Improved lunar landing architecture

Pat Flannery wrote:


Alex Terrell wrote:



You'd better hope you can get that 200 tons of water for the ice
radiation shield on-site, because moving it up from Earth ain't going to
be cheap.



That's why the polar base exists.



The question is: Does the polar ice exist?
That's still a very open question.

Pat

Pat


Scientist: we have found these indications of hydrogen. If these
are bonded with oxygen in water molecules, we would have X amount of
water. But, we don't have any in situ data. This hydrogen indication
could be a false reading like the data from Tycho or it could be
hydrated into minerals.

Newspaper: NASA discovers water.

Fanboy: A lunar base is easy. They are stupid for not building it
now. We have everything we need...

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 20:41:45 -0700, Hop David
wrote:

Cardman wrote:

Anyway, you can rest assured that the Sun never sets on "the peak of
eternal sunlight", which is why this place would make a good location
to build a base. Also it is not too far from the assumed water.

The moon has a 1.5 degree axial tilt. There may be a "peak of eternal
sunlight" but, so far as I know, its existence remains unconfirmed.

I believe that is one of the goals of ESA's SMART-1.

Yes, you are correct it seems. Not that such a location matters too
much with NASA's nuclear power plant plans anyway.

Cardman.

On 7 Aug 2005 12:27:36 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Pat Flannery wrote:
Alex Terrell wrote:

I've put in water mining and electrolysis, and general base development
initially.



You'd better hope you can get that 200 tons of water for the ice
radiation shield on-site, because moving it up from Earth ain't going to
be cheap.

That's why the polar base exists.

It seems much easier and convenient to make use of regolith as your
base shield, either within a lava tube, or in any suitable depression
that can then be covered.

This is mostly due to this ice shield being a part of your early Polar
Base. Getting this up and running, before any astronaut has touched
down, may not even be possible.

The available ice is unlikely to come in blocks.

Cardman.

Charles Buckley wrote:


Scientist: we have found these indications of hydrogen. If these
are bonded with oxygen in water molecules, we would have X amount of
water. But, we don't have any in situ data. This hydrogen indication
could be a false reading like the data from Tycho or it could be
hydrated into minerals.

Newspaper: NASA discovers water.

Fanboy: A lunar base is easy. They are stupid for not building it
now. We have everything we need...


I still think that the most likely explanation is hydrogen from the
Solar Wind.
Everybody wants to go to the Moon to harvest helium 3 deposited by the
solar wind; but if there is helium lying all over up there, then there
is probably also hydrogen lying around all over up there.

Pat

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 23:53:02 -0500, Pat Flannery
wrote:

Charles Buckley wrote:

Scientist: we have found these indications of hydrogen. If these
are bonded with oxygen in water molecules, we would have X amount of
water. But, we don't have any in situ data. This hydrogen indication
could be a false reading like the data from Tycho or it could be
hydrated into minerals.

Newspaper: NASA discovers water.

Fanboy: A lunar base is easy. They are stupid for not building it
now. We have everything we need...

I still think that the most likely explanation is hydrogen from the
Solar Wind.
Everybody wants to go to the Moon to harvest helium 3 deposited by the
solar wind; but if there is helium lying all over up there, then there
is probably also hydrogen lying around all over up there.

Then what is your theory over why this Hydrogen is only found at the
poles, instead of all over like the He3 is supposed to be? It should
certainly be bonded to something.

There should certainly be Hydrogen at the poles, when this has now
been detected through a few different methods. Although it is true to
say that the Arecibo Observatory did not detect water at the poles,
which simply places a limit on the quantity and depth.

Should there not be water at the poles, then NASA would have to do
some asteroid mining instead. As we at least know that those dirty
snowball versions have plenty of water ice in them.

So a base is possible through one method or another.

Anyway, you should remember that this Universe is a product of the
Human imagination. So there will be water at the poles, simply because
people want there to be. ;-]

Cardman.

Pat Flannery wrote:

You'd better hope you can get that 200 tons of water for the ice
radiation shield on-site, because moving it up from Earth ain't going to
be cheap.

The alternative is lunar soil, but water is easier to play with. Best
is a mix of the two.


That's why the polar base exists.



The question is: Does the polar ice exist?
That's still a very open question.

A good question. One of the immediate tasks for NASA is to get some
orbiting probes, and later some surface rovers, to go and have a look.

After I did my routemap, I realised that the polar base was a lot of
effort just to get water, at the rate of 25 tons per month rising to
100 tons per month.

An alternative is to go straight to the equator and bring the hydrogen
up from Earth. That of course has transportation issues - but would
probably be a more cost effective architecture. Though of course - then
we only get one base.

This solution becomes even more cost effective if a suitable lava tube
is found, as that reduces the cost of equatorial buildings and thermal
protection.

Another alternative to a polar base is to create Aluminium-Magnesium /
Oxygen burning engines. This does however require untested technology.
I did at one time consider this technology for unmanned launches.

I think a peak of eternal sunlight might be useful in the short term.
In the long term, there are big disadvantages to having solar panels
rotaing around a vertical axis in a gravity environment.

I still think space based solar power is the best bet for a lunar base,
but that can only be within about 45 degrees of the points beneath L1
or L2.

Cardman wrote:

Yes, you are correct it seems. Not that such a location matters too
much with NASA's nuclear power plant plans anyway.

For many countries, creating a lunar base is neccessarily far
easier than obtaining a nuclear rector, never mind one that
could be sent to Moon.


Cardman.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

Some people keep talking about Mars which would take money away from the
Lunar program.

Mars is the main goal here.

According to whom?!? Certainly not in the President's speech, which
mentioned Mars "and other destinations" only in passing. And certainly
not in my view of how space should be developed, either.

Some people would prefer a more direct
route, without going to the Moon first.

Which would be a very poor choice, resulting in little or no development
of space.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Mon, 8 Aug 2005 12:05:23 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:

Cardman wrote:

Yes, you are correct it seems. Not that such a location matters too
much with NASA's nuclear power plant plans anyway.

For many countries, creating a lunar base is neccessarily far
easier than obtaining a nuclear rector, never mind one that
could be sent to Moon.

USA = Nuclear
Russia = Nuclear
EU = Nuclear
China = Nuclear

It seems to me, that on the technology scale, that obtaining Nuclear
Power comes a long way before owning a Moon Base. And I am sure that
all these can make a Lunar version to their own desired design.

Cardman.