The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-03-23 23:38:25

There is one at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum in Washington DC.

elderflower · 2017-03-24 09:11:56

Spacenut,
How do you propose to use a suction machine on the moon, in a hard vacuum?

GW Johnson · 2017-03-24 16:59:48

Museum pieces are rarely restorable to flyable condition, Tom. Too many things have been removed and replaced with dummy items to make the thing safe. Goes for spacecraft as well as airplanes, or most anything else, really. Plus there is only one LM on display in the Smithsonian. So, where would the rest that we need come from?

I'm not at all sure what Spacenut meant by "suction machine". But Elderflower is right. There is no pressure difference in a vacuum. Vacum cleaners cannot possibly work. Or any other pressure-reduction-based device.

GW

SpaceNut · 2017-03-24 17:03:55

True elderflower with an open end suction, create a chamber that would seal to the ground like a large ice cream scoop with pin hole around the inside of the rim to which the air is forced into the chamber when the vacuum is applied. You can add to it a brush or some other means to churn up what is inside the cup to allow it to be suck up the regolith depositing in the collection chamber. The scoop would be as small as a foot across to maybe even a meter across to make this work. It will depend on the chamber pressure that we would monitor while sucking up the regolith. If it leaks a bit then push the scoop tighter into the regolith hoping to seal it better. You could use waste Co2 or any other gas for the pressurization of the system.

SpaceNut · 2017-03-24 18:23:01

Here is the image of cygnus and of the lunar chariot truck. With the modifications of a crane to the chariot for lifting the modules into place. The solar panels could be packed inside the units along with the other cargo, batteries ect...

Standard Enhanced
Length 5.14m 6.39m
Diameter 3.07m 3.07m
Dry Mass 1,500kg 1,800kg
Pressurized Volume 18.9m³ 27m³
Cargo Mass 2,000kg 3,500kg
Disposal Payload 1,200kg 3,500kg
Endurance 2 Months 66 Days
Solar Arrays Dutch Space ATK Ultra Flex
RNDZ Nav TriDAR TriDAR

No need to keep the thruster unit as part of the assembly.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn … moon-dust/

NASA’s Chariot is the first prototype in a new line of lunar vehicles that could someday bulldoze roads, dig trenches, and drill for minerals on the moon. And it is already proving as nimble as it is powerful in earthbound testing.
Chariot, a two-tonne “truck” with a top speed of 20 kilometres per hour, has been tearing up the Lunar Yard, a test bed at the Johnson Space Center in Houston, Texas, since engineers there completed construction of the vehicle in September of 2007. The current prototype has a detachable plough for turning over lunar soil, but future designs may incorporate a back hoe, or excavator, and a drill rig capable of boring into the lunar soil.
Independent steering on each of its six pairs of wheels allows the vehicle to spin on the spot, zigzag up steep crater walls, and manoeuvre into tight spaces with ease. The current prototype uses fans to cool its battery-powered motors. This would not be possible on the moon, so finished versions will disperse heat by circulating fluid instead.
The lunar truck, which was designed and built in 11 months at a cost of approximately $3.5 million, will undergo further testing this summer at Moses Lake State Park in Washington State, where the region’s steep, shifting sand dunes offer similar topography to that of the moon.

The program has the prototype unit and is in a mothball state.

http://www.space.com/5098-nasa-chariot- … rover.html

NASA's Chariot is also the first lunar drop deck lowboy — the Chariot can drop the chassis right down to the ground for easy loading and unloading.
The specifications for Chariot were set forth as follows:
Chariot Spec Earth Prototype Lunar System
Payload 1000 kg 3000-6000 kg
Vehicle Mass 2000 kg 1000 kg
Top Speed 20 kph 20 kph
Range 25 km 100 km
Slope Climbing 15 Degrees 25 Degrees

Building a base on the moon has the:
1. First requirement of airlocks/mud room to control lunar dust entering the habital area utilizing a common core module design.
2. Initially solar powered as we build may be enough for the short sortie stay its not enough unless you double the sizing of the batteries and panels to allow for the rate to make it though the solar night for a permanent base.
3. Each module will contain the necessary equipment for support of the crew spread out accross the building blocks. With redundancy built into the other arms of the assembly.
4. We should start from the center unit which should be like the multiport nodes of the ISS and I meantioned it would benefit the crew with having the cupola as this could be the first location for a green house.
5. with the landing areas near the end of each branch as it is built for easy unloading of the next module for the crew to assemble the base with. You can cover the modules as you go to create that extra protection that man will require.

