A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA’s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old May 28th 19, 07:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 28 May 2019
07:03:31 -0400:

In article ,
says...
At any rate, once you reduce launch costs to put a reasonable amount of
equipment on the moon to start production of LH2/LOX in quantity, you
need to compare the new, lower, cost of launching LH2/LOX (or better
yet, methane/LOX) from earth to that mined on the moon. If you take
into account all the money it's going to take to maintain that
(expensive) infrastructure on the moon to produce that propellant, I'm
not convinced that it's going to break even in terms of the economics in
the next 25 years or so.


So Mars is right out, then, since in situ fuel production is so hard
and it's REQUIRED if you're going to do Mars?


The difference is in the effort that the in-situ propellant production
requires. On Mars, you've got some filters and vacuum pumps to pull in
CO2 from the thin atmosphere and your gas processing equipment that can
be located inside the landing craft (protected from the elements).

On the moon, we don't really know what we'll need to produce water in
quantity. Some people think it will be as easy as scooping up some
loose surface material from the lunar south pole area and baking it so
that the volatiles (mostly water) come out. I think that's going to be
a lot harder than it seems since we have zero actual surface data on the
properties of said surface material that is "high" in water content.
Add in the abrasive nature of the lunar regolith and you have a recipe
for constant breakdowns of equipment exposed to that regolith.


I think you overestimate the difficulty. Solid ice reflections have
been observed at the lunar south pole, which means getting the water
can be much easier than what you describe, which is how to extract
water bonded to regolith. The 'bake me a river' approach requires
moving a tonne of surface material for a liter of water. You need to
'mine' several orders of magnitude less material to get water at the
concentrations indicated in shadowed areas at the south pole.


IMHO, lunar in-situ LH2/LOX production will be at least an order of
magnitude harder (which means more expensive) than in-situ methane/LOX
production on Mars done with LH2 brought from earth.


Again, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the LH2/LOX
production. All it takes is local water and electricity.


Bringing the LH2
from earth makes the initial process much easier for those first Mars
missions. Later missions can likely get their H2O from Mars as well,
but it's not strictly necessary, so this provides for one more stepping
stone on the path.


Hauling all that LH2 all that way seems silly to me, particularly
given that vehicles like Starship don't really have any tankage for it
and you're going to need a ****load of it to make enough methane to
refuel Starship. It takes 240 tonnes of liquid methane to refuel
Starship. That means you'd need to bring along 60 tonnes of LH2 for
each Starship vehicle. Total cargo capacity of the vehicle is around
100 tonnes.

The danger of NASA's architecture is that we wind up with LH2/LOX
fueled vehicles because we're fueling them at L2 from lunar sources
and then are funneled into the more difficult (but not an order of
magnitude more difficult) production of LH2. I think it's pretty
obvious that we're going to have to mine ice for hydrogen to make Mars
feasible.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #62  
Old May 29th 19, 12:10 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 28 May 2019
07:03:31 -0400:

In article ,
says...
At any rate, once you reduce launch costs to put a reasonable amount of
equipment on the moon to start production of LH2/LOX in quantity, you
need to compare the new, lower, cost of launching LH2/LOX (or better
yet, methane/LOX) from earth to that mined on the moon. If you take
into account all the money it's going to take to maintain that
(expensive) infrastructure on the moon to produce that propellant, I'm
not convinced that it's going to break even in terms of the economics in
the next 25 years or so.


So Mars is right out, then, since in situ fuel production is so hard
and it's REQUIRED if you're going to do Mars?


The difference is in the effort that the in-situ propellant production
requires. On Mars, you've got some filters and vacuum pumps to pull in
CO2 from the thin atmosphere and your gas processing equipment that can
be located inside the landing craft (protected from the elements).

On the moon, we don't really know what we'll need to produce water in
quantity. Some people think it will be as easy as scooping up some
loose surface material from the lunar south pole area and baking it so
that the volatiles (mostly water) come out. I think that's going to be
a lot harder than it seems since we have zero actual surface data on the
properties of said surface material that is "high" in water content.
Add in the abrasive nature of the lunar regolith and you have a recipe
for constant breakdowns of equipment exposed to that regolith.


I think you overestimate the difficulty.


