Category: Announcements
XML Feeds
How does the Artemis Project™ fit into the Moon Society’s Goals?
by kokhmmm 
http://www.asi.org/adb/01/basic-overview.html
http://www.moonsociety.org/projects/
First let me say that I have been,and still am an ardent supporter of the Artemis Project™ since the day I first learned of it early in 1995. I understand and share the deep devotion to the Project shared by most Moon Society members who joined in the ASI days prior to the Moon Society founding convention in July 2000. At that time, the Moon Society took over membership services from Artemis Society International.
I am concerned about legal issues, but am not an expert on them by any means. I do _not_ propose importing the Artemis Project Reference Mission™ into a Moon Society wiki accessible by everyone.
I _do_ propose starting an open-source wiki-based commercial moonbase reference mission -- from scratch. This approach should avoid proprietary issues.
Now if TLRC [The Lunar Resources Company] can ever put together the resources to make the Artemis Project™ real, I will be cheering from the front row.
http://www.tlrc.com/
But establishing a commercial moonbase, as a start towards civilian settlement on the Moon, is a more important goal than helping any one particular for-profit enterprise achieve it, including TLRC.
That is why, a fresh start wiki-based commercial moonbase reference mission, listing and working out the many conceivable options at each phase of such a project, should be a resource available to any for-profit corporation who can come up with the resources to make such an undertaking a reality.
We should not aim at producing a "reference mission" i.e. ourselves selecting the best combination of proposals for each phase. We should leave that to whomever wants to pick and choose from the options sketched in the wiki to put together their own mission plan. But comparing options, brainstorming new ones, to fully flesh out the options -- now that we should help do.
So I am talking not so much about a Moon Society divorce from TLRC/Artemis Project™, as about holding them at arms length while opening up a wider set of possibilities to anyone and everyone who may be interested, TLRC included.
Again, that the goal to be achieved is far more important than the identity of who achieves it. Whether another US based startup goes the distance, or some outfit in Singapore, Russia, or Shangri-La does not matter. As an International Society, we must be open to projects started and/or owned by non-US companies or consortia. That humans settle the Moon is our goal.
We will all be cheering on a US/NASA/International moonbase effort.
Speaking for myself, I will be much more enthused about loop-the-Moon tourist flights and eventual tourist surface excursions, because I personally suspect that this kind of activity is more likely to lead to lunar resource development and civilian settlement. But that's just my personal opinion. And actually, an Artemis Project™ type commercial outpost finds a better fit in that scenario than in the international lunar science outpost scenario.
The chances of such a NASA/partners start being sufficiently open-ended and expansion-driven so as to lead to civilian settlement are realistically next to none. Any governmental/international outpost will put people on the Moon, and brighten our day. But we want a presence that will be permanent, and only civilian settlement can set human presence on the Moon on the path to permanence, immune to politically or economically motivated budget and program cuts.
So that does make the dream that drives the Artemis Project™, the driver behind Moon Society efforts and projects. The point is that realizing the dream is more important than who realizes it.
We all owe our existence to Gregory R. Bennett, Dana Carson, Randall Severy, and Ian Randall Strock, who incorporated The Lunar Resources Company. We'd all like to see them succeed. But we should aim at supplying the idea resources to anyone who might be able to put the necessary resources together.
Right now, on our Projects Page, the Artemis Project is still listed as our flagship project.
I would change that, the Board consenting, to:
"The dream of a commercial moonbase leading to civilian settlement through open-ended expansion, for example, as illustrated in the Artemis Project™, defines the ultimate goal of the Society. All other projects that the Society chooses to engage in should be selected according to their potential to promote achievement of this vision."
Now perhaps we can phrase this more succinctly. But you get the idea. "To the Moon to stay" is a bit too succinct to be useful, as too many people are deluded into thinking that a NASA outpost would guarantee that. Only ghost towns can be promised. Permanence must be earned.
We have tried to outline the Society goals clearly in "Who We Are & What We Do" -- see the link top center on our front page.
http://www.moonsociety.org/spreadtheword/whowhat.html
Yet many say they are unclear about what the Society's goals are, and where we are headed.
I think that is because some have very unrealistic expectations. We are limited to what we can do by our numbers, our treasury, and available volunteer labor. That makes "bending metal" and going on to establish our own outpost totally unrealistic. But we can make a critical difference!
We do need to prioritize membership expansion. And while inviting anyone and everyone, and valuing everyone’s contributions, we need to concentrate especially on recruiting people with special relevant talents, and people with available free time. We also need to make it easier for people to list us in their wills, etc., so we can build an endowment fund that will enable us to undertake ever more ambitious projects.
From our Artemis Society beginnings, it should also be clear that our goal is not to cheer on or push a NASA/international outpost, as much as we would all like to see it become real. Why? Because the chances of such an outpost going on to be the nucleus of civilian settlement, are as great as those of a snowball surviving a close encounter with the sun. Politics, budget realities, popular support are all both unpredictable, fickle, and irrational. An international outpost in which expansion is not a part of its game plan, is not part of our dream. It's that simple.
