The European Space Agency just unveiled its plans to build a base onthe moon

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.



--
Jim Pennino

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 5:16:04 AM UTC+12, wrote:
In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.



--
Jim Pennino

http://www.spacex.com/crew-dragon

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ac ecraft.svg

http://www.space.com/31756-spacex-dr...est-video.html

Dragon has a dry mass of 4.2 tons and can carry 3.1 tons payload and 1.2 tons propellant supporting 7 people for up to two weeks, fewer people longer with its solar powered trunk.

The capsule has four Super Draco clusters that each put out 73,000 Newtons of thrust. That's a total of 29,776 kgf (65,507 lbf) thrust. On the surface of the moon this is sufficient to land 89,328 kg (196,520 lb) efficiently (or less).

The Falcoln Heavy can put 53,000 kg into LEO, but it can send 16,000 kg to the Moon along a free return trajectory. The reason you do this is that the LOX/RP-1 engine is more efficient than the hypergolic engine.

With an 8,200 kg capsule & trunk, this leaves 7,800 kg of propellant.

Another two 16,000 kg sent along side it in a separate tank, or tanks, that the capsule navigates and docks with after all three are launched into trans lunar orbit. That's all you need to do to land on the moon and return to Earth.

8,000 kg - 23,800 kg propellant + tank

7,800 kg - 340 kg = 7,460 kg propellant
2x (16,000 kg - 700 kg) = 30,600 kg propellant

38,060 kg - propellant.

Total mass is 16,000 x 3 = 48,000 kg

The exhaust speed is 3.1 km/sec in vacuum. So, the total speed possible to achieve with this setup is;

Vf = Ve * LN(MR) = 3.100 * LN( 48000 / (48000-38060) ) = 4.881 km/sec

Now, something coming in from lunar transfer orbit arrives at the surface of the moon at 2.3 km/sec. So, there's a total delta vee required to land of 2.3 km/sec, and to take off, another 2.3 km/sec. So, that's 4.60 km/sec total. With navigation, and landing on Earth, etc., that's another 0.281 km/sec.

So, this is enough! (we're not counting the 1.2 metric tons aboard the capsule).

So, all that's needed is a set of tanks with the ability to use Draco engines to automatically navigate, and dock with the Dragon capsule after being boosted as a cluster into TLI.

It won't take $10 billion to do that. It will take something on the order of $100 million to do that, making use of existing hardware already developed by SpaceX.

A self propelled tank with docking hardware.
A modified capsule to attach to the tank and make use of its propellant.
A modified trunk to attach to four tanks and make use of its propellant.

These all feed the Dragon engines which are perfectly capable of operating to land the Trunk and Capsule and all the tanks, on the lunar surface.

So, you have three launches - one with a tank atop the docking collar, modified to drain into the Super Draco Tanks. They are not connected during launch, but are docked together after being boosted into a trans lunar trajectory.

You have two more launches - each with two tanks in line. They are boosted along with the capsule and tank into Trans lunar orbit, using the three upper stage LOX/RP-1 boosters.

Four tanks connect to the trunk after TLI burn. The fifth tank connects to the nose after the TLI burn.

So the ship assembles during its trip to the moon. It then lands on the moon burning through 22,858 kg of propellant. It returns to Earth using the propellant in the fifth tank on top. There is a surplus of 7,442 kg of propellant. This can be extra propellant, so the ship could hop to different locations. Or to operate other hardware on the surface, like a rocket belt built around the smaller Draco rocket engines used for ACS on the Dragon.

http://www.wired.com/2013/07/lunar-flying-units-1969/

Or it could be used for extra supplies. Consumables, inflatable habitats and so forth.

Now, the cost of each launch is $61 million. So, that's $183 million for a full up test. The tank could be developed for $100 million. Each flight test is $61 million. So, we'd have

Creation of test articles & ground testing; $50 million
Creation of flight articles $50 million
Flight testing in LEO - one tank - $61 million.
Flight testing in LFR - (Apollo 8 repeat) - $61 million.
Flight testing in LEO - five tanks - $183 million.
Flight testing in LFR - (Apollo 10 repeat) - $183 million.
Flight testing in Lunar Landing - (Apollo 11 repeat) - $183 million.

That's $771 million altogether. If the boosters and capsules are recovered and reused, costs could be less.

Now, 7 people divided into $771 million is $110.2 million per person. The USA already spends something like $70 million per person to get people to the space station aboard Soyuz.

Dava Newman, who is a new Deputy Administrator at NASA, has said that for less than $100 million working biosuits could be developed. Their cost would be about $10 million per suit. This is about half the cost of the Shuttle era suits. More expensive than the Russian suits.

In any event, with seven seats on five flights, a total of 35 seats are available $22.02 million per seat to pay for the entire program. Suits are $10 million * 35 + $100 million = $450 million. Divided by 35 that's $12.86 milion per suit. A total of $34.88 million per seat.

This includes;

Space flight,
Space walk,
Appearance in prime time special on Discovery channel,
Ticker tape parade,
Appropriate awards,

and for those who return to the vicinity of the moon,

A notation in the history books,

So, how many people would pay $34.88 million per seat?

Tens of thousands prospective buyers. Thirty-five seats.

So, there's another thing as well.

By entering into an arrangement with SpaceX, one could enter the NASDAQ as a commodity, to trade seats. Each one has an ask price of $34.88 million - to issue them. They could then be trade on the exchange. This way, the entire amount for the entire operation could be raised virtually overnight.

Each person must successfully go through training, and testing, and those best suited are 'commanders, vice commanders', and so forth during the mission - and have special appearances in the videos and award ceremonies, as well as a consideration on their fee (up to $1 million in credits).

Once a market is made for this project, work begins and delivery takes place within five years, at no added costs.

Once we have the capacity, we have the rights of first refusal to issue new seats under similar circumstances to meet the needs of the market. This time, the advance sale could be as little as the six months training and testing time. We could also have stand by seats available as well, if someone cannot make for any reason the seat they've paid for. There's also insurance and so forth, to cover this sort of thing.

SpaceX could do this TODAY!

Recurring trips to the moon would cost $183 million - or less with reusables - and $10 million per suit - if they want to keep the suit - less if they don't. A total of $26.15 million to $36.15 million for each added seat.

7 people per month could be sustained, with 36 launches per year.

There are 123,838 individuals with liquid assets (cash) of USD$50,000,000 or more in the world in 2016. There are 1,645 individuals with liquid assets of USD$1,000,000,000 or more. Eleven of these are in their 30s and each could buy all the tickets once they hit the market and actually earn a buck selling them off whilst allowing themselves and their friends to participate.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...-world-region/

There are 52,181 persons with over $200,000,000 or more in the world. 35 of these inviduals would buy the first 35 tickets. Another 84 per year would keep the infrastructure busy. This is a market penetration of 1/6th percent per year! Which likely means we could sell this many at a higher price than those prices quoted here.

84x $36.15 million = $3.03 billion per year.

This is worth $35.86 billion as an annuity. So, at this level of productivity this is the amount that can rationally be justified to invest in the system. With this level of investment substantial improvements, in combination with substantial reductions in cost, can likely be realised in a very short time frame.

Improvements include;

(1) discovery and exploitation of a water supply on the moon,
(2) use of higher specific impulse propellants,

So a LOX/LH2 tank that were used in a LOX/LH2 derivative of the Super Draco engines, that started in LEO and was refuelled on the moon, could have substantially improved performance.

LEO/TLI - 2.95 km/sec 4.45 km/sec Ve. --- 25,686.8 kg propellant
TLI /Landing - 2.30 km/sec 4.45 km/sec Ve. --- 11,023.8 kg propellant

This leaves 16,286.4 kg of payload capacity, which is a radical improvement of the previous system.

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 1:06:29 PM UTC+12, William Mook wrote:
There are 123,838 individuals with liquid assets (cash) of USD$50,000,000 or more in the world in 2016. There are 1,645 individuals with liquid assets of USD$1,000,000,000 or more. Eleven of these are in their 30s and each could buy all the tickets once they hit the market and actually earn a buck selling them off whilst allowing themselves and their friends to participate.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/2...-world-region/

There are 52,181 persons with over $200,000,000 or more in the world. 35 of these inviduals would buy the first 35 tickets. Another 84 per year would keep the infrastructure busy. This is a market penetration of 1/6th percent per year! Which likely means we could sell this many at a higher price than those prices quoted here.

84x $36.15 million = $3.03 billion per year.

This is worth $35.86 billion as an annuity. So, at this level of productivity this is the amount that can rationally be justified to invest in the system. With this level of investment substantial improvements, in combination with substantial reductions in cost, can likely be realised in a very short time frame.

Improvements include;

(1) discovery and exploitation of a water supply on the moon,
(2) use of higher specific impulse propellants,

So a LOX/LH2 tank that were used in a LOX/LH2 derivative of the Super Draco engines, that started in LEO and was refuelled on the moon, could have substantially improved performance.

LEO/TLI - 2.95 km/sec 4.45 km/sec Ve. --- 25,686.8 kg propellant
TLI /Landing - 2.30 km/sec 4.45 km/sec Ve. --- 11,023.8 kg propellant

This leaves 16,286.4 kg of payload capacity, which is a radical improvement of the previous system.

8,000.0 kg tank system; 1,742 mm diameter and 2,684 mm tall.

300.0 kg inert weight
2,436.7 kg - MMH - sphere 1,742 mm diameter
5,263.3 kg - NTO - hemisphere 1,742 mm diameter, cylinder 1,742 mm diameter 942 mm tall

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won’t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won’t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.


--
Jim Pennino

On Monday, April 4, 2016 at 2:46:04 PM UTC-4, wrote:
In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won't be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.


--
Jim Pennino

i have to agree, robots could do the entire solar system for a fraction of the costs..

In article
wrote:

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won’t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....

Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?

Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
Winter is not likely.

If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
they would probably not have survived long.

You might want to amend your statement about all historical
colonies.

For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive.

I was referring to *all* projects that surround colonization, especially
the exploration efforts. Advanced tech that gets developed for any moon
shot (literal or figurative) tends to benefit everyone.

Survival on the Moon or Mars for more than a few minutes requires state
of the art technology and constant resupply.

Only if you planned your project poorly. The smarter way to proceed
would be to examine what natural resources are available for use at
your destination, and figure out new ways to get anything else you
need, or to produce it on-site.

The closest thing in history is Antarctica, where there are no colonies
but only research stations.

Because the mission there is not about setting up a sustainable colony.
There are closer analogs for such habitats, such as the closed-system
Biosphere 2.

I'm all for sending swarms of robots throughout the solar system, but
sending people is a waste of resources.

Sending people without a *plan* is definitely a waste. I, too, would
expect to see robots sent to the Moon to build a structure long before
any human colony would get sent there to live in it. Until that sort
of thing happens, I can only laugh at the idea of a Moon base by 2022
for only $10 billion.

--
"Also . . . I can kill you with my brain."
River Tam, Trash, Firefly

In sci.physics Jack Ryan wrote:
In article
wrote:

In sci.physics Doc O'Leary wrote:
For your reference, records indicate that
wrote:

In sci.physics Robert Clark wrote:
Actually we could start building it as soon as the Falcon Heavy becomes
operational:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10
billion.
What are we waiting for?

$10 billion without a better purpose?

Some might argue that blowing up **** in the Middle East is not a
better purpose. A more pointed question would be whether or not that
budget and timeline is actually accurate, or if it won?t be more like
$200 billion spent and a wait until 2035.

Some rational reason to "colonise" the moon, which will never happen
as no Moon colony could ever be self supporting.

History has shown a pretty big halo effect for such projects, so I
would expect quite a bit of indirect economic value in new Moon and
Mars missions. But I would agree that NASA would do well to make a
more direct case for why a Moon colony would be a valuable resource
to have.

All historical colonizations have been to places with air, water, and
growing things where one could be dropped nude and survive. ....

Iceland? Greenland? Northern Newfundland?

Hell, for much of Europe surviving after being dropped nude in the
Winter is not likely.

If the Pilgrims had landed at Plymouth bare assed in the Winter
they would probably not have survived long.

You might want to amend your statement about all historical
colonies.

OK, dropped in with nothing more than a heavy winter coat.

No successful colony in history required anything beyond 10th Century
technology to survive.



--
Jim Pennino