...So I’ve been generating this idea for about six months now as a commercial approach to a manned lunar return with the goal of lowering cost and increasing flexibility of the system. ...
1) So your approach to lowering cost is to develop a whole new launch vehicle in 3 versions? Using engines that aren't in production anymore? Or developing new equivalents of those engines? I suggest that is a very expensive way to go. If you had a workable design for a new RLV that would be inexpensive to run in the long run, that might justify LV development.
2) Have you considered that your 3 & 5 CCU versions have to separate their A-I stages from their A-II stages, at the same time? Hairy!
3) One of the big advantages of Delta IV Heavy and Falcon Heavy, is that they can throttle the centre core , and in the latter case eventually cross feed, to extend the burn time of the centre core. You can't do that with 3 upper stages.
4) It would make far more sense to have extended tank, (and perhaps extra engine), versions of a single central upper stage. In which case why not just use DIVH or FH?
It seems to me you're trying to re-invent Apollo without having to build the whole Saturn V, instead using multiple Saturn I. Why? It's 2013 not 1963. 50 years later we don't have do it the way they did. We can take advantage of the vast advances in materials, computing, engines, etc, and the existing LV market, to produce a modern architecture. See Golden Spike for instance. I wouldn't chose their exact architecture, but it's workable.
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.
5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).
6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.
9. Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.
Quote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 amThe ten+ other issues:1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.. Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
The ten+ other issues:1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.. Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.
Quote from: Jorge on 01/22/2013 05:31 amQuote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 amThe ten+ other issues:1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.. Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.# 11 is more important. Does anyone even make pencils anymore? That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways. There are not enough pencils.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/22/2013 05:38 amQuote from: Jorge on 01/22/2013 05:31 amQuote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 amThe ten+ other issues:1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.. Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.# 11 is more important. Does anyone even make pencils anymore? That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways. There are not enough pencils.Should we not consider the relative lack of slide rules as well? There's a lack of people who know how to use them, too.
Quote from: MattJL on 01/22/2013 05:46 amQuote from: Eric Hedman on 01/22/2013 05:38 amQuote from: Jorge on 01/22/2013 05:31 amQuote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 amThe ten+ other issues:1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.2) United Nations policies would prevent astronauts from a singular country to land on the Moon.3) Ten minute seismic events (lunar quakes)-much of the Apollo lander structure is too thin. (can't tell, but if you were going to land with that chunk of hardware on to, the risk to the lunar crew just spiked).4) It cost an equivalent of $200 billion to develop the lunar program in today's dollars (out of reach even for most billionaires.)5). NASA has never had more than one manned mission with a transportation vehicle at a time. (Imagine if an commercial airline could only fly one plane at a time).6). There are no resources up there such as water/air.7). Logistics to return to Earth requires hiring a naval fleet.. Moon rocks are easier to look at in museums.9). Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo. There are thousands of pages of scientific results on the NASA websites.10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.# 11 is more important. Does anyone even make pencils anymore? That is probably why we can't get back to the Moon anymore anyways. There are not enough pencils.Should we not consider the relative lack of slide rules as well? There's a lack of people who know how to use them, too.We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory. Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery. Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are. We also need pocket protectors on large quantities. Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 01/22/2013 05:54 amWe need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory. Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery. Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are. We also need pocket protectors on large quantities. Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?We're gonna need a lotta sub-contractors for this one.
We need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory. Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery. Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are. We also need pocket protectors on large quantities. Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?
Quote from: MattJL on 01/22/2013 06:01 amQuote from: Eric Hedman on 01/22/2013 05:54 amWe need to train people how to whittle them out of good pieces of hickory. Young people would be amazed at this piece of high tech machinery. Of course we would have to teach everybody younger than 45 what they are. We also need pocket protectors on large quantities. Who can we get to restart pocket protector production?We're gonna need a lotta sub-contractors for this one.Typical cost plus? Or would a COTS approach work?
Quote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 am1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.Wait, what? How do said policies do that?
1) United States space policy currently prevents humans from leaving low Earth orbit.
9. Scientific conclusions about the moon have all been determined, all new findings will be redundant with Apollo.
Pocket protector production could be readily funded by kickstater.
Quote from: RigelFive on 01/22/2013 04:30 am10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.Heh. Good satirical list. You *almost* had me going until #10.
10). The moon could explode at any moment.11). Real designs need to be made on real drawing boards with real pencils.
No. Ebb Flail Glow.
There are two types of people.
There are two types of people. Those that design launch vehicles and tell you what you cant have as payload. Then there are those who design payloads, and ask for someone to go build a launch vehicle for it.The Project Thok concept appears to designed by someone who is a payloads centric person.../snip..To me, the LEM looks like something that Wile E Coyote would design because it is a bunch of thin sheets and tubes strapped to a bunch of explosives.
Quote from: RigelFive on 01/24/2013 08:19 amThere are two types of people. No. Three types. Those who can count, and those who can't.
Yes. That is good. Remove all the science equipment from the LEM. Correct answer.Now that you have added mass for fuel. Have you included changes with the control systems, structure and/or propulsion systems?This vehicle has new dynamics which affect the attitude and primary thrust control. The structure has to support the potential to land harder, and the propulsion systems may need more thrust. Since you ditched the science systems, the only unintended consequences may be that you need less communications and less power. You probably need a will needa new simulator to train astronauts.
Are there any ITAR adepts out there who could comment on whether top-level TPMs for other civilian launch vehicles have fallen under ITAR?ITAR is applicable to any launch vehicleThe question has to do with performance parameters rather than specific vehicles. However, is information about the thrust, Isp, mass to orbit etc figures for Pegasus, Delta IV, Atlas V, Falcon prohibited from public disclosure under ITAR?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 01/24/2013 01:06 pmQuote from: RigelFive on 01/24/2013 08:19 amThere are two types of people. No. Three types. Those who can count, and those who can't.Congress is mostly composed of the latter.
New ITAR rules posted up on other thread (add this to list of 11+ reasons we're not going back to the moon). Other thread contributors believe ITAR restrictions belong to 'any' launch vehicle.... Likely this includes even Project Thok.
Congress is definitely in that third group.
A tool is only as good as the skill of the craftsman using it.
Thanks for the links, Rigel, and thanks for the site/blog, Quantum. Don't think I'll be too concerned with ITAR, I'll just keep a few things a bit more hush-hush. Y'all can keep a secret, right? Quote from: QuantumG on 01/28/2013 07:17 amA tool is only as good as the skill of the craftsman using it.Very, very true.EDIT: I think I'll slow down on new installments until I have something lengthy to discuss/change regarding to Apex, Artemis, or Phoenix.
You may be designing something of a relic by the time you are ready to launch.
...given that the technologies for transportation stay current for about a century...
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/02/2013 09:16 amYou may be designing something of a relic by the time you are ready to launch.This generally true aphorism does not suggest a path forward. Furthermore, the observation only holds partially true in some arenas of human effort. Consider the wheel; substantially unimproved for well over a hundred years.Quote...given that the technologies for transportation stay current for about a century...What about the automobile? Well over a hundred years old. It is definitely not a given that this is so, based on the one example.
See, complex systems design is iterative. I can't keep straight what elements you're defining. I think you have nine elements to this system:1) Artemis = lunar lander2) Phoenix = command module3) Apex I = launch vehicle4) Apex III = launch vehicle5) Apex V = launch vehicle6) Apex VI = launch vehicle7) Apex IX = launch vehicle8. Thoth launch site9) Mission cargo to lunar surfaceHere is the question... Which element do you work on first, and which one second, and so on?So the number of combinations that you will have to consider in to get the design finalized may be equal to 9! = 362,880 (assuming you settle on this number of system elements). If you spend a day working on each of the elements in a more or less random order, there is a theory that says you may be completed in about 993.5 years. Just short of a millennium. As an example, the cargo going to the lunar surface interacts with elements 1-8. So you tweak the Artemis, which means you tweak the one or more of the launch vehicles, which means you tweak the launch site.... and the snowball continues.You will require a lot of help.
Two questions:1) What (if any) cargo do you want to launch from the lunar surface?2) What elements are you going to use to utilize for reentry to Earth?----I think you'll need to add more elements, and you might NOT want to carry too much of the Earth reentry junk all the way to the moon and back.Perhaps add an element to rendezvous with the lunar team/cargo that is returning to Earth to transfer it/them from the lunar transfer vehicle and allow it/them to return to earth with a dedicated system (rather than risk an Apollo 13 scenario).
I would include future elements (APEX VII and IX) now. The cost growth of Apollo was a major contributor to the program cancellation. The concept that a shuttle would be more affordable and be able do everything that was envisioned was unfounded. (There was talk of taking nuclear waste up to space on the space shuttle to dispose of it).
Ahhh, I see. Not only trying to break the laws of Newtonian physics.If you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the 1979 Moon Treaty states:1. In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.Since you took all of the scientific equipment out of the lander, you will not have the intent of performing a scientific mission. So you wont be permitted to land per Article 6.Since your vehicle is unmanned, there is no intent for exploration. I wasnt kidding when Nixon's advisors recommended stopping the human spaceflight program in the 70s.
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amAhhh, I see. Not only trying to break the laws of Newtonian physics.If you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the 1979 Moon Treaty states:1. In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.Since you took all of the scientific equipment out of the lander, you will not have the intent of performing a scientific mission. So you wont be permitted to land per Article 6.Since your vehicle is unmanned, there is no intent for exploration. I wasnt kidding when Nixon's advisors recommended stopping the human spaceflight program in the 70s.No, I'm never satisfied with just mucking about with the laws of physics. That's a day job. But if the US didn't ratify the Moon Treaty, then as a US citizen, what do I have to concern myself with?(...or have I missed another "gotcha.")
Quote from: MattJL on 02/05/2013 11:13 amQuote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amAhhh, I see. Not only trying to break the laws of Newtonian physics.If you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the 1979 Moon Treaty states:1. In exploring and using the moon, States Parties shall take measures to prevent the disruption of the existing balance of its environment whether by introducing adverse changes in that environment, by its harmful contamination through the introduction of extra-environmental matter or otherwise. States Parties shall also take measures to avoid harmfully affecting the environment of the earth through the introduction of extraterrestrial matter or otherwise.Since you took all of the scientific equipment out of the lander, you will not have the intent of performing a scientific mission. So you wont be permitted to land per Article 6.Since your vehicle is unmanned, there is no intent for exploration. I wasnt kidding when Nixon's advisors recommended stopping the human spaceflight program in the 70s.No, I'm never satisfied with just mucking about with the laws of physics. That's a day job. But if the US didn't ratify the Moon Treaty, then as a US citizen, what do I have to concern myself with?(...or have I missed another "gotcha.")I think RigelFive is "kidding" simply because in the same post he mentiones both the 1979 Moon treaty AND the sale of extraterrestrial 'land" which is (BTW) directly prohibited under that same treaty I'd also point out that of the "space-going" nations the only ones who DID ratify the 1979 treaty was the USSR and currently that's one of the treaties "Russia" does not feel obliged to follow. (IIRC China has recently "ratified" the treaty but they weren't really being strict about it... So far)As long as you don't launch from Austrailia or China you should be fine.Randy
Almost finished with the the development report for Year 2013, Quarter 1 (Y2013 Q1), will be uploading some time tomorrow as it is rather late.
Quote from: MattJL on 02/07/2013 05:17 amAlmost finished with the the development report for Year 2013, Quarter 1 (Y2013 Q1), will be uploading some time tomorrow as it is rather late.Chuck this idea into the Thoth program plan....There are several moons and asteroids that are known to be in what is referred to as a horseshoe orbit. One example is the moon Janus around Saturn. Another is a relatively large Trojan-like asteroid called 3753 Cruithne that is orbiting Earth.See if you can get a lunar transfer vehicle into a horseshoe orbital cycle, between Earth and the moon,and make it modular so that you can haul large payloads to the moon for less energy than a direct lunar trajectory. This might not work, but Ill have to do the calcs. QuantumG doesn't have a calculator for this. So I'm going to have to whip out the ol ivory slide rule.
Well, here's the first development report for Project Thoth. Hopefully it isn't too horribly written.(Also with the debut of the quickly-thrown-together insignia for Thoth).
Potential factors that could influence this development schedule include major setbacks encountered in the remaining 40-45% of on-paper development, an inability to acquire materials, and the possibility of development taking longer than anticipated due to un-controllable outside forces.
Quote from: MattJL on 02/09/2013 01:15 amWell, here's the first development report for Project Thoth. Hopefully it isn't too horribly written.(Also with the debut of the quickly-thrown-together insignia for Thoth).I kind of like this sentence:QuotePotential factors that could influence this development schedule include major setbacks encountered in the remaining 40-45% of on-paper development, an inability to acquire materials, and the possibility of development taking longer than anticipated due to un-controllable outside forces.So if we run out of paper on planet Earth, our children 15 generations from now will say, yes this report is still usable - it was those darn uncontrollable forces again as well as an inability.Shrink the logo - save paper .
Off topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.
Project Morpheus will probably want to sell Thorth its 19 kN methane/LOX engine for use in the lander. 10 engines should give the manned lander a good payload.
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/09/2013 06:40 pmOff topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.Agreed.Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm starting to look into using large hydrolox engines for the first stage. RS-68 would be ideal, per my estimates (2900 kN of thrust at sea level, using three would provide 8700 kN of thrust, a good 22% increase in performance over using 8 H-1s). As a bonus, it may be possible to use the same engine in the second stage as well, resulting in a shorter stage).
Quote from: MattJL on 02/10/2013 12:54 amQuote from: RigelFive on 02/09/2013 06:40 pmOff topic... People going thru school are preoccupied with the complexities of what they will experience in industry. People in industry are preoccupied with complexities of what they should have experienced in school.There is a time for everything.Agreed.Anyway, to get back on topic, I'm starting to look into using large hydrolox engines for the first stage. RS-68 would be ideal, per my estimates (2900 kN of thrust at sea level, using three would provide 8700 kN of thrust, a good 22% increase in performance over using 8 H-1s). As a bonus, it may be possible to use the same engine in the second stage as well, resulting in a shorter stage).RS-68 cannot be used as a second stage engine.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25800.60
In other advancements this week, it looks like Apex will use a few RS-68s. Four per CCU, to be exact, a tremendous save in cost over using a bunch of H-1s and a J2-S with the bonus of increasing commonality between stages significantly.There's a bit to talk about with this change, so to save me repeating myself, I'll just attach my on-paper work to this post. Be forewarned: I have the handwriting of a doctor.(Apologies if updating this topic is a bit sluggish, starting algebra in the middle of the year after a comparatively easy first semester is a real brain-frier).
Quote from: MattJL on 02/13/2013 02:58 amIn other advancements this week, it looks like Apex will use a few RS-68s. Four per CCU, to be exact, a tremendous save in cost over using a bunch of H-1s and a J2-S with the bonus of increasing commonality between stages significantly.There's a bit to talk about with this change, so to save me repeating myself, I'll just attach my on-paper work to this post. Be forewarned: I have the handwriting of a doctor.(Apologies if updating this topic is a bit sluggish, starting algebra in the middle of the year after a comparatively easy first semester is a real brain-frier).Looks like you are moving faster than NASA in returning us to the moon. Great job. You are also reducing the amount of paper usage by shrinking/eliminating the logo.There is a pointy thing on top of the launch vehicle. What is this thing supposed to do interms of functionality? If you dont need it, you might be able to haul more stuff into orbit.I am going to start a thread to see if we can rewrite the articles of the Moon Treaty. We might be able to release the limitations on astronauts stuck in low earth orbit if we claim that the a New Moon Treaty was peer reviewed in public on a blog site and was considered 'open and notorious' policy. Perhaps we can get Sweden or Pago Pago to ratify it first in order to get the ball rolling.
I've always wondered about these cheap fare trips to the moon. When they say you can go to the moon for let's say $125 mil a passenger... Does that also include the cost for return to Earth?You could get the return vehicle back into LEO and run out of funds for recovery. Apollo obviously needed a Navy to recover the capsules. I though this extra cost was really to motivation behind the Space Shuttle. Reentry predictions with a variable cargo mass on return trajectory from the moon could be an absolute "HAMWEIGH".
Looks good. Recommend to start from the end and continue work backwards.How does the paraglider deploy its parachutes after reentry? This NASA demo only did a drop from relatively slow/low altitude (in an age where the space shuttle was reentering at mach 25+). Looks like the vehicle already had straps on the outside to deploy the highly intricate/complex paraglider. A direct return trajectory & reentry from the moon will make the reentry speeds significantly higher than the shuttle.I'm going to read more about that paraglider reentry config. Never saw this before (demo was done when I was in school and we didn't have the internet or NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM).Despite your refusal to comply with UN treaties, you at least have a good firm configuration to start the Thok design (which ironically occurs at the end of the mission).
If you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).
Quote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amIf you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Tuning in after a bit... You realize that the Moon Treaty has no standing legal basis here in the US of A?
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 03/01/2013 02:22 amQuote from: RigelFive on 02/05/2013 05:57 amIf you use Valiant concept, you will not be compliant with the 1979 Moon Treaty and will likely have (by the time of the mission) invaded a territory on the lunar surface that has been purchased as extraterrestrial real estate (for $20/acre).Tuning in after a bit... You realize that the Moon Treaty has no standing legal basis here in the US of A?Yeah well. In one month from now, I'll start a thread to revise it online...Current coalition of the willing:Australia, Austria, Belgium, Chile, Kazakhstan, Lebanon, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, and Uruguay have ratified it. France, Guatemala, India and Romania have signed but have not ratified it.According to the web media, there could be a tipping point for ratifying the Moon treaty. How about this quote:"Until the day that firm plans are made for the extraction of extraterrestrial resources by private entities, the Moon Treaty and its validity will remain in question." - The Space ReviewLink:http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2047/1So what that Space Review article says to me is, upon the mere completion of a plan.... The Moon Treaty will suddenly become valid IN THE SAME DAY! Project Thok could just be that plan!!!
The act of JUST planning to move rocks across large distances and having it change the basis of laws / international treaties makes my brain spin worse than the paradoxical phenomenons of time travel.
Good luck with the FH concept! Wow!