Location of Moon Base - Discuss.

[quasar2]

i`m just using Mir as example, that`s all. checkout thread "Mir as part of ISS". now obviously the vehicle in this isn`t Mir. but if in the future a similar incident comes up, & if there was enough time to send a dying vehicle somewhere other than earth`s atmosphere something like this should be considered. we had a thread awhile back "standards for space", dealing w/ these issues. & there`s an ongoing thread: "european approach to space debris". & just as similarly we gotta have recyclable suits too. it all amounts to the same thing. this is cut & paste from "mir as part of ISS" thread.<br /><br /><br /><br />"The recent proposal for a lunar Soyuz if I remember correctly was to have it dock with a modified Delta II upper stage after completeing it mission to the ISS. It would then complete a figure-8 around the moon (Not enough Delta-V to orbit). The modifications to the Soyuz if I remember correctly was a thicker TPS and a new, larger capacity toilet." <br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[henryhallam]

There is an article in this week's Nature which states that the ambient temperature in the permanently sunlit regions is about -50 C. However, this is of course for the regolith which reflects a certain percentage of the sunlight (admittedly not very much) and conducts heat away to the rest of the moon. If a moonbase were placed on an insulating platform or legs, and the top painted black to absorb as much sunlight as possible, could it maintain a comfortable temperature with little to no thermal control at all?

 

[quasar2]

perhaps an "unmanned" portion of a base could be equipped this way. it seems general consensus living quarters would be safely underground cuz of meteors. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Your power source for it is too difuse"</font><br /><br />It's as simple as it's gets, put stuff in a pot, close the lid and move the pot to the focal point of a parabolic mirror (or turn the mirror to do achieve the same thing). The actual digging would of course require electricity, solar panels. A heavy duty version could have an RTG heating the pot and create power, that could operate day and night <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">" I would have a few automated front-end loaders bringing the material to a stationary processing unit."</font><br /><br />Yes, separate loaders might be a good idea. More versatile, same loaders could do other jobs too like covering habitats with regolith etc.<br /><br />The bottoms of those permanently shadowed craters are probably 'gold mines', I've seen estimates ranging from 1% ice content to nearly pure ice, anyway orders of magnitude more than is available from average lunar samples we know. Operating, digging there will be a challenge though, because it is <i>very</i> chilly down there. Precautions must be taken to ensure that our digger doesn't freeze up but also that it doesn't heat up it's surroundings too much. We don't want to evaporate the water too soon.<br /><br />Btw I think trying to land into these dark craters would be a very bad idea. First your exhaust gases would melt the ice in the soil, cause maybe violent out gassings, then your relatively warm landing pedals would hit the ground melting it's ice but then things cool down, the ice would freeze and .. you are <i>stuck</i> in dark, cryogenic pit. Definetly not the way to start a lunar base.<br />

 

[JonClarke]

Assembly and deploying solar panels on the surface of a planet, whether the Moon or Mars is much simpler than on the ISS. The planet's surface provides its down support structure. The base isn't going to be subject to periodic reboosts. Also remember the trusses are not there to simply support the panels, they also support radiators, scientific and communications equipment. Much of this mass won't be needed on the moon. <br /><br />There are no economic resources on the moon. There are resources that can support small stations - energy is the most prominant. There may be volatiles in ths shadowed areas that can support that base. Their existance is, however unproved. Some lines of evidence suggest they exist, others do not. The existance of volatile resources pentiful enough to support an export industry is complete conjecture. Let's find out whatever is there first and get a base established. You have to crawl before you can walk.<br /><br />I find it odd that on one hand people talk optimistically about extracting miniscule amounts of hydrogen out of thousands of tonnes of regoltih but at the same time refuse to counterance the once resource which the moon has in abaundance - sunlight.<br /><br />I also fuind most justifications for going to the moon fairly fare fetched. Ifyou want to go to Mars, go to Mars. You don't have to go via the moon. Lunar experience will be useful from an operation point of view but not technical. Most lunar resources are supposition at this stage. Lunar export industries are flights of fancy.<br /><br />If you want to go to the moon you need to think of reasons centred on the moon itself. The moon is an interesting scientific study in its own right. It can support farside radioastronomy. The moon has some, possibly many resources to support this. The whole Peary crater idea is about one such site, rich in some resources and close to sites that might host others.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

"Right now we have two Astronauts circling the Earth in a very expensive can. Having a few astronauts sitting in a can situated on the Moon doesn't pique my interest. "<br /><br />That's your prblem not mine. they aren't sitting their scratching themselves, they are carrying out an extensive program of scientific research from many nations, servicing many more experoments that are run from the ground, and writing scientific papers. Expedition 10 submitted two scientfic papers from orbit.<br /><br />A small (4-8) person facility on the moon is going to do a lot to pique my interest. Lunar geology and geophysics, prosecting, astronomy, enegineering, space biomedicine, horticulture. Stuff that is absolutely essential before the grandiose plans can become possible. Stuff that has to be done to see if the grandiose plans are possible. <br /><br />The problem is people want to go straight to the grandiose stuff without the intermediate steps. The big flights of fancy can take care of themselves. I want to see those first baby steps. An energy rich location with a benign environment and possible volatile resources like the rim Peary crater is a great place to start. Dreaming about cities and industries on the moon and decrying the intermediate steps is a great way to ensure that those visions never happen.<br /><br />We have to be realistic. The first lunar bases will be small, compact, low mass and highly efficient. Get used to it.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[cdr6]

Instead of a fixed base, how about a "Lunar RV" something the size of a large RV or bus, in two sections.<br /><br />the first or "A unit" would contain living quarters and limited research equipment. The second segment or "B unit" would be dedicated to EVA/ support activities. The second unit could be a carrier for small electric ATVs suited for astronaut transportation and work away from the main rover. <br /><br />In this manner a team of explorers would be able to cover more surface area than would be possible with fixed baseing.

 

[quasar2]

all the old sites could be reached this way too. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

This is a very old idea, I think Oberth was the first to think of it - see http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/on02.html . Periodically it gets revived - see http://www.marsinstitute.info/rd/faculty/dportree/rtr/on27.html .<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[haywood]

Here's a question...<br />Would any of the fuel tanks in the descent stages of the LEM's from Apollo still have fuel in them?<br />Just wondering.<br />

 

[henryhallam]

The Apollo crews usually finished the descent with perhaps 5% fuel remaining (on a good day). They dumped the fuel after landing to ensure no engine restart was possible (probably other reasons too). Even if they hadn't I'm pretty sure it would have evaporated by now. It would be interesting to see what a LM descent stage looks like after 35+ years on the surface.

 

[cdr6]

Yep the idea is a moldy oldly alright, probably as old as (science fiction) the dream itself. I first heard of it back in the early Gemini/Apollo days at a NASA exposition in Cleveland. <br /><br />Ben Bova recently postulated such a "rig" in his two books about Mars. I simply purloined the ATC idea from the current Mars Society habitat operations.<br /><br />None the less the concept does have merit, especially for the "early exploration" phase of Lunar Ops. <br /><br />With the addition of an inflatable habitat the crew could set up temporary quarters at varioue locations as the situtation warrents, and/or get out to stretch their legs for a couple of days. <br /><br />In case of solar storms, the RV would also act as a shelter against "bad weather".

 

[smradoch]

JohnClarke:<br />You are right. We need small base at first. Even production of LO or LH at the Moon will be incredible expensive and demanding until you have sophisticated base at Moon. You need proven technology for the first base, so there is no other way than solar energy at the north pole base with standing and rotating PV panels.<br />Production of LO and LH at the Moon is science fiction at the moment and mision depending on this source is undoubtedly a suicide.<br />Also brand new heavy lift vehicle is imposible for recent NASA budged. That means Shuttle derived vehicle and a limited cargo to the Moon. 3 lunarnauts seem to be maximum. You will be probably dependent on reliable hypergolics for LM so it should be as small as possible with low lunar orbit randezvous with CEV (thats good news for CEV feasibility). That means that cargo must be delivered separatelly.<br />And what about exploration? Setting of base and exploration of close surrounding (few km) is task for several years. You can still expolore other sites with one cargo and one crew launch if you would have spare money. <br />Have a dreams, but be realistic. Even the latest DART mission was too much for recent NASA technology. It can be resolved, but it'll cost much more resources than everybody thought.

 

[tap_sa]

35 years ago astronauts drove cars on the Moon and now even the idea of heating regolith in a pot using solar mirror, technology not far from third world solar ovens, is labeled science fiction. What has happened in between to cause this?

 

[quasar2]

a series of dingbat presidents, MidEast tension, etc.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

Oh crud. We have to resolve MidEast tensions <b>and</b> stop electing dingbat presidents before we make any progress in space???<br /><br />We're doomed, I tell you, <font color="orange"><b>doomed</b></font>!!

 

[smradoch]

What is easier run funny car or complex factory? Don't be silly, LO producing from regolith at Moon won't be easy. Even simple testing batch hasn't been done yet. This technology doesn't exist - so it's science fiction. <br /><br />Have you ever tried simple chemical reaction? You need precise concetrated chemicals, lot of equipment and lot of control instruments. You have to pay full anttention to that or have good control system. You need to maintain equipment often. And what about logistics and cryogenics and mining and storage?<br /><br />Mining water and electrolysis would be slightly easier, but much more energy demanding. Without nuclear reactor imposible at Lunar pole. <br /><br />You will need really big Lunar base anyway to make it possible. It will be much more expensive than ISS. Nothing what NASA can afford in decades. <br /><br />But it can be done - on contrary to the Mars mission.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"Mining water and electrolysis would be slightly easier, but much more energy demanding. Without nuclear reactor imposible at Lunar pole. "</font><br /><br />Impossible? No!<br /><br />Electrolysis is energy intensive, but not <b>that</b> bad. I recall doing it in science class (many many moons ago) using a 9V battery. Using solar energy rather than nuclear might well be *slower*, but not impossible. In any event -- the speed would depend on the relative power outputs of a nuclear reactor vs. solar panels. Solar flux on the surface of the moon should be about the same as in LEO: 1.353 kW/m2. Using solar cells of about 30% efficiency -- 50 m2 will give ~20kw of power. That's plenty of power for running one small outpost *and* an electrolysis operation.

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"LO producing from regolith at Moon won't be easy. Even simple testing batch hasn't been done yet. This technology doesn't exist - so it's science fiction."</font><br /><br /><br />Oh please.

 

[henryhallam]

Remember this is on the lunar pole, so the solar farms must be mounted more or less vertically to get a decent amount of sunlight. This makes things rather more difficult and delicate, even with the reduced gravity. I think nuclear power is going to be needed fairly soon anyway so there's not much reason not to bring a smallish reactor on the first construction mission.<br /><br />Probably an idea to send one or two Apollo-style self contained missions to the pole first (though maybe with a longer stay up to a week or so) in order study the area in detail.

 

[smradoch]

30% is pretty good efficiency. As somebody already said the PV panels should be vertical at pole or really big. Production of LH isn't certainly easy even at Earth. I can't imagine that at the Moon. So maybe it would be better idea to produce LO and methane as propelants (if there would be a source of carbon).<br />Anyway every posibility is science fiction until you've done proper analysis of resources and try some pilot plant. It will take decade to get to the Moon and another decade or more to learn how to use insitu resources.

 

[quasar2]

just think of how much is spent on these & other distractions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tap_sa]

<font color="yellow">"Production of LH isn't certainly easy even at Earth. I can't imagine that at the Moon."</font><br /><br />Once we have gaseous feedstock of hydrogen from either lunar water electrolysis or regolith heating, the liquefaction will be much easier than on earth. Put your tank into permanently shadowed pit and you have -180C for free. Oxygen liquefaction requires no other effort than keep filling. Hydrogen needs some additional freezing but only about 70 degress, compared to ~270 degrees on Earth.

 

[quasar2]

we`ve had many discussions on here about the simple idea of just using regolith for propulsion. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...liquefaction will be much easier than on earth..."</font><br /><br />You're omitting a tidbit there Tap_Sa... a good one. Once liquified on Earth, you have to continually chill it to *keep* it liquid. Once in your crater -- there's no need for elaborate insulation/etc. to keep the ambient temperature of the surrounding atmosphere from heating up your LOX. LH, while colder than the ambient temperature will only be able to absorb heat via conduction.