Gateway Spaceport

Void · 2018-07-16 21:29:14

I guess this might fit here, if the management approves.

I am entertained by this stuff, and can see it's utility to me to fill in some dead time.

I think it ranges sometimes into the improbable, and the childish, but that can be a good thing. Dreaming, imagination, and Childish behaviors are a sign of being human and not just an animal.

https://gatewayspaceport.com/galleries/gallery/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRB-tLF1npo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGcvv3683Os
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKEY8ZKIw2E

Void · 2018-07-17 21:12:30

Yes, this is really nice:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%2 … ORM=VRDGAR

Done

Void · 2018-07-18 11:49:29

Thinking about this material, I have come around to the idea that really a very great potential is to build synthetic gravity machines in LEO and to hope to do so in great part from Lunar materials.

Being inside the Earths gravity well, and magnetic field, I have hopes that air escaping from such machines will be recaptured to the Earth in large part. I don't like the story I previously have encountered that if we expanded exponentially with synthetic gravity habitats, all of the volatile materials of the solar system would be exhausted in 10,000 years. So, I am somewhat re-assured with the scheme of building them in LEO.

As for Mars, we do not actually know if humans can prosper physically long term or even medium term in the gravitational field of Mars. So, there is some reason to want to build synthetic gravity habitats around Mars. Since there has been talk about installing an artificial magnetic field around Mars, and since the solar heat at Mars may not in itself lead to very fast loss of molecules, I would hope that we could have an orbital civilization there as well.

But I am really thinking of Venus now. If you could establish an artificial magnetic field for Mars, why not for Venus? I am thinking about tapping into some natural processes which seem to be unique to Venus.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … table.html

So, Oxygen gets lifted up, and the solar wind sweeps it away. But if you established a magnetic field to block the solar wind, you may find that the Oxygen gets lifted up and accumulates in the upper atmosphere of Venus. Using a skyhook method then you might capture the Oxygen, to be used as a Monopropellant. And if you established such a magnetic field, along with the gravitation of Venus you might then have an orbital civilization with conservation of volatile substances. (Which I like).

This would all be subject to there not being discovered life in the clouds of Venus.

As for cloud cities, there could be some. But really, synthetic gravity machines in Low Venus Orbit would likely be the best way to make relatively safe habitat. Also they would be much more connectable to those of Earth and Mars, due to being in orbit of Venus.

As for the cloud cities maybe they would be launch pads for solid materials from the surface of Venus to orbit. Of course then to mine the surface of Venus would require new high temperature, high pressure technologies.

The Skyhook method of dipping into the atmosphere of Venus would also yield Carbon and Nitrogen to orbit along with other gasses. I would think that synthetic gravity habitats would be best if their interior atmospheres were at least partially Nitrogen. Venus has a lot of Nitrogen for that purpose. It also has a lot of Carbon to build structures out of in orbit. It also has a lot of Oxygen to be split from CO2 (Ect.) and lifted electrically upwards to be captured.

I think Oxygen as a monopropellant will be a very good practice for space flight. After all, in emergencies, you could then breath your propellant.

So, I am sort of getting comfortable with the concepts of the Gateway Spaceport and spoken by "Isaac Arthur".

Yes SpaceX may do their mission to Mars and get away with a minimal loss of life, and not then fail. However, this collection of ideas has much more in addition to Mars to offer the human race. More in line with what Jeff Bezos has in mind. I am happy to entertain these notions for the future of the human race.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-07-18 11:52:10)

kbd512 · 2018-07-18 14:26:25

Void,

That's some interesting stuff. I'm of the opinion that we should explore and colonize Venus and Mars at the same time.

Void · 2018-07-18 15:49:00

Kbd512 said:

Void,
That's some interesting stuff. I'm of the opinion that we should explore and colonize Venus and Mars at the same time.

I think that there is a lot to think about.

I am in favor of the expressed SpaceX plan to first visit Mars. Because it is an attempt to reach for Mars, and the question then which it requires answered, is "What are the chances of success?". Some members here have expressed strong reservations even objections. But it was a start.

Personally I don't see why you would do it without including efficient electric propulsion tugs. (Which I wish we had built already). But we don't. So, if they can pull it off by their expressed plan then fine. But failure is an option. In that case we want a plan "B" ready, because the public will definitely sour on the whole idea of Mars for some time, if the mission fails.

My paranoid side (which is significant in magnitude), thinks that the whole idea of abandoning the Moon and heading to Mars, was an intended misdirection orchestrated by enemies of our well being. The intent would be to leave the Moon for others and to give us a task to waste valuable time, and a task which could easily be vulnerable to sabotage, possibly setting us back for decades. This would be a contribution from outside entities, and also from internal political factions which might wish to confiscate the funds for doling out to patrons.

The Gateway Spaceport and other materials here are a bit fantastical, but here again, it is an attempt to reach for the sky, which is a good thing, if no guns are pointed at you, and you are not in a black and white western movie.

I do agree with them that the use of robots, telepresence avatars, and pods need to be developed for LEO especially, and that space suited humans should be the last option to perform physical actions in the harsh environments of space.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-07-18 16:00:16)

Void · 2018-07-22 13:34:48

I recall not that long ago, that it was said as a criticism of people who proposed to build things with Lunar Concrete, "That if there were Lunar Concrete, it would be processed to get the water out of it". This is because it was thought that the Moon was bone dry.

It seems that the "Bone Dry" theory may have been completely false. Therefore all the decisions to bypass the Moon and go directly to Mars were based on false information. An error of massive magnitude.

Evidences of water on the Moon:
1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Very interesting: Quote:

"Water (H2O), and the chemically related hydroxyl group (-OH), can also exist in forms chemically bound as hydrates and hydroxides to lunar minerals (rather than free water), and evidence strongly suggests that this is indeed the case in low concentrations over much of the Moon's surface.[3] In fact, adsorbed water is calculated to exist at trace concentrations of 10 to 1000 parts per million.[4] In 1978 it was reported that samples returned by the Soviet Luna 24 probe contained 0.1% water by mass sample.[5][6] Inconclusive evidence of free water ice at the lunar poles was accumulated from a variety of observations suggesting the presence of bound hydrogen. ".

2) https://www.rt.com/news/419761-water-wi … oon-study/
Quote:

"Water may be widespread on the moon after all – new research".
Their results showed widespread and relatively immobile water indicating that it may be present primarily as hydroxyl (OH), a more reactive relative of H2O that is made of one oxygen atom and one hydrogen atom. It also suggests that any H2O present on the moon isn’t loosely attached to the surface.

3) http://www.moondaily.com/reports/Long_s … r_999.html
Quote:

Long suspected theory about the moon holds water
by Staff Writers
Sendai, Japan (SPX) Jun 15, 2018
A team of Japanese scientists led by Masahiro Kayama of Tohoku University's Frontier Research Institute for Interdisciplinary Sciences, has discovered a mineral known as moganite in a lunar meteorite found in a hot desert in northwest Africa.
This is significant because moganite is a mineral that requires water to form, reinforcing the belief that water exists on the Moon.
"Moganite is a crystal of silicon dioxide and is similar to quartz. It forms on Earth as a precipitate when alkaline water including SiO2 is evaporated under high pressure conditions," says Kayama. "The existence of moganite strongly implies that there is water activity on the Moon."
Kayama and his team analyzed 13 of the lunar meteorites using sophisticated methods to determine chemical compositions and structures of their minerals. These included electron microscopy for high-magnification, and micro-Raman spectroscopy to determine the structure of the minerals based on their atomic vibration.
Moganite was found in only one of those 13 samples, confirming the team's theory that it could not have formed in the African desert. "If terrestrial weathering had produced moganite in the lunar meteorite, there should be moganite present in all the samples that fell to Earth around the same time. But this was not the case," says Kayama.
He adds that part of the moganite had changed into the high-pressure SiO2 minerals stishovite and coesite, which he believes was most likely formed through heavy impact collisions on the Moon
This is the first time that moganite has been detected in lunar rocks. The researchers say the meteorites probably came from an area of the Moon called Procellarum Terrane, and that the moganite was formed through the process of water evaporation in strong sunlight. Kayama's working theory is that deeper under the lunar surface, protected from the sun, crystals of water ice could be abundant.
In recent years, space missions have found evidence of lunar water or ice concentrated at the poles where sunlight appears at a very narrow angle, leading to pockets of cold traps. This is the first time, however, that the scientists have found evidence of abundant water ice in the lunar subsurface at mid and lower latitudes.
Kayama's team estimates that the accumulation of water in the lunar soil is about 0.6 weight percent. If they are right, future lunar explorers would have easier access to the resource, which would greatly enhance the chances of the Moon hosting human settlement and infrastructure, and supporting a variety of industries within the next few decades.
JAXA, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency, is said to be considering two future missions - a lunar pole landing mission in five years to look for water resources and a sample return mission from the far-side of the Moon in ten years.
In addition to testing for water in other silica minerals found, Kayama and his team also plan to study water from solar wind to the regolith soils and volcanic eruptions from the lunar mantle. "Solar wind-induced water can give us new insight into the history of sun activity, and volcanic water provides us with information of lunar evolution together with water," says Kayama, about his lab's next project. "It's all very exciting."

The formation involved:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanus_Procellarum

…..

Perhaps still subject to confirmation, but this then tells quite a lot about how indeed we should return to the Moon and hope to use it for various purposes, including an accelerated development of Mars.

……

How the water got there could be a diversion. I guess mostly it matters that it is there. Solar Wind? The object that produced Oceanus Procellarum? Impact of Earth where contrary to intuition, indeed water vapor was retained. (Very possible). Or my warped theory that the Moon originally formed as a small icy object in the manner of moons of the outer planets, and was then covered over with ejected materials from an impact of Earth. (And I don't insist on that at all).

However, there is significant water it seems.

If items #1, #2, and #3 are all true, then after all there will be plenty of Hydrogen, let alone Oxygen on the Moon, and regular combustion propulsion could be used extensively. (I do however still like the idea of electric propulsions (Not just ion rockets only) to move objects around.

And the Moon is an effort that we can get international participation on.

And Dr. Robert Zubrin apparently knows something new as well, because he speculated on Moon Direct with the Falcon Heavy. That is a change in his thinking I believe.

……

A bit "Off Post", but a nice video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rYqXE51q24

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-07-22 14:31:31)

Terraformer · 2018-07-22 14:28:13

I won't be surprised if Luna had oceans for a few million years after solidifying, along with an atmosphere and vulcanism driven by residual heat of formation. The solar wind would have taken it away eventually, but not before it had effects on the rocks.

Of course, my dream is that we find vast quantities of hydrated limestone on Luna that we can vaporise with big mirrors. But that's not likely.

Void · 2018-07-22 14:33:16

Terraformer,

That would be interesting. I think that they do believe that it had an atmosphere and a magnetic field at one time, so Maybe????

Anyway to amuse myself, I had a look at this video. It is interesting. No deep space gateway! LOP-G!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhSuxEae3vs

Last edited by Void (2018-07-22 14:36:19)

Void · 2018-07-24 12:01:20

So, I have been watching what is going on @ http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8447
The many popes of Mars?

How about this, we can rename our Moon as "New Mars", and then it will be OK to discuss it. New Zealand, New Hampshire, New York. You get the drift. After all they changed Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet.

Lets not get silly with this plan B obsession with the pure Mars notion. The points made @ http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=8447 .
We don't need silly restrictions. I don't think that you should be making "Thou Shalt Nots".

There are two plans to go to Mars in the works that I am aware of:
1) SpaceX BFR/BFS.

And I have been contemplating:
2) The other guys and gals:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orb … rm-Gateway
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Transport
And I am really satisfied with the general directions taken.
Vulcan fits in here somewhere.

Although I would love to see SpaceX execute the 6 ship mission to Mars on the timeline advertised, I think that we need to be aware that that is a best case dream scenario.

In addition we have the other things:
a) Blue Origin to the Moon, and very probably something like the Gateway Spaceport (Not to be confused with the LOP-G).
b) Bigelow Methods.
c) Sir Branson game.
d) Others, our military, and foreign nationals.

……

The LOP-G is not specifically a pathway to the Moon, or Mars, or Venus. It does appear to be a rehearsal of an A) Interplanetary spaceship / B) Gateway Spaceport.

Where the SpaceX BFR/BFS is somewhat of a "Jack or all Trades". The A) Interplanetary Spaceship would be dividable into three Sub-Types: A-1) Crew&Passenger, A-2 Robotic Transport (For bulk materials), A-3 Robotic Mission Device (Go to an Asteroid for instance). They are testing Ion rockets, which I know many of you want to include in Mars planning. While some are allergic to the costs of Xenon, the power supply will be tested in real deep space. And it is not out of the question to swap to a new device that uses Argon, Metals, or Air/Oxygen at some point.

The LOP-G appears to be able to attract International participation. So, we get financial assistance while we share, and we also share in the innovations that others will create. The Europeans notably have done some very nice things as far as innovation, and the Soviets/Russians did as well.

While BFR/BFS may win the race, in the end it will make sense to have interplanetary spaceships which do not land on worlds with atmospheres, and probably do not typically land on airless worlds either. Perhaps they will be constructed on the Moon and launched one time.

Permanently using BFR/BFS for interplanetary transport would likely seem silly later on. Better to make a BFS that is tuned to each planet.
Perhaps for Earth in the end it will be winged spaceplanes again. Don't know. We will see what wins out.

It seems reasonable that eventually there will be a SpacePort Gateway for interplanetary ships, and that it could draw materials from Earth, The Moon (New Mars), or NEO/NEA's. The LOP-G would possibly be it's precursor as well as the precursor for;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orb … rm-Gateway (Err....Gateway Spaceport(s)).
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Space_Transport

As for the Orion or the SLS, time will tell. In the end perhaps those two will evolve or be replaced with better methods. But now is too soon. We need to have the output from SpaceX, Blue Origins, and others firmly in hand before making such decisions.

