|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
"Ool" wrote:
[...] 4) Once on the Moon, use the rover to explore possible lava tube sites. A simple and inexpensive inflatable structure can be quickly set up later in a lava tube since the structure will only have to retain air pressure, while the lava tube itslf will provide meteor, radiation, and thermal protection. See http://www.halien.com/TAS/Gallery/apollo/ for a nice picture of Aristarchus crater (at lower right). Notice the rille/valley to the left of the 25 mile diameter crater with the possible remaining intact section of lava tube; Yeah. It's comparable to our first ancestors setting up camp in caves to keep out the elements. It could also work as a garage for the ro- ver during the night. Only a little underground, lunar temperature is always a constant -21°C, as opposed to the -140°C out in the open dur- ing the night. The issue with rovers and lava tubes is losing the radio link. Pathfinder had a very modest amount of autonomy, Spirit has a little more, but we're still at the stage of making moves by saying, "go from a to b to c to d to e to f ... when you're at z, you are done moving and may commence science" Without near constant radio contact, we need to be able to say, "go from a to z and don't trip on the way." /dps |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
Bill Bogen wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote in message ... Oren Tirosh wrote: (Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com... .. 4) Once on the Moon, use the rover to explore possible lava tube sites. A simple and inexpensive inflatable structure can be quickly set up later in a lava tube since the structure will only have to retain air pressure, while the lava tube itslf will provide meteor, radiation, and thermal protection. I agree that lava tubes could make a huge difference for the viability of a lunar base. Our ancestors took shelter in caves. There's no reason why we shouldn't have lunar cavemen. But finding such lava tubes could be tricky. A rover has very limited range and speed. You have to scout for likely sites first. You can always dig a hole. How, exactly? A low cost mission won't include a massive backhoe. Explosives? We'd still have to move lots of rubble. By hand, with a shovel while wearing a pressure suit? Much better to set up a roomy, inflatable permanent base quickly in a lava tube, even if we have to drive/send rovers 100s of kms to interesting sites. Mostly, it would be more a case of finding a place where there is an existing depression or hole such as a crater or rille. Then, adding a bulldozer attachment to the rover and just scrape over the surface. there were a number of suitable sites near all of the Apollo landing sites which indicates that the condition is common to the moon. The big enabler would be water resources. That will drive site selection and tech development. Another post states that the interior of lava tubes is probably at a constant -21 degrees C. Comet impacts on the Moon could well have flung some ice/water vapor down a lava tube where it condensed. This is one resource our rover could look for. For a technical reference, see 'The Adventures of Tin Tin: Destination Moon' by Herge. That odds of that are essentially zero. Most of the hypothesis for water on the moon are based around solid water deposits being flung around. Water vapor would remain gaseous in the lunar environment. Vapor spreads evenly around the entire moon, from what they determined from the Apollo expirements, then is swept away. The vacuum of the normal environment would essentially evacuate any tube prior to any condensation. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
In sci.space.tech Cris Fitch wrote:
(Bill Bogen) wrote: 4) Once on the Moon, use the rover to explore possible lava tube sites. In addition to the rovers and the orbital imaging solutions, the cluster-bomb/ping-pong ball camera idea should also be considered. What is the smallest useful lander/sensor system we can build? Even if the landings are hard, perhaps the pictures they send back just landing will be useful. Also, are there clever ways of landing a ping-pong ball on the moon (or Mars) that we can't consider for larger payloads? Or maybe just mini-retro rockets. Maybe we can soft land a lander that then contains an arsenal of ping-pong sensors that it fires in various directions. I proposed something similar a while back. Getting 2000m/s out of a solid rocket is not especially hard. Taking a lunar orbiter in very low lunar orbit (say 20Km), and a dispenser that spins and orients before igniton, the impact is some 250m/s. Hard, but perhaps not impossibly so. A simple tiny reterorocket would be a good idea. (triggered on a timer and horizon sensors) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
the cost of lunar exploration and development depends directly on the
cost of the rocket technology we rely upon to impart momentum to the payloads we send to the moon to support this development. To that end it makes sense to rely upon proven technologies and systems that are derived from incremental improvements made to reduce the cost of imparting momentum to payloads. It also makes sense to develop commercial interest in space faring technology by elucidating a program that provides for significant commercial payback for private investment in technology development. So, we have the following possibilities; (1) Take reusable and restartable high-performance engines and adapt them to reusable airframes made at low-cost. The engine program that could be a model for this is the proposed STME program. This program would make the Ferrari like SSME into a Chevy-like Space Transportation Engine - of lower performance, but higher economic value. http://www.astronautix.com/engines/stme.htm A program to make SSME and RL10 engines into low-cost, highly efficient space transportation engines is well worth the effort. (2) Make low-cost reusable airframes with existing technologies. Reducing structural fractions is an important goal. But reduced structural fractions can become an obstacle if purchased at too high a price. Reasonable structural fractions using reasonably robust materials built at reasonable prices flown at reasonable flight rates should provide very good economic performance. (3) Make the necessary investments in launch center upgrades to safely support larger launch rates. With these three core programs in place, programs which by the way would bear a total cost of about 5% that of the money already spent on the ISS, we could envision another 5 billion spent to develop the following; (a) A fully reusable two-stage-to-orbit Atlas class launcher built around a single SSME in the first stage and four RL10 engines in the second stage. This vehicle would take off and land vertically, and the first stage booster would be capable of being refueled, and boosted back to the launch center for reuse in hours. (b) A fully reusable booster built around the existing Shuttle ET - that is powered by 7 SSME in its tail. This vehicle would take off vertically, and land horizontally. Upgrading the booster described above so that it may operate as an upper stage would provide a means to put Saturn class payloads into orbit - and give us a secure foundation with which to return to the moon. (c) Develop a cross-feed capacity so that three fully reusable ET based boosters described above could operate as a two-stage launcher. This vehicle consists of three ETs launched in parallel, and is capable of putting Nova class payloads into orbit (about 250 metric tons into LEO). This would permit payloads to support lunar bases and mars expeditions. (c) Extend a cross-feed capacity to that seven fully reusable ET based boosters could operate as a three stage launcher. This vehicle is capable of placing 500 ton payloads into LEO. This would permit payloads in space that would support a mars base and industrialization of the moon. (d) Revitalize the NERVA thermal rocket program (125 ton thrust) and build an upper stage to the large rocket above to provide direct industrial access to the inner solar system. (e) Modify the NERVA type thermal rocket to provide a GW of space electrical capacity - and use this to power (i) Space cities and industry, (ii) Powerful ion rockets this provides us a capacity to extend our reach to the outer solar system very cheaply. (f) ON THE MOON - develop a nuclear research program that develops peaceful nuclear pulse rocket technology built on the moon and flown from there. This tpe of rocket will never be flown within 90,000 km of Earth (where the VanAllen belts could capture radioactive materials and bring them to Earth) - but would give humanity commercial access to the solar system. This development would be supported in conjunction with an enhanced nonproliferation treaty where all nuclear weapons materials and nuclear research would be taken over by this international body. The commercial aspect of this includes; (a) Enunciate a vision of a global wireless internet beamed directly from space that would make use of the TSTO-RLV described in (a) above. (b) Enunciate a vision of a global wireless powernet beamed directly from space that would make use of the 500 ton capacity described in (c) above. (c) Enunciate a vision of a global manufacturing network delivering products made in space delivered directly from space that would make use of the nuclear pulse rockets built in (f) above. People on Earth will work in space by telerobotics; http://world.honda.com/ASIMO/ http://www.pulsar.org/archive/int/ti...dataglove.html http://robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/ Basically, they'll don a datasuit and goggles, and drive humaniform robots around their remote work areas by interacting with the remote environment very naturally. Thus, they can live anywhere and work anywhere. This includes living on Earth and workin in space. Pulling a rich asteroid into Earth orbit and linking to a remotely controlled factory robot is the cheapest way to get billions of workers into space. Putting a factorysat into orbit above Earth also gives that factory direct access to the Earth's entire population as consumers of that factory's products. Ultimately, biospheres would be produced on orbit that would be used to create orbiting farms and forests - to provide food and fiber or Earth's population - in an environmentally friendly way. The telecom market would exceed $100 billion, the power market would exceed $1 trillion, the manufacturing market would exceed $10 trillion. With each step we remove a technical burden on Earth's biosphere. Beyond this we can promote the development of laser powered rockets with laser energy being derived from solar pumped lasers in Earth orbit. This will provide a means to produce rockets of extraordinarily low cost and great capacity. This will have a commercial implication of creating a global transportation network - supported by beamed laser energy from space. Expanding upon this capacity would allow broad access to orbit by the bulk of humanity. This combined with expanded industry on orbit could provide access to Earth orbiting space colonies, and the exodus of billions of people off Earth. Larger sun orbiting solar laser stations could provide power across the solar system, and drive billions of interplanetary capable laser rockets. These rockets could move the personally owned space colonies across the solar system - this would be the goldenn age of interplanetary development. Large sun orbiting solar laser stations could be adapted to support interstellar journeys and ultimately, interstellar movement of small colonies to other star systems. Replicating the space infrastructure around a remote star that exists around Sol would allow any star system to support millions of people - anywhere in the galaxy. Ultimately a network of star systems will create a vast human controlled space with vast possibilities for the production of wealth in an environment of high adventure. (Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com... Charles Buckley wrote in message ... Oren Tirosh wrote: (Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com... .. 4) Once on the Moon, use the rover to explore possible lava tube sites. A simple and inexpensive inflatable structure can be quickly set up later in a lava tube since the structure will only have to retain air pressure, while the lava tube itslf will provide meteor, radiation, and thermal protection. I agree that lava tubes could make a huge difference for the viability of a lunar base. Our ancestors took shelter in caves. There's no reason why we shouldn't have lunar cavemen. But finding such lava tubes could be tricky. A rover has very limited range and speed. You have to scout for likely sites first. You can always dig a hole. How, exactly? A low cost mission won't include a massive backhoe. Explosives? We'd still have to move lots of rubble. By hand, with a shovel while wearing a pressure suit? Much better to set up a roomy, inflatable permanent base quickly in a lava tube, even if we have to drive/send rovers 100s of kms to interesting sites. The big enabler would be water resources. That will drive site selection and tech development. Another post states that the interior of lava tubes is probably at a constant -21 degrees C. Comet impacts on the Moon could well have flung some ice/water vapor down a lava tube where it condensed. This is one resource our rover could look for. For a technical reference, see 'The Adventures of Tin Tin: Destination Moon' by Herge. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
"Chung Leong" wrote in message ...
Maybe we can just drop a giant balloon on the Moon and call it the day. It would certainly look impressive. What the point of building a real lunar base when we have yet tackle problems like supply and crew rotation? Using existing programs and personnel this country will go backrupt maintaining a presence on the Moon. If the government said it would give tax breaks/credits to companies that make space travel and living on the moon cheaper and that these credits could be transferred from the winning company to any other company it would spur a lot of developments I think. Businesses outside the arerospace sector would have a reason to fund research & development. For instance instead of spending 5 billion to develop something, the government would print up 5 billion dollars worth of tax credit certificates (plus maybe 10-20%) and give them to the companies making real progress. Banks would even give loans to companies with a stash of credits since they can be exchanged for cash or goods and services. And if such banks don't exist now they would develop to get a piece of the action. -McDaniel |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
Oh, to add to my post on tax credits to space developers:
The point is that it would kick start investment that isn't purely motivated by the tax credits so by printing say 5 billion in 'funny money' we might reap benefits far in excess of the face value of those tax credit certificates as many investors who haven't traditionally supported space R&D are attracted to the sector. -McDaniel |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
I guess my idea of a moonbase is a bunch of domes, using the
"regolith" as structural material. Assuming you can get some silicates out of the dirt and rocks there, then a primary step for long term habitibility is food production, using the materials to build largescale greenhouses to grow earthly plantlife. Vegetal food production would probably start and be supplemented with artificial lights and temperature controls to replicate normal earth growing patterns. Really the way to get to the Moon is heavy lift. This doesn't necessarily mean the biggest rocket ever made, there are more efficient ways to get stuff into space than the hugest rocket. There are two basic classes of stuff to lift: cargo and people. Then, we start divising launch and holding orbits from Earth to and from the moon. We need a lot of stuff in orbit and a nice station there, and also at the moon. The parts should be commoditized and standard issue and that kind of thing. Landing stuff on Earth is kind of easier than landing on the moon, it has an atmosphere, so giant supertankers could be aeroformed in space and floated gently to land in the ocean with maybe only a few kilotons. Landing on Luna requires retrorockets. When it comes to mining, one of the reasons to economically justify space exploration and colonization, where it's at are the asteroids. We need about twenty or thirty space telescopes to catalog solar objects, although current efforts really have an amazing picture of the solar system. Find mliions of kilograms of almost pure iron in an asteroid, plant some landing rockets on it, and point it at the moon. Another poster correctly notes that asteroids of many forms have already landed on the moon. To get to and from asteroids, or only to for unmanned missions, we need a whole horde of modular robotic space vehicles, hundreds of 'em, ranging in size from coffee cans to dump trucks. To get them into space we need heavy lift. If it takes a long time to get to where the asteroids are, then the mining might be better done by a very large spaceship, nuclear powered, of course, that makes its way to the asteroid belt or something, or near Earth concentrations of asteroids, and processes them for the good stuff and uses the slag as reaction propellant, launching the good stuff to holding orbits. Anyways, back to a moon base, there's about 1/6 gravity, no atmosphere to speak of, and due to that temperature and radiation extremes. People on the moon would be cave dwellers for quite some time. The closest analog on Earth is probably Antartica. Yet, where Antartica supports millions of penguins, we don't even have bacteria on the moon yet. I don't think that there are very many environmental concerns about the moon, except this: the human presence should be invisible to the naked eye as seen from Earth. Anyways, what you need on the moon for a base is construction equipment, and lots of it. Probably among the first in line is one of those tunnel drilling rigs. That gets set loose as soon as it gets there to start drilling hundreds of miles of carefully planned tunnel sections and large cavern starts, to start forming termite hills, prospect and prototype, and grow caverns for the food to feed the people. There are certainly issues in making natural and semi-natural underground facilities airtight to support pressurization, with a bunch of compartmentalization. That's a good idea about burying pre-fabs. On the surface what you want are solar cells, tons of 'em. How much uranium is on the moon? Fission is a well-understood power source. Basically what you want is the cheapest way to use huge amounts of bulk so that surface scrapers could provide fuel for energy production until we have a five or ten mile deep map of the entire lunar surface. About life support, what are good are chlorophylic algae. Them and other germs are good for waste treatment. Biotechnology could do a lot of work. Now, last I heard we and the Russians were supposed to have a manned Mars mission by 2030. Times have changed since then, what with the failure of Soviet Communism and that, so now such a task should be done by 2020. About getting to the moon, what I think should be done straightaway are dozens of unmanned micromissions. We need about eighty or ninety remote control ATVs zooming around up there, in, say, fifteen months. Saying in ten years that we'll just go directly to the moon is ridiculous. Instead, launch a bunch of little missions now and see what happens to them. Many of them may fail spectacularly, offering a wealth of data, and knowledge to do it right later. That means something along the lines of having twenty universities and ten national laboratories and anybody who cares to build one making moon landers of various configurations and launching them to the moon helter-skelter. Ross F. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Moon Base baby steps
Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
In sci.space.tech Bill Bogen wrote: Two interesting quotes from Prez. Bush's speech: "We will begin the effort quickly, using existing programs and personnel.... We'll make steady progress, one mission, one voyage, one landing at a time." Assuming an incremental approach, even if the grand program (new vehicle and eventual Mars landing) falls by the wayside, what small, initial steps can be taken before political momentum fades? Several 50m or so contracts for developing a cheap expendable? $10K/lb really, really limits things. Spend ten billion on space, and you might get 300 tonnes launched, being quite optimistic. Drop launch costs tenfold by investing in new launch vehicles, and you might get 3000 tonnes for the same money. Is this to orbit or to the Moon? $10 billion should get you 1000-4000 tonnes to LEO at recent prices (dating from around 2000-2002, depends on who you use, Russians would be cheapest) and you probably could get a good discount with that much launch volume. Karl Hallowell |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
building a base on the Moon | Andromeda et Julie | Science | 7 | February 15th 04 03:34 AM |
NEWS: The allure of an outpost on the Moon | Kent Betts | Space Shuttle | 2 | January 15th 04 12:56 AM |
We choose to go to the Moon? | Brian Gaff | Space Shuttle | 49 | December 10th 03 10:14 AM |
Moon base or ISS? I say take your pick | Abdul Ahad | Space Station | 23 | November 16th 03 06:18 AM |