Let's assume we have propellant mines on the moon as well as tankers that deliver lunar propellant to depots at EML1, EML2, LEO and GEO. Also vehicles that travel between orbits, resupplying their propellant at these depots.How would this infrastructure be maintained? The tankers, depots, and inter-orbital vehicles would all remain in vacuum. Some of them would dwell above earth's protective magnetic field.Pressurized hangars with radiation shielding seems one possibility. But some of these vehicles would be large. A hangar big enough to accommodate such vehicles seems implausible, at least in the near term.
In a thread within the last 6 months, a Jim I think mentioned some acronym for maximum modularized replaceable components that can be serviced as needs be hands-on inside a pressurized / shirtsleeve area.Or, a large enough airlock that can accommodate larger removable objects. Perhaps partially pressurize it with nitrogen so that work can be done in suits. Is there a gas that could be most easily recaptured?
At worst, a lot of space walks, so there's a need for spacesuits that require less time to get on.
It could be they aren't maintained- they have so many used and then they are scrapped.Anything going to the Moon could maintained on the Moon- but might not much in terms maintenance.So in short term a lunar lander might designed to make ten trips to the moon. And then retired.
Those devices would not live forever. There might be some repair capability on module level, but even that may be hard on engines etc. So maybe redundant systems and a tanker is ok if it it does not fall below a defined level of available redundancy.
But you could still fly a tanker with a health you would NOT fly people. But would you risk to let it dock to your depot??
{snip}That's just the sort of thing I was hoping to see. Repairing removable modular parts seems more doable than working on an entire space craft. For example, working on an RL-10 engine in a pressurized work place seems more plausible than a pressurized hangar enclosing an ACES 71. {snip}
Quote from: gbaikie on 09/27/2011 02:18 amIt could be they aren't maintained- they have so many used and then they are scrapped.Anything going to the Moon could maintained on the Moon- but might not much in terms maintenance.So in short term a lunar lander might designed to make ten trips to the moon. And then retired.I know a vehicle designed for 5 km/s delta V and no need for TPS or other EDL equipment would have fewer maintenance issues than something like the space shuttle.But still, is 10 trips with no maintenance plausible?
And if there are only 10 reuses, it would be harder for a lunar propellant mine to become cost effective.
Quote from: Hop_David on 09/26/2011 04:28 pmLet's assume we have propellant mines on the moon as well as tankers that deliver lunar propellant to depots at EML1, EML2, LEO and GEO. Also vehicles that travel between orbits, resupplying their propellant at these depots.How would this infrastructure be maintained? The tankers, depots, and inter-orbital vehicles would all remain in vacuum. Some of them would dwell above earth's protective magnetic field.Pressurized hangars with radiation shielding seems one possibility. But some of these vehicles would be large. A hangar big enough to accommodate such vehicles seems implausible, at least in the near term.It could be they aren't maintained- they have so many used and then they are scrapped.Anything going to the Moon could maintained on the Moon- but might not much in terms maintenance.So in short term a lunar lander might designed to make ten trips to the moon. And then retired.Now lunar mining you going to need a lot maintenance. But in short term you might design your equipment to have a limited life- do as little maintenance as is need but after so many hours, replace them. Later vehicles could designed to last longer and require more maintenance, the cost of maintenance [cost of manhour] could lower in costs.With fair amount used equipment, you might at some point scrap them to make other things you need.