And yes New Mars (Err...The Moon). Both SpaceX and Blue Origins have indicated intentions for the Moon, and there is a broad international interest as well. How much those New Mars (Moon) efforts will involve the LOP-G is not apparent. Time will tell.

I love that the Deep Space Transport will be able to involve itself with Venus. I really think that if there is no life on Venus, an orbital community using Venus for raw materials is the way to go. Build blocks of structure on the Moons (New Mars) surface. Launch them to Venus, and fill them with Venus atmosphere (Modified). Also get materials from NEO/NEA's. Could really build a lot of nice "Land", with optimal synthetic gravity for human health.

Or will we have to rename Venus as "Mars Femmie" in order to be allowed to talk about that?

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-07-24 12:43:42)

Terraformer · 2018-07-24 13:11:06

Re. Lunar atmosphere... The Moon once had an atmosphere.

Twice the density of Mars. In other words, dense enough for liquid water to have existed on the surface. Long enough for some rocks to become modified by it?

Void · 2018-10-08 20:44:53

Alright in order to not clutter up the board, I will put this here. Very 1950's and 2001 Space Odyssey.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001:_A_S … sey_(film)

https://www.space.com/42034-single-pers … -test.html
Quote:

A spacecraft designed to eventually replace many spacewalking astronaut activities passed two key pressure tests in September, representatives from the company building the spacecraft told Space.com in an exclusive interview.
The spacecraft concept from Maryland-based Genesis Engineering Solutions is just big enough for one person; an astronaut would float inside the spacecraft for several hours and use robotic arms to manipulate equipment. Propulsive thrusters would allow the spacecraft to nestle close to a target, similar to NASA's Manned Maneuvering Unit jetpack that was briefly tested on astronaut spacesuits in the 1980s.
Instead of using a bulky spacesuit to do repairs on NASA's future Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway space station, for example, the Genesis spacecraft operator could use the robotic arms while remaining in relative comfort inside of an enclosed cockpit. [Take a Look Inside Lockheed Martin's Proposed Lunar 'Gateway Habitat for Astronauts]

So, I suggest that they build an override so they can turn Hal into a can opener if Hal misbehaves.

And I know that there is a lot of opposition to the "Lunar Gateway". Not necessarily the same thing as the Gateway Spaceport.
I have some trouble with the Lunar Gateway myself. It seems like trying to learn boxing by putting your chin out to see what moves your opponent will make. I would rather not. Maybe they have secret plans however. We shall see.

And of course you know that I am very interested in telepresence on the Moon from Earth, and if it does exist I suppose the Lunar Gateway, but as I have said it seems like leading with your chin. Ouch!

Currently my vision of purpose is to hope to work with the Orbitspheres of Venus, Earth/Luna, and Mars/Phobos/Demos. This tool might be helpful. Obviously I also consider the surface of Mars and Luna to be very important. The Atmosphere of Venus also to be an objective. First for study, and maybe for habitation. Neo's may be of importance. Time will tell.

From my point of view, Mars could be marvelous. Possibly upgradable to near Earth conditions little by little, and being a mini-Earth, much easier to lift mass from to support expansion out to the outer solar system, and maybe eventually the stars.

Luna, however is the place where we might get the "Mostest" for the "Leastest". That is if humans can be linked mentally to AI, then activity on the Moon, a humungous labor force could act on the Moon to produce Products! Why not like that?

And Venus having ~4 times the photon density of Mars, should not be forgotten. As I see it there may be potential to build massive amounts of habitat for humans in the Venus Orbitsphere, and Atmosphere. At least there should be a look at it. Stuff built on the Moon by telepresence from Earth, then transported to the Venus Orbitsphere and Atmosphere. And some kind of terraform over the long term perhaps.

But yes, Mars potentially being very special.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-10-08 20:59:48)

Terraformer · 2018-10-09 04:14:49

Well, I've got my eye on Ceres. Trillions of tonnes of water, a low escape velocity, and a very easy place to build a space elevator. We could be shipping millions of tonnes of water to cis-Lunar space without making much of a dent in it's surface. Dig 10 metres down, export half the water, then lay down a layer of insulation and paraterraform the area with 5 tonnes of water forming a shield on top...

Cheap water makes colonisation viable. That's been true for the entirety of human history, and it will remain true as long as we remain human.

Void · 2018-10-09 11:36:36

Yes agreed water is a very big item.

I have a tendency to create my own "Groups" for solar system objects.

