Lunar supply cans

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Just looking at the available options, I think I see an opportunity to greatly enhance mans lunar explorations. It has to do with mass production.<br /><br />I am inspired by three things.<br />1) Pegasus type launchers could be mass produced and thereby realize significant cost reductions.<br />2) ESAs recent lunar mission used ion propulsion.<br />3) The Soyuz landing system adapted to Russian millitary supply drops.<br /><br />The basic idea is you design a standard supply jerry can that weighs a few hundred pounds. The can will be mass produced and will have solar power arrays, an ion motor, and a Soyuzian retro/air bag landing system. The jerry cans could be made of carbon fiber for strength and could survive significant G forces. The ion drives could be mass produced cheaply and so could the Soyuzian landing packs. A good target price for the cans would be ~$50K/each. A good target price for each launcher would be around $400K.<br /><br />The mission profile would be to air launch the Pegasus style vehicle and place the jerry can in sun synch orbit. The ion drive would then fire up and the jerry can would take a long leasurely trip to the moon. Upon arriving at the moon the can would fire the breaking rockets and endure a cushioned landing at 50G or so.<br /><br />Some time in the future, Astronauts will land and harvest the supplies from the jerry cans. Water, oxygen, fuel, MREs, whatever.<br /><br />What do ya think?<br /><br />
 
F

fingle

Guest
I think a supply pipe line to luna or other destinations is a great idea that won't pan out until there is a need. providing the materials before they are needed will only bankrupt the companies involved.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

chriscdc

Guest
Perhaps you could replace the conventional launch system with a momentum exchange tether and a sub-orbital launcher.<br /><br />Also the cans may survive the crash landing G's but the payload might be a different matter. Anyway they needn't be 'cans' in the conventional sense. It depends on what you are carrying but a simple framework of supports should be sufficent.<br /><br />Also if you can find a use for the cans after they crash land then it becomes even more attractive. If you can break them apart and use them as a building material would be a great place to start.
 
T

tomnackid

Guest
I think a supply pipe line to luna or other destinations is a great idea that won't pan out until there is a need. providing the materials before they are needed will only bankrupt the companies involved. <br />-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />If private company can develop the hardware maybe they can raise capital by selling "futures". In other words put $100 down now and when some future NASA exploration program wants to make use of the cached supplies we'll sell them at a good price and pay you back $1000. If NASA (or any other government or private space ventures) knew they had important consumables ready and waiting on the moon and all they had to do to get them is pay a fee it could greatly extend their exploration plans. As a way of stimulating private space enterprise I think something like this has more long term potential and lower up front costs than space tourism.
 
B

baktothemoon

Guest
I don't think an ion motor could get a can to the moon, they're still too weak. I'm also not sure how accurate of a landing you would have with a soyuz landing system. It sounds like a good concept though.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
I would think you could do better than MREs. The problem is Pegasus can orbit about 1200 pounds and needs an L-1011 or B52 to launch from. To scale up to even twice the payload there would be no runway available. <br /><br />It could be done cheaper with the Falcon 1, especially if production costs can come down with production. I just wonder if costs can get too low with that size payload to begin with.<br /><br />I think we need a lot more capability; 100,000 pound+ payloads, total re-usability, and the ability to carry various payloads for different needs. I'm thinking two Launchers, one with two Common Cores and two SRB's and the other with four common Cores and two SRB's. Both carry an Upper Stage and payload to 80 miles, release them and return for a conventional landing at the launch site.<br /><br />I would think the costs could get down well below what you propose. With turnarounds in weeks, instead of months or years, a lot could be accomplished. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
Another application of the technology would be for Mars missions enroute. Send a string of cans out ages in advance of your manned mission with specific rendevouz points where all the vectors match for resupply.<br /><br />Maybe the economics of a Pegasus type launcher aren't as good as a mass launch of many cans. There has to be a sweet spot where the number of cans vs. launcher cost vs. mass production are at all maximized. Can't do that for science payloads or humans, but for supply cans...<br />
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts