ISRU Fiberglass?

noosfractal · 2005-10-18 00:16:08

The linked article is short on detail, but wouldn't fiberglass become brittle at Lunar and Martian temperatures? Maybe less brittle than steel?

http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/srr/SRR-VI-p … s_SRR6.pdf
.

John Creighton · 2005-10-18 12:06:00

It sounds promising and is definitely worth further research. Obviously the most important near-term benefit is the ability to store lunar oxygen. As for it being brittle well it is suppose to be an order of magnitude stronger. That should help. Hopefully the dissimilar mettles will work well as an epoxy since we don’t want to have to ship to much carbon from earth.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 00:37:40

Hopefully the dissimilar mettles will work well as an epoxy since we don’t want to have to ship to much carbon from earth.

The whole dearth of luna carbon thing is a drag. Do we have any idea what it would take to get a C-type asteroid to the luna surface in a way that would leave us carbon and hydrogen to spare? Zubrin talks somewhere about using some percentage (7%?) of the volatiles of an ammonia asteroid to put it on collision course with Mars for terraforming purposes. Could we do something like that? Would anything be left of the asteroid after collision? I guess we could use another percentage of the asteroid to slow it down. I read somewhere that there might be volatiles frozen to the walls of old lava tubes. May be we could use rovots to create a "spongy" area on the luna surface that would trap volatiles from an incoming asteroid, even if most of it were vaporized. Can we bring an asteroid into lunar orbit without endangering the Earth? I guess the C-types are safe enough - they'd just burn up.

.

John Creighton · 2005-10-19 01:11:43

Hopefully the dissimilar mettles will work well as an epoxy since we don’t want to have to ship to much carbon from earth.
The whole dearth of luna carbon thing is a drag. Do we have any idea what it would take to get a C-type asteroid to the luna surface in a way that would leave us carbon and hydrogen to spare? Zubrin talks somewhere about using some percentage (7%?) of the volatiles of an ammonia asteroid to put it on collision course with Mars for terraforming purposes. Could we do something like that? Would anything be left of the asteroid after collision? I guess we could use another percentage of the asteroid to slow it down. I read somewhere that there might be volatiles frozen to the walls of old lava tubes. May be we could use rovots to create a "spongy" area on the luna surface that would trap volatiles from an incoming asteroid, even if most of it were vaporized. Can we bring an asteroid into lunar orbit without endangering the Earth? I guess the C-types are safe enough - they'd just burn up.
.

I don’t think people would go for aiming an asteroid at the earth moon system. However, if they would we could……..try aerobreaking an asteroid off earth. j/k Mining it in orbit and brining the carbon down to mars via a space elevator. I think though there are three much more likely options:

1) Try to extract the limited carbon from the moon
2) Bring carbon from earth
3) Mine it on an asteroid

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 02:57:29

3) Mine it on an asteroid

Here is an in-depth look at asteroid mining ...

http://www.permanent.com/a-mining.htm

He makes it sound so easy It looks like solar powered on-site extraction is the way to go. One issue is that many asteroids spin, which could make it hard to keep solar power constant. You can either despin the asteroid (with tethers) or orbit at a distance and have miningbots "kick up" interesting bits of the surface towards a canopy. Zero gravity makes processing easy. Volatiles from the asteroid are used for delivery.

.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 06:30:04

"Scraping away at the surface of the asteroid requires holding the cutting edge against the outer surface of the asteroid. This would require either local harpoons or anchors imbedded into the surface of the asteroid, or cables or a net around the asteroid for the cutter to hold onto."

I think that this is a show-stopper, that harpoons and other gizmos won't work. This is where Lunar mining has a big, big edge that you don't have to worry about your mining equipment being unable to penitrade the object/area, plus construction will be way way easier. The ISS has been a massive nightmare in signifigant part because of the difficulties of zero-gravity assembly.

BWhite · 2005-10-19 07:39:06

Methane boy wishes to remind everyone that CH4 includes carbon.

Methane / LOX rovers and back up generators allow carbon imports to do double duty since importing inert carbon is simply an expense.

= = =

As for water, one landing of the proposed VSE LSAM cargo version can bring about 20 MT of liquid hydrogen which will yield 180 MT of water if combusted with lunar LOX. In the beginning, why will any base need more than 180 MT of water?

As for carbon, one landing of the proposed VSE LSAM can deliver about 20 MT of CH4 which will yield 15 MT of carbon (& 30 MT of water) which equals 35 MT of CO or 55 MT of CO2. 20 MT of CH4 plus lunar LOX will run rovers and emergency Honda power generators for a long time, and give a small base plenty of carbon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 08:09:45

I wouldn't even begin to bother powering Lunar equipment with imported Methane or Hydrogen without recycling every bit of it, its far too precious to just dump.

Unfortunatly, unless the big HLLV is powerd by RS-68 instead of SSME and M. Griffin can manage deep cuts into the accursed Shuttle Army, I don't think that its economical to send bulk stuff to the Moon.

C M Edwards · 2005-10-19 08:46:13

Given the amount of methane and the mass of the equipment needed to convert it to plastics, it would be simpler to just skip it and send tanks of two-part epoxy instead. I'd suggest just sending rolls of prefabricated fiberglass cloth at first, too - save the smelters for later. And as for vacuum vapor deposition, I'd skip that, too - it requires a carrier gas, which would also have to be manufactured or shipped in. VVD and fuel-to-epoxy conversion are unnecessary. IMHO, garden variety sintering is just fine for lunar fibrglass.

A Mars mission wouldn't have the same conditions, though, and all the raw materials needed to make epoxy (or some other resin) are already there right along with the silica and magnesium needed to make fiberglass. There, conventional resins make more sense than VVD and sintering.

Sending equipment for ISRU fiberglass production is a workable proposition for both Mars and the moon, as long as we don't send the same equipment to both places.

BWhite · 2005-10-19 10:14:06

I wouldn't even begin to bother powering Lunar equipment with imported Methane or Hydrogen without recycling every bit of it, its far too precious to just dump.

I agree. Pretty much everything is too precious to just dump.

My argument for imported methane / H2 works only if every drop of exhaust (H2O & CO2) is captured and recycled.

BWhite · 2005-10-19 10:15:29

Given the amount of methane and the mass of the equipment needed to convert it to plastics, it would be simpler to just skip it and send tanks of two-part epoxy instead. I'd suggest just sending rolls of prefabricated fiberglass cloth at first, too - save the smelters for later. And as for vacuum vapor deposition, I'd skip that, too - it requires a carrier gas, which would also have to be manufactured or shipped in. VVD and fuel-to-epoxy conversion are unnecessary. IMHO, garden variety sintering is just fine for lunar fibrglass.
A Mars mission wouldn't have the same conditions, though, and all the raw materials needed to make epoxy (or some other resin) are already there right along with the silica and magnesium needed to make fiberglass. There, conventional resins make more sense than VVD and sintering.
Sending equipment for ISRU fiberglass production is a workable proposition for both Mars and the moon, as long as we don't send the same equipment to both places.

Do two part expoxies outgas anything useful?

Tim · 2005-10-19 10:51:28

They should use transparent aluminum, just like Scotty would want them to.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123012131

Air Force testing new transparent armor
by Laura Lundin
Air Force Research Laboratory Public Affairs
10/17/2005 - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- Engineers here are testing a new kind of transparent armor -- stronger and lighter than traditional materials -- that could stop armor-piercing weapons from penetrating vehicle windows.
The Air Force Research Laboratory's materials and manufacturing directorate is testing aluminum oxynitride -- ALONtm -- as a replacement for the traditional multi-layered glass transparencies now used in existing ground and air armored vehicles.
The test is being done in conjunction with the Army Research Laboratory at Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., and University of Dayton Research Institute, Ohio.
ALONtm is a ceramic compound with a high compressive strength and durability. When polished, it is the premier transparent armor for use in armored vehicles, said. 1st Lt. Joseph La Monica, transparent armor sub-direction lead
"The substance itself is light years ahead of glass," he said, adding that it offers "higher performance and lighter weight."
Traditional transparent armor is thick layers of bonded glass. The new armor combines the transparent ALONtm piece as a strike plate, a middle section of glass and a polymer backing. Each layer is visibly thinner than the traditional layers.
ALONtm is virtually scratch resistant, offers substantial impact resistance, and provides better durability and protection against armor piercing threats, at roughly half the weight and half the thickness of traditional glass transparent armor, said the lieutenant.
In a June 2004demonstration, an ALONtm test pieces held up to both a .30 caliber Russian M-44 sniper rifle and a .50 caliber Browning Sniper Rifle with armor piercing bullets. While the bullets pierced the glass samples, the armor withstood the impact with no penetration.
In extensive testing, ALONtm has performed well against multiple hits of .30 caliber armor piercing rounds -- typical of anti-aircraft fire, Lieutenant La Monica said. Tests focusing on multiple hits from .50 caliber rounds and improvised explosive devices are in the works.
The lieutenant is optimistic about the results because the physical properties and design of the material are intended to stop higher level threats.
"The higher the threat, the more savings you're going to get," he said. "With glass, to get the protection against higher threats, you have to keep building layers upon layers. But with ALONtm, the material only needs to be increased a few millimeters."
This ability to add the needed protection with only a small amount of material is very advantageous, said Ron Hoffman, an investigator at University of Dayton Research Institute.
"When looking at higher level threats, you want the protection, not the weight," Mr. Hoffman said. "Achieving protection at lighter weights will allow the armor to be more easily integrated into vehicles."
Mr. Hoffman also pointed out the benefit of durability with ALONtm.
"Eventually, with a conventional glass surface, degradation takes place and results in a loss of transparency," Mr. Hoffman said. "Things such as sand have little or no impact on ALONtm, and it probably has a life expectancy many times that of glass."
The scratch-resistant quality will greatly increase the transparency of the armor, giving military members more visual awareness on the battlefield.
"It all comes down to survivability and being able to see what's out there and to make decisions while having the added protection," Mr. Hoffman said.
The Army is looking to use the new armor as windows in ground vehicles, like the Humvee, Lieutenant La Monica said. The Air Force is exploring its use for "in-flight protective transparencies for low, slow-flying aircraft. These include the C-130 Hercules, C-17 Globemaster III, A-10 Thunderbolt II and helicopters.
While some see the possibilities of this material as limitless, manufacturability, size and cost are issues the lab is dealing with before the armor can transition to the field, the lieutenant said.
"Traditional transparent armor costs a little over $3 per square inch. The ALONtm Transparent Armor cost is $10 to $15 per square inch," Lieutenant La Monica said. "The difficulties arise with heating and polishing processes, which lead to higher costs. But we are looking at more cost effective alternatives."
Lieutenant La Monica said experimenting with the polishing process has proven beneficial.
"We found that by polishing it a certain way, we increased the strength of the material by two-fold," he said.
Currently, size is also limited because equipment needed to heat larger pieces is expensive. To help lower costs, the lieutenant said researchers are looking at design variations that use smaller pieces of the armor tiled together to form larger windows.
Lowering cost by using a commercial grade material is also an option, and the results have been promising.
"So far, the difference between the lower-grade material and higher purity in ballistic tests is minimal," he said.
Lieutenant La Monica said once the material can be manufactured in large quantities to meet the military's needs, and the cost brought down, the durability and strength of ALONtm will prove beneficial to the warfighter.
"It might cost more in the beginning, but it is going to cost less in the long run because you are going to have to replace it less," he said.
(Courtesy of Air Force Materiel Command News Service)

BWhite · 2005-10-19 11:31:09

Silicon, aluminum, oxygen and nitrogen! Si-Al-O-N Time to google on how to make this stuff. Lunar alon would be way better than fiberglass.

Maybe President Bush was right after all. We can build spaceships on the Moon. 8)

= = =

ALON looks perfect for spacecraft portholes and helmet visors.

John Creighton · 2005-10-19 11:54:50

Silicon, aluminum, oxygen and nitrogen! Si-Al-O-N Time to google on how to make this stuff. Lunar alon would be way better than fiberglass.
Maybe President Bush was right after all. We can build spaceships on the Moon. 8)
= = =
ALON looks perfect for spacecraft portholes and helmet visors.

Can you make an equivalent to fiberglass from alon? Remember that vacuum hardened fiberglass is an order of magnitude stronger then fiberglass on earth. It will also give you oxygen and metals as a byproduct. The big point of fiberglass is not it’s mechanical properties but the easy it can be used in manufacturing process. For instance it can be spun around a mold to make a bottle or an oxegen storage tank. It can be used to make fabrics and cables. As I understand alon will be more difficult to make and work with and thus would not be as versatile.

GCNRevenger · 2005-10-19 12:33:52

Where are you going to get the nitrogen from?

Grypd · 2005-10-19 15:16:44

On the permanent site before they moved the forums I put forward a robot miner that was to mine volatiles from NEOs and this to be transported back to the Earth system.

The mining robot would approach an asteroid and since many are of a nature covered in asteroidal regolith it would attach itself either by harpoons but also by using corkscrew drills to gain a purchase in the regolith or to drive down to a more solid surface. There was also a possibility of using a glue to adhere to a strong surface.

When this had been accomplished the mining robot would move a band of solar cells to circumgate the asteroid to ensure reasonable constant power. When accomplished it would drill into the NEO and by using heat pump out the volatiles found inside. This would be tanked but slightly distilled with water and the other chemicals seperated. using some of the volatiles the waiting tug would exchange a tank and would be back on its way to the Earth/Moon orbit.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 18:10:51

I think that this is a show-stopper, that harpoons and other gizmos won't work.

It'll be quite a bit of work to find out how to mine asteriods in the most efficient manner, but the C-type asteroids are supposed to have the density of styrofoam, so we might just be able to scoop up strips of the surface - even letting the asteroid's own rotation do most of the work.

.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-19 19:17:16

I have no doubt that we can mine asteroids, but will have to develop new mining technique to get the job done and maybe new kinds of tools too. We may choose to mine an asteroid from the inside to the out side of the asteroid. We might do that by using a laser beam or something to get a pilot hole started and then work from there.

But, I am sure there some way to mine an asteroid and some enterprising person will figure out how to do it once there a market for it.

But, it will still be easier to mine on the Moon because of the 1/6 gravity. It also would probably be a better place to refine those metals too and those other manufacturing process too.

Larry,

BWhite · 2005-10-19 19:50:25

Where are you going to get the nitrogen from?

(a) The technology needed to make the alon powder may be beyond lunar application; but

(b) if (a) is solved then note that the chemical formula for alon is something like 23 Al + 32 O + 4 N. By mass, the nitrogen is a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the whole thing.

Where do we get the nitrogen? From a tank - shipped from Earth.

BWhite · 2005-10-19 19:53:27

Several years ago, either at New Mars or its predecessor board we were discussing what skills would be useful for the first long term team to visit Mars (or the moon).

Back then, I insisted we need a chemist. A versatile, broadly experienced chemist.

I stand by that opinion.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 23:39:20

My argument for imported methane / H2 works only if every drop of exhaust (H2O & CO2) is captured and recycled.

What's reasonable recapture for a methane powered fuel cell? 90%, 99%, higher?

.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 23:47:09

When this had been accomplished the mining robot would move a band of solar cells to circumgate the asteroid to ensure reasonable constant power.

One thing I worry about with solar is that if you kick up a significant amount of asteroid dust you are going to cause yourself problems. Maybe some sort of melting at the surface is the way to go.

noosfractal · 2005-10-19 23:56:09

But, it will still be easier to mine on the Moon because of the 1/6 gravity. It also would probably be a better place to refine those metals too and those other manufacturing process too.

Oh yeah, for most stuff. But we need a way to get volatiles there as well. Theoretically asteroid mining would be cheaper than shipping from Earth, but, like everything else, only once the R&D is done and the infrastructure established. I guess once lunar mining is profitable enough, it'll happen of its own accord.

Martian Republic · 2005-10-20 18:36:00

But, it will still be easier to mine on the Moon because of the 1/6 gravity. It also would probably be a better place to refine those metals too and those other manufacturing process too.
Oh yeah, for most stuff. But we need a way to get volatiles there as well. Theoretically asteroid mining would be cheaper than shipping from Earth, but, like everything else, only once the R&D is done and the infrastructure established. I guess once lunar mining is profitable enough, it'll happen of its own accord.

At least for the next twenty to thirty years or so, the Moon will probably be the best place to put a space factories, because that will probably be where most of the people are too. It would be like putting all of our major air ports in Ant arctic and not have any air port in the rest of the world. There would be no point in doing something like that. You put your factories where the people are going be. It works out better that way when we try and develop space colonies. Also you won't have the time delay and transportation cost to deal with either if your manufacturing scattered all over the asteroid belt. At least it will be better for the first twenty to thirty yeas or so. After we developed a higher level of technology and we got a sufficient number of people into space, then it might not make any difference, but it will in the beginning.

Larry,

Grypd · 2005-10-21 04:09:52

One other point to do with the Moon is that there exists the proposal to create Lunar mass drivers. If these can be built reasonably easy enough then they could provide a means to launch payloads towards the asteroids, this would obviously save a lot of money and fuel as a mass drivers only requirement when built is electrical energy and that the Moon will have in plenty whatever long term base infrastructure is done. And since my previous "asteroid volatile miner" was to be built of mainly Lunar materials it could easily be that they could be mass produced to send to the NEOs by Moon industry some of the garnered volatiles would go back to the Moon to increase industrial and personnel capacity but also that some would go to the Earth orbit/L4,L5 to be used for infrastructure there. This should provide an income source for a long term lunar base.

Hopefully we will find the volatiles that we need on the Moon deposited by the asteroidal "rain" in large quantities as well as water in large quantities but if not then we will have to rely on Earth supply in the short term. Some means have been thought about how best to do this. One is obviously direct tankage where we send tanks of the materials that are reguired. But the tankage is an expensive option as that is a whole mission just delivering one tank group. Other means have been considered to increase the amount of "missing" elements available for recycling. When we send parts up to the Base/s then we should send them in protective packaging that we can turn into needed elements. When we send astronauts there meals will be rich in the needed biological nutrients so when nature happens we can recycle these for use in the farms. These will engender a waste not mindset that should actually be useful as an example to the world below.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-10-18 00:16:08

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#2 2005-10-18 12:06:00

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#3 2005-10-19 00:37:40

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#4 2005-10-19 01:11:43

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#5 2005-10-19 02:57:29

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#6 2005-10-19 06:30:04

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#7 2005-10-19 07:39:06

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#8 2005-10-19 08:09:45

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#9 2005-10-19 08:46:13

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#10 2005-10-19 10:14:06

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#11 2005-10-19 10:15:29

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#12 2005-10-19 10:51:28

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#13 2005-10-19 11:31:09

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#14 2005-10-19 11:54:50

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#15 2005-10-19 12:33:52

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#16 2005-10-19 15:16:44

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#17 2005-10-19 18:10:51

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#18 2005-10-19 19:17:16

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#19 2005-10-19 19:50:25

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#20 2005-10-19 19:53:27

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#21 2005-10-19 23:39:20

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#22 2005-10-19 23:47:09

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#23 2005-10-19 23:56:09

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#24 2005-10-20 18:36:00

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

#25 2005-10-21 04:09:52

Re: ISRU Fiberglass?

Board footer