Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

Rune · 2008-05-23 08:00:44

Well, obiously my "big laser" idea was completely impractical and outright insane, but now that I've started thinking about it... would 2 stations in L1 and L2 suffice? That is, what kind of range would an orbital laser have? Almost unlimited (with visibility of target assumed), or would it get dispersed rahter quickly? Tracking problems would be huge, but right now, larger than 10cm space garbage is being tracked, isn't it?

Anyhow, back to the original problem, regolith may very well do the job, but as far as I've seen, al the proposed structures for a lunar base are rather tall (so, it will be difficult to bury them). And in the mobile proposal, impractical also. Besides, at first there's not gonna be any contruction machinery to do it.

Let's hope no "statiscally impossible" meteor impacts the outpost soon in the program. It would be a shame to get all the stuff there just to see it vaporized.

Rune. Imagine what a politician would do to the moon program with the statement "It can be all destroyed in the first year".

GCNRevenger · 2008-05-23 09:55:08

"Imagine what a politician would do to the moon program with the statement "It can be all destroyed in the first year"."

The same can be said of almost any space mission, or for that matter almost any engineering project of any kind, anywhere. Sure its a possibility, there is also a possibility that a hypervelocity space rock could defeat any practical amount of armor.

Absolutionist statements like "its possible" or "there has to be zero risk" and other such anti-rational nonsense grease the rails taking us back to the stone age.

Rune · 2008-05-23 11:31:34

Totally in agreement. As you'll find out, I tend to finish the post with some for of comical/historical remark relating only obliquely to the main subjet, if I find the inspiration. I know, it's silly, but I've been doing it for years, so don't take the last phrase of any of my posts too seriously...

Rune. Irrelevant post for irrelevant info.

bobunf · 2008-05-23 11:43:14

"Absolutionist statements like "its possible" or "there has to be zero risk" and other such anti-rational nonsense grease the rails taking us back to the stone age."

Well said, and as I pointed out, this risk is about the same as getting in your bathtub.

Going to, staying on and coming back from the Moon will have many other far greater risks. For instance, about 1 in 57 shuttle flights have ended with the death of the entire crew. That risk is more than ten thousand times greater than the annual risk of a meteor coming within half a kilometer of any fixed location on the Moon.

If we give equipment reliability ten thousand times more concern than meteors, we're short changing concern about equipment reliability. For every post about meteors there should be more than ten thousand about equipment reliability.

I don't see that many.

Bob

cIclops · 2008-05-24 07:14:06

Solicitation annoucement: Lunar Surface Systems - 21 May 2008

In close coordination with the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD), the Lunar Surface Systems Project Office at the NASA Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center (JSC), plans to issue a Broad Agency Announcement (BAA) for ESMD Lunar Surface Systems (LSS) Concept Studies. NASA has spent time over the past 2 years studying the various functional needs and technical challenges inherent in exploration of the Lunar Surface. NASA is seeking innovative concepts related to particular areas of study that will be detailed in the BAA release. Areas of study may include challenges associated with regolith moving, energy storage, minimum functionality habitats, consumables packaging, avionics and software.

bobunf · 2008-05-24 13:27:19

If I figured this out right, to provide long term protection from radiation (including solar flares, coronal mass ejections and cosmic rays) equivalent to that provided by the Earth’s atmosphere at 11,000 meter elevation (commercial airline cruising altitude) would require:
> over a ton of material per square meter on the roof of any habitation
> and lesser amounts on the sides if the structure were within a crater or some other depression.

I’m not sure this much radiation protection is really necessary, but the material would also provide protection against essentially all meteors. (How many aircraft are hit by meteors each year?)

This material could be equipment, consumables (assuming they didn’t get consumed), other storage, and regolith or other fill. Equipment could consist of PV cells and communications (probably on the roof), electrical, air handling, plumbing, recycling, and, probably in the walls, food processing and space suits. Consumables could consist of water, compressed air, fuels, and, probably in the walls food, lab and office supplies. Clothes and cookware would probably go in the walls.

A spherical habitation with a diameter of 10 meters would have a surface of about 300 square meters and would probably require less than 300 tons of shielding material. I would think the equipment, consumables and other things for the base might come close to 300 tons.

I don’t see radiation as an insurmountable problem even without the use of regolith. Meteors would certainly not be a problem. Radioactive water or a punctured water tank would be a problem, but not nearly as bad as a radioactive or punctured astronaut. I think those problems could be readily solved. In any case, one would probably have multiple compartment water and other consumable storage.

Radiation issues on Mars would be less of an issue than on the Moon because of the greater distance of Mars from the Sun, and because of its atmosphere. The Martian atmosphere should protect against most meteors.

Bob

cIclops · 2008-05-24 14:29:40

Are these 'tons' calculated in lunar gravity?

Yes, water makes good shielding. Some of the proposed habitat designs have tanks and equipment on top and support structure for regolith. At the South pole the solar wind will be almost horizontal, so shielding for this will need to be on the sides. The Outpost could also be setup near a cliff or boulder.

bobunf · 2008-05-24 21:17:19

Earth tons

Bob

Commodore · 2008-05-24 22:56:27

If the goal is to construct large permanent manned structures, then it makes sense to design it to mitigate these sort of threats because over their lifetime its almost sure to be an issue.

Whats the best way to make use of regolith to shrug off an impact? Whats the best combination of materials to to allow penetration but prevent a concussion?

bobunf · 2008-05-25 00:34:32

I think the chances of an impact are too small to worry about, but protectng from radiation, which is a sure thing, will also protect from impacts.

Some charged particle radiation could, perhaps, be deflected using magnetic or electrical fields, an idea the consequences of which I wouldn't venture to try to figure out. But if such a thing worked, less shielding might be possible. The possibility of an impact shouldn't be a consideration in determining the amount of radiation shielding.

Bob

SpaceNut · 2015-02-24 19:12:46

I am adding this post here as it relates back to earlier conversation about the type of rovers that might be used for long term stays.

SpaceNut wrote:

NASA's Moon-Bound Geology Lab that Never Quite Got Off the Ground
GM completed the MOLAB (or "MGL" for "Mobile Geological Laboratory") in 1964 for NASA's use in the Apollo astronaut program.
The size of the MOLAB (20 feet tall, 8200 pounds) made it difficult to transport into space; it could only ride aboard a Saturn V.

SpaceNut · 2016-11-15 21:46:01

Seems that a change of direction is being whispered as captured on Nasawatch but I see it as an oportunity to have Space x spur on Nasa and others to join in on space flight to start exploring something other than LEO....

louis · 2016-11-16 19:37:10

Very much my view. Not a zero sum game between Moon and Mars. One can see how NASA might focus on the Moon while Musk focuses on Mars and how developments on one will support developments on the other, though Mars remains the real prize in my view because it can "easily" and successfully be terraformed to provide a second home for humanity.

SpaceNut wrote:

Seems that a change of direction is being whispered as captured on Nasawatch but I see it as an oportunity to have Space x spur on Nasa and others to join in on space flight to start exploring something other than LEO....

Void · 2016-11-16 21:22:02

Jeff, also....
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/09 … 16911.html

SpaceNut · 2016-11-16 21:48:02

He is working with Boeing plus Lockheed for engine replacement and learning quite a bit to getting to orbit with this developement.

It would be nice if the commercial industry did push Nasa just a bit.

Void · 2016-11-17 09:04:48

I find this to be extremely encouraging for many things in space:
http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/11 … 61249.html
Quote:

Rep Jim Bridenstine, R-Oklahoma, currently considered a front runner for the post of NASA Administrator under the upcoming Donald Trump administration, is a warm supporter of a return to the moon. In a recent speech to the Lunar Exploration Group, Bridenstine made a case that access to lunar water would help to extend the lives of large satellites, which tend to be abandoned when their station keeping fuel runs out. Rocket fuel refined from lunar water would be used to top off the satellites’ tanks, extending their useful lives and mitigating against #Space debris, caused when derelict satellites break apart and collide with one another.

So, very much a good business model I think and also having moral purpose, by reducing Space debris. Reducing Space debris is of course another business objective, since our lives on Earth depend very much on satellites good functioning.

Quote (Also):

Bridenstine also touted the potential of other lunar resources, including platinum group metals, to fundamentally change the American economy and how it relates to travel to and from the moon.

A SEGWAY TO THE MARS COLONIAL TRANSPORT:
So, under this plan, what if it could do the bulk of it's fuel loading from Lunar materials?
For instance at first, loading Oxygen and a Hydrogen containing fuel from Lunar water for the outbound trip to Mars?
Then advancing it further, sending automated cargo's of liquid Oxygen to orbit Mars, so that upon lifting off from Mars, the ship could be lighter, and would have all of its fuel, but just enough Oxygen to get up to the Oxygen tanker, or abort back down to the surface if there were a problem (Chances of survival on an abort to the surface, but a great preference to achieve orbit to the tanker).

The liquid Oxygen sent to Mars orbit preferably would come from Lunar rocks and not water, to conserve water. And we have hopes that telepresence down the road would allow robot operators on Earth to direct the actions of robots on the Moon which would have some significant autonomous capabilities to fulfil the instructions given to them. This way to generate Oxygen and Fuels while reducing the amount of human life support burden on the Moon.

Back to the Moon:
Previously there was a lot of concern about how to build ice mining equipment which could tolerate the cold that exists where the ice is.
I think infrared heat lamps could help out with that a lot, to keep the wheels/treads just warm enough.

I also note the new batteries Elon Musk promoted could have utility for the purpose of powering the machines in the deep dark.
An alternative is to have fuel cells that run on Oxygen and Hydrogen of course.
And lasers shined from the crater rims could shine energy on the vehicles.

Of course any injection of heat must be done carefully, so as not to vaporize and so waste the water and other resources available in the craters.

Optimistic!

I'm done now.
I lied:

Further Quote:

All indications exist that one of the first decisions that the Trump administration will make concerning space policy is to order NASA to return to the moon, likely in partnership with American allies and commercial companies. The decision will not be seen as a replacement of the Journey to Mars but as a compliment to it.

Now I'm done, promise

Last edited by Void (2016-11-17 09:28:27)

SpaceNut · 2017-02-17 19:57:50

The topic is missing quite a bit from when we started to go to the moon on constellation and even after for a bit until the programs were shut down...

The moon is not a distraction for going to mars but a local test platform and a means to drive the commercial market to start producing rather than waiting for contracts to do the design work.

http://www.astronautix.com/l/lsam.html
Lunar Surface Access Module. Status: Study 2005. Thrust: 66.60 kN (14,972 lbf). Gross mass: 32,600 kg (71,800 lb). Specific impulse: 362 s. Height: 9.90 m (32.40 ft). Diameter: 7.60 m (24.90 ft). Span: 9.50 m (31.10 ft).

The orion was to have this service module
http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevsm.html

http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevspacehabsm.html
http://www.astronautix.com/c/cevspacehab.html

SpaceNut · 2018-10-05 18:46:02

We have been bumping into an outpost with BFR dreams so here it is as a reminder....

SpaceNut · 2019-01-04 20:33:57

Not sure of the base as Nasa seems to be very distracted in doing the lunar orbit staging space station for going to the moon with Partners

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-12-19 09:56:37

The Moon Armstrong Outpost is gone, maybe what is needed is a Mars Armstrong Outpost?

Here’s NASA’s new Plan is no longer the Armstrong Base but Artemis for a Lunar “Base Camp” but it also comes with this Gateway Space station. Space-X is winning, it seems to be leading in the PrivateSector but there have also been Lawsuits. The latest vision after the Bush Admin and Obama Admin and Trump Admin and Biden Admin seems to be a new global multi-national Lunar Space Station mission, with international partners such as the European Space Agency (ESA), JAXA, and the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to share the costs. NASA says by having presence on the Moon, and having this station in an odd complex Lunar orbit adding more complication will be laying the foundation for future companies to build a Lunar Mars galactic economy, and eventually help the private sector sending humans to Mars...however Musk himself also talked of Mars-Direct, CO2 to rocket fuel. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1470519361295335425 'Will also be important for Mars'. From official media accounst they call it an 'orbiting platform around the Moon' https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status … 0554806274 From news reports it seems US$332 million had been committed by Congress to preliminary studies for the Lunar Gateway Station or Deep Space Moon Gateway. Artemis 1 will perform a trans lunar injection burn and Artemis 2 aka Artemis is the is another scheduled mission of NASA's Artemis program it will be the first scheduled crewed mission of NASA's Orion spacecraft, currently planned to be launched by the Space Launch System (SLS)

NASA Prepares Its Artemis Gateway to Orbit the Moon
https://eos.org/articles/nasa-prepares- … t-the-moon

Statement on Artemis Lunar Lander Court Decision
https://apnews.com/press-release/PRNews … 590a6a2d98

NASA may need to delay Artemis 1 mission
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local … 1-mission/

Artemis – Apollo’s Twin Sister – Aims for the Moon
https://www.designnews.com/automation-m … -aims-moon

Politics and Money?
https://twitter.com/SpcPlcyOnline/statu … 1293305860
Ranking Member Frank Lucas (R-OK) agrees -- need realistic plans, budgets, schedules. Finding extra $10B for second HLS "no easy task."...A lot of internationl people from Japan, Europe, South Korea, New Zealand are already signed up to buy some international effort New Zealand signs Accords for Artemis. https://spacenews.com/new-zealand-signs … s-accords/ France has also said it would make the effort to sign, the French are the providers of the Ariane-V, they have their own space telescope missions and France is the main contributor to ESA's budget. Russia has more or less all but withdrawn from the NASA-led Gateway. In a previous tweet by Maxar Tech the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) it is developing for NASA has passed its first Preliminary Design Review (PRD) and remains on track for launch in 2024 https://twitter.com/Maxar/status/1414584544301359104 and China? While they do seem to move at glacial pace, they do make slow and sure steps and gain new experience and new information on each of their missions, Nobody is full sure what way the Chinese are going to move.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2021-12-19 10:11:17)

SpaceNut · 2021-12-19 10:47:06

Its funny how a change at the top can derail all of the past work as if it never happened and Nasa plays along getting to start fresh once more wasting tax payer funds.
Nasa needs a clear directive that changes in the oval office can not derail every four years....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-05-07 09:46:08

This Tiny Moon-Bound Satellite Could Carve a Path For a Lunar Space Station
https://gizmodo.com/capstone-satellite- … 1848879901

NASA Deputy Administrator to Visit Artemis Partner Advanced Space
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nasa-dep … 00850.html

Artemis moon program will boost science and private spaceflight, NASA says
https://www.space.com/artemis-moon-prog … paceflight

Canada will be doing its bit for space exploration on ‘Lunar Gateway’ project
https://www.lavalnews.ca/canada-will-be … y-project/

Canada to prosecute crimes on the moon

https://phys.org/news/2022-04-canada-pr … -moon.html

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/2 … n-the-moon

Bernie Sanders Would Have Voted Against the Moon Landing
https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-v … 06794.html

Senator Bernie Sanders Throws Shade at Private Space Industry
https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2022/04/sena … -industry/

SpaceNut · 2022-05-07 19:47:10

The lunar outpost was slated for the southern pole but this satellite is to show a stable orbit for the gateway research center aka ISS around the moon.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#201 2008-05-23 08:00:44

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#202 2008-05-23 09:55:08

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#203 2008-05-23 11:31:34

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#204 2008-05-23 11:43:14

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#205 2008-05-24 07:14:06

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#206 2008-05-24 13:27:19

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#207 2008-05-24 14:29:40

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#208 2008-05-24 21:17:19

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#209 2008-05-24 22:56:27

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#210 2008-05-25 00:34:32

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#211 2015-02-24 19:12:46

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#212 2016-11-15 21:46:01

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#213 2016-11-16 19:37:10

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#214 2016-11-16 21:22:02

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#215 2016-11-16 21:48:02

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#216 2016-11-17 09:04:48

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#217 2017-02-17 19:57:50

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#218 2018-10-05 18:46:02

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#219 2019-01-04 20:33:57

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#220 2021-12-19 09:56:37

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#221 2021-12-19 10:47:06

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#222 2022-05-07 09:46:08

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

#223 2022-05-07 19:47:10

Re: Armstrong Lunar Outpost - status

Board footer