Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

louis · 2008-03-26 20:40:17

I'm not saying the IBM analogy is precise, but I am saying it shows that an organisation that is doing things in many ways right, technologically (IBM had a personal computer available by the early to mid 70s I think but it never really took off), isn't necessarily the right vehicle to deliver a related goal effectively.

To say Space X is small seems to me fairly irrelevant. Their largest planned craft will take 12 MTs into orbit I believe. That's good enough for me. NASA and other space agencies have done a lot of the expensive development work on a whole range of technical aspects of space travel. Space X can in effect piggy back on that - it isn't looking to reinvent the wheel as far as I can see.

I think actually it's quite likely Space X will get involved in lunar economics, if they can get the price of launch down. I think it's to do with its founder's vision. I can't see him holding back if he has the means to get to the Moon, but of course he may well co-operate with other providers (Bigelow?).

The Space Shuttle is an incredibly expensive way to get stuff into space as I think everyone who has studied the subject now admits, however nice the concept is.

SpaceNut · 2008-04-15 08:20:30

NASA will launch lunar vehicle to Moses Lake; Site similar enough to moon for tests

NASA is preparing to send astronauts to the moon by 2020 to build a lunar outpost. As part of that preparation, it's testing a prototype of a 1 ton lunar truck called the Chariot.
NASA expects to begin testing the vehicle near the Grant County ORV Park on June 2 or 3 and finish about two weeks later, said Lucien Junkin, a robotics engineer and the design lead with the Johnson Space Center.

http://www.columbiabasinherald.com/arti … news01.txt

NASA expects to start its work at the ORV park on June 2 or June 3 and finish about 12 days later, Junkin said.
The crew will try to start work at the park each day between 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. The work should conclude about 9 p.m. or 10 p.m. daily, he said.
Grant County Chief Deputy Courtney Conklin said on Wednesday the testing will be done near Lot 1 of the ORV park.

cIclops · 2008-04-15 10:02:34

That flat tire is gonna be hard to fix on the moon

Terraformer · 2008-04-15 11:57:23

An unforseen problem? I can imagine watching the news. 'The return to the Moon has been scuttled by a flat tyre.'

NASA's made stupid mistakes like that before.

Grypd · 2008-04-17 06:08:43

ESA have developed a means to grow plants in crushed Moon rock.

Plants 'thrive' on Moon rock diet

An Esa-linked team has shown that marigolds can grow in crushed rock very like the lunar surface, with no need for plant food.

apparently they first seeded the crushed rock with bacteria and the plants in this case marigolds did very well.

Of course any plant grown in this strata just by going through its life cycle will actually improve what is now soil. The Bacteria apparently took from the rocks elements that the plants would need.

ESA scientists believe they could go further if they used genetically modified plants and using different bacteria to help them thrive.

cIclops · 2008-04-21 11:01:17

ESA in favour of commercial lunar communications - 21 Apr 2008

(From Rob Coppinger's blog)
Speaking to the European Space Agency's human spaceflight directorate’s head of strategy and architecture office, Bernhard Hufenbach today (21 April) he spoke enthusiastically of commercial services for a lunar outpost
The use of commercial services for exploration seems to be gaining ground and we might see it recommended as part of a report to be produced by NASA and ESA in mid-May. It will summarise their progress thus far in finding common ground between their respective architectures for the Moon, and beyond
NASA has certainly been thinking about how it can extend its forays into the commercial world to the wider exploration initiative and the British National Space Centre has said it has been an advocate of commercial services in its bilateral talks with the US space agency
Hufenbach spoke of initial commercial services focusing on broadband communications between the Moon and the Earth with the possible use of optical, i.e. laser, systems for sending data back and forth
Following that he envisaged wider commercial services that could encompass surface activities, I am guessing habitats. But he didn't rule out, either, in the much longer term, commercial crew transportation

Good to see ESA getting interested in the Outpost!

louis · 2008-04-21 12:50:58

"British National Space Centre"

That'll be Bert Jones's garden shed (available for use on Tuesdays and Fridays).

cIclops · 2008-04-21 13:13:55

loL. Under that shed is a top secret lab that's building a Tardis.

It's run on a small budget of about $400m cobbled together from a bunch of other government agencies. A sad symbol of the failure of the UK to get serious about space. There's some renewed interest in working on the Outpost, see this recent NASA BNSC working group report on lunar cooperation (PDF)

cIclops · 2008-04-24 08:55:17

ESA considers cislunar space station - 23 Apr 2008

By Rob Coppinger
The European Space Agency, Russia and Japan are all considering a cislunar orbital complex that could consist of a habitation section and a resource module that would provide power and fuel and possibly be a safe haven for Orion crew exploration vehicle crews.
This orbital complex could feature in a report to be published in mid-May about the progress made between ESA and NASA on their comparative lunar architecture study that began in January. The report will be followed by further work that will finish at the end of the year.
As a subset of the global exploration strategy work ongoing between the world's space agencies, ESA and NASA have been discussing their own plans, with the Europeans interested in creating their own architecture enabling them to act independently but also support a collaborative programme.
"Europe will not do this alone. Orbital infrastructure in cislunar space is something Europe could do with its [technological] heritage," says ESA's human spaceflight directorate's head of strategy and architecture office Bernhard Hufenbach. "It could be a staging post and make the [NASA] Altair [lunar lander], Orion architecture more robust."
He cited ESA's International Space Station Columbus laboratory module and the agency's Automated Transfer Vehicle with its fuel and dry cargo capabilities as examples of systems that his agency could apply to a cislunar station.

An interesting proposal, would this have any other value other than a safe habor for Orion/Altair crews? Where in cislunar space would it be? EML1?

louis · 2008-04-24 11:24:02

To put the UK space effort in perspective - we are spending about £10 billion on hosting the Olympics. Nothing against them, but we have hosted them twice before and it isn't the most exciting venture to embark on. We know what's involved. It will be much like the last Olympics.

Annual value of the UK's space related industry is a paltry £5 billion which is mainly support stuff.

I reckon we could establish a permanent base on the Moon for less than £10billion, not necessarily using all our own products.

But think of the boost to the UK's image if it were to do that.

It has the scientific know how, the industries and the potential crew personnel.

Sadly, it lacks the will, so it's not even worth dreaming about.

cIclops · 2008-04-24 13:10:45

A lot of that £10 billion will come back into the economy from tourism, construction etc etc. But yes, it's yet another Olympics ... yawn.

NASA say they need £50 billion to rebuild the lunar transportation infrastructure. The UK would have to invest far more than that to create the technical and engineering base as well as the infrastructure. Cooperation with the US makes the most sense. NASA aim to be back on the moon by 2020, that's 12 years from now. So if the UK put in £800 million ($1.6 billion) a year, that would make the UK a significant partner and should pay for one or two seat per year, equivalent to a full time British place in the Outpost. Not only would it help NASA get the project moving faster so it could happen before 2020 and bring Mars missions closer, it would put Britain back at the forefront of space exploration. Now that would be something to wake up the British public!

Why doesn't the UK go for it?

louis · 2008-04-24 16:58:12

"NASA say they need £50 billion to rebuild the lunar transportation infrastructure. The UK would have to invest far more than that to create the technical and engineering base as well as the infrastructure. Cooperation with the US makes the most sense. NASA aim to be back on the moon by 2020, that's 12 years from now."

I think this is on a par with NASA's estimate of $400 billion for a Mars mission ,which most commentators now accept was complete rubbish.

NASA are on the slow boat.

If we devoted the Olympics £10 billion to a lunar base mission, the UK could be on the speed boat to the Moon.

Grypd · 2008-04-25 03:22:23

Why doesn't the UK go for it?

This is going to be political sorry but it is the only way to answer you and louis

Ciclops the quote from you is the heart of the matter. The simple answer is that the UK goverment has no interest in doing it and will not finance it. We are the only country to have given up spaceflight after we had actually managed it and that was at the behest of the goverment at the time. Needless to say if we had kept at it for a few more years we would have had a very efficient and cheap launcher just when everyone wanted to launch satellites. The UK goverment has little interest in space and even in science.

We have only one succesful active space company in the UK (Im not counting Virgin or Starchaser, both have yet to fly) that is Surrey Satellite Technology limited. It is has been announced that it is to be bought out by one of its rivals in the micro-sat buisness. There is no goverment protection for any space buisness and Surrey managed to thrive even in what could best be called a hostile enviroment for these companies.
The Space reviews take on the whole buisness.

Small satellite builders: a tale of two mergers

By the middle of the century a new legal structure for the solar system will have to be agreed on. Only major space players will have a say in this rulemaking process. France, China, Japan, Israel, Brazil, Russia, and the US will all have seats at the table. Canada will too, if they continue to defend their position as they have done recently. If things go on as they have, Britain, if it has a seat at all, will be there only because the other powers fell pity for a once-great nation.

NASA are on the slow boat.
If we devoted the Olympics £10 billion to a lunar base mission, the UK could be on the speed boat to the Moon.

louis there is no chance that the UK goverment will do this you know. At least NASA is on the boat. Our goverments view is that the boat when built should immediately be sunk and never to leave the harbour.

Still there is hope. If you read between the lines there might be some goverment sponsorship of an indigenous launcher coming

cIclops · 2008-04-25 18:42:39

The simple answer is that the UK goverment has no interest in doing it and will not finance it. We are the only country to have given up spaceflight after we had actually managed it and that was at the behest of the goverment at the time. Needless to say if we had kept at it for a few more years we would have had a very efficient and cheap launcher just when everyone wanted to launch satellites. The UK goverment has little interest in space and even in science.

Sadly, yes. At the risk of going further off topic, note that the UK government has changed many times since Black Arrow. Decisions made by bureaucrats lacking in scientific or technical understanding have plagued the UK and even the US space program (see how they canceled Apollo). The UK'S main interest now is within ESA, although the UK plays a back seat role.

Things do change however. Here's another newsflash from Rob Coppinger - 25 Apr 2008

The European Space Agency is offering €500,000 ($786,500) for a pressurised lunar rover (PLR) phase 0/A study to produce a conceptual design, to evaluate its functional, technical and operational requirements and determine its likely cost and development schedule. The closing date for proposals is 14 May.
ESA envisages a rover with a mass from 5,000kg (11,000lb) to 14,000kg that would only be delivered by NASA's Altair lunar lander.

ESA seem to be getting very interested in lunar exploration.

louis · 2008-04-25 19:11:35

If I was an American I wouldn't offer ESA a free ride. The Europeans do nothing but badmouth the Americans, just like the Russians and China. Why do them any favours?

Do the Americans need the others? No. Do the others need the Americans? yes.

cIclops · 2008-04-25 19:57:23

Be sure it won't be a free ride. Expect the same successful arrangement as used on the ISS. For example US crew would get rover time in exchange for transporting it to the lunar surface. Both sides gain from such a cooperation.

Commodore · 2008-04-25 21:54:14

If I was an American I wouldn't offer ESA a free ride. The Europeans do nothing but badmouth the Americans, just like the Russians and China. Why do them any favours?
Do the Americans need the others? No. Do the others need the Americans? yes.

Of course it's not free, their giving us a rover.

*calls shotty*

cIclops · 2008-04-29 10:04:10

From: Constellation Architecture Team-Lunar Lunar Habitat Concepts (PDF) - 17 Jan 2008

The CxAT-Lunar surface campaign analysis focused on three primary trade sets of analysis. Trade set one (TS1) investigated sustaining a crew of four for six months with full outpost capability and the ability to perform long surface mission excursions using large mobility systems. Two basic habitat concepts of a hard metallic horizontal cylinder and a larger inflatable torus concept were investigated as options in response to the surface exploration architecture campaign analysis.

Tom Kalbfus · 2008-04-29 12:02:16

Nice pictures cIclops, it looks like the moonbase is going to be a fun place!

The Lockheed Martin Lunar architecture study (March 2005) claimed several disadvantages to locating a base at the poles compared with the equator:
o 500 m/sec delta V penalty for anytime abort
o only 3 out of 60 top scientifically interesting sites compared with 41
o communications infrastructure required
o near constant solar power only on top of 5km mountains!
Landing on the 5 kms high mountainous rim of a permanently shadowed crater will be spectacular ... imagine that in real time HD TV !

The lunar gravity does not make great demands of us, the hard part is getting off Earth, so a takeoff from the pole and an abort to Earth is not that big a deal. The moon rotates very slowly, about once a month, so for most practical purposes it is like it doesn't rotate at all, at least the way the Earth rotates. If there was a lunarsynchronius orbit, it would be out beyond the Earth/moon L1 point, but since the Earth is there, the only points we can have lunarsynchronius satellites for communications are at L1, L2, L4, and L5 of the Earth Moon system. The Earth itself can serve as a communication's hub for all points on the Moon's nearside as well.

Alot of interesting places on the Moon are not at the moon's poles, but there is the possibility of ice and other voltiles their, the poles provide 24-hour and month-long continuous access to sunlight, and that means we don't need nuclear reactors at the Shackleton base or 2 weeks of energy storage batteries or other such energy storage measures. There is no atmosphere on the moon either, so the sunlight received at the moons poles is just as intense as that received at the equator at high lunar Noon.

5 km mountains on the moon aren't any big deal. At 5 km, you are in just as much vacuum as you would be if you were sitting in the lowest rift, you'd still need a space suit. The main difficulty of high mountains, is the ability to get down from them and visit other places on the moon. Having a lander land at a high ridge at the lip of a crater shouldn't be that big a problem if a suitable site that's big enough for the lander is found.

The picture above should have very long shadows though if the moonbase is at the south pole, just a nitpick. Some structures might be hard to discern if they are shadowed by others on the moon. The contrast between light and dark is very stark.

SpaceNut · 2008-04-30 08:03:50

Yes nice and previously in the thread it was mentioned that wheeled vehicles or a chariot will be of great use.

It is unexpected thou that the company that has been working with nasa on automation of the vehicle for other uses has been Catapillar.

Cat shoots for the moon

Caterpillar Inc. doesn't plan to stop at being the No. 1 construction equipment maker in the world. The Company has teamed up with NASA to build habitats, roads on lunar surface.

cIclops · 2008-05-02 02:01:04

Mobile habitat concept

From Structural Definition and Mass Estimation of Lunar Surface Habitats (PDF 11MB) - dated 14 Mar 2008

The Habitat units are landed on the lunar surface as pre-integrated units that are moved by the Lander and connected together using the Lander mobility system. All subsystems and utilities are pre-integrated into each of the Habitat units. The first PLM that lands is also on a mobile ander and is reused and retro fitted for exercise and medical operations and becomes the third unit. The Habitats remain on the mobile Landers, so they have the capability to disconnect and move the outpost to a new location.

PLM = Pressurized Logistics Module

These mobile platforms look much like ATHLETE, they would add enormous flexibility to the Outpost.

cIclops · 2008-05-03 15:15:34

Fission Surface Power (FSP) system - reference concept layout

From System Concepts for Affordable Fission Surface Power (PDF 2MB) - January 2008

NASA and DOE conducted a 12 month study to estimate the cost of a FSP system for lunar and Mars missions. Screening studies were performed to evaluate technology options and design variables before selecting a preliminary reference concept for costing. The screening studies led to a UO2-fueled, NaK-cooled reactor with Stirling power conversion and water-based heat rejection capable of providing 40 kWe with an 8 yr design life. The reference system is emplaced in a pre-excavated hole to allow nearoutpost siting and reduce radiation levels to less than 5 rem/yr at 100 m separation distance. The reactor uses stainless steel construction, limiting nominal coolant temperatures to less than 900 K, in order to minimize development cost and leverage terrestrial technology. Stirling power conversion is well suited to the operating temperature, providing high efficiency at relatively high heat rejection temperature. The use of water heat transport and water heat pipe radiator panels provides efficient waste heat removal, using a deployment approach that is derived from the ISS radiators. The FSP system concept is extensible to Mars, with materials and design strategies that are fully compatible with the Martian environment. The total system mass with 20 percent margin is less than 5000 kg.

cIclops · 2008-05-06 01:11:14

Hybrid expandable mini-hab and outpost configuration

From Structural Definition and Mass Estimation of Lunar Surface Habitats (PDF 11MB) - dated 14 Mar 2008

A hybrid hard-shell/mid-expandable concept was also developed and evaluated. The complete outpost using hybrids would consist of 3 mid-expandable Habitats for a total volume of 189 m3 <snip> The mid-expandables are landed on the lunar surface as pre-integrated unpressurized units that, once emplaced, are subsequently expanded and outfitted.
<snip>
Because the Mini-Habs were to be off-loaded from the Lander and placed on the lunar surface, an external cargo handling truss <snip> was integrated to the exterior of the module. This truss had several functions, including; integrating the module with the Lander, transferring launch loads from the Mini-Hab into the Lander, serving as the cargo handling structure on the lunar surface, and serving as the structure to which the ground support legs and leveling system would be attached. Exterior systems, such as solar arrays and radiator panels, or panels that could support regolith and provide long-term protection from galactic cosmic radiation, could also be added.

These mini habitats could be landed together with crew.

louis · 2008-05-06 01:47:53

They look great!

RedStreak · 2008-05-07 15:29:30

It sounds like bigger may be better (or at least structurally & mass-wise efficent):

...the results from this study show that structural efficiency
varies substantially across the different Habitats studied for each. Hybrid concepts proved to be
the most structurally efficient on a mass-per-unit-volume basis, with the best hardshell concepts
at least 33 percent heavier. For hardshell concepts, efficiency is improved by having larger
(longer and larger diameter) Habitats, although efficiency was shown to be degraded by choosing
inefficient shapes. The process reported here allowed insight into why the smaller Habitats
(option 2 Mini-Habs) were least efficient. The two major reasons are that common structure
(domes and frames for example) as well as structure based on the Habitat gross mass are both
more dominant in the smaller Habitats. In terms of floor area, the results show that multi-story
Habitats (Monolithics A and B) have much higher mass efficiency than the single floor options,
no matter what the size of the Habitat. For single story/floor concepts, the hybrid is most
efficient.

If they want a useful compromise, I'd suggest landing a few mobile habs and using them as rovers. An expedition or two could roam the site for a good location, and after that the monolithic stuff lands with the older, smaller habs linking up to start a modest but strong base with perhaps a few rover-habs sent out for expeditions now and again. Achillies heel I'd admit would be designing multiple habs...but then again a descent stage built to handle a monolithic could land two mobile habs. As with the 5-seg SRBs on Ares that could offer compatibility for Altair landers.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#126 2008-03-26 20:40:17

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#127 2008-04-15 08:20:30

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#128 2008-04-15 10:02:34

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#129 2008-04-15 11:57:23

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#130 2008-04-17 06:08:43

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#131 2008-04-21 11:01:17

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#132 2008-04-21 12:50:58

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#133 2008-04-21 13:13:55

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#134 2008-04-24 08:55:17

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#135 2008-04-24 11:24:02

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#136 2008-04-24 13:10:45

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#137 2008-04-24 16:58:12

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#138 2008-04-25 03:22:23

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#139 2008-04-25 18:42:39

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#140 2008-04-25 19:11:35

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#141 2008-04-25 19:57:23

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#142 2008-04-25 21:54:14

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#143 2008-04-29 10:04:10

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#144 2008-04-29 12:02:16

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#145 2008-04-30 08:03:50

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#146 2008-05-02 02:01:04

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#147 2008-05-03 15:15:34

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#148 2008-05-06 01:11:14

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#149 2008-05-06 01:47:53

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#150 2008-05-07 15:29:30

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

Board footer