You are not logged in.
Well, land first at the poles but the next one and the ones to follow should lay in a straight line towards the equator. Couple each stations power production from solar panels to the other to form a power grid. Bulldoze the way to each others site all to begin the infrastruture needed to expand our presence on the moon.
Also the first mining operations will be loose regolith, easy to scoop up and to process.
Offline
Well we can allways dig in a cable from our base to the points where long periods of sunlight can be found, If we use superconducting materials which will work in the very cold of the lunar dark and dig these in and insulate them then we will have no power loss. As the article states its a distance of 600 miles minimum. And it is when we have no light at our base that we need the power from the poles.
The process can be done by a rover especially designed for the job. No need to have people actually doing it and simply digging the small trench and installing the cable is perfect for teleoperation work. Apollo found lunar regolith to be a very effective insulator and easily moved up to about 13 to 17cm deep but well compacted after that. We would simply cover the cable and an insulated armoured cover made of local materials with gathered regolith and pat it down.
I have in previous posts called for a lunar power grid backed by superconducting wires. Superconductors in the dark areas we will make, will not lose much if any power to resistance so power generation from one site will be available to all. And since as stated superconductors dont suffer much from resistance they can be made thin and also very light and be useful. Since we can use superconductors that have been created now it also means no new research is needed to start such a grid and with a vacuum being needed to make some of the best conductors then the Moon would be a perfect place to make these as gravity is often needed too.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Sounds like a plan for infrastucture building but are we bringing the cables from Earth or learning how to make them from insitu materials?
Quite possibly the first would be brought but moving forward I would think we would build what we need there.
Offline
Oh I'm pretty sure that the US will kindly tell the anti-American "United" Nations to take a long walk out a short airlock if they give us any greif over "World Heritige Site!" or whatnot.
If you are going to build a Lunar base underground, you are going to have to tear up alot of landscape anyway to put it there. And the solar panels/radiators? Blasted dust from rocket engines? Making the Moon "un-pristine" is unavoidable.
So when some keen little Lunar colonist comes along and bulldozers the remains of the Apollo landings because they need to build a base for Plutonium Waste Storage, Thats Ok?
Sounds like a plan for infrastucture building but are we bringing the cables from Earth or learning how to make them from insitu materials?
Quite possibly the first would be brought but moving forward I would think we would build what we need there.
They use to call the simplest power cable "Cherry" because it was a single heavy guage wire of either Aluminium or Copper wrapped in insulation. Since Most of the power will be underground, this will be the more likely. The big cables have a steel support cable around which the conductor is woven. They weigh a lot more than the Basic Copper power cable.
I suppose when you get to the moon at any serious level, you would go for the More exotic systems. Temperature is a problem, Although Copper is a Superconductor, It requires nitrogen mixed in as an alloy mixture component to function at reasonable superconducting temperatures.
Offline
I am sort of wondering about the processing of the lunar regolith ice combinations for the polar locations, would it need a sterilization process. Not to mention being on mars with the possiblity of bateria on mars as a possibility to contend with.
If so maybe this kid should be hired.
Project catches NASA's eye; Solon student wins scholarship cash
Gross said his project was inspired by hearing about problems with bacteria-contaminated water supplies in areas affected by the tsunami disaster in Southeast Asia. He learned that ultraviolet radiation and silver nitrate were two ways of purifying water from bacteria, but he couldn't find any studies combining the two techniques.
He combined low levels of ultraviolet radiation and small amounts of silver nitrate, neither of which would have been effective on their own. But when combined, he had sterile water within an hour -- a result that was greater than one would expect from simply adding the effect of the two techniques together. Gross said this was a "synergy" effect.
Offline
So when some keen little Lunar colonist comes along and bulldozers the remains of the Apollo landings because they need to build a base for Plutonium Waste Storage, Thats Ok?
No can do the Apollo site is an active stucture belonging to the USA any hindrance or touching would be a breach of the outer space treaty. And I have to ask if you wanted to take plutonium to the Moon. Why. If you can get it up there just fire it off to the sun instead!!!
I suppose when you get to the moon at any serious level, you would go for more exotic systems.
Yeah superconductors are great for this purpose as the shade on the Moon is pretty much at a uniform tempature and if the cable is buried and under an insulated cover with a regolith bern above then it would be well protected and cold. We will need to create a solid power grid so when we expand from the initial foothold we can bring the power we need to the new site. Eventually we will have power being put in the grid from somewhere on the Moon all the time.
Still to make superconductors is going to need materials from Earth though its actual manufacture would be done on the Moon. Though the materials needed would not be too heavy as previously said the superconductors will be very light as thickness is not a concern unlike on Earth where the more power that is being conducted the more thickness the wire has to have. The solar panels that generate power and insulated covers will all be produced on the Moon.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Bump another topic fixed for shifting and artifacts....
With the recent signing of mining bill into law its looking more like the coporate model of mining just help make it possible for more to get into space.....
Offline
China wants to mine the moon for ‘space gold’
What are the Chinese doing? Why the increased focus on space and specifically the moon? I see several reasons. First, China views space as a potentially game-changing source of energy security. Specifically, the moon has abundant supplies of helium-3, a light and non-radioactive fusion fuel that is virtually nonexistent here on Earth. Because it lacks an atmosphere and has been bombarded by solar winds containing helium-3 for billions of years, the moon has massive volumes of the isotope. Some estimates suggest there are at least 1.1 million metric tons of helium-3 on the lunar surface, enough to power human energy needs for up to 10,000 years.
Offline
I would have thought with the worlds supply of rare earths lasting only a few years and the Moon literally covered in them in the mineral KreeP would have been more of there interest.
And wow a thread over a decade old im still involved in
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Speaking over topics over a decade in age, do you remeber how I came to be? I remember the Constallation website where you were posting at the time and you sent me an invite to come see the posted topic here on NewMars and while its been a bit of up and down over the years I am still here working towards one day opening up space for all to work in.....
Going back to the moon is not about developing stuff so much for mars but for giving the private industry a leg to begin to produce what we need for space without the contracts. Just buy your latest and greatest space item from off the shelf and go for the mission that it is designed to be used in.....
Offline
I do not think we'll go to the Moon only or to Mars only, I don't think it is a choice between the Moon or Mars. I think a scenario where we go all out for Mars while pretending the Moon is not there and ignoring it is an unrealistic one. I think the scenario of an all out drive to send people to Mars with international partners as part of a UN agency is unrealistic, with the expectation that everything else will be put aside with a single-minded drive for Mars.
I think Obama's cancellation of the Constellation program was foolish, the fact of the matter is, the Moon is easier to get to, and for that reason alone, we are likely to see more footprints on the Moon before we see footprints on Mars. The capability to go to Mars includes the capability to go to the Moon. Going to the Moon is not necessary for going to Mars, there is no need to build a fuel plant on the Moon, there is no need to build a shipyard in orbit to assemble an interplanetary spacecraft for getting to Mars either. A Mars Mission can be broken up into three parts:
1) Getting to Mars
2) Staying on Mars
3) Getting back to Earth
Each phase of the mission can be handled separately through pre-supplies. Probably the easiest to accomplish would be staying on Mars, for that existing vehicles can land supplies on the surface of Mars to last between arrival at Mars and the next launch window back to Earth. We don't need special vehicles for that, we can use what we have for sending probes to Mars, if we land enough of them on Mars, then astronauts who land there will have enough supplies to last. Getting there requires a vehicle that can keep the astronauts alive for 180 days without resupply, and going back could require another vehicle.
The Moon is a lot easier, it just has higher fuel requirements than an International Space Station mission, the launch window to the Moon is constantly open, so long as we have a vehicle which can get us there.
As for a base, we just can launch supplies to the Moon ahead of the astronauts SpaceX can probably use its existing Vehicles for this. Air bags can cushion the landing on the Moon, if they are dropped from a low enough altitude.
Offline
Each phase of the mission can be handled separately through pre-supplies.
1) Getting to Mars
2) Staying on Mars
3) Getting back to Earth
1. is in LEO
2. is on mars surface
3. is in MLO
Offline
There is a certain degree of confidence needed to go to Mars I just don't believe any public space agency has it at the moment. Especially with the Mars effect in which we have lost almost 50% of missions sent to Mars.
I know when it comes to energy the Moon or Mars there is not much difference. Still the Moon is a lot closer and in cases of emergency and in communications this matters
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Well its better than the Russians who have lost 100% of the missions they sent to Mars! The competition is greater now, chances are more likely in the 2020s.
Offline
Im sorry that is wrong the USSR and its successor state Russia have completed many Mars Missions.
Distance is an issue. The USA and ESA have both a history of Martian Failure.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
Wikipedia: List of missions to Mars
Mars 2: Entered orbit 27 November 1971, operated for 362 orbits. Mapping operations unsuccessful due to dust storms on the surface.
Mars 3: Entered orbit 2 December 1971, operated for 20 orbits. Mapping operations unsuccessful due to dust storms on the surface.
Fobos 2: Orbital observations successful, communications lost before landing.
If you want to list failures, then Mars Global Surveyor failed after 7 successful years
On November 2, 2006, NASA lost contact with the spacecraft after commanding it to adjust its solar panels. Several days passed before a faint signal was received indicating that the spacecraft had entered safe mode and was awaiting further instructions.
On November 20, 2006, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft attempted to image Mars Global Surveyor to verify the orientation of the spacecraft. The effort was unsuccessful.
On November 21 and 22, 2006, Mars Global Surveyor failed to relay communications to the Opportunity rover on the surface of Mars. In response to this complication, Mars Exploration Program manager Fuk Li stated, "Realistically, we have run through the most likely possibilities for re-establishing communication, and we are facing the likelihood that the amazing flow of scientific observations from Mars Global Surveyor is over."
On April 13, 2007, NASA announced the loss of the spacecraft was caused by a flaw in a parameter update to the spacecraft's system software. The spacecraft was designed to hold two identical copies of the system software for redundancy and error checking. Subsequent updates to the software encountered a human error when two independent operators updated separate copies with differing parameters. This was followed by a corrective update that unknowingly included a memory fault which resulted in the loss of the spacecraft.
Offline
Im sorry that is wrong the USSR and its successor state Russia have completed many Mars Missions.
Distance is an issue. The USA and ESA have both a history of Martian Failure.
The USSR was just a name change for the Russian Empire, Much as Saint Petersburg became Leningrad and then became Saint Petersburg again, when Lenin took it over after deposing and executing the Czar and his family. The modern state of Russia is just the former Empire resuming its former name. The USSR was just an episode in Russian history, nothing more.
Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-06-18 19:17:25)
Offline
Nation quibbling not required.......
For lunar mining as the topic indicates we need to base the first preloading of goods based on the launch vehicle of choice as the moon does not need the supply for the 6 + month journey so that is a determining factor for life of the mission as well if we should chose to put lots of supplies in LEO.
The supplies on the moon are done by propulsive landing so most of the supplies in LEO will need to be fuel for the number of landers used to get the supplies to the surface for use for the duration that we want to be on the surface. These supplies will include propellant and life support to make it so that we can survive as well as return to orbit to the waiting preload or supplies for the return trip.
Offline
We can use ISRU on the Moon in fact if we want to make something of space we will need to do this.
One great advantage for the Moon is the capacity for electrical power making a very simple solar cell from lunar material has been tested and made into an automated process. This simple solar cell may well not be super efficient it does not need to be. A frames of these cells can be made into large arrays and electrical power in such large amounts allows a whole series of engineering and chemical and mineral extraction processes not efficient here on Earth. Ion Sputtering for an example.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
There are reasons for using the moons resources for going to places beyond the moon and here is one such document Lunar In –Situ Resource Advantages
Offline
I agree that we can use the Moon to create an industry base that can propel us to the whole solar system.
I honestly believe the Moon will be mostly the industrial power for this planet and like the Industrial age of Scotland each advance will provide more advances to promote more industrial capability and more advances.
Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.
Offline
To have an industrial age on the moon we need bodies on it building, mining, exploring if the moon is a pathway to the stars.....
Offline
The Moon would be a great location for an antimatter plant. It has vacuum, solar energy, and proximity to Earth and its markets. The Moon gets 1380 watts per square meter same as Earth, but the advantage is, the Moon is desolate, and the Moon has a vacuum. It is 3476 km in diameter, think of a circular solar array 3476 km in diameter. The area is 9,489,632,999,510.09 square meters, and it intercepts 13,095,693,539,323,924.2 watts of solar power, a watt is a joule per second. The Moon can produce 0.145709242 kg of matter/antimatter per second with perfect conversion of the energy it receives from the Sun, every minute it would produce 8.74255452 kg, every hour it would produce 524.5532712 kg, every day 12.5 metric tons, in a year it would have 4595 tons of matter/antimatter, probably best stored on the far side of the Moon, so that the bulk of the Moon would shield the Earth from a matter/antimatter explosion should anything go wrong.
Offline
So we can make all the antimatter you want but how much energy will it take to keep it from clearing earth moon from its orbit? Its just not something that is needed to get man off the 3rd rock from the sun.....
Offline
The technology and materials to create and handle mass quantities of antimatter simply do not exist yet. That's not to say we shouldn't try, but it's not a good argument for projects on the moon "right now".
The moon being airless and waterless on its surface generally means that the only pollution scenarios that are credible involve particles on ballistic trajectories. That means if you build revetments down in the bottoms of smaller craters, you have a safe place to experiment with dangerous nuclear things that might explode. Nuclear engine plumes simply leave at more-than-escape speed. There are no neighbors to bother. All you need do is contain the debris from an explosion.
Among some other things (including propellant production), a nuclear propulsion experiment station is a very good reason for a permanent human presence on the moon. That is a safe place to experiment with gas core nuclear thermal rockets and with advanced forms of nuclear pulse propulsion. We are going to need far "hotter" forms of propulsion to visit the outer solar system.
I'd site the nuclear station on the backside, to shield the Earth from any EMP effects of a disaster. Disasters eventually are inevitable in all forms of human endeavor, something history teaches. Best to learn the lesson and prepare ahead of time.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline