Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

cIclops · 2008-01-18 11:40:25

When NASA astronauts explore the moon starting in 2020, they’ll stay for about a week to start out and then gradually lengthen their visits as an outpost takes shape. At first, they’ll take everything they need in their lunar landers, but longer stays will require more support than one lander can deliver.
For that reason, engineers are starting to develop concepts for habitation modules that provide necessary protection and support in a package that’s as light and compact as possible. That’s because for every pound of cargo that lands on the moon, NASA will need to launch 125 pounds from Earth to cover fuel, engines and systems that ensure a safe journey. In addition, habitats will need to be as easy to construct or assemble as possible because the astronauts will be working in spacesuits.
One option being studied is the use of inflatable structures.

cIclops · 2008-01-22 08:23:56

Interview with Paul D. Spudis, lunar scientist - audio 90 mins - 13 Jan 2008

Dr. Paul Spudis of the Applied Physics Laboratory and Lunar and Planetary Institute was the guest for this Space Show program. We started off with a discussion of the Moon, the VSE, and the role the Moon plays in the VSE. Some of the issues raised and questions asked involved ice on the Moon, possible locations for a lunar settlement, temperatures within the lunar soil, the Google Lunar X Prize competition, and the lower labor costs in countries such as India and China which contribute to much lower-priced Indian and Chinese space missions compared to more expensive United States programs. We talked about what types of scientific knowledge could still be gained by studying the Moon. We had this discussion since there is a school of thought which believes we have learned most of what we can learn by studying the Moon. In response to the discussion as to the value of the Moon and its importance, Dr. Spudis listed several categories including astronomy, planetary science and learning more about the evolution of the Earth-Moon system . Here he said the Moon has a more accurate history over its 4 billion year history than the Earth. The Moon is also a platform for looking out and that is an important different perspective. Dr. Spudis said the clear dark sky of the Moon is important for many forms of astronomy. In addition the dark side, which is shielded from Earth-based radio noise, is particularly important for radio astronomy. In addition, the Moon is a natural space station where people can learn to work in a different space and planetary environment. This training is important as we push outward into space and onto Mars.

cIclops · 2008-02-15 15:08:57

MIT to lead development of new telescopes on moon - 15 Feb 2008

NASA has selected a proposal by an MIT-led team to develop plans for an array of radio telescopes on the far side of the moon that would probe the earliest formation of the basic structures of the universe. The agency announced the selection and 18 others related to future observatories on Friday, Feb.15.
The new MIT telescopes would explore one of the greatest unknown realms of astronomy, the so-called "Dark Ages" near the beginning of the universe when stars, star clusters and galaxies first came into existence. This period of roughly a billion years, beginning shortly after the Big Bang, closely followed the time when cosmic background radiation, which has been mapped using satellites, filled all of space. Learning about this unobserved era is considered essential to filling in our understanding of how the earliest structures in the universe came into being.
The Lunar Array for Radio Cosmology (LARC) project is headed by Jacqueline Hewitt, a professor of physics and director of MIT's Kavli Institute for Astrophysics and Space Science. LARC includes nine other MIT scientists as well as several from other institutions. It is planned as a huge array of hundreds of telescope modules designed to pick up very-low-frequency radio emissions. The array will cover an area of up to two square kilometers; the modules would be moved into place on the lunar surface by automated vehicles.

The present plan is for a one-year study to develop a detailed plan for the telescope array, whose construction would probably not begin until sometime after the year 2025, and is expected to cost more than $1 billion.

cIclops · 2008-02-17 12:54:14

From Lunar Habitat Mockup (doc file) - 1 Feb 2008 (apologies for the image quality)

Two person basic hab module.

o 28m³ packaged expanding to 56m³

o water stored overhead for radiation protection and thermal control

o composite structure

o suit locks

cIclops · 2008-02-22 02:35:26

FSPS (Fission Surface Power Systems) is mentioned several times in the FY2009 budget with a date of 2012.

This project is developing concepts and technologies for affordable nuclear fission surface power systems for long duration stays on the moon and exploration of Mars. NASA is collaborating with the Department of Energy on development of fission surface power system concepts. Power conversion test facilities at Glenn Research Center and nuclear test facilities at the Department of Energy will support this project.

The Fission Surface Power Systems Project will demonstrate full-scale radiator panels at temperatures and heat transfer rates relevant to a reference 40-kilowatt fission surface power system.

Energy Storage & Power Systems (PDF 2MB) - 14 Nov 2007

FSPS System characteristics
– Low temperature, NaK cooled, UO2 reactor
– Use of regolith for shielding
– Stirling power conversion
– Water heat pipe radiators

A 40 kW class power plant would enable both lunar and martian ISRU.

cIclops · 2008-03-01 02:11:16

From: Lunar Surface Systems (PDF 2MB) - 26 Feb 2008

The Constellation Lunar Architecture Team (CxAT Lunar) started in fall 2007 and is currently preparing for a June 2008 review
• Emphasis is on the transportation architecture and understanding performance trades
• Examining key driving requirements from the surface systems that impact transportation elements

cIclops · 2008-03-06 07:15:07

From: Lunar Surface Systems (PDF 2MB) - 26 Feb 2008

Detailed picture of current thinking about building up the Outpost with a series of separate cargo and crew flights. Seems to show two flights per year for eleven years. The first two flights are cargo and place basic components on the surface: an habitation module, solar power unit and an unpressurized rover. Four crew arrive on the third flight and stay for 14 days. Each year from then on consists of a cargo flight delivering more Outpost components and one crew flight. Crews stay progressively longer building up to 180 days. Eventually the base has two Habitation modules and several connected PLMs (Pressurized Logistics Module?) & ICPs (Integrated Cargo Platform?), two pressurized rovers and two (four?) ATHLETE mobile cargo carriers. ISRU is operational by year 5.

Note that this facility will exceed the total lunar surface time of all Apollo missions combined (25 days) halfway through during its first crew visit!

Commodore · 2008-03-07 10:59:14

I do want to say something positive. Where can I get one of those 10 kw collapsible solar arrays to put on my house?

With that aside, are they intentionally trying to recreate the ISS on stilts?

They are literally putting us right back in the Shuttle-ISS grindstone situation with a pair of 20 ton, 3m diameter payloads a year, with the whole thing being productive after a decade, if then. Are the first ones going to last that long?

Look, I know we are decade away from any of these being built, but you got to be able to convince politicians that this is worthwhile first.

cIclops · 2008-03-07 12:01:10

With that aside, are they intentionally trying to recreate the ISS on stilts?
They are literally putting us right back in the Shuttle-ISS grindstone situation with a pair of 20 ton, 3m diameter payloads a year, with the whole thing being productive after a decade, if then. Are the first ones going to last that long?
Look, I know we are decade away from any of these being built, but you got to be able to convince politicians that this is worthwhile first.

Be sure there are good reasons to build above the surface, whatever they are Thermal control? dust? or just easier to do than excavating?

Having a base on Mars means leaning to do something like this. Learning how to do this just three days away from Earth is far less risky than doing it two years or more away. Staying in free space means using ISS technology. What other options are there? The Outpost is designed to be productive as soon as possible. On the third flight, 4 crew will use it to stay 14 days on the surface. It will extend their stay from 7 days and provide equipment and facilities for exploration and science. This is probably how Mars missions will happen, first a habitation module and a power plant, then crew arrive. How long modules will last is the type of question that will only be answered by using them.

Politicians have already signed on to this with the 2005 Space Act, of course a lot can happen in the next ten years. If a better plan comes along it can be changed, got one?

Commodore · 2008-03-07 12:20:21

Be sure there are good reasons to build above the surface, whatever they are Thermal control? dust? or just easier to do than excavating?

The first ones will have to be, only cause theres no way to get ecavation equipment there first.

Having a base on Mars means leaning to do something like this. Learning how to do this just three days away from Earth is far less risky than doing it two years or more away. Staying in free space means using ISS technology. What other options are there? The Outpost is designed to be productive as soon as possible. On the third flight, 4 crew will use it to stay 14 days on the surface. It will extend their stay from 7 days and provide equipment and facilities for exploration and science. This is probably how Mars missions will happen, first a habitation module and a power plant, then crew arrive. How long modules will last is the type of question that will only be answered by using them.

Really it comes down to volume. The more we have the more people we can support, the more people, more time, more science, more construction, more people. Thats why it boggles my mind that while we have wet workshop experience with Skylab, and already have prototype inflatables in orbit, we are even bothering to think about something the size of a travel trailer.

Politicians have already signed on to this with the 2005 Space Act, of course a lot can happen in the next ten years. If a better plan comes along it can be changed, got one?

There will have to be many, many more yeas before anything get off the ground.

Commodore · 2008-03-10 23:26:03

The best way to do this may be to just build a big EDS with landing apparatus. You'll instantly get ample volume.

If you can bring the core stage with you, all the better.

SpaceNut · 2008-03-11 05:46:44

Ah use the fuel tank for the living quarters once empty, simular to the thoughts eons ago when skylab was born.

If we are going to go that far might as well lose the seperate LSAM and make it a modified stage with legs, design the stage with the additional fuel tank storage space and use the engine for landing.

Design the new LM crew controls from the Orion block 3 sized less heat shield in place of the LSAM to ride on top. Still use a real orion for the crew launch and return which is left in orbit.

On the next trip to the site tip the remaining empty EDS fuel tank on its side and start base construction.

It even may be possible to do this in an all in one launch on the Ares V.

The question then is can the orion SM lift the capsule on the moon back to lunar orbit for return home once mated with the return capsule that was left in orbit.

Commodore · 2008-03-11 08:19:51

Well, such a plan is dependent on there being nothing else there, so there is apt to be several cargo flights just to fill the thing so its productive.

But, we're doing 6 Shuttle launches this year. If we can put one wet workshop down, we can fling 5-6 regular 20ton cargo flights to outfit it through out the rest of the year. In 1 year. Not 11 years. And have a capability that far exceeds any other method.

In such a situation a dedicated reusable lander would probably be more appropreate. The Delta Clipper comes to mind. We'll have to figure out how to get Orion to Lunar Orbit.

cIclops · 2008-03-14 04:36:01

Radar map of an area 650 x 450 kms near Shakleton Crater proposed site of the Outpost

Enhanced Radar Imagery of Lunar South Pole - 27 Feb 2008

Lunar Architecture Update (PDF 5MB) - 28 Feb 2008 - more radar images in last section

SpaceNut · 2008-03-14 21:04:03

Looks like there will be more than base building as Hardy Earth bacteria can grow in lunar soil called cyanobacteria can grow in otherwise inhospitable lunar soil.

Future colonists on the Moon might be able to use the cyanobacteria to extract resources from the soil that could be used to make rocket fuel and fertiliser for crops.
Cyanobacteria grow in water-rich environments. They are technically a type of bacteria, but like plants, they produce their own food via photosynthesis. (Sometimes called 'blue-green algae', cyanobacteria are actually not related to the algae they resemble.)
Brown and his colleagues tried growing a variety of species of cyanobacteria on materials designed to approximate the lunar soil. The simulated soil contained lots of an iron-titanium mineral called ilmenite..
The cyanobacteria were taken from hot springs in Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming, US. When put in a container with water and simulated lunar soil, the cyanobacteria were found to produce acids that are amazingly good at breaking down tough minerals.
The results of the cyanobacteria experiments were presented on Tuesday at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston, Texas, US.

GCNRevenger · 2008-03-14 21:08:48

Cool

As one microbiologist put it, we are entering the era of "wet nanomachinery"

cIclops · 2008-03-15 01:09:25

Interesting indeed.

From that articles:

Brown says he envisions growth chambers for cyanobacteria being set up on the Moon, as part of a multi-step process for making use of the resources bound in the lunar soil. The chambers would be supplied with water, sunlight and lunar soil to allow the cyanobacteria to grow.
Cyanobacteria harvested from the chambers could then be further processed to make use of the elements they extract from the lunar soil. For example, they could be broken down by other bacteria, resulting in a nutrient-rich soup that could be used as fertiliser for food plants grown in hydroponic greenhouses. Methane given off by the breakdown of the cyanobacteria could be used as rocket fuel.
Further in the future, iron and other elements extracted from the soil by cyanobacteria could be collected and concentrated, supplying metal for building machines and other products on the Moon, Brown says.

This would be a very powerful form of ISRU and potentially the key to transforming the Outpost into a colony.

cIclops · 2008-03-18 02:16:52

Possible ESA contributions in order of increasing mass

From: Lunar Architecture Update (PDF 5MB) - 28 Feb 2008

cIclops · 2008-03-20 05:46:44

Lunar Rover Initiative

The Lunar Rover Initiative is developing Scarab to evaluate and demonstrate a combined drilling and science rover platform for lunar exploration. Scarab needs to be able to withstand extreme temperatures, perpetual darkness, and intermittent communications to explore polar regions of the moon in order to survey sites and understand resources for future science and exploratory missions. Working for nearly a decade to develop feasible mission concepts and validate technologies in extreme environments here on Earth, we are experienced, skilled, and dedicated to the vision of lunar exploration.

Checkout the very cool videos and more details.

cIclops · 2008-03-23 02:26:24

Fig_2SMART-1_south_pole_mosaic_with_craters_names_H.jpg

New lunar south polar maps from SMART-1

This mosaic of the lunar south pole was obtained with images taken by the Advanced Moon Imaging Experiment (AMIE) on board ESA's SMART-1.
The pictures were taken between Dec 2005 and March 2006, during lunar southern summer. When obtaining the images, SMART-1 was flying over the south pole at a distance of about 500 km, allowing individual images with small-field (about 50 km across) high resolution views (50 m/pixel).

louis · 2008-03-26 11:51:18

2020? That's 12 years away. Why the delay?

It seems to me there is far too much science and exploration in NASA's approach which could be slowing things up.

I'd prefer to see much more emphasis on lunar economic development - yes, welcome to the Moon Hotel. With a firm economic base, exploration and science become far, far easier I would say.

We need to look more closely at the economics. The right approach from my point view is to say how much would it cost to establish a lunar hotel and how much would guests have to pay to stay there for a couple of days? Then, is there a market for those facilities at that price. What would people pay?

I think the moon would also make a good resting place for people's ashes. People would pay good money to send their loved ones' ashes to the moon, knowing that when they gaze up they are looking at those ashes.

In the world there are some 9 million millionaires. If we could get the cost of launching down to say 3000 dollars per kg would that make lunar tourism and lunar gardens of remembrance economic?

SpaceNut · 2008-03-26 13:08:13

The accumilated delays of transitioning from shuttle to Ares I (orion) for ISS, the final days of ISS flights 2015, and Ares V constuction.....

cIclops · 2008-03-26 13:09:04

Right now the next landing is planned for 2019. It would be earlier if there was more funding - maybe as early as 2016. One third of NASA is science, it has a big lobby and it's an important part of the program. Exploration supports science, science supports technology and technology supports exploration.

It's hard to see how human lunar economic development can start without a transportation system. The horse has to be in front of the cart. Once people can get there, there is economic potential, initially for fuel production, then perhaps tourism. A room at the Outpost is going to be very VERY expensive! Each mission will take four people and cost around a billion dollars ... so the cost is not hard to work out

Cremation ashes could be another market - people already have their ashes shot into orbit to burn up during reentry. Transportation costs will probably be more than $10,000 per kg to the lunar surface with Constellation. Commercial space may be able to reduce that for small packages - perhaps just impacting.

louis · 2008-03-26 14:41:06

Ci -

I'm not really criticising NASA, though it may appear so! They have their priorities and in many ways they are shaped by the public and by science.

However, I think that if we are interested in establishing an enduring human presence on the Moon and Mars without unnecessary delay, then the NASA approach is not the right one.

Once upon a time the IBM way was the only way to do computers - no longer.

I hope - no more than hope - that some organisation like Space X (whose owner Elon Musk is certainly focussed on the ultimate goal of a settling Mars) will be able to bring down the cost of launches significantly and make lunar economic development a reality. Space X are using conventional rocket technology which I think is the right way to go.

The NASA figure of 1 billion dollars you quote just sounds too much to me. We are talking about an established technology and a journey of quarter of a million miles - ten times round the earth. It shouldn't be costing 1,000,000,000 dollars. But if at the same time you are going to develop lunar rovers and a range of science products, then I think you are building in unnecessary additional cost.

cIclops · 2008-03-26 15:08:07

Indeed, NASA's priorities are set by the President and Congress and through them by the public. The science community has a big say through the same channels. Unfortunately NASA is the only team playing and they have to play within the rules. Given their budget and commitments there's not much room for other approaches. The example of IBM is not applicable, it wasn't a government agency or without competition.

SpaceX is a small company, perhaps one day they will grow to the size of Orbital, even then they'll have a long way to go before they get as big as Boeing or Lockheed, and if they do they will change. Just as neither Boeing or Lockheed have private space programs or airlines, it's unlikely they'll be doing lunar economics. It will be other companies.

A space shuttle launch costs about a billion dollars to put 7 crew and 20 MT into LEO. Putting 4 crew on the moon for the same price seems like a good deal. Rovers will be needed for exploration and construction. ESA and Japan are interested in the Outpost, maybe they will build them. And don't forget Google!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#101 2008-01-18 11:40:25

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#102 2008-01-22 08:23:56

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#103 2008-02-15 15:08:57

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#104 2008-02-17 12:54:14

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#105 2008-02-22 02:35:26

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#106 2008-03-01 02:11:16

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#107 2008-03-06 07:15:07

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#108 2008-03-07 10:59:14

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#109 2008-03-07 12:01:10

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#110 2008-03-07 12:20:21

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#111 2008-03-10 23:26:03

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#112 2008-03-11 05:46:44

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#113 2008-03-11 08:19:51

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#114 2008-03-14 04:36:01

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#115 2008-03-14 21:04:03

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#116 2008-03-14 21:08:48

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#117 2008-03-15 01:09:25

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#118 2008-03-18 02:16:52

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#119 2008-03-20 05:46:44

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#120 2008-03-23 02:26:24

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#121 2008-03-26 11:51:18

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#122 2008-03-26 13:08:13

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#123 2008-03-26 13:09:04

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#124 2008-03-26 14:41:06

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#125 2008-03-26 15:08:07

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

Board footer