Thanks so much for bringing politics into this, because I don't see enough political crap in my daily life

/sarcasm

I once read a speculative essay that suggested any manned base on the moon would be more of a publicity stunt. There are probably plenty of things for us to accomplish with a permanent moon base, it claimed, but the moon is close enough that we could remote-control robots with minimal delay - which would probably be safer and more cost-efficient.

@ Brokinarrow, aint that true I am so tired of both parties and their stupid bantering and finger pointing its like watching two siblings fighting and going to their mom to say what each one did to try to get them into trouble.

I feel like I am in grade school watching a hair pulling fight. I am so sick of it. I just wish that there were candidates running that would actually address the problems of this country rather then when their opponent did or didnt do.

Never mind that. What I want to know is why it is impossible for a space shuttle to go to the moon?

This is how I was thinking of doing it (if I was the head of NASA) ...Attach one thin and one thick fuel module to the underside of one of the three remaining space shuttles - if you aren't sure about this idea then you can use the one you are about to throw away - it should at least be able to cope with the stresses of a lunar landing, and if it doesn't ...well, there are plenty of non-astronauts who would risk their lives on such a foolhardy adventure, and you have no right to deny them the chance of a lifetime!

As I was saying, attach two flat fuel modules, one thick and one thin one, sandwiching the thin module between the other two. The thick fuel module is to get the shuttle from the space station to the moon and back - it needs to have a large cockpit on the front for navigational purposes, and for the amazing view that the lucky person inside it will get of the moon below.

The thin fuel module is to get the shuttle down to the surface of the moon and back into lunar orbit. The Shuttle will have plenty of "space" for moon-buggies etc.! They should also take plenty of food with them - why not spend a week on the moon?! I am only thinking about the person stuck in the cockpit, or I would suggest an even longer stay on the lunar surface.

Upon completion of their "mission" (I prefer the word "adventure") the Space Shuttle takes off from the lunar surface using the rest of the fuel in the thin fuel module and docks with the large fuel module. It then returns to the Space Station. Please note - using my idea you have turned a Space Shuttle into a (reusable) "Moon Shuttle"! You can take tools and parts and do repairs on the lunar surface, as they are needed, but the stresses of space travel and lunar landings would be nowhere near as damaging to the Shuttle as the stresses of launching from Earth, including re-entry into Earth's atmosphere, in my opinion - and the "Moon Shuttle" isn't using it's own fuel - it is using metal or carbon-fibre fuel tanks which aren't subjected to atmosphere, external abrasion or corrosion, or high acceleration. And once you have the fuel in orbit, it is very fuel efficient.

Okay ...it's so obvious, I cannot believe that people are not saying this to you all the time! "Why can't the Space Shuttle fly to the moon?!" But being so naive, I have no idea of how imbecilic I am going to look beforehand, so I don't mind suggesting it publicly. Now tell me, NASA. why is it impossible to go to the moon in a Space Shuttle? (It must be or you would have done it some time since the nineteen-seventies, wouldn't you?!)

If you use the Space Shuttle "Discovery" it might finally get a chance to discoversomething - instead of being "retired" as are NASA's plans! Obama has just cancelled your moon-shot program and given you a fifteen-year plan to go to an asteroid ...and a 25 year plan to go to Mars ...is that correct? But you know that's just a lot of talk ... until recently you was all set to go to the Moon, so there's plenty of time to cancel your plans to go to Mars. You know its just pie in the sky! I don't think this would be too expensive - and you would get to go back to the moon on a regular basis. That would be good value for money, wouldn't it?

Now please tell me why it's so impossible! I would like to know why???!

"Never mind that. What I want to know is why it is impossible for a space shuttle to go to the moon?"

Jane, a shuttle orbiter is designed around the fact that it can easily dissipate heat via the radiator panels on the inside of the payload bay doors about half the time, by being in the Earth's shadow. (said heat comes from electronic and human waste heat in the orbiter, and from the Sun, in daylight.) Between Earth and Moon, it's in daylight constantly. Now this isn't insurmountable, but it has to be considered.

The Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs) require ground support equipment to star up, that isn't necessary to keep them going after liftoff. They aren't restartable in space. (This was the first problem Ares-1 had. Its upper stage was to be an air-startable, expendable version of the SSME, but th engineers couldn't make the idea work. The had to settle for the lower-performance J-2 engine, and compensate by cutting the weight of the Orion capsule, and adding a 5th segment to the solid first stage...)

Orbiter SSMEs are dead weight, once in LEO, and you want to drag that weight to the Moon and back. Once they shut down, all you have are the OMS engines and thrusters. You'd have to add some sort of external engines to go on to escape velocity, and do all the other propulsive burns that must come later

Orbiter thermal protection tiles and materials can't handle the higher temperatures of re-entry coming back from the Moon, so you'd have to bring the fuel/oxidizer to propulsively brake to Earth orbit, when coming back from the Moon. And that's yet more mass that must make most of the round trip with you, requiring still more fuel at the beginning.

Orbiters are designed to do an aerodynamic horizontal landing on a runway after aerobraking during re-entry at the end of a mission. You can't do that on the Moon (indeed, the weight of wings are now a penalty), so that's more fuel for some kind of vertical landing and takeoff that also has to be brought from Earth.

Would you have it touch down in a horizontal position on its landing gear? An orbiter has no means to retract its gear once extended. This matters little after a normal mission. It's a glider, it drops its wheels at the last minute to reduce drag. (Extending them is the only thing the crew must do manually, the computers don't connect to the wheels, so there can be no accidental deployment on orbit.) At that point, it isn't going anywhere else but that runway it's already over. Assuming the temperature extremes of the Lunar surface wouldn't damage the tires, you can't pull them back into the wheel wells for re-entry later.

Getting out and back in the ship? An orbiter's only air lock is to the payload bay, not to the outside. The door from the outside to the middeck is just a door....and then you need some sort of stair/ladder that it doesn't have, either. (someone on Earth rolls that up to you, just as at an airport) And there's no good way to get modules or other stuff out of that bay, over the wings, and onto the surface.

Now, yeah, if you really really tried hard enough, seriously re-designed the orbiter enough, did all the other things, you could technically make this work...and with enough power, you can make a pig fly, but that doesn't make it an eagle.

You'd be much better off spending your time and money to do this, on a new vehicle that's meant to operate this way. The movie '2001' is a perfect example. The PanAm spaceplane didn't go all the way to the Moon, people transferred at a space station to a craft designed to operate only in vacuum, and continued on the the Lunar surface that way.

No, it's not 'impossible' in that what you want would violate no laws of physics, but with the limitations of chemical fuels (You got some kind of ultra-high performance nuclear thermal rocket? Then yeah, single-stage to the Moon is entirely possible...where is it? Show it to us, and we'll design a nice vehicle around it [that still won't look like a shuttle orbiter] for you.), it totally violates engineering and economic sense. It just isn't worth the trouble. The Shuttle is a re-useable launch vehicle, not a re-useable interplanetary vehicle.

No, it's not 'impossible' in that what you want would violate no laws of physics, but with the limitations of chemical fuels (You got some kind of ultra-high performance nuclear thermal rocket? Then yeah, single-stage to the Moon is entirely possible...where is it? Show it to us, and we'll design a nice vehicle around it [that still won't look like a shuttle orbiter] for you), it totally violates engineering and economic sense. It just isn't worth the trouble. The Shuttle is a re-useable launchvehicle, not a re-useable interplanetary vehicle.

Thank you! (It's Elizabeth by the way, but I don't mind using NASA social conventions, so I will call you "Glover"! It reminds me of "Blake's 7" - my favourite, "Avon" - i.e. "Kerr Avon" - and Vila, Blake and so forth, are all last names.)

I admit that I would not have known most of that, and I was prepared to look like a complete idiot in advance of making this suggestion. It wasn't as nearly as bad as I thought it would be, though - there is quite a lot that I can salvage from the wreckage of my proposal, which parts I will now bravely put before you!

It just isn't worth the trouble. The Shuttle is a re-useable launch vehicle, not a re-useable interplanetary vehicle.

That is the essence of what you are saying, is it not - the Space Shuttle just isn't suited to playing the role of "Moon Shuttle"?!

Fortunately for my proposal, I was suggesting that the Shuttle stay in space forever - never to return to Earth, and not to use it's own fuel, but to use two "fuel modules" attached to its underside - one thick and one thin. These would be separate detachable modules, each with their own engines - the Space Shuttle's engines would not be used, and it would not need to use its own fuel. It could be completely emptied!

The "Moon Shuttle" would, according to what I proposed, travel from the Space Station to the Moon and back, never to Earth ...and I suggested some advantages that would arise from doing this - it would be subjected to little stresses of its own, and repairs could be carried out on the surface of the moon.

The "thin fuel module" would be attached to the underside of the Shuttle itself, and would contain the fuel and engines necessary to take the shuttle down onto the surface of the Moon. I did, actually, envisage the Space Shuttle landing on the Moon's surface horizontally ... I hope you won't mind if I quote you extensively at this point, as I find this to be a very interesting part of my proposal, and counter-intuitive to what you anyone might have thought I was going to say:

Orbiters are designed to do an aerodynamic horizontal landing on a runway after aerobraking during re-entry at the end of a mission. You can't do that on the Moon (indeed, the weight of wings are now a penalty), so that's more fuel for some kind of vertical landing and takeoff that also has to be brought from Earth.

Would you have it touch down in a horizontal position on its landing gear? An orbiter has no means to retract its gear once extended. This matters little after a normal mission. It's a glider, it drops its wheels at the last minute to reduce drag. (Extending them is the only thing the crew must do manually, the computers don't connect to the wheels, so there can be no accidental deployment on orbit.) At that point, it isn't going anywhere else but that runway it's already over. Assuming the temperature extremes of the Lunar surface wouldn't damage the tires, you can't pull them back into the wheel wells for re-entry later.

Of course the wings would be a practical liability, in that the Space Shuttle would not be able to glide ...but think of the aesthetics of the situation - here is an iconic vehicle that the United States has used to travel into space and back for over thirty years, now landing on the surface of the Moon, instead of on the surface of the Earth, and then taking off and returning to space - (or vice versa, depending upon which way you like to conceptualize it!).

For such a sight it is worth keeping the Shuttle intact, don't you think?!

As for the landing gear, yes, of course this form of landing would not work on the Moon - but this would look just as good!: Because the Shuttle now has a thin fuel module on its entire underside, the landing gear can no longer be deployed from the Shuttle - instead, a lunar-lander type landing gear - legs at each corner - are deployed from, not the Space Shuttle, but the "thin fuel module" strapped beneath the body of the Space Shuttle. Since there is no atmosphere to consider when landing, this "thin module" could have a permanent ladder attached to the side for descending to the surface from the Shuttle.

Weight considerations are still important - but far less important when you only need to reach the Moon's escape velocity - so please, see the Space Shuttle as being intact - NASA could use some of that old showmanship, again, Glover, in my opinion - think about your style! This will look really good to people on Earth!

As for lift-off - again, via a 'V-HOTL'-methodology, the Shuttle takes off from a horizontal orientation, on extensible legs, but in a vertical direction! Remember, the "thin fuel module" is purpose-designed for this role, thus adapting the Space Shuttle as a "Moon Lander". Also, the three components are reusable - the Space Shuttle, the "thin fuel module", and the "thick fuel module", together forming one "Moon Shuttle" no part of which ever returns to the crippling gravity vortex of planet Earth.

Orbiter thermal protection tiles and materials can't handle the higher temperatures of re-entry coming back from the Moon, so you'd have to bring the fuel/oxidizer to propulsively brake to Earth orbit, when coming back from the Moon. And that's yet more mass that must make most of the round trip with you, requiring still more fuel at the beginning.

... Again, no re-entry to Earth, and no atmosphere to worry about - equipment should last longer and need fewer repairs and less maintenance ... is that correct? ...which can be done on the Moon?!

Perhaps part of a cave system on the Moon (recently discovered) could be sealed off and used as a base for safe habitation, where, perhaps, even fuel could be extracted from lunar soil? Would that be possible? If it were, then fuel, at least some of it, could come from the moon, not Earth - and that is a money-saving economy!

Getting out and back in the ship? An orbiter's only air lock is to the payload bay, not to the outside. The door from the outside to the middeck is just a door....and then you need some sort of stair/ladder that it doesn't have, either. (Someone on Earth rolls that up to you, just as at an airport.) And there's no good way to get modules or other stuff out of that bay, over the wings, and onto the surface.

Yes, but a robotic armature could be fitted and it would not have to be too robust if it never had to deal with anything more than the moon's gravity. You could lift a lot more on the moon, too, and you could bounce things out, with some inflatable padding, perhaps - things would not tend to break so easily if they were dropped even from a considerable height onto a hard surface. Perhaps another airlock could be added? Perhaps even in the floor of the shuttle, and out through the side of the "thin module" beneath it - or a tube beneath a ceiling door hatch, with an elevator going straight up? The possibilities are expanded because the Shuttle no longer has to conform to its previous limitation; and there is a permanent ("thin") "fuel module" beneath it, now, some of which space can be adapted for modifications to the Shuttle's interior architecture.

The "thick fuel module", as I said, goes under the "thin fuel module" and would have a cockpit with panoramic windows and living quarters at the front, away from the propulsion engines, and this would be the component that orbits the moon and provides propulsion to and from the Space Station - not the Earth - so, with all three components together, providing you are willing to call the Earth's orbit "Earth", this would make a "single-stage to the Moon" "re-useable interplanetary vehicle" out of a "re-useable launch vehicle".

Now, yeah, if you really really tried hard enough, seriously re-designed the orbiter enough, did all the other things, you could technically make this work...and with enough power, you can make a pig fly, but that doesn't make it an eagle.

Yeah, "do all the other things", as JFK said! And what was the result, eight years later, Glover?! The Moon!!

I know, it doesn't make engineering sense - but you know how much money and how much time it would take to design a new vehicle...

Show it to us, and we'll design a nice vehicle around it [that still won't look like a shuttle orbiter] for you; It totally violates engineering and economic sense. It just isn't worth the trouble.

...it would be all talk, nothing would really happen. But the Space Shuttle is there, and you've refurbished it before - it's a cheap alternative, and it would look great, and, I think, it would work ...and I do now have the benefit of your admission that it is, at least, possible. It might not fly exactly like an eagle, but it wouldn't look like a pig, either ...it would be an adventure!! An inspiring adventure! And you have these shuttles - don't throw them away, use one, at least, to get from the Space Station to the Moon and back, now. If you can show Obama how you can do this he might come up with the money - perhaps he needs to save his reputation more than he needs the money, and wouldn't people like something to believe in?! The United States space program is - I hate to say this to you, of all people, but if I didn't I wouldn't be truthful in my opinions - a laughing stock, because everyone on this planet knows that without the rock star scientist, Werner von Braun and all the other ["not an ardent"] Nazi rocket scientists who engaged in the Space Race on both sides for peaceful competition between their former mortal enemies, the United States cannot get there, and has, somehow, lost the technology,the know how, and the spirit that it had before, to get to the Moon.

Werner von Braun reminds me of Jim Morrison - only moreso, even! You need that sense of who you are, or you won't do it - it isn't just technical, or budgetary considerations, you have to have a dream!!!

My apologies for not appropriately using your given name

"That is the essence of what you are saying, is it not - the Space Shuttle just isn't suited to playing the role of "Moon Shuttle"?!"

It's extremely unsuited, yes.

"Fortunately for my proposal, I was suggesting that the Shuttle stay in space forever - never to return to Earth,"

Then that also adds the fact that a Shuttle orbiter's consumables (OMS propellant, H2 and O2 for the fuel cells, crew life-support) can't be re-supplied in space either, just as most planes are not designed for mid-air refueling. Yet another serious modification you'd have to make.

"Of course the wings would be a practical liability, in that the Space Shuttle would not be able to glide ...but think of the aesthetics of the situation - here is an iconic vehicle that the United States has used to travel into space and back for over thirty years, now landing on the surface of the Moon, instead of on the surface of the Earth, and then taking off and returning to space - (or vice versa, depending upon which way you like to conceptualize it!)."

I might not mind that so much if again, we had access to means of propulsion that made that relatively trivial. But currently we don't. With the limits of chemical propulsion, every bit of efficiency seriously matters. A space-only vehicle based on the technology of ISS modules would make more engineering sense today, than trying to turn Shuttle orbiters into something they're not even close to being.

"For such a sight it is worth keeping the Shuttle intact, don't you think?!"

I prefer keeping them intact on Earth for their historical value, and proceeding with better technology.

"...where, perhaps, even fuel could be extracted from lunar soil? Would that be possible?"

Oxygen extraction from the Lunar regolith can be done pretty much anywhere, yes. (and it's a very energy-intensive process) Hydrogen (along with oxygen) can only be derived from those places where useful concentrations of water ice are known to exist. This mostly means near the poles.

...Assuming you can or want to use hydrogen-oxygen rockets.

"Yeah, "do all the other things", as JFK said! And what was the result, eight years later, Glover?! The Moon!!"

Doing it 'because it is hard,' as he said, doesn't mean doing it any harder than necessary.

There are many ways that one could have, and could still go to the Moon and back. Pre-Apollo, it was mostly visualized as assembling vacuum-only ships of the sort you want at a space station, that would then proceed to the Moon (or elsewhere). But we used the Apollo architecture, in order to meet the goals of doing it 'before the decade is out' and before the Soviets, whichever came first. (which made a single-launch heavy-lift vehicle of a craft with a seperate, expendable Lunar lander, the best design to that end) Not for economy or sustainability ('Waste anything but time' was the mantra, back then.)

Today, we're not in a geopolitical competition with another superpower (at least not in the sense of a time-limited 'race'), and going into the solar system in the most efficient manner is now paramount. (as it really always should have been)

"I know, it doesn't make engineering sense - but you know how much money and how much time it would take to design a new vehicle.."

And as noted above, we have time, and it need not take as long as you may think. It's not as if technology has stood still since Apollo 17, or the freezing of the Shuttle design (both in 1972)

What's required is this proposal by the United Launch Alliance, or something very much like it:

http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AffordableExplorationArchitecture2009.pdf

...Nor could the kind of orbiter re-design you propose be done very quickly, either.

"it would be an adventure!! An inspiring adventure!"

Indeed. And one that's not dependent on a specific spacecraft design. Really. That humans are doing this, is more important than that they might be doing it in a familiar looking spacecraft.

"...use one, at least, to get from the Space Station to the Moon and back, now."

What you want is not trivial engineering, despite the fact that it starts with established technology. As noted, it could be done that way either now, or even very soon.Nor do you want to do this with just one, or even four modified orbiters. Economies of scale come from high frequency of operations, with large numbers of vehicles. Don't think small.

"Werner von Braun reminds me of Jim Morrison - only moreso, even! You need that sense of who you are, or you won't do it - it isn't just technical, or budgetary considerations, you have to have a dream!!!"

Budgets do matter, if you want to keep going out there (especially in a government-funded and/or commercial program), but we don't really disagree. I debate only the means, not the goal.

I was not in the least offended - I fantasised, from my extensive knowledge of science fiction, that the use of second names was commonplace in NASA - yours sounds very suitable for science fiction, and since I prefer the advances made in science fiction to the depressing state of affairs that has ensued since 1972, I would not mind using it. It is a let down when you grow up believing that the turn of the century will see moonbases ("2001: A Space Odyssey" [1968], Moonbase Alpha in "Space 1999") and NASA can only offer what we already had in the nineteen-sixties and early seventies - space stations, exploration of Mars, Jupiter, and the solar system - and we had more exploration of Venus by both superpowers! (Venera: U.S.S.R.) - but sans human lunar exploration ...and with promises, so many broken promises, that one day "we will go to Mars", reduced to "return to the Moon", recently reduced to "go to Mars" again, but pointlessly, lacking credibility, like hearing the crying of "Wolf! Wolf!" - It's not that I'm opposed - as the poster in Mulder's bedroom said: "I want to believe!" - but ... How can I believe, and why would I want to believe, what I know to be lies?!

But maybe I will subject you to more of my whining about how NASA has let me down, and let my entire generation down, and let the whole world down, later!

Then that also adds the fact that a Shuttle orbiter's consumables (OMS propellant, H2 and O2 for the fuel cells, crew life-support) can't be re-supplied in space either, just as most planes are not designed for mid-air refueling. Yet another serious modification you'd have to make.

But, as I said, I am not suggesting the Space Shuttle be used for propulsion - nowhere did I suggest that - what I am proposing is that the two "fuel modules" be designed for the purpose of (A) turning the Shuttle into a "Lunar Lander" by adding the "thin fuel module, and; (B) turning the combined Shuttle-"thin fuel module" into a "Moon shuttle" by docking it with the second, larger, fuel module ...both of which modules are purpose built - so refuelling the Space Shuttle is not in my proposal ...many statements referring to this, that you have missed e.g.

The "thin fuel module" would be attached to the underside of the Shuttle itself, and would contain the fuel and engines necessary to take the shuttle down onto the surface of the Moon.

(I know you don't have much time - but I do have to point out this oversight!)

I might not mind that so much if again, we had access to means of propulsion that made that relatively trivial. But currently we don't. With the limits of chemical propulsion, every bit of efficiency seriously matters. A space-only vehicle based on the technology of ISS modules would make more engineering sense today, than trying to turn Shuttle orbiters into something they're not even close to being.

This is what you wish for, but which you do not have - what I am saying is that you already have something that will do - and which is fanciful enough to inspire the imagination of the world, something I think you overlook!: You are regarding this whole thing like a chore, a prosaic organizational goal, when the whole point - if there is any point to what you are doing, is to inspire human beings. You are killing the very purpose of what you are doing by treating it like a military objective and a complicated "problem" that has to be solved somehow - like trying to solve a problem with the economy or the environment. Why do you even bother! If it isn't about imagination and dreams, then you may as well say it's a huge waste of money and stop doing it. It's like war - war isn't necessary, either, but people do it! Exploring space is also unconsciously motivated - but not from a desire for power and dominance, as many wars are, but for freedom! Can you dispute that?! From deep unconscious needs that must be satisfied, not rationalised into dust, and not put off indefinitely. The Purpose! The Purpose!! The Purpose!!!

Reduce everything to efficiency, and you lose sight of the purpose!

Here are some quotes about water and fuel ...it.s not just at the poles, as you say, though extracting water etc. at the poles would be more efficient - but beginning now and continuously extracting renewable water and other matterials for fuel, water for consumption, and air to breathe - will produce these things now ...not on the never never, and save money now - and that's money for dreams! Remember the story of the tortoise and the hare?!

Before I produce these press clippings though, I would just like to point out that the Marius Hills are 14 degrees North, 56 degrees West - not far from the poles - and that that is where a hole, a cave, has been found, possibly leading onto a whole labyrinth of caves, and so the best place on the Moon for a colony!

At the very worst it would be the ideal place for a base - there is space enough for that - and that means great savings in materials for building a base - of course if another country got there first ...? Not that that would be my reason for urgency and for going there - my reasons would be (1) economy (2) exploration - reminiscent of H.G.Wells' "The First Men in the Moon" (3) mystery (4) materials (5) safety (6) now! ...but not necessarily in that order!

Here are my press clippings - including from the reference you gave me, which I looked up:

This is from the United Launch Alliance pdf file you referred me to:

The use of smaller, commercial launchers coupled with orbital depots eliminates the need for a large launch vehicle. Much is made of the need for more launches- this is perceived as a detriment. However since 75% of all the mass lifted to low earth orbit is merely propellant with no intrinsic value it represents the optimal cargo for low-cost, strictly commercial launch operations. These commercial launch vehicles, lifting a simple payload to a repeatable location, can be operated on regular, predictable schedules.

Source: "A Commercially Based Lunar Architecture"

This is similar in principle to my proposal - which you reject on engineering grounds (though I have refuted many or most of your objections) and on grounds of efficiency - though you are talking only of optimum fuel efficiency, focussing on only one attribute, not the entire picture, and this does not necessarily even mean optimum economic value - though this is not my sole or prime consideration - since it is imagination that sells commodities and services, not "optimum economic efficiencies" (which are a small factor in the big economic picture).

For example, right now, Richard Branson has pre-paid seats on a space plane - a waste of money in economic terms - but that is not the reason why people are buying tickets into space. There are people who will pay tens of millions of dollars to live in space; so how much would the wealthy pay to go to the Moon - or into the Moon - right now?! The wealthy can be trained as astronauts, to do the hard things - they are, at least, at the present time, capable of making large sums of money! - And they will pay handsomely for these elite services - while working, they will be adventuring! And the media interest in such an event - worldwide would be worth billions of dollars. You could ask President Obama to match private sponsorship with a proportion in additional Government contributions - it would increase investment from both sources simultaneously, it being a synergistic relationship. The more investment, the greater the enterprise, and so the more interest, and so, the more investment. Dreams can do this - Hollywood would die without the power of dreams to fund movie-making!

People will laugh at my proposal - they will laugh at the idea of sending a "dead Shuttle walking" to the Moon! They will laugh with absolute incredulity and they will say: "NASA's gone mad!" But they will be curious, and, in fact, totally mystified! They will be amazed that you are really serious about this proposal. And it will get enormous public attention.

Compared to that, what do savings in optimum fuel economy add up to?! It is illogical to focus narrowly on one or two considerations and to ignore the big picture. It is pedantic, and pedantry will not get you to the Moon, no matter how logically you frame your proposals - even politicians need to be inspired, and they will be more likely to support you, if you can inspire them to - on economic grounds, space travel is a waste of money: Economy is a losing argument, when it comes to raising funding for space travel - space travel itself is uneconomic.

Here are some more press clippings:

In the late 1990s, scientists found pockets of hydrogen on the moon, and inferred that its molecules could bond with oxygen to make water, the professor said. He called the older information much coarser.

This time, researchers are reassured that the components are on the moon to make water because of the presence of hydroxyl -- produced when hydrogen and oxygen also bond with a mineral structure.

The researchers said the results also suggest that the molecules are continually being created on the lunar surface, perhaps as a result of the solar wind -- the stream of ionized particles ejected by the sun.

Source: NASA "There is Water in Lunar Soil" ... (September 24th, 2009)

When we say ‘water on the moon,’ we are not talking about lakes, oceans or even puddles," the study’s lead author, Carle Pieters, a planetary geologist at Rhode Island’s Brown University, said. "Water on the moon means molecules of water and hydroxyl that interact with molecules of rock and dust specifically in the top millimeters of the moon’s surface."

Discovering the substance would be like finding a goldmine, the agency said at the time, putting the cost of transporting a bottle of water to the moon at $50,000.

Brown planetary geologist Peter Schultz and graduate student Brendan Hermalyn, along with NASA scientists, write that the cloud kicked up by the rocket’s impact showed the Moon’s soil and subsurface is more complex than believed: Not only did the lunar regolith — the soil — contain water, it also harbored other compounds, such as hydroxyl, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia, free sodium, and, surprisingly, silver.

This place looks like it’s a treasure chest of elements, of compounds that have been released all over the Moon," Schultz said, "and they’ve been put in this bucket in the permanent shadows."

Schultz believes the variety of volatiles found in Cabeus crater’s soil implies a kind of tug of war between what is being accumulated and what is being lost to the tenuous lunar atmosphere.

Source: Peter Schultz, Brown: Lunar regolith contains water, hydroxyl, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, ammonia, free sodium & silver -October 25, 2010)

Source: "Scientists Contemplate Water Factory on the Moon" - October 25th, 2010

The gaping, dark pit on the near side of the moon is as big as a city block and deep as a modest skyscraper. It is thought to be a collapsed lava tube, created perhaps billions of years ago when the moon was warmer and volcanically active.

Finding such an opening could be a boon for possible human exploration of the moon.

Source: "Hole in the Moon Could Shelter Colonists" - 31 December 2009

A deep hole on the moon that could open into a vast underground tunnel has been found for the first time. The discovery strengthens evidence for subsurface, lava-carved channels that could shield future human colonists from space radiation and other hazards.

The moon seems to possess long, winding tunnels ...

Since the tubes may be hundreds of metres wide, they could provide plenty of space for an underground lunar outpost. The tubes' ceilings could protect astronauts from space radiation, meteoroid impacts and wild temperature fluctuations

Source: "Found: first 'skylight' on the moon" - New Scientist (22 October 2009)

This press clipping was missing from those that I wished to draw your attention to:

Roughly a year after water molecules were first discovered on the moon, scientists last week announced that water is present in much greater quantities there than had originally been thought.

Specifically, not only is the soil within the moon's shadowy craters "rich in useful materials" -- including pure ice crystals -- but the moon is chemically active and even has a water cycle,

The new analysis actually suggests that there's about 10 times more water than had originally been thought, Paul Czysz, professor emeritus of aerospace engineering ... it's within the realm of possibility, he added. "We can put in a little robotic factory that basically takes water out and stores it," he explained.

Source: "Scientists Contemplate Water Factory on the Moon" - October 25th, 2010

I have to admit to an error regarding the proximity of the hole, cave or cavern, to the pole - 14 degrees is not near the pole - I got it the wrong way around - it is near the equator! However, it will stilll provide protection, and it would be likely to save lots of money in transporting construction materials for walls, roofing, support beams etc - whatever the alternative design and type of construction might be.

A tunnel, such as is indicated by the geological evidence, could be sealed and airlocked at both ends. One end would be an entrance to the lunar surface - the other end would be a doorway to "The Centre of the Moon"! Now there is a mystery!

And, compensating for my error regarding the longitude of this cave system, is the great depth of the hole and the possible labyrinth of tunnels that might be accessible from this point on the Moon's surface and which should, because they are so low and so completely sheltered, contain large quantities of water, and other gases, which will not have had any opportunity to sublimate since these igneous rocks within the Moon cooled. And how long ago would that have been?! So there is a wealth of fuel, air, water, and other space-treasures that can easily be obtained, all underground - where all that is needed to establish a base is lighting, flooring in places, a machine to do the work, and supplies for the guests.

And, in addition, there is also Marius Crater in this vicinity, too, I believe, which is a very, very large crater - is that correct?

And Frank, don't be so afraid of death!

I would be afraid of pain, and I would be afraid of being trapped, but death itself is not something to fear.

If you project your fears onto your soldiers, and onto your astronauts and "your" people - beings whom you have deprived of freedom in some, or in any or all ways - who are in your power, and who are therefore your responsibility, then you are forcing them to fantasize about the manner in which they will die - and that is wrong. You should free them from these fears. You have no right to inflict these terrors on other human beings - or even animals! - that you are in control of: You must provide them with an easy way to die, should they need to resort to it, should they choose death rather than the alternative that they are in fear of and cannot avoid. You must provide them with cyanide capsules - "suicide pills" - to put their minds at rest.

And if you are not afraid to send human beings into a war zone, then you should not be afraid for them to go into space and to the Moon, and beyond the Moon, and even, as it would appear to them, permanently, if that is their decision and their choice; nor to project your fears onto others and in so doing preventing others from so choosing - from choosing their own fates. So many people would choose! And by holding them back from such an adventure, you are imposing your will and your fears onto them, and thus depriving them of their freedom. If they want to go, and we need them to go (because not all of us can go) then you should not stop them!

Complete safety is not everything - more important than complete safety is complete freedom from fear, and the freedom to choose to go to the stars!

You send people to Afghanistan, knowing they are not completely safe, but now, unlike in the days of conscription, they choose to go. You allow human beings their freedom to do this! But they do not choose to suffer and they do not choose to fantasize about how you will cause them to die!

In "fearing for them" you knowingly force those under your control to die in violent and terrifying wars that you would never choose for yourself, and that they would never choose for themselves. And in "fearing for their lives and safety" you also force them to re-enact visions of their own deaths in all manner of ways, in their own minds - whether or not they will die under your power and within your control, or not! Their minds are trying to prepare them to die in such ways. These are not just fears for their own safety, they are also fears of the inevitable. It is your choice to terrorize them with such visions of their deaths. Provide them with what they need to feel safe when in danger, so that their deaths are no longer in your power. It can be cyanide, or something else that will be sure, and swift, and humane. I had to tell you this! I can't help them directly, but you can. Please tell this to your President.

2.5kw is a lot of power for a mini helicopter.

The photovoltaic cells we use at LaserMotive are 50% efficient for the wavelength we use, and the laser is 50% efficient as well (60% are commercially available now). The lasers were not turned up to full power - they were putting out only ~900 watts of power, and the quadrocopter consumed nearly 180W. Also, microwave-to-electrical conversion doesn't include the electric-to-microwave conversion, so the overall efficiency is not that much better than current laser efficiency.

A "laser pointer" per CDRH standards is 5mW maximum. 250,000 5mW lasers is 1.25 kilowatts, not 2.5kW.

This should go without saying but, it might be the fact that then you would be using microwave radiation. A few scattered photons in the IR band aren't very likely to give you cancer. The microwave band is a different matter entirely. (With ir you can close your eyes to prevent blindness. No such luck with microwaves) The very large amount of illegal radio interference you would be broadcasting at that point would be minor trouble in comparison.

As far as the efficiency of PV cells. It all depends on the frequency. Different materials respond differently to specific bands of radiation. Sunshine operates over a very wide bandwith, and it's difficult if not impossible to get a PV cell to operate over the entire range. IR cells tuned to a very specific band can be much more efficent however.

I wonder if when the Wright brothers got their first heavier than air flyer off the ground if some snarky person was in the back complaining that you could ride in one of them newfangled horseless carrages much faster than it could fly... (which at the time, was true)

Until the edge of the atmosphere, then what? Hand-over-hand until you reach the orbital point?