Moon Base baby steps

(Cris Fitch) wrote in message . com...
(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.

Tethers Unlimited has a product in prototype stage that is similar:
several sensors on deployable lines, fired from a lander.

http://www.tethers.com/SensorLine.html

i really like the ping-pong ball lander idea - you could get very wide
dispersion if desired, or a lot of "pixels" in one tight location.

josh

Just some thoughts.

- Cris Fitch
San Diego, CA
http://www.orbit6.com/
http://www.orbit6.com/tform/moon.htm

"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

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.

(Bill Bogen) wrote in message . com...

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.

Note the detailed design of the space suit for dogs.

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)

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.

"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

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

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.

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