New Mars Forums

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

SC wire is not magical, you can't make an SC wire infinatly thin and transmit an infinite amount of current. Infact, they really aren't much thinner then normal cable when you add in the extra cladding. SC "wire" isn't really wire at all actually, its a solid with the consistancy of pencil lead, which is compressed under high pressure into the core of conventional metal wire. Then, these thin strands of SC wire are rolled into a single cable like ordinary wire. The usual metal for the cladding, by the way, is solid metalic silver. Even copper-clat SC wire, we're talking tens of billions of dollars... and thats just to buy it, not to get it there.

The distance that SC wire can conduct electricity isn't infinite either, since the SC wire contains imperfections. A perfect wire is impossible, simply installing it is bound to cause imperfections. As you add more and more cable, you add more and more imperfections along the entire network, which decreases the amount and consistancy of electricity available more and more.

A solar farm every 10km? Um.. thats like 1,100 solar farms. You want to build a farm big enough to power a base or a mining operation or whatever eleven hundred times over... because you don't want to put your base near the poles? That doesn't make any sense at all!

It would be much, much better just to build your base near one of the poles, or else have a large nuclear reactor built for each and every base. Remember, you can only operate a small number of these installations at a time.

"but the potential for there use is incredible"

No, it really isn't. This is a pretty bad idea.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

sdc1

Banned

Registered: 2005-11-27

Posts: 9

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

SC wire is not magical, you can't make an SC wire infinatly thin and transmit an infinite amount of current. Infact, they really aren't much thinner then normal cable when you add in the extra cladding. SC "wire" isn't really wire at all actually, its a solid with the consistancy of pencil lead, which is compressed under high pressure into the core of conventional metal wire. Then, these thin strands of SC wire are rolled into a single cable like ordinary wire. The usual metal for the cladding, by the way, is solid metalic silver. Even copper-clat SC wire, we're talking tens of billions of dollars... and thats just to buy it, not to get it there.

The distance that SC wire can conduct electricity isn't infinite either, since the SC wire contains imperfections. A perfect wire is impossible, simply installing it is bound to cause imperfections. As you add more and more cable, you add more and more imperfections along the entire network, which decreases the amount and consistancy of electricity available more and more.

A solar farm every 10km? Um.. thats like 1,100 solar farms. You want to build a farm big enough to power a base or a mining operation or whatever eleven hundred times over... because you don't want to put your base near the poles? That doesn't make any sense at all!

It would be much, much better just to build your base near one of the poles, or else have a large nuclear reactor built for each and every base. Remember, you can only operate a small number of these installations at a time.

"but the potential for there use is incredible"

No, it really isn't. This is a pretty bad idea.

No! Bad GCNRevenger Troll! Bad GCNRevenger Troll! Go Home!

ie: No! Bad Grasshopper!  Bad Grasshopper! Go Home!

Ref: http://www.fortunecity.com/bennyhills/p … dot39.htm#
Ref: http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Set/ … e/Atta.htm

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

On more babbling about the "internation space plane" thingie:

Oh so you want to make your track three to five miles long? Perfectly straight and every single inch uniform and flawless? Good luck with that, normal thermal variances between the top and the bottom of the track will make it twist and bend.

And you can't make it 45deg straight up the side of a mountain: how are you going to get your spaceplane, which will weigh in at around a million pounds including the sled, to even get started? The lifting power you would need would be incredible.

And what a mountain... it would have to be around 12,000ft high from the starting station to the end of the rail, and near the equator. I doubt that there are many good mountains that fit your needs plus have the right slope in aproximatly the right direction. You aren't, after all, going to build a huge ramp straight up a mountain several miles long. That would be an earth moving project bigger then most any in the history of the world I bet.

And you are meaning to tell me that a sled with a million pounds of weight on it will slide smoothly with physical contacts (wheels, bearings) at Mach-2?. It would be hard enough to get it to roll at all without buckling the foundation of the rail!

"Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Launch!
Fifth, again, if there is a Space Shuttle that blows up and is destroyed on Reentry!
and if it happens even once, then the whole Space Shuttle program is totaled! "

In this case, it does. If anything goes wrong, you not only lose the spaceplane, but the rail is destroyed too. Thats an awfully big risk, considering the liklyhood that some kind of accident will eventually occur. All those billions of dollars spent on the rail, all gone in a single instant from a single failure. Compare this to an airport? Just pour new concrete.

And why can't a spaceplane launch on a rainy day from a runway? Airliners do all the time.

Your pretty picture you posted is a TSTO arrangement with a non-reuseable upper stage and is runway launched you know, which is nothing like your concept at all. No mountain, no 100% reuseability. Also, since you can only achieve low speeds with your rail, you can't even really use an airplane-shaped vehicle, since the fuel tanks would be so big it would look like a cargo plane, and the drag would knock you right out of the sky.

"This would not be the case with the International Space Plane Program carrying a tonne or two of fuel for orbital maneuvers and deorbiting, as that fuel would be loaded only on orbit, not at launch! Also, the shuttle carries much more fuel, as its fuel must get it all the way to final orbit, and this is about 28% there abouts of its launched fuel mass to achieve this. The International Space Plane Program would only launch the vehicle with onboard fuel to reach a semi-stable lower orbit, and would then be refueled or towed by a space tug to a higher orbit."

What? Semi-stable lower orbit? That would be insanely difficult to capture the spaceplane with a tug because of the difference in velocity and/or the very short, extremely small window you have to grab on. In fact, you only get one shot, or else the spaceplane will renter and that launch will be completly wasted. This isn't like docking at the ISS, where you literally have all day to get it just right, here you would have only seconds. The tug you speak of would have to slow down to suborbital velocity to capture the spaceplane, which will require deorbit fuel, and then accelerate the spaceplane and itself back to full orbital velocity.

It would take more fuel to do this then it would for the spaceplane to just bring enough to go all the way to orbit on its own! That is not a recipe for a realible launch system. Its complete nonsense to send up your spaceplane without any maneuvering fuel either, it would essentially be dead in space unless it sucessfully docks with the tug.

Oh, and for your last link, we are not going to use liquid fluorine for rocket fuel. Ever. It would kill every living thing near KSC and in the ocean over its path for miles... And if it leaked on the pad?

Edit: Don't forget about the shockwave that will form when your spaceplane passes the first and second sound barriers! ...Which is why no supersonic rail has ever been proposed for spaceflight.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

It doesn't matter if we go by rocket , spaceplane, or a hybrid of both but it matters the drive system we need for the engines to power the vehicle into space. We need to see what advances in current propellants could we do to create a new engine variation to increase the thrust per flight weight pound.

That's the first question to solve then we could solve all the other questions for the development of space. But Don't close your mind off to any possibility including the ones you don't like to think they are possbility because many good ideas help create and reshape existing thoughts into better solutions for the future.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Here is the thing though Tristar, that there is no sneaky trick or easy, clever arrangement that cheats Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation because of how fundimentally large the energies and relative accuracies needed for orbital spaceflight. There isn't any point "being open" because there isn't going to be a simple trump card as the challenges are so inherintly great.

At the moment you are right though, Tsiolkovsky's equation is the real killer, and barring a space elevator there appears to be few ways around it. The controlling factor that determines a rockets' efficiency is ultimatly the amount of energy its fuel can yeild per mass. The mass of a particular molecule of fuel is controlled by how many protons/neutrons are in the nucleus of its atoms. The amount of energy each molecule has is roughly on the same order of magnetude for flammable molecules. So when you put this all together, the fuel with the fewest number of protons/neutrons, wins.

Our best engines burn Hydrogen and Oxygen, the former being the lightest stable substance in the universe and the latter being the strongest and lightest stable non-toxic oxidizer in the universe. As far as stable fuels go, this is as good as it gets, because there are no atoms with fewer protons/neutrons and are flammable and nontoxic. This is why rocket technology has reached a plataeu, since the efficiency of the fuel is the limitation, and there are no lighter fuels.

There are more potent fuels that ARE toxic, corrosive, and poisonous, but it makes more sense to just build a bigger rocket then to bother with deadly fuels (fluorine, borane).
___________________________________________

"Metastable" fuels are a possible solution, depending on who you ask. They aren't completly stable, and will decompose on their own if given a chance, perhaps to catastrophic effect.

Liquid Ozone is one of these, and probobly the only practical one since its relativly stable and won't blow up/eat through your rocket if the tanks are specially coated. The gas is toxic too, but its short-lived and environmentally safe. It has been played with in the past, however its added performance hasn't justified its cost and difficulty of handling it.

...But that may not be the end of the story. An exotic and thus far never produced varient of "regular" ozone has been theorized, "Cyclic Ozone," that if it were created in bulk and rocket engines made a little more temperature resistant to handle it, THAT would make a big difference. Then SSTO would be much easier with regular rockets ...Just nobody has suceeded in making it yet for over a decade of trying.

A new form of Nitrogen has been created in small quantities as well, unfortunatly it is in an ionic state and will probobly mean it will be restricted to solid rocket propellant. If created in bulk, it might greatly improve solid rocket performance for staged rockets, but probobly isn't going to make SSTO closer to reality.

The other option for beating Tsiolkovsky is to abandon rockets for at least a large portion of acent. Conventional turbine engines can help somewhat, by getting up to high-supersonic Mach numbers (4-6), acend above most of the atmosphere, and make runway takeoff practical. Unfortunatly, they don't work at speeds much higher then this.

Enter the Scramjet: this is the real key in the long run, and has no fundimentally unknown barrier like cyclic ozone, but is probobly just beyond the reach of today's materials science. Technologically difficult, but this is probobly the only way to achieve true SSTO flight without figuring out something new.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

Yes, Hydrogen  and Oxygen are the best elements for chemical engines, but we haven't looked at Nuclear Engines, Plasma Propulsion and hybrid drive systems. So, a hybrid drive could provide a better alternative them a traditional drive system, we don't know and shouldbe research, vehicle engines (cars, trucks, and aircraft are under continous redevelopment to improve the efficiency, why can't we do the same with space drive systems.

I think you are also very negative about space development unless it follows from your determined lines of thought and / or  actions well it doesn't work that way, It works on the organization with the checkbook.

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Sooo you want to make enough solar cells to go around the entire Moon?

Fundamentally also the grid would likely start either at the south or north poles. For a start we have evidence of unique resources there and also the so called peaks of constant light. And with the shorter distances needed to go around it would make a circumfrential grid quicker to make. Spurs going south or north to more equatorial bases would follow. And yes the use of nuclear reactors would also be a necessity if only to cover for the infrequent eclipses by Earth and winter months.

Sorry GCN, I do actually want to start at the poles as you see in the above quote. This would make a circumfrential grid a lot easier to do as distances would be a lot less. It would be started from a so called peak of continual light and linked to our first base. From there over time a progression of going around the pole would occur and we are talking a distance of about 700 km to make such a grid.

And at that distance the minor defects in superconductors will make little difference. Obviously we would build the farms where they could recieve the most light and as such where we can get the most power. Since the superconductor best used for this costs for you or me in the upper $600 per metre(no discount for bulk purchase) it would cost us just over $48 million. Then add launch costs. If we as will happen get commercial rates this is a lot cheaper.

The problem with building at the poles is that the area there is actually very rocky and undulating so very poor for craft to come in but if we move away from the poles we get better terrain. Installing the cable at the same time as we mak a light rail system will allow us to move materials around the Moon and also increase our capacity to support extended exploration and of course mineral exploration. And also to utilise any materials so found and move them to where we have the ability to process and return to Earth what is found.

---

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

Offline

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

Yes, Hydrogen  and Oxygen are the best elements for chemical engines, but we haven't looked at Nuclear Engines, Plasma Propulsion and hybrid drive systems. So, a hybrid drive could provide a better alternative them a traditional drive system, we don't know and shouldbe research, vehicle engines (cars, trucks, and aircraft are under continous redevelopment to improve the efficiency, why can't we do the same with space drive systems.

I think you are also very negative about space development unless it follows from your determined lines of thought and / or  actions well it doesn't work that way, It works on the organization with the checkbook.

For travel between bodies in space, yes nuclear propulsion can and should be exploited to radically reduce the fuel bill.

However, not for Earth launch. The problem is that there are no options for nuclear propulsion that offer a very high thrust to weight ratio, the mass of shielding required is unreasonable, and there is the risk of an accidental release of radiation if it leaks/explodes/crashes.

The thrust/weight ratio for simple nuclear engines isn't very good, like the ones planned for NASA DRM only have a 3.1:1 ratio, which is more than ten times less then, say, the SSME. Plasma based engines like VASIMR have much, much worse T/W ratios, and wouldn't even lift off the ground. Bigger, higher-power thermal engines like GCNR/NSWR are possible, but these engines don't retain all of their nuclear material (infact NSWR dumps it on purpose) which is ecologically unacceptable. The GCNR engine would probobly have to dump its nuclear fuel just to shut down when it reaches orbit or has to abort, and the cost of all that weapons-grade Uranium would be excessive.

And, if we are talking regular every-day flights of an SSTO then the reactor will have to be shielded so the crew and technitions aren't fried by it. We're talking tens of tonnes for a small arrangement.

Then there is the problem about it leaking... Uranium isn't very dangerous, infact its chemical toxticity is worse then its radioactivity, but once the engine is fired, the atoms resulting from Uranium splitting, those are scarry-radioactive. Like, inhale or get within a few feet and recieve a lethal dose kind of radioactive. I think this is an acceptable risk for reactors that stay in orbit, but a space vehicle launching/deorbiting isn't in a stable orbit, and if anything goes wrong (turbopump turbine comes apart and gets sucked into the core?) then alot of people are going to die. Painfully

I don't think there is an alternative to chemical energy for launch from Earth, barring the invention of a space elevator.

If it sounds like I'm negative, thats because so many bad ideas have been brought up in this thread, and the more that we advocate bad ideas then the more easily the rest of the world dismisses them... and us. If people come up with good ideas, then I support them, but bad and unrealistic ideas should be opposed.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Sooo you want to make enough solar cells to go around the entire Moon?

Fundamentally also the grid would likely start either at the south or north poles. For a start we have evidence of unique resources there and also the so called peaks of constant light. And with the shorter distances needed to go around it would make a circumfrential grid quicker to make. Spurs going south or north to more equatorial bases would follow. And yes the use of nuclear reactors would also be a necessity if only to cover for the infrequent eclipses by Earth and winter months.

Sorry GCN, I do actually want to start at the poles as you see in the above quote. This would make a circumfrential grid a lot easier to do as distances would be a lot less. It would be started from a so called peak of continual light and linked to our first base. From there over time a progression of going around the pole would occur and we are talking a distance of about 700 km to make such a grid.

And at that distance the minor defects in superconductors will make little difference. Obviously we would build the farms where they could recieve the most light and as such where we can get the most power. Since the superconductor best used for this costs for you or me in the upper $600 per metre(no discount for bulk purchase) it would cost us just over $48 million. Then add launch costs. If we as will happen get commercial rates this is a lot cheaper.

The problem with building at the poles is that the area there is actually very rocky and undulating so very poor for craft to come in but if we move away from the poles we get better terrain. Installing the cable at the same time as we mak a light rail system will allow us to move materials around the Moon and also increase our capacity to support extended exploration and of course mineral exploration. And also to utilise any materials so found and move them to where we have the ability to process and return to Earth what is found.

"Installing the cable at the same time as we mak a light rail system will allow us to move materials around the Moon and also increase our capacity to support extended exploration and of course mineral exploration..."

Again, NO

There aren't going to BE any exploration sites that need a railroad for goodness sakes, you might not even need a road.

There aren't going to BE any mining sites that need a railroad either. There isn't ever going to be any big mines on the Moon at all, ever.

If there are any mines, they will be small ones looking to eek out only kilograms or a tonne or two of PGMs or He3. Small enough to be powerd by imported nuclear reactors, perhaps supplimented with local solar power.  One more time, there aren't going to be any big mines on the Moon, ever.

There is no need to move heavy equipment or materials over long distances on such a regular basis on the Moon. The only thing that might need to be moved around is carbon black from a C-type asteroid for PGM refining, and with recycling you won't need that much of it. You could easily move it by with just a truck and a road, especially since gravity is so weak.

Material that is found? There aren't any materials on the Moon worth digging up except for asteroid fragments. And why not explore with hoppers, rovers, and probes? They would be an infinatly more efficient way to find strike deposits then hoping to run over some when laying down power/rail lines... and you'll be avoiding craters when laying down your route, too.

Even if there were a good reason to have an extensive mine, placing solar arrays for main power anywhere except the poles doesn't make alot of sense. It would be much easier just to build one big solar power complex on the peak of eternal light than seventy, where half of them are in the dark all the time, and just make your power line longer.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Offline

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

There aren't going to BE any exploration sites that need a railroad for goodness sakes, you might not even need a road.

We are talking on the long term here but there is some very good reasons that light rail has over that of creating roads on the Moon and Mars when it comes down to it. 1} The first is that power could be provided by electricity and so a rail system would not need to carry difficult to insulate and or heavy systems to power itself. 2} Dust is a real problem for the Moon and Mars it will get everywhere so reduction of it is a priority. This will ensure machinery lasts longer and contamination of cargo is less of a problem. 3} Automation- this is a lot easier with what will likely be a completely Earth controlled system from the beginning

There aren't going to BE any mining sites that need a railroad either. There isn't ever going to be any big mines on the Moon at all, ever.

Interesting point but one only time will tell, certainly when we find a PGM asteroid strike it will need to be dug out and a rail system to deliver resources and what will be telerobotic controlled diggers to the site to unearth the thing from a central source would be a lot easier and cheaper than to get them delivered from Earth.

If there are any mines, they will be small ones looking to eek out only kilograms or a tonne or two of PGMs or He3. Small enough to be powerd by imported nuclear reactors, perhaps supplimented with local solar power.  One more time, there aren't going to be any big mines on the Moon, ever.

He3 is not a case of what we would call traditional mining and certainly would be more a case of slow movement across the appropiate surface collecting the top regolith layer. PGMs though are asteroid strikes and though the likehood is they are intact it is also likely a case where they will have to be dug out in what is a strip mining scenario. So one more time even though the Moon has reduced gravity it still means you have to dig a hole and to ensure that it doesnt come down on you it has to be typical terraced mine. Thats a [u]big[u] hole.

There is no need to move heavy equipment or materials over long distances on such a regular basis on the Moon. The only thing that might need to be moved around is carbon black from a C-type asteroid for PGM refining, and with recycling you won't need that much of it. You could easily move it by with just a truck and a road, especially since gravity is so weak.

The Moon has a low gravity and we wont be hiring truck drivers so they will mostly be automated trying to follow a transponder pilon, we dont want vehicles to be sent bouncing over the terrain and not only to stop the dust flying. wear and tear on these vehicles will be intense. And we will find it just as easy to build a light rail system as we would a road. The principle of construction is mostly similar except all the advantages are for the rail system in actual use. In a long term scenario the building of advanced telescopes, new bases, increased power production, and of course mining indicates a cheaper alternative than direct delivery from Earth is required

Material that is found? There aren't any materials on the Moon worth digging up except for asteroid fragments. And why not explore with hoppers, rovers, and probes? They would be an infinatly more efficient way to find strike deposits then hoping to run over some when laying down power/rail lines... and you'll be avoiding craters when laying down your route, too.

Even if there were a good reason to have an extensive mine, placing solar arrays for main power anywhere except the poles doesn't make alot of sense. It would be much easier just to build one big solar power complex on the peak of eternal light than seventy, where one third to two thirds of them are in the dark all the time, and just make your power line longer.

Long term view is that power demands will outstrip that able to be provided by Nuclear especially when it comes down to cost. And solar is a good reliable source and the Moon has it in plenty. We can automate its manufacture and this allows us to build an increasing power supply. One of the advantages of the Moon is its capability to allow us to generate so much power. If we do decide to create an industry on the Moon it will be this that attracts it.
And the one other thing we do know about the Moon is that we dont know a lot and only time on the Moon will find out what we need. We know there is radioactives but you know we may find concentrated sources we could use to help power Mars, who knows.

Oh and sdc 1 please, please stop throwing large coloured statements about, especially claiming that others are committing trolling or about your views. This constant clash of colours only makes me skip your threads as I just cannot be bothered to investigate so in the end you undermine your own arquement and any positive positions you hold. Rational discourse is the best way to make your arquements count and trust me the equivalent of computer shouting does not affect me or most others. It just annoys.

---

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

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

I am talking long term, that there isn't ever going to be a big mining operation on the Moon, since we don't need but small amounts of specific elements. Without the invention of an anti-gravity engine or something, there is just no reason to mine the Moon on a large scale. Ever.

The whole point of mining the Moon is to get an element(s) that we don't have here, which is the only justification for mining anything at all. We aren't ever going to find any large amount of material on the Moon that justifies large-scale mining, because the Earth has all the bulk elements we need. There isn't going to be a magic mineral on the Moon that we just have to dig up by the kilotonne, since we've got everything we need in large quantity on the periodic table right here.

And its so much easier to just build a road: The Lunar dust is full of ultra-fine iron, sand, and alkali oxides, which when irradiated with microwaves, becomes hot enough to melt the sand... into glass. And thats it, just drive a rover with a microwave beam generator, and out pops a fully formed, rigid road.

Compare this to a rail, and you will need tonnes and tonnes of metal for every single kilometer. Being that you will need several hundred or a few thousand kilometers, thats alot of carefully formed metal, a rail bed, and welding/joining. Just think of all digging and rock-breaking you will have to do so you can have a flat rail bed? You don't have to with a truck since it doesn't require a totally level road. It just can't compete with building a truck and a glass road. And the rail only goes one way at a time.

Powering a truck won't be a big problem, since it could be run by fuel cells that are pretty light. Insulation isn't a problem either, since the boiloff gas would be diverted to the cells, and since the Moon is a vacuum then boiloff won't be too bad. Dust will be just as big about as big of a problem for a rail as it would a truck on a sinterd glass road, and there is no indication that the dust will be a problem in the first place. Payload contamination? Cover it with a mylar tarp.

"when we find a PGM asteroid strike it will need to be dug out and a rail system to deliver resources and what will be telerobotic controlled diggers to the site to unearth the thing from a central source would be a lot easier and cheaper than to get them delivered from Earth"

No, any mining operation is going to need a small base to maintain the equipment and oversee the operation. If you are going to have that, you might as well put the PGM refinery and a small spaceport there too. PGM refining is a fairly slow process, so a central operation would have to use several units in parallel anyway, so why not break up such a megarefinery into pieces and have it on site?

There is also one really big advantage, that since PGM "ore" is mostly iron & nickel and has a very low concentration of PGMs, that you would have to haul an unrealistic amount (thousands of tonnes) - even for a railroad - of it to get out a practical amount of PGMs. Don't bother! Just refine it on site and ship the few kilos of PGMs home by rocket or truck.

The biggest strike against a rail though is that we don't need one. We aren't going to be shipping enough material on a regular basis to justify the expensive and time consuming rail. This isn't like a coal mine, there aren't going to be kilotonnes of ore to move, just now and then a dozen tonnes of Carbon black and Hydrogen. Thats all. There isn't going to be a regular need for heavy anything.

"The Moon has a low gravity and we wont be hiring truck drivers so they will mostly be automated trying to follow a transponder pilon"

Teleoperation. Problem solved.

"wear and tear on these vehicles will be intense"

Even with a nice concrete-smooth road? The road will have far better traction than a Lunar train in 1/6th gravity too with big tires.

"And we will find it just as easy to build a light rail system as we would a road."

It really isn't. Just drive the microwave truck over the soil, and presto! No high-grade metal, no rail bed, no bending metal for curves, no bolts/welding, easy bidirectional travel, and fault tollerance (meteor hit your track? drive around it)

"The principle of construction is mostly similar except all the advantages are for the rail system in actual use. In a long term scenario the building of advanced telescopes, new bases, increased power production, and of course mining indicates a cheaper alternative than direct delivery from Earth is required."

No no no, you can't compete with importing from Earth, I have explained this already. An RLV offers economies of scale unlike any rocket ship you are used to thinking about. If you have to import half of the materials for a telescope, it won't be much more expensive just to import the whole thing because each additional launch will then be cheaper then the last.

Again, there aren't going to be any big bases. They will all be small bases, especially the telescopes which will be unmanned, there isn't going to be need for large power supplies, and isn't going to be a need to move enough stuff to justify a railroad. Ever.

"Long term view is that power demands will outstrip that able to be provided by Nuclear especially when it comes down to cost. And solar is a good reliable source and the Moon has it in plenty... We can automate its (solar cell) manufacture and this allows us to build an increasing power supply."

No and no, look, I don't think you are understanding here... there is never going to be any presence on the Moon large enough that can't be served by local power. There is not ever going to be an "outstripping," because we aren't going to develop the Moon in a large way. This requires a change in thinking, there is not ever going to be a need for large scale industry nor human presence on the Moon, ever, for any reason. Nuclear plants up to the megawatt range are space-portable, Lunar solar pannels will be useless for half the month, and Earthly/Earth orbit solar pannels are so much cheaper to make. And you aren't ever going to export them either, its cheaper and easier to build them on Earth, and with cheap RLV launch, will crush the economics of Lunar cells, especially since Earth has the Hydrogen to launch them with but the Moon doesn't.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Grypd

Member

From: Scotland, Europe

Registered: 2004-06-07

Posts: 1,879

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

I am talking long term, that there isn't ever going to be a big mining operation on the Moon, since we don't need but small amounts of specific elements. Without the invention of an anti-gravity engine or something, there is just no reason to mine the Moon on a large scale. Ever.

The whole point of mining the Moon is to get an element(s) that we don't have here, which is the only justification for mining anything at all. We aren't ever going to find any large amount of material on the Moon that justifies large-scale mining, because the Earth has all the bulk elements we need. There isn't going to be a magic mineral on the Moon that we just have to dig up by the kilotonne, since we've got everything we need in large quantity on the periodic table right here.

I agree but as noted we will be looking for what we have that is rare and this is likely PGMs. Again they will not be just sitting on the surface and our discovery of them will have to involve first of all a decent survey, including maps of the lunar poles that are actually accurate and when we do we are going to have to dig down to where the deposit is.

And its so much easier to just build a road: The Lunar dust is full of ultra-fine iron, sand, and alkali oxides, which when irradiated with microwaves, becomes hot enough to melt the sand... into glass. And thats it, just drive a rover with a microwave beam generator, and out pops a fully formed, rigid road.

A road with the problem that the vehicles driving across it will often be unmanned transports and as such needing guidance. So in essence though more expensive to create a light rail system requires less support to operate and so costs in the long term come down.

Compare this to a rail, and you will need tonnes and tonnes of metal for every single kilometer. Being that you will need several hundred or a few thousand kilometers, thats alot of carefully formed metal, a rail bed, and welding/joining. Just think of all digging and rock-breaking you will have to do so you can have a flat rail bed? You don't have to with a truck since it doesn't require a totally level road. It just can't compete with building a truck and a glass road. And the rail only goes one way at a time.

Light rail requires very little materials compared to the heavy system and for a longer term iniative it makes sense. There will be more than one base and certainly more than one spot that we are interested in. Rail does only go one way at a time but will be faster and also with side junctions it will allow overtaking. And of more interest requires less human intervention to operate. Making a light rail option is a case of using a Moon steamroller to flatten the regolith to the right grade. This would be used for road creation as well so the systems are compatible. Sleepers are made of "lunar concrete" as in microwaved lunar material and the rails of titanium or Iron garnered from the regolith or a PGM asteroid.

Powering a truck won't be a big problem, since it could be run by fuel cells that are pretty light

But they use expensive fuel compared to electricity

No, any mining operation is going to need a small base to maintain the equipment and oversee the operation. If you are going to have that, you might as well put the PGM refinery and a small spaceport there too. PGM refining is a fairly slow process, so a central operation would have to use several units in parallel anyway, so why not break up such a megarefinery into pieces and have it on site?

So a small base why should we put an expensive Nuclear power plant in the area when we can just tap off a lunar power grid. And since we will have a railroad spur then once the robotic miners are finished digging there hole they can be moved onto the next site. Instead of building everything new at a site we just relocate it from one place to another and since we will have a central spaceport then it would also likely be the best place to refine the PGM asteroid.

There is also one really big advantage, that since PGM "ore" is mostly iron & nickel and has a very low concentration of PGMs, that you would have to haul an unrealistic amount (thousands of tonnes) - even for a railroad - of it to get out a practical amount of PGMs. Don't bother! Just refine it on site and ship the few kilos of PGMs home by rocket or truck.

As I think we have found it will reguire extremely heavy and power hungry not to mention complicated machinery to refine PGMs. This more or less concludes that they will have to be sent from Earth and we probabily will only send one set. Keep it in the one spot and send the ore to where it is to be refined. This is what we do on Earth as it makes economic sense and it will work on the Moon too.

The biggest strike against a rail though is that we don't need one. We aren't going to be shipping enough material on a regular basis to justify the expensive and time consuming rail. This isn't like a coal mine, there aren't going to be kilotonnes of ore to move, just now and then a dozen tonnes of Carbon black and Hydrogen. Thats all. There isn't going to be a regular need for heavy anything.

See above. But yes it is not a coal mine but infreguent mass movement of equipment will be required.

"The Moon has a low gravity and we wont be hiring truck drivers so they will mostly be automated trying to follow a transponder pilon"

Teleoperation. Problem solved.

One person controlling the rail network or one person for each vehicle, economics especially if we are using a lot of telerobotics elsewhere. The basic premise is that there must be three centers so that the continous nature of the Moons conditions and work can be carried out. It soon becomes more expensive when we have to hire 3x3x3x3x3x3 people to keep things going. 3 people can run the rail network, but use of trucks puts this up to 300 plus for the same amount of delivery of cargo.

"wear and tear on these vehicles will be intense"

Even with a nice concrete-smooth road? The road will have far better traction than a Lunar train in 1/6th gravity too with big tires.

The problem I forsee is more the constant bouncing over what will in effect be dirt track roads which will get the odd meteor pothole lol(happens everywhere I suppose). Actually that is something for another thread as suspensions will certainly suffer and I wonder how do we make them tough enough but flexible without the use of many moving parts. Hmmm, there is also the problem of lubrication.

"The principle of construction is mostly similar except all the advantages are for the rail system in actual use. In a long term scenario the building of advanced telescopes, new bases, increased power production, and of course mining indicates a cheaper alternative than direct delivery from Earth is required."

No no no, you can't compete with importing from Earth, I have explained this already. An RLV offers economies of scale unlike any rocket ship you are used to thinking about. If you have to import half of the materials for a telescope, it won't be much more expensive just to import the whole thing because each additional launch will then be cheaper then the last.

Again, there aren't going to be any big bases. They will all be small bases, especially the telescopes which will be unmanned, there isn't going to be need for large power supplies, and isn't going to be a need to move enough stuff to justify a railroad. Ever.

"Long term view is that power demands will outstrip that able to be provided by Nuclear especially when it comes down to cost. And solar is a good reliable source and the Moon has it in plenty... We can automate its (solar cell) manufacture and this allows us to build an increasing power supply."

No and no, look, I don't think you are understanding here... there is never going to be any presence on the Moon large enough that can't be served by local power. There is not ever going to be an "outstripping," because we aren't going to develop the Moon in a large way. This requires a change in thinking, there is not ever going to be a need for large scale industry nor human presence on the Moon, ever, for any reason. Nuclear plants up to the megawatt range are space-portable, Lunar solar pannels will be useless for half the month, and Earthly/Earth orbit solar pannels are so much cheaper to make. And you aren't ever going to export them either, its cheaper and easier to build them on Earth, and with cheap RLV launch, will crush the economics of Lunar cells, especially since Earth has the Hydrogen to launch them with but the Moon doesn't.

But as noted a Lunar elevator and its economy of scale is a doable project. We have seen that the required strength of materials is present already and unlike the Earths this means it can be done now. This alters the economics of the Moon/Earth situation quite a bit.

Local power always means the main use of Nuclear and fuel cell backup. Short of Lunar refining of KrEEP then fuel will always have to be delivered from Earth. This is quazi political suicide as if there is a viable alternative and you are sending to space materials that if an accident occurs that would have a disasterous effect on a large region then it is likely that any politician will insist on the alternative. And nuclear has a bad rep.

---

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

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

I was talking about hybrid engines, not pure alternatives like nuclear drive. What about a Ramjet / Rocket Engine hybrid that could provide the means for spaceplane advancements ( Not scramjet technology because they are for inner atomsphere hypersonic transport ). We need development of transatomspheric drive systems not just hypersonic drive systems.

You can come up with hybrid drives that provide high thrust and longer duration from combining different design methodologies and working on the issues to complete the solutions.

Why go to the Moon ----> Test settlement technologies <--------

For Moonbase or Marbase developments we need constuctions methodology different to earth methodologies again it comes down to working through the issues including transportation of equipment, materials required and the ability to construct with automated vehicles and then coming up with solutions.

GCNRevenger, you need to work outside the norms in earth based technologies and methodologies to create new methods and technology for space both on planetary bodies and between planetary bodies.

P.S.

The Moon would have the same basic elements as we have on earth and If you took the landmass area on earth (exclude the area of the water) you will find the similar landmass of the whole moon thus we could assume you would find similar quantities. Don't think the moon has limited resources and thus no infrastructure or strategic benefit for mining or settlement on the moon before the settlement of Mars. ( I mean settlement not exploration ---> exploration would come first )

sdc3

Banned

Registered: 2005-11-27

Posts: 5

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

I was talking about hybrid engines, not pure alternatives like nuclear drive. What about a Ramjet / Rocket Engine hybrid that could provide the means for spaceplane advancements ( Not scramjet technology because they are for inner atomsphere hypersonic transport ). We need development of transatomspheric drive systems not just hypersonic drive systems.

You can come up with hybrid drives that provide high thrust and longer duration from combining different design methodologies and working on the issues to complete the solutions.

What is transatomspheric drive systems?

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

I was talking about hybrid engines, not pure alternatives like nuclear drive. What about a Ramjet / Rocket Engine hybrid that could provide the means for spaceplane advancements ( Not scramjet technology because they are for inner atomsphere hypersonic transport ). We need development of transatomspheric drive systems not just hypersonic drive systems.

You can come up with hybrid drives that provide high thrust and longer duration from combining different design methodologies and working on the issues to complete the solutions.

GCNRevenger, you need to work outside the norms in earth based technologies and methodologies to create new methods and technology for space both on planetary bodies and between planetary bodies.

The Moon would have the same basic elements as we have on earth and If you took the landmass area on earth (exclude the area of the water) you will find the similar landmass of the whole moon thus we could assume you would find similar quantities.

You aren't listening Tristar,

Did I not just say that there is no clever trick? A rocket-ramjet combination engine doesn't change how much energy the fuel has in it, and is only a marginal improvement. In fact, it is somewhere between a conventional rocket and a pure scramjet, with the scramjet being the only engine really efficent enough to make an SSTO spaceplane effective.

"Thinking outside the box" or "creativity" or whatever doesn't change how much atoms weigh, which is the crux of the problem, and so not only is a clever, sneaky solution unlikly, its against the laws of physics.

And what are you talking about concerning the Moon? Absolutely it doesn't have to have the same elements. The only reason we have any Hydrogen at all on this planet is because we have enough gravity and magnetism (to deflect solar wind) to trap water vapor, but the Moon doesn't. Carbon dioxide would probobly have been lost too. Many of our other elements are from volcanic activity (particularly heavy metals good for solar cells, superconductors, high-temp alloys), which the Moon has never had. The Earth is much heavier, so it will naturally have more radionucleides which also will have noble gasses but the Moon won't.

The Moon simply does not have but trace amounts of Hydrogen in its soil and no lighter elements at all except what has been deposited by meteor strikes, save for Oxygen which readily binds with the soil. If there ever was any in the past, it has long since floated away. Without at least Hydrogen, all rocket travel from the Moon will be very limited forever. Earth, however, has plenty.

But more importantly, is that the Moon has nothing we need asside from kilogram quantities of rare minerals. Thats really why there is never, ever going to be a large mining or manufacturing presence on the Moon, because once cheap Earth launch is available, then the Moon's advantage of low gravity disappears. It would literally be cheaper to build everything here and launch it into orbit, no matter what it is.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger, I think you are mistaken because they have found, aluminium, iron, titanium, silica, and other minerals in quantities, and we haven't touched underneath the surface. The Moon will have materials different because of meteor impacts that will change the molecular bonds and can change the makeup of the rocks. The Initial lunar formation is similar with earth but it also have differences that will shape and change the minerals and rocks on the moon.

We will require supplies from earth for certain items that are not found on the moon but that will be the same for Mars and any other planet except a earth type planet. The creation of large scale vessels, mass production of short range vehicles, drop cargo vessels from planetary orbit and other specialist vessels for colonization will require a large external fabrication complex off-planet to build these components and store completed vessels.

We need a test location to build space components for outpost assembly for the Mars Surface and the only place to test the full scale fully functioning structure in an alien environment is on the moon. Because once we tested the structure we Pack-and-go to Mars with it and deploy on the surface.

I feel you are still in the explorer phase of space for humanity and still not wanting the human race to move off the planet.  You are not alone in these feelings GCNRevenger , I have seen it from other people thinking that in 5o years we are still going to have a small scientist team only on the moon and possible a small scientist team on Mars. We will never get off the planet in 100 + years with those feelings, but if in the next fifty years we have space stations, lunar base/s including mining and fabrication we will have a outpost on Mars or possibilty two or more then we will colonization before the end of 21st Century to other planetary bodies.

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Grypd,

"a light rail system requires less support... vehicles driving across it will often be unmanned transports and as such needing guidance... It soon becomes more expensive when we have to hire 3x3x3x3x3x3 people to keep things going. 3 people can run the rail network, but use of trucks puts this up to 300 plus for the same amount of delivery of cargo. "

Control isn't that big of an issue either, tripple redundancy isn't nessesarry simply because if there is a problem, the truck isn't going to explode or crash, it will just stop. You won't need one person for every truck either, simple computer control like the Mars rovers is quite capable of doing most of the driving without help. One person could operate several trucks at once, no problem. And even if it didn't, yes, hiring 300 people to run the trucks really would cost less then the MASSIVE expense of constructing a rail network.

"Light rail requires very little materials compared to the heavy system and for a longer term iniative it makes sense... Making a light rail option is a case of using a Moon steamroller to flatten the regolith to the right grade. This would be used for road creation as well so the systems are compatible."

Versus a road that takes zero reasources?

Wrong in a big way: the greatest problem with a rail is that it has to be very level, very uniform, and has to have a very hard bed under it. Neither rail can afford to buckle much, or else the trains will derail. A truck on the other hand, with wide tires, needs neither. A truck can also contend with some imperfections in the road, but a rail can't, every single meter (all several million of them) need to be perfect, down to the centimter... A truck on a road does not.

The Lunar soil is also unusual, it usually has a meter or less of powerdery dust over a very hard surface of packed dirt and rock. If the dust has varying depth, you are going to need either extensive rail bed preparation or it might sink into the dust and give you problems. You can't "steamroll" or even bulldoze the underlying hard material either, and so you really can't flatten out a slope or incline efficently. Jack hammers won't work since they need gravity, and chemical explosives would need to be drilled, which is hard (maybe impossible efficiently) without gravity too.

"But they use expensive fuel compared to electricity"

No! They will collect the water from the fuel cells for later conversion back into Hydrogen and Oxygen. You wouldn't think I would suggest something so foolish as to dump precious Hydrogen overboard would you?? Fuel cells are like batteries, only much more powerful, and instead of recharging they are just fed fresh fuel.

"So a small base why should we put an expensive Nuclear power plant in the area when we can just tap off a lunar power grid."

Because of the huge cost of laying down a superconducting power line several hundred or even thousand kilometers to the mining site, combined with the large cost of the solar power station in the first place.

"And since we will have a railroad spur then once the robotic miners are finished digging there hole they can be moved onto the next site"

What? That doesn't make any sense at all, it will take a long time to "tap out" a good sized asteroid fragment, after which the equipment will probobly be worn out anyway. If not, and since you only need to move seldomly, you would just load it on trucks and ship it that way. The whole advantage of a rail is to regularly move small/medium loads, not occasional heavy ones.

I would like to also note, that the whole idea of a "light" rail presents one big problem, that if you can't move heavy things at all, whats the point? If you can't break the entire mining operation into little pieces, a light railroad won't work at all, and you'll be forced to use a heavy truck. Even if you can do it, forcing most of the base componets to be able to break down and fit on a little light train will severely impact their cost and efficiency.

"since we will have a central spaceport then it would also likely be the best place to refine the PGM asteroid... This more or less concludes that they will have to be sent from Earth and we probabily will only send one set"

I already explained this to you, since PGMs are only going to be a few parts per million, you have to move a tonne of ore just to get out a few grams of PGMs. This makes absolutely no sense, when you could just move the ore a few meters instead of hundreds or thousands of kilometers to a central refinery. The energy wasted by dragging all that ore that far is mind-boggling. This is WAY more than enough reason to build multiple smaller satelite refineries despite the expense!

"This is what we do on Earth as it makes economic sense and it will work on the Moon too. "

No it doesn't, because you aren't mining normal stuff here. PGMs are very rare even in asteroid strikes, and the huge amount of ore you would have to move - far more than even Gold, which has its main refinery on site  - on the Moon no less, simply makes it more efficent to put the refinery on site. Moving that much ore across the Moon just to save a buck on mine construction is rediculous.

Nuclear power supplimented with local solar is also more than sufficent, a megawatt-class reactor could be shipped from Earth fully fueled in a single flight and provide plenty of power to run the operation.

"infrequent mass movement of equipment will be required."

Which is best suited to trucks, whereas your rail line will sit unused the great majority of the time!

"The problem I forsee is more the constant bouncing over what will in effect be dirt track roads"

No. The glass road will be made quite smooth by sifting the soil of rocks, and could be made of comperable uniformity as highway concrete I imagine. Glass will naturally smooth itself out when it is melted, and retain it when it cools.

"But as noted a Lunar elevator and its economy of scale is a doable project. We have seen that the required strength of materials is present already and unlike the Earths this means it can be done now. This alters the economics of the Moon/Earth situation quite a bit."

No, it really doesn't. The reason is very simple, its easier to build solar arrays right here on the ground despite being in the dark half the day and despite being blocked by the atmosphere and despite the different longitudes and despite all the other reasons that makes a space solar power array seem attractive, because its just so cheap to build arrays on Earth. Furthermore, a Lunar space elevator is only good for putting things in Lunar orbit: because the Moon doesn't "spin" but 6.9x10^(-4)RPM, that it can't "fling" cells to Earth. This means you have to burn rocket fuel to get cells from Lunar orbit to Earth orbit, and that fuel has to be imported from Earth, that wrecks the economics even more despite cheap lift.

And then you have the vast cost to assemble the cells into a large solar power array, which will have to have attitude control, and mated to a huge multimegawatt microwave transmission generator. and will have to be lowerd by rocket from high to medium Earth orbit to minimize transmission distance. They will have to be replaced now and then from radiation degredation too, and servicing a multimegawatt SSPS array in a medium orbit will be very expensive too, perhaps more then operating the Lunar solar cell factory.

The economics of SSPS really are that bad: ultra-cheap solar cells are now in the laboratory and limited use that can be made by the kilometer, not the centimeter, with easy no-cleanroom manufacturing. It will be so much easier just to make a bigger array on Earth, that the Moon cells could never hope to compete. Especially since the power is right there on site and not transmitted from hundreds of kilometers from medium Earth orbit to the ground, and hundreds more kilometers from the reciever to the user.

"then fuel will always have to be delivered from Earth. This is quazi political suicide as if there is a viable alternative and you are sending to space materials that if an accident occurs that would have a disasterous effect on a large region"

We've been over this before: Uranium itself isn't any more dangerous hardly then Lead, its the atoms it breaks down into that are the really harmful ones, and as long as the Uranium is "fresh" and hasn't been used yet then none of it has broken down. You can hold a pellet of Uranium fuel in your hand! And even if a load of fuel crashes or is involved in a pad explosion, what happens? Nothing! The Uranium is locked up in a hard ceramic, which won't disolve in sea water or shatter into a dust to inhale, it will just break into chunks that won't hurt anybody.

Look, again, why would we want to build anything on the Moon at all, ever? Its so hard to get there, so hard to build, so hard to live, and so hard to get back that there isn't any reason to bother at all unless its something we positively can't effectively get from Earth. The only things that are on the Moon that we don't have here are PGMs and scientific knowledge (and maybe a few rich tourist spots...), and these won't ever be big. Since they won't be big, neither a railroad nor a Moon-spanning solar power network make any sense, and thats all there is to it.

Its going to cost several billions of dollars to build a gas pipeline across a few hundred miles of Canadian tundra and forest... how much harder and expensive will it be to build a railroad across thousands of kilometers across the crater & rille scarred surface of the MOON? For goodness sakes, just buy some trucks! Everything about the entire enterprise of Lunar mining just screams "trucks not trains!"

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Tristar,

"I think you are mistaken because they have found, aluminium, iron, titanium, silica, and other minerals in quantities... meteor impacts that will change the molecular bonds and can change the makeup of the rocks"

First of all, these are elements, not minerals, and secondly these are medium-weight elements. By "light" element I am talking like Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Carbon. The Moon has very little of these, particularly the former two, which means there is nothing to make rocket fuel out of on the Moon (fuel, not oxidizer).

And what are you talking about "change the makeup of the molecular bonds?" A meteor impact doesn't change one element to another, and if the Moon doesn't have the element, then you just don't have any. This is a big reason why there is never going to be extensive development on the Moon, ever, because elements you need (hydrogen for rocket fuel imparticularly) would have to be imported.

"The creation of large scale vessels, mass production of short range vehicles, drop cargo vessels from planetary orbit and other specialist vessels for colonization will require a large external fabrication complex off-planet to build these components and store completed vessels."

Again, there aren't ever going to be large scale vessels, because its so much cheaper and easier to build smaller ones on Earth in sections and bolt them together in orbit. And why does the factory have to off-planet? Whats wrong with building them on Earth and assembling modules in orbit?

"and the only place to test the full scale fully functioning structure in an alien environment is on the moon"

Do you mean build a full-scale colony on the Moon to test the entire colony, just to make sure it works for Mars? Or any other large part of a colony? That doesn't make any sense, why can't we just test a small piece of the colony instead? And some parts of a Mars colony can't be tested on the Moon, like a polymer film dome or Martian atmosphere extraction plant or gravity-driven water filters.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

GCNRevenger,

I don't see the construction of a large space factory in earth orbit the size that could build / assembly / fabricate large space vessels. I can see a large station for movement of personnel into orbit for LEO Stations, Transferring to larger vessels and transferring to the Moon.  I think you need to open your mind a bit, the Moon can provide more then LEO Factory.

We have differing points of view regarding the use of the moon, strategic and material use. We will continue to have these differing points until 2025 when we start using the Moon for either your idea little to nothing or my idea of alot starting small and continously building.

Time will tell what the final outcome will be regarding the Moon and Mars.

8)

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

"a large station for movement of personnel into orbit"

Why? If the ship can hold all the people, why not just bring the people and dock directly to the ship? No space hotel required.

"I think you need to open your mind a bit, the Moon can provide more then LEO Factory."

No, frankly you need to close your mind a bit, stop using so many buzzwords like "open," and realize that since you are pushing for something that obviously isn't ever going to happen, other people stop listening to you.

"We have differing points of view regarding the use of the moon, strategic and material use"

Yes. My view is realistic, and is based on what reasources and advantages the Moon does and doesn't have. Yours isn't.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Commodore

Member

From: Upstate NY, USA

Registered: 2004-07-25

Posts: 1,021

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

Yeah, just like X,Y, or Z is "the one true religion®". 

Calm down, a difference in opinion over the role the Moon in the grand scheme of things has nothing to do with whats realisitic, and everything to do with what you want to accomplish.

There is nothing wrong with searching for a gravity well thats easier to get out of, and using it to save money on launch as long as you intend to launch enough to justify the cost of the infrastructure.

On the other hand, considering the politics involved, its hard to make that garentee. The way around that is private interests, and which will get you there quicker.

Given the cost of access, the Moon wins.

---

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

No, because ideas that are obviously unworkable we know are "false" by that reasoning.

"Given the cost of access, the Moon wins."

It absolutely does not, and with cheap launch from Earth, it loses very very badly.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]

Commodore

Member

From: Upstate NY, USA

Registered: 2004-07-25

Posts: 1,021

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

It absolutely does not, and with cheap launch from Earth, it loses very very badly.

Which is were, exactly?

We've toyed with several methods over the last decade or two, and canceled all of them. We've finally decided to hell with it and are going for bulk. Alt Space hasn't come up with anything yet. A RLV is is no wheres near NASAs drawing board, so its at least 30 years away, and even then is unlikely to have the weight or volume of the standard rocket, and a space elevator at least 50 years after that.

Enless we start pumping out HLVs by the thousands, there is no such thing as cheap Earth launch.

---

"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane

Martin_Tristar

Member

From: Earth, Region : Australia

Registered: 2004-12-07

Posts: 305

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

The Question was Should we focus Human space society on exploration ? and the answer is NO!!!!!!!!!!! We need to focus on colonization because it changes the space vessel design, what next steps in the human movement into space but if we stay on exploration then we are just tourists in space picking up samples and returning home with our souvenirs and happy pics of our holiday on the moon or mars or beyond.

GCNRevenger,

You can stay with your little rockets ( like the falcons, atlas, delta and others ) to get low cost micro objects into orbit and when you look not at exploration and the issues of colonization of space then you will see that the movement in hundred million tonnes or more of cargo, personnel, and hardware offworld will not come from these current methods.  New Methods and processes are needed then we can achieve the desired goals / objectives of human colonization of space.

GCNRevenger, answer that question are you in for exploration or colonization of our solar system and why ? I see you as a explorationist not a colonist and thus will hold the human race back for expanding into space for another 100+ years .

GCNRevenger

Member

From: Earth

Registered: 2003-10-14

Posts: 6,056

Re: What should be the focus of human space society/exploration?

It absolutely does not, and with cheap launch from Earth, it loses very very badly.

Which is were, exactly?

We've toyed with several methods over the last decade or two, and canceled all of them. We've finally decided to hell with it and are going for bulk. Alt Space hasn't come up with anything yet. A RLV is is no wheres near NASAs drawing board, so its at least 30 years away, and even then is unlikely to have the weight or volume of the standard rocket, and a space elevator at least 50 years after that.

Enless we start pumping out HLVs by the thousands, there is no such thing as cheap Earth launch.

There are two practical ways to achieve superlow cost launch using spaceplanes. The two-stage approach would be employed initially since it is relativly easy to do. The carrier plane would not have to be much more advanced then the fifty year old Blackbird or Valkyrie, just a little faster and alot bigger. The upper stage would not be too dissimilar to the X-33, except probly more streamlined and less fuel tank bulk. Conventional bell-nozzle engines appropriate are under development right now today... Such a vehicle, if operated efficiently, could reduce launch costs by 1000-2000% over today's price tag.

The ticket in the long run is a varient of the Scramjet, one with a regenerative cooling loop that pipes fuel through the leading edge surfaces, so the engine actually uses the drag heating to boost efficiency. Its a positive feedback thing, the faster it goes, the better it works. Right now today with "regular" Scramjets, we could build a plane that could do Mach 12-15 probobly burning liquid hydrogen, which is quite good but not quite enough. With the regenerative loop burning spiked slush hydrogen, and speeds in the region of Mach-20 are possible. Thats the kind of speeds where you only need a small rocket burn (leaving you lots of cargo space/mass) to go the rest of the way to Mach-25 and orbit. The catch is, we don't have anything that can resist the temperatures of a running regenerative scramjet... yet. The folks at Sandia Nat'l Lab have some experimental ceramics that might do the trick. Lighter materials to build the rest of the thing with would help too.

Then, space travel becomes only a little more difficult and expensive then air travel with a true "buck rodgers" SSTO. Developing and building the initial planes will be expensive no doubt, but once its done then building copies won't be greatly more expensive then a high-end jet liner or a bomber or something, and with the "fuel and fly" ease of operations will space freight little higher then air freight.

With such low cost, there won't be any reason to exploit the limited bennefit of low Lunar gravity, especially since the Moon would have to import ~1/5th of its propellant (Hydrogen) to get stuff to and from the surface. Then there is the above argument that building a rocket factory on the Moon would be ruinously expensive without a cheap RLV, and would still be radically expensive with one. The rockets the Moon could produce would be inferior to Earth-built ones for lack of materials (carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen for polymers, rare heavy metals for engine parts, etc) too... In which case, the notion of a Lunar rocket factory is down right laughable compared to Earth launch.

"its at least 30 years away"

Of course, thats about the time frame that we would need something like it anyway. This is medium-to-long term here, not short term.

---

[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]

[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]