Comments on: Future Moon Base Site Imaged in 3-D

By: James Fincannon

James Fincannon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:58:34 +0000

Reading Dr. Koschny's paper, SMART-1 only gathered 7 images during the worse case lunar day (their winter). It is hard to extrapolate the status of "Peak of Eternal Light" based on this. His paper even is entitled "Investigating a peak of (almost) eternal light close to the lunar south pole with SMART-1/AMIE images". This "almost eternal" term is quite oxymoronic.

There are no "peaks of eternal light" at the lunar poles regardless of the hype.

By: peconpie

peconpie — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 05:04:10 +0000

How are those fotos considered 3D? Good sharp fotos but not 3 D on my computer, not even with blue/red glasses.

By: lee

lee — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 04:32:01 +0000

Anyone who would order some one to land in a old volcano tube is using poor judgement !
There has be be better place than that up their !

By: Joe

Joe — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 20:17:34 +0000

I would like to see this hapen. If we could travel to the moon almost 40 years ago why woldn't it make sence to have some kind of space station there. The reserch that could hapen and the study of Luna would be awsome. Also it could be the hub for all who "own" property on the surface.
I have some property and have bought a golf trip on Lunar Links and am looking forward to getting my tee time. For any of you that don't have a tee time from Lunar Links go to the newest craze in intergalactic sports. The web ste is http://www.ootwo.com I have all the certs. Golfing, Sandsurffing Fishing on the ice caps of Europa and the best one is the Mountain climb on Olypus Mons real cool. Go get yours. I hope that Nasa or whom ever gets there first makes enough room for all of us

By: Aaron

Aaron — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 12:36:38 +0000

Very interesting article. I feel it necessary to continue to expand our research and colonize the moon. Think of the possibilities. The real question though is who truly owns the moon (this blog talks about that http://www.ootwo.com/blog/post/2008/05/Trespassing-on-the-Moon-and-other-celestial-bodies.aspx) and who wants to go golfing (www.ootwo.com/moon.asp)?

By: Offworlder

Offworlder — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:19:31 +0000

Is it just me, or does that crater really look like the Apple logo in the 1st overhead image. Isn't that taking corporate sponsership a bit far?

By: Warren Platts

Warren Platts — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 22:13:38 +0000

The north pole would be better IMO. The water concentration is ten times higher.

By: Jorge

Jorge — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:30:55 +0000

Well, the risks of an asteroid hitting a moon base are relatively low, even without atmosphere. There just isn't all that many stuff around. Which is why, BTW, we can have a working space station in Earth's orbit for years without any significant impact.

Naturally, they grow as the base gets bigger and the occupation time gets longer. But I'd wager you could have a moon base in place for decades or even perhaps centuries without being hit by anything larger than dust.

The down side to it is that probabilities are probabilities. A moonbase could remain untouched for millenia, but it could also be destroyed the very day it's settled. There's most certainly a risk to it…

By: Hunnter

Hunnter — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 15:52:31 +0000

If anything, they should built a portable base.
Surely it wouldn't be that hard for them to construct a crawler of sorts, 4 of them together to hold a base in the center.
It would be like a small bus, but with spider crawlers where the wheels would normally be.

That, combined with scanner(s) to detect any incoming objects should be enough i think.

Perhaps those attempts to recreate an EM field around them could help too.
But in saying that, i doubt it would help much, or be strong enough to fight off even the worst storms. (look at Earth, it can barely defend itself against them)
Perhaps a donut-shaped habitat would be better, with the generator in the center. (since as we know, the field won't be perfect, as we see on Earth via Auroras)

Ah who knows, this'll probably not happen till 2050, what with all these delays and stuff…

By: Niki

Niki — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:58:32 +0000

Here I Am!

By: John -- www.moonposter.ie

John -- www.moonposter.ie — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 11:38:53 +0000

Maxwell is correct — a temporary base would be at less risk, while a permananet one at more. A future permanent base will therefore have to take into account the existing lunar terrain.

Like on Earth, there are expected to be areas where dried-up lava tubes (rilles) hundred's of km long, as well as huge volcanic gas blister domes underneath the lunar surface, have left behind huge, huge caverns (some from 20 – 50 km in diameter).

These would make ideal locations for a future base, if not a future lunar city, and would, at most, give some protection.

While meteroid/asteroid activity at the Moon would be at a higher risk of actual impacts occurring (that is, unlike Earth, its lack of atmosphere means everything gets through), there still is no way of avoiding an meteroid/asteroid if it is heading towards the Moon (or, Earth also).

The risks, therefore, exist all the time — for a base whether above or underneath the suface.

If we were to adopt a risk-free approach to setting up a base on the Moon, then we wouldn't get anywhere.

In fact, look at all the risks others have taken in the Apollo era to get us where we are today. True heros all yesterday, true heros all tomorrow!

By: Maxwell

Maxwell — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 23:17:06 +0000

If your operating a base for a few weeks or months, I doubt meteorites would be a serious risk. Especially if there is an earth return vehicle propped up next door.

If your talking about a permanent base set to last years and keep staff safe even between flights… I'd think you'd want to go underground.
It would take quite a hefty rock to get you just 10 feet underground. The only problem is getting a base into the dirt with that razor sharp powder all over the place.

By: Per

Per — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:38:29 +0000

Does anyone know if the site takes into account frequent meteor collisions that could at least partially if not entirely destroy a moon base?

By: dollhopf

dollhopf — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 22:23:36 +0000

Kevin F. Says: "The perpetually dark areas would provide a nice haven from solar storms."

Free electrons in the solar wind charge up the moondust. So should there not be a potential difference to the shadowed inside of the craters at the south pole? And if so, then could this potential difference maybe be used as a "natural" source for electrical power for a moon base?

By: pantzov

pantzov — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:59:54 +0000

all of those craters in the pics are a sober reminder of what would eventually happen to any surface-based facility.

By: Sili

Sili — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 20:57:17 +0000

I really love these stories that tell of how scientists work to wrest every single piece of information from their data. Few people are that thrifty.

Is there anything like these features at the other end? It'd be nice to have a good view of the entire sky (if/when we get there …).

Could Earth-shine be a problem for a telescope in the crater?

By: Kevin F.

Kevin F. — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 19:35:36 +0000

The perpetually dark areas would provide a nice haven from solar storms.

By: Stan9FOS

Stan9FOS — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 16:32:00 +0000

I'm ready to go. Nice little studio apartment, some underground caverns for sportflying a'la Heinlien and of course, an all-terrain rover… with an Earthroof!

By: LLDIAZ

LLDIAZ — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:48:07 +0000

I read an article once about the amount of static electricity the moon has at certain points of the day. Is it because of the sun light and if so would that damage communications in any way or is it something else?
(The article was a bit confusing on what actually caused it.)

By: Bonr

Bonr — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:30:19 +0000

Sweet! Can't wait for SELENE to image this area!