The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Josh Cryer · 2004-09-20 23:29:05

Wow, another thread busting the 300 post cap. Well done.

I'll quote the last few posters to get this rolling again:

Grypd

Quote (SpaceNut @ Sep. 20 2004, 07:27)
So we want to use robotically controlled devices to mining and to prepare any lunar base area.

First I know of no such electrical or otherwise powered; bull dozers, backhoes and other Earth moving equipment currently in creation.

Also taking tons of digital mapping photos is a useless step, if we are preparing any site for a base to be placed at.

Doing a rover style probe to search for water or other needed chemical presence is a must but other than that why wait for things to be developed.

Never would I have thought that posting of this topic on Aug. 19 2004 would have yielded so much discusion and there is yet so much more to talk of still.

We dont use these vehicles on Earth, we dont have to. But the Moon and beyond is Not the Earth an astronaut in a suit is not as effective as a Robot. A robot does not need to carry his air on his back and since Man is designed for Earth is a lot more stable too. If we have a robot damaged so what we get it fixed, If we have a suit damaged then we have lost a Man. Another thing to point out is that our Earth moving gear as used on Earth will likely be of limited use as it is designed to operate on Earth gravity conditions. The Moon and Mars will likely show that new techniques will have to be developed. Will we use rotating brushes to collect material or drag lines certainly our idea of Earth movers rely on the down force of there weight to be able to get the Earth moved up and not shooting out of the bucket when dug up.

Base construction is not just a matter of making places for the astronauts to sleep. It is of providing power, heat, light, food and of course Air and water. Power means making solar cells and then distributing them. If we put Solar cells on one of the almost permanently lighted peaks of the Moon then we can use telerobots almost 24/7. Extra power will be gained by networks of this solar power cells going east and west. With power air can be made using lunar materials and by heating those craters where we have detected Hydrogen hopefully we get water.

Telerobotics allow this to be done at costs that are possible. If we try to get it done using people then there is no way it will happen, we have to face that. We cannot afford to send people to do these jobs the technology base we have is not enough without real heavy financial and personel costs. We can send people to the Moon but with little supplies. To get more supplies means another flight. In telerobotics the main cost is the flight and that does not need to come back. They are purely one way trips.

comstar03

Grypd,

I agree, the robots don't need to come back to earth, they can stay and build on the moon, keep expanding the industrial complex on the planet. It will take some time to create all the components ( infrastructure ) that we need for the continuing expansion of humanity in space.

Once the primary / core elements of the moonbase are complete the you bring scientists and other prority professional to the moon and continue to expand.

Rxke · 2004-09-21 02:57:18

But there are telerobotics similar to that in use on earth.

Remember The Tjernobyl disaster?
At one point they used telerobotics to do a part of the emergency containment work. Converted tanks, built to work as fire-fighting units were also built by the russians, after the end of Communist regime etc...

And there's a project to build a robot miner in America (done by a school IIRC...)

SpaceNut · 2004-09-21 07:33:02

Well in either case if Nasa does not use what is already there, though purchase of the equipment or though contracts for the work it will never happen. For typically these companies are not in the aerospace game and are not considered for what they can and could provide towards the moon to mars beyound vision.

John Creighton · 2004-09-21 15:30:35

Well in either case if Nasa does not use what is already there, though purchase of the equipment or though contracts for the work it will never happen. For typically these companies are not in the aerospace game and are not considered for what they can and could provide towards the moon to mars beyound vision.

That sounds pretty negative.

Grypd · 2004-09-21 17:56:10

Quote SpaceNut Sep. 20 2004, 07;27

First I know of no such electrical or otherwise Powered; bull dozers, backhoes and other Earth moving equipment currently in creation

Well it seems they are in real use in the Mines of Australia and they are subject to a conference each year to develop this technology better.

http://www.omnitech.com/company.htm]Omnitech a company specialising in telerobotics

This company has developed telerobotics for the use of the military and industrial sectors.

http://www.cat.csiro.au/cmst/pub/IARP/wshop.html]2000 meeting of the australian robotics for industry group

This is the website for the 2000 Australian robotic industrial robots group and the best one for state of the Industry apparently they seem to have got concerned about Industry secrets going elsewhere as the technology matured so put less detail in.

http://www.araa.asn.au/acra/acra2001/Pa … pdf]Thesis on control of robotic ore transport inside mines

This is a thesis on how operational robot miners inside a mine work.

I hope this helps as it shows these are operating already on Earth so it does not take too much to have this technology transferred to space operations

comstar03 · 2004-09-22 01:36:40

Grypd,

And this was 4 years ago, they would have made advances in their technology and software, I have seen robotics used to clean 747 aircrafts better than humans, building cars, putting electronic components together and more.

Just open your minds to the opportunities and then build towards them.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-22 07:04:06

I definitely do not like how the budget funding wars are shaping up.

http://www.flatoday.com/news....OST.htm

Qoute:
Moon-Mars tab may hit $100 billion according to a new study from the Congressional Budget Office.

Dominating the cost: Plans to develop, test new rocket capable of lofting 100 tons to space, a new ship (CEV) for moon-bound astronauts capsule and a new lunar lander dominate cost.

Another alternative: living within its projected budget and pushing back the year during which U.S. astronauts return to the lunar surface. In that case, the study suggests, look for astronauts to land on the moon between 2023 or 2027.

Different options costly in money, relations, return-to-moon efforts
http://www.floridatoday.com/!NEWSROOM/l … BOSIDE.htm

NASA could save up to $43 billion by retiring the shuttle and bailing out of the International Space Station in 2005, a new Congressional Budget Office analysis shows.

Doing so might enable NASA to stage a return to the moon by 2016 instead of 2020.

Grypd · 2004-09-22 18:41:13

I just dont get it, Why must a shuttle derived Shuttle C that lifts a 100 tons to space cause the budget to overun to the tune of a 100 billion. I know cost plus is bad but this is not a pork barrel this is a pork swimming pool.

And how can developing a Lunar lander and cev create this much cost. I really hope this is a case of sums going bad or some person with the axe to grind having a free pop.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-22 19:45:12

I hope that the new CEV and lander combo is not designed like the old apollo for a 3 man crew one had to be left in orbit, not all that practical. Also any design should address the Mars landing formats to allow for the least amount of cost later.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-23 08:26:04

Yesterdays florida today article had a one liner on robotic moon missions.

quote:
That figure does not include $29 billion for robotic missions to scout the moon.

So if we are going to the moon we will have to rely either on old data of from other nations and just wing it hoping for the best if the money does not get put back in at a later date.

Martian Republic · 2004-09-23 10:06:14

I just dont get it, Why must a shuttle derived Shuttle C that lifts a 100 tons to space cause the budget to overun to the tune of a 100 billion. I know cost plus is bad but this is not a pork barrel this is a pork swimming pool.
And how can developing a Lunar lander and cev create this much cost. I really hope this is a case of sums going bad or some person with the axe to grind having a free pop.

Even if they were able to knock it down to just $50 billion dollars, we still talking about a lot of money. The original Apollo Mission were somewhere between $3 to $5 billion dollars, but that was in 1970 dollars and not in 2004 dollars after inflation which would triple or quadruple that price for the Apollo Mission. Inflation jack the price of everything up, doesn't it? NASA has this same problem with trying to keep the shuttle flying too or trying to reengineer there stack for Shuttle Cargo launch or what ever else they do. To do those Apollo Mission NASA had about 1% or 2% of the U.S. Budget and currently NASA has about .5% or .6% of the U.S. Budget after allowing for inflation. Although today dollars amounts are bigger than the dollar amount were a few years ago, in relationship to actual buying power NASA actually has less buying power with the bigger amount than that smaller amount, due to inflation.

Such is life.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2004-09-23 12:14:57

One of the daunting tasks for manned flight to mars or of the moon is the need to create power for a multitude of uses.

Fuel Cell Converts Waste to Power
http://www.technologyreview.com/article … 092204.asp

Grypd · 2004-09-23 18:53:41

Yesterdays florida today article had a one liner on robotic moon missions.
quote:
That figure does not include $29 billion for robotic missions to scout the moon.
So if we are going to the moon we will have to rely either on old data of from other nations and just wing it hoping for the best if the money does not get put back in at a later date.

The problem with Robotic missions to the Moon is that they are just not sexy

If Nasa does not do the groundwork and this requires the use of rovers on the Moon how do they plan to get anything real done on the Moon. I think that they just plan an apollo 2 with lots of flags and even more footprints then call it job done. Then they can turn to the congress and say we need a lot more funding if you want us to do the same for Mars.

Certainly the Big corporations are unlikely to want anything done on the Moon that could be done reasonably cheaply and that would cut into there plans for big cost plus contracts. And it easy to dismiss telerobotics as it does not have any of the usual contractors political support and requires a new approach. And it is unlikely that the common public would really get involved in the idea of machines making our Moon a useful source to increase space capability. where is the excitement in that. It seems Nasa has picked up a bit of its approach from all those theme parks it shares florida with and has decided to give the people an "exciting" experience.

Somewhere down the line this is going to come back and bite them.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-24 06:08:07

Quote from spaceref Nasa excerpt of appropriation bill.
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=14032

The Committee has provided $20,000,000 for the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter [LRO], a reduction of $50,000,000 from the budget request reflecting the difficult spending allocation within which the subcommittee has been forced to operate. NASA should continue with its announcement of opportunity for scientific instruments with these funds. However, in establishing the criteria for instrument selection, not less than 25 percent of the LRO's scientific instrumentation funding should be explicitly dedicated to building instruments focused solely on answering basic science questions. The Committee is concerned that the lunar measurement investigations to be carried out by the LRO mission, intended to characterize future robotic and human lunar landing sites, will forgo the opportunity for research and focus only on applied engineering assessments. The current proposed AO focuses solely on the human exploration objectives of the potential mission. Since the LRO is allocated against NASA's space science budget, the Committee believes that fundamental lunar science questions should be addressed in a significant fashion through instruments on this spacecraft. The Committee encourages NASA, as part of the LRO development, to consider the research instrumentation opportunities as well as technology qualification, navigation and communications capabilities, and resource identification technologies to maximize the opportunities of this first lunar mission.

end

So it would seem that science takes presidence over laying down of infrastructure to actually land Man on the Moon in the near term with the use of the LRO.

Grypd · 2004-09-24 17:36:27

That is an example of a wrongly thought out strategy. ESA with its Smart-1 probe will likely do a lot better at the close mapping than the LRO will do. ESA already plans for Smart to orbit very close using its constant thrust to allow quite close resolution. Still at first only the Lunar equator can be mapped but it will eventually map the whole Moon and of more interest have a really good look at those permanently dark craters.

Resource identification is extremely hard for us to do with satelites it needs a spectrum of science packages to be able to tell what a material is and its likely makeup. Unlike the Earth where we have explored the surface and can tell what a material is and its appearance to a satellite, through physical interaction, We have not studied the Moon to that degree and are quessing what makes up the body we call our moon. It seems that this probe has to be everything to everybody. In effect a space shuttle type probe that will likely have certain packages that will react badly with others and cost a lot of dollars for a general or poor performance.

When it comes down to it we will have to send rovers to the Moon and with a capability to do a sample return. These rovers will give us the capability to really see the materials we are looking for and to actually tell us what is in those permanently dark craters and zones. With a rover we can actually test what a material is made of and its uses to us for future expansion.

I can see the LRO being cancelled or just put back and back. It is a probe which was to need 70 million $ and now has to make do with 20 million. It was not unlike Smart planned to be a cheap probe it had a really hard mission to do. Smart was truly to try out new technigues and technology this it has done even before reaching the Moon. It will be dificult now to get all that was planned for the LRO and it certainly indicates that this choice means that things have to be given up. And with the comittee stating it was not to be the science part the part of interest to the future expansion to the Moon will now come out a lot significantly weaker.

comstar03 · 2004-09-24 22:12:37

Again, we are not developing a proper survey of the lunar surface, either by LRO or Smart (ESA), we need serious hardware - with ground pentrating radar up 500 meters in depth to start the survey process. They used the same technology over Antarctica to map the land mass under the ice.

The most important reason for the survey is the location for the first moon base. (alpha site) Then we develop a startegy to build an outpost on that site.

In that appropriations committee report - outlined by SpaceNut, talked about " If " NASA has any future country partners because of the issues with ISS, this tells me that some want to go alone , that would also mean developing technology that would be cost efficient. It comes back to telerobotics for construction.

Grypd · 2004-09-25 15:59:49

Well smart-1 has plans to do a survey of the lunar southpole for both areas of almost permanent light and to see the best way into those craters. It wont be able to give a detailed image that would provide for a perfect landing zone

Rxke · 2004-09-25 16:35:20

500 meters deep?

Is that possible through rock? Wow if so... But why 500?

SpaceNut · 2004-09-25 19:28:32

The problem is that any moon projects are going to be pushed back by under funding. A better plan of what is necessary for man to be landed on the moon is a must.

If mining equipment or base construction leveling is part of the plan only one mission is needed to map with xrays under ground resources of possible underground water.

Now on the note of the lunar lander, If I recall the LEM was a vlvt but was a two stage. Could this be done as a single stage if fuel tanks are replenished?

Another thought I am having is to make the Mars Lander and Earth re-entry vehicle one in the same, also reusuable. Make the unit a biconal design much like a stretch klipper but rather than wheels to land on a runway. Lets glide from orbit using the well known spiral method but finish it off with a banking to climb manuver, where at the top of the glide up the cone would release with drone parachutes openning for a verticle landing using the landing engine and legs much like on the lunar surface for both the Earth and for Mars future ships.

Design the ship fuel tanks for a single stage to orbit for mars since that would also be more than adequate for the lunar surface since both would be basically empty. Design the universal lander for a down mass size for the mars mission using the glide, parachute and verticle landing. Unit left in orbit could carry the needed fuel for Mars return, plus food and water.

What that means is the section left in orbit for the moon is smaller than that of the one for the Mars mission.

Grypd · 2004-09-26 15:03:00

The problem is that any moon projects are going to be pushed back by under funding. A better plan of what is necessary for man to be landed on the moon is a must.
If mining equipment or base construction leveling is part of the plan only one mission is needed to map with xrays under ground resources of possible underground water.

Moon Missions and probably any future missions anywhere will always have problems with underfunding. We must find a way to ensure that future missions can be done in a reasonable time frame for development and that they have a degree of compatibility of equipment between missions so reducing costs allowing more missions.

Of course the other way is to send equipment that will make what is needed on the Moon or to send machines that can be reused again and again to reduce costs. But this can be very expensive to build and design. But it can also be the cheapest option. If we use a combination of all three which is a reusable, low development times that can create what is needed on the Moon etc.

We already have the ability to use ground penetrating radar from space it is in common use to find possible oil and mineral deposits. What we wish to know on the moon is a good place to be able to dig in. It has to be close to what minerals we need and to a source of almost constant solar power. The best area would be a pyroclastic glass area which is loose easy to dig and easy to convert into what we need and to be "stabilised" easily. It also has few boulders and is flatter allowing more missions to land.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-28 11:28:07

We must find a way to ensure that future missions can be done in a reasonable time frame for development and that they have a degree of compatibility of equipment between missions so reducing costs allowing more missions.
Of course the other way is to send equipment that will make what is needed on the Moon or to send machines that can be reused again and again to reduce costs.

Reducing mission cost, rocket costs and anything associated to the exploration process is a must.

So what does a lunar robotic exploration probe have in common with a manned vehicle part compatibilty in order to reduce component developement costs, not much...

Sending equipment to a site of exploration interest, is a must if you can use what is there for free with that equipment to lower costs.

Grypd · 2004-09-28 16:14:13

Reducing mission cost, rocket costs and anything associated to the exploration process is a must.
So what does a lunar robotic exploration probe have in common with a manned vehicle part compatibilty in order to reduce component developement costs, not much...
Sending equipment to a site of exploration interest, is a must if you can use what is there for free with that equipment to lower costs.

A robotic mission will not need as much in launching capacity as the requirement is for a manned mission. It is one of the advantages of robots is that they are almost pure usable cargo they do not need to use wasted consumables. The return to Earth segment will only have to be samples so can be kept small, while the lunar rover carries on exploring.

A family of robots should be devloped to do all projects that we need for the Moon, one is a rover, one is an ore carrier and one is a miner etc etc. To reduce costs they should all have general components that link them to each other to ease maintenance and component replacement. And this will ease on development each time we have a mission to send to the Moon.

Why send machines instead of people, well they are flexible, tougher, longer lasting, need little if any supplies and expendable. They also can be done right now and are cheap comparitive to other mission scenarios.

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 08:15:23

Maybe we are being heard or just that common old horse has come into play for why to move forward with the expense of going to the moon when so many would say we have already done that why go, but not this person. I would go to the moon even if we had never achieve that goal.

More lunar landings for NASA?

Space experts gather at NPS to discuss a moon colony
http://www.montereyherald.com/mld....670.htm

SpaceNut · 2004-09-30 11:55:09

Phase 1 awards of Twelve proposals to boldly go beyond the frontiers of space exploration were selected for a six-month study period beginning in October 2004.

My only question is how many Phase are there in all before hardware is delivered?

This one caught my eye as well as a few others:
Lunar Space Elevators for Cislunar Space Development (PI: Jerome Pearson, Star Technology and Research, Inc., Mount Pleasant, S.C.)

NASA Explores Future Space with Advanced Concept Awards
http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid=15150

Grypd · 2004-09-30 15:59:13

Phase 1 awards of Twelve proposals to boldly go beyond the frontiers of space exploration were selected for a six-month study period beginning in October 2004.
My only question is how many Phase are there in all before hardware is delivered?
This one caught my eye as well as a few others:
Lunar Space Elevators for Cislunar Space Development (PI: Jerome Pearson, Star Technology and Research, Inc., Mount Pleasant, S.C.)
NASA Explores Future Space with Advanced Concept Awards
http://www.moontoday.net/news/viewpr.ht … ?pid=15150

Its the one called the electrostatic radiation shield that really interests me. Frankly though placed as a Moon mission that ability to have electric shields small Van Allens in other words could be really really useful. It just comes down to there power requirements. I once put on another forum that electromagnetic radiation shielding was something that should be invested in and was well thought of as a budding captain kirk. But electro magnetic protection for people working in space has been of consideration for some time. O'neill in his plans for space colonies even mentions how useful it would be. But for some unknown reason it never really attracted NASAs attention.

But these small type prizes are perfect for the smaller companies to get involved in space and hopefully attract more interest in the benefits of space research as a benefit to people on Earth.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-09-20 23:29:05

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#2 2004-09-21 02:57:18

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#3 2004-09-21 07:33:02

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#4 2004-09-21 15:30:35

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#5 2004-09-21 17:56:10

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#6 2004-09-22 01:36:40

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#7 2004-09-22 07:04:06

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#8 2004-09-22 18:41:13

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#9 2004-09-22 19:45:12

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#10 2004-09-23 08:26:04

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#11 2004-09-23 10:06:14

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#12 2004-09-23 12:14:57

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#13 2004-09-23 18:53:41

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#14 2004-09-24 06:08:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#15 2004-09-24 17:36:27

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#16 2004-09-24 22:12:37

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#17 2004-09-25 15:59:49

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#18 2004-09-25 16:35:20

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#19 2004-09-25 19:28:32

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#20 2004-09-26 15:03:00

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#21 2004-09-28 11:28:07

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#22 2004-09-28 16:14:13

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#23 2004-09-30 08:15:23

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#24 2004-09-30 11:55:09

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

#25 2004-09-30 15:59:13

Re: The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

Board footer

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.

Re: The need for a Moon direct 2 - ...continue here.