SpaceNut · 2017-03-24 18:43:37

Here are links for the node and cupola plus more that can be leveraged from the ISS.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human … ion_Module

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Human … of_the_ISS

Technical info on the left hand menu for each: Node-3, Cupola, Water Recovery System Racks, Oxygen Generation System Rack, Air Revitalization System, Waste and Hygiene Compartment, T2 Colbert Treadmill, advanced Resistive Exercise Device...

GW Johnson · 2017-03-26 09:42:11

Back in post #15 I told ya'll about a bounding analysis I did for a 2-stage / one-shot lunar lander that could carry a smidge over 5 metric tons as cargo, or as an ascent stage. There are no such designs, really, I just explored feasibility of doing this from lunar orbit to the surface with NTO-MMH.

Looking at the dry weight of the enhanced Cygnus (1.8 metric tons) in the post just above, you could put one of these plus a 2-ton rover or construction vehicle, plus a smidge more equipment and supplies on one of these one-way cargo landers, if it existed. Dunno about volume packaging, I was just exploring thrown weights.

My bounding study "designed" these to gross 13.0 metric tons as delivered to lunar orbit. Falcon Heavy can fling them there, at least theoretically, and for a lot less price than SLS ever could. The second stage must last 4 days in space to make the burn for lunar orbit entry. That's a long time for LOX-kerosene to be exposed in uninsulated single-wall tanks!

That's the weak point: will the kerosene gel from the cold, and will too much of the LOX boil off in 4 days? I dunno. Adding insulation and preservation equipment to that second stage will reduce payload flingable to lunar orbit, but maybe by not all that much. Again, I dunno. Maybe Spacex does, if they have started thinking yet about what their tinkertoys might be able to do at the moon.

My explorations also showed that crew Dragon could return from lunar orbit if you load ~2800 kg (or thereabouts) extra NTO-MMH into its trunk and connect that to the Draco/Super Draco system. It requires the same Falcon Heavy second stage to make the burn to enter lunar orbit. Same weak point: LOX and kerosene that must remain usable for 4 days in space.

You do end up with second stages left in lunar orbit. There ought to be some sort of use for that leftover hardware. But I don't know what.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-03-26 09:46:42)

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-26 10:02:25

GW-

Maybe SpaceX should consider a redesigned second stage using MMH or Aerozine 50 as a fuel and NTO as oxidizer? This is what initially attracted my attention to the Russian built Proton M third stage. Just design/build a new deep space stage fueled with the most stable and reliable fuels. Could also serve as a Trans Mars stage and maybe even a descent stage? Of course, my chemist prejudice is showing in these decisions! This has been the "missing link" for most of the brainstorming efforts on this website aimed towards an improved Mars Mission architecture--and now the redux of both Apollo 8 and Apollo 11. We've gotta' stop thinking small; think big and achieve great things!

SpaceNut · 2017-03-26 20:42:53

The second stage of the Delta II is what we would want for american product.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta_II

Stage Identifier:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-K

The second stage is powered by the flight-proven Aerojet AJ10-118K engine. The simple, reliable start and restart operation requires only the actuation of a bipropellant valve to release the pressure-fed hypergolic propellants, with no need for a turbopump or an ignition system. Typical two- and three-stage missions use two second-stage starts, but the restart capability has been used as many as six times on a single mission, for a total of seven burns. During powered flight, the second-stage hydraulic system gimbals the engine for pitch and yaw control. A redundant attitude control system (RACS) using nitrogen gas provides roll control. The RACS also provides pitch, yaw, and roll control during unpowered flight. The guidance system is installed in the forward section of the second stage.
Nominal Thrust: 9,753 lb
Specific Impulse: 320.5 seconds
Fuel/Oxidizer: Aerozine 50/N204
Length: 105.6 in
Diameter (nozzle extension): 60.33 in
Weight: 275 lb

Engine:
http://www.rocket.com/delta-ii-stage-2-engine

Oldfart1939 · 2017-03-26 22:06:27

This engine would be a good starting point for a new but significantly more powerful design. The Delta II second stage is also a bit anemic w/r to available fuel to power a 20 tonne spacecraft to TLI. I cannot intellectually justify another flimsy and one use throwaway lander. I would envision increasing the diameter to 3.7 meters and ~ doubling the length to give more thrust available and a 50% longer burn time.
I envision a SpaceX upper stage dimensionally similar to Falcon second stage could be built using 3 Rocketdyne engines as an interim design, too. I haven't run the numbers through the rocket equation yet.

