Author Topic: Private Moon Landing in the works?  (Read 61041 times)

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Liked: 13
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #260 on: 11/27/2012 11:37 AM »
I'm dubious of a LLO station. The moon has a very lumpy gravity field, so you can't orbit too close without needing lots of station-keeping delta v. Likewise, if you raise the orbit high enough that the lunar gravity field is smooth, you get so far that perturbations from the Earth (and Sun) again add lots of station-keeping delta v. L1 and L2 also need station-keeping, but much lower amounts of delta v. Halo orbits around L4 and L5 (or circulating between them) are the only naturally stable orbits that are close to the Moon in delta v space.


Not all Lunar orbits are unstable.


"After lowering the asteroid to a stable lunar orbit, a high-fidelity propagation was performed using Copernicus [38] and all potential perturbations for a demonstration of stability. The asteroid remained captured in lunar orbit after 20 years of simulation without any additional station-keeping as shown in
Fig. 15."
From: Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
At: http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2715
  • Liked: 13
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #261 on: 11/27/2012 12:10 PM »
There seems to be a convergence of asteroid mining and Moon missions.
And that Lunar convergence may have an influence on who is headed to the Moon and why they are going there.


"The delivery of a 500-t asteroid to lunar orbit, therefore, represents a mass amplification factor of about 28-to-1. That is, whatever mass is launched to LEO, 28 times that mass would be delivered to high lunar orbit. Longer flight times, higher power SEP systems, or a target object in a particularly favorable orbit could increase the mass amplification factor from 28-to-1 to 70-to-1 or greater."

And, "Galactic Cosmic Rays: Exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) may represent a show-stopper for human exploration in deep space [10]. The only known solution is to provide sufficient radiation shielding mass. One of the potentially earliest uses of the returned asteroid material would be for
radiation shielding against GCRs. Astronauts could cannibalize the asteroid for material to upgrade their deep space habitat with radiation shielding."

From: Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
At: http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf


Edited.
« Last Edit: 12/02/2012 10:03 AM by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8759
  • Liked: 200
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #262 on: 11/27/2012 01:15 PM »
The last couple of posts don't tell us anything about the prospects for a big near term announcement of a commercial crewed lunar landing.

Is there any new data about Golden Spike?  The Google is all over this, but most of the sources lead back to something called "NASA spaceflight.com".

« Last Edit: 11/27/2012 01:21 PM by Danderman »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Liked: 47
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #263 on: 11/27/2012 01:59 PM »
This thread is about a private moon landing in the works.  One of the questions being raised concerns GCR protection in the landing hardware.  Other questions are if the hardware aids NASA to meet its exploration goals, which then possibly would allow a government (tax payer) contribution.

The caltech study cites a paper that has been refuted in the literature:


And, "Galactic Cosmic Rays: Exposure to Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCRs) may represent a show-stopper for human exploration in deep space [10]. The only known solution is to provide sufficient radiation shielding mass.(?) One of the potentially earliest uses of the returned asteroid material would be for radiation shielding against GCRs. Astronauts could cannibalize the asteroid for material to upgrade their deep space habitat with radiation shielding."

From: Asteroid Retrieval Feasibility Study
At: http://kiss.caltech.edu/study/asteroid/asteroid_final_report.pdf


Also from the Caltech Study:

"One of the simplest but highly leveraged benefits from these resources might be the provision of bulk shielding material for future deep-space expeditions—a simple but effective countermeasure to galactic cosmic ray exposure."  (?)

Reference 10 is from 1996.  This is the paper with the classic mistake on the amount of field required to deflect GCR.   A quote from this article:
"To deflect the bulk of cosmic rays, which have energies of up to two gigaelectron-volts, requires a magnetic field 600,000 times as strong as Earth's magnetic field.  The spacecraft designers could add a second, inner ring, but the cancellation is only partial and greatly increases the complexity of the system".   Does anyone recall the units error that caused the probe to crash into mars.   ;)

So in the private moon landing, plastic has been proposed for shielding, and its not clear if regolith is also being considered.

The physics tells us that thin absorbers allow particles above a cutoff energy to pass into the shelter (which neglects most GCR energies!) and continue to be ineffective until substantial thickness is achieved (mass ~ 100 tons).

So One must abandon the concept of 'absorbing' the radiation by shielding for space travel.

In the weight trade, active systems are lighter than absorbers.  So why burden a Mars transfer vehicle with more weight, or place the crew behind rocks with no windows?

So it is not logical that a convergence in mining lunar and asteroids solves NASA's Exploration charter, nor does this private moon landing appear to have any significant benefits to NASA either.  In waiting mode.

At 1,000/kg launch cost and at least 80,000 kg need to land on the surface (=80M), it is not clear how the business case even closes for crew.  Still waiting to see the mining justification too.

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8759
  • Liked: 200
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #264 on: 11/27/2012 02:09 PM »
Since this private moon landing is allegedly planning just short forays onto the lunar surface, the last post seems to be irrelevant to the conversation.

There is no requirement for more shielding from cosmic rays for the private mission than for the Apollo landings.


« Last Edit: 11/27/2012 03:25 PM by Danderman »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Liked: 47
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #265 on: 11/27/2012 02:27 PM »
Since this private moon landing is allegedly planning just short forays onto the lunar surface, the last post seems to be irrelevant to the conversation.
There is no requirement for more shielding from cosmic rays for the private mission than for the Apollo landings.

Yes, we agree:   the repeat of the flags and footprints mission of Apollo, or IOW, the private moon landing is similar to the Constellation Missions sets:  go to the moon twice per year for 6 day lunar sorties with a crew of 6 and make no provisions to head Beyond a lunar orbit.

So best wishes to the private moon landing, but please be prepared to justify how your landing would require any taxpayer dollars, e.g. helps meets NASA's exploration needs, if it neglects GCR protection.

So I completely disagree that the post is irrelevant.   But would clearly have no objections for the police to create a topic or move the posts to the correct location.   how fair would it be to allow a post with misinformation to remain and no way to respond?

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2814
  • Liked: 382
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #266 on: 11/27/2012 02:39 PM »
Since this private moon landing is allegedly planning just short forays onto the lunar surface, the last post seems to be irrelevant to the conversation.
There is no requirement for more shielding from cosmic rays for the private mission than for the Apollo landings.

Yes, we agree:   the repeat of the flags and footprints mission of Apollo, or IOW, the private moon landing is similar to the Constellation Missions sets:  go to the moon twice per year for 6 day lunar sorties with a crew of 6 and make no provisions to head Beyond a lunar orbit.

So best wishes to the private moon landing, but please be prepared to justify how your landing would require any taxpayer dollars, e.g. helps meets NASA's exploration needs, if it neglects GCR protection.

So I completely disagree that the post is irrelevant.   But would clearly have no objections for the police to create a topic or move the posts to the correct location.   how fair would it be to allow a post with misinformation to remain and no way to respond?

no, no, and no

We don't know ANYTHING about the details of this private moon landing.  The statement about a short stay, flags and footprints, is without basis.  Are there any statements from the involved parties to the effect that they would be "similar to Constellation missions"?  No there are not.

The only thing we DO know is that this thread is titled "Private Moon Landing".  There is no evidence to support the contention that NASA money is involved.  We also  have no information on how they plan to deal with GCR. 

So yes, it IS irrelevant.  Hypothesizing without evidence and criticizing those hypothesis is useless. 

Can we wait until we have some piece of information, instead of churning on conjectures?  (I tried to get some new info but failed.)

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 690
  • Liked: 47
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #267 on: 11/27/2012 03:13 PM »
Since this private moon landing is allegedly planning just short forays onto the lunar surface, the last post seems to be irrelevant to the conversation.
There is no requirement for more shielding from cosmic rays for the private mission than for the Apollo landings.

Yes, we agree:   the repeat of the flags and footprints mission of Apollo, or IOW, the private moon landing is similar to the Constellation Missions sets:  go to the moon twice per year for 6 day lunar sorties with a crew of 6 and make no provisions to head Beyond a lunar orbit.

So best wishes to the private moon landing, but please be prepared to justify how your landing would require any taxpayer dollars, e.g. helps meets NASA's exploration needs, if it neglects GCR protection.

So I completely disagree that the post is irrelevant.   But would clearly have no objections for the police to create a topic or move the posts to the correct location.   how fair would it be to allow a post with misinformation to remain and no way to respond?

no, no, and no

We don't know ANYTHING about the details of this private moon landing.  The statement about a short stay, flags and footprints, is without basis.  Are there any statements from the involved parties to the effect that they would be "similar to Constellation missions"?  No there are not.

The only thing we DO know is that this thread is titled "Private Moon Landing".  There is no evidence to support the contention that NASA money is involved.  We also  have no information on how they plan to deal with GCR. 

So yes, it IS irrelevant.  Hypothesizing without evidence and criticizing those hypothesis is useless. 

Can we wait until we have some piece of information, instead of churning on conjectures?  (I tried to get some new info but failed.)

Returning to the original post and Chris's article from the internet.

From Chris' latest article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/

The details make direct reference to the potential use of propellant depots and fuel transfer technology.

Additional notes include a plan to park elements in lunar orbit, staging a small lunar lander that would transport two commercial astronauts to the surface for short stays.

The architecture would then grow into the company’s long-term ambitions to establish a man-tended outpost using inflatable modules.

So propellant depots would not fit the current HLV architecture, unfortunately.

A lunar orbit is not part of the L2 gateway architecture.

a man-tended outpost using inflatable modules for long-term ambitions does not address GCR.

Development of active systems for GCR was hindered by initial choice of passive shields and the incorrect evaluation that immense magnetic fields and volumes were required

It takes a significant system engineering to iterate on the correct architecture.  Providing timely feedback to everyone, and opening up the trade studies on every piece of proposed hardware is vital to successful implementation.   There are significant development efforts required for dozens of hardware elements to explore, yet.....

So i stand by my conclusion:  best wishes on the private moon landing, it just does not fit with any NASA Congressional plans, as stated in the article.  Perhaps their plan can be updated if they wish taxpayer funding--just go speak to the CDTs.   (Congressional Design Teams).

Offline Warren Platts

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Liked: 31
  • Pinedale, Wyoming
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #268 on: 11/27/2012 07:54 PM »
Hey guys! Guess what? There's a new thread all about GCR's and the problem they represent over in the Mars Missions subforum here! 8)
"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”--Leonardo Da Vinci

Online Chris Bergin

  • NSF Managing Editor
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 100159
  • Liked: 10018
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #269 on: 11/30/2012 01:14 PM »
That website (I deleted the link) is clearly some kid. The first post was a copy and paste of one of mine in L2.

He's not getting linked here and he's going to get my size 11 boot up his backside.

Offline ciscosdad

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 142
  • Liked: 2
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #270 on: 11/30/2012 09:12 PM »
You've confused me Chris. (not difficult I will admit). You are clearly not referring to Warrens new GCR thread.

??

Online Chris Bergin

  • NSF Managing Editor
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 100159
  • Liked: 10018
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #271 on: 11/30/2012 10:54 PM »
Na, some homemade blog site, clearly claiming to be running info when it looks like (actually is) he's just copying off here and other sites.

By the way, it's about to get exciting, potentially within a week.

Online Chris Bergin

  • NSF Managing Editor
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 100159
  • Liked: 10018
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #272 on: 12/01/2012 12:08 AM »
Here we go! ;D

NASAWatch with the find (they tweeted it)....

6 Dec 2012:

Golden Spike Company Debut 2:00 pm
Bloomberg Room
National Press Club Washington DC

http://press.org/events/golden-spike-company-debut

Offline Rocket Science

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4861
  • Liked: 611
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #273 on: 12/01/2012 12:29 AM »
Here we go! ;D

NASAWatch with the find (they tweeted it)....

6 Dec 2012:

Golden Spike Company Debut 2:00 pm
Bloomberg Room
National Press Club Washington DC

http://press.org/events/golden-spike-company-debut

Great stuff Chris, we’ll be on pins and needles until then! ;D
“The laws of physics are unforgiving”...
~Robert

Offline Mongo62

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 570
  • Liked: 271
« Last Edit: 12/01/2012 01:14 AM by Mongo62 »

Offline Warren Platts

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Liked: 31
  • Pinedale, Wyoming
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #275 on: 12/01/2012 01:38 AM »
National Press Club?!? Does that mean we can watch it on CSPAN?
"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”--Leonardo Da Vinci

Online arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1017
  • Liked: 239
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #276 on: 12/01/2012 02:31 AM »
National Press Club?!? Does that mean we can watch it on CSPAN?

Anyone with a few dollars can rent the National Press Club facilities.

Don't expect any coverage of [whatever this is] outside of enthusiast circles.

Offline Warren Platts

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3747
  • Liked: 31
  • Pinedale, Wyoming
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #277 on: 12/01/2012 04:56 AM »
http://goldenspikecompany.info

GoldenSpikeCompany website placeholder?

Spoof domain name registered in Romania according to NW....
« Last Edit: 12/01/2012 12:37 PM by Warren Platts »
"Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.”--Leonardo Da Vinci

Offline Nelson Bridwell

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Liked: 0
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #278 on: 12/01/2012 05:12 AM »
Ever since the nonsense flexible path "Missions to Nowhere" proposal I have been waiting for someone to wake up and realize that NASA needs a LANDER.  Glad to hear that someone might be seriously thinking about filling the gap.

However, it would make so much more sense if $18B/year NASA was the customer, rather than waiting around for another decade or two for a commercial market to materialize...

Offline sfjcody_

  • Member
  • Posts: 22
  • Liked: 0
  • Brisbane, Australia. Formerly Farnborough, UK
Re: Private Moon Landing in the works?
« Reply #279 on: 12/01/2012 05:38 AM »
Is it possible that the sight of astronauts from a small oil rich Gulf state walking on the moon could create a new 'Sputnik moment' in the US, Europe, China etc and spur these major world players into giving manned spaceflight funding a boost?
« Last Edit: 12/01/2012 05:40 AM by sfjcody_ »

Tags: