Mining the Moons of Mars

Mining the Moons of Mars


......if platinum were required for high efficiency fuel cells for
automobiles, only 20% of the world's ground vehicles could be
supplied. This of course doesn't even include the substantially higher
demand for platinum if electrolysis became the primary means for
producing hydrogen for a carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel and
industrial chemical economy.

While alternatives to platinum use in fuel cells and electrodes for
electrolysis are currently being intensely pursued by researches, it
is interesting to note that while platinum is rare in the regolith of
Earth, it is extremely abundant in space-- in the form of asteroids.
In fact, the largest sources of platinum on Earth occur in regions
that appear to have been hit by large asteroid impacts in the more
recent geologic past.

The total mass of the asteroid belt between the planets Mars and
Jupiter is estimated to be about 3.0–3.6 quintillion tonnes (3.0 t0
3.6 billion billion tonnes of material). If all of this asteroid
material were sprinkled over the entire land area of the Earth, it
would be approximately 8 kilometers deep. Asteroids on average contain
about 15,000 parts per billion (ppb) of platinum vs an average of only
0.003 ppb of platinum found in the Earth's crust.

Planetary scientist, John Lewis, estimated that if all of the total
platinum wealth in the asteroid belt were divided amongst every person
on Earth, each-- individual's-- share would come out to be over $30
billion. Furthermore, he estimated that if the total value of
resources of the asteroids: iron, nickel, aluminum, titanium, gold,
silver, uranium, etc. were divided amongst every individual on Earth
then each individual's share would come out to be over $100 billion.
So its clear that while we may live on a planet of limited industrial
material resources, we also live in a solar system of virtually
unlimited industrial material resources.

Interestingly, two additional potential sources of asteroid material
may be in orbit around the fourth planet of our solar system. Mars has
two moons, Phobos and Deimos. Both of these rocky moons resemble C
type asteroids and may have originated elsewhere in the solar system
before being permanently captured in orbit around the red planet. The
inner moon, Phobos, orbits approximately 9377 kilometers from the
center of Mars. The outer moon, Deimos, orbits more than 23,000
kilometers away from Mars. Our own Moon, orbits the Earth more than
384,000 kilometers away. It is interesting that Russia and China are
currently planning a joint robotic mission to Phobos to be launched in
2009 to analyze-- and retrieve-- a sample of the material from the
surface of Phobos for return to Earth......

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.c...s-of-mars.html

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1989/89GL00073.shtml

Should anyone want to go there in preferance to Mars there should be
plenty of water. You might even generate the hydrogen/oxygen required
for a Martian landing. Let's have an open mind! We could at a pinch
explore Mars by telepresence.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 5, 9:03 am, Ian Parker wrote:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1989/89GL00073.shtml

Should anyone want to go there in preferance to Mars there should be
plenty of water. You might even generate the hydrogen/oxygen required
for a Martian landing. Let's have an open mind! We could at a pinch
explore Mars by telepresence.

- Ian Parker

Here is a photograph of the martian moon that's causing this
speculation;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ickney_mro.jpg

Definitely lots of interesting things that *might* be there. You've
got something like 10 trillion metric tons of materials. Loosely
compacted. Easily accessible. Bathed in sunlight 24/7 at about the
same intensity you get on Earth's surface. So, that's very
interesting

You do need a means to mine the moon and process it for the materials
you want while handling the materials you don't want.

While it is true you may use aerobraking to enter orbit around Mars
and then make use of resources - if they can be found - to make
hydrogen and oxygen from water resources on one or both of the moons -
to land and return, and even refuel for departure back to Earth (as
well as supply crews with water and oxygen on orbit) - there isn't
much advantage from doing the Zubrin approach of using aerobraking to
land, and then doing all that on the Mars surface.

In fact, landing on the Mars surface gives you access to Mars'
atmosphere which allows you to process the gases with pumps and
filters and cryo coolers. A far simpler and less risky process.

Aerobraking to the surface has been done;

http://sirius.bu.edu/aeronomy/withersmericarus2006.pdf

Mars entry speeds are about 5.7 km/sec with a descent angle of 11.5
degrees took 251 seconds. That's 2.2 gees acceleration (v=at -- a =
v/t) which is less than what a launch from Earth imposes.

To skip off the Mars atmosphere into Mars orbit requires that 3.6 km/
sec be lost, with a far shallower descent angle, at a lower gee
force. So that's easy to do too.

So, the big difference is being able to process the moons of mars into
useful stuff easier and more safely and more efficiently than doing
the same thing with Mars atmosphere.

As Zubrin and others show in their works you can aerobrake and land on
Mars empty, or nearly so and then use a nuclear or solar energy source
to extract water vapor from the Mars atmosphere, and break that water
down into oxygen and hydrogen. CO2 may be combined with H2 brought
from Earth, producing CH4 and H2O - and that water broken back into 2
H2 and O2 from 2 H2O.

4 H2 + CO2 --- CH4 + 2 H2O
2 H2O + energy -- 2 H2 + O2

In the end, 2 H2 is converted to CH4 and O2 - which is far more
massive than the H2 brought along.
4 amu 16 amu 32 amu
48 amu total

So, each ton of hydrogen is converted into 12 tons of propellant by
absorbing 11 tons of CO2 from the martian atmosphere.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ne_rocket.html
http://www.space-travel.com/reports/...acuum_999.html

A 3.5 km/sec exhaust speed, combined with a 5.7 km/sec transfer
velocity from the Mars surface so, this is a velocity ratio of 5.7/3.5
which means a propellant fraction of 80.4%. With an 8.6% structural
fraction - this leaves 11.0% payload fraction. But 6.7% of that
must be hydrogen - leaving 4.3% payload - which must include the power
plant, and atmospheric processing - but part of that could be left
behind.

Using hydrogen and extracting both hydrogen and oxygen from water
vapor present in Mars' atmosphere - provides a 4.5 km/sec exhaust
speed, produces a propellant fraction of 71.9%. With the same 8.6%
structural fraction - 19.5% payload fraction - a far simpler system,
but more power is needed.

Landing on Diemos or Phobos after aerobraking - reduces aerobraking
requirements slightly - lowering gee forces from 2.2 gees to 1.2
gees. Adds complexity of processing solids in the vacuum of space.
Adds the benefit of solar energy available at higher intensity 24/7.
To deorbit from the moons requires 2.6 km/sec delta vee capability.
With a 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed this produces a propellant fraction of
43.9% - with the same 8.6% structural fraction - leaves 47.5% payload
fraction.

The propellant processing station - can be left on orbit during
landing - the lander can be use over and over again to visit several
sites, while the orbiting station can reconnoiter sites - to provide
planetary coverage in a single mission.

Finally, the 3.6 km/sec delta vee requirement to escape from Mars
orbit to Earth transfer - using hydrogen/oxygen is provided by a
propellant fraction of 55.1% - with the same 8.6% structural fraction
- leaves 36% payload fraction.

So, a 100 ton payload arriving on the mars surface requires the
following departing mars, which gives the scale of teh ship and power
supply needed;

Approach Payload Vehicle Energy
Zubrin direct descent 4.3% 2,326 tons 577 MWh
HyZ direct descent 11.0% 909 tons 5,656 MWh
orbit phobos/diemos 36.0% 278 tons 1,729 MWh
surf phobos diemos 47.5% 106 tons* 660 MWh**

*NOTE: The surface vehicle is assumed to be 50 tons empty, while the
entire payload is 100 tons
*NOTE: The energy for the surface vehicle is for landing and take off
only.

A primary energy system - either nuclear or solar - large enough for
the HyZ approach would allow 6 landings and take offs at six different
sites on Mars while the return stage was being refilled.

So there is are some things to recommend this approach.

Of course a bimodal nuclear rocket engine - improves things greatly!

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/PB/PBM-mcguire.html

Here was have a self contained power supply for transit, as well as
for use on orbit around Mars. We also have a nuclear thermal rocket
capable of generating 8.5 km/sec to 9.5 km/sec exhaust speeds. That
means far less propellant is needed to depart mars orbit. Using 8.5
km/sec exhaust speed and 3.6 km/sec delta vee to leave mars orbit,
requires a propellant fraction of 34.6% Increasing structural
fraction to 15.4% - leaves 50% payload fraction throughout. Here we
assume half the payload - 50 tons is the same chemically powered
lander.

Using the bimodal nuclear engine to land on mars creates a nuclear
radiation hazard that presumably is taken care of in space by
approaching and departing the nuclear stage along shadow lines of the
gamma shield used in transit.

Here, despite large increase in structural fraction due to the nuclear
thermal engine, and shield, we only need 200 tons on departure and 100
tons of propellant - 622 MWh of energy which means that at the same
power level as the HyZ mission above, 7 to 8 landings may be made with
a chemical stage.

Aerobraking at Earth, with this system at mission end is also
possible. The nuclear component enters high orbit after aerobraking -
as it does in Mars. The lander then descends to land on Earth with
crew and retrieved materials.

To reuse the system, the lander is refilled and relaunched, along with
164 tons of liquid hydrogen. A total of 288 tons of payload. This is
about half the capacity of a super-heavy lift launcher massing 5,000
tons at lift off - I have designed to support the deployment of solar-
power satellites. Obviously, such a launcher would easily support the
return of two vehicles every synodic period.

The heavy launcher would also deploy a single launch to mars at the
outset - six launches deploying a fleet of six vehicles. This gives
sufficient backup to assure crew survival in the event of mechanical
failure of any one two or three critical systems. Then after the
first mission, the six vehicles are reprovisioned with three launches
before the next launch window opens.

This approach provides a low cost means - especially if power
satellite revenues are taxed to support space operations beyond Earth
- to maintain a continuous presence on Mars.

The bimodal engine is really a redesign of the 1950s era Rover/Nerva
program.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm

With full support of military and intelligence agencies this could be
redeployed for about $6 billion today. The full-scale heavy lift
launcher, would cost another $7 billion. The Mars lander, and deep
space transfer technologies, related to Mars and deep space operations
would cost another $7 billion - a total of $30 billion - if approached
efficiently (not using current method of contractor management now
used by NASA).

I could be completed within 5 years (the next two synodic periods) and
result in a heavy lift launcher capable of supporting power satellites
(the powersats themselves are developed and paid for by commercial
interests, the launchers are built owned and operated by NASA in this
example, and rented to the powersat builders to cover costs
of deep space exploration stages and their operation by NASA and NSF
and universities)

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg00005.html
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/searagon.htm

Return to the moon and expansion of the space station are a natural
consequence of this as well - paid for ultimately from power sales on
orbit.

Commercial and exploration success, leads naturally to even LARGER
launchers, and larger payloads, and more capable systems

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Arch...8/msg00185.pdf

* * *


Here's more general information on the martian moons;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deimos_(moon)

PHOBOS (Fear)
Dimensions 26.8 × 22.4 × 18.4 km
Mean radius 11.1 km (0.002 1 Earths)
Surface area ~6 100 km² (11.9 µEarths)
Volume 5 680 km³ (5.0 nEarths)
Mass 1.072×10^16 kg (1.8 nEarths)
Mean density 1.887 g/cm³
Equatorial surface gravity 0.008 4–0.001 9 m/s² (8.4-1.9 mm/s²)
(860-190 µg)
Escape velocity 11.3 m/s (40 km/h)
Rotation period synchronous
Equatorial rotation velocity 11.0 km/h (at longest axis' tips)
Axial tilt 0°
Albedo 0.071
Temperature ≈233 K

DIEMOS (Dread)
Dimensions 15 × 12.2 × 10.4 km
Mean radius 6.2 km
Mass 1.48×10^15 kg
Mean density 1.471 g/cm³
Equatorial surface gravity 0.003 9 m/s² (3.9 mm/s²) 0.000 40 g (400
µg)
Escape velocity 5.6 m/s (20 km/h)
Rotation period synchronous
Albedo 0.068
Temperature ≈233 K

A more detailed analysis;

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/pho...7/pdf/7022.pdf

There is ten trillion tons of materials, likely loosely compacted

We wouldn't need to invade other countries, and other countries would
view us as an asset to be friends with if we tapped into the resources
of the solar system.

solar power arrives from the sun free of charge every day. 171,000x
more enegy strike earth than human industry uses. Capturing that
energy at very low cost and make it available world wide would
dramatically shift our place in the world to that of major consumer
and taker, to that of major producer and contributor, and rapidly
shift the politics of the middle east.

http://www.ohiochamber.com/governmen...ook_021308.pdf

Once terrestrial solar arrays are installed, solar pumped lasers are
orbited. These involve large thin film concentrators that focus light
to 5,000x ambient intensity on high efficiency solar cells. These
cells drive free electron lasers that beam band gap matched energy to
terrestrial solar arrays built in the first phase. These thin film
concentrators are placed on orbit by the launchers described above;

http://www.algor.com/news_pub/cust_a...s/prototyl.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_satellite
http://video.gearlive.com/video/arti...ireless-power/

This allows the 210,000 sq miles of solar collectors installed on the
surface in the USA to not only provide all the world's oil, but by
augmenting with beamed power also to provide all the world's energy -
through hydrogen, by beaming bandgap matched energy to the solar
collectors non-stop from a number of satellites hovering above the USA
at GEO.

A collection of 660 comsats interconnected by open optical data links,
and each possessing a large phased array antenna to paint virtual
cells throughout the Earth provide direct low cost broadband
communication throughout the Earth and cislunar space.

By these means the USA may provide the world with ALL of its oil with
UScoal and hydrogen, and replace all coal and natural gas with
hydrogen shipments. Industrial growth to 16x today's levels may be
provided by hydrogen produced in the USA from the original solar panel
array. This is 70 years of energy growth at 4% per annum. Carbon
footprint is non-existant at that point.

With a doubling of efficiency over that period, economic output will
be 5% per annum over the same period. Today's global income averages
$10,000 per person per year. The USA averages $40,000 per person per
year. In 2079 - according to this growth rate - global income will
average $320,000 per person per year, while US income from fuel sales
alone will total $210,000 per person per year - which when added to
the $320,000 average - totals $530,000 per person per year for the
USA.

Early over this period a piloted grand tour of the solar system using
nuclear pulse rockets, that allow the USA to take control of all the
world's nuclear materials, and convert them to non-threatening nuclear
pulse units - through an enhanced non proliferation treaty. A dozen
mid range nuclear pulse ships - 2000 tons each

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project...ear_propulsion)

are built and flown throughout the solar system - completing a survey
of all the solar system's small bodies inside the Kuiper Belt. This
technology is adapted to moving small bodies where desired in the
solar system. This may be used to identify and deflect errant
asteroids from collision with Earth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_deflection

and may also be used to bring RICH asteroids into orbit AROUND Earth
in medium Earth orbit - sun synchronous flying over the poles. So the
factory flies over everyone's head twice every 24 hours. Once the
asteroids are there remotely operated factories use abundant labor on
Earth, with energy beamed from GEO, process the asteroids into raw
materials, and finished goods. Materials are deorbited using solar
powered rail guns on orbit, and the materials flown directly to end
users anywhere on Earth in minutes. A ring of such stations provide
jobs for anyone anywhere, and income with which to buy the vast range
of products produced and delivered directly to users anywhere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telerobotics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asimo

Asteroidal feedstock and remotely operated solar powered factories on
Earth orbit, will also produce large pressure vessels on orbit. These
are supplied with seeds and animals to create forests and farms on
orbit, to match the capacity of the factories on orbit. In this way,
increasing quantities of food and fiber match and exceed the
quantities of machinery and raw materials available to humanity
everywhere - despite a continuing decline in humanity's impact on the
Earth's biosphere.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_colonization

The earth becomes one vast nature preserve surrounding residential
parks and recycling centers supplied with energy, information, and
materials off-world.

MEMs based systems

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MEMS

provide a means to create tiny arrays of highly capable rockets

http://www.me.berkeley.edu/mrcl/rockets.html

assembled to create propulsive skins. These skins, are similar to
plasma HDTV screens, except instead of plasma pixels, they consist of
arrays of highly controllable rockets. Just as HDTV has 3 primary
colors, the surface consists of 3 principal directions - each
orthogonal to the other two - providing a range of directions from
every point on the surface. A shaped surface can then produce thrust
in any direction - and that propulsive effect can be varied just as
quickly and with the same complexity as a HDTV color image.

Since MEMs based rockets scale favorably with size, and since very
tiny engines pose no explosion risk, and since millions of rockets
operating simultaneously are super reliable - such rockets turn rocket
propulsion into a commodity

http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyM...V2005_3650.pdf

that commodity can also be powered by lasers from space - achieving
very high performance

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studi...rt/897Kare.pdf


This technology will work with rail gun launchers on orbit to
efficiently deliver products to any point on Earth directly from
factories farms and forests on orbit. As the technology develops, it
will be used to deliver packages from anyone to anyone else in
minutes. Further development will allow people to travel anywhere
from anywhere in less than 40 minutes. Finally, people will fly to
orbit as easily as they drive cross town today. This technical
capabity when combined with telecherics and telerobotics and
telepresence will provide a seamless means for people to live in a
single global village.

Large collection of space stations built on orbit from orbiting
asteroids, fed by remotely operated factories, farms and forests,
accessed by propulsive skin spacecraft of tremendous capabilities, all
at very low cost - provide a means for people to move to orbit to live
at higher living standards.

Well before the 2070 date mentioned above, Artificial Intelligence
will allow humans to transcend biological evolution;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_intelligence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularity_is_near

which means a discontinuous leap in capabilities. The teleoperated
robots of the first half of the 21st century, will grow ever more
capable, and operate at super-human intelligence levels in the last
half of the 21st century. At this point, humanity will be very
wealthy indeed. If half of all human workers by 2030 operate
telerobotic systems via a wireless global broadband internet - there
will be over 2 billion robots operating throughout human space.
Upgrading these robots with super human intelligence, increases their
output at least three and perhaps up to six times - increasing global
output from $175 trillion per year to $875 trillion per year - from a
global average of $25,000 per person per year to $125,000 per person
per year. (today's global product is $66 trillion per year)

By 2050 the exodus of humans from Earth will exceed population
growth. By 2070 the world's population will have shifted to Earth
orbit.

The development of sun orbiting solar power satellites inside the
orbit of Mercury, will allow beaming of powerful laser beams to Earth
orbiting powersats - multiplying again the capacity of the beamed
power network. Very large optical systems, driven by sunlight, will
not only power massive space stations and armies of robots to maintain
a very high living standard for the few humans who live and control
each station. But, the energy will also be used to move the stations
far from Earth - first into the solar system, and then to the
interstellar voids beyond.

http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studi...rt/4Landis.pdf

This is possible with near term technology. Using this approach,
there is not need for greed or hunger. We have the means, and for the
past 50 years we have always had the means, to make this world into a
paradise of plenty and wonder. We have lacked only the will
imagination and courage to make it so.

Beyond this, there are even more interesting things.

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:53:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

We wouldn't need to invade other countries, and other countries would
view us as an asset to be friends with if we tapped into the resources
of the solar system.

We don't "invade other countries" because we haven't been tapping the
resources of the solar system.

What an idiotic post.

On Jan 5, 9:03 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:53:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

We wouldn't need to invade other countries, and other countries would
view us as an asset to be friends with if we tapped into the resources
of the solar system.

We don't "invade other countries" because we haven't been tapping the
resources of the solar system.

What an idiotic post.

I didn't say that - you think I did - who's the idiot? lol.

Had we spent half the $10 trillion we spent on nuclear and
conventional forces in the last half of the 20th century on space
travel programs outlined here, the world would be a far richer, and
more peaceful place.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/424268

And yet our physically dark as coal Selene/moon is forever taboo/
nondisclosure rated, with more excluded evidence than our mutually
perpetrated cold-war, JFK and TWA flight 800 combined.

We can't even establish a platform of science instruments within
Selene L1. Is that pathetic, or what?

~ BG


On Jan 5, 11:44*am, wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:03 am, Ian Parker wrote:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1989/89GL00073.shtml

Should anyone want to go there in preferance to Mars there should be
plenty of water. You might even generate the hydrogen/oxygen required
for a Martian landing. Let's have an open mind! We could at a pinch
explore Mars by telepresence.

* - Ian Parker

Here is a photograph of the martian moon that's causing this
speculation;

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ickney_mro.jpg

Definitely lots of interesting things that *might* be there. *You've
got something like 10 trillion metric tons of materials. *Loosely
compacted. *Easily accessible. *Bathed in sunlight 24/7 at about the
same intensity you get on Earth's surface. * So, that's very
interesting

You do need a means to mine the moon and process it for the materials
you want while handling the materials you don't want.

While it is true you may use aerobraking to enter orbit around Mars
and then make use of resources - if they can be found - to make
hydrogen and oxygen from water resources on one or both of the moons -
to land and return, and even refuel for departure back to Earth (as
well as supply crews with water and oxygen on orbit) - there isn't
much advantage from doing the Zubrin approach of using aerobraking to
land, and then doing all that on the Mars surface.

In fact, landing on the Mars surface gives you access to Mars'
atmosphere which allows you to process the gases with pumps and
filters and cryo coolers. *A far simpler and less risky process.

Aerobraking to the surface has been done;

http://sirius.bu.edu/aeronomy/withersmericarus2006.pdf

Mars entry speeds are about 5.7 km/sec with a descent angle of 11.5
degrees took 251 seconds. *That's 2.2 gees acceleration (v=at -- *a =
v/t) which is less than what a launch from Earth imposes.

To skip off the Mars atmosphere into Mars orbit requires that 3.6 km/
sec be lost, with a far shallower descent angle, at a lower gee
force. *So that's easy to do too.

So, the big difference is being able to process the moons of mars into
useful stuff easier and more safely and more efficiently than doing
the same thing with Mars atmosphere.

As Zubrin and others show in their works you can aerobrake and land on
Mars empty, or nearly so and then use a nuclear or solar energy source
to extract water vapor from the Mars atmosphere, and break that water
down into oxygen and hydrogen. *CO2 may be combined with H2 brought
from Earth, producing CH4 and H2O - and that water *broken back into 2
H2 and O2 *from 2 H2O.

* * 4 H2 + *CO2 --- * CH4 + 2 H2O
* * 2 H2O + energy -- * 2 H2 + O2

In the end, 2 H2 is converted to CH4 and O2 - which is far more
massive than the H2 brought along.
* * * * * * * * * * 4 amu * * * * * * * * *16 amu *32 amu
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *48 amu total

So, each ton of hydrogen is converted into 12 tons of propellant by
absorbing 11 tons of CO2 from the martian atmosphere.

http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...id_Oxygen_Meth...

A 3.5 km/sec exhaust speed, combined with a 5.7 km/sec transfer
velocity from the Mars surface so, this is a velocity ratio of 5.7/3.5
which means a propellant fraction of 80.4%. *With an 8.6% structural
fraction - this leaves 11.0% payload fraction. * * But 6.7% of that
must be hydrogen - leaving 4.3% payload - which must include the power
plant, and atmospheric processing - but part of that could be left
behind.

Using hydrogen and extracting both hydrogen and oxygen from water
vapor present in Mars' atmosphere - provides a 4.5 km/sec exhaust
speed, produces a propellant fraction of 71.9%. *With the same 8.6%
structural fraction - 19.5% payload fraction - a far simpler system,
but more power is needed.

Landing on Diemos or Phobos after aerobraking - reduces aerobraking
requirements slightly - lowering gee forces from 2.2 gees to 1.2
gees. *Adds complexity of processing solids in the vacuum of space.
Adds the benefit of solar energy available at higher intensity 24/7.
To deorbit from the moons requires 2.6 km/sec delta vee capability.
With a 4.5 km/sec exhaust speed this produces a propellant fraction of
43.9% - with the same 8.6% structural fraction - leaves 47.5% payload
fraction.

The propellant processing station - can be left on orbit during
landing - the lander can be use over and over again to visit several
sites, while the orbiting station can reconnoiter sites - to provide
planetary coverage in a single mission.

Finally, the 3.6 km/sec delta vee requirement to escape from Mars
orbit to Earth transfer - using hydrogen/oxygen is provided by a
propellant fraction of 55.1% - with the same 8.6% structural fraction
- leaves 36% payload fraction.

So, a 100 ton payload arriving on the mars surface requires the
following departing mars, which gives the scale of teh ship and power
supply needed;

Approach * * * * * * * * * Payload *Vehicle * * Energy
Zubrin *direct descent * * 4.3% 2,326 tons * * 577 MWh
HyZ * * direct descent * 11.0% * *909 tons *5,656 MWh
orbit * * phobos/diemos 36.0% * *278 tons *1,729 MWh
surf * * *phobos diemos 47.5% * *106 tons* * *660 MWh**

*NOTE: *The surface vehicle is assumed to be 50 tons empty, while the
entire payload is 100 tons
*NOTE: *The energy for the surface vehicle is for landing and take off
only.

A primary energy system - either nuclear or solar - large enough for
the HyZ approach would allow 6 landings and take offs at six different
sites on Mars while the return stage was being refilled.

So there is are some things to recommend this approach.

Of course a bimodal nuclear rocket engine - improves things greatly!

http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/RT/2004/PB/PBM-mcguire.html

Here was have a self contained power supply for transit, as well as
for use on orbit around Mars. *We also have a nuclear thermal rocket
capable of generating 8.5 km/sec to 9.5 km/sec exhaust speeds. *That
means far less propellant is needed to depart mars orbit. * *Using 8.5
km/sec exhaust speed and 3.6 km/sec delta vee to leave mars orbit,
requires a propellant fraction of 34.6% * Increasing structural
fraction to 15.4% - leaves 50% payload fraction throughout. *Here we
assume half the payload - 50 tons is the same chemically powered
lander.

Using the bimodal nuclear engine to land on mars creates a nuclear
radiation hazard that presumably is taken care of in space by
approaching and departing the nuclear stage along shadow lines of the
gamma shield used in transit.

Here, despite large increase in structural fraction due to the nuclear
thermal engine, and shield, we only need 200 tons on departure and 100
tons of propellant - 622 MWh of energy which means that at the same
power level as the HyZ mission above, 7 to 8 landings may be made with
a chemical stage.

Aerobraking at Earth, with this system at mission end is also
possible. *The nuclear component enters high orbit after aerobraking -
as it does in Mars. *The lander then descends to land on Earth with
crew and retrieved materials.

To reuse the system, the lander is refilled and relaunched, along with
164 tons of liquid hydrogen. *A total of 288 tons of payload. *This is
about half the capacity of a super-heavy lift launcher massing 5,000
tons at lift off - I have designed to support the deployment of solar-
power satellites. *Obviously, such a launcher would easily support the
return of two vehicles every synodic period.

The heavy launcher would also deploy a single launch to mars at the
outset - six launches deploying a fleet of six vehicles. *This gives
sufficient backup to assure crew survival in the event of mechanical
failure of any one two or three critical systems. *Then after the
first mission, the six vehicles are reprovisioned with three launches
before the next launch window opens.

This approach provides a low cost means - especially if power
satellite revenues are taxed to support space operations beyond Earth
- *to maintain a continuous presence on Mars.

The bimodal engine is really a redesign of the 1950s era Rover/Nerva
program.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/space/c04rover.htm

With full support of military and intelligence agencies this could be
redeployed for about $6 billion today. *The full-scale heavy lift
launcher, would cost another $7 billion. *The Mars lander, and deep
space transfer technologies, related to Mars and deep space operations
would cost another $7 billion - a total of $30 billion - if approached
efficiently (not using current method of contractor management now
used by NASA).

I could be completed within 5 years (the next two synodic periods) and
result in a heavy lift launcher capable of supporting power satellites
(the powersats themselves are developed and paid for by commercial
interests, the launchers are built owned and operated by NASA in this
example, and rented to the powersat builders to cover costs
of deep space exploration stages and their operation by NASA and NSF
and universities)

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/...s/searagon.htm

Return to the moon and expansion of the space station are a natural
consequence of this as well - paid for ultimately from power sales on
orbit.

Commercial and exploration success, leads naturally to even LARGER
launchers, and larger payloads, and more capable systems

http://sci.tech-archive.net/pdf/Arch...y/2008-08/msg0...

* * *

Here's more general information on the martian moons;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_...i/Deimos_(moon)

PHOBOS (Fear)
Dimensions * * *26.8 × 22.4 × 18.4 km
Mean radius * * 11.1 km *(0.002 1 Earths)
Surface area * *~6 100 km² *(11.9 µEarths)
Volume *5 680 km³ *(5.0 nEarths)
Mass * *1.072×10^16 kg (1.8 nEarths)
Mean density * *1.887 g/cm³
Equatorial surface gravity * * *0.008 4–0.001 9 m/s²
...

read more »

On Jan 5, 1:11*pm, Van Chocstraw
wrote:
wrote:
Mining the Moons of Mars

.....if platinum were required for high efficiency fuel cells for
automobiles, only 20% of the world's ground vehicles could be
supplied. This of course doesn't even include the substantially higher
demand for platinum if electrolysis became the primary means for
producing hydrogen for a carbon neutral hydrocarbon fuel and
industrial chemical economy.

While alternatives to platinum use in fuel cells and electrodes for
electrolysis are currently being intensely pursued by researches, it
is interesting to note that while platinum is rare in the regolith of
Earth, it is extremely abundant in space-- in the form of asteroids.
In fact, the largest sources of platinum on Earth occur in regions
that appear to have been hit by large asteroid impacts in the more
recent geologic past.

The total mass of the asteroid belt between the planets Mars and
Jupiter is estimated to be about 3.0–3.6 quintillion tonnes (3.0 t0
3.6 billion billion tonnes of material). If all of this asteroid
material were sprinkled over the entire land area of the Earth, it
would be approximately 8 kilometers deep. Asteroids on average contain
about 15,000 parts per billion (ppb) of platinum vs an average of only
0.003 ppb of platinum found in the Earth's crust.

Planetary scientist, John Lewis, estimated that if all of the total
platinum wealth in the asteroid belt were divided amongst every person
on Earth, each-- individual's-- share would come out to be over $30
billion. Furthermore, he estimated that if the total value of
resources of the asteroids: iron, nickel, aluminum, titanium, gold,
silver, uranium, etc. were divided amongst every individual on Earth
then each individual's share would come out to be over $100 billion.
So its clear that while we may live on a planet of limited industrial
material resources, we also live in a solar system of virtually
unlimited industrial material resources.

Interestingly, two additional potential sources of asteroid material
may be in orbit around the fourth planet of our solar system. Mars has
two moons, Phobos and Deimos. Both of these rocky moons resemble C
type asteroids and may have originated elsewhere in the solar system
before being permanently captured in orbit around the red planet. The
inner moon, Phobos, orbits approximately 9377 kilometers from the
center of Mars. The outer moon, Deimos, orbits more than 23,000
kilometers away from Mars. Our own Moon, orbits the Earth more than
384,000 kilometers away. It is interesting that Russia and China are
currently planning a joint robotic mission to Phobos to be launched in
2009 to analyze-- and retrieve-- a sample of the material from the
surface of Phobos for return to Earth......

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.c...s-of-mars.html

Invading foreign countries and blowing **** up has a higher priority.

--
//--------------------\\
* * * * Van Chocstraw
*\\--------------------//

True, more than you think.

~ BG

On Jan 5, 6:03*pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:53:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

We wouldn't need to invade other countries, and other countries would
view us as an asset to be friends with if we tapped into the resources
of the solar system.

We don't "invade other countries" because we haven't been tapping the
resources of the solar system.

What an idiotic post.

Spoken like a true Rothschild Zionist/Nazi. Remember that, keeping
yourself in denial is what got Hitler dead.

~ BG

On Jan 7, 10:43*am, wrote:
On Jan 5, 9:03 pm, (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:53:27 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

We wouldn't need to invade other countries, and other countries would
view us as an asset to be friends with if we tapped into the resources
of the solar system.

We don't "invade other countries" because we haven't been tapping the
resources of the solar system.

What an idiotic post.

I didn't say that - you think I did - who's the idiot? *lol.

Had we spent half the $10 trillion we spent on nuclear and
conventional forces in the last half of the 20th century on space
travel programs outlined here, the world would be a far richer, and
more peaceful place.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/424268

We're talking nearly $60T (not $10T) in 2009 dollars (not including
our national debt).

Our mutually perpetrated cold-war has cost the greater humanity and
environment of Earth hundreds of billions if not an average trillion
per year of our hard earned loot, and that extended expenditure of
taking our best talent and resources is what compounded itself into
the current mess we're in.

We could have been mining our Selene/moon, Venus and beyond by now if
10% of that loot had gotten spent on terrestrial energy alternatives,
and another 10% on space exploration, not to mention that our global
inflation wouldn't likely be a tenth of what it is today, and
otherwise human productivity would be soaring.

This is not to say that faith-based and their Mafia/cabal/political
wars of one sort or another wouldn't happen, just that they wouldn't
last very long or have caused nearly the collateral damage. Humans
will still go to war whenever they see no other viable alternative,
whereas artificially imposed inflation and subsequent poverty and
starvation will always be good enough motives for going to war.

~ BG