Possibly. It would be great if lunar water is cheap and easy to
harvest. But that has yet to be proven.

Solid ice reflections have
been observed at the lunar south pole, which means getting the water
can be much easier than what you describe, which is how to extract
water bonded to regolith.


Solid ice of what purity? How much abrasive lunar regolith is frozen in
that water? Since we're operating in vacuum, don't you have to mine the
frozen bits and keep them frozen until you put them in a sealed chamber
to melt/bake out the water? If the water/mud melts before you get it
into a chamber, all of the water will be lost to vacuum, will it not?

The 'bake me a river' approach requires
moving a tonne of surface material for a liter of water. You need to
'mine' several orders of magnitude less material to get water at the
concentrations indicated in shadowed areas at the south pole.


True, but it's the 'mining' bit that's never been done with frozen water
that's likely mixed in with abrasive lunar regolith. Sure there could
be crystal clear lakes of frozen water at the south pole (I'd give that
a snowball's chance in hell). Or, more reasonably IMHO, there could be
the equivalent of frozen hyper abrasive lunar mud at the south pole.
Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.

Since we don't know the properties of the material yet, I don't see how
we can reasonably engineer machines that we know are going to be
reliable at mining it in quantity.


IMHO, lunar in-situ LH2/LOX production will be at least an order of
magnitude harder (which means more expensive) than in-situ methane/LOX
production on Mars done with LH2 brought from earth.


Again, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the LH2/LOX
production. All it takes is local water and electricity.


And I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining
lunar water in quantity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get actual
samples of south pole "water" to analyze. They say the data don't lie,
but unfortunately, we really don't have all of the necessary data.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #63  
Old May 29th 19, 08:56 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 29 May 2019
07:10:08 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 28 May 2019
07:03:31 -0400:

In article ,
says...
At any rate, once you reduce launch costs to put a reasonable amount of
equipment on the moon to start production of LH2/LOX in quantity, you
need to compare the new, lower, cost of launching LH2/LOX (or better
yet, methane/LOX) from earth to that mined on the moon. If you take
into account all the money it's going to take to maintain that
(expensive) infrastructure on the moon to produce that propellant, I'm
not convinced that it's going to break even in terms of the economics in
the next 25 years or so.


So Mars is right out, then, since in situ fuel production is so hard
and it's REQUIRED if you're going to do Mars?

The difference is in the effort that the in-situ propellant production
requires. On Mars, you've got some filters and vacuum pumps to pull in
CO2 from the thin atmosphere and your gas processing equipment that can
be located inside the landing craft (protected from the elements).

On the moon, we don't really know what we'll need to produce water in
quantity. Some people think it will be as easy as scooping up some
loose surface material from the lunar south pole area and baking it so
that the volatiles (mostly water) come out. I think that's going to be
a lot harder than it seems since we have zero actual surface data on the
properties of said surface material that is "high" in water content.
Add in the abrasive nature of the lunar regolith and you have a recipe
for constant breakdowns of equipment exposed to that regolith.


I think you overestimate the difficulty.


Possibly. It would be great if lunar water is cheap and easy to
harvest. But that has yet to be proven.


But there's pretty good evidence that it will be.

Solid ice reflections have
been observed at the lunar south pole, which means getting the water
can be much easier than what you describe, which is how to extract
water bonded to regolith.


Solid ice of what purity? How much abrasive lunar regolith is frozen in
that water?


It has to be relatively pure or else it would give the kind of
reflections that have been detected.


Since we're operating in vacuum, don't you have to mine the
frozen bits and keep them frozen until you put them in a sealed chamber
to melt/bake out the water? If the water/mud melts before you get it
into a chamber, all of the water will be lost to vacuum, will it not?


True, but that's not exactly rocket science of any difficult kind.
'Mine' in this case amounts to essentially what you'd do to 'mine' an
iceberg here on Earth.

The 'bake me a river' approach requires
moving a tonne of surface material for a liter of water. You need to
'mine' several orders of magnitude less material to get water at the
concentrations indicated in shadowed areas at the south pole.


True, but it's the 'mining' bit that's never been done with frozen water
that's likely mixed in with abrasive lunar regolith. Sure there could
be crystal clear lakes of frozen water at the south pole (I'd give that
a snowball's chance in hell).


Then obviously manned space flight is just too difficult and pointless
and we should give it up.


Or, more reasonably IMHO, there could be
the equivalent of frozen hyper abrasive lunar mud at the south pole.


That wouldn't give the sort of reflections that have been detected.


Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.


You have to start somewhere. NOBODY has said to start right out
building fuel factories for the Moon. Note that people HAVE said that
for Mars and the same problems exist there.


Since we don't know the properties of the material yet, I don't see how
we can reasonably engineer machines that we know are going to be
reliable at mining it in quantity.


Well then Mars is right out, because unlike the Moon you just can't do
manned flights to Mars and come back without in situ fuel production
and we can't do that until we go there and analyze the crap out of the
atmosphere.


IMHO, lunar in-situ LH2/LOX production will be at least an order of
magnitude harder (which means more expensive) than in-situ methane/LOX
production on Mars done with LH2 brought from earth.


Again, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the LH2/LOX
production. All it takes is local water and electricity.


And I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining
lunar water in quantity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get actual
samples of south pole "water" to analyze. They say the data don't lie,
but unfortunately, we really don't have all of the necessary data.


You want data? We have more than you apparently think we do. From
the chief scientist of the LCROSS experiment, Anthony Colaprete, from
Nasa's Ames Research Center: "There's not one flavour of water on the
Moon; there's a range of everything from relatively pure ice all the
way to adsorbed water." You apparently only believe in that last
category. He goes on to say, "And here is an instance inside Cabeus
crater where it appears we threw up a range of fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice." So does that data
alter your pesimistic views about difficulty?


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #64  
Old May 30th 19, 01:02 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Alain Fournier[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 548
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunaroutpost

On May/29/2019 at 15:56, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 29 May 2019
07:10:08 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 28 May 2019
07:03:31 -0400:

In article ,
says...
At any rate, once you reduce launch costs to put a reasonable amount of
equipment on the moon to start production of LH2/LOX in quantity, you
need to compare the new, lower, cost of launching LH2/LOX (or better
yet, methane/LOX) from earth to that mined on the moon. If you take
into account all the money it's going to take to maintain that
(expensive) infrastructure on the moon to produce that propellant, I'm
not convinced that it's going to break even in terms of the economics in
the next 25 years or so.


So Mars is right out, then, since in situ fuel production is so hard
and it's REQUIRED if you're going to do Mars?

The difference is in the effort that the in-situ propellant production
requires. On Mars, you've got some filters and vacuum pumps to pull in
CO2 from the thin atmosphere and your gas processing equipment that can
be located inside the landing craft (protected from the elements).

On the moon, we don't really know what we'll need to produce water in
quantity. Some people think it will be as easy as scooping up some
loose surface material from the lunar south pole area and baking it so
that the volatiles (mostly water) come out. I think that's going to be
a lot harder than it seems since we have zero actual surface data on the
properties of said surface material that is "high" in water content.
Add in the abrasive nature of the lunar regolith and you have a recipe
for constant breakdowns of equipment exposed to that regolith.


I think you overestimate the difficulty.


Possibly. It would be great if lunar water is cheap and easy to
harvest. But that has yet to be proven.


But there's pretty good evidence that it will be.

Solid ice reflections have
been observed at the lunar south pole, which means getting the water
can be much easier than what you describe, which is how to extract
water bonded to regolith.


Solid ice of what purity? How much abrasive lunar regolith is frozen in
that water?


It has to be relatively pure or else it would give the kind of
reflections that have been detected.


Since we're operating in vacuum, don't you have to mine the
frozen bits and keep them frozen until you put them in a sealed chamber
to melt/bake out the water? If the water/mud melts before you get it
into a chamber, all of the water will be lost to vacuum, will it not?


True, but that's not exactly rocket science of any difficult kind.
'Mine' in this case amounts to essentially what you'd do to 'mine' an
iceberg here on Earth.

The 'bake me a river' approach requires
moving a tonne of surface material for a liter of water. You need to
'mine' several orders of magnitude less material to get water at the
concentrations indicated in shadowed areas at the south pole.


True, but it's the 'mining' bit that's never been done with frozen water
that's likely mixed in with abrasive lunar regolith. Sure there could
be crystal clear lakes of frozen water at the south pole (I'd give that
a snowball's chance in hell).


Then obviously manned space flight is just too difficult and pointless
and we should give it up.


Or, more reasonably IMHO, there could be
the equivalent of frozen hyper abrasive lunar mud at the south pole.


That wouldn't give the sort of reflections that have been detected.


Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.


You have to start somewhere. NOBODY has said to start right out
building fuel factories for the Moon. Note that people HAVE said that
for Mars and the same problems exist there.


Since we don't know the properties of the material yet, I don't see how
we can reasonably engineer machines that we know are going to be
reliable at mining it in quantity.


Well then Mars is right out, because unlike the Moon you just can't do
manned flights to Mars and come back without in situ fuel production
and we can't do that until we go there and analyze the crap out of the
atmosphere.


We know what is in the Martian atmosphere. We know how to extract fuel
from it.

IMHO, lunar in-situ LH2/LOX production will be at least an order of
magnitude harder (which means more expensive) than in-situ methane/LOX
production on Mars done with LH2 brought from earth.


Again, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the LH2/LOX
production. All it takes is local water and electricity.


And I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining
lunar water in quantity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get actual
samples of south pole "water" to analyze. They say the data don't lie,
but unfortunately, we really don't have all of the necessary data.


You want data? We have more than you apparently think we do. From
the chief scientist of the LCROSS experiment, Anthony Colaprete, from
Nasa's Ames Research Center: "There's not one flavour of water on the
Moon; there's a range of everything from relatively pure ice all the
way to adsorbed water." You apparently only believe in that last
category. He goes on to say, "And here is an instance inside Cabeus
crater where it appears we threw up a range of fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice." So does that data
alter your pesimistic views about difficulty?


The question is how much relatively pure ice there is. Fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice isn't necessarily easy
to mine. We have fine-grained particulates of near pure gold at many
places on Earth that aren't mined.

I'm not saying that you are completely off the mark here. It might be
that water will be easy to mine on the moon. But we don't know that yet.


Alain Fournier
  #65  
Old May 30th 19, 05:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Alain Fournier wrote on Wed, 29 May 2019
20:02:49 -0400:

On May/29/2019 at 15:56, Fred J. McCall wrote :
Jeff Findley wrote on Wed, 29 May 2019
07:10:08 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote on Tue, 28 May 2019
07:03:31 -0400:

In article ,
says...
At any rate, once you reduce launch costs to put a reasonable amount of
equipment on the moon to start production of LH2/LOX in quantity, you
need to compare the new, lower, cost of launching LH2/LOX (or better
yet, methane/LOX) from earth to that mined on the moon. If you take
into account all the money it's going to take to maintain that
(expensive) infrastructure on the moon to produce that propellant, I'm
not convinced that it's going to break even in terms of the economics in
the next 25 years or so.


So Mars is right out, then, since in situ fuel production is so hard
and it's REQUIRED if you're going to do Mars?

The difference is in the effort that the in-situ propellant production
requires. On Mars, you've got some filters and vacuum pumps to pull in
CO2 from the thin atmosphere and your gas processing equipment that can
be located inside the landing craft (protected from the elements).

On the moon, we don't really know what we'll need to produce water in
quantity. Some people think it will be as easy as scooping up some
loose surface material from the lunar south pole area and baking it so
that the volatiles (mostly water) come out. I think that's going to be
a lot harder than it seems since we have zero actual surface data on the
properties of said surface material that is "high" in water content.
Add in the abrasive nature of the lunar regolith and you have a recipe
for constant breakdowns of equipment exposed to that regolith.


I think you overestimate the difficulty.

Possibly. It would be great if lunar water is cheap and easy to
harvest. But that has yet to be proven.


But there's pretty good evidence that it will be.

Solid ice reflections have
been observed at the lunar south pole, which means getting the water
can be much easier than what you describe, which is how to extract
water bonded to regolith.

Solid ice of what purity? How much abrasive lunar regolith is frozen in
that water?


It has to be relatively pure or else it would give the kind of
reflections that have been detected.


Since we're operating in vacuum, don't you have to mine the
frozen bits and keep them frozen until you put them in a sealed chamber
to melt/bake out the water? If the water/mud melts before you get it
into a chamber, all of the water will be lost to vacuum, will it not?


True, but that's not exactly rocket science of any difficult kind.
'Mine' in this case amounts to essentially what you'd do to 'mine' an
iceberg here on Earth.

The 'bake me a river' approach requires
moving a tonne of surface material for a liter of water. You need to
'mine' several orders of magnitude less material to get water at the
concentrations indicated in shadowed areas at the south pole.

True, but it's the 'mining' bit that's never been done with frozen water
that's likely mixed in with abrasive lunar regolith. Sure there could
be crystal clear lakes of frozen water at the south pole (I'd give that
a snowball's chance in hell).


Then obviously manned space flight is just too difficult and pointless
and we should give it up.


Or, more reasonably IMHO, there could be
the equivalent of frozen hyper abrasive lunar mud at the south pole.


That wouldn't give the sort of reflections that have been detected.


Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.


You have to start somewhere. NOBODY has said to start right out
building fuel factories for the Moon. Note that people HAVE said that
for Mars and the same problems exist there.


Since we don't know the properties of the material yet, I don't see how
we can reasonably engineer machines that we know are going to be
reliable at mining it in quantity.


Well then Mars is right out, because unlike the Moon you just can't do
manned flights to Mars and come back without in situ fuel production
and we can't do that until we go there and analyze the crap out of the
atmosphere.


We know what is in the Martian atmosphere. We know how to extract fuel
from it.


Well, no, we don't, in any effective way, unless your plan is to use
up over half your cargo capacity hauling LH2 to Mars. And you're
going to need water for your people. If you're going to do more than
'flags and footprints' (and you are, because you can't make fuel for
the return trip fast enough), you need two years or so of water per
person you send. That's around a tonne and a half of water per
person. That hundred tonnes of cargo per ship is going fast...

And if your plan is to use in situ water (and pretty much every plan
includes that as a requirement) you're going to have to build that
water extraction plant that you can't know how to build until you go
and analyze the hell out of everything (according to Jeff) but you
can't go do THAT until you can build a water plant.

IMHO, lunar in-situ LH2/LOX production will be at least an order of
magnitude harder (which means more expensive) than in-situ methane/LOX
production on Mars done with LH2 brought from earth.


Again, I think you overestimate the difficulty of the LH2/LOX
production. All it takes is local water and electricity.

And I think you might be underestimating the difficulty of obtaining
lunar water in quantity.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get actual
samples of south pole "water" to analyze. They say the data don't lie,
but unfortunately, we really don't have all of the necessary data.


You want data? We have more than you apparently think we do. From
the chief scientist of the LCROSS experiment, Anthony Colaprete, from
Nasa's Ames Research Center: "There's not one flavour of water on the
Moon; there's a range of everything from relatively pure ice all the
way to adsorbed water." You apparently only believe in that last
category. He goes on to say, "And here is an instance inside Cabeus
crater where it appears we threw up a range of fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice." So does that data
alter your pesimistic views about difficulty?


The question is how much relatively pure ice there is. Fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice isn't necessarily easy
to mine. We have fine-grained particulates of near pure gold at many
places on Earth that aren't mined.


We don't fail to 'mine' that gold because it's impossibly difficult.
We don't mine it because there are much easier deposits to get. And a
kilo of gold probably wouldn't be enough to pay for a kilo of Earth
water transported to the Moon. Note that 'mining' water on the Moon
will work this way, too. There will be easier 'deposits' and harder
'deposits'. We'll 'mine' the easier ones. That's why the interest in
the south pole, by the way. That's where current data indicates the
'easier' deposits of ice probably are.


I'm not saying that you are completely off the mark here. It might be
that water will be easy to mine on the moon. But we don't know that yet.


Let me adjust that slightly. I don't necessarily think it will be
'easy'. I just think it will wind up being a lot easier than Jeff
thinks it is.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
  #66  
Old May 30th 19, 12:17 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

In article ,
says...

Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.


You have to start somewhere. NOBODY has said to start right out
building fuel factories for the Moon. Note that people HAVE said that
for Mars and the same problems exist there.


This is not true, IMHO. Mars atmosphere is about 95% CO2, 2% argon, 2%
nitrogen, and trace amounts of other stuff. It's the 95% CO2 that would
be useful to combine with LH2 brought from earth to make methane and O2.
This would be via the Sabatier reaction and hydrolysis of the water
coming out of the Sabatier reaction. This is all relatively simple.

You're assuming that obtaining water on the moon will be as simple as
mining an iceberg. I personally doubt that the water on the moon is
nearly as pure as the iceberg. And even if it is, it's not certain to
be on the surface and as easy to get to as you assert, at least
according to this quote:

Ice deposits found at Moon's pole
By Paul Rincon , Science reporter, BBC News, The Woodlands, Texas
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8544635.stm

"It is mostly pure water-ice," said Dr Spudis. "It could be
under a few tens of centimetres of dry regolith (lunar soil)."

Again, it's that abrasive "lunar soil" that's the problem on the moon.
It's going to cause lots of wear and tear on machinery. This issue
simply does not exist when extracting CO2 from Mars atmosphere.

And again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree since we don't know
for sure how easy it will be to get to that "mostly pure water-ice".
All we have right now is spectral and radar data. We have no frozen
core samples to very carefully analyze in an earth based laboratory.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #67  
Old May 30th 19, 12:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

In article ,
says...

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point until we can get actual
samples of south pole "water" to analyze. They say the data don't lie,
but unfortunately, we really don't have all of the necessary data.


You want data? We have more than you apparently think we do. From
the chief scientist of the LCROSS experiment, Anthony Colaprete, from
Nasa's Ames Research Center: "There's not one flavour of water on the
Moon; there's a range of everything from relatively pure ice all the
way to adsorbed water." You apparently only believe in that last
category. He goes on to say, "And here is an instance inside Cabeus
crater where it appears we threw up a range of fine-grained
particulates of near pure crystalline water-ice." So does that data
alter your pesimistic views about difficulty?


Here is the key bit, IMHO:

"There's not one flavour of water on the Moon; there's a range
of everything from relatively pure ice all the way to adsorbed
water."

So how much abrasive lunar regolith would we need to drive through to
get to the "relatively pure ice"? We don't really know. And just how
pure is "relatively pure" when we find the best deposits possible? This
water ice is pure relative to what?

Again, we're going to have to agree to disagree on just how pure the
water is and how easy it's going to be to "mine" because this all
depends on the details. Details we really won't know until we send
probes there to take core samples and return them to earth.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #68  
Old May 30th 19, 12:33 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,307
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

In article ,
says...

We know what is in the Martian atmosphere. We know how to extract fuel
from it.


Well, no, we don't, in any effective way, unless your plan is to use
up over half your cargo capacity hauling LH2 to Mars.


Yes, that's the initial plan, at least for SpaceX. They plan on sending
a couple of Starships, uncrewed, to Mars to work on propellant
production ahead of sending a crew. Those initial Starships would be
carrying all the LH2 they need to produce the return propellant needed
for later crewed Starships.

And you're going to need water for your people.


You don't have to send everything on one ship.

On the first mission, you send to uncrewed Starships to make propellant
for the return trip. Yes, something on the order of half their cargo is
LH2. The rest is processing equipment, power generation, power storage,
and etc. Pretty much everything on those first two ships exists just to
make propellant.

On the second mission, you send two crewed Starships. Those would have
the water necessary for the crewed missions.

If you're going to do more than
'flags and footprints' (and you are, because you can't make fuel for
the return trip fast enough), you need two years or so of water per
person you send. That's around a tonne and a half of water per
person. That hundred tonnes of cargo per ship is going fast...


Again, water comes on the crewed Starships. Also, with some water
recycling, you don't need the full two years or so of water per person.
How much water you need depends on how efficient the recycling is. We
have a lot of experience with this on ISS, so it's "simply" a matter of
running the numbers and doing the engineering trades.

And if your plan is to use in situ water (and pretty much every plan
includes that as a requirement) you're going to have to build that
water extraction plant that you can't know how to build until you go
and analyze the hell out of everything (according to Jeff) but you
can't go do THAT until you can build a water plant.


That wouldn't come until later. Until a Mars base can bootstrap in-situ
water production, you're stuck sending more LH2 and processing equipment
on uncrewed Starships and sending more water with crewed Starships.

But yes, once that in-situ water production gets going, you can replace
the LH2 and some of the water on future Starships with other cargo
and/or more people.

Musk's ambition is to set up a Mars colony. As such, he's already
planning on sending a crap ton of Starships to Mars. His ambition is
the opposite of flags and footprints.

Jeff
--
All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.
These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,
employer, or any organization that I am a member of.
  #69  
Old May 30th 19, 12:52 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Niels Jørgen Kruse[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Jeff Findley wrote:

So how much abrasive lunar regolith would we need to drive through to
get to the "relatively pure ice"? We don't really know. And just how
pure is "relatively pure" when we find the best deposits possible? This
water ice is pure relative to what?


Do you really need to move the mud?

Say, something like a dome open to the ground with a radiative
heatsource and a cold trap behind it.

--
Mvh./Regards, Niels Jørgen Kruse, Vanløse, Denmark
  #70  
Old May 30th 19, 09:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default NASA?s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost

Jeff Findley wrote on Thu, 30 May 2019
07:17:21 -0400:

In article ,
says...

Without going there, taking core samples, and analyzing the crap out of
them, we simply do not know exactly what we're dealing with.


You have to start somewhere. NOBODY has said to start right out
building fuel factories for the Moon. Note that people HAVE said that
for Mars and the same problems exist there.


This is not true, IMHO. Mars atmosphere is about 95% CO2, 2% argon, 2%
nitrogen, and trace amounts of other stuff. It's the 95% CO2 that would
be useful to combine with LH2 brought from earth to make methane and O2.


So you're going to give up over 60% of your cargo capacity to haul LH2
to Mars? Presumably you also have to take two years worth of water
for every person you're sending, plus two years worth of food, plus at
least six months worth of oxygen, plus...

You get the idea. Suddenly Starship looks mighty small.


This would be via the Sabatier reaction and hydrolysis of the water
coming out of the Sabatier reaction. This is all relatively simple.


Not as simple as heating stuff and capturing the vapor.


You're assuming that obtaining water on the moon will be as simple as
mining an iceberg.


Where did I say any such thing? Several orders of magnitude easier
than the impossibility you keep claiming still leaves lots of space
before we're at "mining an iceberg".


I personally doubt that the water on the moon is
nearly as pure as the iceberg. And even if it is, it's not certain to
be on the surface and as easy to get to as you assert, at least
according to this quote:

Ice deposits found at Moon's pole
By Paul Rincon , Science reporter, BBC News, The Woodlands, Texas
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8544635.stm

"It is mostly pure water-ice," said Dr Spudis. "It could be
under a few tens of centimetres of dry regolith (lunar soil)."


Then again, it 'could' not be.


Again, it's that abrasive "lunar soil" that's the problem on the moon.
It's going to cause lots of wear and tear on machinery. This issue
simply does not exist when extracting CO2 from Mars atmosphere.


You act like regolith is some sort of magical super-abrasive. It's
not. Is it abrasive? Sure. Can it be dealt with? Of course, by a
number of different mitigations. And it's not regolith that's the
problem and it's not particularly abrasive. The problem is that
mechanical processes that have produced existing dust. Regolith is
handy for all sorts of things. We've made concrete out of it.


And again, I think we'll have to agree to disagree since we don't know
for sure how easy it will be to get to that "mostly pure water-ice".
All we have right now is spectral and radar data. We have no frozen
core samples to very carefully analyze in an earth based laboratory.


You seem bound and determined to accentuate the problems. I can only
attribute this to you wanting to 'skip' the Moon because you think
it's a distraction from getting to Mars, because the data doesn't
really support opposition of the magnitude you put forward.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NASA's new focus plan revealed Pat Flannery Policy 11 February 27th 10 05:32 PM
NASA's new focus plan revealed Jorge R. Frank History 0 February 27th 10 05:32 PM
Bush administration to adopt Artemis Society plan for moon mission... Dholmes Policy 1 January 13th 04 03:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.