Total Members Voted: 102
Voting closed: 02/12/2016 08:01 pm
Quote from: Paul451 on 10/10/2017 05:37 pmQuote from: blasphemer on 10/10/2017 04:53 amand no wasting of precious lunar water.Aren't the estimates of polar ice on the order of several thousand years worth of daily SLS launches?It's not just the availability of water that is a concern
Quote from: blasphemer on 10/10/2017 04:53 amand no wasting of precious lunar water.Aren't the estimates of polar ice on the order of several thousand years worth of daily SLS launches?
and no wasting of precious lunar water.
but the amount of energy that would be required to free it.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 05:44 pmbut the amount of energy that would be required to free it.From... ice?2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.
Quote from: Paul451 on 10/10/2017 07:21 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 05:44 pmbut the amount of energy that would be required to free it.From... ice? 2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.Meaning where does all that energy come from?
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/10/2017 05:44 pmbut the amount of energy that would be required to free it.From... ice? 2kJ per kg per Kelvin, usually.
Which I think is not related to the question at hand, since it's very unlikely that the U.S. would decide to go beyond a basic outpost on the Moon as a first goal.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 10/08/2017 05:26 amYeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost; making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches. But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. 2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it....better than a cold, hard nothin'...Not really. If we are going back to the Moon to do 'sorties' -- let's not go.The reality is, 2-3 SLS flights per year will break the bank -- assuming that it is even feasible to make 10-ish RS-25Es per year, fab 2-3 Orions, prep 2-3 launch vehicles, etc. Anyway, that won't happen until 2030s...Several new paradigms are needed:1. We go back to the Moon to stay. 24/7, 28-day day and all, year after year. Serious exploration and prospecting a hundred or a thousand kilometers around is the real work to be done.2. Lunar Village is constructed and expanded by surface equipment and physical labor of the people on the Moon; it's not just a few sardine cans plunked down... where NASA astros hang out for 14 days between rover jaunts around the immediate vicinity.3. Commercial vehicles, landers, habs, etc. make up the bulk of the effort. NASA role is more a conductor or choreographer, not playing all the instruments or dancing all the dances.4. Fuel-rich architecture is a fundamental requirement... as is reusability. Limitations of one-shot hardware must be overcome.It is not worth going back to the Moon if we simply 'practice' those activities that will keep us from going further.
Yeah - the 3x SLS launches per year would be the maximum we could ever expect without a major funding boost; making more launchpads, Crawlers, service towers and other infrastructure available, plus upgrading the VAB would be the only way to get better than 3x launches. But 2x SLS launches per year - the accepted 'norm' for now would be okay if the other launches for cargo, propellants etc were done on Commercial rockets such as the Vulcan, Falcon Heavy and New Glenn. 2x only crewed Orions per year should be maxed out for mission endurance; meaning lunar surface missions of at least 14 Earth days to make the expense worth it....better than a cold, hard nothin'...
JAXA plans to construct a fuel plant at the lunar south pole & include a human lunar stay of 500days! for a crew of 4 #leag2017 #MoonVillage
This doesn't cover energy required to extract water from polar craters, but that should be significantly less and maybe able to use surplus heat from the electrolysis process.