Pros. A solar satellite beaming power maybe able to deliver enough power on each pass to keep a hibernating base alive for lunar night.Cons. Solar satellites don't exist so it would have to be developed. Between satellite and ground station this base has suddenly become complicated and expensive.
Quote from: TrevorMonty on 03/12/2014 05:26 pmPros. A solar satellite beaming power maybe able to deliver enough power on each pass to keep a hibernating base alive for lunar night.Cons. Solar satellites don't exist so it would have to be developed. Between satellite and ground station this base has suddenly become complicated and expensive.The essential tech for a solar power sat has all been demonstrated so I doubt it is too much of a problem and it is arguably simpler to leave the power production system in orbit as opposed to locating it on the Lunar surface since you don't have to land it. The surface part of the base is actually simpler than one that must generate its power on the surface. A series of solar power sats could provide continuous power and open up the entire Moon for exploitation while providing BPP, GPS(LPS?), and communication as well as power. Any base involved in ISRU will likely produce oxygen as a byproduct and a craft using beam powered propulsion could use this waste product for propellant which I think is kind of elegant. The issue it seems to me is whether the intent is to have a base or prepare for large scale activity all over the Moon.
Amateurs.....
Quote from: Warren Platts on 03/13/2014 01:57 amAmateurs.....We have better maps now. And certainly would have the advantage of better computers & software.Still, the Apollo 12 landing near the Surveyor was pretty impressive.
Quote from: rusty on 03/12/2014 11:04 pmQuote from: Andrew_W on 03/12/2014 08:43 pmApollo went for large flat areas because hitting a predesignated specific landing spot was near impossible...False. Apollo 15 was one hairy ride between a mountain and canyon that produced excellent science. Apollo 17 went into a hilly region with serpentine valleys. Suggesting large flat spaces are required is completely incorrect.Both Apollo 15 and 17 had target landing sites in places with tens of square kilometers of flattish ground.
Quote from: Andrew_W on 03/12/2014 08:43 pmApollo went for large flat areas because hitting a predesignated specific landing spot was near impossible...False. Apollo 15 was one hairy ride between a mountain and canyon that produced excellent science. Apollo 17 went into a hilly region with serpentine valleys. Suggesting large flat spaces are required is completely incorrect.
Apollo went for large flat areas because hitting a predesignated specific landing spot was near impossible...
Locate a base where there are good deposits of thorium. Plan on using it to fuel a LFTR.
Quote from: clongton on 03/16/2014 01:06 pmLocate a base where there are good deposits of thorium. Plan on using it to fuel a LFTR.I don't think you'd find any place like that on the Moon. Much easier to bring thorium from Earth. Of all the things you'd make from in-situ material, I would imagine fissionables to be at the very bottom, since fissionables are so incredibly value-dense.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/17/2014 05:45 amQuote from: clongton on 03/16/2014 01:06 pmLocate a base where there are good deposits of thorium. Plan on using it to fuel a LFTR.I don't think you'd find any place like that on the Moon. Much easier to bring thorium from Earth. Of all the things you'd make from in-situ material, I would imagine fissionables to be at the very bottom, since fissionables are so incredibly value-dense.See attached
Quote from: clongton on 03/16/2014 01:06 pmLocate a base where there are good deposits of thorium. Plan on using it to fuel a LFTR.I hope you're joking as it's a bit like saying, "Find Helium3 to build a fusion reactor."