfect place for a Moon base, a crater rim near the lunar north pole that's in near-constant sunlight yet not far from suspected stores of water ice.

Permanently sunlit areas would provide crucial solar energy for any future Moon settlement, a goal for NASA outlined last year by President George W. Bush. Such sites would also have resort-like temperatures compared with other lunar locations that fluctuate between blistering heat and unfathomable cold.

Equally important, in the permanently shadowed depths of craters around the lunar north pole, water ice may lurk, according to previous but unconfirmed observations.

Melted, it would be vital for drinking. Broken into hydrogen and oxygen, the water could provide breathable air and be used to make rocket fuel for a trip to Mars.

That fits in neatly with the White House vision of using the Moon as a stepping stone to Mars.

The best spot to settle on the Moon may be on the northern rim of Peary crater, close to the north pole, says Ben Bussey of Johns Hopkins University. The analysis, to be published in the April 14 issue of the journal Nature, is based on 53 images from the spacecraft Clementine, which orbited the Moon for 71 days in 1994.

Unlike Earth, whose extreme tilt causes seasons, the Moon's rotational axis is almost perfectly upright, deviating just 1.5 percent from the main plane of the solar system that extends outward from the Sun's belly. On Earth, summer means constant sunlight at the North Pole, and winter plunges the Arctic into permanent darkness. But on the Moon, theorists have long suspected there might be high points from which the Sun is always visible.

Because the Moon has virtually no atmosphere, temperature fluctuate wildly from day to night, from about 212 degrees Fahrenheit (100 Celsius) to minus 292 Fahrenheit (-180 Celsius) near the equator.

Other scientists have estimated that temperatures on any possible permanently lit spot would be comparatively balmy, though still a frigid minus 58 Fahrenheit (-50 Celsius), give or take a little.

"A region with this relatively benign temperature range represents an attractive site for building hardware designed for long-term use," Bussey and his colleagues write.

The researchers produced an illumination map of the polar region. The Peary crater, created long ago by the impact of an asteroid, is about 45 miles (73 kilometers) wide.

Craters near the south pole have also been previously discussed for a possible Moon base. Those are not highlighted by any constantly illuminated spots, the same research group concluded previously. Even so, the north polar region needs further analysis before NASA can decide where to go first.


An artist rendition for the Lunar Colony exterior.
Clementine was in a position to see the lunar north pole for only brief periods of the northern summer. So Bussey's team had had to make assumptions about the extent of winter sunlight.

"With the information available, it is not possible to state definitively that these areas are permanently sunlit because the data correspond to a summer rather than a winter day," the scientists report. "But we can be certain that they are the most illuminated regions around the north pole and that they are also the areas on the Moon most likely to be permanently sunlit, given that there are no constantly illuminated areas in the south polar region."

The south polar sites are not ruled out, however, since sunlight is no more important than water.

"It's a combination of those two things that determines which pole you'll visit first," Bussey said in a telephone interview.

The European Space Agency's SMART-1 craft, currently orbiting the Moon, is expected to shed additional light on lunar topography. NASA plans a robotic reconnaissance effort in 2008 that would provide more information on polar illumination. Meanwhile, India's first mission to the Moon, planned for 2007, would pack a U.S.-made radar instrument designed to pin down the locations of water ice.

Bussey said water ice might be found to be equally distributed at both poles, or it may exist only in select craters.<end>

Heres the link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/04/13/nasa.moon.base/index.html

Hard to say when. A great financial undertaking. May be a multiple nation venture.

Seems that the expense would be greatly reduced if underground. This would reduce the amount of materials that would have to be transported to the moon surface from earth. Underground would also give insulation from extreme temperatures and falling meteors.

I think the Eurofighter put an end to Europe ever infesting in a group project.

Would be awesome though, Question: Would you move there?

Originally posted by Lokideviluk
I think the Eurofighter put an end to Europe ever infesting in a group project.

There's always Airbus. But what happened to the Eurofighter?

I do not think this will happen in my lifetime (the next 30 years). It would be great if it happened but the current regime has put this country so far in debt we will not have the finances to undertake such a program for at least two decades, posibly more.

One of my lifetime dreams is to go into space. I am pretty sure I will not be able to reach it, but space has always fascinated me.

If it happens at all, it will happen because of either a prestige thing between nations like the original competition between the United States and Soviet Union to reach the moon, or because of private industry looking for resources. My guess is that the former is the most likely, with the second happening later. Imagine the reaction in this country if China announces that they are going to have a moon base. We would want to show that we could do that also, and preferably first.

Here's hoping there's more than one good spot on the moon... ;)

Originally posted by box19
Here's hoping there's more than one good spot on the moon... ;)
Come on, Almighty Bob, certainly you know all the good spots!

Underground would also give insulation from extreme temperatures and falling meteors. Not to mention the solar radiation.

If it happens at all, it will happen because of either a prestige thing between nations like the original competition between the United States and Soviet Union to reach the moon, or because of private industry looking for resources Yeah thats my whole problem.

Sure we can build a base on the moon, But what the hell for?

There is absolutly no point in building a moon base except to promote the fantasy of building a base on some other planet. It just seems like scientists wanting to see if they can do something just to do it. It hardly makes it worth spending billions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of hours on research. It just seems to delude the public into thinking that theres no reason to protect the planet we have because sooner or later we can inhabit a new one.

Originally posted by BorgHunter
Come on, Almighty Bob, certainly you know all the good spots!

Actually, due to copyright laws BOB has no business on the moon. That's pagan territory. All hail BOB. :alien:

I wonder if we could get some of our resident conservatives to pay for sending Vile Pagan there, since it is pagan territory.

i have a question: Have there been any other astronauts besides americans to have landed on the moon?

Originally posted by Evil Homer
i have a question: Have there been any other astronauts besides americans to have landed on the moon?

Nope, although the Soviets lobbed a few robot probes up there.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
i have a question: Have there been any other astronauts besides americans to have landed on the moon?

Did America really land on the moon.. being that they havent done it again.

They did this out of love probably, because Americans were terrified of the Russian possibilities. (what if they drop a bomb on us??). So it wasn't done with malice. It was done to make the people feel safe..

I understand that they cant admit it was a hoax because the whole world would not take them seriously anymore.

I cannot imagine something like that to be used for any purpose other than space research for many years to come.

I really don't think regular people can just go to space or the moon for a trip in the near future. There needs to be a very efficient way to space-travel first.

There is a big difference between being able to do something and being able to do something efficiently. A couple years ago Discovery Channel also aired a series of shows talking about some fantastic structures that theoretically can be built (I think among them are undersea Tunnel between England and France, Gibraltar Bridge, sky city at Tokyo), but would simply use up too much resources.

I think space-travel (and a lot of other stuff) in virtual reality will become available much sooner, and people will simply leave real space-travel to space research scientists.

Originally posted by Dio Seijuro

I think among them are undersea Tunnel between England and France

That already exists, its called the Channel Tunnel?

Then it must be something else together. (I knew it sounded too simple compared to the other 2!) Maybe a tunnel all the way from Europe to America. Actually that sounds about right. On the show it was something about physically connecting all major continents on the planet.

hmm. in the case of us astronauts landing on the moon, by the rules of exploration, do we own it? ya know, finder's keeper's.

Then it must be something else together. (I knew it sounded too simple compared to the other 2!) Maybe a tunnel all the way from Europe to America. Actually that sounds about right. On the show it was something about physically connecting all major continents on the planet.
That was it, there were plans but they were pretty much scratched from the get go. Oh, and between England and France, I heard it's pretty much never open, that it's almost constantly being fixed. Another plan that may actually happen would be a bridge from Alaska to Russia.

hmm. in the case of us astronauts landing on the moon, by the rules of exploration, do we own it? ya know, finder's keeper's.
When we landed we declared it to be free of any Governmental control, I believe. Pretty much the same thing we have with Antarctica.

Originally posted by Blibblob

That was it, there were plans but they were pretty much scratched from the get go. Oh, and between England and France, I heard it's pretty much never open,

The tunnel copies some of the Alpine mountain tunnels in carrying cars and lorries on drive-on/drive-off shuttle trains. Operated by Eurotunnel "le Shuttle", these share the tracks with high speed long-distance passenger trains run by Eurostar. All trains are electric, and the twin tunnel While the vehicle shuttle competes head-on with the ferries, Eurostar trains regard their main competitor as the airlines. They charge fares to match airline business tickets, and soon siezed 80% of the London-Paris market

Its open alot of the time and caters to a mass of people/cars a day.

Put a lot of ferries out of business, too. Cheaper, faster, more reliable... Also known as a 'success'...

who the fuck wants antarctica? at least on the moon there is a spectacular view. And it's about the same temperature lol.

Originally posted by Evil Homer
who the fuck wants antarctica? at least on the moon there is a spectacular view. And it's about the same temperature lol.

There are known coal and iron/nickel deposits in Antartica. Only a small percentage of Antartica has been surveyed for minerals, since most of it is ice covered at the moment. Where there are coal deposits, there are often oil deposits as well.
Also, there are some pretty spectacular views in Antartica as well.

Did America really land on the moon.. being that they havent done it again. I dunno. I have looked into the whole "faking the moon landing" thing. Of course there were very extreme means and motives for faking it and the technology at the time was utterly pitiful for such a task. However I can't find any believable refutations to it. Every site that claims a moon landing hoax is completely without proof or merit. You would think they would do it again just to spit in chinas face. Why they havent? who knows...