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

Grypd · 2004-10-25 15:11:02

I agree creating oxygen is the first step. For that there doesn’t need to be any building. Or machine shops. The oxygen production will form the first component of the base and will be a valuable export to ISS. It also means less propellant will be needed for a moon mission. All soil going to oxygen production can be put through a spectral analyzer. This way industry and science will be achieved simultaneously.
Producing solar panels may be a little harder. I think they may need some rare earth elements to dope the charge carriers. Perhaps the rare earth elements could be brought from earth.

There are two major ways to create solar cells on the moon, both use silicon as there main ingredient. They also both use only Lunar available minerals only. They also are not the most efficient methods of absorbing power but are very hard radiation proof. And of course they are reasonably easy to have an automated production facility.

The first is Crystaline silicon which is about 19% efficient. The next is amorphous silicon which is a lot les efficient as a cell but fundamentaly easier to manufacture and uses less materials than the crystaline silicon cell. Amorphous cell production also benefits from the Moons lack of atmosphere.

Grypd · 2004-10-25 15:19:10

Interesting post from your source on the magnetic rail gun which has been an idea for a long time. This maybe a reality on the moon some day but not if there are only robots.

Mass drivers on the Moon will benefit from using super conducting materials. There is no reason that with teleoperated robots that we can not build one but it will be the product of a mature base. And a mature base will be a permanently habited base by humans.

MarsDog · 2004-10-25 17:34:52

Man]http://www.hobbyspace.com/AAdmin/archive/Articles/Guests/atwgBriefingLeeValentine.html]"Man to Mars is a diversion we can't afford."

Easy returns will be from near Earth.
Mars, perhaps in 20 to 50 years won't be an over extension.

None of us will make it to Mars, the Moon might be possible, if we win a lottery.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-25 19:26:39

I think that you put far too much faith in telerobotics, building anything of scale with robots alone in space is currently impossible, and I doubt this will change any time soon.

SpaceNut · 2004-10-25 19:58:42

Not to mention that they are still yet to be designed from modified existing systems or from fresh work. Also the new wieght requirement for heavy mining and processing equipment means more of a need for heavy lift.

comstar03 · 2004-10-25 22:47:14

Hello,

Many people discussed in detail the ability of robotic systems and telepresence robotic system could function from earth and the moon, I have just read of the first multi-core CPUs coming to the market in 2005, these are the first to have two CPU cores contained on one chip thus providing the processing power of dual single core CPUs with no more power output then a single core CPUs. The First AMD will contact 1MB L2 Cache per Core with dual AMD Opteron Motherboards could use the multi-core CPUs to enhance speed and processing capacity of applications like robotic systems.

By 2010 the AMD Plans for 8 core CPUs with 64 or 128Bit Langauge functionality for Desktop and Server Computers, we could have a 4 Processor Chip Desktop or Single Server Case Computer with 32 CPU Cores with 32 + L2 Cache and tens of GBs High speed RAM and Tetrabytes of Storage for managing Robotic Interaction from earth and similar hardware in robotic droids on the moon. ( these computer would be around $10-15,000 in the US) - Think of Clustering these machines together.

Don't think that technologies won't provide the answers to limitations/ issues /problems in current technology.

Also the above technology will provide the answers to Fusion Power systems and the reason to mine the Moon with Droids first. But, eventually we will need to move people to the Moon and development of the Earth- Moon Economy and Trading Market.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-26 04:44:49

The problem has nothing at all to do with computing hardware, you can make a pretty complex robot operate with a 486 processor, the trouble lies in how primative the software is and how primative the actual mechanical parts are.

Its not about technology, its about the engineering, which is really hard. This isn't a factory assembly line welding cars together.

MarsDog · 2004-10-26 08:33:24

Like the evolution of sea creatures; Distributed nervous system and muscles allows some to move and jump out of the way; and awoid being eaten.

Other good examples are the fly and cockroach. A slight air movement at the hind legs of the cocroach, and it is off running, just reflexes. Try to catch a fly, amazing computing power without large heatsinks.

If you watch Robot Wars on television, it becomes apparent how little the robot does without remote control.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 10:03:19

Unfortunate I agree with GCNRevenger that it is the mechanics that limit tellerobotics not the computational power. I think suitable software could be developed in a year or less for any system provided the joints didn’t stick to much because they had no oil in them. With regards to a rail gun I think it is more prudent to figure out what are the requirements for construction before we discuss whether this is a project that can be achieved by tell robotics. The first job is surveying. A suitable hill would have to be found that is long enough for the track. The slope of the hill should be fairly constant. The next job is to remove any dust from the hill then level the underlying rock. The rails would have to be laid fairly straight. They should probably be aligned with a laser. The will probably have to be anchored into the ground every so often. What would we use on earth? Steel reinforced concrete? Should the cart be reused or launched into space with the payload. Etc….

SpaceNut · 2004-10-26 10:21:59

The easiest way to provide a launch tube would be to use a subway tunnel digging unit like what was used by the french and english channel crossing.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 10:25:19

The easiest way to provide a launch tube would be to use a subway tunnel digging unit like what was used by the french and english channel crossing.

Do you need a tube? The moon has very little atmoshpere. Why not just make it like a high speed train?

SpaceNut · 2004-10-26 10:34:58

That is where the coil system is placed that will make the launching of any projectile possible without the use of chemical rocket boosting to orbit.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 10:46:15

That is where the coil system is placed that will make the launching of any projectile possible without the use of chemical rocket boosting to orbit.

Well if we need to create that big of a magnetic field why not just use rings? Why do you need an entiere tube? Is the tube for electromagnetic shielding of the base? Anyway support the rings with a truss and put aluminum foil over it later if needed. About the rails, do you need two rails on opposite sides of the vehicle or will one rail bellow the vehicle suffice? Do you need some kind of magnets to keep the vehicle from touching the rails? Should some kind of damping system be used to keep the vehicle from bouncing too much?

Grypd · 2004-10-26 11:18:23

We could use the same system as the DOD plan for there railguns for use on board ships. In this it will be two pairs of twin rails. but this uses consumables in the launch bucket which gets fired too

But more likely would be a system similar to a Maglev where we accelerate the "bucket train" to the speed needed over a distance. When it reaches the speed necassary it will brake suddenly and the cargo will be shot to the desired location. The cargo would if loose be kept in a sack made of materials made by insitu materials. The train will then return to station for reloading. This uses no consumables but is limited to firing in one direction.

Probably a mature lunar base will use both with the bigger system for shooting items to orbit and the smaller manouverable system for package delivery to points on the Moon.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 11:25:06

I was wondering if some system could be brought from earth preassembled for really small payloads. Catching a lot of small payloads may be a problem but the cost comparison is worth it.

John Creighton · 2004-10-26 11:27:25

Anyway if a system is need to suppress vertical bouncing I would suggest using electromagnetic induction. The current would be allowed to flow vertically but not horizontally.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-26 15:30:35

If NASA can't get a Mars solar golf cart to operate reliably for more then six months that cost almost half a billion dollars to build, you can just forget about building an army of construction robots and build anything big without boots-on-ground human assistance.

No, building somthing of this scale in little pieces from Earth wouldn't be very practical, since the largest rockets even swapping out the TLI stage for a solar/ion tug can't move an ISS module to the Moon's surface, much less railgun componets. It will either have to be sent in big launches or built locally.

Grypd · 2004-10-26 17:09:03

GCN we just have to take an example of the Russians using what we call very primitive telerobotic robots where able to cover more distance on the Moon than the current Mars rovers have been able. And the Mars rovers have been in continous use for 6 months just when do you think they where getting someone to give them a service or just a dust down. Lunar telerobotics has as part of its mission a means of servicing and developing the Lunar vehicles further, Broken vehicles will be towed back for repair. But also unlike the Mars rovers which are fitting everything they can into as light as package possible. We will allow for a toughness to be in the vehicles even at the cost of weight to improve reliability.

We are not coming out with a design from the blue here with telerobotic mining equipment. The mining industry of both south Africa and Australia have shown just how important this technology is and are investing large sums in its further development. We can get it to work, if given the chance and operate it less expensively to develop the Lunar base and the creation of infrastructure.

Grypd · 2004-10-26 17:25:52

The majority of any lunar mass driver will be made on the Moon by insitu materials. How else can we ever think of affording to build one, otherwise. It is only those components that we cant make initially on the Moon that we must take up. And fundementally these tend towards being light in makeup.

John Creighton · 2004-10-28 12:05:44

If NASA can't get a Mars solar golf cart to operate reliably for more then six months that cost almost half a billion dollars to build,

Forgive my ignorance but what golf cart what went wrong and how could it be made more reliable?

comstar03 · 2004-10-31 04:21:57

GCNRevenger and John Creighton

Firstly, fluid robotic joints have been around for ages, using magnetic flow controlled joints that provide a larger degree of control in movement. Secondly, the complex programming required at the level for interaction would require a OS and VR type of Client-Server Structure Software which requires large processing and memory capacities.

The operator would function in a VR Lunar Landscape visualizing the movement of the robot and controlling that robot in real-time believing they are there. The virtual pixel landscape needs continuous movement as the robot performs its tasks.

I knew that the multi-core CPUs would provide the enhanced processing capabilities coupled with 256MB or higher graphics cards controlling and generating the virtual landscape.

We will have the software built and tested by 2012-5 for the large scale droid development for the lunar surface.

Grypd · 2004-10-31 07:39:21

I think what GCNRevenger and John Creighton are concerned about is not our ability to control the rovers but there ability to function for extended periods on the Moon etc. We have the ability to make these devices function and to work hard and to repair them when they break down or introduce changes to maximise performance. The Russians in the Early 70s landed two rovers called Lunkohods they functioned for a long period with one of them managing to travel over 300km. Since then material science and computer technology has improved and Telerobotics has become something regular mining corporations have introduced.

There is a simple test that we can do to ensure this does function. We make them here on earth and simulate there operations.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-31 10:38:13

No actually, I'm thinking the other way around. With a weight limit signifigantly greater then what you are held to by a whimpy Delta-II I concede we could probobly build fairly sturdy vehicles that could do simple tasks for fairly long periods.. My trouble is with statements like these:

"Lunar telerobotics has as part of its mission a means of servicing and developing the Lunar vehicles further, Broken vehicles will be towed back for repair."

That no, we don't have the ability to make serious repairs to broken robots, build anything with any kind of human-like precision, or do anything that requires delicate handling. Putting a robot on wheels over fluffy Lunar soil and expect it to weld a gas fitting or bypass a shorted fuse on a PCB is completly different then having one on a carefully aligned assembly line in an Earth factory.

"The operator would function in a VR Lunar Landscape visualizing the movement of the robot and controlling that robot in real-time believing they are there."

And you simply cannot do this. You cannot. The time lag of about 3-4 seconds, not counting processing time, prevents true real-time operation. Hence, doing anything delicate (repair) or time sensitive (mining, construction) is impractical. The MERs use complex software so the rover can control itself between download/upload responses, but this is useless if you are doing anything complicated or delicate.

You can improve the materials and make more powerful computers all you want, but until you can teach them to think or put a human in close proximity to control them, a multi-second time lapse will effectively cripple any kind of repair, construction, or any sort delicate/unplanned issues.

Grypd · 2004-10-31 12:34:39

No actually, I'm thinking the other way around. With a weight limit signifigantly greater then what you are held to by a whimpy Delta-II I concede we could probobly build fairly sturdy vehicles that could do simple tasks for fairly long periods.. My trouble is with statements like these:
"Lunar telerobotics has as part of its mission a means of servicing and developing the Lunar vehicles further, Broken vehicles will be towed back for repair."
That no, we don't have the ability to make serious repairs to broken robots, build anything with any kind of human-like precision, or do anything that requires delicate handling. Putting a robot on wheels over fluffy Lunar soil and expect it to weld a gas fitting or bypass a shorted fuse on a PCB is completly different then having one on a carefully aligned assembly line in an Earth factory.

If we have the capability to do major surgery on People by use of telerobotics then we have the capability to operate on damaged or broken telerobotic vehicles. Base electronics are a lot simpler than a human body and robots can be made to be easy access to a central repair depot. Returning broken vehicles to the central repair depot is simple sense why waste all that cost of getting the machinery to the Moon etc just to discard it when it breaks down?

And NASA with its Robonaut have already created a robot that can do all the same jobs as a human astronaut. Though designed for use on the ISS it can easily be developed to operate on the Moon. And the research project is currently doing this right now.

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er_er/html … .html]NASA Robonaut

But the majority of actual telerobotic robots will be simple shovelers and diggers and transport system robots. It will be left to robots similar to Robonaut to actually put the infrastructure up that the factories make. The difficulties will be in creating these automated factories that create what is needed out of lunar materials.

We do not need for the majority of telerobotic robots a complicated VR system the repair depot will have one and the Robonaut types a less sophisticated system. But the majority will only need basic terrain avoidance and a pair of cameras.

John Creighton · 2004-10-31 12:43:45

And you simply cannot do this. You cannot. The time lag of about 3-4 seconds, not counting processing time, prevents true real-time operation. Hence, doing anything delicate (repair) or time sensitive (mining, construction) is impractical. The MERs use complex software so the rover can control itself between download/upload responses, but this is useless if you are doing anything complicated or delicate.

Well as long as there is not to much sticktion and backlash I see no reason you couldn’t operate the robot really slow to do delicate work. Given the mechanics are available the only issue is really how much delicate work do you need to get done. Is there just one small task or a lot of tasks. I don’t think that the first robots should be built so they can perform tellerobotic repairs duties. However a design goal should be that they are easy to repair with the idea of tellerobotic repair in the back of the minds of the designers. The first robots should be built to last long with redundancies and fault tolerances both in the mechanics electronics and sensors. The should be built with goals in mind be they: running oxygen production and moon spectroscopy facility; construction of a rail gun; running a small mass driver; constructing a radio telescope or interfermoriter; digging an underground shelter supporting the walls with steal trusses and sealing them with glass, running a solar cell production facility.

I favor running an oxygen production facility first followed by the operation of a solar cell production facility. The initial tanks could be imported and used to refuel lunar Landers. As far as the mechanics I will take a look into magnetic flow controlled joints but I don’t know how well any fluid controlled joint will work. I heard some once say the Canada arm was so expensive because you can’t use oil in space. I don’t know if that is true. I will have to do some research. I don’t see why you couldn’t seal off and heat the joint. I was also thinking of some kind of joint that used some kind of magnetic bearings or suspension. Hmmm….could be an interesting research project. I once worked out equations where you could shape the magnetic field you want. I was thinking of doing some kind of magnetic levitation. Well imagine if you had a levitating magnet and you could control its rotation and postion. I should suggest using lasers and photodiodes to try and position it accurately. It might be possible to use induction for added damping.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-10-25 15:11:02

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

#52 2004-10-25 15:19:10

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

#53 2004-10-25 17:34:52

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

#54 2004-10-25 19:26:39

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

#55 2004-10-25 19:58:42

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

#56 2004-10-25 22:47:14

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

#57 2004-10-26 04:44:49

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

#58 2004-10-26 08:33:24

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

#59 2004-10-26 10:03:19

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

#60 2004-10-26 10:21:59

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

#61 2004-10-26 10:25:19

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

#62 2004-10-26 10:34:58

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

#63 2004-10-26 10:46:15

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

#64 2004-10-26 11:18:23

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

#65 2004-10-26 11:25:06

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

#66 2004-10-26 11:27:25

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

#67 2004-10-26 15:30:35

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

#68 2004-10-26 17:09:03

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

#69 2004-10-26 17:25:52

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

#70 2004-10-28 12:05:44

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

#71 2004-10-31 04:21:57

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

#72 2004-10-31 07:39:21

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

#73 2004-10-31 10:38:13

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

#74 2004-10-31 12:34:39

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

#75 2004-10-31 12:43:45

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.