A Lunar Colony

dan_casale · Oct 26, 2005

Now for some analysis using my earlier posts: />>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. << 120 hrs x 1,000 contractors = 120,000 man hrs of downtime maintenance activities. />>After 689 days of continuous operation.... 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. << 698 days = 1 year 333 days. (680 days in 2003. Then 689 days in 2005. Lets use 2 years between refuelings.) />>...and will pay $77 million over five years for the plant's nuclear fuel. << $77 million / 5yrs * 2yrs = $30.8 million in fuel costs The NRC and the company figures for the plant size don't agree (816 vs. 870) maybe there was some upgrades during the last refueling cycle. So I will use the 870MW figure in calculations. />>...These two plants total 1,770 MW with a staff of 1,900.<< (1900 / 1770) * 870MW = 934 people to operate the plant. 1000 people @ 200 lbs @ $25,000/LB = $5 billion dollars in lunar shipping costs. However, I don't know what it costs to return something from the moon. If our city cannot handle an influx of 1000 people then they must bring their own food/water/O2 with them. If I assume 400 lbs of consumables for 3 weeks per person, that would cost an additional $10 billion to ship to the moon. 1000 people @ $50/hr for 120 hrs = $6 million However we might be required to pay the entire trip time of 4 weeks (24hrs * 28days * $50 * 1000 people = $33.6 million). Fuel shipping costs are unknown. But, I think that 2000 LBs is on the light side, $50 million. Fuel costs are $30.8 million Other parts/weights/costs that are required for the maintenance activities are unknown. On the lo

chriscdc · Oct 30, 2005

>>After 689 days of continuous operation.... 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. << So at least some of what he said had relavence. Now the subs may be designed to easily last for decades without significant repair, but then they go into port every 6 months or so. Now the main reactor may last so long, but what about all the peripheral systems such as pipes etc. In space, it would be hell to even perform routine maintanence. Remember that the military regularly overstate how great their equipment is, so unless you've served onboard one of these subs you can not really be sure. About your comment on solar power. If you have hundreds of people on your base, you need enough lifeboats to support that many people. These will need a power supply, it needs to be reliable and long lasting. We don't know how batteries will last in space, and they add alot of mass to any system. So it would be best to use solar, as much as possible (soyuz and shenzou use solar, and they don't keep people in space that long, so solar has a weight advantage) . So you could supply the power needed to keep people alive, just from the earth return vessels. The result is that you have a fat fraction of the power needed, being generated anyway.

scottb50 · Oct 30, 2005

And the Earth is flat. I don't think the limits are that dreadful, especially in interplanatary Space. On the lunar or Martian surface some accommodations would be needed, more storage space, cryogenics, being the primary requirement. Nuclear power would cost tens times more just in launch costs and construction requirements. Forget the maintenance. Solar/water is simple, light weight, safe, easily scalable and cheap. No need for batteries, constant power fuel cells use Hydrogen and Oxygen gas. Solar powered hydrolizers produce Oxygen and Hydrogen gasses that are stored either compressed or cryogenic for use by the fuel cells. A closed system, though water could be added due to losses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Oct 31, 2005

stevehw33: A quick google search for +CA-48 +Amethyste turned up nothing. Can you provide links to any facts about the size, weight, heat output, or maintenance requirements of this reactor? I am hearing what you are saying but I would like some independant facts that I can check for myself and come to the same conclusion that you have arrived at. The 3 mi. Island type of reactor is the only kind of reactor I understand. Yes I know that there are several other designs but they basically follow the design of REACTOR = />HEAT EXCHANGER =>TURBINE =>GENERATOR =>COOLING TOWER. The reactors styles might vary, the number of heat exchangers might vary, but after that, they are the same as anyother oil/gas/coal fired power plant. />>It's about 850 MW in power output, meaning the actual rating is about 1500-2000MW. Some 30-40 TIMES the size of an Amethyste type. << I thought we were discussing the amount of Megawatts of electrical power, not the megawatts of heat energy. Therefor the only relevant figure is the MWp figure of 850. />>What you've written about above is a complete renovation and rebuilding of the reactor. << No, the article clearly states that it is for refueling and routine maintenance. I just need more information.....

chriscdc · Oct 31, 2005

What facts have you given? Have you worked out how large the regoltih 'moving vehicle' needs to be, how much power it requires, how it will get power from your nuke, will it require batteries or a RTG? Why does the digger have to be so large, why not a conveyor belt to move loose rubble. On the moon it will be far easier to keep a vehicle moving than on the earth due to decreased gravity and thus resistance will be lower. Why not have a bunch of small modular robots that can can do the same job as your digger and also be easily reconfigurable. If one breaks down, it will be easily fixed, whilst the others get on with the job anyway. Just think about what ants and termites can achieve given time. This same redundancy is an advantage of solar power, with the nuke, one stray micrometeorite and you will have no power for a significant period. You would have to be ready for the nuke powering down during the lunar night, so you are going to need emergency storage ability anyway. So you suggest UO pellets, do you know how to get enough energy from them? If they are too small, then you would have to rely on natural decay which would be pitiful, scale it up in order to get a decent amount of energy and you need a good way of transfering the heat into electricity, which would require significant mass (including radiation shielding). The pellets may be efficient, but try getting them to give you a good power output, whilst being lighter than solar. Seeing how your facts seem to consist of saying that because something hasn't been proven yet, even though it breaks no physical rules, then it can not even be considered, try this. Solar has worked in space for decades with no problems. On the other hand you have your heavy PWR which has never flown in space, and has never been run continuously for more than a couple of years. Its redundancy is non-existant, unless you send up more than one reactor, but the cost would probably prevent you. It is high

spacester · Nov 11, 2005

Well having achieved his aim of shutting down progress in this thread, and accusing others of ignoring facts, the poster whom I still will not directly address has left the arena. I'm going to revive the thread with the following cross-post from the A New Golden Age for Space Flight" thread over on M&L. The response from he-without-a-name will no doubt be latin for "argument by authority" to which I would reply with "Res ipsa loquitur" Which is a legal term from the Latin meaning literally, "the thing speaks for itself". <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Nov 11, 2005

Wow, I want this guy on our Board of Directors of ACCESS Space Foundation. Here’s my extract of his marvelous speech. This extract sums up what ACCESS is all about in terms of why space flight needs to be accelerated, and why America needs to lead the way for the benefit of the entire world. This extract is not meant to be a substitute - I hope everyone reads the full text. Marvelous speech. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=18245 An Address by Dr. Ron Sugar, Chairman, CEO and President, Northrop Grumman Corporation, delivered at the National Press Club, November 9, 2005 *** For the next few minutes, I'd like to talk to you about why our nation and the world must renew the human exploration of space. I will also share with you my deep concerns about many serious problems right here on earth. However, I will take the contrarian view that, despite these problems - indeed because of them - we need to explore, and we must devote an appropriate share of our nation's human capital and financial resources to that exploration. History is clear. Far from being a drag on a nation's progress, exploration often accelerates a nation's progress. But the ultimate governing commodity of our age is intellectual capital. Just think about that. As a nation, we are preeminent in the world because we dominate that commodity. It is the basis of our leadership in pharmaceuticals and medicine; communications and computer technology; aerospace, genetic engineering, national security, and many other categories. One of the most important subsets of that commodity is the intellectual capital of our aerospace industry. The loss of pre-eminence in our aerospace industry would certainly cripple our future and would foreclose on national capabilities and impact economic sectors u <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

plutarch · Nov 12, 2005

I just started reading this thread a couple of days ago, and I couldn't help but think of the political implications of going to, and living on, the moon independent of the governemnt. I apologize ahead of time if this has already been brought up in previous posts, I only got through about 10 pages. If 100 people were to somehow come up with the capital needed, go to the moon, and set up a colony, what would the governemnt do? Would taxes still be collected? How could they police thier own laws? A lunar colonly, IMO, should be more than just a sceintific outpost, but a haven from the plutocracy of todays world. I see no reason for a capitalist facade to be added to this excursion. I think that in a closed enviornemnt was a small amount of people, socialism is the way to go. Security on the colony could never find some way to get their food if it was a market economy. The same goes with nurses and doctors. That's about all I have to say, other than stating how impressed I was about the level of knowledge, cooperation, and kindness I have seen so far. Maybe there is some goodness left, somewhere on this world.

craig42 · Nov 13, 2005

Welcome to the thread plutarch. You've raised a few interesting points. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If 100 people were to somehow come up with the capital needed, go to the moon, and set up a colony, what would the government do?<hr /></blockquote> I should think it depends on which government wants to collect taxes and how good its space faring abilities or funds to purchase rides are. USA is going to have more options at its disposal than Kenya. I should imagine the nationality of the 100 people or greatest nationality present and choice of the launch site would probably be the main reasoning behind a govt claim. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Would taxes still be collected?<hr /></blockquote> Well, upon the colonists return to Earth, the govt would be entitled to make some collection depending on their legislation and time the Selenites have been away. As for collecting tax on the moon, Well land tax would certainly be out since no one can own the land, so there's no tax, but tax could certainly be obtained as a VAT-style on say the purchase of food/water, or rent, or for air. Technically the buildings would be owned by a govt not private enterprise so they might have grounds to charge tax on that. However a nation could decree tax be collected and sent to them, but unless the colonists agree they'd need some kind of enforcement. Which lead neatly leads me to your next question. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />How could they police their own laws?<hr /></blockquote> Again depends on who they are Assuming they are following the law of the OST. They would not be able to make or threaten to make a hostile act without breaking inter-national law. This means that the police would be limited to parking their spacecraft walking over and asking you to stop it. Anything else would violate the O

tap_sa · Nov 14, 2005

"Frankly, your proposal are so lacking in practical, real, scientific basis, that it's hard to take them seriously." ...says someone who... - fails to get the basic equation F = ma right. - fails to see how 1/6th g means considerably lower rolling friction - ignores the lack of atmospheric drag which is predominant in faster speeds and longer distances Good one <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

chriscdc · Nov 14, 2005

I'll make it simple for you. Imagine that you are riding a bike. Now according to what you say, you should use the same energy on eath, as on the moon. First neither cycling on earth or on the moon can be treated as though you are moving in space. In both cases you have a force due to gravity acting downwards. Now there is a little thing called the friction coefficient. This means that the resistance to your movement is proportional to the force acting perpendicular to the surface. R=kF where R is the resistance, k is a constant for that particular surface and F is the force acting into the surface. As you can see, if the surfaces are the same, the resistance will be 1/6 of that on earth. That means that on earth, you need to supply 6 times the force, just to keep the thing moving horizontally. Now throw in air resistance and its surprising that we can ever get anything done on earth at all. Seriously, if you can not even understand that, then how can we take your word for it that a nuke is useful. The UO pellets I was refering to those you mentioned for powering the return to earth vehicles, and I was pointing out how impracticle that would be. I was pointing out how difficult it would be to put a nuclear reactor on the escape vehicle, at the least it would be overkill on the power and mass side and it would probably kill the crew.

spacester · Nov 14, 2005

...says someone who... - fails to get the basic equation F = ma right. - fails to see how 1/6th g means considerably lower rolling friction - ignores the lack of atmospheric drag which is predominant in faster speeds and longer distances And then, after you're so kind as to try to help him out, he goes on to a snide discussion based on sliding friction, seemingly oblivious to the concept of rolling friction and the much different equation to be used. He prolly only thought of the air resistance thing after you mentioned it. After all his rude behavior in support of nuclear power, we still don’t have a baseline nuclear plant for early activities on the moon. What a joke, the guy has never demonstrated any proficiency at math – ever - he slips decimals in his favor, he presents math with typos everywhere, he makes unsupported a priori statements and tries to lord it over everybody with his latin. Everybody else is wrong unless they brownnose him, he’s just a joke. He is useless to me at this point. For me, this guy smashed up his glass house throwing stones at everybody in sight a long time ago. He only serves as entertainment value at this point, at least on this thread. What a waste of intellect! edit: Oh crap, I screwed up! I misread who posted what and made a false accusation. Oooooops I'm usually MUCH more careful about that kind of thing. The guy I'm talking about really has gotten under my skin I have to admit. I'm not going to edit the above words, I never edit for content after posting, especially if it's one of my more, erm assertive posts. My words stand, but um, it was someone else who was using the equation for sliding friction. Sorry about that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

Swampcat · Nov 14, 2005

"What a waste of intellect!" That's the sad part. He's an intelligent person, but he doesn't seem to understand how to communicate without putting people down. And he claims to be a pyschiatrist. Makes you wonder if he really is what he claims to be. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> ------------------------------------------------------------------- "I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."Thomas Jefferson </div>

chriscdc · Nov 14, 2005

Spacester I think you may have read what I wrote rather than Stevehw33. I used the sliding friction as it was the easiest way of getting the point over. I was also wondering about whether wheels or legs would be the best way of getting around? This isn't based on any arguments over which is more efficient (obviously wheels) but the effects of regolith on the joins. Regolith is nasty stuff and would probably wear through best at places where the wheel axle enters the vehicle or engine block etc. Legs on the other hand could be covered in a simple foil to keep the regolith away from joins. Legs would also throw up less regolith, decreasing the chances of getting to more sensitive parts of the system. This would probably be best for a modular robotic system, where you could replace a damaged leg on a robot (literally plug a new one in), then later repair the damaged one. It would also improve the ability to travel over difficult terrain.

spacester · Nov 14, 2005

Yeah, I screwed up, sorry about that, I added an edit at the end. <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/blush.gif" /> Wheels versus legs - a very good question. I think we can safely assume some of each. We use wheels for heavy loads and legs for taking full advantage of the reduced gravity; that’s my first reaction anyway. Good points on the maintainability, which is of course critical. I am also thinking in terms of modular robotic systems allowing for quick change-out, to the point that you could do it remotely in some cases. It is of course true that inertia is independent of gravity. So it will take the same energy to start and stop an object. For most things we do here on earth, the energy needed is largely the energy to keep them moving. So there is definitely reason to believe certain things will in fact be easier up there. The lack of air resistance and the lower rolling friction will be helpful, and detailed designs will of course take advantage as practical. Yet for engineering planning purposes, I tend to think we might as well take the conservative approach and just figure about the same energy to move dirt around as on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Nov 16, 2005

stevehw33: Please develop the transporter while you still know everything. It will make the job of building a base on the moon much easier. I would still like to see any links when you come across them. I'm not closed to the idea, I just need more information. Spacester: There actually has been a little progress on reactor information. But I think this is more of a chicken/egg problem. Which comes first and how does it develop into a power grid? At 1 MWp per bulldozer equivalent, digging will need a lot of power. An additional problem is that with the reduced gravity the bulldozer will loose grip and only be able to push 1/6 the amount of dirt. Dump trucks will look funny with oversized dump beds. Roads will only need to be graded, then sintered with a microwave beam. I've seen a couple of different proposals on how to do this. By using regolith and a microwave, we could truely live in a glass house. Tap_sa and everyone else: Welcome to the discussion.

rocketman5000 · Nov 17, 2005

Spacester, Interestingly enough I was watching a program on the History Channel on Television the other night about military equipment The army corp of Engineers has an armoured dozer that is capable of scooping up a large amount of soid into a hopper in the front of the machine. The reason it does this is to increase the weight of the machine. The machine was designed light to be able to be flown by cargo plane. Probabaly airdropped to. I thought that this was an interesting concept. You could build a light machine, but still be able to push heavy loads around with it.

tap_sa · Nov 17, 2005

"At 1 MWp per bulldozer equivalent, digging will need a lot of power. An additional problem is that with the reduced gravity the bulldozer will loose grip and only be able to push 1/6 the amount of dirt. Dump trucks will look funny with oversized dump beds." One megawatt (=1340hp) is a lot of power even for Earth-movers. What level of digging are we talking about here, initial operations or full-blown miles wide open quarry?? For a reference here's Komatsu's specs for their products. The largest dozer they sell has 1150hp and weighs over 150 tonnes. I think we can start with something a little bit smaller <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Also excavators and dump trucks having >1000hp are behemoths even by terrestial standards. The slip problem due low g in bulldozing is real but the first lunar dozer could have hoppers which you'd fill with rocks and regolith for additional weight.

chriscdc · Nov 17, 2005

I think he was talking about stevehw33s suggestion. Which was one of his justifications for a nuke power plant. Just imagine the power cable required to connect the nuke to the digger! The reduced grip is only a problem when you want to accelerate or deccelerate a load. A train system would work rather well on the moon. A heavy lifter with some sort of all terrain capability like an earth is probably out of the question. I wonder if you can make rail tracks out of lunar glass? Would the temperature swings on the moon make this impossible? Thinking about it, thermal expansion would need to be taken into account when making the glass roads that people have been talking about. Thermal expansion on the moon would be greater than on earth, so you probably need far smaller stretches of glass with greater gaps in between. Or you could make the road from small glass spherules with some sort of binding agent between the particles. That way you allow expansion vertically, which you couldn't allow with a solid glass roads.

scottb50 · Nov 17, 2005

You need a lunar or Mars Hopper. The same vehicle used to go from the surface to orbit could do any number of flights, landing at a pre-determined surface location and returning to a central base. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

chriscdc · Nov 18, 2005

The cost would be a nightmare and you can probably find a better use for the reaction mass (probably water with a nuclear engine).

tap_sa · Nov 18, 2005

"Just imagine the power cable required to connect the nuke to the digger! " Interestingly some of the biggest terrestial diggers are sold with electric options. Basically the large diesel engines are replaced with electric ones and a cable coil is added. I'll attach a picture of ~1,500,000lbs 2900kW shovel that has two 1450kW engines. The cable operates at 6600V and 2 * 155A. IIRC lunar glass would make excellent building material. Because lack of water the glass is not as brittle as on Earth. And glass (fuzed quartz especially) has smaller thermal expansion coefficient than metals. edit: the picture was />100kb, here's the link

chriscdc · Nov 18, 2005

That's one big .... But even the cable there looks like the size of someone's arm. Just getting the cable down to the moon would require a decent sized lander. I remember seeing a table of mechanical properties of different materials and glass came out on top on several. Good to know that the thermal expansion is good (thinking about it, if it had a terrible thermal expansion then most windows would shatter within a year). But the range of temperatures on the moon would still cause it to expand significantly. Oh well another thing to test here on earth. Now where can I get a 20ft microwave oven?

rocketman5000 · Nov 18, 2005

That thing would be like killing a mosquito with a stick of dynamite. I believe that lunar evacavation should be looked at from a fresh perspective. What are difficulties what are advantages. Disadvantages • Limited tractive force due to reduced normal force • Power supply • Initial infrastructure nonexistant • Lack of knowledge. • The dust gets everywhere Advantages • Reduced weight of excavated product • Loosely pack regolith in comparison to earth soil When thinking of the pros and cons of the system it lead me to think about the regolith itself. The electrostatic charge seems as if it could be both a pro and a con. I haven’t read anywhere if the charge is all one polarity or not. If it remained one polarity it would be beneficial to charge your vehicle to keep the dust out of seals that you didn’t want cut to pieces. Also I believe that any bulldozer, or shovel for that mater must be decided on its purpose. If the major purpose is to gather regolith for manufacture of products or is the goal to level an area or dig a hole for construction of say the nuclear bunker discussed earlier in the thread the design of the excavator will be much different. Should the construction equipment have a pressurized cabin? I think it should. The cabin should be a design that can work on as many platforms on the moon as possible to attempt to make it more mass produced. I think it should have its own back up power supply. Say an RTG for life support systems. I think if would be interesting to sketch out the designs of the simpler systems that everyone always seems to ignore. Also, NASA is having one of its challenges to construct a regolith collector. I haven’t checked back in the last month, but when I first read of it the design criteria were a little vague. Anyhow I have rambled on an on. Does anyone have any other advantages/disadvantages they can think of?

rocketman5000 · Nov 18, 2005

hmm, hijack a large radar dish?? many of them use microwaves correct?

A Lunar Colony

dan_casale

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

scottb50

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

plutarch

Guest

craig42

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

spacester

Guest

Swampcat

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

spacester

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

scottb50

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page