Author Topic: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.  (Read 60777 times)

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #60 on: 06/24/2014 03:04 pm »
Moon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.

Let me remind that, for the very same reasons you mentioned, neither of the two, maybe. But we are not talking about a colony here, but about "where first". And, again, the reasons for going to the Moon or Mars maybe totally or partially different from profits or colonisation. See Antarctica.
« Last Edit: 06/24/2014 03:09 pm by pagheca »

Offline pagheca

  • Bayesian Pundit. Maybe.
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 759
  • Lives in Ivory, Tower
  • Liked: 220
  • Likes Given: 161
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #61 on: 06/24/2014 05:02 pm »
I tried to make a list of potential drivers for a settlement that can be a station, a colony, a single or limited number of trips or whatever else is including at least a human being. I put some examples that came to my mind in parenthesis):

1) Politics (Antarctica, Apollo)

2) Exploration and discovery (Polar Regions)

3) Science (Polar Regions). This is different than bare exploration. Remind that only many years after the first stations were installed it was suggested that the Antarctic Plateau could be an excellent site for astronomy).

4) Migration due to climatic, environmental, issues or conflicts between different groups (This probably apply to most of the known world and of course is not independent from others)

5) religious, political or ethnic groups diaspora (North America)

6) known or potential business opportunities, for privates or a Government (as in 4, this may apply to a wide range of settlements)

7) tourism. This may be seen a little different from 6 as it is not necessarily "extracting" resources from the planet to sell or exploit them but just making use of the "location").

I wonder if I missed something...

Now, this and many other discussions may be seen as identifying which of all those reasons may potentially drive trips, colony or the construction of scientific stations on the Moon or Mars.

I would exclude 4 and 5, because of the actual conditions and the costs of the trip or survival there. All the others maybe IMHO valid drivers. 7 can be right, but by looking to the history of exploration, 1, 2 and 3 are the more likely, at least in the medium term.

Again, I'm not basing this on real evidences (nobody can) but just on past experience and some speculations, so picking up one or another point is completely arguable.

« Last Edit: 06/24/2014 05:10 pm by pagheca »

Offline francesco nicoli

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 537
  • Amsterdam
    • About Crises
  • Liked: 290
  • Likes Given: 381
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #62 on: 06/24/2014 07:19 pm »
Moon or Mars first? anywhere, where the profit is.

Let me remind that, for the very same reasons you mentioned, neither of the two, maybe. But we are not talking about a colony here, but about "where first". And, again, the reasons for going to the Moon or Mars maybe totally or partially different from profits or colonisation. See Antarctica.

yes. but in Antarctica, you have MAINLY public power involved, not private companies....which brings back to the original statement in my post: before discussing anything, you need to clarify whether you are talking about private or public actions as their goals and approaches are completely different.

Offline bad_astra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1926
  • Liked: 316
  • Likes Given: 553
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #63 on: 06/30/2014 02:36 pm »

yes. but in Antarctica, you have MAINLY public power involved, not private companies....which brings back to the original statement in my post: before discussing anything, you need to clarify whether you are talking about private or public actions as their goals and approaches are completely different.

If you include South Georgia island into the area of Antarctica, that was not always the case. But in any case, Antarctic colonization is prevented by treaties. There is no way to make use of its mineral wealth, even if it were practical, so we will not be able to prove practicality at this time, unless some billionaire wants to go rogue and try that in Queen Maude Land.

I don't think Antarctic works very well for space colonization analogs. Mayebe sea-surface or undersea colonization might, which again, has not happened despite being technically feasible.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2014 02:37 pm by bad_astra »
"Contact Light" -Buzz Aldrin

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #64 on: 06/30/2014 07:00 pm »
Why does anyone think resource extraction would lead to colonies? On Earth, we have giant oil platforms in the ocean and big mining operations in northern Canada, but none of those ever turns into a city. The companies doing the extraction have zero incentive to encourage colonies--a local government would just be another source of trouble to them. If miners had to stay for many years then it might be impossible to employ them without making arrangements for spouses and families, but the history of sail exploration on Earth suggests that up to five years wouldn't be a problem.
The problem of getting to the Moon is rocket equation. Chemical rockets have limit in terms of delta-v.
There is similar problem with simply getting to Earth orbit- the problem of getting to Earth orbit is commonly solved by having rocket stages. So one have 2 stage [or 3] rocket in which the first stage doesn't get to orbit. With Apollo one large booster and a 3 stage rocket, plus other stage rockets- [service module, descent and ascent lunar vehicle- 6 "stages"]. So stages are mostly thrown away and each stage is expensive and most of mass of stage holds rocket fuel- if don't have to drag rocket fuel to the Moon, there is *a lot* less payload needed to be lifted from Earth- and you can reuse stages [have less stages].
So the Apollo LEM was basically a fuel truck brought the the Moon, in order to get crew back off the lunar surface. So if rocket fuel available at lunar surface don't need to bring a fuel truck- instead could you bring a "sedan" and a fill up the tank at the Moon.

But making rocket fuel on the Moon has to get to point of exporting lunar rocket fuel from the Moon- which allows the stages to be more reusable and further reduces the amount mass needed to be lifted from Earth. The most critical aspect of exporting lunar rocket fuel is increase the market size of lunar rocket fuel-
as there is some threshold needed to make it economically viable.
Exporting lunar rocket fuel to low Earth orbit would increase lunar rocket fuel market, but there is higher cost to ship it to LEO and it could be cheaper to ship from Earth to LEO than from Moon to LEO.
And as it cost more to ship from Earth to higher orbits [GEO, Lunar orbit, L-points] and less from lunar surface. It's more feasible to export Lunar rocket fuel to higher earth orbits [or other planetary orbits] as compared to LEO. Or until the price of lunar rocket fuel has lower enough, it's less feasible to ship it to LEO.

But if one economically ship to high earth orbit, eventually costs will lower so as to allow shipping lunar rocket fuel to LEO, but before such a point in time, one will have dramatically lowered costs to get to the Moon [and Mars and etc].

Currently the only viable market related to  space is the satellite market- globally a 200 billion dollar industry.
If one can start another market [rocket fuel in space market] this will affect the current satellite market [lowering costs and increasing capability of these satellite] and such as rocket fuel market in space will encourage other markets in space and lower costs for government space agencies doing science related activities.   
Quote
Canada could (for example) decide it wanted to create towns up in the north--maybe building large domed areas to make the winters nicer--but they appear to have no interest in doing do. Perhaps the technology of doming a small town is too exotic.
Imagine someplace on Earth which one has the Moon's gravity instead of Earth's gravity- one get a large city at such a strange geology. Or imagine someplace on Earth which has the Moon's vacuum- that would also be important characteristic which is useful to some industries- like making computer chips.
Quote
But if that's the case, then the technology for building a space colony is very far away. Not this century. Maybe not the next one either.Heck, if we aren't willing to colonize the Arctic, why do you think we'll ever colonize space?

One could expect fairly rapid technological advancement related to lunar industries, but we don't need technological advancement to get to such a point. What is needed is exploration to determine whether or not lunar water is minable- and where exactly to do this [lunar poles- but where exactly- or which lunar pole
is best].
Quote
I've been a space fan my whole life (I'm 55 now). I'd really like to imagine a more optimistic scenario, but right now I don't see one.
Well US president thinks we have explored the Moon, "been there and done that", so until this changes
so that exploring space to find new markets, there isn't much to be too optimistic about.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2014 07:11 pm by gbaikie »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #65 on: 06/30/2014 07:29 pm »
Propellant sourced from the lunar surface. If it's there, and if it can be exported to the trans-Mars departure point, it should be exploited for that purpose. If it's not there, or can't be economically exported, the lunar surface is a dead end.

EML2 is a great departure point for Mars, asteroids as well as the rest of the solar system. And the moon's only 2.5 km/s from EML2.

If the more optimistic estimates of lunar water are true, a lunar base is a no-brainer. The LEND data seems to contradict those estimates though.

