Author Topic: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture  (Read 212550 times)

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #20 on: 11/18/2009 07:56 pm »
IMHO, the existence of lunar ice in sufficient quantities to support commercially viable enterprises renders the current NASA-centric exploration architecture obsolete.

Q: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture?

A: Shattered paradigms and a need to return to the drawing board both in terms of mission architecture and the geo-political implications of same.

Yep, exactly what this thread is about.

The focus of Exploration should be narrow, and like a laser beam, upon this new discovery and how to exploit it in the short term. Once we have an infrastructure that can produce propellant on the lunar surface, Mars exploration becomes relatively easy.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #21 on: 11/18/2009 07:59 pm »
It would seem like a Deep Space 2-style series of penetrator probes at pole areas might start to develop a data set for water.
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17939
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 659
  • Likes Given: 7680
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #22 on: 11/18/2009 11:23 pm »
The japanese pay huge money for imported ice with special properties.  It would, indeed, be a luxury for some ultra-expensive product to be made using lunar ice....

Some of those examples include Evian-lunar & Moonbucks...posts I had seen on a CBC blog.
Congressional Black Caucus? Christmas Bird Count? Cambridge Brewing Company?

All of the above...lol

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation

Offline kkattula

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3008
  • Melbourne, Australia
  • Liked: 656
  • Likes Given: 116
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #23 on: 11/19/2009 03:20 am »
...
As for the prop mass for the robotic lander, remember that the concept is to use LH2 for prop, so the prop numbers above are not correct. As an example, the Apollo LM had a mass ratio of 50%, using storable propellants, and it landed and achieved lunar orbit.

The Apollo LM was a two stage vehicle. one used for landing and the other for ascent.  I used the rocket equation and a LOX/LH2 Isp of 450 to work it out.  Ascent and descent each need a mass ratio of about 35%. The fuel needed for descent is the payload during ascent.

Quote
The mass of the magic machine is TBD, but it could be carried as payload in a lander, perhaps with a mass of 1 ton, or in pieces of 1 ton apiece.

Finally, the architecture calls for expendable landers in the initial stages. However, even in the early stages, LH2 propelled landers could also be used as expendable cargo carriers. In this case, the available cargo carried by a one way LH2 lander would be significantly more than 1 ton. Let's say, its a 2 ton payload - could a machine that takes in icy regolith and produces LH2/LOX have a mass of < 2 tons (assuming nuke power)? I don't know.

How much is your nuke reactor going to mass? A lot more than 2 tons I suggest.
Plus a bulldozer type rover to gather the regolith.

If the magic machine masses less than 2 tons, its output is likely to be verly low. Meaning weeks or months to produce the fuel.

I'm not saying this can't work, but it will likely require 10's if not 100's of tons of equipment, to start producing reasonable quantities.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 03:25 am by kkattula »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #24 on: 11/19/2009 03:56 am »
The Apollo LM was a two stage vehicle. one used for landing and the other for ascent.  I used the rocket equation and a LOX/LH2 Isp of 450 to work it out.  Ascent and descent each need a mass ratio of about 35%. The fuel needed for descent is the payload during ascent.

The premise of this concept is partially based on the constraint that lunar insertion mass of the LH2 lander is about 12 tons. If the prop ratio is 35% for descent, that means that 4200 kg of prop is used for descent, that leaves 7800 kg for structure ascent prop and for orbital maneuvers. That may be sufficient, since only 2730 kg is required for ascent prop.


Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #25 on: 11/19/2009 03:57 am »
I think this means we should change from the ESAS architecture to the 1993 lunox architecture.

As for the LV this could be a water shed for team direct to make their case.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html

A lot of stuff probably can be reused such as the Orion reentry vehicle.
Since the J-246 is actually much more powerful then the LVs chosen in the lunox study the Orion OML probably would not require any changes just scale everything else to match it.
Seating and windows will require changes but this early it's probably not a big deal.
At worst add some cameras and displays.

The pressurized rover likely would not require any major changes.
It also looks powerful enough to be used as a small bulldozer.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/01/26/new-nasa-lunar-rover-looks-ready-for-armageddon/
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:06 am by Patchouli »

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #26 on: 11/19/2009 04:04 am »
How much is your nuke reactor going to mass? A lot more than 2 tons I suggest.  Plus a bulldozer type rover to gather the regolith.

If the magic machine masses less than 2 tons, its output is likely to be verly low. Meaning weeks or months to produce the fuel.

I'm not saying this can't work, but it will likely require 10's if not 100's of tons of equipment, to start producing reasonable quantities.

I am not assuming a massive nuke reactor for surface operations. As a proof of concept, the TOPAZ reactor had a mass of 320 kg, and provided 5Kw for 5 years.

As for loading the lunar ice into the magic machine, it really depends on the condition of the ice, whether it is clean, or somehow chemically bonded to the regolith. As suggested above, the only way to find out is to drop small probes into these craters. However, if the water is in the form of ice, and can be broken up by lasers or a drill, its not beyond reason to expect humans to simply shovel ice into a bucket that would be dumped into the prop machine. Its likely that labor saving devices would make the job easier, as would the Moon's 1/6 G. I measured myself shoveling gravel some time back, and moving tons around is feasible for a single person using only a shovel.


Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #27 on: 11/19/2009 04:06 am »
I think this means we should change from the ESAS architecture to the 1993 lunox architecture.

As for the LV this could be a water shed for team direct to make their case.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html

This is all wildly larger in scope than what is feasible today. If such systems were required before LH2 could be generated on the Moon, we may need to develop warp drive or find enormous diamonds on the Moon.

The key to getting to the Moon in your lifetime is to find ways to send small systems that can be useful in the Moon. The architecture I am describing is constrained to small numbers of 13 ton payloads.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:08 am by Danderman »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #28 on: 11/19/2009 04:09 am »
I think this means we should change from the ESAS architecture to the 1993 lunox architecture.

As for the LV this could be a water shed for team direct to make their case.

http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html

This is all wildly larger in scope than what is feasible today. If such systems were required before LH2 could be generated on the Moon, we may need to develop warp drive or find enormous diamonds on the Moon.

That's the nice thing about Lunox it can work with no ISRU at first if needed.
It seems the SDV won't die too many political issues but if we can get a smarter SDV in place of Ares problem solved.

Of course there is this plan all EELV class LVs.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/ELA.html
But this would screw over a few big contractors as it means Orion gets replace with the lighter Dragon or Orion lite and so on.

From a political stand point a lunox like architecture and it's shuttle-c class HLV might be an easier sell then an ELA architecture even though the engineering on the latter is easier.

It seems political hurdles are bigger issues then the engineering ones.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:16 am by Patchouli »

Offline Danny Dot

  • Rocket Scientist, NOT Retired
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2792
  • Houston, Texas
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #29 on: 11/19/2009 04:12 am »
Just how much ice would need to be processed to supply the propellant needed for one  round trip ?

I don't know.

What I do know is that by landing a LH2 fueled robotic lander with empty prop tanks, the storage of LOX and LH2 would be relatively easy, as it could be stored in the lander tanks.

The question of how much lunar regolith or just chunks of ice have to be processed to fill the tanks is a big question.  For example, could a crew of 2 land in a "Scout class" lander, and over a couple of days fill the prop tanks of the robot lander?

I read one ton of ore yields 36 ounces of water.

Danny Deger
Danny Deger

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #30 on: 11/19/2009 04:13 am »
First, I would focus like a laser beam on getting a few highly capable, highly mobile rovers down on the surface, near the more promising locations.

That rumored "Project M" could be ideal and I'd betcha a Robonaut could wield a mean shovel.

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/

Project M:

http://www.americaspace.org/?p=364
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:14 am by Bill White »
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #31 on: 11/19/2009 04:25 am »
First, I would focus like a laser beam on getting a few highly capable, highly mobile rovers down on the surface, near the more promising locations.

That rumored "Project M" could be ideal and I'd betcha a Robonaut could wield a mean shovel.

http://robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/

Project M:

http://www.americaspace.org/?p=364

Better idea might be getting Athlete and Chariot on the moon.

http://www-robotics.jpl.nasa.gov/systems/system.cfm?System=11

These can dig ,carry drills and act as bulldozers etc.

Design a setup that takes maximum advantage of the Delta IV-Hs or F9-Hs payload.

« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:29 am by Patchouli »

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #32 on: 11/19/2009 04:27 am »
Well yes, but robotic precursors are necessary in any event to scout the best landing sites.

EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #33 on: 11/19/2009 04:35 am »
Well yes, but robotic precursors are necessary in any event to scout the best landing sites.



Sorry I meant uncrewed variants that were teleoperated from Earth or even EML1.
These vehicles can operate remotely or even autonomously in the case of ATHLETE.
« Last Edit: 11/19/2009 04:37 am by Patchouli »

Offline Bill White

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2018
  • Chicago area
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #34 on: 11/19/2009 04:56 am »
Well yes, but robotic precursors are necessary in any event to scout the best landing sites.



Sorry I meant uncrewed variants that were teleoperated from Earth or even EML1.
These vehicles can operate remotely or even autonomously in the case of ATHLETE.

Okay!

But a Robonaut driver would make for some awesome video. ;-)
EML architectures should be seen as ratchet opportunities

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #35 on: 11/19/2009 05:52 pm »
I read one ton of ore yields 36 ounces of water.

You read incorrectly. We don't know today what the admixture of ice and regolith is in those craters. As an example, its possible that banks of ice are sitting against the crater walls.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #36 on: 11/19/2009 05:53 pm »
Sorry I meant uncrewed variants that were teleoperated from Earth or even EML1.
These vehicles can operate remotely or even autonomously in the case of ATHLETE.

I do not believe that teleoperation of a rover in a shadowed crater would be likely.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #37 on: 11/20/2009 05:34 pm »
Sorry I meant uncrewed variants that were teleoperated from Earth or even EML1.
These vehicles can operate remotely or even autonomously in the case of ATHLETE.

I do not believe that teleoperation of a rover in a shadowed crater would be likely.


So you think ESA is just doing these things for fun ?
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM4GKRTKMF_index_0.html

NASA too ?
http://www.astroday.net/MKrovers.html
« Last Edit: 11/20/2009 05:35 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10286
  • Liked: 698
  • Likes Given: 723
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #38 on: 11/20/2009 05:59 pm »
Sorry I meant uncrewed variants that were teleoperated from Earth or even EML1.
These vehicles can operate remotely or even autonomously in the case of ATHLETE.

I do not believe that teleoperation of a rover in a shadowed crater would be likely.


So you think ESA is just doing these things for fun ?
http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM4GKRTKMF_index_0.html

NASA too ?
http://www.astroday.net/MKrovers.html

These discuss teleoperation of a rover in a crater, but not necessarily a shadowed crater at the lunar south pole. When I say "shadowed", I mean a crater that does not receive Earthlight nor sunlight.

Offline savuporo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5152
  • Liked: 1002
  • Likes Given: 342
Re: Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture
« Reply #39 on: 11/20/2009 10:55 pm »
ESA challenge was specifically targetted at operating in a shadowed crater. Read the field reports.

In fact, you can take a look at winning robot operating in the dark in the second half of this video:


Even more specifically
Quote
Built within strict size, weight and power constraints, the rovers had to descend down the steep 40 degrees slopes of a 15-metre deep crater, grab 0.1 kg of specifically selected soil then carry it out again - all the while in darkness.

Working from a trailer camp 2000 metres up, each five-strong team was confronted with some distinctly non-lunar weather including heavy rain and clouds. In the event only one rover managed to complete the assignment -Bremen's three-wheeled CESAR (Crater Exploration and Sample Return) robot, duly judged LRC winner on 26 October
« Last Edit: 11/20/2009 11:15 pm by savuporo »
Orion - the first and only manned not-too-deep-space craft

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1