A Lunar Colony

craig42 · Oct 14, 2005

Putting aside the nuclear vs. solar debate The OST(which btw was ratified unanimously by the US senate) Principle 3.2.C on Nuclear Power states that sources states that <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Nuclear reactors shall use only highly enriched uranium 235 as fuel. The design shall take into account the radioactive decay of the fission and activation products.<hr /></blockquote> Trying to use Plutonium might present serious political problems.

dan_casale · Oct 14, 2005

>>I wish folks would talk about the power lander I referenced earlier. It would really move the discussion along at this point.<< *Wow* I wish I had attended that Space Resources Rountable. The next one is coming up in a few weeks if anyone wants to attend. Here is the annoucement: Dear Space Resources Roundtable Colleagues, This year's Space Resources Roundtable meeting (SRR-VII) will be held in collaboration with the Lunar Exploration Analysis Group (LEAG) and the Lunar and Planetary Science Institute (LPI). It will take place October 25-28 at the South Shore Harbor Resort in Houston. The announcement can be found at: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2005/ There will be heavy emphasis on resource exploration and utilization, as well as involvement from the commercial sector. The latter will be helped along by us having joint sessions on one day of the meeting (Thursday, Oct. 27) with the Lunar Commerce Executive Roundtable. Although a departure from the way we usually run the SRR meetings, this provides expanded opportunities to build collaborations with other communities, educate them about the value of space resources, and even recruit additional members of the Space Resources Roundtable. I hope everyone can come to the meeting. The one I attended in 03 was a small group of about 30 people. So register ASAP so they can get a bigger room if needed.

kilendrial · Oct 14, 2005

Assuming (somewhat arbitrarily) that the lunar base needs 4000kw daily. How much Enriched U235 will be needed yearly to run the reactor, and how many launches will that require? A kilogram of Uranium-235 produces 500,000 Mega-joules of energy. This transfers to 138 megawatts. If you use 10 percent of the potential energy (efficiency is a variable on the moon, this is a conservative estimate) and the kilogram is 3 percent uranium, 1 kilogram would make 414 KW. So, we are then talking a kilogram/hour, 24 kilograms/day, 8.76 metric tons a year, 876 metric tons a century. The lunar module in the Apollo era weighed 366 kilograms, so for a year you would need to launch 24 lunar module sized loads. But wait, bomb grade Uranium (that nobody will allow us to get our hands on) is 90% + Uranium. You would then need 1/30 that amount or about a lunar module a year. I heard on this thread a bit someone saying 25,000 dollars per put a kilogram on the moon. When bomb grade, that means Uranium shipment will cost 25,000 per day on intervals of 10 years would be 91 million for that interval of 10 years. So, you could pay 91 million and stock pile the stuff, then be self-sufficient for 10 years (theoretically). If what we ship is moderate 20 percent U-235 (not bomb-grade, but more than what is usually used in a nuclear reactor…this is the upper limit of what is considered “low enriched uranium“ and isn‘t too useful for bomb making), then it might cost a few hundred million for 10 years. Lets use that moderate 20 percent enriched. You also need to buy the Uranium, and that might cost 5,000 per kilogram. 5,000 dollars of Uranium will then last a month, 600,000 for that shipment of ten years of supply (fuel is an extremely low portion of nuclear power costs). One time cost of a nuclear reactor would be a couple hundred million to build and I think you can get it down to 100 tons that would have at least 400 KW output (nuclear power plants are scalable). The 10 M

craig42 · Oct 15, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Umm, why is the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (a national laboratory) building a breeder reactor (SSTAR) that uses U-238 that eventually turns into Plutonium-239? It makes no sense.<hr /></blockquote> I don't know about the plans of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory but could it have something to with the fact that Earth bound reactors aren't covered by the OST? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Does the bill even have a definition of “highly enriched”?<hr /></blockquote> I couldn't find one but here is a link to the UN office for Outer Space Affairs which gives the full text of the treaty. OST <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Really, is any body honestly going to believe that we would be making weapons on the moon?<hr /></blockquote> Based on previous events, I'd have to say yes. After all certain American and a certain Brit claimed WMD existed but no trace has been found of them yet.

spacester · Oct 15, 2005

kilendrial quoted me quoting chriscdc and began his post by asking Do you really think you will be independent from Earth? I should have quoted the inside part of that paragraph: I would rather go with a power system that you could make out of the ground that you are standing onwhich gets at the point I would like folks to please try and process. A Lunar Colony independent from Earth? Of course not silly. I'm the guy who is always making the argument that the phrase ‘self-sufficient’ is overused and abused. We can't do it, we should NOT base our strategy on doing something impossible: producing enough trade goods to pay for the expense of being there? Producing every single last thing you need from local resources? Not even this wild eyed optimist thinks that is likely within 100 years. And I am not interested in the next 100, I'm interested in the next 10 years, the next five, the next two years even. If we start off on the right path, we can however establish enough economic activity to make the investment in space development pay off. What should be discussed IMO is the idea of an off-world location developing local industries to provide as much self-support as practical. ‘Self-Sufficiency’ is a silly goal for the far-away future. ‘Somewhat Self Supporting’ is what we can reasonably shoot for in the short term. Zubrin's 'A Case For Mars' has been out there a long time now. Most space advocates have taken to heart the need for ISRU (In-Situ Resource Utilization), which was perhaps the single most important contribution (among many) of his at-the-time revolutionary approach. Now nobody here is at the technical level of Dr. Z, but we can apply the concept of ISRU to the moon as well as mars. But maybe folks have been thinking in terms of mass reduction so much, that they forget the main driving concept behind <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bitbanger · Oct 16, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Surely, it costs lots to get mass to the lunar surface. But if it takes more energy/time/resources on the moon to make the solar cells, then the system there cannot afford to build them.<hr /></blockquote> True, but the operative word here is if. Your argument appears to assume this is the case. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Point being, that very light, efficient nukes can probably be built to provide energy on the lunar surface. Because the technology is real and existing. <hr /></blockquote> If pure reason can not solve the problem of purifying Si on the Moon, how can you be so sure that a nuke designed for Earth gravity will work properly in 1/6 of the design environment? The argument work both ways. While I agree that the problem can be engineered in the nuke case, I also assert that it can be solved in the solar case as well. Without resorting to in place engineering by the initial inhabitants. Small ISRU reactors will be landed to test potential solutions before any permanent habitat will be built. As far as batteries go, your nuke is going to require them as well. There will be down time and maintenance, or at minimum it will have to be planned for. And batteries aren't necessarily the best solution anyway. Fuel cells or flywheels are all possible solutions. Having said all this, please let me know when you have managed to land and start your nuke on the Moon. I'll be right there in line to buy power fom you!! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

spacester · Oct 16, 2005

These things have been well analyzed but indeed we will not KNOW anything until we get there and try it; but reasonable conclusions can be drawn, among which that growing the power grid by clever manipulation of locally-procurred molecules is worthy of a full evaluation. Furthermore, a lunar-emplaced test facility for verification and refinement of ISRU processes is clearly in order, whereas we can be assured that nuclear plants will work, so no such test vehicle is needed. Therefore, further discussion of the nuclear option seems pointless. <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> Except for the fact that we still do not have a baseline nuke to compare with. Something we can actually buy and launch and land and put into service. Just some reasonable ballpark numbers presented unambiguously. I am unable to extract that baseline from what I've seen posted here in the time I have to look into it. We're looking at maybe 2.0 MW total, with maybe 0.8 MWe and 1.2 MWt as being something that could actually be landed using existing launchers delivering the core nuke plant element (presumably the reactor core would be the most massive piece that could not ne subdivided) in a direct launch to the lunar surface? So our Baseline is a launch mass of what, 30 tonne (tonne = 1000 kg = 1.1023 ton = 2204.6 lb) to LEO delivering maybe 2 tonne to luna, producing maybe 2 MW continuous power? Can anybody provide us with a corrected version of that sentence? Please leave in the part about something that can actually be launched by current launchers and self-landed. Orbital assembly is allowed. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bitbanger · Oct 16, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Water is going to be a very real problem. There are no real volatile elements on the lunar surface, such as P, S, H, or much else. So initially, all the water is going to have to be shipped in. Now, if there is a good enough energy source, and the Reactor would supply that, then O2 can be sintered out of the abundant silicates (olivines, feldspars, pyroxenes) on the lunar surface. Then one only needs hydrogen. <hr /></blockquote> So if you need to ship in hydrogen, there are several common compounds that are easier to handle and also provide other elements that are useful. For example if you need Carbon then Methane is what you should ship. It could double as a fuel dump and be used directly to extract Oxygen from Ilmenite. The reactions are: FeTiO3 + CH4 <- /> Fe + TiO2 + CO + 2H2 and 2CO + 6H2 <- /> 2CH4 + 2H2O Burn some of the CO to get CO2 and feed it into your greenhouse. Let the plants break the CO2 bonds to produce Oxygen and let the plants have the excess Carbon which is then returned to the humans in the form of food. The other compound that is easily shipped and stored is Ammonia. First mix with Oxygen in the presense of a platinum catalyst to get: 4NH3 + 5O2 <- /> 4NO + 6H2O and 2NO + O2 <- /> 2NO2 The Nitrogen Dioxide is usable to make fertilizer. My motto: Mass is a terrible thing to waste <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

dan_casale · Oct 17, 2005

stevehw33: />>Even with an efficiency of 20%, given a solar constant of 1360 watts/sq. m. (McGraw-Hill Enc. of Sci.Tech), the total number of solar panels needed would be 800K panel hours. That's about 200 solar panels, output, in one year.<< "panel hours" what is a panel hour? This doesn't make much sense to me. We need to determine peak power requirements. Then we can will know what the power storage requirements will be. />>One cannot Begin to imagine the labor costs involved in installing 4 hectares of solar panels, nor how long it would take.<< Having just installed a 10'x48' array, I can imagine the labor involved. I can also imagine the reduction in weight that occur because the Moon has no wind loading requirements, whereas the Earth requirements are 100psf (80Mph winds). The new connector plugs can easily be handled by gloved hands and the panels could simply hang on the racks. The racks could be poles pounded into the ground, ridge poles fitted into the tops, and the panels hung from the ridge poles. In this manner, 4 people could connect about 10KWp per hour (1 wiring, 2 installing racks, 1 hanging panels). />>... AND no heat as one would get from a reactor.<< Not as much but, my inverters lose 6% of the input power (~350 Watts) to heat. So a 200MWdc array would produce up to 1.2MW of heat from the inverters. />>Regarding the cost of mass taken to the moon vs. the cost of making solar panels there, it's a moot point. If the energy cost On the Moon, is higher than the total lifetime output of the solar panels, then the lunar hab will go quickly energy Bankrupt.<< That solar panels cannot produce enough power to cover their manufacture seems to be a popular myth in the solar arena. If this were true, then I would never be able to offset the purchase price in electricity. Infact it will only take me 26 years to offset all the manufacturin

bitbanger · Oct 17, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Don't forget about super capacitors as a storage device, they have a much higher energy density than flywheels and almost as efficient (99.9% vs 97%) <hr /></blockquote> The main drawback of super capacitors is the discharge rate. While they can store a lot of energy, the rate that you can get to it is rather slow. Actually there have been some pretty amazing advances in battery technology lately. Several groups have been developing electrode material using nano sized particles and getting rather good results. Toshiba is one example.

chriscdc · Oct 17, 2005

Excellent link. It is several years old (17 years to be exact), and alot of the references seem to be around 20 years, so things have probably gotten far better by now. Actually being at the poles might have an advantage. Alot of the damage to the cells will come from charged particles in the solar wind. If you use a large reflector mounted at approx 45%, you could redirect the majority of the light, without reflecting the charged particles. The amorphous cells would make it far easier to lay down the silicon, as you wouldn't need to tailer the silicon charge or velocity. It could evaporate off the source, be deflected by a few routes (mass to charge ratio etc), then smash straight down into the growing silicon.

tap_sa · Oct 17, 2005

"The main drawback of super capacitors is the discharge rate. While they can store a lot of energy, the rate that you can get to it is rather slow. " You've got it backwards. Supercaps are still behind batteries in stored energy density (J/kg) but excell in discharge power density (W/kg). Remember that charged cap tends to explode if shorted. These capasitors would suit well to power a massdriver.

bitbanger · Oct 17, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />You've got it backwards. Supercaps are still behind batteries in stored energy density (J/kg) but excell in discharge power density (W/kg). Remember that charged cap tends to explode if shorted. These capasitors would suit well to power a massdriver.<hr /></blockquote> Well I just showed my age!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The original SuperCaps had a high internal resistance which limited the charge/dischare rate. The application was power backup for real time clock chips in computers. Apparently that little defect has been rectified. The applications have expanded as well. From http://www.batteryuniversity.com/partone-8.htm: Advantages * Virtually unlimited cycle life - can be cycled millions of time. * Low impedance - enhances load handling when put in paralleled with a battery. * Rapid charging -supercapacitors charge in seconds. * Simple charge methods - no full-charge detection is needed; no danger of overcharge. Limitations * Linear discharge voltage prevents use of the full energy spectrum. * Low energy density - typically holds one-fifth to one-tenth the energy of an electrochemical battery. * Cells have low voltages - serial connections are needed to obtain higher voltages. Voltage balancing is required if more than three capacitors are connected in series. * High self-discharge - the rate is considerably higher than that of an electrochemical battery. This last item is the real kicker. 50% energy loss in 30-40 days! So as long as you use the energy quickly, supercaps are fine.

kilendrial · Oct 20, 2005

I have read some interesting stuff on nuclear power in space in the last few days. Thought I would share some of what I saw. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> NASA and the Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration - Naval Reactors (NR) today signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that will lead to the development, design, delivery, and operational support of civilian space nuclear reactors within NASA's Project Prometheus.<hr /></blockquote> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=14761 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA, in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), intends to prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) regarding research and development activities associated with space nuclear reactors for electric power production on a robotic spacecraft for potential future civilian NASA missions. The PEIS will be developed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act and will discuss the purpose and need for space nuclear reactors to produce on-board power for instrument and propulsion needs to support the Vision for Space Exploration. The PEIS also will evaluate known and reasonably foreseeable power technologies to determine whether or not they are practical alternatives for producing sufficient spacecraft power for future exploration missions.<hr /></blockquote> http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=16617 <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />As part of the deal being negotiated, according to NASA and industry sources, Griffin is considering offhaving Japan build a nuclear reactor that would be delivered to the lunar surface - a task once considered part of NASA's now evaporating Project Prometheus. Japan wou</blockquote>

scottb50 · Oct 22, 2005

http://www.ballard.com/be_a_customer/spec_sheets <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

chriscdc · Oct 22, 2005

Assuming that you mean that you could use that as a substrate for the cells, then there could be a couple of problems. The laying of the cells and the wiring would however be much simpler. If the site is to be at a polar region, then the light falling on the cells will be serverely diminshed, than if the cells are at an angle to the ground. You could twist the entire sheet until it is at the optimum angle, or place it on a slope of a hill. There is still the problem of night time. If the hill is high enough at the poles, to recieve light at all times of the day, then you could re-roll the cells and then move them along the hill every couple of days.

rogers_buck · Oct 22, 2005

Humm, I wonder what the thermal current would be for a ton of Al at the pole in full sunlight wired to a ton of Al at the bottom of a eternally dark crater @3K? I'll have to think about how to calculate that...

scottb50 · Oct 23, 2005

The idea is enough Oxygen and Hydrogen would be converted and stored to operate the fuel cells during the night cycle. This way the geometry of the solar panels can be fairly simple. I was thinking very thin roll-up sheets attached to simple racks that could be steered through a limited degree or even be fixed. This would only be needed on the moon, in orbit or open Space storage would be less. The basic idea is assuring continuous and consistant power output. If you use only solar the fluctuations in power at different panel orientations would not be very good for electronics. As for building the solar panels on the moon I would think that would be a project goal to define once you are there, keeping them simple, compact and light weight would allow transporting them from Earth, at least to begin with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

j05h · Oct 24, 2005

Fuel cells make some sense for lunar night, but has this thread considered flywheel storage instead? It has the advantage of going straight from electricity-momentum-electricity. No refridgeration, pressurization or working liquids needed. There have been significant advances in commercial flywheels for fail-over in recent years. Some even come in standard cargo containers. These providers would probably find it trivial to integrate 5/10/20 ton space modules with flywheels. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

tap_sa · Oct 24, 2005

Do you have any figures how big flywheel would be needed to store, say, 1MW steady output for two weeks? I wonder if the bearing losses (even with magnetic bearings) become prohibitive for so long storage time.

dan_casale · Oct 24, 2005

stevehw33: />>Inasmuch as the discussion was about manufacturing solar panels ON The Moon, your comment is irrelevant. Inasmuch the only way to efficiently have lunar solar power is to ship the panels subsidized by earth resources and power, to the moon, it's also irrelevant. << In the discussion of why solar panels shouldn't be built, "that solar panels cannot produce enough power to cover their manufacture seems to be a popular myth." , seems to be highly relevant. If the technology can't produce more energy than is required to manufacture, it isn't a viable candidate for bootstraping. Bootstraping is the launching of just enough equipment to be able to build the equipment needed to expand the operation. In this case, bootstraping is launching enough solar panels, solar panel mining/refining/manufacturing equipment, and equipment to make new mining/refining/manufacturing equipment. My best guess is about 1000 tons of equipment and 2 MWp to start. From there the main ingredent is time. Thus, only the initial panels need to come from Earth, the rest can be manufactured from the lunar soil, which we know is a good source of silicon, and we know very well how to refine silicon from silicon-oxide. />>INasmuch as you don't even deal or mention the nuclear option, and ignore it in favor of the solar option, just shows how unrealistic you are.<< From my earlier post: />Nuclear: />RTG: />Thermal electric – as used on several space craft. Produces about 250W per 1.44Kg in a 2”x4”x4” package. />http://www.ne.doe.gov/space/space-desc.html />http://www.sandia.gov/pstg/battery.html />http://nova.nuc.umr.edu/nuclear_facts/spacepower/spacepower.html /> />Fission – 20MW weights about 900,000Kg in two power plants: />‘…single-cycle helium-Brayton plants of 10 to 50 MW provide a total capacity of 220 MW and the total mass is 9900 t, including a 10 percent

nexium · Oct 24, 2005

Hi Scott: Are there problems operating fuel cells in ambient vacuum? Have you any idea how many cubic meters of hydrogen at one atmosphere, 20 degree c = standard conditions are needed to produce 100 megawatt hours = 100,000 kilowatt hours with fuel cells? A 12 kilogram deep cycle battery stores about one kilowatt hour. Hitech batteries are about 3? times better. Neil

j05h · Oct 24, 2005

I don't have the time to find anything more than this right now: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/energy-tech-05zzzzzzy.html There is other info online, as well. Flywheels are being designed to deliver power at 60,000rpm, Beacon has a portable setup designed but not built. Space applications are a current focus according to article. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

dan_casale · Oct 26, 2005

This is an interesting article: Oct 25 - Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News - Sean Adkins York Daily Record, Pa. After 689 days of continuous operation, AmerGen Energy has shut down Three Mile Unit 1 Monday for its regularly scheduled refueling outage. For the next three weeks, roughly 1,000 contractors and tradesmen will complete more than 12,000 operational, maintenance and testing activities at the Dauphin County nuclear power plant. At the time of Monday's shutdown, AmerGen Energy claimed the 870-megawatt plant had broken a world record for continuous days of operation among all pressurized water reactors. In 2003, TMI Unit 1 officials claimed the plant had set the world record for the longest run of a pressurized water reactor at 680 days. "Three Mile Island's achievement underscores the company's dedication to the safe and reliable operation of our plants," said Rich Lopriore, Exelon's senior vice president of Mid-Atlantic operations. "We do not set out to break records; they are the outcome of our focus on safety, good human performance and equipment reliability." The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have team of inspectors at TMI during the outage to monitor equipment and human-performance issues, said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman. Typically, two NRC resident inspectors are stationed at TMI year round. During the outage, the NRC will station two additional officials at the plant to handle daily duties as the two resident inspectors monitor reactor start-up testing activities. Plant workers perform those tests prior to bringing the reactor back online, Sheehan said. Toward the close of the outage, resident inspectors will ensure the plant properly sealed the unit's containment building -- the structure that holds the reactor, he said. A three-member NRC team will visit the site to monitor the plant's testing of the reactor vessel and to exami

dan_casale · Oct 26, 2005

Here is more information on the Three-Mile Island reactor costs from http://www.tmia.com/industry/sale.html Last week, we completed our first acquisition, the Clinton Power Station in Illinois. Today we announce our second, Three Mile Island Unit 1. These two plants total 1,770 MW with a staff of 1,900. Under the purchase agreement and subject to certain adjustments, AmerGen paid $23 million for TMI-1's reactor and will pay $77 million over five years for the plant's nuclear fuel. Here is more about the capacity of Three-Mile island. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/threemileisland.html Capacity Net MW(e): 816 Generation in 2003 Megawatthours: 6,197,031 Capacity Factor: 86.5 %

A Lunar Colony

craig42

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

kilendrial

Guest

craig42

Guest

spacester

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

spacester

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

kilendrial

Guest

scottb50

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

rogers_buck

Guest

scottb50

Guest

j05h

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

nexium

Guest

j05h

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page