In terms of mining lunar water, what matters is related to a scale of less than 1 square km. Or one could spend more than 1 year mining an area less than a football field and unlikely to harvest from a region larger than 1 square km.
I don't believe, LEND data has the resolution needed. Or it's more general characteristic which might useful if needed to mine million of tons, but what needed is first 100,000 tonnes of water which could mine for less than 10 billion dollars. Or at $500 per lb 1 million per ton, 100,000 tones is 100 billion dollars of water.
And it unlikely one is going to mine 100 billion dollar of water within a decade of the start of mining lunar water- and more importantly there not this much demand for this much water within a decade of time.
« Last Edit: 06/30/2014 07:32 pm by gbaikie »

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #66 on: 07/06/2014 02:54 pm »
@ Alf Fass
http://www.isruinfo.com/index.php?page=srr_15_ptmss
Keep the light on.
Cheers

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #67 on: 07/06/2014 03:27 pm »
@ Alf Fass
http://www.isruinfo.com/index.php?page=srr_15_ptmss
Keep the light on.
Cheers

@Warren Platts -

Did you include insulation of your LOX tank in your mass budget? LOX will freeze at 30 K, won't it? Or are you intending to heat the LOX continuously? That may be better.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #68 on: 07/08/2014 03:05 pm »
What's the immediate goal of a Lunar base?

Exactly the same as the immediate goal of a martian base:  Attempting to live off-planet.

If there's no point to the attempt on Luna, there is no point to the attempt on Mars.

Your further questions doubting the value of increasing the population of a lunar base also apply to Mars.

Most people are making the argument to stay on planet and that is a perfectly acceptable point of view.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #69 on: 07/08/2014 03:06 pm »
Of course there are a lot of drawbacks, but I can't see Mars as a competitor to the Moon either. Mars is Mars. It's literally "another planet" with its own challenges, benefit and costs. Reaching it is difficult and dangerous for humans...

Bingo.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #70 on: 07/08/2014 03:17 pm »
After careful analysis, I favour...

Unfortunately, the "careful analysis" would be typically only a personal claim to opionion, and not a theoretically falsifiable chain of logic.

Sadly, this debate fails every time for two reasons:  The martian side always fails to acknowledge the problems of delta-t.  The martian side always states as axiomatic that should mankind establish a foothold on the Moon, then no other planets shall ever be explored by mankind, without proof of the assertion.

Any argument of "irrevocable history" borders on nonsense.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Nilof

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 597
  • Likes Given: 707
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #71 on: 07/13/2014 03:22 am »
My sumup:

As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.

This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.

So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.
For a variable Isp spacecraft running at constant power and constant acceleration, the mass ratio is linear in delta-v.   Δv = ve0(MR-1). Or equivalently: Δv = vef PMF. Also, this is energy-optimal for a fixed delta-v and mass ratio.

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #72 on: 07/13/2014 07:34 am »
I think GLPX-class landers could handle this little mission: Get to the earth-facing equator and install retroreflectors that are larger than Apollo's. Make them big enough to handle forseeable dust degradation, big enough to get enough S/N for general relativity experiments, and maybe big enough to be of use to less powerful lasers used by academia and outreach. Wouldn't that be a very clever good idea, Moon Express, and demonstrate a business capability while also answering a scientific need, while also enabling a popular sense of direct, tangible connection to that white thing that almost all can see on most nights.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18527-dusty-mirrors-on-the-moon-obscure-tests-of-relativity.html#.U8I0H6gW7yI

Offline Rhyshaelkan

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 264
    • PERMANENT Forums
  • Liked: 28
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #73 on: 07/27/2014 04:49 pm »
My sumup:

As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.

This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.

So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.

Emphasis is mine. This is the reason for Moon first. We could have an explosion of space industry for space industry, in spaaaaaace.

Rather than long flight times(Mars), irregular operation times(asteroids). The Moon is always 4 days away by rocket, and 3 seconds away by telecommunication. The Moon offers the greatest flexibility of robotic or manned missions.

This will open up the solar system to mankind. It will lead to a stronger Mars, a stronger Ceres and Vesta. More missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All for less $$$ and less time, if, we plant that industry seed on the Moon first.
I am not a professional. Just a rational amateur dreaming of mankind exploiting the universe.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #74 on: 07/27/2014 08:17 pm »
My sumup:

As I see it, the moon is more interesting in the sense that it is completely different from Earth. It is airless, it has a shallow gravity well, and it is part of a binary system which makes it really attractive for implementing non-rocket spacelaunch. Furthermore, L1/L2 are "high points" of the solar system since they have a very massive body nearby for using the oberth effect. Counterintuitively, this makes reaching the outer solar system is easier to do from L2 than from Mars C3=0.

This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt. Developing assets on the moon generally puts us on the path towards orbital habitats which I think is critical if we're ever going to pull off interstellar travel. Mars on the other hand is a return to the prison of living deep inside a gravity well and is in this sense is a dead end on the very long term.

So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.

Emphasis is mine. This is the reason for Moon first. We could have an explosion of space industry for space industry, in spaaaaaace.

Rather than long flight times(Mars), irregular operation times(asteroids). The Moon is always 4 days away by rocket, and 3 seconds away by telecommunication. The Moon offers the greatest flexibility of robotic or manned missions.

This will open up the solar system to mankind. It will lead to a stronger Mars, a stronger Ceres and Vesta. More missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. All for less $$$ and less time, if, we plant that industry seed on the Moon first.

And I think the "seed" is more about information than hardware.
Or what is needed is exploration of Moon, and the exploration should focused on where there is minable lunar water. This is assuming there is minable lunar water- which seems to me to be fairly likely.

Having the Moon have some water, does not have any significant importance, the sole question is it minable [profitable to mine] water. So NASA explores the Moon and reaches NASA's and US governmental findings in regard to possibility of minable water. Then investment and business can determine whether it could be or should be mined- just as it is done on Earth in regards the mining of anything.
Though not saying there would not be government involvement, but point is we should not assume lunar water is minable BEFORE it's explored to determine if it is. As this is never the way any mining on Earth is done. For instance one can pick a mountain [at random] and decide that since there is no doubt that there is some gold in any mountain, that one should start mining the mountain for gold- without first exploring the mountain. [Edit: Or any mountain will have far more gold in it than any town, that one would build near it, would "need" {{how much gold does any town *actually* need? Yes, it's crazy and makes no sense}}. The only reasonable question is, would it be profitable to mine the gold].

But major importance in terms of getting to industrializing the Moon and/or space, is finding anything which could become a market. So lunar water is related to a rocket fuel market in space. Which in turn related to the transportation market in space. And to convert water into rocket fuel, one needs a lot more electrical power than we are currently using [for the only current market in space of the satellite industry- which globally is a 200 billion per year market]. So making rocket fuel will/could be a step in direction of a market for electrical power in space. This electrical market is unlike satellites using solar panels to operate satellites, instead one buys [or is selling] by Kilowatt or Megawatt hour- just as is done on Earth. Or electrical power can be sold to lunar water miners, but it's also sold to anyone else who needs electrical power [like a hotel or something] . And perhaps at some point satellites may also just buy electrical power rather bringing solar panels for just their satellite. And if one can buy electrical power, one can buy the power to be used with spacecrafts powered by beamed power. And etc.

And once there is rocket fuel [and water and electrical power] then one more cheaply mine things like iron or PGMs. Or have hotel and/or space agencies lunar bases. And do lots of things, which include human settlement on Mars [and elsewhere].

Edit: But before something like human settlements on Mars, the best thing to do, is first have a space agency, explore Mars [with idea that exploration is related to having future human settlements- or what about Mars should be known that would important for people going to Mars in terms building towns- where would there be good spots for Mars settlements].
« Last Edit: 07/27/2014 09:17 pm by gbaikie »

Offline manboy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2086
  • Texas, USA, Earth
  • Liked: 134
  • Likes Given: 544
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #75 on: 07/29/2014 10:03 pm »
As meekGee suggested, I take here discussion that was very OT where it was.

The question is the trade-off between harder-to-reach Mars and harder-to-live on Moon.
How much harder is to live on Moon? Certainly not orders of magnitude harder (for that you need Io or something).

Even if living on moon is significantly harder than living on Mars, travel expenses will weight costs in favour of Moon in near and medium future.

In other words: assume that living on Moon is harder. Your and meekGee error is that you claim this assumption means no Moon base whatsoever. This is wrong and looks like wishful thinking of Mars Firster.

Why? Scenario below explains that.

1. Moon base will be deployed first, simply becasue of lower total costs (cost to travel+cost to live).
2. It will grow slowly due to our assumption (harder life).
3. Decades later (when cost to travel will be sufficiently low) first Martian base will be deployed.
4. It will grow faster (easier life)...
5. ...and some time later (another few decades) will be larger than Moon base.

Result? Of course, Moon First.
It's the most logical destination but people do illogical things, which is part of a much larger tirade of mine.
"Cheese has been sent into space before. But the same cheese has never been sent into space twice." - StephenB

Offline Robert Thompson

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1177
  • Liked: 101
  • Likes Given: 658

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #77 on: 07/31/2014 09:43 pm »
Seriously.

Everyone with a "moon/mars/Betelgeuse first" hypothesis would help the discussion a lot by explaining the conditions of how is this falsifiable? What sort of evidence, information or experiment would reasonably disprove the claims.

Maybe we should have a thread titled "moon first: here is how you can prove me wrong"

Good idea. I would say Moon first is falsifiable.
Though it also happens to be what I think NASA should actually do in terms of Lunar exploration.
Or I think NASA should approach exploration in logical or scientific manner.
So if the Moon does not have minable water, then the moon would not be first.

I think the question of whether the Moon has minable water, is the most important thing NASA should determine in the near term.
But I do not think NASA should try to "make" lunar water minable, or what I mean is NASA should discover whether the Moon has minable water.
So NASA should not go the Moon will goal of attempting extract water for some wild idea about this lowering NASA cost of other lunar exploration. Or with idea NASA will mine lunar water to lower costs of Mars exploration. Economically it can't work, and it does not matter how easy it is to extract lunar water [or inherently minable it is].

Rather the NASA focus is only to find better locations which which may have minable water, and part of this is the possibility that the Moon does not have minable water.

Now, single aspect related to whether the Moon has minable water has is little to do with the possible different conditions on the Moon, but rather it depends upon the amount of water which can be mined and sold as water. Or if lots of water can be mined and sold, low concentration and difficult conditions can be overcome. Or said differently the fact that there is low potential demand/market for water, means there is uncertainty in terms of whether lunar water is minable.

So example if total need for lunar water for decades into the future was only 50 tonnes of water per year at constant and non increasing amount, it quite different that larger future need per year of water. So say one starts 50 ton per year [or less] in first few years growing to 100 tons within a decade and potentially thousands of tons per year thereafter.

Or for mining lunar water to be economical it requires a significant and a continuation of growth in the demand of water.
And it's cheaper to start with mining a relatively small amount, and growing capacity in production. Or if had a government guarantee [not something I favor- and if done it should not be taken from NASA's budget, but more as general governmental funding- it could be placed in NASA, but not matter of drawing it from NASA's normal budget], the purchase of 1000 tons of water per year, as starting point, this actually costs more to the mine water, than having a lower demand of say 100 tons of water per year, and ever increasing demand would reached 1000 tons or more  per year within a decade.
So one needs a growth market.
Plus there is factors which limits demand of water and related to bootstrapping. Say one mines 50 tons of water and one makes 50 tons of rocket fuel [50 tons rocket fuel requires  more electrical power than ISS has if done within a year of time], and by having this rocket fuel on lunar surface, it lower cost to get to the Moon. So one use rocket fuel to lower costs of increasing production [adding solar panels or nuclear powerplants]. A main limiting factor is having enough electrical power to split the water. Or one starts with modest amount electrical power, and one uses the rocket fuel it makes to lower cost of adding [say yearly doubling/tripling] electrical power capacity.  So by starting with 1000 tons, it means one will paid more for the lunar electrical capacity needed [it's not boot strapping the operation]. Another element is developing the technological ability to mine and make rocket fuel. Delays due to various problems one always will have, when occuring with smaller operation, have lower costs than compared to delaying a larger operation. So there is learning curve.

Anyhow, main problem is not related to mining enough water, it's mining enough water in context of selling enough water and using the water to lower transportation/operational costs and within a short enough time period.

But all NASA needs to do is find best places to mine lunar water, and then this data is analyzed, to determine whether it could be minable, and based upon this, whether one could make profit by investing money to do it. And if it's deemed one would only loses money, then it's not mined.
If loses money, it not worth doing. End of story.
And NASA losing money doing it is just the same a commercial operation not making money- having government doing something not profitable is wasting potential resources [and the public's time] that NASA could spend doing exploration which could actually be worth the money spent doing it.

So ultimate success of NASA lunar exploration, is potentially minable areas are found, and they are mined, which might be something which occurs within, say 10 years after NASA has explored the Moon.
[Oh btw, I think we assume that the conditions on Moon are not rapidly changing, so data 10 years or older would be still valid.]
And whether it's minable could depend on many factors, including say better earth launcher vehicles becoming available- for example. Or the time period, NASA finishes it's lunar exploration [and starts Mars exploration program] lunar water deposit found, may not be minable, but 5 years later, because changing circumstances, these deposits could then become minable.

So if NASA is exploring the Moon, rather than focusing on putting lunar bases on the moon and ISRUing lunar water, then this the cost of the program could rather inexpensive. Plus the money spend doing lunar exploration will be useful in regards to Mars exploration. Or gearing up the space agency in terms of exploring other bodies in space, and with similar type elements as will involved with Mars Exploration.
So with lunar exploration, the program should weighed with significant amount of robotic elements, plus the manned component. And likewise or maybe more weighted with robotic elements, one will conduct Mars exploration.
Or NASA has been trying to do Mars sample return for over 3 decades, with NASA lunar exploration, it could actually shorten the time to finally getting a Mars sample return [we actually do it, rather merely want to do it]. And there is little doubt of importance of getting Mars samples back to Earth.

So rather than Lunar program of 100 billion cost, one looking at program of 50 billion or less, and something NASA can complete within 10 years. And because it's cheap and short, it's more likely to get congressional funding. And it gives NASA the opportunity to prove to Congress that Mars exploration though more expensive, could done as successfully.
So at completion of lunar program, NASA should found some areas in polar poles which are the better places to mine.
Also NASA should have establish at least one depot at LEO, and have had operational experience using the depot as part of Lunar program [both robotic and manned aspects]. NASA will have used both medium and large earth launch vehicles, for the Moon exploration. And is likely to continue using a variety of launcher for Mars exploration.
NASA should have by start of lunar exploration or end of lunar exploration, have done "something" to lower operational yearly cost of ISS.
And should be more ready to do a Mars exploration program, than compared to at any time in NASA history.
« Last Edit: 07/31/2014 10:07 pm by gbaikie »

Offline aero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3628
  • 92129
  • Liked: 1145
  • Likes Given: 360
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #78 on: 07/31/2014 10:55 pm »
I think it is the mission time to Mars that will result in Moon first.

In particular, even if the Moon is only used to prove the transportation of equipment to Mars in preparation for Mars, such equipment proof missions can be completed in 3 days, or 14 days round trip including a surface excursion. Of course that won't test the heat shields or Mars EDL but the delta V for TMI can be used for propulsive landing on the Moon and off-loading lunar ISRU equipment will prove that capability for Mars. Habitats for Mars should be suitable for the moon and water mining on the moon should be similar to on Mars. That leads to methane production (is there carbon on the Moon) and hence establishes the Moon as a supply source.

I think there are to many similarities between the Moon and Mars to justify skipping the advantage of short transit times and real time communications for proving extra-Earth capabilities. Sure, keep your eye on the prize but don't fail to take advantage of the Moon.
Retired, working interesting problems

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10972
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: Why IMO Moon First is inevitable.
« Reply #79 on: 08/01/2014 12:43 am »
My sumup: ...

This makes the Moon an absolutely amazing place for large-scale industry aimed at providing materials for colonies anywhere in the solar system. If you're thinking on a very large scale, the moon can supply more materials for O'Neill habitats than the entire asteroid belt....

So from my point of view, Moon and asteroids it is.

I had not heard that POV before.  Thanks.

Like I've said at least a brazilian times:  Delta-t is the salient metric.
« Last Edit: 08/01/2014 12:43 am by JohnFornaro »
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Tags:
 

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