Comments on: What the Augustine Committee Didn’t Know in 1990

By: Paul D. Spudis

Paul D. Spudis — Tue, 19 May 2009 09:59:38 +0000

brobof,

I am well aware of the scientific argument about polar ice, having been personally involved in it for the last 15 years. The Arecibo results are not contraindicative of ice, they are ambiguous. We are mapping the poles now using radar in lunar orbit and will soon have data from a better viewing geometry that will allow us to put constraints on the presence and quantities of polar ice. But you are correct — ultimately, we must land on the surface to unambiguously measure the amounts and physical states of polar ice.

By: brobof

brobof — Mon, 18 May 2009 22:04:43 +0000

As a follower of the Lunar Ice Deposits ever since Clemmie, I too share your optimistic view of an abundance of Lunar Hydrogen. Somewhere! It certainly makes things that much easier and for certain posters to continue to ignore the PRINCIPLE of the Moon Treaty!
However I feel that we must prepare for another disappointment when LCROSS reaches ground zero. The fact that Lunar Prospector failed to kick up a signature in Shoemaker (nee Mawson!) …was a grave disappointment and the “Arecibo Radar Mapping of the Lunar Poles: A Search for Ice Deposits” by Stacy, Campbell & Ford puts forward a pretty convincing argument that lunar ice may be largely artifactual. Alas, academic arguments aside, nothing will be resolved until after an exhaustive search for the Ground Truth. On the Ground.
Finally, you are no doubt aware of the most recent model by Dr Vincent Eke (Institute for Computational Cosmology, Durham University); “Moon’s polar craters could be the place to find lunar ice, scientists report” December 18th, 2008
http://www.physorg.com/news148805928.html (and International Journal of Solar System Studies, Icarus.)
His estimate is 200 MegaTonnes (”metric tons”) and sufficient (by extending his simile to that of the Northumbrians it supports!) … for a Lunar Population of roughly 300,000!
That will do nicely until Ceres sets up its export business!

By: Paul D. Spudis

Paul D. Spudis — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:54:55 +0000

It is simply NOT true that “we now know that sustained human presence on the Moon is possible”.

That’s purely a matter of opinion. I happen to believe that it is true, but in any event, part of the mission of our return to the Moon is to settle this question — to find out if it is possible. NASA’s job is not to industrialize or settle the Moon — it is to determine whether industrialization or settlement of the Moon is possible.

By: Paul D. Spudis

Paul D. Spudis — Sun, 17 May 2009 11:51:18 +0000

If lunar water is present but not vastly abundant..

Define "vastly abundant."

The best current estimates for the amount of water at each pole is between 1 and 10 billion metric tonnes. If it's even the lower limit, that's enough hydrogen and oxygen to launch the equivalent of one Space Shuttle per day for over 200 years.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Sat, 16 May 2009 23:50:39 +0000

It is simply NOT true that “we now know that sustained human presence on the Moon is possible”. Sorry, but it just ain’t so. There have been some interesting suggestions about ISRU, but nothing verified. Nothing proven.

This isn’t about commercialization or saving civilization. It really seems to be about a crusade. That, frankly, is what scares me about the lunar return and settlement community. The arguments they make are only lightly founded in reality, and heavily hand-waving. There is good reason to believe that lunar settlement isn’t about what is best for civilization, but about something else.

By: Thomas Matula

Thomas Matula — Sat, 16 May 2009 22:01:27 +0000

Dr. Wood,

Granted. And knowing its composition before you use it for any purpose will be important as a safety issue. Trace elements could create a lot of problems. But with modern techniques the amount needed for sampling for scientific research would not be great.

By: Chuck Wood

Chuck Wood — Sat, 16 May 2009 19:31:50 +0000

If lunar water is present but not vastly abundant, more important than drinking it is studying it and other frozen comet gases for a compositional chronology of the projectiles that penetrated the inner solar system over time. We may not be returning to the Moon for science, but to willfully destroy a unique scientific resource would be uncivilized.

By: Thomas Matula

Thomas Matula — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:04:35 +0000

First the U.S is not required to follow the Moon Treaty, thanks to the foresight and efforts to stop the U.S from joining it 30 years.

Second, there are no Common Heritage “Rules”. The concept of Common Heritage just means that ALL nations have the right to use lunar resources as they wish. No single nation may stop another from having reasonable access to it, but there is no requirement for any nation to share what they use with other nations. The legal principle is the same as fishing on the open ocean, you are free to catch what you want. But you are not allowed to stop others from fishing as well. And of course there is no legal requirement to share what you catch with the world. Its yours to keep.

And this legal principle has already been established by the Russia selling some of their lunar samples into the private market and the U.S. government suing to recover stolen Apollo samples under the laws that govern stolen government property.

By: brobof

brobof — Sat, 16 May 2009 12:17:26 +0000

With the greatest of respect I feel I must counter your suggestion that lunar Hydrogen be utilised as rocket propellant! I am of the opinion that barring the discovery of vast quantities of lunar Hydrogen and/ or water ice; that any LUNH be conserved as a “Common Heritage” in a life support loop rather than thrown away. Even on an international mission to Mars! For local ‘hops’ a Al/LUNOX mono-propellant rocket is a viable alternative and the Moon is an ideal launch pad and shipyard for “brute force” Nuclear propulsion systems. Perhaps, if the corrosion problem could be solved, these could just use LUNOX as reaction mass.
Once we are mining NEOs and Main belt asteroids (Ceres!) for water we could return to LH as a propellant.
(But we probably won’t need to!)
With regards to other lunar resources LUNOX; Al; Si; Ti;… extraction costs will mean that a profit must be had and thus exemption from Common Heritage rules will be required. As a figleaf for international assent some form of levy: land deeds, taxation, etc should be in place to raise a common International Space Fund for those nations without any space infrastructure and used to bootstrap their off world activities.
In this way the Moon Treaty can be upheld in principle and become the future foundation of the development of Lunar ISRU rather than a roadblock.