Why we need to build a Lunar Base
Many years have passed since Eugene Cernan closed the door of the LEM behind him, closing
forever also the epic of the Apollo Missions.
But at that time it was not known that it would be for "ever", and on the contrary there
was a lot of talk about the future of space exploration, Mars and the great bases that
we would certainly have built on the Moon by the end of the '70s.
Unfortunately, for many reasons, all this has never been realized, but after half a
century it seems that the time has come to resume that discourse interrupted on the most
beautiful.
So we are back to talk about lunar bases, and to make plans for space exploration with
human crews.
Many projects have already been started, and new competitors have joined the space race
that has become mainly a race for mineral resources: Europe, China, India... and above
all, the big private companies, led by businessmen, but also by brilliant visionaries.
Once again, however, we are held back by political uncertainty, which heavily conditions the
strategies to be adopted.
So that one of the big questions of the moment, that if dragged on for a long time will risk
to bog down again the whole sector, is that of "better to bet on Mars or on the Moon"?
To go directly to Mars or to implant first stable bases on the Moon?
What does humanity gain by building a lunar base?
Today, the prospect of returning beyond low Earth orbit seems somehow more daunting, more
dangerous, than it did when the Apollo program ended.
Perhaps we know too much now; perhaps we are less reckless than we once were.
We understand better what can happen out there.
Space can kill us.
But we have to go, and so we will go.
As always.
Mars or the Moon, then?
It's a strategic, political and above all scientific choice.
Many think or hope that the human journey to Mars can be accomplished by 2035.
However, we are talking about a demonstration mission, a "hit and run", if not even a flyby
without the satisfaction of touching the surface.
A bit like Apollo 10 did with the Moon.
But then a complete colony or even a very spartan base to be planted on the red planet
would take decades to accomplish.
And perhaps the best way to learn how to do that is to practice on the Moon.
The Moon is only 380,000 km away and is, in the natural order of things, the first step
in human space exploration.
In fact, our natural satellite represents the first real opportunity for stable human
settlement outside the Earth's atmosphere.
The International Space Station has had the very important task of consolidating our ability
to operate, even for relatively long periods, in microgravity conditions and outside the
atmosphere.
However, to achieve a fully independent space outpost requires leaving low orbit and moving
to the surface of another celestial body.
The closest opportunity to us is therefore the Moon, and the first, fundamental, step
is to consolidate operations to our satellite.
The exploratory missions of the '60s were dress rehearsals, demonstrations of technological
capability, as well as operational, but they represent only a taste of the real challenge
that awaits us: to ensure long stays on a celestial body different from ours, building
settlements that can, one day, sustain themselves in total autonomy.
There is in fact a fundamental difference between demonstrating the ability to go and
return safely and permanently inhabiting a planet different from Earth.
Creating self-sustaining settlements outside of our planet is the real goal that has never
been attempted to date and implies the ability to reinvent the manufacturing process on another
celestial body that includes the extraction of raw materials and subsequent processing
in situ.
In addition to this, it should be added that the now confirmed presence of water makes
extremely realistic the hypothesis of human settlements.
Scientific research, of course, would certainly be one of the main objectives of a permanent
settlement, but the effort would be primarily aimed at the development of technological
capacity.
In a long-term perspective, once developed the transport system capable of ensuring the
connections "Earth-Moon", the Moon could also become a sort of giant industrial zone: a
place where decentralize the highly polluting production activities, lowering the negative
impact they currently have on the Earth's ecosystem.
In addition, because it has low gravity and no substantial atmosphere, the Moon is destined
to become our spaceport par excellence.
A lunar base could therefore one day ensure human and robotic expeditions to the edge
of the solar system and beyond; and offer explorers the opportunity to learn how to
live in hostile, low-gravity environments and test the technologies necessary for their
survival.
Typically, the establishment of a colony on a celestial body involves the provision of
large quantities of materials for the construction of the base itself, as well as for other uses,
including radiation shielding.
The energy required to launch cargo from the Moon into space is much less than that required
to perform the same operation from Earth, which will allow the Moon to serve as a construction
site or supply station for spacecraft.
The proximity of the Moon also gives other invaluable advantages when the project is
to build something on the surface of another celestial body.
Let us try to enumerate them together.
A very short travel time; the astronauts of the Apollo missions covered the Earth-Moon
distance in three days.
Such a short time allows both to quickly send possible rescue missions from Earth and to
quickly evacuate the crew of the lunar base.
For comparison, the distance to Mars with current technology would require 6-9 months
of travel, which would make any serious problems occurring inside the base lethal.
The costs for the initial establishment of a base on the Moon would then be much less
than for a colony on Mars... at least by a factor of 30.
The telecommunications delay between Earth and the Moon is 1.2 seconds, which does not
prevent normal voice and video conversations.
For comparison, the delay with Mars ranges from about eight to forty minutes.
This could be crucial in the early stages of colony establishment, where emergencies
and critical situations could take advantage of near real-time assistance from Earth (an
example of this was the Apollo 13 mission).
On the near side of the Moon, the Earth appears large and always visible, while on Mars when
it is visible it appears as a star.
The crew of a lunar colony would feel psychologically less distant from Earth.
A lunar base would be an excellent site for an astronomical observatory.
Because of the Moon's slow rotation, observations in visible light could last for entire days.
It would also be possible to keep a target under constant observation through a series
of observatories distributed around the lunar circumference.
A radio telescope on the Moon could be much larger than that of Arecibo because of the
low gravity and also the dish could be easily built inside a crater, simply by covering
the cavity in aluminum.
Moreover, the Moon is geologically dead, this - combined with the absence of widespread
human activity - makes almost absent the disturbances from mechanical vibration and therefore more
efficient interferometry telescopes.
Finally, it must be taken into account that on the Moon there could be deposits of minerals
considered rare on Earth (such as titanium, gold, palladium, iridium and uranium) but
also deposits of more common minerals (such as iron, nickel, aluminum); not to mention
water, available in large quantities in the form of ice in polar regions, and not to forget
that on the Moon was found helium-3, an element that could be used by nuclear fusion power
plants, both terrestrial and lunar.
However, this concerns a future still quite far, when we will be able to find a way to
master the fusion process.
“BE sure to join the “Insane Curiosity Channel”...
Click on the bell, you will help us to make products of ever higher quality!”
If we want, the only disadvantages compared to a similar settlement on Mars come from
the force of gravity and radiation raining down from space.
There is uncertainty as to how much lunar gravity (one-sixth of what we experience on
Earth's surface, and half of what we experience on Mars) is sufficient to prevent the long-term
wasting phenomena of the human organism.
Exposure to weightlessness for periods of time on the order of months has been shown
to create a reduction in bone and muscle mass, as well as a depression of the immune system.
Similar effects are produced by a low-gravity environment, although the only experimental
evidence we have so far relates to zero-gravity environments.
Daily exercise appears to be partially effective in preventing the effects of zero gravity.
The absence of an atmosphere makes the lunar surface exposed to large temperature changes
and radiation levels comparable to those experienced in the vacuum of interplanetary space.
Also increasing the risk of impact from meteors.
Another small disadvantage compared to Mars is that the solar panels, to provide energy,
on the Moon are not effective.
They can work only half the time: during the lunar night, everything is in the dark.
It will be necessary to make use of small nuclear reactors, as the Apollo astronauts
already did to provide power to their scientific equipment.
But they were radioisotope generators, less powerful, while in the future will be necessary
real reactors.
Apart from that, it would seem therefore a forced choice that of the Moon... and besides,
barring a resounding about-turn by the incoming Biden presidency, the road seems already marked
by the political decision of Trump and the scientific decision of NASA to start Project
Artemis (goddess of the Moon and sister of Apollo), intended to bring a human crew on
the lunar surface in 2024.
But fingers crossed.
Too often we've seen a change of course in space policy due to a renewal of the top of
the command line: Moon with Bush, Mars with Obama, then Moon again with Trump, now perhaps
Mars with the Moon as an intermediate step.
Huge waste of resources, not to mention all the design energy burned on the altar of specious
ideological differences.
However, NASA has also started to theorize about subsequent missions, maybe for 2026,
in which they foresee the use of a module to allow a short stay on the Moon, but obviously
that will not be considered a real base... structure that we could have maybe in 2030,
not before.
The goal is the Artemis Base Camp, which will include new rovers, power generation systems,
inhabited modules, and everything needed to support a view of the Moon, including technologies
capable of extracting water and materials.
Once the base is operational, astronauts will be able to move to more remote regions of
the Moon.
Whether or not they go to the Moon or Mars, the years ahead will be filled with unprecedented
adventures and scientific discoveries.
This time, however, NASA and the United States will not be the only players in the game.
Space has now become a stage on which private investors such as SpaceX and Blue Origin are
also moving, and likewise, companies and agencies in other countries are beginning to invest
in space infrastructure.
China's space agency, for example, has shown clear interest in the Moon, as have Europe,
Russia and India...
All agree on the creation of permanent bases: initially in lunar orbit and then on the surface
of the satellite.
It is, however, not an easy task.
The first problem is related to the fact that all participants in the "lunar race" intend
to grab the same resources and the same places.
For this reason, even today the debate is essentially concerned not so much with the
scientific aspects of the question as with the legal and commercial ones.
For example, in all lunar programs the area selected for the permanent base is the lunar
South Pole, although from a purely technical point of view flights to and from the orbital
station are easier to be made from the equatorial zone of the satellite.
But just in the area of the lunar South Pole are concentrated the so-called "cold traps",
i.e. areas perennially in shadow, covered with ice
And the beauty of the whole issue is that there is currently no legal treaty able to
regulate the lawfulness and the eventual sharing of mining activities.
Should we start worrying about that too?
What do you think?