1) Core Group: Earth/Moon, Mars, and Venus. First objectives I think. I don't go for Mars and nothing else, because there is money out there that is interested in the Moon. That money is not going to go to Mars. However technological spill overs from Moon and Venus activities, and even materials should be helpful to the long term development rate of Mars.

Once fuel depots are created at Mars, both on the surface and in it's orbitsphere, then that should open up the Jupiter Realm.

2) Jupiter Realm: I obviously include Jupiter, it's moons, the Trojan/Apollo Asteroids, and the Main Asteroid Belt. This general group includes smaller objects such as Ceres and Callisto, which may be a very diverse source of needed materials. Those, and then other special objects. A thing Jupiter may provide is places in it's magnetic field where protection from GCR is normal. Maybe good places to place Orbitsphere habitats for Humans on a very large scale. The Jupiter Realm can still use solar energy fairly well.

3) Mercury: I think that one good use for Mercury would be to collect solar energy. However methods to transfer that energy to places of use, are very far off I think.

4) Saturn/Uranus/Neptune: Hard to get metals/silicates there. Some small objects may be there. There are some bizarre notions of how to strip the ice off of the moons, and so to mine. I also see that a skyhook might be able to "Mine" gasses out of these worlds. I think fusion has to become real to make #4 workable.

5) The rest. I just won't sub-divide the remainder. I am sure it could be, but there is so much on the plate already, I guess they stay in the Freezer for a long time before being bothered with. Pluto/Charon are perhaps an exception. I wonder if an artificial magnetic field, and heating the lower atmosphere would make a barycenter where an orbital habitat might also be within the atmosphere. Useful? ???
http://mathscinotes.com/2015/06/barycen … nd-charon/

……

https://www.space.com/42034-single-pers … -test.html

Now as for the "Pod", I wonder about it's use in orbitspheres, on the surface of Ceres, and other smaller objects, and of course floating in the atmosphere of Venus.

I have a tendency to favor telepresence from Earth to the Moon, or even from locations on or near the Moon. However I can imagine such pods being given wheels or legs for the Moon or Ceres. Pods and telepresence should get grown human beings out of diapers, which would be nice. If they are made well enough you could have coffee and lunch brakes, and maybe even sleep inside the pod.

I did not see specs on the pressurization inside, or the gas mixture. I suppose various could apply at this point. I would like to get away from the breathing of pure Oxygen. It would be nice if someone could simply use an airlock join to pass into and out of the pod from a main habitat.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-10-09 12:02:51)

Belter · 2018-10-09 13:53:55

This is why I think that pressurized rovers are cool, if you have telepresence robots to do work. No wasted air (not that it can't be extracted). But why get involved in all that risk and changing to go out and try to fumble with gloves. You should be able to insert your hands into gloves and manipulate hands very easily, especially with haptic feedback. Go to where you need, the robots can jump out (or roll out) and do the needed work. Suits would just be a backup.

As for Gateway, it's insane and would require an asteroid's worth of material to build. I think what makes sense is to find an asteroid that is as close to parallel Earth orbit (or a nice intersecting orbit) as possible and send robots there to mine it make extrusions or 3D print the parts for a station, as well as being able to replicate more and more robots to do work at a faster pace. Once you've built your large station hull, use corrective burns to eventually bring it into Earth orbit and then outfit it as needed from Earth materials. But launching that much metal is a waste of money. Unless robotic Sabatier fuel factories can basically create and store fuel right at a launch site for "free" and bring the cost down to pennies on the dollar.

Belter · 2018-10-09 14:01:28

We can do a 1G 16 spoke station with about 60-75 launches (100m or 120m diameter). And it could be mostly self sustaining.

Void · 2018-10-09 14:43:20

Belter, just a sanity check. We will need to specify if we are discussing the Gateway Spaceport, or the Lunar Gateway. Two different things.

I myself have mixed them up because the "Pod" I posted is intended for the Lunar Gateway, but really pods are mentioned in the materials for the Gateway Spaceport, in post #1.

I differ from you in that I would seek to build things on the Moon in modules to lift off of the Moon, perhaps using some type of insitu solid fuel system. While having a zero gee environment may be good for assembling modules, I see the Moon itself as the module construction site.

First of all you can leave scrap from the building process on the surface of the Moon.
Second, you potentially have a labor force of millions of people to run the telepresence machines. They would be based on Earth, and through a device like neurolink where part of the computer part of the brain will be on the Moon.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/07/elon-mu … dcast.html
Third, you have a gravity field which I think can make many processes easier to do in a way familiar to humans. This is unlike micro-gravity where things just don't work the same.
Fourth, massive amounts of raw materials.

The way I see it, it would be organized into a pyramid.
Base=Humans on Earth doing telepresence.
Middle=Humans in shelters on the Moon doing finer scale telepresence. Also people in rolling or stepping pod suits.
Top=When necessary someone in a space suit. Ideally not in the open, but in big vacuum chambers where radiation protection is provided along with tethered life support.

Something like that. Too ambitious? Well I did not say what my expectations for this to really get rolling would be. You would just dabble in it a bet and see how it goes. If it seems to work, then do more of it. If it has problems, then change your methods until you do have something that works.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-10-09 14:55:28)

Belter · 2018-10-09 17:11:31

Well, once we have robot armies that are capable of building/printing any part we need with the press of a button, and we will, nothing is impossible. Terraforming Venus and Mars becomes possible. Creating massive space stations anywhere in the solar system becomes possible. Constant travel to anywhere in the solar system becomes possible. Building a massive interstellar ship in Jupiter's orbit becomes possible.

I don't think we want to waste water on the Moon for fuel. Better to harvest for other uses. Better to use up an asteroid that could eventually threaten Earth and turn it into a mere meteor shower. I would also say that, yeah actually being IN the suit is pretty useless with the telepresence and drone technology we already have. A worker bot could be tiny and could mount itself magnetically to a surface and allow for assembly, disassembly, welding, 3D printing, whatever is needed for the job. All controlled from inside the base.

SpaceNut · 2018-10-09 21:34:22

Flash of Aliens segorny weaver in the suit... ok not quite... Innovative Single-Person Spacecraft Design Passes Leak Test (Exclusive)

aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zcGFjZS5jb20vaW1hZ2VzL2kvMDAwLzA3OS84MzEvb3JpZ2luYWwvc3BzLWJ1aWx0aW4tcHJvcHVsc2lvbi1yb2JvdGljLWFybXMuanBn

Sure looks interesting....

Terraformer · 2018-10-10 03:20:04

Luna has more than enough water to get us started. By the time we start running short, we should have long been at the point where importing water from elsewhere is viable, and we can pay back the initial investment of Lunar water with interest.

Any 'Lunar' space station should be at the L1 point. It's 2.5 km/s to or from there to any point on the near side, so a H2/LOX rocket could manage to land and return in a single stage. Later we can add a tether extending towards Luna, or use beamed power to send a craft straight upwards from the Lunar surface. Any craft departing from such a station to other destinations can swing by Terra and pick up a lot of 'free' velocity.

Void · 2018-10-10 11:11:04

I don't have much problem with using Lunar Water. I expect that it can be replaced, and will tend to be replaced by the solar wind to some extent anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water
Quote:

Water (H2O), and the chemically related hydroxyl group (-OH), can also exist in forms chemically bound as hydrates and hydroxides to lunar minerals (rather than free water), and evidence strongly suggests that this is indeed the case in low concentrations over much of the Moon's surface.[3] In fact, adsorbed water is calculated to exist at trace concentrations of 10 to 1000 parts per million.

In 1978 it was reported that samples returned by the Soviet Luna 24 probe contained 0.1% water by mass sample.[5]

Water may have been delivered to the Moon over geological timescales by the regular bombardment of water-bearing comets, asteroids and meteoroids [14] or continuously produced in situ by the hydrogen ions (protons) of the solar wind impacting oxygen-bearing minerals.[15]

https://phys.org/news/2018-02-scientist … rface.html
Quote:

A new analysis of data from two lunar missions finds evidence that the Moon's water is widely distributed across the surface and is not confined to a particular region or type of terrain. The water appears to be present day and night, though it's not necessarily easily accessible.

So polar deposits may be ice, but OH is bound to minerals elsewhere on the Moon.

So, if you have Hydrogen, and solar heat, and electricity you can extract Oxygen, and reuse the Hydrogen over and over quite a few times.
https://www.engineering.com/DesignerEdg … Rocks.aspx

Denk’s process uses ilmenite (FeTiO3), an iron oxide found in the "dark" areas of the Moon. To remove the oxygen, you add hydrogen so it becomes water. H2O comes out of the first step. FeTiO3 + H2 + solar heat → Fe + TiO2 + H2O. The chemical reactions to make oxygen and water would involve one import from Earth, hydrogen; but only initially.
"The hydrogen would be just for the first few hours. Then that would be recycled with the electrolyzer," Denk explained. "Even if you bring hydrogen from Earth and get oxygen from the Moon for making rocket fuel, you save nearly 90 percent of the weight. Hydrogen is the lightest element. Oxygen is much heavier."
The second step is in an electrolyzer using the product water from the reactor. The water is split to produce hydrogen and oxygen. The oxygen is the product and the hydrogen gets returned to the process.
The ilmenite could be dug up and carried to the reactor by a small robot, such as the RASSOR digging robot, which has opposing rotating drums that prevent it from propelling off-surface by the force of digging in lunar gravity.

So this could be very good for a special BFS tanker. It would bring it's Methane, land with that and a little Oxygen, and tank up on Oxygen on the Lunar surface. Fly up to fill a Depot, repeat. Then a BFS>Mars tanks up at the Depot.

Then there is this: https://newatlas.com/lockheed-martin-ma … der/56628/
I see that as not only a Moon lander, but a tug to tow a filled Depot and/or BFS to a high orbit, perhaps even including a gravity assist in the path to Mars as I think Terraformer suggested.

In fact I don't think the BFS should fly from LEO to Lunar approach. It should be towed by a Hydrogen/Oxygen craft. And in that case, you might use some of the Moons Hydrogen, or Hydrogen from elsewhere (NEO's)? If convenient.

……

I understand that the BFS Cargo specs out as having just enough fuel to launch from a elliptical orbit, and then to land on the surface of Mars, which is OK.

However why not tow a crewed BFS with fuel only to high Earth Orbit, fill it completely with Oxygen from the Moon, and then send it to Mars from there. I am sure that gives a much better safety margin.

Further, I would send a full Fuel Depot with it in the beginning have them link up and spin. Then on approach to Mars the Depot aerobrakes to orbit, and the crewed vessel lands. Then your propellant production can be small or even absent in the first missions.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2018-10-10 11:37:55)

Void · 2018-10-10 15:01:52

This post is a possible supplement to my post #20.

I have been reading about the solar wind, and how it splutters items that it impacts.
What I think I know:
-The solar wind is not necessarily the only source of water on the Moon, but it is one likely source.
-It is the electric charge of Helium in the solar wind that makes the greatest splutter of minerals (And maybe gases) it impacts.
-The impacts may splutter Oxygen off, and then perhaps a proton will attach to an Oxygen, forming OH and maybe H2O.

Things that I am curious about in this process, and speculation on some possible effects that I think might be discovered:
-We think the Moon, Mercury, Phobos, and Demos experience/experienced sputtering from the solar wind, and I ask about the Martian atmosphere, and that of Venus?
I think that if OH and H20 is formed on the Moon, can it form on Phobos and Demos?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moons_of_Mars
These moons if they are captured asteroids, may have hydrated minerals.

Asteroids of this class have spectra very similar to those of carbonaceous chondrite meteorites (types CI and CM). The latter are very close in chemical composition to the Sun and the primitive solar nebula, except for the absence of hydrogen, helium and other volatiles. Hydrated (water-containing) minerals are present.[3]
C-type asteroids are extremely dark, with albedos typically in the 0.03 to 0.10 range. Consequently, whereas a number of S-type asteroids can normally be viewed with binoculars at opposition, even the largest C-type asteroids require a small telescope. The potentially brightest C-type asteroid is 324 Bamberga, but that object's very high eccentricity means it rarely reaches its maximum magnitude.
Their spectra contain moderately strong ultraviolet absorption at wavelengths below about 0.4 μm to 0.5 μm, while at longer wavelengths they are largely featureless but slightly reddish. The so-called "water" absorption feature of around 3 μm, which can be an indication of water content in minerals, is also present.
The largest unequivocally C-type asteroid is 10 Hygiea, although the SMASS classification places the largest asteroid, 1 Ceres, here as well, because that scheme lacks a G-type.

And that is interesting and a potential source of water and propellants, (Carbon may also be present).
I am interested in the density of these moons as well, for the purposes of hoping they being spongy in nature may have accumulated water resulting from spluttering of their surfaces by the solar wind.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 010070.pdf
Quote:

Compositional interpretations of new spectral measurements of Phobos and Deimos from Mars Express/OMEGA and MRO/CRISM and density measurements from encounters by multiple spacecraft support refined estimates of the moons' porosity and internal structure. Phobos' estimated macroporosity of 12-20% is consistent with a fractured but coherent interior; Deimos' estimated macroporosity of 23-44% is more consistent with a loosely consoidated interior. These internal differences are reflected in differences in surface morphology: Phobos exhibits a globally coherent pattern of grooves, whereas Deimos has a surface dominated instead by fragmental debris. Comparison with other asteroids ≤110 km in diameter shows that this correspondence between landforms and inferred internal structure is part of a pervasive pattern: asteroids interpreted to have coherent interiors exhibit pervasive, organized ridge or groove systems, whereas loosely consolidated asteroids have landforms dominated by fragmental debris and/or retain craters >1.3 body radii in diameter suggesting a porous, compressible interior. Background

So, it may be that Demos could be the easier to Mine.

As for Mars itself, we are always hearing about the departure of Hydrogen of water due to U.V. light, the general spectrum of light, and the solar wind itself.

However could the solar wind also be delivering Hydrogen by it combining with the results of molecules split by both U.V. light and by spluttering of molecules especially by the Helium in the solar wind?

The same could be asked for Venus.

And that makes me wonder about the abundance of heavy water in the surface reservoir of water on Mars.

Mars keeps surprising in that it has more water ice than some time ago was supposed. Perhaps the sun taketh water and the sun gives water. If so, isn't it probable that heavy hydrogen would be easier to capture and retain?

……

So, we have some things I question the probability on.
1) The human race just became capable of studying the planets say ~50 years ago (Or less). +
2) The Martian atmosphere seems to co-incidentally dropped in pressure to just slightly below the triple point of water, after billions of years of loss. Why isn't Mars airless? +

And now I will add another one:
3) Venus loosing Hydrogen from it's water/Sulfuric Acid for perhaps 2 billion years, just now has the amount of water/Sulfuric Acid that it does now. In other words it still has some. It is possible, but why isn't the atmosphere completely devoid of water/Sulfuric Acid at this point, if Hydrogen loss is all that occurs?

#3 is somewhat weak, but in the company of #1 and #2

Just puzzled, suspicious. Maybe wrong too. These things a possible, but I don't feel that they are that probable.

Done

Last edited by Void (2018-10-10 15:30:22)

Terraformer · 2018-10-11 06:04:18

Void,

The question isn't why Mars isn't airless, but why it doesn't have a thick CO2 atmosphere. - the outgassing rate exceeds the loss rate to the solar wind. I suspect there's a lot of CO2 locked up in the form of clathrates. We need an orbital mirror to find out.

GW Johnson · 2018-10-11 10:08:00

The delta-vee required to leave low Earth orbit onto a trans-lunar trajectory is 3.29 km/s. It is similar, just a snit less, to go to the L1 point point between Earth and moon. Call it 3.3.

From translunar trajectory, the delta vee required to enter low lunar orbit retrograde is 0.7 to 0.8 km/s (much higher posigrade), depending on where in its orbit the moon is. And from there ~1.67 km/s to land. Total 2.37 to 2.4-something. You do get restricted to landing more or less in the equatorial zone. Call it 2.4.

From L1, one of those cited articles just above claims a delta vee of 2.5 km/s to land on the moon. Anywhere on the moon. I don't really know that to be true as stated, I have not evaluated such a trajectory. But assume for now it is true.

So, the "cost" is 5.6-5.7 km/s dV to go from LEO to lunar equatorial regions via low lunar orbit, for sure. And 5.8 km/s to go anywhere on the moon from L1. Maybe.

Unless you want to go to the poles, why bother stopping at L1?

LEO costs ideally 7.9 km/s, factored for gravity and drag losses, mass ratio-effective you need 8.3 km/s. Add that to your totals to see what a direct shot from surface to surface costs, one way only.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2018-10-11 10:12:20)

Terraformer · 2018-10-11 10:36:10

Unless you want to go to the poles

Where else would we want to go? Unless we're tourists visiting Tranquillity Base. The poles are where the frozen volatiles are at, and it's always* sunny in Shackleton.

*well, 80% of the time, for some of the mountain peaks.

elderflower · 2018-10-12 06:00:33

Where else? Wherever the other useful resources might be found. Such as lava tubes and caverns or Nickel enriched crater infill (as in Sudbury, Ont.) or just for exploration.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2018-07-16 21:29:14

Gateway Spaceport

#2 2018-07-17 21:12:30

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#3 2018-07-18 11:49:29

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#4 2018-07-18 14:26:25

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#5 2018-07-18 15:49:00

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#6 2018-07-22 13:34:48

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#7 2018-07-22 14:28:13

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#8 2018-07-22 14:33:16

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#9 2018-07-24 12:01:20

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#10 2018-07-24 13:11:06

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#11 2018-10-08 20:44:53

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#12 2018-10-09 04:14:49

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#13 2018-10-09 11:36:36

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#14 2018-10-09 13:53:55

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#15 2018-10-09 14:01:28

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#16 2018-10-09 14:43:20

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#17 2018-10-09 17:11:31

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#18 2018-10-09 21:34:22

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#19 2018-10-10 03:20:04

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#20 2018-10-10 11:11:04

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#21 2018-10-10 15:01:52

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#22 2018-10-11 06:04:18

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#23 2018-10-11 10:08:00

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#24 2018-10-11 10:36:10

Re: Gateway Spaceport

#25 2018-10-12 06:00:33

Re: Gateway Spaceport

Board footer