Such a limited science outpost will indeed stir up enthusiasm for more in people of talent and ability, however. It will be encouraging. That's good.
At the same time, such an outpost will have made many irrational choices because of budget pressures, and the results of these compromises may lead many to think that the dream is impossible. So a limited science outpost could also be a negative factor. That's bad. In the past, NASA's deep pockets have discouraged would-be startup competitors. Space in general and the Moon in particular, do not have to be as expensive as any government entity will inevitably make it seem.
How can the Moon Society fitting in? Our work as a society can help define, publicize, and promote the development of the technologies, systems, and attitudes that will enable a first outpost to undertake prompt, inflationary expansion, leading to a switch from staffing by temporary personnel on fixed tours of duty to civilians, choosing to adopt the Moon as their new homeland, working to support themselves and to earn credit from exports to attain export-import break-even, and making themselves and their families at home on the Moon.
I am well aware that we may have some members who would be quite content with an Antarctic style human presence on the Moon. But the Society must not itself ever be content with that. The fire in the gut of the Artemis Project™ founders, and ASI members, must continue to blaze in our own gut.
Peter Kokh
President, The Moon Society
09/10/06 04:47:47 pm, 
Lunar Enterprise Daily
by kokhmmm
Link: http://www.spaceagepub.com/Daily.html
There is now a direct link on the Moon Society front page to Lunar Enterprise Daily, an online report on moon-relevant space developments published at 12:00 Hawaii Standard Time for the following day's edition every business day, that is, five days a week, barring holidays.
LED’s inaugural issue was November 4, 1999. It was originally available as a subscription service ($295 per year, $595 for organizations.) But thanks to increasing revenues from advertising, LED became freely available earlier this year.
The man behind LED and Space Age Publishing [SAP] which puts it out, is Steve Durst, a long time ASI and Moon Society member, and currently a Moon Society Advisor. SAP was founded in Palo Alto, CA in 1977 and opened an office in Hawaii on Hawai’i Island in 1988.
SAP pursues a business plan for its third office on the Moon. With its Lunar Enterprise Corporation subsidiary, Space Age advances and supports a wide variety of scientific, commercial and international lunar activities and enterprises – such as the International Lunar Observatory – consistent with a human return to the Moon within the decade. Space Age also promotes Hawaii Space Tours, Stanford on the Moon and the Ad Astra Kansas initiatives -- To The Stars”
We hope you enjoy and appreciate the availability of this news service. LED has consistently reported significant Moon Society Developments and frequently reports on major Moon Miners’ Manifesto articles and editorials. The LED link is immediately above the Today’s Space Science News feed in the lower center of our front page. Get in the habit of clicking through every time you visit our home page!
Moon Society hails very successful conclusion of SMART-1 mission
by kokhmmm
Link: http://www.moonsociety.org/reports/smart-1impact.html
SMART-1, less the fuel it consumed on its lazy corkscrew path to the Moon by ion drive, weighed only 300 some kilos. Of that 19 kilos comprised the set of seven instruments, some flown for the very first time, that would add invaluable new data mapping the Moon's surface for key elements, notably calcium, and finding in that data confirming evidence about the Moon's origins.
But the SMART-1 Mission Team controllers were smart themselves. They found a way to turn the rest of the probes bulk mass into a unique instrument as well.
Click on the linked report above to read more about impact/splashout science.
SMART stands for "Small Missions for Advanced Research and Technology"
Amen to that!
from Peter Kokh
Modular Construction within Shielded Megastructures
by kokhmmm
Link: http://www.moonsociety.org/2003-pcsn/15-megamodularity.html
"Modularity Inside Megastructures" is the current "feature image" posted August 30th to the Society front page, top center.
Modular Construction within Shielded Megastructures will be quite different from building individually pressurized modules, whether they are to be each individually shielded, or housed together under a shielded but unpressurized canopy or hanger or lavatube.
This architectural option was developed for the double-vaulted rille settlements proposed by the Prinzton design study.
Prinzton: A Rille-Bottom Settlement for Three Thousand People
© Lunar Reclamation Society 1989
http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/rille_paper1.htm
The same conditions would apply to a settlement built within a sealed and pressurized lavatube, an option considered physically impractical on engineering grounds by some writers.
Inside a pressurized megastructure, modules used to provide living, working, learning, and recreational space need not be cylindrical, spherical or otherwise shaped to contain pressure forces. For in a megastructure, atmospheric pressure would be the same indoors and outdoors (or middoors - the common spaces outside homes, and other activity housing structures, if you reserve outdoors for the external vacuum of the lunar surface.)
Indeed, in theory, we could import the commonplace construction methods used on Earth. However, the need to build space quickly and efficiently and inexpensively for an expanding population makes modularity very attractive.
On Earth, the nearest comparison is factory built modules, all sized to fit flatbed truck-trailer transport. Of course, the building materials would be different. Fiberglass reinforced concrete, glass glass composites, and metal alloys would prevail. Wood, plastics such as vinyl, and fiber-based composition products would be out. We need to reserve organic materials (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and their compounds) for biospheric purposes.
The factory producing modules could be within the structure. But if a steady market for its products is foreseen at other locations on the Moon, it is likely to be somewhere out on the surface, nearby the construction site, or within transport range.
That means the modules will have to be brought into the megastructure by a one-size-fits all snug fitting freight airlock. This will avoid excessive loss of the megastructure’s atmosphere through constant cycling. Freight elevators, flatbed trucks, cranes will all work most efficiently if the modules are the same size, have the same grappling points, and are approximately the same weight.
But that leaves architects and outfitters quite a bit of room for custom exterior and interior finishing and outfitting, placement of windows, doors, interior partitions, interior layouts, etc.
Indeed, modules might be ordered or sold unfinished, if the customer so desires. Once occupied, they can be finished inside and outside at leisure, allowing time for the customer to change initial preferences, etc. In the interests of ready occupancy, however, modules would be ordered with exterior doors, windows, and interior placement of a drop in kitchen-bathroom core complex and peripheral utility runs.
In this illustration, modules are cross stacked. Of course, they could be stacked one exactly on top of the other, just as well. Cross-stacking, however, provides pairs of built-in patios or balconies on every level, as well as rooftop garden space.
We suggested ways of stacking 2 or more tiers of four connected cross-stacked modules for office, school, and other mid-size structures.
In the light one-sixth gravity of the Moon, stacking them several stories high should not be a problem.
Our pyramidal apartment complex, with some modules containing two small apartments, others just one, others 2 or more stacked modules as one large apartment or town house, was inspired by the Habitat 67 complex, Cite du Havre on Montreal’s river front, designed by Moshe Safdie for Expo 1967, perhaps the last of the truly great World Fairs. I had the chance to tour this complex during my week at the fair. It left an indelible impression.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Habitat_67.html
If you look at our sketch, you will see that the complex is supported underneath by an A-frame truss structure which would include stairs to the various levels.
Something like this may never be built on the Moon. But it is a possibility! One of many!
Indeed, there are so many architectural options, even within the rubric of modularity, that lunar settlements, whether modular from the gitgo, individually pressurized and shielded, or under a shielded hanger, or within a rille-bottom, crater, or lavatube megastructure, will have their own flavors and ambiance, their own styles.
No one should expect that when you have seen one lunar town, you will have seen then all. Such remarks are always a sign of a superficial minds.
Of 8 Planets vs. 28 Worlds & Counting
by kokhmmm
Or on demoting the Gas Giants, reinstating Pluto, adding major moons
Okay, you can see the astronomer’s point of view.
But from “a truly human point of view”, most of us are interested in places that can be imagined as “worlds, theaters for human life”, even if the living conditions are much, much less comfortable than we are used to, even if we are talking about spartan, and possibly very temporary outposts or one time exploratory visits. Even if, we may add, we are talking about proxy human visits through the eyes of robot rovers, robot aircraft, robot balloons, etc., that can transport us to these alien landscapes, as opposed to distant views from orbit.
Worlds are places humans can conceivably experience first hand.
So let’s exclude worlds without a hard surface, or world’s on which the surface atmospheric pressure exceeds 100 times what we are used to on Earth.
That standard excludes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune - and is craftily drafted to allow Venus to make the cut. Aerostats hovering just below the Veneran cloud deck at tolerable atmospheric pressure levels, may provide future tourists a real glimpse of Venus' overheated landscapes.
Our definition includes any world with enough mass to force itself into a spheroidal shape. Even Earth, slightly flattened at the poles, is not a true sphere!
That gives us the following list of worlds, grouped by distance from the Sun:
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3-4 Earth, Luna
5 Mars
6-8 Ceres, Pallas, Vesta
9-12 Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto
13-19 Mimas, Enceladys, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus
20-24 Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon
25 Triton
26-27 Pluto, Charon
28 Xena
and other “Plutonians”
“Planet” - a word that can include Jupiter and Mercury in the same category, is a bit contrived. It includes only objects which orbit the sun directly. But what difference does that make? Luna and Europa orbit the Sun just as surely, admittedly while also orbiting Earth and Jupiter respectively. Phenomenologically, there is no difference. Luna and Europa and other major satellites enjoy sunrises and sunsets just as do Earth and Jupiter.
To the public, to the imagination of the would be explorer, traveler, tourist, trader, diplomat, and on and on, Ganymede is a world, Jupiter is not. Titan is a world, Saturn is not, and so on.
So let the astronomers gloat in their victory over the public. Their victory is hollow. The emperor, empress, prince, and princess (the gas giants) have no clothes. Yet they do fill an important role; they create communal gravity wells, making it possible to collocate mulitple moon-worlds in the same solar orbit, very handy for transportation to and fro!
Let's keep the Solar System open. May the human viewpoint prevail!
Peter Kokh