New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: We've recently made changes to our user database and have removed inactive and spam users. If you can not login, please re-register.

#201 2020-05-07 13:44:44

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,862

Re: Lunar economics etc

I know getting Magnesium on the Moon is reasonably easy but so is to get Aluminium and with that we can create a reasonable solid rocket which could well be made on the moon and then launch resources like Oxygen and possibly lunar water to Earth orbit much cheaper than a supply from the Earth.
At the beginning of this topic GCNRevenger stated quite clearly and correctly that to launch from the Earth to the Moon takes just a little less energy than travelling to Mars. But travelling from the Moon to Earth is much less energy requirement and if you can create a vehicle that uses lunar propellant to be able to travel not only from the Moon to Earth but also the other way then a Future lunar base becomes a viable plan


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#202 2020-05-07 15:32:24

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,564

Re: Lunar economics etc

A very encouraging post.


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#203 2020-05-07 16:37:16

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,564

Re: Lunar economics etc

This is a matter of interest to me.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-carbon-em … birth.html
Quote:

Carbon emissions on the moon put theory of moon birth in doubt
by Bob Yirka , Phys.org

But now, it appears that there is ancient carbon embedded in the moon's surface, suggesting some changes may have to be made to the theory of the moon's birth.

So, I had a moron theory, that I mostly let go.

It was that the Earth/Moon was originally a formation such as that of Jupiter per Moon formation, and as the Sun was probably relatively cool at that time, and also the disk around the sun would shade the Earth/Moon, the Moon may have been small and full of volatile materials.  From there I allow for the accumulation of impactor materials shed from the Earth to collect on top of that core.

It is still a very long shot, and moron (Me) theory.

But for the Earth, we know that water can be retained in the Mantle quite far down where it is very hot.

So, if there is Carbon emergent from the lower deeps of the Moon, perhaps that is why.

If it is significant in magnitude, then Elon Musk may get to make Methane on the Moon.

But yes I get it I am not an expert. 

I will wait for more news on this before being more assertive about the notion(s).


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#204 2020-05-07 17:35:31

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,876

Re: Lunar economics etc

All you say may be true but the Moon is only 3 to 4 days away. Really close. And yet the lunar environment is very difficult: long days (14 days) and nights, very low gravity, and huge amounts of toxic dust.

Given the difficulties of using the Moon to create Earth-like environments, I think it's more likely we'll still just drag the methane from Earth.  In fact I would think it would make sense eventually for Space X to develop a lunar lander.  The Moon is only going to be used for science and tourism, at least within the next 50 to 100 years, say. We don't need to build a huge industrial infrastructure there.

Think of the Moon as a Carribean island dependent entirely on tourism where all the food is flown in from Florida and there is no local agriculture or industry - it's purely a tourism spot. Or think of it like Antarctica - 99% science-based. It will be a combination of the two.

It's a dead end. Mars is the story.


Void wrote:

This is a matter of interest to me.
https://phys.org/news/2020-05-carbon-em … birth.html
Quote:

Carbon emissions on the moon put theory of moon birth in doubt
by Bob Yirka , Phys.org

But now, it appears that there is ancient carbon embedded in the moon's surface, suggesting some changes may have to be made to the theory of the moon's birth.

So, I had a moron theory, that I mostly let go.

It was that the Earth/Moon was originally a formation such as that of Jupiter per Moon formation, and as the Sun was probably relatively cool at that time, and also the disk around the sun would shade the Earth/Moon, the Moon may have been small and full of volatile materials.  From there I allow for the accumulation of impactor materials shed from the Earth to collect on top of that core.

It is still a very long shot, and moron (Me) theory.

But for the Earth, we know that water can be retained in the Mantle quite far down where it is very hot.

So, if there is Carbon emergent from the lower deeps of the Moon, perhaps that is why.

If it is significant in magnitude, then Elon Musk may get to make Methane on the Moon.

But yes I get it I am not an expert. 

I will wait for more news on this before being more assertive about the notion(s).


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#205 2020-05-07 20:05:29

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,564

Re: Lunar economics etc

There is room for at least two opinions on that Louis.  Since apparently you don't injure easily as I feared you might.   I guess I will challenge some of your assertions, which I feel do paint the most negative picture possible, and also interfere with what I think is genuine utility for the Moon, the Earth/Moon system, I think being the key to opening much of the solar system.

Here is you assertion from post #204:

All you say may be true but the Moon is only 3 to 4 days away. Really close. And yet the lunar environment is very difficult: long days (14 days) and nights, very low gravity, and huge amounts of toxic dust.
Given the difficulties of using the Moon to create Earth-like environments, I think it's more likely we'll still just drag the methane from Earth.  In fact I would think it would make sense eventually for Space X to develop a lunar lander.  The Moon is only going to be used for science and tourism, at least within the next 50 to 100 years, say. We don't need to build a huge industrial infrastructure there.
Think of the Moon as a Carribean island dependent entirely on tourism where all the food is flown in from Florida and there is no local agriculture or industry - it's purely a tourism spot. Or think of it like Antarctica - 99% science-based. It will be a combination of the two.
It's a dead end. Mars is the story.

Here is a kind post from Grypd in post #201  incidentally, I am slightly more than 1/4 Scottish (Mostly Canadian Highland), so I have to favor that post. But never fear I am also not quite 1/4 colonial Yankee English.  Being 1/2 Swedish.  But really some Neanderthal, French Huguenot, Finnish, and some other things.  You are in no danger.  The war is inside of me. smile  I take turns deciding what I am.  American actually I believe, or so they tell me.

Grypd said in post #201:
Quote:

I know getting Magnesium on the Moon is reasonably easy but so is to get Aluminium and with that we can create a reasonable solid rocket which could well be made on the moon and then launch resources like Oxygen and possibly lunar water to Earth orbit much cheaper than a supply from the Earth.
At the beginning of this topic GCNRevenger stated quite clearly and correctly that to launch from the Earth to the Moon takes just a little less energy than travelling to Mars. But travelling from the Moon to Earth is much less energy requirement and if you can create a vehicle that uses lunar propellant to be able to travel not only from the Moon to Earth but also the other way then a Future lunar base becomes a viable plan

Thanks again Grypd!

So, Louis, I must stir your brains it appears.
-Mars has toxic dust.
-The south pole of the Moon has not only water in shadowed craters, but high spots where the sun is up most of the time, with some rather short nights.
-Elsewhere it seems likely that there are enormous lava tubes.  I already know you hate lava tubes.  However, I anticipate minimal human presence on the Moon, some research people for things like geology.  Some robot/automation repair people.  Maybe some tourists, that could generate revenue for SpaceX or other companies.

I really don't think SpaceX needs to make Methane on the Moon.  Methane is far less heavy than the Oxygen it would have to lug up to LEO.  As for the water on the Moon, I would be more interested in getting Oxygen from Lunar rocks, (In mass quantities!)
That should be easy as you can get Hydrogen out of Lunar water and keep using it in solar powered furnaces to reduce the Oxygen out of Lunar rocks.  Then you split the resulting water, and go again with the Hydrogen.  Of course over time you will encounter Hydrogen losses, but this will be a far more effective way to produce propellant than using Oxygen and Hydrogen as propulsion.  Not that that is wrong either.

The question then is where does Starship headed for elsewhere, such as Mars, pick up the bulk of it's Oxygen?  "L1"?, LEO? or places in between?

As you know I have else previously and here and thereabouts suggested several propulsion systems that would expel Oxygen.  Of course those then must be electric methods.  But the point is you only should need what Grypd has offered to get into low Lunar Orbit, say 50 miles err...80.4672 km.  Why did "You People" ever let the French pervert you with the Metric System? smile

Just kidding I worked with Metric units in my life.  Not km though.  And darn you for those round abouts!

Last edited by Void (2020-05-07 20:30:13)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#206 2020-05-08 07:56:29

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,564

Re: Lunar economics etc

Labor is the biggest issue Louis.  And time latency relates to the issue.

Earth<>Moon communications has far less time latency than Earth<>Mars.

Earth has billions of people, and therefore billions of brains that can interface with Lunar Avatar machines.

Mars in the last # of years, has had 1 or 2 or so avatar machines on its surface.  The time latency is enormous.

Even if you get 1,000,000 people living on Mars, that is only 1,000,000 brains/minds.  You could and should, interface them with Martian robotic avatars, but that is only 1,000,000 minds, and whatever A.I. you will have.

The Earth/Moon will have billions of minds, connected to Lunar robotic avatars.  And with the creation of synthetic gravity machines, in proximity of the Moon, some significant amount of human minds and robotic avatars with much less time latency than the minds on Earth.

So, compared to the potential labor force for Mars, in the next 100 years, the labor force for Earth/Moon is enormous.

You, (A human), cannot go uncovered out into the Lunar wilderness and live, you cannot go out into the Martian wilderness, without proper PPE.  So, they are roughly equivalent in that.

So then, in both cases you have to ask what can you do?  You can make shelter, and other goods that are of materials.  You might also have spiritual values that could awaken in both cases.

Robotics and A.I. are going to advance massively in the next few years.  Like it or not.

Some people manipulate people, some people manipulate objects.  The danger continuously exists that the excessively verbal, will overcome those who are capable of technology.  Some places in the world such as where I live allow chances for the technological people to not be slaves of the excessively verbal.

Much of the old world, in my opinion, suffers from the excessive breeding of the excessive verbal people.  And since their mode of operation is to seek to use words to form chains of dominance that will enslave the technological humans, this could in part answer why some societies are poor, or if they have wealth, it is only because they militarily control some raw material.

Communications are a useful tool, but if the verbal people get too many in number and power, they can cause dark ages.  That is my theory anyway.

Four people I watch and give as examples.  Elon Musk, George Friedman, Dr. Robert Zubrin, Peter Zeihan.  They all stumble with their words.  They are not perfectionist word smiths.  And I like that because it indicates that they have more awareness of reality than they can keep up with by words of communication.  They have minds larger than their mouths.

Should I encounter someone who speaks perfectly, I might get suspicious that they have a mouth larger than their mind.

I might think to analyze a speculative comparison of Bees, a pack of 6 Homo Erectus, and a Human from the year 2020.

The Bees are actually alien to us, but we recognize that they have a hive mind.

I cannot prove it but a pack of 6 Homo Erectus, might have had a hive mind also.  And so, except for time latency, it is quite possible that the pack of 6 Homo Erectus, may be able to outsmart a human from 2020.  The 2020 human has more assets in one skull and so, less time latency, but the Homo Erectus, as specialists, may as a hive mind be as smart or smarter than a 2020 human.  Especially if the concept is to Kill, Kill, Kill smile

I am fairly sure that the Homo Erectus would have had to have some kind of a language maybe some verbal, but more likely body language, and gestures.  Speaking is not a good hunting method, while in the hunt mode.

The 2020 Human though, might prevail, due to a smaller time latency inside of their mind.  And the ability to plan things out in advance, by modeling situations in their head prior to an event.  Avoidance might be a good strategy, better weapons, also perhaps.

It is the classical problem of too many chiefs, and not enough braves.

Too many talkers, not enough doers.  Doing being mostly manifested in a final manipulation of an object(s).

The Moon can provide an outlet for millions or billions of people on Earth, who are doers.  By manipulating objects remotely, and generating wealth.  This will help them hold back the excessive empowering of verbal hive minds, which have no actual conscious awareness of what they are doing.

It may prevent dark ages on the Earth.

On the other hand, I like the time latency to Mars.  It makes it harder for the excessively verbal hive mind people to achieve dominance over the entire human race.

And so then, I want other places with time latency, for the same reason.

Time latency ultimately is a resource in the combat against the excessively verbal human hive minds.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-05-08 08:37:09)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#207 2020-06-02 19:24:15

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,929

Re: Lunar economics etc

Spacedaily article on a Lunar gold rush in the mining of water or ice for maps generated to give aid to companies wanting to strike it rich.

Offline

#208 2020-06-03 15:04:03

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,876

Re: Lunar economics etc

I guess I must concede that Earth-Moon requires less energy if Space X think they can get a Starship there and back in one go...but maybe it's back to LEO where it refuels for Earth landing??

However, if they can get a Starship there in one go, why go to the trouble of propellant production on the lunar surface? And why go to the trouble of water mining? Humans only need a few kgs of water a day for drinking, washing , hygiene etc.Just take the water with you and recycle 90% of it while there.

It's true Mars's dust is not good for the lungs...not sure it's as bad as the Moon's but I just get the impression that there are deep amounts of lunar dust pretty much everywhere.


Void wrote:

There is room for at least two opinions on that Louis.  Since apparently you don't injure easily as I feared you might.   I guess I will challenge some of your assertions, which I feel do paint the most negative picture possible, and also interfere with what I think is genuine utility for the Moon, the Earth/Moon system, I think being the key to opening much of the solar system.

Here is you assertion from post #204:

All you say may be true but the Moon is only 3 to 4 days away. Really close. And yet the lunar environment is very difficult: long days (14 days) and nights, very low gravity, and huge amounts of toxic dust.
Given the difficulties of using the Moon to create Earth-like environments, I think it's more likely we'll still just drag the methane from Earth.  In fact I would think it would make sense eventually for Space X to develop a lunar lander.  The Moon is only going to be used for science and tourism, at least within the next 50 to 100 years, say. We don't need to build a huge industrial infrastructure there.
Think of the Moon as a Carribean island dependent entirely on tourism where all the food is flown in from Florida and there is no local agriculture or industry - it's purely a tourism spot. Or think of it like Antarctica - 99% science-based. It will be a combination of the two.
It's a dead end. Mars is the story.

Here is a kind post from Grypd in post #201  incidentally, I am slightly more than 1/4 Scottish (Mostly Canadian Highland), so I have to favor that post. But never fear I am also not quite 1/4 colonial Yankee English.  Being 1/2 Swedish.  But really some Neanderthal, French Huguenot, Finnish, and some other things.  You are in no danger.  The war is inside of me. smile  I take turns deciding what I am.  American actually I believe, or so they tell me.

Grypd said in post #201:
Quote:

I know getting Magnesium on the Moon is reasonably easy but so is to get Aluminium and with that we can create a reasonable solid rocket which could well be made on the moon and then launch resources like Oxygen and possibly lunar water to Earth orbit much cheaper than a supply from the Earth.
At the beginning of this topic GCNRevenger stated quite clearly and correctly that to launch from the Earth to the Moon takes just a little less energy than travelling to Mars. But travelling from the Moon to Earth is much less energy requirement and if you can create a vehicle that uses lunar propellant to be able to travel not only from the Moon to Earth but also the other way then a Future lunar base becomes a viable plan

Thanks again Grypd!

So, Louis, I must stir your brains it appears.
-Mars has toxic dust.
-The south pole of the Moon has not only water in shadowed craters, but high spots where the sun is up most of the time, with some rather short nights.
-Elsewhere it seems likely that there are enormous lava tubes.  I already know you hate lava tubes.  However, I anticipate minimal human presence on the Moon, some research people for things like geology.  Some robot/automation repair people.  Maybe some tourists, that could generate revenue for SpaceX or other companies.

I really don't think SpaceX needs to make Methane on the Moon.  Methane is far less heavy than the Oxygen it would have to lug up to LEO.  As for the water on the Moon, I would be more interested in getting Oxygen from Lunar rocks, (In mass quantities!)
That should be easy as you can get Hydrogen out of Lunar water and keep using it in solar powered furnaces to reduce the Oxygen out of Lunar rocks.  Then you split the resulting water, and go again with the Hydrogen.  Of course over time you will encounter Hydrogen losses, but this will be a far more effective way to produce propellant than using Oxygen and Hydrogen as propulsion.  Not that that is wrong either.

The question then is where does Starship headed for elsewhere, such as Mars, pick up the bulk of it's Oxygen?  "L1"?, LEO? or places in between?

As you know I have else previously and here and thereabouts suggested several propulsion systems that would expel Oxygen.  Of course those then must be electric methods.  But the point is you only should need what Grypd has offered to get into low Lunar Orbit, say 50 miles err...80.4672 km.  Why did "You People" ever let the French pervert you with the Metric System? smile

Just kidding I worked with Metric units in my life.  Not km though.  And darn you for those round abouts!


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#209 2020-06-03 15:42:29

Void
Member
Registered: 2011-12-29
Posts: 3,564

Re: Lunar economics etc

Well, we are all just speculating Louis.

I cannot tell you what SpaceX/Elon Musk will do.  I do know that he has an eye of food for his babies $$$.

So, I can tell you what I might propose to do if I were in charge, (If Elon showed up I would definitely step down immediately).

SpaceX/Elon Musk have already proposed to send Starships as probes to distant targets.  In other words, no return, no heat shield, no belly flop.  And why not?  If someone would want that, and I think some would, I believe that it could happen.  Perhaps, nuclear reactors included, under strict government control.

O.F. 1939 coined the phrase Deep Space Starship.  I like it.  So the Moon lander would be of a similar kind.

These things would allow SpaceX to push Starships to orbit, maybe SSTO.

For instance what if you added drop tanks to a Starship SSTO?
Granted that's cheating, but the lion might say "You cheated, you used a brain" smile

In that case, you could go pseudo SSTO, maybe send a starship as a probe to something, maybe an NEO, without LEO needing to refuel foam a depot.  This would get your Starship to market, early, for that specific possibility. Maybe a Mission around the Moon with some radar thingy.  I am just guessing.

While you are up to that, then you test out sub-orbital belly flops with a Starship. Begin to evaluate heat shields, the airbrake and landing methods.  This, I believe is what GW Johnson expects.

And while you do that you build and test out Super Heavy, with a dummy load.  Maybe the Dummy load has a single Merlin engine, which they must have a good understating of, so that the dummy load can separate from the Super Heavy.  Those are possibilities, but I will enjoy to be surprised.

If you could use drop tanks to do a pseudo SSTO, then you can put components for a space station up without Super Heavy.  You could visit it with Dragon.  I am thinking that that is less likely, but of course I am just listing supposed options on the road to a whole system.


And then of course eventually you put Starship on top of Super Heavy.

As for Oxygen from the Moon, that is likely to come later.  I should think that the way to do that would be to have a Deep Space Starship lift it to an imperial 50 miles orbit, and to have some kind of solar powered transport to move the load to a fuel depot.  But that most likely comes much later.

That's about all I have, I look forward to surprises.  The thinking of my betters perhaps.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2020-06-03 15:57:33)


I like people who criticize angels dancing on a pinhead.  I also like it when angels dance on my pinhead.

Offline

#210 2020-06-05 15:57:58

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,862

Re: Lunar economics etc

The difference between the landings on the Moon and Mars is that we go to Mars to Colonise but to the Moon to utilise.

The advantage of the Moon is resources and energy but also its closeness especially with the science of Telerobotics and its use on the Moon,


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#211 2020-06-05 17:05:42

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,929

Re: Lunar economics etc

Good to see you check in and it's easier to have lots of missions to the moon due to that rather small distance when thinking of going to Mars.

Offline

#212 2020-06-05 19:24:46

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,876

Re: Lunar economics etc

I agree. The Moon will essentially be for tourism and maybe used as a parking lot. Terraformation is not an option because the silvery moon just has too much resonance for us down on Earth...we will never allowed it to be terraformed.


Grypd wrote:

The difference between the landings on the Moon and Mars is that we go to Mars to Colonise but to the Moon to utilise.

The advantage of the Moon is resources and energy but also its closeness especially with the science of Telerobotics and its use on the Moon,


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#213 2020-06-05 19:27:51

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,929

Re: Lunar economics etc

Ya I would agree on the exterior but internal is where I would build for a future society.

Offline

#214 2020-06-08 12:55:57

Grypd
Member
From: Scotland, Europe
Registered: 2004-06-07
Posts: 1,862

Re: Lunar economics etc

louis wrote:

I agree. The Moon will essentially be for tourism and maybe used as a parking lot. Terraformation is not an option because the silvery moon just has too much resonance for us down on Earth...we will never allowed it to be terraformed.

I don't really see the Moon as a really good tourism site but it does represent a very good site for Industry and for science. Any place we can control in almost real time from Earth is of great benefit especially in the form of Infra red spectrometry. There are many advanced sciences we are close to doing that I would hesitate to have done on our planet ie genetic virus work or nano disassembly.

The Moon does also have advantages for example plentiful power and resources as well as a very much reduced atmosphere and gravity


Chan eil mi aig a bheil ùidh ann an gleidheadh an status quo; Tha mi airson cur às e.

Offline

#215 2020-07-05 16:04:44

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 19,929

Re: Lunar economics etc

We have crossed onto the mining of asteroids for just about the same reason for the moon or mars in the future.
Moon Mining Could Begin As Early As 2025

Offline

#216 2020-07-05 16:58:08

tahanson43206
Moderator
Registered: 2018-04-27
Posts: 3,817

Re: Lunar economics etc

For those who are doubtful of the prospects for mining the Moon .... (and there are some who frequent this forum) ...

It is NOT whether it is realistic to imagine success in mining the Moon .... It ** IS ** whether individuals and groups with funds to burn think the prospect is favorable.  Investment ** always ** yields dividends.  Those dividends may or may not be ones the investors were hoping for. 

https://www.cuttingscore.com/moon-minin … y-as-2025/

Roscosmos revealed in 2018 plans to establish a long-term base on the moon over the next two decades, while President Vladimir Putin has vowed to launch a mission to Mars “very soon.”

Geologists, as well as emerging companies, such as US-based Planetary Resources, a firm pioneering the space mining industry,believe asteroids are packed with iron ore, nickel and precious metals at much higher concentrations than those found on Earth, making up a market valued in the trillions.

ZeroHedge News

Offline

#217 2020-07-05 18:18:11

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 5,876

Re: Lunar economics etc

My view is that a future lunar base is already viable within 10 years, once Space X develops the Starship for lunar tourism. It is tourism revenue that will make bases viable. Back of the envelope if Musk can get to LEO for $20 per kg and head for the Moon with 5 refuels at $100 per kg. Would a lunar tourist need more than 500 Kg on the rocket (including their own mass)? That would be $50,000...maybe the overall price (with all the costs of the lunar hotel and so on) would come in at $100,000. There will be tens of thousands of takers at that price.


Grypd wrote:

I know getting Magnesium on the Moon is reasonably easy but so is to get Aluminium and with that we can create a reasonable solid rocket which could well be made on the moon and then launch resources like Oxygen and possibly lunar water to Earth orbit much cheaper than a supply from the Earth.
At the beginning of this topic GCNRevenger stated quite clearly and correctly that to launch from the Earth to the Moon takes just a little less energy than travelling to Mars. But travelling from the Moon to Earth is much less energy requirement and if you can create a vehicle that uses lunar propellant to be able to travel not only from the Moon to Earth but also the other way then a Future lunar base becomes a viable plan


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#218 2020-07-08 15:46:56

Oldfart1939
Member
Registered: 2016-11-26
Posts: 1,912

Re: Lunar economics etc

I know that this suggestion will cause Elon Musk to cringe, but why not build a "Falcon Medium" by strapping on a couple big solid fuel boosters? Even a big pair of solid boosters on a Falcon Heavy, making it a Super Heavy-Plus. The solid boosters would allow conservation of the center core fuel and of the upper stage. Atlas 5 benefits enormously in it's throw capacity as a result.

I added these comments in order to maybe require something a bit less powerful basic launch vehicle to reach the lunar environment.

Last edited by Oldfart1939 (2020-07-08 15:50:59)

Offline

#219 2020-07-12 03:42:08

elderflower
Member
Registered: 2016-06-19
Posts: 1,261

Re: Lunar economics etc

Retaining Falcon booster fuel will require booster recovery from a greater height and higher speed as that fuel will be expended later in the flight. This might represent a big cost increase if the boosters cannot be recovered.  If the mass of the upper stages is increased then the solids booster change would be cancelled out and Falcon boosters could still be recovered, but stresses would be much greater.

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB