View Single Post
  #13  
Old June 5th 17, 02:06 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 752
Default Mining the moon for rocket fuel to get us to Mars

"Jeff Findley" wrote in message
...

First, this isn't my "subject", it's the title of this article:

Mining the moon for rocket fuel to get us to Mars
May 14, 2017 8.04pm EDT ?Updated May 18, 2017 9.01am EDT
http://theconversation.com/mining-th...-to-get-us-to-
mars-76123

I saw this article (or a variation of it from another online
publication) on Twitter. I replied something to the effect that this
article glosses over all of the hard stuff, like the fact that the lunar
soil and rock is horribly abrasive and that mining equipment isn't
anything like the lightweight rovers that NASA/JPL has flown in the
past. For crying out loud, JPL keeps using ALUMINUM for the rover
wheels to keep them light, even though they're wearing holes in the
things after less than 100 miles. Mining equipment can't be that weak!
Anyway, I replied that mining equipment is *really heavy* because it's
made of steel and hardened steel.

The response by one Twitter follower was along the lines of, "That's why
the mining equipment will be built on the moon from local materials".


At that point, "I couldn't even". I mean WTF? So, to build mining
equipment on the moon, you're going to build an entire freaking factory,
from local materials?!?!? So, WTF are you going to use to mine the
materials to build the factory?!?!?!?


Don't get me wrong, I think *eventually* we'll be mining the moon for
water to turn into LOX and LH2 (or possibly methane) to supply a fuel
depot in lunar orbit. But, needless to say, I think the supporters of
this notion are daft if they think it's going to happen in the next 20
years or so by building a freaking factory on the moon that's capable of
building mining equipment that's not JPL class "toys" that wear out
faster than you can build them.

Jeff


Yeah, I use a very simple first order approximation for this:
the mass of the fuel you'll get from the Moon has to be greater than fuel
used to get the mass to mine it to the Moon, otherwise it's a net loss.

Simply put, if you're going to extract say 100 kilotons of fuel from the
Moon, you're going to have to use less than 100 kilotons of fuel getting
your mining and processing equipment there, otherwise it's a waste.

I think people look at in-situ fuel processing on Mars and figure the Moon
makes even more sense. But processing atmosphere (even a thin one) to
extract Carbon is far easier than mining the surface of the Moon.

I do agree, at some point we'll process fuel on the Moon, but we're a LONG
ways from there.


--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
IT Disaster Response -
https://www.amazon.com/Disaster-Resp...dp/1484221834/