New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#126 2019-01-26 21:46:51

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Quote:

I remember Space 1999 where the moon is blown out of orbit via a nuclear waste explosion..so who knows.

I think I might remember it.  I think they might have had alien visitors that breathed liquid in their spacesuits.

……

I really have narrowed my focus down to four primary objects in the solar system.

Our Moon, Phobos, Demos, and Mars.

I think our Moon is under rated for what it could do for the cause.
We can very much expect focus to go to the Moon, if other nations are doing things there or saying they are doing things there.  I believe I have already sensed rustling in the bushes on that.

Here is some:
https://www.foxnews.com/science/sending … -astronaut
Opinions like that will not go unnoticed.

Now don't get me wrong, if someone(s) can get a mission to Mars, even if it has some significant odds of failing, even if crews die.  I will step aside and not say words that interfere, unless somehow I know of something that could be a contribution to success (Not likely that I am that significant).

But we need to face hard facts.  If there is a new administration, they will want to say that they have a brilliant new plan.  And if they want to do that then they have to imply that the previous plan was not correct.

But we may have available by the consent of the creators of them, several new space propulsion devices that will have been fostered in part by the current administration and congress.  So, in the event that the focus goes radical to the Moon, and I think it could, then how could these launch systems be used for it?

Really the only one which is intended for beyond the Moon is Starship, so that is what I am talking about.

Again I am talking about adaptive planning.  Have various Segway's in case you get in danger of being pinched in the political gears.

In this case I am thinking Moon base with a significant contribution from Starship technology.

I am thinking in fact of a repurpose Starship.  They will have several versions so why not consider this.  I have mentioned it previously as a method to build space stations.  Just forget a heat shield, fins, and other not appropriate parts.  Make a shell, tanks for propellant and of course engines to support the lofting of the shell to orbit and then to the Moons surface.

I previously thought space station, but really, we need to find out once and for all what the human reaction is to the Lunar environment.  It is very important, and I bet we could get contributions for such a project from many entities, Countries and Companies perhaps.

And the Moon has resources that can help in the development of methods that might work also in other locations in the solar system.

So, what do you need to land a StarShell onto the Moon?  Some propellant, and one engine?  Perhaps after getting to orbit all the other engines would be taken out and returned to the Earth's surface by a cargo version Starship.  And perhaps other parts not needed for the Moon.

Then when on the Moons surface, of course you have to topple the thing without breaking it.  Cranes, or special rocket engines for that?  Rocket engines in the nose???

Then perhaps telepresence machines to cover most of the shell with regolith.  A first insitu use on the Moon.

While many entities would want to be involved in general science, also testing on processing lunar materials could be done.  Perhaps prospecting with telepresence as well.

And with a small human presence and some test animals biology on the Moon could be defined to a greater degree.

As I say, if SpaceX can have clear sailing then just fine go to Mars directly, and ASAP.  But if the geopolitical gears seem to be wanting to bite that plan, then adapt to what can be done on the Moon.  Plan for a better day later to then use resources form the Moon to support a Mars effort.

And don't forget Phobos and Demos.  We haven't unwrapped them yet by any means.  What is coming is a shortage of certain rare Earths, and I think the priority to find them should be to investigate any of the four worlds Luna, Phobos, Demos, Mars.  Find them and likely it will be impossible to stop the human race from extending out into space.


Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-26 22:10:16)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#127 2019-01-27 09:30:53

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Void wrote:

I really have narrowed my focus down to four primary objects in the solar system.

Our Moon, Phobos, Demos, and Mars.

I think our Moon is under rated for what it could do for the cause.

Now don't get me wrong, if someone(s) can get a mission to Mars, even if it has some significant odds of failing, even if crews die.

I would add Venus as well to the list as would categorize it with the distant mars and its moons until man gets it experience back for long duration support from insitu means.

IF BFR pans out or SLS or some other cheap means to get there is develope; we will be at the smaller versions of what we have to build a mission design from until they arrive to the much larger ships. Cost of mission is the problem that must be hurdled in order to achive the distant goals of manned mission beyond the local neighborhood.

Offline

#128 2019-01-27 09:48:59

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,102
Website

Re: Lunar economics etc

I have those four worlds in mind as well. But I also have my eye on Ceres, and hope to get there before anyone else does. It can export water (and other volatiles!) very, very cheaply using space elevators.

Still, I think the Terra-Luna-Mars triangle will be the focus this century. Mining will get the Lunar megalopolis started, and hopefully we'll be able to do some terraforming that makes Mars a lot easier to homestead. Plus, of course, space habitats around Terra and Mars. My guess is that maybe 5-10% of the worlds population have the intelligence and personality traits necessary for space colonists - if a mere 1% of them move off-world, that's 4-8 million people. Hopefully they'll buck the trend of high-IQ people having sub-replacement fertility - space colonies won't be a success if they're population sinks, and this is a risk I don't think anyone has addressed yet. Hopefully the differences in space based societies (there won't be traditional careers for a long time, for example) will enable women to have the number of children they want (desired fertility, as opposed to completed fertility, is typically above replacement). As it gets established, it'll be easier for people to emigrate, but I don't think there'll be much room for most people - no-one is going to pay to import low-wage workers, and they won't be able to pay their own way. Maybe the right half of the bell curve will have the right stuff.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#129 2019-01-27 11:05:06

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

I doubt that we could go any further out than the asteriod belt until we have advanced our current level of technology.

The Asteroid Belt is located in an area of space between the orbits of Mars and Jupiter. That places it between 2.2 and 3.2 astronomical units (AU) from the Sun. The belt is about 1 AU thick. The average distance between objects in the Asteroid Belt is quite large. "Fortunately, the asteroid belt is so huge that, despite its large population of small bodies, the chance of running into one is almost vanishingly small — far less than one in a billion,". Larger asteroids have also been called planetoids. ... Measurements of the rotation rates of large asteroids in the asteroid belt show that there is an upper limit. Very few asteroids with a diameter larger than 100 meters have a rotation period smaller than 2.2 hours.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_belt

I do think that once we can get to the belt that planetoid hopping will be the means to sustaining man.

Offline

#130 2019-01-27 13:08:50

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

SpaceNut, my reasons for pruning Venus from my initial listed tree is, multiple.  I feel that cloud cities are not a real option for growth at this time.  I also want to know if the particles in the clouds of Venus that are about the size of bacterial might be life.  And I wonder if they are life, could they be intelligent life?  Don't laugh.  Bees and several other organisms have "Hive Minds", so I would not absolutely rule out the possibility that some kind of hive mind could exist on Venus.  We need to know.

Fortunately, Venus should be an easy thing to probe for life.  You can send robots to investigate the particles.  I can't think that anything would be living below the clouds, especially if those particles are not life.  Even finding Venus sterile, I would say it is a secondary or tertiary object for out decision tree.

One thing I would like for Venus would be a small outpost/rescue center in orbit.  Nothing human in the clouds at first.
The reason is to support Mars missions, and to study Venus.  But I consider it a option not a necessity.

……

Terraformer,  I feel that Ceres would be secondary to having a fuel depot on Mars, or in Mars orbit, so it would be secondary.  Also, I do wonder if rubble piles are better for long term human use.  They could shelter a synthetic gravity machine(s), and they may, it seems, often have ancient clays that are hydrated, and also of course Carbon, and it is thought rare earths, and platinum group/gold metals.

Phobos and Demos may very well be good trial runs for mining rubble asteroids.  They may in fact even have hydrated minerals, rare earths, and platinum group/gold metals.  So, the Mars/Phobos/Demos package seems very compelling to me, as a primary desire.

……

Now for the Moon, I am a minimalist, until discoverys justifies more be done.

Just now, I have moved into the area of considering how SpaceX could with the best method establish in part a base on the Moon.  In this line of thinking, I am considering the test hopper.  Not to actually send "It" to the Moon, but what it would take to derive a method to send a shell to the Moon, and deploy it on the surface with the minimum risk to humans and the maximum benefit to space progress it can offer.

First of all such a shell will not require a heat shield obviously.  It really will not require landing legs/fins either, but perhaps a "Pogo-Leg".
It should not require all of the engines that are required to get it to LEO, so those could be pulled out of it prior to launch from LEO to the surface of the Moon.

I am not against the use of the super heavy lifter to get this thing to LEO, since it will be robotic and un-crewed.  And doing that then you could load it will Moon stuff for your base.

My thinking is that of course that a tail hover slam is the initial landing process.  But I did stipulate a single leg to protect the engine(s) from jamming into the regolith, and exploding.  Then since such a device will tip over, let it do so, in a controlled way.  Of course then you need rocket engines situated in some manner to ease then thing down to a horizontal position.  Probably more towards the nose.  I will suppose that an ideal site was chosen so that the device could lay on it's side without breaking.  Also I do learn things, so I propose that the shell would be pressurized during this laying down maneuver, to give it more strength.

So then you avoid the use of cranes, and human EVA's to lay the thing down.  You either do or don't do, get it situated properly.
Hatches pop open, solar arrays are deployed.  Airlocks are made available.

I don't see this as competitive with Blue Origin, or the ESA, or other entities, it is it's own unique contribution, with minimum risk to crew, which might efficiently and effectively get the ball rolling on the Moon.

SpaceX could rent out the facility or sell it to a different "Landlord".  Various entities from Earth could rent, to conduct experiments.  You also could have useful tourists.  That is they don't sit around and complain to waiters, but actually do some work while they have a special experience.  Per thinking that Louis has often suggested, perhaps Educational institutions might partially sponsor such people.

And I am thinking a minimum number of people to find out about biology conducted on the Moon.  Both humans and test plants and animals.

And obviously insitu propellant production would be a goal as well.  Hydrogen and Oxygen, for getting ships like "Blue Moon" back off the Moon by refueling, and also I really think that the Moon should be explored as a source of Oxygen propellant for Starships missions to Mars/Phobos/Demos for instance.

Should financial benefit be proven through experiment and discovery, then this would justify more activity on the Moon.

Telepresence development is also important.

As for Radiation in the SpaceX derived Moon station, I would think that storm shelters and sheltered control rooms, bedrooms, and gym/kitchens would be enough.  This shielding could be brought from Earth, but it seems to me that perhaps the notions of the ESA to take goop to the Moon and glue regolith into structure would also work.  The shielding in part then would be Lunar insitu.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-01-27 13:45:20)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#131 2019-01-27 13:26:13

Terraformer
Member
From: Lancashire
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,102
Website

Re: Lunar economics etc

Martian water will be a lot more expensive, since it has to be hauled out of a sizeable gravity well, probably using rockets (a Martian elevator may not be possible to build economically with the materials currently available). If we build large habitats, we need a lot of water. Ceres can host a large number of space elevators, which will be able to fling payloads out without even needing propellent, and certainly a small ion drive would be able to provide the needed propulsion. If a tonne of water sells for $100 in L1, then we'd have to scrape away a square kilometre of Ceres to 10m depth to provide a billion dollars worth of water (10 million tonnes). Could there be a market for 10 million tonnes of water per year, this century? I think so. That's enough for a couple of thousand Starship flights a year. Under robust colonisation plans, I can see it.

It won't be able to compete with the Trojans or Jovian moons once we start exploiting them, but that's even further out.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#132 2019-01-27 13:49:36

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Yes but this is like lighting a fire with flints.  There are several stages of scale.  And our fire starting equipment is based on technology that will be real, (We hope) within a few years.

We need a good fireplace(s), and good sequential processes to get a hearth place going in space.

And we have to deal with the verbal population.  You have to always remember that their are a lot of verbal persons out there that want instant gratification, and would love to party to destitution if given the chance.  So, we are also constrained by what is politically possible.

Within those envelopes we might light a fire.  Maybe.  We might hope.

Done.


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#133 2019-01-27 17:08:44

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

I will agree with you void that venus for a while will be exploration sorties and not permanent set ups to gain in space travel but it would give one the chance to setup an automated gas plant to haul its atmosphere to other locations that could use it. Also the moons of mars and asteriods as well would fall into the same category for exploration and use.

Offline

#134 2019-01-27 18:26:45

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Maybe we are less than 2 years from going to the moon but we will need to be Preparing astronaut lunar exploration

Praticing:

The site chosen for the ESA lunar spacewalk tests in the barren and dry landscape of Lanzarote in the Canary Islands, Spain. Pangaea-X is a test campaign that brings together geology, high-tech survey equipment and space exploration. Astronauts, scientists, operations experts and instrumentation engineers work side-by-side to advance European know-how of integrated human and robotics mission operations. An extension of ESA's Pangaea geology training, the training involves working with the latest technologies in instrumentation, navigation, remote sensing, 3D imaging and geoscience equipment.

esa-lunar-spacewalk-tests-pangaea-x-lanzarote-canary-islands-spain-hg.jpg

http://blogs.esa.int/caves/category/pangaea/

Offline

#135 2019-01-27 19:48:28

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 4,896

Re: Lunar economics etc

I think lunar tourism will drive the Moon economy.  A five day stay at a Lunar Hotel some 20 kms from the Apollo 11 site will be a major pull to rich multi-millionaires.  Attractions will include rover excursions, lunar golf, walking on the Moon, and a visit to the original lunar landing site, plus bringing back your own bit of Mars rock.

I'm just not clear in my own head about how best to deliver this - Starship to the Moon or Starship to LLO and drop a Crew Dragon in a retro rocket cradle.  A Starship will likely imply a major propellant production facility on the Moon but perhaps a Dragon Lunar Lander-Ascender would avoid that? 

The great thing about the Moon, since it is only 3 days away, is we don't need to attempt to create a huge autonomous industrial infrastructure on the Moon. All we need to think about is the "bottom line" - can the tourists' ticket price cover all the costs?


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Online

#136 2019-01-27 20:37:05

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

I agree with a lot or your thinking Louis.  However it is very likely that "National" interests will make sure space activities are split between several entities.  No monopolies I should think.

Therefore, I believe that Blue Origin will also be promoted.  And their BE3 engines burn Hydrogen and Oxygen I believe.  So, compatible with the Moon situation.  Think "Blue Moon" lander.  And I am betting that traditional space will have a lander also.  And I expect that other national entities will join with their own items.

As for Starship, I believe that it can launch refueled from a elliptical Earth orbit, land on the Moon and return to Earth without refueling.  However, the Moon perhaps being 40% Oxygen, why not have an Oxygen depot there.  Then the Starship could land almost empty on Oxygen, and therefore land more cargo.  Then of course re-propellant with Oxygen, and go back to Earth.

Done.

Quote Louis:

I think lunar tourism will drive the Moon economy.  A five day stay at a Lunar Hotel some 20 kms from the Apollo 11 site will be a major pull to rich multi-millionaires.  Attractions will include rover excursions, lunar golf, walking on the Moon, and a visit to the original lunar landing site, plus bringing back your own bit of Mars rock.
I'm just not clear in my own head about how best to deliver this - Starship to the Moon or Starship to LLO and drop a Crew Dragon in a retro rocket cradle.  A Starship will likely imply a major propellant production facility on the Moon but perhaps a Dragon Lunar Lander-Ascender would avoid that? 
The great thing about the Moon, since it is only 3 days away, is we don't need to attempt to create a huge autonomous industrial infrastructure on the Moon. All we need to think about is the "bottom line" - can the tourists' ticket price cover all the costs?

Last edited by Void (2019-01-27 20:38:00)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#137 2019-02-03 20:30:43

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

https://www.space.com/43204-dark-side-m … china.html

These periods are about two Earth-weeks long. Data from the Apollo missions had already revealed that the moon's sunlit surface can climb to 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius) during the day, and drop to minus 280 F (minus 173 C) at night. But all of that data comes from the side of the moon that faces Earth. The new Chinese mission that landed on the "dark" (read: far) side of the moon on Jan. 3 has recorded even colder temperatures during the long lunar night.

The Chinese lander Chang'e 4 and its rover, Yutu 2 (Jade Rabbit 2), woke from dormant, power-saving modes at the end of January and beamed back data suggesting that temperatures there had plummeted to minus 310 F (minus 190 C), according to an Agence France-Presse report.

Offline

#138 2019-02-04 15:02:41

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Lunar economics etc

While water will be nice, I think that with that established as fuel for some landers to use, Oxygen will be by far the item of interest.

Of course, Oxygen from the Moon would be useful for ships that also use Methane, such as "Starship" by SpaceX.

But....

I have elsewhere speculated on several methods to use Oxygen as a mono-propellant.  To be tossed out by linear accelerators for instance.

Now, however I ask "Why not an Oxygen steam engine rocket"?

There is this of course, a steam rocket that boils water.
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-steam-pro … plore.html
From the above article I even get the notion that a steam rocket can take off from the Moon.  No need to use Hydrogen, if the steam can be Oxygen.  However to get off the Moon that way would be complicated.  Using Lasers?  Solar concentrators would be awkward I think.

One method would be to have a steam vessel filled with water steam.  Then pump liquid Oxygen through a heat exchanger, to get propulsion to orbit, then solar concentrators to heat the Oxygen elsewise.  Perhaps the water to be a cargo to deliver to orbital locations.  The ship suggested then to be brought back down? How?   Launching off the Moon with steam Oxygen will it seems be harder than just using Oxygen as steam in orbit(s).  Getting from a surface to orbit is always more trouble.

But, I don't think it wise to use Moon water that way, but the Moon perhaps being 40% Oxygen, and Oxygen being storable as a liquid at low temperatures, why can't some rockets use Oxygen as a "Steam" propellant?

Of course Oxygen likes to burn things at high temperatures, so I imagine to start with you want a boiler that will not combust with high temperature Oxygen.  Ceramic of some kind perhaps.

Voyages to Planets?  Well, I would start with more humble uses.  Perhaps satellite positioning systems.  And make them refillable also.
The heat to boil the steam likely being solar.

Maybe after that some type of method to move objects from LEO to higher orbits.  The "Starship" while moving cargo to the Moon could also re-propellant on Oxygen, and perhaps have some left over to sell in LEO to that suggested process of lifting objects from LEO to higher orbits by solar energy.  This requires a method to drop off the Oxygen to LEO however, either the Starship stops off in LEO, or it drops off a self propelled tank of Oxygen on it's way to an aeroburn to the surface of Earth.

The getting of Oxygen from the Moon can be facilitated by taking Hydrogen and heating it with regolith.  Water results and perhaps unfortunately some loss of Hydrogen (Maybe).  Then electrolysis = Oxygen & Hydrogen, and you reuse the Hydrogen to get still more Oxygen.  Lots of Oxygen on the Moon, and that process is also a way to reduce minerals of Oxygen, perhaps to then convert parts of the processed regolith to useful solid products.

So the Moon is big time a potential for the human race then to also get to Mars using the Oxygen I have mentioned.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-02-04 15:35:12)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#139 2019-02-04 19:03:55

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Just a little amendment to post #138. 

If active cooling is ever used, then water from the Moon could be used for it.  That way something like the "Starship" would perhaps not need to bring a coolant from the surface of the Earth.  It could help on the margins to allow more performance for the overall system.

So, perhaps Oxygen and Water from the Moon for the Starship.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-02-04 19:04:44)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#140 2019-02-04 19:18:41

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Lunar oxygen for man is a win and its from insitu resources.

https://lunarpedia.org/w/Oxygen

NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Development & Incorporation Plans

Architecture Modeling of In-Situ Oxygen Production

FLUORINATION OF LUNAR ILMENITE FOR IN-SITU PRODUCTION OF LUNAR OXYGEN, IRON, AND TITANIUM

Since the main surface is aluminum and Titanium why not make the death star planet in earth orbit from the processing of the materials to get the oxygen.

Offline

#141 2019-02-04 19:46:25

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Very nice SpaceNut.

(Done) smile

Last edited by Void (2019-02-04 19:46:47)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#142 2019-02-04 19:49:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Offline

#143 2019-02-04 20:31:51

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Well, how unusual.  You and I are in very close agreement.

Here somehow is an article from the Brits or people pretending they are, I think:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/2019020 … -moon-base

It's a read.  I see that there may be quite a few entities to team up with.  That is good.

The other side however is to make sure that 5th columnist types don't use such co-operation as a vehicle to create encumbrances against our interplanetary intentions.

But on the balance, if attention is paid to the risks, then co-operation could be a rather good thing.

Done.


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#144 2019-02-09 16:57:28

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Good news for going to the moon as NASA-Industry Partnerships Can Support Lunar Exploration, Reports Say

I would say that the Falcon heavy with a cargo Dragon that is modified for use once lunar landings would be very close to being reality.
With what is now Northrup Grumans Cygnus being a close second for providing the same service.

astrobotic-concept-for-a-commercial-lunar-lander-hg.jpg

Through the Commercial Lunar Payload Services Program (CLPS), commercially provided lunar landers, rovers, and even future on-orbit services are or will be solicited.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercia … d_Services

NASA selects nine companies for commercial lunar lander program

lm-mccandless.jpg

NASA said the companies are eligible for up to $2.6 billion in awards over the next ten years.

sort of 1999 moon lander design by Masten
masten-xl1-380x210.jpg
Masten Space Systems is developing a lunar lander called XL-1 that will be able to place up to 100 kilograms on the lunar surface starting in 2021.

Offline

#145 2019-02-13 21:44:19

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

I am not sure this is the right place to post this.  Moderators can decide of course.
https://www.space.com/nasa-ideas-human- … -2028.html

NASA Wants Help from Private Companies to Land Astronauts on the Moon by 2028

NASA is officially looking for ideas from private companies to develop future lunar technologies, with responses due by the end of next month.
In addition, the agency published its methodology for bringing crewed missions back to the lunar surface.
The moon has had a big 2019 so far: China's Chang'e-4 lander mission achieved the first soft landing on the far side of the moon at the start of January. Then, millions of people across North and South America enjoyed a mesmerizing lunar eclipse, dubbed the Super Blood Wolf Moon, on Jan. 21. This year, NASA is also commemorating a major lunar milestone: The agency will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the iconic Apollo 11 mission that brought astronauts Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins to the moon to take that incredible "giant leap for mankind." (Collins remained in lunar orbit.) [Watch a Meteor Smack the Blood Moon in This Lunar Eclipse Video!]

In a statement published Feb. 7, NASA laid out how it will work with U.S. companies to develop reusable systems through which astronauts could return to the moon by 2028.
Using current and anticipated technologies, NASA will work to complete the mandate laid out by the presidential administration's Space Policy Directive 1 "as quickly as possible," agency officials said.
The partnerships would be multiphased and perhaps include collaboration with other nations to "advance our missions to farther destinations, such as Mars, with America leading the way," NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, said in the statement.
Technology already operating within low-Earth orbit will serve as a springboard for the development of the reusable lunar systems, Bridenstine said.
One important element in NASA's approach is the establishment of a gateway that could support round-trip lunar journeys. This would allow "the first building blocks for fully reusable lunar landers … to be refueled by cargo ships carrying fuel from Earth to the Gateway," agency officials said.
But that would be just the start. Going forward, the fuel might come from the moon itself. Part of the project is to find methods of making rocket propellant with water ice and regolith (lunar dust) from the moon in a process known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU).
The formal request for proposals that NASA published on Feb. 7 is part of Appendix E to the second Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships (NextSTEP-2) Broad Agency Announcement. In this request, NASA aims to fund flight demonstrations of lunar landers made for astronauts by private companies that would perform critical research and support risk-reduction activities. March 25 is the deadline for responses.

It seems like an encouraging development.  I can't see how SpaceX or Blue Origin would sit this out.

This part looks like it should interest SpaceX at least:

One important element in NASA's approach is the establishment of a gateway that could support round-trip lunar journeys. This would allow "the first building blocks for fully reusable lunar landers … to be refueled by cargo ships carrying fuel from Earth to the Gateway," agency officials said.
But that would be just the start. Going forward, the fuel might come from the moon itself. Part of the project is to find methods of making rocket propellant with water ice and regolith (lunar dust) from the moon in a process known as in-situ resource utilization (ISRU).


Done.

Last edited by Void (2019-02-13 21:51:53)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#146 2019-02-13 22:13:22

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Its through commercial corporations that Nasa might be able to do the moon when ISS is gone. Since the deep space gateway and sls would eat all of that budget money all up again.

The first leg of the commerical business is in cargo support to the station and lunar surface just the same as the ISS with future goal of sending men.

So Nasa will handle the science and exploration with any method that they can to get to deliver whats needed to either point.

At some point commercial industry needs to start doing the science and not just nasa...

Offline

#147 2019-02-14 08:12:17

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

https://www.space.com/nasa-ideas-human- … -2028.html
Quote:

NASA Wants Help from Private Companies to Land Astronauts on the Moon by 2028

Responding to my post #145, and your quoted materials here:
Quote:

Its through commercial corporations that Nasa might be able to do the moon when ISS is gone. Since the deep space gateway and sls would eat all of that budget money all up again.
The first leg of the commerical business is in cargo support to the station and lunar surface just the same as the ISS with future goal of sending men.
So Nasa will handle the science and exploration with any method that they can to get to deliver whats needed to either point.
At some point commercial industry needs to start doing the science and not just nasa...

I am fairly encouraged.  It was with the assistance of NASA and gov. that private companies have been seeded and seem to be growing.  So, that is not a wrong thing to keep trying in my opinion.

I understand the conflict between the "Gateway Plan", and the "Mars Direct" plan.  I do pay attention to the thinking of Dr. Zubrin.

A curious factor in all of this is that the BFR(SuperHeavy/Starship), has just the ability to do the trip to Mars, it is supposed, but Dr. Zubrin has indicated that it really is best used to get materials up from the surface of the Earth, and I suppose could also do so for Mars.  So, that implies an interplanetary spaceship development.

And it is beginning to look to me that such is in the works.  The gateway now makes considerably more sense to me now.  I anticipate that it will involve a transition of many things.  Also it's potential to have an international inclusion, may make it more easy to proceed legally, to other worlds.  Also if they (International elements) want to play, they will need to do some pay.  It looks to me as if the "Purse" may hold NASA money, private money, and international money.

So, then settling for what can be, and not doing a childish tantrum about how this flow may go, I will look for the upsides.

-I am thinking that SpaceX>BFR(Starship), could be refueled at the Gateway for missions, perhaps to Mars.  That would most likely be in the beginning, while the propellants were mostly coming from Earth.  I am thinking Electric Rocket to bring the propellants from LEO, to the gateway.  And in this manner, BFR(Starship) could then be used in a modified fashion to access Mars in some way.

-I also see that once SpaceX, and Blue Origin, and some others do indeed have "Real" established launch devices on hand, a consideration of dropping the SLS may develop.

-The gateway in this light could indeed be a proto-type for an interplanetary ship, one that does not land, but depends on landers and launchers better adapted to that purpose.  I feel that they would then be compelled to deal with radiation, both by magnetic method, and lunar regolith insitu "Bricks".

-It is apparent to me that to do any kind of improvement to Mars and/or Venus, magnetic methods are well worth a study.

-And I will annoy some more, by suggesting that the way of the future can include Ballistic Capture coupled with electric drives of some kind perhaps. I have never been particularly fond of a interplanetary Hohmann Transfer with an interplanetary aeroburn.  I get that rocket jockey's get a charge out of dangerous things, but really, they may want to quench those emotional needs in a different way.

-Although I am quite fond of the idea of having an Oxygen Monopropellant drive method.
1) Toss Oxygen ice cubes out with a mass driver.
2) European Electric air rocket?
3) A high temperature Oxygen boiler method of rocket propulsion.

*For the most part, at least in the inner solar system, Oxygen expulsion as a propulsion method will not produce long term collision hazards for future spacecraft.

The Moon's crust being 45% Oxygen, and water also being supposed to exist on the Moon, it seems like a good path to follow.

I have a rather good feeling about this at this time.

Of course anytime a new administration shows up with the next edition of the "Best and Brightest", we can anticipate the possibility of irrational trashing of existing works and directions.  Lets hope for rational continuity instead.

Done

Last edited by Void (2019-02-14 08:42:17)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#148 2019-02-23 21:53:56

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Well the Israel's first Moon mission blasts off from Florida on Thursday night carrying Israel's Beresheet spacecraft, aiming to make history twice: as the first private-sector landing on the Moon, and the first from the Jewish state. The 585-kilogram (1,290-pound) Beresheet, which means "Genesis" in Hebrew, lifted off at 8:45 pm (0145 GMT Friday) atop a Falcon 9 rocket..

Of course NASA selects experiments for possible lunar flights in 2019

nasa-earth-moon-mars-2018-chart-hg.jpg

NASA has selected 12 science and technology demonstration payloads to fly to the Moon as early as the end of this year, dependent upon the availability of commercial landers.

The selected payloads include a variety of scientific instruments.

+ The Linear Energy Transfer Spectrometer will measure the lunar surface radiation environment.

+ Three resource prospecting instruments have been selected to fly: + The Near-Infrared Volatile Spectrometer System is an imaging spectrometer that will measure surface composition. + The Neutron Spectrometer System and Advanced Neutron Measurements at the Lunar Surface are neutron spectrometers that will measure hydrogen abundance.

+ The Ion-Trap Mass Spectrometer for Lunar Surface Volatiles instrument is an ion-trap mass spectrometer that will measure volatile contents in the surface and lunar exosphere.

+ A magnetometer will measure the surface magnetic field.

+ The Low-frequency Radio Observations from the Near Side Lunar Surface instrument, a radio science instrument, will measure the photoelectron sheath density near the surface.

+ Three instruments will acquire critical information during entry, descent and landing on the lunar surface, which will inform the design of future landers including the next human lunar lander.

+ The Stereo Cameras for Lunar Plume-Surface Studies will image the interaction between the lander engine plume as it hits the lunar surface.

+ The Surface and Exosphere Alterations by Landers payload will monitor how the landing affects the lunar exosphere.

+ The Navigation Doppler Lidar for Precise Velocity and Range Sensing payload will make precise velocity and ranging measurements during the descent that will help develop precision landing capabilities for future landers.

+ There also are two technology demonstrations selected to fly.

+ The Solar Cell Demonstration Platform for Enabling Long-Term Lunar Surface Power will demonstrate advanced solar arrays for longer mission duration.

+ The Lunar Node 1 Navigation Demonstrator will demonstrate a navigational beacon to assist with geolocation for lunar orbiting spacecraft and landers.

Offline

#149 2019-03-17 19:48:03

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 16,139

Re: Lunar economics etc

Second time trying to post maybe this time it will not java script loop into the ethers of no where.

Colorado School of Mines aims for moon, Mars in developing resources in space

Talk about small and in a sand box looking like a tonka truck toy....

Offline

#150 2019-03-18 12:19:35

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,011

Re: Lunar economics etc

Very nice materials SpaceNut.  I was surprised that they intend to get rare metals from the Moon.  Didn't expect that they would be there to be had.  That then reduces the focus for Phobos. 

However, I do believe that the way forward will not be a plan B to Mars only.  I think indeed things are now positioned as they should be.  Encourage everything.  Moon, Mars, Asteroids.  Then see what grows best.  Hopefully all of the above.

Done.


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB