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.
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
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, 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.
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
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 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.
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.
Toaster said:
Eric thats not true (as usual), you make many comments and I only comment on a small percent of them, a reason I bother to comment is that often you make a statement as fact, yet there is a broader issues going on and more than one perspective which lets face it, if someone doesnt agree with your view doesnt hold any value.
There are multiple truths and perspetives you may have expected lunar colonies to exist based on fiction (2001) yet this hasnt happened so why not broaden your mind (how rude of me to suggest this) and explore the multifacited political, economic, social and financial reasons behind it? I know this is a Sudo Science thread but Science does not live in a Vacum
So just to re-cap go to all your posts and see which ones I have commented on I bet its less than 1% it probably just feels like more
I was 11 years old when I first saw the movie "2001" and assumed that this type of future was ahead of us - so cut me some slack. Almost 50 years on, I know all the reasons why moonbases and manned Mars missions haven't happened.There are multiple truths and perspetives you may have expected lunar colonies to exist based on fiction (2001) yet this hasnt happened so why not broaden your mind (how rude of me to suggest this) and explore the multifacited political, economic, social and financial reasons behind it? I know this is a Sudo Science thread but Science does not live in a Vacum
So just to re-cap go to all your posts and see which ones I have commented on I bet its less than 1% it probably just feels like more
That doesn't mean that I have given up hope that they will happen some day.
As for Luna 27, that looks like it WILL happen so maybe we should talk about that mission, which is what I started the thread for.
As promised, I have now actually started another thread for discussing future manned missions.
Regarding the Luna 27 mission, even though joint missions can reveal cultural differences which sometimes do cause problems, I think joint missions serve more to ensure that projects are actually seen through to the end. Concorde is a good example of the latter as well as the former. In the mid 1960s Britain tried to back out of the project but was forced to stay in by the French (who had insisted on a non backing out clause in the agreement because they knew that Britain might try to worm their way out).
"Internationalsiing" a project is a form of insurance as the continuation of the project is not solely at the whim of an incumbent national government and will be locked into an international agreement.
The ESA and the Russians have collaborated on many space projects over the years. Indeed, the first Western European to fly on a Soyuz was Jean-Loup Chrétien, a French man.
In recent years, the ESA has built a launch pad in Kourou, French Guiana, which is designed specifically to accommodate the R7/Soyuz booster and a number of launches have already been made from that site.
I am sure Luna 27 will proceed as intended without too many problems.
Regarding the Luna 27 mission, even though joint missions can reveal cultural differences which sometimes do cause problems, I think joint missions serve more to ensure that projects are actually seen through to the end. Concorde is a good example of the latter as well as the former. In the mid 1960s Britain tried to back out of the project but was forced to stay in by the French (who had insisted on a non backing out clause in the agreement because they knew that Britain might try to worm their way out).
"Internationalsiing" a project is a form of insurance as the continuation of the project is not solely at the whim of an incumbent national government and will be locked into an international agreement.
The ESA and the Russians have collaborated on many space projects over the years. Indeed, the first Western European to fly on a Soyuz was Jean-Loup Chrétien, a French man.
In recent years, the ESA has built a launch pad in Kourou, French Guiana, which is designed specifically to accommodate the R7/Soyuz booster and a number of launches have already been made from that site.
I am sure Luna 27 will proceed as intended without too many problems.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff