Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-04 09:02:15

First off, two shorties:

1: The main economic justification for a trip to the Moon is the Platinum thats in the rocks. Not the Helium-3, not the solar farms for Earthly transmission, but the Platinum. We need platinum to make efficent fuel cells, its just about the least rare metal that reacts with Hydrogen to catalyze the reaction. Since there isn't probobly enough of it on Earth to sustain a Hydrogen economy, we need more. The Moon is the easiest, closest, soonest source. Since the actual mass of Pt needed won't be that large, we could ferry those sizes of materials to/from Luna with today's technology. You are being quite obtuse by insisting that the Moon is worthless until Fusion power is available, Explorer.

2: MarsDirect, in its present form even with all scientific payload deleted, I think is still too light to be safe. Zubrin went too far in whittling down the vehicle sizes and mass margins to get it all to fit in a single shot of Ares. MarsDirect cannot be salvaged since Ares is the biggest practical SDV, unless MarsDirect employs a heavy nuclear upper stage engine. Since Zubrin is not stupid, I think that he secretly knows that this would be nessesarry, and is trying pass off his all-chemical plan to overoptimistic MarSoc-type folks so they will call their congressmen, and irrevokably kick off MarsDirect. Zubrin is, after all, a nuclear engineer by trade.

NASA DRM is, unlike MarsDirect, big enough to have safe mass margins. Thats why, mainly... There isn't any technology needed for DRM any more then MarsDirect, since nuclear rocket engines aren't new tech, both we and the Russians had ones of all sizes back in the 1960's. DRM however, unlike MarsDirect, would use only a small RL-10/60 class engine, instead of a huge SSME class one.

NASA DRM also employs a more reasonably sized launch vehicle, so there is no risk that SDV will be unable to meet the "Ares class" performance due to unforseen weight gain or performance pentalty. The smaller launch vehicle will also not need to use $200M worth of SSMEs, and instead only $30-40M worth of RS-68 engines.

DRM, unlike MarsDirect, also has one vitally important thing... a future. MarsDirect cannot be modified nor evolve, it is the end of the line. DRM on the other hand, could transition to an almost-fully reuseable system by employing a reuseable MAV and returning the ERV to LEO and use it as a manned cycler.

DRM also has room for six astronauts standard and many extra tonnes of scientific gear with the MAV payload, which will permit us to get alot more done then MarsDirect ever would per-mission. DRM's HAB, minus the laboratory space, could even house eight astronauts for a future Mars base.

DRM makes sense... MarsDirect doesn't.

Grypd · 2005-05-04 10:18:44

A lot of threads self destructing especially when they get interesting. :hm:

still

I don't mean to pick on your posts Grypd, but it was conveniently placed.

Heh, dont worry about it I have broad shoulders

Understand, I would very much like to go to the Moon as a personal desire, but I realise it's worthless in many of the materials necessary for anything but building solar panels, buildings (for what purpose besides research stations?) and He3-which we dont need right now-and may never need

There is more than just using regolith as a mass manufacturer of solar panels, but I used it show what the true lifeblood of any space mission is that of energy. Still ignoring He3 (which I can do easily) and the KREEP natural radioactives, there is still the matter of the very mineral rich asteroids that have collided with the moon over the millenia and high concentrations of Iron,Nickel,Cobalt and of course PGMs they consisted of. We are interested in the PGMs for here on Earth and this leaves the millions of tonnes of Iron,Nickel,Cobalt as waste. And usable for anything so wanted at a lunar base.

We will also go to the moon so that we can access its abundant oxygen bound up in the regolith. This fuel would also be a means to allow us further access to space and on to Mars.

I favor:
1) Cancel the Shuttle now, buy out our ISS committment, build and launch a new Hubble and turn all of NASA's efforts into a Design Reference Mission to Mars by 2018 with continueing missions every few years to explore other areas of mars and test greenhouses and domes. and most of all, search for life!

Dook everyone to there own but I have to answer. Going to do just science is in its nature a dead end. Science needs money to function and going to Mars to find life yes its interesting but will the general public care after it has had its 20 minutes of fame.NO. Science is the prime means of social change, but its also the prime means of wealth creation and it does this by doing research that leads to improvement in the Human condition. Going to Mars just for science is not doing enough improving. The only thing it will do is give a grand statement to the Nation that did it and after a couple of missions and with billions spent then comes PROJECT CANCELLED. It happened to appollo as it was rushed in and the plans to stay where not thought out and it will happen to a mars direct,DRM mission. No if we go to Mars its with the intention to learn how to come again and this time it is to stay. That is why I support a Moon first then Mars scenario as I favor:

Build up the infrastructure in the Earth/Moon surrounds and start using lunar material to return at first O2 to Earth orbit then PGMs to Earth itself. All the while we are doing this use a high Telerobotic prescence (note few people) to increase capacity and capability to a Moon foothold. Then go to Mars a world we could call our second home but only because we have our factory (The Moon) to build what we need to get there. Start going to Mars small. DRM style but with the intention of increasing capability there too.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 10:34:40

If reasonably intact Ni-Fe asteroid fragments are located, carbonyl digestion is a simple and relatively inexpensive way to strip off the Ni & Fe and thereby increase the PGM concentrations.

One side effect? Nickel carbonyl vapor deposition is low energy process that will allow fabrication of intricate metal parts.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 10:37:20

Moon or Mars? Both!

Dennis Wingo is spot on: Moon: Save civilization here - - Mars: Spread civilization there.

Mars is a FAR better place to raise a family than the Moon.

Mars has FAR less strategic military value in the event of a late 21st century Terran global war meaning less chance space settlers get nuked as "collateral damage"

Mine the Moon. Live on Mars.

= = =

We =DO NOT= need the Moon to do Mars. However the Moon has attractions all its own.

Edited By BWhite on 1115225436

Cobra Commander · 2005-05-04 10:46:00

Just in case anyone was interested, the old thread won't be locked. At least as long as it can be accessed through the old "add reply and scroll" method.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-04 10:57:02

Ahh, didn't know there was a "sneaky" way to view busted threads... Just trying to be helpful.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, we should do both the Moon base and a Mars base, and we can... just not at the same time. The only question is, which one first? Since NASA needs to learn to get back in the "going places" business, and the Moon would be materially useful as well as scientificly interesting (mega-Hubble-killer giant exoplanet-mapping scopes'), and could perhaps be useful for a persistant Mars presence (Lunar LOX in orbit to refuel cyclers)... The Moon ought to come first. Oh yeah, and the REAL head of NASA, GWB says so too.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 11:17:55

Ahh, didn't know there was a "sneaky" way to view busted threads... Just trying to be helpful.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, we should do both the Moon base and a Mars base, and we can... just not at the same time. The only question is, which one first? Since NASA needs to learn to get back in the "going places" business, and the Moon would be materially useful as well as scientificly interesting (mega-Hubble-killer giant exoplanet-mapping scopes'), and could perhaps be useful for a persistant Mars presence (Lunar LOX in orbit to refuel cyclers)... The Moon ought to come first. Oh yeah, and the REAL head of NASA, GWB says so too.

But, if we go to the Moon without a plan to hunt PGMs and extract lunar LOX, then its a total waste of time & money.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-04 11:33:24

Yeah, or Lunar "snow..." HOWEVER (!!!), the first series of missions neither can nor should try to take logistically signifigant advantage of these available reasources.

The first missions, as they will be unable to make much LOX nor 100kg quantities of Platinum, will need to maximize payload capacity to permit minimum expenditure on expensive expendable launch vehicles, even if that means intentionally sacrificing the less-expensive landers and transit stages, since the cheif costs will still be tied up in launch vehicles and development, not manufacturing of smaller low-tech/low-performance componets.

We go expendable first to keep payloads large, until we deliver enough equipment to at least make our own LOX in useful quantities, and only then should we think about reuse of most componets, preferably in the same breath as a reuseable launch vehicle on the Earth end.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 12:07:33

Have you seen http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri … 05045]this, GCNRevenger?

"As NASA administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter," Griffin said. "Every time I launch, I launch more than 100 metric tons into low orbit, which of course is what you need for returning to the moon. ... I will not give that up lightly, and in fact, can't responsibly do so, because it seems to me that any other solution for getting 100 metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive that utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

Grypd · 2005-05-04 12:26:27

But will he keep the Shuttle launch stack as a pure cargo nonmanned launch with a version of the Delta or Atlas to put manned CEV into LEO. Certainly for the Moon there where a lot of research in using a shuttle derived launch to send an automated ISRU plant to the Moon.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-04 12:30:39

Now Bill, you are kinda taking that quote out of context... in the very same article, it states that Griffin will support whatever method is best.

Since it is questionable if NASA could possibly get rid of enough of the Shuttle Army, that simply guarantees that EELV+ is the best way to go, unless NASA can demonstrate otherwise.

Griffin strikes me as an optimistic man, and I fear that he is optimistic to a fault... he "believes" strongly in Shuttle is bad enough, but if thinks that the majority of the Shuttle Army can be dispatched with a wave of his pen, I will have to question his competance.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 12:49:30

I will not give that up lightly, and in fact, can't responsibly do so, because it seems to me that any other solution for getting 100 metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive that utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

Context, what context?

= = =

Uncrewed shuttle C++ cargo mode with an EELV medium CEV may be what he is leaning towards.

Edited By BWhite on 1115232715

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-04 14:55:44

First off, two shorties:
1: The main economic justification for a trip to the Moon is the Platinum thats in the rocks. Not the Helium-3, not the solar farms for Earthly transmission, but the Platinum. We need platinum to make efficent fuel cells, its just about the least rare metal that reacts with Hydrogen to catalyze the reaction. Since there isn't probobly enough of it on Earth to sustain a Hydrogen economy, we need more. The Moon is the easiest, closest, soonest source. Since the actual mass of Pt needed won't be that large, we could ferry those sizes of materials to/from Luna with today's technology. You are being quite obtuse by insisting that the Moon is worthless until Fusion power is available, Explorer.
2: MarsDirect, in its present form even with all scientific payload deleted, I think is still too light to be safe. Zubrin went too far in whittling down the vehicle sizes and mass margins to get it all to fit in a single shot of Ares. MarsDirect cannot be salvaged since Ares is the biggest practical SDV, unless MarsDirect employs a heavy nuclear upper stage engine. Since Zubrin is not stupid, I think that he secretly knows that this would be nessesarry, and is trying pass off his all-chemical plan to overoptimistic MarSoc-type folks so they will call their congressmen, and irrevokably kick off MarsDirect. Zubrin is, after all, a nuclear engineer by trade.
NASA DRM is, unlike MarsDirect, big enough to have safe mass margins. Thats why, mainly... There isn't any technology needed for DRM any more then MarsDirect, since nuclear rocket engines aren't new tech, both we and the Russians had ones of all sizes back in the 1960's. DRM however, unlike MarsDirect, would use only a small RL-10/60 class engine, instead of a huge SSME class one.
NASA DRM also employs a more reasonably sized launch vehicle, so there is no risk that SDV will be unable to meet the "Ares class" performance due to unforseen weight gain or performance pentalty. The smaller launch vehicle will also not need to use $200M worth of SSMEs, and instead only $30-40M worth of RS-68 engines.
DRM, unlike MarsDirect, also has one vitally important thing... a future. MarsDirect cannot be modified nor evolve, it is the end of the line. DRM on the other hand, could transition to an almost-fully reuseable system by employing a reuseable MAV and returning the ERV to LEO and use it as a manned cycler.
DRM also has room for six astronauts standard and many extra tonnes of scientific gear with the MAV payload, which will permit us to get alot more done then MarsDirect ever would per-mission. DRM's HAB, minus the laboratory space, could even house eight astronauts for a future Mars base.
DRM makes sense... MarsDirect doesn't.

First GCN, thanks for noticing the thread was busted and starting again.

Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:

There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?

By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?

Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.

Your correct, Nuclear engines aren't new tech. They've just never been used in space - just the usual test runs of the 60's (I know there have been later tests, I just don't have the material handy). There are probably going to be tests upon tests to man-rate them, and that's (probably) going to cause massive delays.

MD will do one thing well, it will get us there. Yes, up to a point it becomes useless - and by that time I would expect that we have a better space infrastructure (LEO, or if necessary, LLO direct to Mars). But I see reasons to maintain that MD can serve us well for at least 10 missions (or 20 years) if not longer, making it not only cheap enough to go to Mars, but making it more likely to happen.

Actually GCN, two things that would remove my objection (that I may have missed?) is this: what is the total cost projection of the DRM? Nothing lunar or support - just the DRM.

And would it be usuable by 2021 and no later?

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-04 15:23:39

There is more than just using regolith as a mass manufacturer of solar panels, but I used it show what the true lifeblood of any space mission is that of energy. Still ignoring He3 (which I can do easily) and the KREEP natural radioactives, there is still the matter of the very mineral rich asteroids that have collided with the moon over the millenia and high concentrations of Iron,Nickel,Cobalt and of course PGMs they consisted of. We are interested in the PGMs for here on Earth and this leaves the millions of tonnes of Iron,Nickel,Cobalt as waste. And usable for anything so wanted at a lunar base.
We will also go to the moon so that we can access its abundant oxygen bound up in the regolith. This fuel would also be a means to allow us further access to space and on to Mars.

Granted, there is asteroidal material on the Moon. When someone shows me the evidence of easily identifiable, high concentrations of that material, in easily accesible form, I'll jump for joy.

I've poured over the Apollo results, and I don't see evidence for high concentrations of Cobalt or Nickel:

(From the maria of AS11) -

http://img219.echo.cx/img219/417/lunare … nts4xr.gif

(From from the "highlands" of AS17 - REEs in second image) -

http://img219.echo.cx/img219/4562/lunar … ts27xm.gif

http://img219.echo.cx/img219/614/lunare … ts39lg.gif

For AS17, only the rock samples, not the soil (AS 11 includes the soil samples).

Although I would agree the fuel-production would be worthwhile, assuming the cost is low enough to justify it being done via Lunar material rather than straight from Earth.

Grypd · 2005-05-04 16:18:45

Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:
There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?
By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?
Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.

It is the abscence of the platinum and other asteroidal materials that indicate concentrated resources. The impacts have occured, but there does not appear to be any debris. This could really only have happened if the impacts where soft and the objects remained intact.

Why did apollo not find them, well it was not looking and apollo was such a cursory look at the Moon that it was the equivalent of Columbus landing in the Americas run up the beach pick a leaf and get back aboard and sail away. But even from this we have learnt a lot and we can learn a lot more, but we have to go back.

Dook · 2005-05-04 16:36:22

GCN:
NASA is driven by exploration, science, and discovery, not economics! NASA is not and should not become a business. Sure I would want more and cheaper platinum supplies but not at the expense of NASA's entire budget forever.

Also there are other solutions. Fuel cell powered vehicles may not be the best alternative when you consider that it takes energy to make the hydrogen that drives them. Bio-diesel may prove to be the best solution since it can be used by diesel engines so most of the infrastructure (diesel engines, transportation, storage, fueling stations) is already in place whereas the entire infrastructure for fuel cells is not.

When we get to the point that we absolutely have to have more platinum (50 years??) I'm sure we can come up with some kind of robotic dirt scooper and soil separation machine combined with a sample return rocket to do get it from the moon for us.

As far as the He3, I think when we have a better understanding of fusion we could look at going to the moon for it. I won't support it until then.

Since we can't do the moon and mars at the same time, I vote for mars. The moon, when and if we need it.

Grypd: NASA's mission is and has always been about science, space exploration and research are all about science. I find the posts about mining asteroids, capturing comets because we urgently need comet rocks, and the endless pleas that we need to get off this sinful planet and colonize space to be ridiculous rantings of those stuck in science fiction fantasy land.

Going to mars is not doing enough to improving? How much improving is the space shuttle? How much the ISS? Compare those two to a human mission to mars. Now compare those two to the discovery of life on mars. It just doesn't get any better than that.

Project cancelled? Possibly. If our trips to mars are a bust, we find that life couldn't possibly have existed and the chance for terraformation is zero, then I would expect that we may very well end the missions there. Then we move on. Apollo wasn't going to continue no matter what the plans were. Nixon did the right thing and cancelled it because it was too expensive.

Why do we need O2 in earth orbit? If a vehicle reaches orbital speed around the earth it can easily go off to mars. Docking with another craft to take on O2 would be too complicated and full of risk. Just launch from the earth to mars. A moon base can never build everything you need to supply a settlement on mars so why even waste the time, years, and money on it. Lunar solar panels? Okay, maybe, but the cost better be 1% of the cost of making them on mars to make it worthwhile.

Here's a concession:
How difficult would it be to adapt the NASA DRM to include a test of some of the landers/ERV on the moon? In fact, I think I will start a new thread with just that subject.

BWhite · 2005-05-04 17:00:31

Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:
There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?
By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?
Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.
It is the abscence of the platinum and other asteroidal materials that indicate concentrated resources. The impacts have occured, but there does not appear to be any debris. This could really only have happened if the impacts where soft and the objects remained intact.
Why did apollo not find them, well it was not looking and apollo was such a cursory look at the Moon that it was the equivalent of Columbus landing in the Americas run up the beach pick a leaf and get back aboard and sail away. But even from this we have learnt a lot and we can learn a lot more, but we have to go back.

Can we call this the Wingo hypothesis? :;):

Millions of asteroids have struck the Moon. Just look, the evidence is everywhere. On Earth, higher gravity causes higher velocity impact causing the asteroids to pulverize to a greater degree. Rain, wind and other geological forces have also degraded the PGMS found in Ni-FE asteroids on Earth. However, it appears EVERY Terran source of platinum originates from an asteroid impact.

(Years ago my wife - - before she was my wife - - encouraged the selection of a 50% gold & 50% platinun wedding ring. Now, I know nearly for sure that this platinum is from an ancient asteroid strike. Cool! The gold might be original to Terra and deposited by an ancient volcano - - as best as my reading suggests.)

Astrobleme - - now that is a gorgeous word. All platinum coems from identified astroblemes.

Anyway - - if all Terran platinum comes from asteroids, prospecting lunar astroblemes is our best hope for lunar platinum. Lower gravity, no wind, no rain, little recent active geology means there is a terrific chance more or less intact Ni-Fe asteroid fragments can be simply dug up and processed.

For sure? Of course not. But it seems there is a good chance.

A 1000 kg intact fragment of an Ni-Fe asteroid will yield nickel carbonyl gas surprisingly easily. A Western Michigan University project proved this by digesting Terran fragments.

Until I read about Ni-Fe asteroids on the Moon, I was not a Moon-guy. He3 is too remote for now. Lunar water? Very far from certain. If the Moon is just for practice, then its touch and go and on to Mars, IMHO.

But IF lunar platinum exists, we can build a cislunar economy starting there.

Grypd · 2005-05-04 17:25:30

GCN:
NASA is driven by exploration, science, and discovery, not economics! NASA is not and should not become a business. Sure I would want more and cheaper platinum supplies but not at the expense of NASA's entire budget forever.
Also there are other solutions. Fuel cell powered vehicles may not be the best alternative when you consider that it takes energy to make the hydrogen that drives them. Bio-diesel may prove to be the best solution since it can be used by diesel engines so most of the infrastructure (diesel engines, transportation, storage, fueling stations) is already in place whereas the entire infrastructure for fuel cells is not.
When we get to the point that we absolutely have to have more platinum (50 years??) I'm sure we can come up with some kind of robotic dirt scooper and soil separation machine combined with a sample return rocket to do get it from the moon for us.
As far as the He3, I think when we have a better understanding of fusion we could look at going to the moon for it. I won't support it until then.
Since we can't do the moon and mars at the same time, I vote for mars. The moon, when and if we need it.
Grypd: NASA's mission is and has always been about science, space exploration and research are all about science. I find the posts about mining asteroids, capturing comets because we urgently need comet rocks, and the endless pleas that we need to get off this sinful planet and colonize space to be ridiculous rantings of those stuck in science fiction fantasy land.
Going to mars is not doing enough to improving? How much improving is the space shuttle? How much the ISS? Compare those two to a human mission to mars. Now compare those two to the discovery of life on mars. It just doesn't get any better than that.
Project cancelled? Possibly. If our trips to mars are a bust, we find that life couldn't possibly have existed and the chance for terraformation is zero, then I would expect that we may very well end the missions there. Then we move on. Apollo wasn't going to continue no matter what the plans were. Nixon did the right thing and cancelled it because it was too expensive.
Why do we need O2 in earth orbit? If a vehicle reaches orbital speed around the earth it can easily go off to mars. Docking with another craft to take on O2 would be too complicated and full of risk. Just launch from the earth to mars. A moon base can never build everything you need to supply a settlement on mars so why even waste the time, years, and money on it. Lunar solar panels? Okay, maybe, but the cost better be 1% of the cost of making them on mars to make it worthwhile.
Here's a concession:
How difficult would it be to adapt the NASA DRM to include a test of some of the landers/ERV on the moon? In fact, I think I will start a new thread with just that subject.

The purpose of NASA was in the cold war to develop the technology to beat the USSR. Its purpose is now to develop the technology to advance the space market for the Goverment and people of the USA.

You will note the statement "market" but if you really wish to see what NASA is about you should read the 1958 National Aeronautics and Space act. It clearly states that NASA a civilian agencies purpose was to develop commercial abilities to the fullest extent capable. NASA is driven by economics its purpose is to develop technology and to make use of advanced resources to give the USA an advantage in the economic world.

Our demand on Earth for platinum is growing as we find we need its purity so that we can develop faster and faster electronics to jewelry. When we go to a Hydrogen economy and that will be soon we will need more platinum than is currently available to mine here on Earth.

You are right that we cant go to the Moon and Mars at the same time. But if we go to the Moon we will get to go to Mars but if we just try for Mars we will either get there a couple of times and then have the project cancelled or we will just not get the project at all.

The discovery of life on Mars would be a Unique event but it would not really matter to normal taxpayers. Bit of a celebration thats all and then I ask what then.

We cant agree Dook but thats fine each to their own and you know just as well that a DRM would be impracticle for the Moon to big and unwieldy. Certainly though there would be a lot of things learned there that will be of great use to a Mars mission.

GCNRevenger · 2005-05-04 17:30:06

First GCN, thanks for noticing the thread was busted and starting again.
Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:
There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?
By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?
Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.
Your correct, Nuclear engines aren't new tech. They've just never been used in space - just the usual test runs of the 60's (I know there have been later tests, I just don't have the material handy). There are probably going to be tests upon tests to man-rate them, and that's (probably) going to cause massive delays.
MD will do one thing well, it will get us there. Yes, up to a point it becomes useless - and by that time I would expect that we have a better space infrastructure (LEO, or if necessary, LLO direct to Mars). But I see reasons to maintain that MD can serve us well for at least 10 missions (or 20 years) if not longer, making it not only cheap enough to go to Mars, but making it more likely to happen.
Actually GCN, two things that would remove my objection (that I may have missed?) is this: what is the total cost projection of the DRM? Nothing lunar or support - just the DRM.
And would it be usuable by 2021 and no later?

When you say "signifigant" you sound like you are talking about "lets make ocean liners out of solid Platinum" kind of quantities... we neither could nor would ever need such large quantities. I am talking about a few hundred kilos would be worthwhile amounts, as it would only take a few grams to make a fuel cell, you could make thousands with one small load of the metal.

Platinum is going to be fairly rare no matter where it is, since it is a difficult element for stellar nuclear fusion to produce in the first place. There is virtually zero anywhere on Earth or the Moon's surface naturally, and the only practical mines on Earth are near old meteor impact sites. We have come to recognize that Pt is virtually always in combination with other base metals, which make up many asteroids. Asteroids of signifigant size are responsable for the craters on the Moon, so it stands to reason that there is Platinum likly there.

The Apollo missions did not go and visit any of the major impact sites, so they obviously wouldn't find much. Celemintine was a pretty primitive and low-resolution instrument, so it probobly couldn't see any trace amounts of Platinum buried under Lunar dust in highly localized locations. Its no wonder at all that neither mission detected Platinum.

"MD will do one thing well, it will get us there."

No it doesn't. MarsDirect is too light, and won't work safely even if you gut the entire science package. And what good does it do to just get there? If thats all it can do, then its worthless, and is just very much a "Martian Apollo." We'll leave as quick as we came, and it will be all over for another decade or two (or longer). MarsDirect won't work, and even if it did, it would be a waste of time and money... I assert that it would cost less to adapt an exsisting system, like DRM, to be a reuseable crew ferry and heavy (50MT) cargo hauler then it would be to start over after MarsDirect is done including the savings you get from MD versus DRM...

There is also the science-per-dollar concern, that DRM will be able to do much more with its far heavier payloads, six-man crew, and future reuseability upgrade path. Imparticular, DRM will have enough payload mass and dimensions to bring along a multi-meter drill, which MD probobly won't, which I think is absolutely nessesarry if we are going to be serious about hunting for (underground) life and water.

MarsDirect is a bad investment... As far as how much DRM costs, NASA pegs the current iteration at around $50Bn, which includes development for a capsule like CEV, a new nuclear reactor like JIMO's, and a Methane rocket like VSE Lunar lander/TEI would need.

VitaminJ · 2005-05-04 18:05:23

Have you seen http://aviationnow.ecnext.com/free-scri … 05045]this, GCNRevenger?
"As NASA administrator today, I already own a heavy lifter," Griffin said. "Every time I launch, I launch more than 100 metric tons into low orbit, which of course is what you need for returning to the moon. ... I will not give that up lightly, and in fact, can't responsibly do so, because it seems to me that any other solution for getting 100 metric tons to orbit is going to be more expensive that utilizing efficiently what we, NASA, already own."

:up: YAY! Best news in a long time! Made my day. So much better than that O'Keefe dolt. Thanks so much for posting that Bwhite. Go MD, boo QQ!

Dook · 2005-05-04 18:11:31

Grypd:
NASA is not driven by economics. Sure some of it's scientists come up with new materials that benefit American businesses but that is a side benefit and not it's primary goal. No one ever says "Lets invent this superior high temperature sealant so we can own the market!" They develop it because there is a space exploration need, not an economic need.

I don't understand your statement "If we go to the moon we will get to go to mars." In my opinion terraforming mars might give us a need for moon manufactured solar panels. Going to the moon first and building any kind of base there would forever tie up all of NASA's time and resources. We would never go to mars then. It really is a choice between the two.

Also I really think you should start spendig more time over at the Moon Society since that is how you feel but it's a really boring place, just like the moon.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-04 18:35:29

Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:
There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?
By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?
Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.
It is the abscence of the platinum and other asteroidal materials that indicate concentrated resources. The impacts have occured, but there does not appear to be any debris. This could really only have happened if the impacts where soft and the objects remained intact.
Why did apollo not find them, well it was not looking and apollo was such a cursory look at the Moon that it was the equivalent of Columbus landing in the Americas run up the beach pick a leaf and get back aboard and sail away. But even from this we have learnt a lot and we can learn a lot more, but we have to go back.

Apollo was not looking for Platinum (which assumes that absolutely none of the rocks were asteroidal fragments, including samples from House Rock [AS15] which was an asteroid fragment) so obviously it exists in places other than Apollo was looking?

So this is the rationale for going back?

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-04 19:02:45

First GCN, thanks for noticing the thread was busted and starting again.
Ok, now to Platinum. I'll guess my post mentioning this was missing some bits (if not just missing), so:
There are no significant sources of plantinum on the Moon - excepting perhaps surviving in asteroidal material. Neither the Apollo nor Luna samples had detectable amounts of platinum. So, what I was saying (before it disappeared) is, other than Al, Si, O; H2O, Fe, and Ti (in some spots); and He3 - what does the moon offer?
By the way, I have not seen the Clementine data - I have it - just not looked at it yet (and reading it would be an adventure). Is there evidence for significant amounts of Pt there?
Ti alone I can see a use for, but it's still rather readily available here.
Your correct, Nuclear engines aren't new tech. They've just never been used in space - just the usual test runs of the 60's (I know there have been later tests, I just don't have the material handy). There are probably going to be tests upon tests to man-rate them, and that's (probably) going to cause massive delays.
MD will do one thing well, it will get us there. Yes, up to a point it becomes useless - and by that time I would expect that we have a better space infrastructure (LEO, or if necessary, LLO direct to Mars). But I see reasons to maintain that MD can serve us well for at least 10 missions (or 20 years) if not longer, making it not only cheap enough to go to Mars, but making it more likely to happen.
Actually GCN, two things that would remove my objection (that I may have missed?) is this: what is the total cost projection of the DRM? Nothing lunar or support - just the DRM.
And would it be usuable by 2021 and no later?
When you say "signifigant" you sound like you are talking about "lets make ocean liners out of solid Platinum" kind of quantities... we neither could nor would ever need such large quantities. I am talking about a few hundred kilos would be worthwhile amounts, as it would only take a few grams to make a fuel cell, you could make thousands with one small load of the metal.
Platinum is going to be fairly rare no matter where it is, since it is a difficult element for stellar nuclear fusion to produce in the first place. There is virtually zero anywhere on Earth or the Moon's surface naturally, and the only practical mines on Earth are near old meteor impact sites. We have come to recognize that Pt is virtually always in combination with other base metals, which make up many asteroids. Asteroids of signifigant size are responsable for the craters on the Moon, so it stands to reason that there is Platinum likly there.
The Apollo missions did not go and visit any of the major impact sites, so they obviously wouldn't find much. Celemintine was a pretty primitive and low-resolution instrument, so it probobly couldn't see any trace amounts of Platinum buried under Lunar dust in highly localized locations. Its no wonder at all that neither mission detected Platinum.
"MD will do one thing well, it will get us there."
No it doesn't. MarsDirect is too light, and won't work safely even if you gut the entire science package. And what good does it do to just get there? If thats all it can do, then its worthless, and is just very much a "Martian Apollo." We'll leave as quick as we came, and it will be all over for another decade or two (or longer). MarsDirect won't work, and even if it did, it would be a waste of time and money... I assert that it would cost less to adapt an exsisting system, like DRM, to be a reuseable crew ferry and heavy (50MT) cargo hauler then it would be to start over after MarsDirect is done including the savings you get from MD versus DRM...
There is also the science-per-dollar concern, that DRM will be able to do much more with its far heavier payloads, six-man crew, and future reuseability upgrade path. Imparticular, DRM will have enough payload mass and dimensions to bring along a multi-meter drill, which MD probobly won't, which I think is absolutely nessesarry if we are going to be serious about hunting for (underground) life and water.
MarsDirect is a bad investment... As far as how much DRM costs, NASA pegs the current iteration at around $50Bn, which includes development for a capsule like CEV, a new nuclear reactor like JIMO's, and a Methane rocket like VSE Lunar lander/TEI would need.

This one is not just in answer to GCN, but BWhite's recent post as well, just in case GCN wonders what the heck I'm talking about referencing other posts. :;):

First of all, I've never maintained any significant amount of anything other than Si, Al, Fe, and O. You mentioned this in relation to Pt:

Private companies will (or should) be able to buy the same systems or flights of a system from aerospace contractors as NASA does, and employ them to bring those materials back.

Which implied a significant amount of material worthy of bringing back, not just for use in fuel cells on the Moon.

And again, asteroids (which are known to contain significant or otherwise amounts of platinum) are not worthwhile due to some supposed zero-G mining barrier - while supposed asteroidal material from impacts (most of the later missions - AS 14, AS 15, and AS17 visited impact sites including the Imbrium region, not including the Luna missions of course) have not been detected despite hundreds of kilograms of samples - some percentage of which would have to be or contain asteroidal material.

Then again, Mars isn't much better (hey I might as well be honest):

Surface/Crustal Composition (% by weight) -
(Arranged by periodic order)
Al: 2 - 7% Ti: 0.5 - 2% Cu: <0.5% Sr: <0.02%
Si: 15 - 30% V: <3% Zn: <0.1% Y: <0.02%
P: <10% Cr: <5% Ga: <0.03% Zr: <0.02%
S: 0 - 6% Mn: <7% As: <0.02% Nb: <0.025%
Cl: 0 - 3% Fe: 14% ± 2% Se: <0.015% Mo: <0.05%
K: 0 - 2% Co: < 7% Br: <0.015% Tc - U: <2%
Ca: 3 - 8% Ni: < 5% Rb: <0.01%

But it is a more even mixture, and Martian soil (not rocks) do contain more significant amounts of Nickel, and Chromium, among other things than lunar soil (and by association the rocks the majority of that regolith came from).

Now admitedly, Pt isn't easy to detect via GCMS (the above is Viking-era), but if there were amounts in enough quanities to make it worthwhile on Mars (via MO or ME) or on the Moon (again - I haven't looked at Clementine data) it would have shown up via GRS.

As to MD, again, I would like to see the basis for these opinions from other - and I'm assuming your a qualified engineer (I don't know of coure) - qualified engineers who have given these two scenarios a through examination.

Visionary Explorer · 2005-05-04 19:06:47

NASA is driven by exploration, science, and discovery, not economics! NASA is not and should not become a business. Sure I would want more and cheaper platinum supplies but not at the expense of NASA's entire budget forever.
Here's a concession:
How difficult would it be to adapt the NASA DRM to include a test of some of the landers/ERV on the moon? In fact, I think I will start a new thread with just that subject.

Well Dook, shouldn't NASA be like the old NRB of the 1860's - laying the foundation of the railroad system (even building early settlements along it) - then handing that over to private business to develop further, creating new opportunities along the way?

I wouldn't advocate NASA being economically driven either, but NASA's focus should include the economic benefits of any exploration plan.

On the concession - good idea!

Michael Bloxham · 2005-05-04 19:21:02

NASA is driven by exploration, science, and discovery, not economics! NASA is not and should not become a business.

I have said this myself in other words, but I feel this point cannot be stressed enough. NASA is an orginazation of engineers and scientists, not visionaries, or as Dook touches on, entrepreneurs. NASA has not even dropped us hints that they plan to look for PGM's, let alone mine them for profit. Honestly, the idea, in todays context, is ridiculous.

Please don't try to justify the lunar return when it is clear NASA's intentions and abilities differ greatly from your own ideals.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2005-05-04 09:02:15

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#2 2005-05-04 10:18:44

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#3 2005-05-04 10:34:40

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#4 2005-05-04 10:37:20

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#5 2005-05-04 10:46:00

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#6 2005-05-04 10:57:02

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#7 2005-05-04 11:17:55

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#8 2005-05-04 11:33:24

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#9 2005-05-04 12:07:33

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#10 2005-05-04 12:26:27

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#11 2005-05-04 12:30:39

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#12 2005-05-04 12:49:30

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#13 2005-05-04 14:55:44

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#14 2005-05-04 15:23:39

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#15 2005-05-04 16:18:45

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#16 2005-05-04 16:36:22

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#17 2005-05-04 17:00:31

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#18 2005-05-04 17:25:30

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#19 2005-05-04 17:30:06

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#20 2005-05-04 18:05:23

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#21 2005-05-04 18:11:31

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#22 2005-05-04 18:35:29

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#23 2005-05-04 19:02:45

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#24 2005-05-04 19:06:47

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

#25 2005-05-04 19:21:02

Re: Some Corrective Lenses II - ...hmmm, another corrupt thread

Board footer