Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture

[savuporo]

Now that is the easier part of the problem.  For the poles the robot will have to be made out of materials that can take the extreme cold.  Iron for instance turns brittle and shatters at liquid hydrogen temperatures.

Spacecraft thermal management is not exactly groundbreaking science these days, more in the engineering domain.

[kraisee]

Robert Zubrin appeared on the Space Show recently.   He painted a picture of exactly how high the concentrations of water are on the moon.

His example was that he could walk into the Sahara desert, place a sensor in the sand and he would get a higher moisture content there than they found on the moon from this mission.

If he is right, this is a remarkably big deal about very little.   What I would like to really know, is just how right he is in his claim?

Ross.

[savuporo]

He is wrong.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6301&st=45

[kkattula]

He is wrong.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6301&st=45

Yeah, in the recent LCROSS press conference, one of the scientists said that their evidence indicated they hit an area somewhat wetter than the dryest deserts on Earth.

There may very well be wetter areas still, maybe even relatively pure ice deposits. But at least now the worst case scenario is not bad at all.

[A_M_Swallow]

He is wrong.
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6301&st=45

"I don't have the LRO results. This paper, which interpreted everything in terms of implanted solar hydrogen, gave 1500 plus/minus 800 ppm by weight hydrogen from Prospector data."

For a ISRU mission the regolith is being used as propellant, the above is sufficient to back of envelope calculate its Isp.  This does not go directly into the motor itself but the rover still has to dig it up.
From pure hydrogen and LOX the RL10 can get an Isp of 433 seconds
Treating water as H2/LOX (too optimistic) 1500 parts per million

Maximum Regolith Isp = propellant Isp * propellant content
= 433 * 1500/1000000 = 0.650

An Isp of 0.650 is not very good, the rover will have to move a lot of regolith.

[robertross]

Robert Zubrin appeared on the Space Show recently.   He painted a picture of exactly how high the concentrations of water are on the moon.

His example was that he could walk into the Sahara desert, place a sensor in the sand and he would get a higher moisture content there than they found on the moon from this mission.

If he is right, this is a remarkably big deal about very little.   What I would like to really know, is just how right he is in his claim?

Ross.

And the best way to find out is to go there on the surface and find out for sure. IE: send a robot, take samples & analyze, maybe even bring some back.

To me, something like I mentioned in the Direct spin-off thread, but never had a chance to expand on (though I think I brought it up in another thread long ago)...

You get a few identical robots clustered together, each cluster sent to different craters. Each robot is controlled by a school, one per state (won by lottery, or something like that, with a few extra to gifted individuals in their field), and you go about taking measurements on the surface. Really inexpensive technology, almost like nano-bots (1/2 to 1/4 size of Spirit/Opportunity).

Maybe have one sample return vehicle per crater, though I doubt it would really be necessary, except as 'trophies' for the participating schools.

Great way to get kids involved. Even better if any water found could be collected and used to germinate a seed. This is what the education system needs. I'm sure lots of 'guys' would love to move the robot around, and lots of 'gals' would love to do the science; but enough interest for all aspects I'm sure.

[HappyMartian]

Robert Zubrin appeared on the Space Show recently.   He painted a picture of exactly how high the concentrations of water are on the moon.

His example was that he could walk into the Sahara desert, place a sensor in the sand and he would get a higher moisture content there than they found on the moon from this mission.

If he is right, this is a remarkably big deal about very little.   What I would like to really know, is just how right he is in his claim?

Ross.

Failure to Launch, Failure to Lead     July 2, 2012  By Paul D. Spudis
At: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/07/failure-to-launch-failure-to-lead/
"From this exploration, we now know that the Moon contains millions of tons of harvestable water.  We possess detailed maps of lunar physical and compositional properties.  In short, we now know that the Moon is habitable and is both an appropriate near-term destination for people and a unique enabling asset for future spaceflight within and beyond the Earth-Moon system."

"Now, just as we find the Moon to be an attractive destination, we shrink away from the challenge, watching as others blaze trails we once traveled.  We willingly accept the pablum to not fret over new space powers who do not cancel their programs.  We are told they have not yet done all that we have and that we still carry the mantle of the world’s leading space power.  This is not logical."

[HappyMartian]

"In September 2009, India's Chandrayaan-1 detected water on the Moon[3][4] and hydroxyl absorption lines in reflected sunlight. In November 2009, NASA reported that its LCROSS space probe had detected a significant amount of hydroxyl group in the material thrown up from a south polar crater by an impactor;[5] this may be attributed to water-bearing materials[6] – what appears to be 'near pure crystalline water-ice'.[7]"

And, "In March 2010, NASA reported that the Mini-SAR radar aboard Chandrayaan-1 detected what appear to be more than 40 small craters hypothesized to contain up to 1.3 trillion pounds (600 million metric tons) of water ice.[8]"

And, "The first direct evidence of water vapor near the Moon was obtained by the Apollo 14 ALSEP Suprathermal Ion Detector Experiment, SIDE, on March 7, 1971. A series of bursts of water vapor ions were observed by the instrument mass spectrometer at the lunar surface near the Apollo 14 landing site.[14]"

And, "The possibility of ice in the floors of polar lunar craters was first suggested in 1961 by Caltech researchers Kenneth Watson, Bruce C. Murray, and Harrison Brown.[11] Although trace amounts of water were found in lunar rock samples collected by Apollo astronauts, this was assumed to be a result of contamination, and the majority of the lunar surface was generally assumed to be completely dry.[12] However, a 2008 study of lunar rock samples revealed evidence of water molecules trapped in volcanic glass beads.[13]"

And, "Resulting computer simulations suggested that an area up to 14,000 km² might be in permanent shadow and hence have the potential to harbour lunar ice.[19]"

And, "Solar radiation would normally strip any free water or water ice from the lunar surface, splitting it into its constituent elements, hydrogen and oxygen, which then escape to space. However, because of the only very slight axial tilt of the Moon's spin axis to the ecliptic plane (1.5 °), some deep craters near the poles never receive any sunlight, and are permanently shadowed (see, for example, Shackleton crater, and Whipple crater)."

And, "The temperature in these regions never rises above about 100 K (about −170 ° Celsius),[46] and any water that eventually ended up in these craters could remain frozen and stable for extremely long periods of time — perhaps billions of years, depending on the stability of the orientation of the Moon's axis.[13][16]"
From: Lunar water
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_water

Yep, what is the Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture? Who could make good use of 600 million metric tons of Lunar water ice?

Answers: Not much for the good old USA. Not the USA.

It is a pity, isn't it?
 


Edited.


 

[Dalhousie]

Yep, what is the Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture? Who could make good use of 600 million metric tons of Lunar water ice?

If the LEND results are to be believed there might only be 0.05% of that actually present.

We don't know.  Building "exploration archiectures" on lunar ice when the numbers from different vary by a factor of 2000 is fairy castle constructions.  We need more data.

[sdsds]

We need more data.

100% agreement on that! Given the unknown amount and unknown accessibility of lunar ice, we can't rationally start building any kind of architecture and can't rationally choose any particular destination. If lunar-produced propellant can be exported economically, even if only as far as to low lunar orbit, that will simultaneously have major impacts on both the desirability and the feasibility of conducting lunar surface operations.

[HappyMartian]

Yep, what is the Impact of lunar ice on Exploration Architecture? Who could make good use of 600 million metric tons of Lunar water ice?

If the LEND results are to be believed there might only be 0.05% of that actually present.

We don't know.  Building "exploration archiectures" on lunar ice when the numbers from different vary by a factor of 2000 is fairy castle constructions.  We need more data.

Yet another reason to send rovers into those craters ASAP.

What about the LCROSS impact? Didn't the ejecta contain some water (more than given in the reports above)?

Yes it did, LCROSS measurfed 5.6% +/- 2.9%, note the uncertainty of ~50%

There are huge differences in scale, size does matter.  LEND measures over a area 10 km across and 1 m deep.  LCROSS measured an area 20 m across and 3 m deep.  The data can be reconciled either through LEND repesenting the average value and LCROSS fortuitously hitting an area with much higher than average ice (meaning that there will be areas with much lower than average), or that at depth there is a stratum much richer in ice than the uppermost metre.

LEND results are for a shallow depth of the "uppermost metre" and are about as clear as mud. If the LEND results are only good for or a meter or so depth, most likely the LCROSS results measuring an area "20 m across and 3 m deep" are much more useful and relevant.

As far as Lunar water is concerned, the LCROSS impact plume measured 5.6% +/- 2.9%. Note the uncertainty of the water percentage. It is clear that the LCROSS scientific measurement with its ~50% uncertainty needs to be greatly refined through similar or improved LCROSS type of missions.

We definitely need to go and have a look. Is there a definite robotic mission yet? I keep hearing about hints and demonstrators but never an actual commitment.

Chang'e-3 and Chandrayaan-2 are probably closest to actually get back on the surface. Nothing is heading to the poles though ( with the possible exception of Astrobotic, which seems to change its announced plans and push back flight dates faster than realtime )

It is great that China and India are seriously interested in the Moon. The Moon has both commercial and strategic importance.

If NASA had continued to seriously plan human Lunar polar landing missions and conducted several more LCROSS type of impactor experiments across the surface of the Moon and landed some RTG powered rovers to closely inspect those fresh and deep LCROSS type of impact craters, the USA would be far ahead of where we currently are. We need much more data about the Moon's diverse resources. Preliminary Lunar resource results from the efforts of the cancelled VSE Lunar exploration efforts look very inviting.

"President Obama terminated the VSE in April, 2010 during a speech at the John F. Kennedy Space Center ('We choose NOT to go to the Moon!' – the historical resonances astound!)."
From: Failure to Launch, Failure to Lead     July 2, 2012  By Paul D. Spudis
At: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/2012/07/failure-to-launch-failure-to-lead/

Unfortunately, the lack of curiosity and vision that was displayed by our nation's political leadership, with zip scientific discussion and justification to explain the newest huge zig or zag in NASA's space exploration goals, ended the possibility of significant NASA Lunar polar missions happening in the short term.

NASA cannot do much in the face of incorrect leadership.

I'm old enough that I might miss out on all the media noise that will someday be generated when Americans begin to seriously ask, "Who lost us the Moon?" But the answer is already pretty obvious to folks that are paying attention.

Dr Paul Spudis commented about this paper on The Space Show.

 http://archived.thespaceshow.com/shows/1803-BWB-2012-06-24.mp3

Enjoy.

I enjoyed it immensely! Dr Paul Spudis pretty much nails it. Thank you QuantumG! 

 

What NASA's leadership does or doesn't do depends directly on the American President and Congress. As a John F. Kennedy and George McGovern Democrat, I am disappointed in the lack of interest in the Moon and the total lack of understanding of its long-term strategic importance that has been displayed by our current President. I'm also not confident that the other candidate for the presidency would instruct NASA to actively explore the presence of Lunar ice and other valuable resources, if he is elected.

Tapping Lunar resources is the real game changer for human civilization and that includes space exploitation, exploration, and colonization.

Currently, our diverse hopes for humanity exploring and making full use of Lunar resources reside outside of the USA.

It is a pity, isn't it?

See also:


Water on The Moon, I. Historical Overview  Arlin Crotts (Columbia University)
At: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5597.pdf


Water on The Moon, II. Origins & Resources   Arlin Crotts (Columbia University)
At: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5598.pdf


Water on The Moon, III. Volatiles & Activity  Arlin Crotts (Columbia University)
At: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5599.pdf


NASA Study Finds Even More Water on the Moon (100 Times More!)
At: http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/nasa-study-finds-even-more-water-on-the-moon-100-times-more.html


Everyone’s Gone To The Moon  By Paul D. Spudis June 5, 2012
At: http://blogs.airspacemag.com/moon/


Russia and Japan aim for the Moon  By Eric Hand   May 22, 2012
At: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/russia-japan-aim-for-the-moon.html


Russia Sees Moon Base As Logical Next Step   By Frank Morring, Jr.
At: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.aspx?id=/article-xml/asd_05_23_2012_p05-01-460939.xml


Will Mitt Romney Fire Space Advisor Michael Griffin For Proposing Permanent Moon Base?  May 24, 2012
At: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=37170


Roscosmos, JAXA Officials Advocate Lunar Exploration  By Dan Leone
At: http://www.spacenews.com/civil/120522-roscosmos-jaxa-officials-advocate-lunar-exploration.html


And:

....

From: NASA Missions Uncover the Moon's Buried Treasures   Oct. 21, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2010/10-89AR.html
“MOFFETT FIELD, Calif. -- Nearly a year after announcing the discovery of water molecules on the moon, scientists Thursday revealed new data uncovered by NASA's Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite, or LCROSS, and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, or LRO.”

And, "The missions found evidence that the lunar soil within shadowy craters is rich in useful materials, and the moon is chemically active and has a water cycle. Scientists also confirmed the water was in the form of mostly pure ice crystals in some places."

And, "'Seeing mostly pure water ice grains in the plume means water ice was somehow delivered to the moon in the past, or chemical processes have been causing ice to accumulate in large quantities,' said Anthony Colaprete, LCROSS project scientist and principal investigator at NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif. 'Also, the diversity and abundance of certain materials called volatiles in the plume, suggest a variety of sources, like comets and asteroids, and an active water cycle within the lunar shadows.'"

And, "The suite of LCROSS and LRO instruments determined as much as 20 percent of the material kicked up by the LCROSS impact was volatiles, including methane, ammonia, hydrogen gas, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide. The instruments also discovered relatively large amounts of light metals such as sodium, mercury and possibly even silver."

Also, "In addition, an abundant presence of hydrogen gas, ammonia and methane could be exploited to produce fuel."



From: Moon Express Delivers Lunar Mission Design Report to NASA Detailing technical plans toward mining the Moon for precious planetary resources   April 23, 2012
At: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/moon-express-delivers-lunar-mission-design-report-to-nasa-detailing-technical-plans-toward-mining-the-moon-for-precious-planetary-resources-148538005.html
"The Moon has never been explored from an entrepreneurial perspective," said Moon Express co-founder and chairman, Naveen Jain. "Think of the Moon as the Earth's eighth continent, potentially the largest repository of asteroid resources in the solar system, and we have barely begun to explore it."

And, “Moon Express co-founder, vice-chairman and CTO Dr. Barney Pell, a former NASA technology manager, is confident of the value proposition of lunar water combined with precious metals. ‘There could be more platinum group metals on the surface of the Moon than in all the reserves of Earth,’ he said. ‘And the lunar water we now know to be present is the key to liberating lunar resources economically.’”



From: Moon
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“Future manned missions to the Moon have been planned, including government as well as privately funded efforts. The Moon remains, under the Outer Space Treaty, free to all nations to explore for peaceful purposes.”



NEOs are interesting and have some resources. The Moon has long been considered a culturally, militarily, scientifically, and economically important location. Lunar water and other resources exist and mining them is doable and makes a lot of sense if you want reusable spaceships going on many missions to Mars, asteroids, and comets. The Moon is also where we can mine the propellant needed to enable a robust capability for defending our planet from wandering NEOs.

Where do you think initial commercial gains are going to occur? Some politicians, billionaires, and policy folks may have failed to understand the full ramifications of the new and valuable data provided by NASA’s LCROSS and LRO missions or they may have some old and outdated agendas, but for most space cadets the answer should be obvious.

Humans are going back to explore and mine our Moon.

Cheers!



Edited.

Edited.

[Dalhousie]

LEND results are for a shallow depth of the "uppermost metre" and are about as clear as mud. If the LEND results are only good for or a meter or so depth, most likely the LCROSS results measuring an area "20 m across and 3 m deep" are much more useful and relevant.

The converse is true, the LEND results are more precise and give a good average picture for the top metre over a large area.  The implication is very clear, in the top metre of the PSRs there is nothing like 600 million tonnes of ice,  more like a few tens of thousands of ones, with an average concentration of a few tens of one percent.

The LCROSS data are point data and only pertain to that point.  We have no idea as to how representative that point data is.

As far as Lunar water is concerned, the LCROSS impact plume measured 5.6% +/- 2.9%. Note the uncertainty of the water percentage. It is clear that the LCROSS scientific measurement with its ~50% uncertainty needs to be greatly refined through similar or improved LCROSS type of missions.

First of all that worse than 50% uncertainty is really an appalling level of precision that would be unacceptable on any terrestrial resource estimation.  Secondly it is one measurement and statistically meaningless.

From what we understand volatiles are added from above, we would expect therefore that they would be most common in the upper layers, not at depth, except where buried by ejecta. 

The most likely explanation is that LCROSS got lucky and hit a localised surface or near surface concentration. The reduced neutron signal from these local concentrates would be integrated into the average values detected by LEND.

I'm old enough that I might miss out on all the media noise that will someday be generated when Americans begin to seriously ask, "Who lost us the Moon?"

The Moon isn’t America’s to lose.

[HappyMartian]

LEND results are for a shallow depth of the "uppermost metre" and are about as clear as mud. If the LEND results are only good for or a meter or so depth, most likely the LCROSS results measuring an area "20 m across and 3 m deep" are much more useful and relevant.

The converse is true, the LEND results are more precise and give a good average picture for the top metre over a large area.  The implication is very clear, in the top metre of the PSRs there is nothing like 600 million tonnes of ice,  more like a few tens of thousands of ones, with an average concentration of a few tens of one percent.

The LCROSS data are point data and only pertain to that point.  We have no idea as to how representative that point data is.

As far as Lunar water is concerned, the LCROSS impact plume measured 5.6% +/- 2.9%. Note the uncertainty of the water percentage. It is clear that the LCROSS scientific measurement with its ~50% uncertainty needs to be greatly refined through similar or improved LCROSS type of missions.

First of all that worse than 50% uncertainty is really an appalling level of precision that would be unacceptable on any terrestrial resource estimation.  Secondly it is one measurement and statistically meaningless.

From what we understand volatiles are added from above, we would expect therefore that they would be most common in the upper layers, not at depth, except where buried by ejecta. 

The most likely explanation is that LCROSS got lucky and hit a localised surface or near surface concentration. The reduced neutron signal from these local concentrates would be integrated into the average values detected by LEND.

I'm old enough that I might miss out on all the media noise that will someday be generated when Americans begin to seriously ask, "Who lost us the Moon?"

The Moon isn’t America’s to lose.

I know that "The Moon isn’t America’s to lose." Make sure you make that point repeatedly to all the talking heads down the road in a few decades.

My post was long. You might have missed it.


From: Moon
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon
“Future manned missions to the Moon have been planned, including government as well as privately funded efforts. The Moon remains, under the Outer Space Treaty, free to all nations to explore for peaceful purposes.”

Also, I have repeatedly urged international space missions in my posts at this website.


Your comment, "The most likely explanation is that LCROSS got lucky and hit a localised surface or near surface concentration. The reduced neutron signal from these local concentrates would be integrated into the average values detected by LEND." doesn't seem to match Lunar reality.

Water on The Moon, I. Historical Overview  By Arlin Crotts (Columbia University)
At: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5597.pdf
"On August 9, 1976, Luna 24 launched toward the Moon on a Proton rocket, and nine days later landed safely in the southern part of the unexplored Mare Crisium. [34] Within 24 hours, it deployed a drilling rig, extracted a core sample from two meters into the Moon, stowed it in its return capsule, and blasted off again with 170 grams of lunar soil. Four days later it successfully re-entered the Earth’s atmosphere over Siberia, and the core sample was taken to Moscow intact and uncontaminated (as far as we know)."

And, "What it brought back was very special. The core sample was found by
scientists M. Akhmanova, B. Dement’ev, and M. Markov of the Vernadsky Institute of Geochemistry and Analytic Chemistry to contain about 0.1% water by mass, as seen in infrared absorption spectroscopy (at about 3 microns wavelength), at a detection level about 10 times above the threshold. The trend was for the water signal to increase looking deeper below the lunar surface.

 "The original title of their paper in the February 1978 Russian language journal Geokhimiia translates to 'Water in the regolith of Mare Crisium (Luna-24)?' and in the English language version of the journal 'Possible Water in Luna 24 Regolith
from the Sea of Crises'— but the abstract claims a detection of water
fairly definitively in the February 1978 Russian language journal Geokhimiia translates to 'Water in the regolith of Mare Crisium (Luna-24)?' and in the English language version of the journal 'Possible Water in Luna 24 Regolith from the Sea of Crises'— but the abstract claims a detection of water fairly definitively."

And, "The authors point out that the sample shows no tendency to absorb water from the air, but they were not willing to stake their reputations on an absolute statement that terrestrial contamination was completely avoided."

And, "Nonetheless, they claim to have taken every possible precaution and stress that this result must be followed up. [35] The three Soviet lunar sample return missions (Luna 16, 20 and 24) from1970 to 1976 brought back a total of 327 grams of lunar soil. The six Apollo lunar landing missions in 1969 – 1972 returned 381,700 grams of rock and soil. Apollo won the samples race. No other author has ever cited the Luna 24 work, as of this writing."

I added the bold.


Perhaps the NASA  LCROSS mission should be considered the Luna 24 followup.

Cheers!



Edited.

[Dalhousie]

Your comment, "The most likely explanation is that LCROSS got lucky and hit a localised surface or near surface concentration. The reduced neutron signal from these local concentrates would be integrated into the average values detected by LEND." doesn't seem to match Lunar reality.

My view most certainly does reflect the lunar reality.

The Luna 24 core supposedly contained 0.1% water, based on unreplicated results from one paper.  This is less than LEND discovered in the PSRs (0.2-0.4%).  It is a value unrepeated by any other lunar sampling program - Luna 16, Luna 20, the Apollo program.  If valid, these still very dry rocks.  Terrestrial granites and basalts contain three to five times as much water, rhyolites up to twenty times as much.

[Dalhousie]

One correction to an earlier post, the LEND results suggest that the PSR contain about 38 million tonnes of water spread over 11,000 km2 (0.35%), not tens of thousands of tonnes.  Apologies.