Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

louis · 2018-08-16 14:02:12

Lol!

Oldfart1939 wrote:

The LEM would be envious of a well-constructed tin can.

SpaceNut · 2018-08-16 16:38:41

In 2008 Nasa was trying to get ready for going back to the moon and they sent Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter

Instruments
CRaTER (Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation) will investigate the effects of galactic cosmic rays and solar energetic particles on tissue-equivalent plastics. CRaTER will characterize the deep space radiation environment and provide a baseline to the amount of radiation humans could be exposed to.
DLRE (Diviner Lunar Radiometer Experiment) will measure lunar surface temperature profiles. DLRE measurements will characterize thermal environments for habitability, determine rock abundances at landing sites by mapping nighttime surface temperatures, and map variants in silicate mineralogy. DLRE will chart the temperature of the entire lunar surface to identify cold traps and potential ice deposits.
LAMP (Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project) will map the entire lunar surface in the far ultraviolet, providing images of permanently shadowed regions that are illuminated only by starlight. LAMP will search for surface ice and frost in the polar regions. LAMP is first demonstration of the same technology used by military night vision that can be applied to space exploration.
LEND (Lunar Exploration Neutron Detector) will provide global mapping of the hydrogen content on the lunar surface. LEND measurements will also help characterize the neutron component of the lunar radiation environment. These measurements will also be used to search for evidence of water ice on the lunar surface.
LOLA (Lunar Orbiter Laser Altimeter) will measure the precise distance between the spacecraft and the lunar surface. LOLA measurements will determine the global topography of the lunar surface at high resolution, landing site slopes, surface roughness, and possible polar surface ice in shadowed regions. LOLA will be utilized by Goddard Space Flight Center’s ground station laser ranging system to monitor the spacecraft orbit. This represents a historic first in that a laser ranging system is utilized to routinely monitor a satellite in a non-terrestrial orbit.
LROC (Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter Camera) will acquire targeted narrow angle images of the lunar surface capable of resolving meter-scale features to support landing site selection. LROC will also provide wide angle images to characterize polar illumination conditions that may identify potential resources.
Mini-RF is a technology demonstration of a miniaturized Single Aperture Radar capable of measurements at two different wavelengths. Mini-RF’s primary goal is to search for subsurface water ice deposits. In addition, it will take high-resolution images of permanently shadowed regions.

http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/

Moon radiation findings may reduce health risks to astronauts

"This is the first study using observations from space to confirm what has been thought for some time—that plastics and other lightweight materials are pound-for-pound more effective for shielding against cosmic radiation than aluminum. Shielding can't entirely solve the radiation exposure problem in deep space, but there are clear differences in effectiveness of different materials."
The plastic-aluminum comparison was made in earlier ground-based tests using beams of heavy particles to simulate cosmic rays. "The shielding effectiveness of the plastic in space is very much in line with what we discovered from the beam experiments, so we've gained a lot of confidence in the conclusions we drew from that work," says Zeitlin. "Anything with high hydrogen content, including water, would work well."

https://eps.utk.edu/faculty/taylor/Mill … rement.pdf
Lunar soil as shielding against space radiation - …

https://www.hou.usra.edu/meetings/leag2 … wadron.pdf
Lunar Radiation Environment Implications for the …

https://www.swpc.noaa.gov/sites/default … 202009.pdf
Earth-Moon-Mars Radiation Environment Model

SpaceNut · 2018-08-16 17:11:39

Looking now at the refueling of the vehicles on the moon from the water ice of the poles being processed by what in the first post is an Electrolysis/ Refriguration unit.

Spacenews link

The Falcon Heavy can lift 60 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Starting from that point, a hydrogen/oxygen rocket-propelled cargo lander could deliver 12 tons of payload to the lunar surface.
We therefore proceed by sending two such landers to our planned base location. The best place for it would be at one of the poles, because there are spots at both lunar poles where sunlight is accessible all the time, as well as permanently shadowed craters nearby where water ice has accumulated. Such ice could be electrolyzed to make hydrogen-oxygen rocket propellant, to fuel both Earth-return vehicles as well as flying rocket vehicles that would provide the lunar base’s crew with exploratory access to most of the rest of the moon.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 012048.pdf
Cryogenic Reactant Storage for Lunar Base Regenerative ...

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 007162.pdf
Parametric mass analysis and comparison of two types of ...

SpaceNut · 2018-08-16 17:33:33

Spacenews link first page.
60 ton on orbit to send it to the moon.

The second cargo lander brings out a 12-ton habitation module, loaded with food, spare spacesuits, scientific equipment, tools, and other supplies. This will serve as the astronauts’ house, laboratory, and workshop of the moon. Once it has landed, the rovers hook it up to the power supply and all systems are checked out.

https://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/every … ds-fs.html

When astronauts travel into space, NASA scientists determine how much food will be needed for each mission. For example, an astronaut on the ISS uses about 1.83 pounds (0.83 kilograms) of food per meal each day. About 0.27 pounds (0.12 kilograms) of this weight is packaging material. Longer-duration missions will require much more food. A trip to Mars and back, for instance, may take more than three years and require the provision of thousands of kilograms of food. A crew of four on a three-year martian mission eating only three meals each day would need to carry more than 24,000 pounds (10,886 kilograms) of food. On Earth, the average American uses about 35 gallons (132 liters) of water every day. Water is heavy, so attempts are made to minimize the amount of water carried on board spacecraft.

https://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstuden … light.html

crew of 2: for a 30 day stay
2100 gallons of water (1 gal.= 8lbs or total 16,800 lbs for water )
335 lbs of food
creating 25 lbs of trash to dispose of

Now a human launch to the moon and landing

The base now being operational, it is time to send the first crew. A Falcon Heavy is used to deliver another cargo lander to orbit, whose payload consists of a fully fueled Lunar Excursion Vehicle (LEV). This craft consists of a two-ton cabin like that used by the Apollo-era Lunar Excursion Module mounted on a one-ton hydrogen/oxygen propulsion system filled with nine tons of propellant, capable of delivering it from the lunar surface to Earth orbit.

https://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/t … 216120.pdf
Feasibility Analysis of Liquefying Oxygen …

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy04osti/36734.pdf
Summary of Electrolytic Hydrogen Production - NREL

SpaceNut · 2018-08-16 17:45:41

Once on the moon the need for an oxygen supply from the insitu resources is a simular need to what we are seeing in the mars topics just done with different insitu resources. On mars we are planning to make use of the atmosphere but on the moon we have noon but we have a large amount in the lunar regolith.

https://www.1-act.com/wp-content/upload … golith.pdf
Pressure Controlled Heat Pipe Solar Receiver for Oxygen Production from Lunar Regolith

The lunar soil contains approximately 43% oxygen as oxides, which could be extracted to provide oxygen for future Lunar bases. One method of extracting the oxygen is hydrogen reduction: the lunar regolith is heated using a solar concentrator to approximately 1050°C and exposed to hydrogen gas. Water is formed from the reaction and the oxygen is recovered by electrolysis of the water.

wow, that is even hotter than the reactor to make methane on mars....

SpaceNut · 2018-08-16 18:37:30

Now time to return home:

Having spent a couple of months initiating such operations and engaging in additional forms of resource prospecting and scientific exploration, the astronauts will enter the LEV, take off and return to Earth orbit. There they will be met by a Dragon — either the one that took them to orbit in the first place or another that has just been launched to lift the crew following them — which will serve as their reentry capsule for the final leg of the journey back home.

https://www.aerospades.com/uploads/3/7/ … o_moon.pdf
Optimal Trajectory Planning for the Apollo Moon
Landing: Descent, Ascent, and Aborts

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/466772main_AL_ … 7-2-09.pdf
THE LUNAR LANDER – Ascending from the Moon

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 009584.pdf
Lunar Ascent and Rendezvous Trajectory Design

SpaceNut · 2018-08-17 18:00:50

I hope that this is not just for GW as I am trying to to solve the limits on what we can deliver to the moon orbit and to its surface.

The old estimate from this
http://crowlspace.com/?p=1070 xxx be careful as my antivirus blocked an attack virus....

If we assume the total fuelled mass of the FH Tanker is 56 tonnes, and 53 tonnes of that is fuel, then 22.5 tonnes of payload can be delivered to EML-1. That requires it to arrive at EML-1 with 6.232 tonnes of propellant still in its tank, reducing the payload to just 13.25 tonnes. Tweaking the mass of the FH Tanker means we might manage it for ~2.5 tonnes dry mass and ~15 tonnes can then be delivered.
Project Apollo’s Lunar Excursion Module, which successfully landed 12 men on the Moon over 6 missions, massed just 15 tonnes. It used a lower performing fuel combination and thus a modified version using the LOX/RP-1 of the Merlin might deliver an LEM to the Moon and back with more payload allowing weeks of stay-time. Alternatively a larger lander could touch down using 22.5 tonnes of propellant delivered by an FH Tanker.

EML-1 would be ok if we were build a station at that location but that makes no sense if we are going to the moon...

https://www.quora.com/How-long-would-it … o-the-moon

The Astrobotic is planning to use a Falcon 9 to get their Griffin Moon Lander to the Moon in 4.5 days to deliver a 270 kg rover for the Google Lunar XPRIZE. A falcon 9 with a 300kg probe will go to the moon much much faster than a falcon heavy with a 17 ton payload. The shortest practical time is 9 hours but the size of payload is reduced from the longer flight. Apollo took 4 days to get to the moon!
The Falcon Heavy puts up 63 tons into LEO. Moving at 7.91 km/sec in low orbit it must add 2.94 km/sec to achieve 10.85 km/sec transfer speed. 26.6 tons could be sent to the Moon in 5 days by the Falcon Heavy. This is almost half the mass of the 44.2 tons for the Apollo spacecraft sent into a similar trajectory by the Saturn V.

https://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/fil … kit_v1.pdf

So with that last paragraph we know that the stage that will push to the moon will contain fuel plus structure if dropped from the lunar mass of 26.6 will be 36.4.....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy

SpaceNut · 2018-12-01 09:25:34

Reposting to related topic

kbd512 wrote:

We can do lunar missions with Dragon 2 or Orion and Falcon Heavy with IVF-enabled LOX/LH2 upper stages. We don't have to wait for giant rockets to start building the hardware to take us back to the moon. It's just not necessary. If the goal is indeed to go back to the moon, rather than just spend money and spin our wheels, then apart from the lander we already have the hardware required to do it. Incidentally, a LOX/LH2 upper stage can also be the lander if we decide to use it that way. That's exceptionally minimal technology development to achieve something we haven't had the capability to do for almost half a century.

RobertDyck wrote:

There's the Moon idea I pitched. Two launches of Falcon Heavy, one for the LM, one for Dragon. Reusable LM so subsequent missions just need one launch.

SpaceNut · 2018-12-01 09:29:06

Reposting

kbd512 wrote:

Robert,
Sounds great, then. Let's flesh out your idea and start doing some rudimentary math using what we already have. We're using an all TRL-8 or TRL-9 technology architecture. Falcon 9 Heavy is the baseline. If Vulcan Heavy and New Glenn become operational in the next 2 to 3 years, then we'll consider those rockets after they've successfully flown at least 3 times. We're not even going to consider PowerPoint-based super heavy lift rockets, such as SLS or BFR. Dragon 2, Starliner, and Orion are all TRL-8, but they'll be operational next year. We have AJ10-118K's, Merlin Vac's, and RL-10C's for upper stage and lander propulsion. The cryogenic propellant combinations are limited operational lifetime, meaning a month or so at most. For habitation, we have ISS node modules and BEAM for habitation. ISRU/ISPP will be included in the mission architecture the moment we prove the technology to extract ice deposits from the lunar poles, but not a moment before.
1. crew per mission?
2. surface stay duration?
3. payload capability?
4. missions per year?
5. architecture evolution schedule and plans (inclusion of ISRU/ISPP, testing of new space suits, radiation shielding, etc)?

SpaceNut · 2018-12-01 09:30:28

Again last reposting

RobertDyck wrote:

kbd512,
Ok. I posted about it a few times. Here's my idea.
4 crew per mission
surface stay, hours. Give the LM enough air for landing, take-off, and at least 2 depressurize/repressurize cycles. Possibly more. Spacesuits with 8 hours surface time, without LM capacity to refill suit O2.
payload capacity: absolutely no payload outside the pressure hull. Some capacity for science instruments inside the pressure hull with astronauts. How much? Also payload capacity for samples during ascent. Again, how much?
missions per year? Multiple
architecture evolution plans: this is where it gets interesting. I propose a Mars Direct habitat sent to the Moon. I get this from Robert Zubrin's plan. He proposed a Mars Direct ERV launch directly from the surface of the Moon, with the ERV landed fully fuelled. I point out that's NASA's moon plan prior to 1961, known as Direct Launch. It required a launch vehicle even larger than Saturn V. We only have SLS block 2B, so that won't work. I propose instead using an Apollo architecture: Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. That means LM and a Dragon capsule. However, the Moon base will be a Mars Direct hab, complete with rover and inflatable greenhouse. Radiation shielding: sand bags filled with Lunar regolith piled on the roof. Again, from Mars Direct.
More details: Falcon Heavy will have to be man-rated, but no modification. My calculations showed the side boosters could be recovered on ships (barges), but the central core booster and upper stage would have to be expended. Falcon Heavy upper stage would be existing Falcon 9 upper stage without modification. It would be the TLI stage. RP-1/LOX propellant.
LM: pressure hull built with isogrid aluminum alloy. Apollo LM had a pressure hull made of aluminum alloy foil so thin it was 5 times the thickness of kitchen aluminum foil. Apollo used a grid sandwich, like corrugated cardboard but made of aluminum alloy. This was very light-weight but only able to withstand 5 pressure cycles. I propose a reusable LM, so the hull will have to be more durable. I propose an isogrid, which is the current pressure hull used by Dragon. The LM will have a different shape, but built with the same technology. This is the same technology currently used by Dragon, Orion, and Boeing's CST-100 Starliner.
LM would not have 2 stages like the Apollo LM, instead designed to use a crasher stage for de-orbit. LM would have one engine (or one set of engines) only. One set of propellant tanks. Everything that lands, would take off. Leave nothing behind, other than stuff carried inside.
This would require a new expendable upper stage. On top of Falcon Heavy upper stage. The new stage would use carbon fibre composite propellant tanks, carbon fibre composite structure. LOX/LCH4 propellant. LM would also use LOX/LCH4 propellant. New stage would have 3 jobs: Lunar Orbit Insertion (LOI) with Dragon attached, propellant transfer to LM in Lunar Orbit, de-orbit with LM attached. Crasher stage would also carry breathing oxygen for life support, replenish O2 for LM life support.
Dragon: convert trunk into a service module. Start with trunk of Dragon v1, with flat solar panels that track the Sun. Add carbon fibre composite propellant tanks filled with LCH4/LOX. This service module will be used for Trans-Earth Injection (TEI).
Note: BFS is intended to use carbon fibre composite tanks, LCH4/LOX, and on-orbit propellant transfer. This Lunar architecture will test/demonstrate technologies needed for BFS, testing on a craft a lot smaller.

SpaceNut · 2018-12-01 23:08:39

We have hit on 2 issues that matter for the Dragon v1 and Crewed Dragon V2 in life support for V1 and solar cell panels that can not track the sun in V2. Both would require larger support service module.

Seems that Musk has other Ideas again in that
SpaceX no longer planning crewed missions on Falcon Heavy Sited that low launch rate was the driving factor to not going ahead..

SuperDraco rocket engines is designed to push the Dragon capsule clear of the Falcon 9 should anything go wrong during flight and if an abort is needed. Working with four sets of two engines each, the hypergolic motors provide 120,000 pounds (54,430 kilograms) of force to accelerate the capsule from 0 to 100 miles (160 kilometers) per hour in about 1.2 seconds.
The SuperDraco motors burned 4,000 pounds (1814 kilograms) of hydrazine, a hypergolic fuel, in less than 6 seconds sending the capsule to nearly 5,000 feet (1,524 meters) before the vehicle’s parachutes opened and returned the craft safely to a splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean.

We have seen images of the draco engines being moved down to the bottom of the second stage on the mini BFR rather than being on the capsule as a possible solution.

SpaceNut · 2018-12-02 16:08:11

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_9_ … st#Block_5

How much fuel is remaining in the second stage of the Falcon 9 Heavy launch for a Dragon of either version?

Is that enough to send a capsule to the moon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon

Falcon 9 block 5 with crewed flight capsule

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragon_2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_spacecraft
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_(spacecraft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-II_Transfer_Vehicle

Modules
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internati … ce_Station

SpaceNut · 2018-12-02 17:07:09

So we were able to get to orbit now we need to send the assembly on its way or even by seperate pieces which seems like a waste but that may not prove out.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parking_orbit

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-return_trajectory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumlunar_trajectory

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-lunar_injection

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_maneuver

We have sent a number of probes but only a few manned landings to the moon and we will be reinventing the wheel once more.
Then we have to slow into orbit and then begin to land the stuff to the surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing

Last mission was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_17 for just 3 days time on the surface

In a 2 stage none reuseable lander
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Module

We will want to do better with this aspect of stay, reusability and mass to the surface.

Just glad that all worked correctly as the chance to get back to orbit if it failed was grim at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Escape_Systems

SpaceNut · 2019-01-01 15:32:05

So we get 3 Falcon heavies capable of 63 mT of payload lofted into orbit and then towards the moon. As we all note we will need lots of insitu resource processing capabilities in order to continue to stay long after a short mission stay as we are wide open to many dangers to humans on the lunar surface..

Here is the cover story link too aid with discussion... http://newmars.com/2018/03/moon-direct- … our-years/

This the article stated limits:

The Falcon Heavy can lift 60 tons to low Earth orbit (LEO). Starting from that point, a hydrogen/oxygen rocket-propelled cargo lander could deliver 12 tons of payload to the lunar surface.

SpaceNut · 2019-01-03 20:58:04

A key element is staging the lunar lander for the moon and of the crews return home all within the mass budget of a meir 63mT.

So small is the word and with it is a mass saving via new materials and methods to buiild with.
The 450 kilos of methane produce by the ISS each year would be enough to fuel a Morpheus Lunar Lander where oxygen comprises 86 percent of the propellant used by a LOx-hydrogen rocket, or 78 percent of the propellant used by a LOx-methane rocket. A ballistic hopper with a dry mass of 5 ton's and a methane/oxygen fuel system, would need about 15 metric ton s of propellant to send it on a flight of 1,000 kilometers, land, takeoff again, and return. But of those 15 metric tons, 12.7 would be oxygen, which can be made on the Moon, while only 3.3 would be methane fuel that has to be transported from Earth. There are areas where relatively small patches of lunar area have enough ice for 320 kilowatts of electricity to power mining operations for 1640 tons of fuel.

http://www.spaceagepub.com/pdfs/Begona.pdf

http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/Re … Lander.pdf

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 008529.pdf
Creating Methane from Plastic: Recycling at a Lunar Outpost
The conversion of carbon in the waste shown in Table I will produce 360 kg of methane per year. The use of outpost waste to produce methane produces about a third of the CH4 required to fuel an ascent stage, and also minimizes the waste accumulation at the outpost.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 007842.pdf
Life Support Systems for a New Lunar Lander - NASA

https://ti.arc.nasa.gov/m/pub-archive/1319h/1319 (Marshall).pdf
SMALL SPACECRAFT IN SUPPORT OF THE LUNAR …

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/604643main_2-Panel 2_Donahue_Final.pdf
Moon Mission Concept with Re-usable Lunar lander Ben Donahue Sr. Principle Engineer

https://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar_knowledg … report.pdf

SpaceNut · 2019-07-21 15:08:36

Time to give all the topics which should have been in play for the aniversary of the 50th landing.

SpaceNut · 2020-01-03 16:18:51

The SLS is delaying the gateway plans and it would seem that Musk has become to focussed on BFR/starship.

So if there any fund raising to get a mars society mission of this type going?

Its been 50 years or pretty close and we have not been back....

SpaceNut · 2020-01-05 18:24:09

I am reminded by the newmars home page that the
Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years
By Dr. Robert Zubrin on March 30, 2018

We are still looking for word boo of where this stands using the Falcon Heavy which is capable of 63mT to LEO.
That means we are building a rocket to push what we need to the moon.
That we still needs a lander for the moon and lots of other stuff to be able to bring there as well.

So we need from a nasa stand point a lunar cots cargo and crew delivery system of which we are still waiting for the crew to orbit part of the equation.

SpaceNut · 2020-03-20 11:56:10

This has been a quite project if its still a go for mars society and have continued to think about the 3 flights needed to get men there with a Falcon 9 heavy launch system. The cargo landers for mission 1 & 2 as a one way mission where the lunar lander is bi directional for use and one option is that its a 2 stage like the LEM for apollo mission.

http://www.braeunig.us/space/specs/lm.htm

Of course we could be making that a reuseable 1 stage as well if we can make the fuel for launch that makes it a lander that is a high payload unit.

louis · 2020-03-20 17:38:36

Mars First is the correct policy. Get that right, as Musk intends to, and you will be able to set up a lunar base in any case. But a lunar base won't get you to Mars.

kbd512 · 2020-03-20 22:57:28

Louis,

You can't get to Mars with zero practical testing of all the technologies required to survive there. Absolutely nothing that's actually required to live there has been tested in space and most of it has never been tested here on Earth, either. Some kind of minimal long duration testing is required before we go there. Since water ice is present on the moon, that's the most obvious place to conduct some testing.

SpaceNut · 2020-07-12 17:54:52

Seems this project has hit a dead end or just was never going to happen...Was it lack of funds or was it space x...
The Mars Society's Robert Zubrin Has a 'Moon Direct' Plan to Drive a Lunar Economy

Moon Direct SpaceX Falcon Heavy Plan is 6 Years Faster and 50 times Cheaper than NASA

One key element just now happened in the crewed Dragon so what's next?

Next up could be a lunar lander SpaceX wins NASA funds to study a Falcon Heavy-launched Moon lander posted By Eric Ralph on May 16, 2019

NASA has announced a series of awards as part of its 2024 Moon return ambitions, providing up to $45.5M for 11 companies to study lunar landers, spacecraft, and in-space refueling technologies.
Among those selected for studies are SpaceX, Blue Origin, Masten Space, and the Sierra Nevada Corporation, alongside usual suspects like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The chances of NASA actually achieving a crewed return to the surface of the Moon by 2024 are admittedly minuscule

SpaceNut · 2020-10-25 09:22:08

Time to see if there is another avenue on the societies home pages to see if we can make any in roads with all the work that has gone on we are looking for those steps to get behind the Mars Society in order to achive the goals of going to the moon and to Mars.

If its still on the plate how far is the society towards that funding goal?

Whom would be the crew to go or how one might be selected?

Mars_B4_Moon · 2021-09-15 06:52:43

NASA selects five companies for lunar lander studies
https://spacenews.com/nasa-selects-five … r-studies/

SpaceNut · 2021-10-09 12:12:27

The RESOLVE's main tool is a drill designed to burrow about a yard into the lunar soil to extract water.

Lunar soil, regolith, or Moon dust is mostly oxygen and silicon along with iron, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, titanium and traces of chromium, manganese, sodium, potassium, phosporus, sulphur and miniscule amounts of many other elements. It also contains traces of hydrogen, helium, methane, CO, CO2 and nitrogen implanted by the solar wind that can be extracted by mining millions of tons of regolith and heating it to about 700 C.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2018-08-16 14:02:12

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#27 2018-08-16 16:38:41

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#28 2018-08-16 17:11:39

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#29 2018-08-16 17:33:33

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#30 2018-08-16 17:45:41

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#31 2018-08-16 18:37:30

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#32 2018-08-17 18:00:50

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#33 2018-12-01 09:25:34

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#34 2018-12-01 09:29:06

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#35 2018-12-01 09:30:28

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#36 2018-12-01 23:08:39

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#37 2018-12-02 16:08:11

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#38 2018-12-02 17:07:09

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#39 2019-01-01 15:32:05

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#40 2019-01-03 20:58:04

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#41 2019-07-21 15:08:36

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#42 2020-01-03 16:18:51

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#43 2020-01-05 18:24:09

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#44 2020-03-20 11:56:10

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#45 2020-03-20 17:38:36

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#46 2020-03-20 22:57:28

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#47 2020-07-12 17:54:52

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#48 2020-10-25 09:22:08

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#49 2021-09-15 06:52:43

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

#50 2021-10-09 12:12:27

Re: Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

Board footer