SpaceNut · 2017-03-27 19:38:06

http://www.rocket.com/files/aerojet/doc … Sheets.pdf

Space Shuttle Orbital Maneuvering Subsystem AJ10-190 engines
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shu … ing_System

Each pod contains a single AJ10-190 engine,[3] based on the Apollo Service Module's Service Propulsion System engine, which produces 26.7 kilonewtons (6,000 lbf) of thrust with a specific impulse (Isp) of 316 seconds. Each engine could be reused for 100 missions and was capable of a total of 1,000 starts and 15 hours of burn time.
These pods also contained the Orbiter's aft set of reaction control system (RCS) engines, and so were referred to as OMS/RCS pods. The OM engine and RCS systems both burned monomethylhydrazine (MMH) as fuel, which was oxidized with dinitrogen tetroxide (N2O4), with the propellants being stored in tanks within the OMS/RCS pod, alongside other fuel and engine management systems. When full, the pods together carried around 8,174 kilograms (18,021 lb) of MMH and 13,486 kilograms (29,732 lb) of N2O4, allowing the OMS to produce a total of around 1,000 feet per second (300 m/s) of delta-v with a 65,000-pound (29,500 kg) payload

Now thats a set of engines to build a lunar lander with....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:OMS_ … ematic.png

https://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/re … orage.html

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-04-13 04:15:35

The world prepares for the second assault on the Moon

https://mesonstars.com/space/the-world- … -the-moon/

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-01 16:48:16

Moon vs. Mars: NASA's ultimate destination has varied over the decades

https://www.space.com/moon-mars-nasa-exploration-debate

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-09-06 09:53:21

Vid 'Mars Matters' with animation and music

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRoMV_hWk4o

Elon Musk throws a solution for Nasa's Artemis 1 mission to moon

https://www.business-standard.com/artic … 214_1.html

Musk replied to Berger's 'accurate assessment', saying that "Raptor design started out using H2 (hydrogen), but switched to CH4 (hydrogen). Latter is the best combo of high efficiency and ease of operation in my opinion."

According to him, CH4 (methane) is easier to produce on Mars and is "very important" for launch missions. SpaceX is among the first companies to use liquid methane and hydrogen as fuel.

Musk also hopes for a self-sustaining city on the Red Planet in 20 years' time, as his space company prepares the Starship mega rocket to take people and cargo to the moon, Mars and beyond.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2022-09-06 09:56:02)

SpaceNut · 2024-03-17 17:11:15

part of why the moon was chosen was to not only to show that going to the moon of the past was not a hoax but to be able to explore the same sites which we had done in the past but to stay there this time permanently rather than just doing short stays.

Mars_B4_Moon · 2024-06-01 16:59:47

Japanese billionaire cancels lunar SpaceX voyage

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Japa … e_999.html

'NASA's Mars sample return mission is in trouble. Could a single SLS megarocket be the answer?'

https://www.space.com/nasa-mars-sample- … sls-launch

Slovakia, Peru sign NASA's Artemis Accords on safe space exploration

https://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Slov … n_999.html

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2017-03-23 23:38:25

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#27 2017-03-24 09:11:56

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#28 2017-03-24 16:59:48

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#29 2017-03-24 17:03:55

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#30 2017-03-24 18:23:01

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#31 2017-03-24 18:43:37

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#32 2017-03-26 09:42:11

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#33 2017-03-26 10:02:25

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#34 2017-03-26 20:42:53

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#35 2017-03-26 22:06:27

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#36 2017-03-27 19:38:06

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#37 2022-04-13 04:15:35

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#38 2022-09-01 16:48:16

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#39 2022-09-06 09:53:21

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#40 2024-03-17 17:11:15

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

#41 2024-06-01 16:59:47

Re: The Moon versus Mars; Science versus Economics?

Board footer