New Mars Forums

In my opinion, the mission critical task is to broaden the funding base.

It does not matter what we do, EELV, HLLV, whatever, if the American taxpayer remains the sole funding source, the American space program will wither and die.

The funding base needs to be diversified.

EELV only? The Russians can mount an MLV program far more cheaply than we can. Why play to their strength and our weakness?

Edited By BWhite on 1111141644

NASA's very first lunar mission should include pyrolysis demonstrations.

Go back to my opening post and re-read Zubrin's 2nd essay.

Let NASA open the Moon to commerce. Prove the techniques for extracting lunar O2, then get on with going to Mars.

= = =

If NASA refuses, call Roskosmos!   

Edited By BWhite on 1111101035

RobS, don't haul CO, use CH4 as your primary imported fuel.

Methane is easier to ship and store than LH2 and you can run LOX/methane pressurized rovers that "look like" oversized made-in-Detroit SUVs for the marketing angle and cash inflows. 

Making CO from CH4 is easy enough and supplies energy.

= = =

Collect CO2 ice from your lunar launch sites, if you use methane for lunar launch.

Edited By BWhite on 1111100551

http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/LDEM_ … d.pdf]This study may be the current "state of the art" study on the economics of mining lunar water for rocket fuel.

Links to other studies are appreciated.

This study assumes mining water (assumed to be 1% to 2% of lunar regolith by weight) for purposes of making LH2 and O2. Large infrastructure is required.

Excess O2 is discarded.

Suppose we ignore the water and simply seek to extract O2 using less capital intensive means such as passive solar furnaces. The goal is NOT engineering efficiency but rather capital investment efficiency. Simple pyrolysis should extract massive amounts of O2 relatively easily. Transport O2 using methane or LH2 shipped from Earth and by-pass the whole hydrogen issue, at least to begin with.

Run the numbers again.

My intuition tells me that shipping LOX from Luna and methane or LH2 from Mother Earth to an LEO depot will result in the necessary rocket fuel being positioned in LEO at a lower net cost than shipping water from Luna to L1 for cracking into H2 and O2 and then shipping to LEO.

Far, far less capital investment as well since pyrolysis will allow O2 to be harvested with the most rudimentary of equipment.

Very much less regolith needs to be processed to extract O2 (fewer big machines!) and NO water cracking facilities at L1 or on the Moon.

Initial capital investment? Very substantially smaller than this study assumes.

= = =

If water is produced during pyrolysis (as a minor by-product) well good! Save it and use it!

Also pyrolysis may be a useful step for extracting PGMs by reducing the mass of a sample before running carbonyl processing (Mond process) to further concentrate the PGM laden ore.

Extract O2 then extract iron, nickel, cobalt by Mond Process then smelt further to concentrate the PGMs even more then ship the ore to Earth to complete PGM extraction.

First, the Lunar Hilton must overlook your mining sites.

= ==

So where do we get the billions (tens of billions) needed for RLV research and development? More chickens and eggs.

Think on this. 70% of Ford Motor's 2004 profit came from Ford Motor Credit. Selling insurance and interest on auto loans, not manufacturing cars.

Mining and manufaturing are increasingly becoming a smaller percentage of the overall economy. It may NEVER be profitable to mine lunar platinum as a stand alone business unless we factor in externalities such as reducing pollution (catalytic converters & avoiding mining operations) and enhancing fuel efficiency.

How do we capture the value of increasing fuel efficiencies or reducing pollution? Not easily in a free market, unless consumers are educated on the social benefits of supporting lunar mining.

Selling "souveniers" allows individuals to make micro-payments in lieu of taxation with a similiar macro-ecoomic effect (edit: similar to collecting tax dollars to subsidize space exploration as Wingo advocates  - - and this idea may actually be more efficient than taxation)

Persuade people that lunar mining is in humanity's common interest and then brand merchandise that supports luanr mining.

Canon is willing to spend real money to be the "official camera" of the Chicago Cubs because they believe they will sell more cameras that way.

"Fair trade" coffee is another example. 30% of coffee sold in Britain is labeled fair trade and people pay a premium so they can "feel good" about not oppressing coffee farmers in South America. 

= = =

If Janis Joplin came back to life and brought an honest-to-God Mercedes RLV with her, that would be good. But I won't hold my breath. 

Edited By BWhite on 1111090266

The follow on "master narrative" is that we are going to set up the infrastructure needed to bring back PGMS for fuel cells so we can fight pollution (both from terrestrial mining operations and by be able to use hydrocarboins more efficiently).

Return to the Moon is not merely to make "America feel good" or to "do science" its to begin lunar mining of PGMs.

Currently unprofitable (lunar mining costs would currently exceed PGM revenue) we close the financial circuit by selling intangible media and marketing rights under the theme of "saving the planet"

Edited By BWhite on 1111083134

Zubrin has said he is agnostic about choice of HLLV. Upgrade Delta to 45 - 50 MT and isn't that an HLLV?

If you can do that with lithium alloys and RL-60 upper stages and keep the three core base to avoid the need for a new pad and Boeing VAB and do it cheaper than SDV, well okay then. . .

But can you?

Lawyers, Guns And Money
(Warren Zevon)

Well, I went home with the waitress
The way I always do
How was I to know
She was with the Russians, too
I was gambling in Havana
I took a little risk
Send lawyers, guns and money
Dad, get me out of this
I'm the innocent bystander
Somehow I got stuck
Between the rock and the hard place
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck
And I'm down on my luck
Now I'm hiding in Honduras
I'm a desperate man
Send lawyers, guns and money
The shit has hit the fan

Last fall I heard Rick Tumlinson speak in person and he proposed that "Moon-Mars" be defined as one word, not two.

As a dyed-in-the-wool Mars guy, I can compromise and accept Tumlinson's proposal. Moon first as part of an integrated plan to go on to Mars. Not my first choice, but I will support it 100% as a compromise.

But, if the "Moon only, Mars, well someday far far away"people hi-jack the Moon-Mars initiative and somehow under the table manage to structure the VSE so Mars capability is essentially postponed indefinitely, while saying Moon-Mars in public, I will be :angry:

My political support for the Moon requires "Moon-Mars" be one word, not two. Otherwise, send ONLY robots until GCNRevenger's honest-to-God RLVs come on line.

Once again, immediately post 9/11 may not have been the best time to attempt a discussion of this. . .

Of course, to enact your version (edit: vision) is easier done by stealth.  :;):

Edited By BWhite on 1111006065

Britain tried this about 30 years ago. The reports I saw say dismal failure.

Cindy, I agree with you.

Now, if we want to add additional IRA or 401(k) options on top of the existing program, well good. America does need to increase its savings rate.