building a base on the Moon

Well, suppose we really decide to install a base on the moon, in a
relatively short term ..

What could be used there (on the Moon) to help reducing the weigh of
brought-from-earth hardware and commodities

could Lunar soil/dust be useful for anything more than radiation
protection

could a cave digged underground or on a crater side provide a good
airtight place to install lighter installation ... I read that on
Mars, caves would be easily made airtight with some water vapor
freezing in the cracks ... Maybe the point is that Mars has 'fairly'
accessible water that moon does not have ?

Could the Lunar Soil be transformed possibly into some kind of concrete
material , or would even this be too difficult before ages

I think that aluminium and oxygen is common in lunar rock , can we
imagine credible ways to extract those materials ... how to do that ?
using batch solar furnace to extract oxygen ?

Water remains a problem , bringing only hydrogen from earth may be more
economic but maybe only in a long future too ??

I seem to hear so many fantasmatic comments on the ways to install
cottages and datchas on the Moon these days that I find hard to keep
head cold and feet on the (Moon) ground ;-)

--
Julie
"please save Yuri"

In article ,
Andromeda et Julie wrote:

What could be used there (on the Moon) to help reducing the weigh of
brought-from-earth hardware and commodities

could Lunar soil/dust be useful for anything more than radiation
protection

Yes; lunar regolith contains a variety of useful materials, including
oxygen, which is relatively easy to extract (in fact it's a
waste-product of many of the refining processes you might use to extract
other useful elements). I imagine one of the first industrial processes
on the Moon will be extraction of oxygen from the regolith.

could a cave [dug] underground or on a crater side provide a good
airtight place to install lighter installation ...

I don't think so; you'd still need a pressure vessel to contain the
atmosphere.

I read that on
Mars, caves would be easily made airtight with some water vapor
freezing in the cracks ... Maybe the point is that Mars has 'fairly'
accessible water that moon does not have ?

I'm not sure I believe that about Mars either. You could use some sort
of sealant, I suppose, but I'm not sure this would be substantially
easier than just building your base inside a lava tube.

Could the Lunar Soil be transformed possibly into some kind of concrete
material

Yes.

or would even this be too difficult before ages

No, it's relatively easy.

I think that aluminium and oxygen is common in lunar rock , can we
imagine credible ways to extract those materials ...

Yes.

how to do that ?
using batch solar furnace to extract oxygen ?

Essentially, yes. Try a google search, or visit a library, for the
details.

Water remains a problem , bringing only hydrogen from earth may be more
economic but maybe only in a long future too ??

I couldn't quite parse your question here. But you're right, hydrogen
and nitrogen are both problems. Fortunately, Lunar Prospector found
large amounts of hydrogen at the poles. We need to learn more about
what form that hydrogen is in, and exactly how much there is.

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

Any leading ideas on how in the heavens we can even get back to the moon, in
a significant way... more than just repeat Apollo, without large lift
vehicles? It seems like so much pie in the sky. Will such missions most
likely go through the space station? If so, why was this not specifically
stated in the "new mission statement"? (or was it?) Thanks, sorry for
taking your thread off on a tangent.
--
Detective Tom Polhaus: " Heavy. What
is it?"
Sam Spade: "The, uh, stuff that dreams
are made of."
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andromeda et Julie wrote:

What could be used there (on the Moon) to help reducing the weigh of
brought-from-earth hardware and commodities

could Lunar soil/dust be useful for anything more than radiation
protection

Yes; lunar regolith contains a variety of useful materials, including
oxygen, which is relatively easy to extract (in fact it's a
waste-product of many of the refining processes you might use to extract
other useful elements). I imagine one of the first industrial processes
on the Moon will be extraction of oxygen from the regolith.

could a cave [dug] underground or on a crater side provide a good
airtight place to install lighter installation ...

I don't think so; you'd still need a pressure vessel to contain the
atmosphere.

I read that on
Mars, caves would be easily made airtight with some water vapor
freezing in the cracks ... Maybe the point is that Mars has 'fairly'
accessible water that moon does not have ?

I'm not sure I believe that about Mars either. You could use some sort
of sealant, I suppose, but I'm not sure this would be substantially
easier than just building your base inside a lava tube.

Could the Lunar Soil be transformed possibly into some kind of concrete
material

Yes.

or would even this be too difficult before ages

No, it's relatively easy.

I think that aluminium and oxygen is common in lunar rock , can we
imagine credible ways to extract those materials ...

Yes.

how to do that ?
using batch solar furnace to extract oxygen ?

Essentially, yes. Try a google search, or visit a library, for the
details.

Water remains a problem , bringing only hydrogen from earth may be more
economic but maybe only in a long future too ??

I couldn't quite parse your question here. But you're right, hydrogen
and nitrogen are both problems. Fortunately, Lunar Prospector found
large amounts of hydrogen at the poles. We need to learn more about
what form that hydrogen is in, and exactly how much there is.

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

In article ,
"kuhnfucius" wrote:

Any leading ideas on how in the heavens we can even get back to the moon, in
a significant way... more than just repeat Apollo, without large lift
vehicles?

You use several medium-lift launch vehicles and dock things together in
orbit. This is a more sustainable approach anyway; you'll have a higher
flight rate which should drive costs down and improve reliability. It
wasn't a serious option for the Apollo program because (1) they had
serious doubts at first whether orbital rendezvous was practical, and
(2) they had a nearly impossible schedule, and had to take the most
expedient route (which is heavy-lift).

It seems like so much pie in the sky.

Perhaps it seems so to you. It certainly doesn't seem so to me. To me,
the big question is why we didn't do this thirty years ago. (Even
though I know the common answers -- they just aren't very satisfying.)

Will such missions most likely go through the space station?

Probably not. It's not in a convenient orbit for orbital staging.

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

There have been proposals in the past for ground-based high-energy lasers to
provide the initial boost for a medium- to heavy-lift vehicle. Basically shine
the laser into a 45-degree mirror sitting under the vehicle and heat up the air
in the "combustion chamber". Pulse the laser to let the hot air escape and
cold are come in and then be heated in return. The escaping hot air is what
pushes the vehicle up -- need to use on-board gas after reaching a high
altitiude. Those who have worked the numbers say that this will work quite
well.

Fred

kuhnfucius wrote:

Any leading ideas on how in the heavens we can even get back to the moon, in
a significant way... more than just repeat Apollo, without large lift
vehicles? It seems like so much pie in the sky. Will such missions most
likely go through the space station? If so, why was this not specifically
stated in the "new mission statement"? (or was it?) Thanks, sorry for
taking your thread off on a tangent.
--
Detective Tom Polhaus: " Heavy. What
is it?"
Sam Spade: "The, uh, stuff that dreams
are made of."
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Andromeda et Julie wrote:

What could be used there (on the Moon) to help reducing the weigh of
brought-from-earth hardware and commodities

could Lunar soil/dust be useful for anything more than radiation
protection

Yes; lunar regolith contains a variety of useful materials, including
oxygen, which is relatively easy to extract (in fact it's a
waste-product of many of the refining processes you might use to extract
other useful elements). I imagine one of the first industrial processes
on the Moon will be extraction of oxygen from the regolith.

could a cave [dug] underground or on a crater side provide a good
airtight place to install lighter installation ...

I don't think so; you'd still need a pressure vessel to contain the
atmosphere.

I read that on
Mars, caves would be easily made airtight with some water vapor
freezing in the cracks ... Maybe the point is that Mars has 'fairly'
accessible water that moon does not have ?

I'm not sure I believe that about Mars either. You could use some sort
of sealant, I suppose, but I'm not sure this would be substantially
easier than just building your base inside a lava tube.

Could the Lunar Soil be transformed possibly into some kind of concrete
material

Yes.

or would even this be too difficult before ages

No, it's relatively easy.

I think that aluminium and oxygen is common in lunar rock , can we
imagine credible ways to extract those materials ...

Yes.

how to do that ?
using batch solar furnace to extract oxygen ?

Essentially, yes. Try a google search, or visit a library, for the
details.

Water remains a problem , bringing only hydrogen from earth may be more
economic but maybe only in a long future too ??

I couldn't quite parse your question here. But you're right, hydrogen
and nitrogen are both problems. Fortunately, Lunar Prospector found
large amounts of hydrogen at the poles. We need to learn more about
what form that hydrogen is in, and exactly how much there is.

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

writes:

There have been proposals in the past for ground-based high-energy lasers
to provide the initial boost for a medium- to heavy-lift vehicle.
Basically shine the laser into a 45-degree mirror sitting under the
vehicle and heat up the air in the "combustion chamber". Pulse the laser
to let the hot air escape and cold are come in and then be heated in
return. The escaping hot air is what pushes the vehicle up -- need to
use on-board gas after reaching a high altitiude.

I think you've been reading too many old Jerry Pournelle stories. The
system you describe requires "combustion chambers" made of Unobtainium ---
_NOTHING_ is sufficiently reflective to not melt without some form of
transpirational or ablative cooling at those power levels!

Modern "laser launcher" vehicle designs using approaches such as
"laser-heated thermal rockets" or "laser-assisted detonation waves"
require a goodly supply of on-board ablative or transpiration mass;
so much mass, that it winds up representing the lion's share of the
reaction mass in the "jet."


Those who have worked the numbers say that this will work quite well.

....However, like most such "Cheap Access To Space" (CATS) schemes,
the investment required in capital equipment is so high that it is not
economical unless the launch-rate is more than an order of magnitude higher
than the current rate, leaving one with a "chicken and egg" problem...

Also (and again like most CATS schemes), the system is most economical
for small, light payloads that can tolerate high gees --- which means
that it's not really usable for launching people, unless you want them
to arrive as "Soylent Green(tm)"...


-- Gordon D. Pusch

perl -e '$_ = \n"; s/NO\.//; s/SPAM\.//; print;'

In article ,
Gordon D. Pusch wrote:
Basically shine the laser into a 45-degree mirror sitting under the
vehicle and heat up the air in the "combustion chamber"...

I think you've been reading too many old Jerry Pournelle stories. The
system you describe requires "combustion chambers" made of Unobtainium ---
_NOTHING_ is sufficiently reflective to not melt without some form of
transpirational or ablative cooling at those power levels!

You cool it the same way jet-engine turbine blades are cooled: with air.
(Turbine-inlet temperatures in modern jet engines are significantly above
the melting point of the blades.) In principle, anyway...

Modern "laser launcher" vehicle designs using approaches such as
"laser-heated thermal rockets" or "laser-assisted detonation waves"
require a goodly supply of on-board ablative or transpiration mass...

Laser-supported-detonation thrusters have been demonstrated using air as
reaction mass. There are a host of engineering problems associated with
making such a system work well in practice, but then, that's true of the
l-s-d thrusters in general.

Those who have worked the numbers say that this will work quite well.

...However, like most such "Cheap Access To Space" (CATS) schemes,
the investment required in capital equipment is so high that it is not
economical unless the launch-rate is more than an order of magnitude higher
than the current rate, leaving one with a "chicken and egg" problem...

Moreover, the competition for a laser launcher is not today's rockets, but
the same amount of money invested in new rockets. Unfortunately, big
lasers are fairly expensive, and even if you're pessimistic about the
development cost of reusable launchers, they're in the same league.

Also (and again like most CATS schemes), the system is most economical
for small, light payloads that can tolerate high gees...

Small, light payloads, yes -- as with a lot of non-rocket schemes, the
hardware in a laser launcher is sized based on the size of an individual
payload, and is largely insensitive to the number launched. Such systems
are conveyer belts, not semitrailers.

High gees, no. Laser launchers are externally-powered rockets, not
catapults. They accelerate over quite long distances and there's no
reason why their payloads should see high gees.

...which means that it's not really usable for launching people...

Laser launchers indeed are not good for launching people, but for a
different reason: people are too big. The laser needed for a system that
can launch that big a lump at once is extremely expensive.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

what i have discover is a way of movig light morepowerful then leasers. iam
going to retrive email was going to send yesterday like i said iam new at this.
and dont ouit know how to get it back from email not sent