
The Race to Develop the Moon - pseudolus
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/05/06/the-race-to-develop-the-moon
======
eesmith
Article: "Watching the footage of Neil Armstrong’s first steps, it takes a
moment for one’s eyes to make sense of the low-resolution image"

As I understand it, the problem wasn't the video feed, it was the re-
transmission for the global TV audience. The original video was then lost.
Quoting from
[https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1200161/Apol...](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1200161/Apollo-
engineers-admit-taped-high-quality-video-Moon-landing.html) :

> Nasa believed they might contain electronic information that was down linked
> to a radio telescope in Australia from the moon and which could be converted
> into much sharper pictures of the landing than those broadcast on the day.

> 'The question is why didn’t someone see these 45 tapes as something special.
> Boy, do we wish they’d done that,' Nafzger said.

> The grainy images that the world saw in 1969 came from a TV camera pointed
> at a giant wall monitor at mission control, of a live feed from pictures
> sent by satellite from Australia to California and relayed by landline to
> Houston.

Article: "Mahoney believes that, because the space industry was a government-
sanctioned monopoly for decades, there was no room for risk, or for
competition; the fear of failure dominated."

How true is that, really? That is, how many astronauts will (eg.) SpaceX kill
by accepting a higher risk level than NASA? Because NASA certainly had room
for risk.

~~~
dTal
>> The grainy images that the world saw in 1969 came from a TV camera pointed
at a giant wall monitor at mission control, of a live feed from pictures sent
by satellite from Australia to California and relayed by landline to Houston.

Rather offtopic, but if that chain isn't convoluted enough for you, check out
exactly how they accomplished giant wall monitors in the 1960s:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidophor)

[edit: this guy's presentation about them is fantastic:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-BvMcqEc98](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-BvMcqEc98)
]

~~~
eesmith
Neat! Also used in the 'Mother of All Demos' \-
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mother_of_All_Demos)
. Watching recordings of that demo is where I first saw them.

------
daveslash
Today-I-Learned that the Apollo astronauts had to pay for their own bed while
going to The Moon. _" they earned eight dollars a day, minus a fee for a bed
on the spacecraft"_

~~~
kowdermeister
You might like this travel voucher reimbursement to the trip to the moon :)

[https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/758126112287383552](https://twitter.com/TheRealBuzz/status/758126112287383552)

~~~
reaperducer
I don't see anything in there about mileage in the space vehicle, only on the
ground. The oldest IRS rate I could find is from 1980: 22¢/mile. So for
205,000 miles the reimbursement would be $45,100. Or $138,724.09 in today's
money.

(Yes, I know the mileage isn't reimbursable because government transportation
was provided.)

------
Pfhreak
When are developing asteroids? The moon is a neat stepping stone, but the raw
quantity of space stuff just sitting in asteroids is where I'm really excited
to see us go. We're talking chunks of rare metals in the thousands of tons
range. As well as kilometers of iron, nickel, and water for building and
supplying ships in space.

~~~
DiseasedBadger
I miss the Obama space administration. Instead of shooting for platinum
mountains, we're planning to spend 20$ billion to repeat a great fucking
Kennedy did decades ago.

Except we're in denial about the cost, so we're not actually planning to spend
that much money. So we won't succeed.

Honk honk, indeed.

~~~
gozzle
> _Honk honk, indeed_

We can be cynical without resorting to the clown Pepe meme. While hiding it
behind a type of dogwhistle can be attractive, I'm sure there are many other
people outside of one community that can relate to your sentiment here.

------
sidcool
India is launching their second moon probe in July, expected to land on Moon
by September. China has also ramped up its efforts. US has declared its
intentions of landing humans on moon by 2030. I am sure India and China will
have similar capabilities till 2030 as well.

~~~
lorenzhs
The US is aiming for a return to the moon by 2024: [https://www.space.com/us-
astronauts-moon-return-by-2024.html](https://www.space.com/us-astronauts-moon-
return-by-2024.html)

------
slfnflctd
Absolutely the best overview I've seen yet of "the Moon situation", with a
fully sufficient range of the most salient facts well described-- in addition
to plenty of poetic trivia garnish I never knew about. Anybody who isn't
anticipating some aspect of this does not fully understand one of the most
fundamental human drives.

Everyone who has an iota of interest should read this, I plan to share it
widely. I also highly recommend the Apollo 11 documentary to anyone who hasn't
seen it.

------
hinkley
Kim Stanley Robinson's latest book is Red Moon, and it's set maybe a decade or
two after moon colonization has happened. It's not his best work (it's worth
reading but I'm not sure if it's worth owning) but he is known for this genre
of fiction and it has some pretty interesting observations in it.

~~~
mercutio2
Good book. Surprisingly little moon stuff, mostly about China’s unique
governing system interacting with China’s residency laws.

I’m curious how much research he did on China’s internal politics; hard for me
to know how much was based in reality.

~~~
hinkley
I’ve wondered the same. He certainly talks as if he did a lot of studying. I
wonder if he used a consultant.

~~~
rotexo
According to him at a bookstore appearance he did a few months ago, he did a
lot of research. I believe he had substantial discussions with Chinese friends
(mostly academics). He also said he did a reading at an event with Liu Cixin.

------
radley
The Verge has far more details on what everyone is going:

[https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/29/18117741/nasa-clps-
progr...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/11/29/18117741/nasa-clps-program-moon-
lunar-landers-commercial-partnerships)

------
imtringued
Unfortunately there is almost no carbon or hydrogen on the moon with the
exception of trace amounts in permanently shadowed craters. Self sufficiency
is barely possible in those areas which comprise less than 1% of the moon's
surface.

~~~
woodandsteel
As the article says, the moon has water, and that means hydrogen. Regarding
carbon, it is an abundant element in the universe, so I would expect there
would be a good deal in the minerals.

~~~
8bitsrule
It says "now we know that there’s water there"

"Know" ? According to Wiki, "scientists have conjectured since the 1960s that
water ice could survive in cold, permanently shadowed craters at the Moon's
poles."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water)

That article is full of qualifiers. Considering how much thorough science is
found in WP ... and the -strong desire- many feel to verify this as fact ...
where's the beef?

We "know" Mars has methane, too.

Suppose there really is water. In what quantities? Where? (If they don't land
near it ... transport?) Who is going to -bet their life on it- ??

I've never found a definitive source for this "know". I'm all eyes.

------
amelius
Wouldn't it be easier to hunt for resources deeper in Earth's crust?

~~~
rtkwe
Depends on what you want it for.

For use on earth probably but there's also a lot of unexplored potential
surface and near surface resources on the moon where going deeper and deeper
into the earth is quite expensive and dangerous in it's own right.

For use in space especially consumables like water it makes a lot of sense to
find them in space as much as possible because the rocket equation is a royal
pain in the ass from the ground. Starting in space drastically increases the
amount of mass we could move around. Eventually we could build the bulk of the
structure in space and only lift up hard to manufacture stuff like life
support and computer systems to install in space (and eventually, hopefully,
be able to build everything off earth but there's a LOT of industrial base to
build up before things like ICs can be manufactured off world).

~~~
all2
For silicon based things, the moon would make sense for manufacturers. Is
there enough solar energy for something like that? Specifically for smelting
and refinement? What materials would need to be shipped in for manufacture?

~~~
Symmetry
For half the month the lunar surface is basically paradise for solar
electricity with 1.3 kw/m2 of sunlight 24 hours a day instead of just the 1.0
kw/m2 on Earth's surface for half the day. But the other half of the month is
complete darkness except star and Earth light. Unless you're at one of the
poles and rig a solar panel to rotate horizontally.

This is good for industrial processes you can start and stop over the course
of a month but life support needs lots of batteries, about 10 times the weight
of the solar panels.

~~~
lorenzhs
That's not how the moon works. There's no "dark side", only a "far side" that
always faces away from the earth. It's just that a moon day lasts ~28.5 earth
days.

~~~
eesmith
I believe Symmetry understands that, though the phrase '24 hours a day' should
be '24 hours an Earth day' to prevent possible confusion.

~~~
lorenzhs
I believe Symmetry edited their comment to correct it, or maybe I misread.
Anyway, it's correct now.

~~~
eesmith
Not that it makes a difference, but I like to investigate things.

Symmetry has made many comments about the Moon, and they are consistent with
the comment made here, and in alignment with my understanding of the physics.

For examples:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959884](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8959884)
says "the only viable colonization sites on the moon are the north and south
poles, where you can get solar power continuously." and
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14997459#15002984](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14997459#15002984)
"The Moon rotates once every month and Mars once every 24 hours. If you're
using solar panels it's a big deal making it though the lunar night, you'll
need lots of batteries, maybe 25 times the weight of your panels. ... There
are the Peaks of Eternal Light on the south pole of the moon where this isn't
an issue and you can just keep pointing your solar panels at different parts
of the horizon all month." These were made 4 and 2 years ago, respectively.

~~~
lorenzhs
Then it must have been my error, and the correction happened in my head upon
re-reading :)

------
morley
The article mentions a 12-minute landing video, but naive Googling doesn't
turn anything up except a bunch of much shorter videos (less than 3 minutes).
Does anyone have a link to the full thing?

~~~
stronglikedan
Did you check the Kubrick archives?

------
Circuits
Why do I get the feeling the first people to make it too the moon in the 21'st
century are going to be the first people to make first contact with an alien
civilization?

~~~
DuskStar
Well, the US does operate some of the largest radio telescopes, so that isn't
too farfetched.

Unless you meant the 21st century? Since the only people to walk on the moon
in the 20th were americans.

~~~
Circuits
Whoops!

------
_bxg1
I wonder how long it'll take us to harvest enough mass from the moon that it
messes up the tides.

------
kilovoltaire
"Mostly science payloads, mostly NASA. Some commercial."

reminded me of

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

------
skookumchuck
Establishing a moon base seems far more pragmatic than one on Mars. It's a lot
easier to debug problems there so a Mars mission would be much more likely to
be a success.

------
Bizarro
_All the moonwalkers were men, all were American, all but one were Boy Scouts,
and almost all listened to country-and-Western music on their way to the moon_

These writers just can't help themselves. It's part of their hive-mind
checklist.

~~~
TuringNYC
This is a New Yorker article, so it has a literary bent in terms of details
and descriptions typical of long-form publication. That is what New Yorker
subscribers want. See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-
form_journalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-form_journalism)

For straight-to-the-science, Wikipedia or other publications are better.

There is a publication for most major preferences. I used to love the detail
of The New Yorker when i was single and had lots of time (former paper
subscriber here, and current consumer via Audm.)

~~~
username223
If I have time to read about some unusual subject purely for enjoyment, it's
hard to beat the New Yorker. I still remember a truly wonderful pair of
articles years ago about a road-trip across Russia (written by Ian Frazier?).
They allowed me to experience a place I'll never visit, and I enjoyed the
trip.

If I just want information, I'll go to Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, etc., search
for some keywords, skim it, and close the tab. Writing can be used for many
purposes.

------
flareback
Please don't.

------
joering2
If you want to understand why there will never be a Moon base on the Moon, all
you have to do is to take a look at any photo of the Moon itself - without
atmosphere the planet is being been bombarded so often that you would have to
go underground. Deep underground. Too deep underground!

~~~
azernik
Not very deep at all - meteoroid protection requires only about 15-20cm of
regolith, and radiation protection requires about 2m. Easily doable.

[https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/human.htm...](https://space.nss.org/settlement/nasa/spaceresvol4/human.html)

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Sure, if you're only trying to protect against meteroids and radiation. But
there's a whole lot of craters deeper than 2m on the moon. If you're trying to
protect against the impacts that produced them, you do in fact have to be a
long way down.

~~~
azernik
(Nitpick: those impactors are also meteorites, just big ones; the numbers in
the paper I linked numbers are based on probabilities over time of an impactor
large enough to get through shielding.)

Giant impacts are relatively rare - in the ~13 years of NASA's monitoring
program, the largest impactor seen on the Earth-facing hemisphere of the moon
left a 15m (inner diameter) crater
[[https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.6458.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.6458.pdf)],
and most have been orders of magnitude smaller.

Remember - the Moon has no active tectonics, no atmospheric weathering, and no
water or other liquid evaporation/condensation cycle. The craters you see are
an aggregate over _billions_ of years, including some periods of _much_ higher
levels of random debris than currently (e.g. the Late Heavy Bombardment, which
left most of the truly stupendous craters). In any given human lifetime spent
on the Moon, you're unlikely to even be within visible distance of an impactor
that can go through 2m of regolith.

