Author Topic: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2  (Read 43713 times)

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39381
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32976
  • Likes Given: 8572
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #80 on: 08/06/2022 07:20 am »
Mining rare metals on the Moon for profit is a very old idea.

Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline DrHeywoodFloyd

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #81 on: 08/06/2022 03:09 pm »
Mining rare metals on the Moon for profit is a very old idea.



So what...going to the Moon was thought out by Jules Verne's "From Earth to Moon" in 1865 ... the proved to be prophetic in many aspects of the later Apollo 11 mission....

Moving away from the Gee Wiz of Space and coming to the realities...for a private enterprise business operation such as Blue Origin, there is gotta be away to make a buck more than being a trucking company living from govt contract to govt contract....

If the moon is going to make a buck, mining high margin metals that are rare on earth [and for all those jokers, I am not including unobtanium, or any MCU equivalent.... so lets be real!].... certainly we can put a couple large radio telescopes on the far side from earth, but I posit it is mining that has the greatest potential to make a return on investment....

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #82 on: 08/06/2022 05:21 pm »



If the moon is going to make a buck, mining high margin metals that are rare on earth [and for all those jokers, I am not including unobtanium, or any MCU equivalent.... so lets be real!].... certainly we can put a couple large radio telescopes on the far side from earth, but I posit it is mining that has the greatest potential to make a return on investment....

Unless they can find precious metals in unusual high concentrations compared to Earth, still going need to shift through tonnes of material for few grams. Most precious metals well be from meteorites and just like on earth material is scattered over km2 after impact. . How many craters will need to be surveying before a winner is found.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2022 09:46 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #83 on: 08/07/2022 02:18 am »
My take on this...

To make space a profitable business, there will be need for a re-launcher and usable re-entry vehicle larger than any current launcher currently in development.

This may be what "New Armstrong"will be.. this will be to space, what bulk ore carriers are to shipping... moving high margin rare earths and other minerals from mining on the moon back to Earth. This thing would need to be BIG, VERY, VERY BIG, FAAARKING HUGE!

It would be launched from the ocean, and re-enter back to the ocean.....

Right now, New Glenn is what Blue Origin needs, but from this, there is a whole architecture that they know that they are not fully sharing, but dropping bread crumbs for....
Don't need large LV to return large quantities of raw materials from space. Only a heatshield and fuel both of which come from ISRU, also propulsion but this can be small high performance engines eg BE7. The BE7 power spacetug can stay space and reused multiple times.

Evolving my thoughts ... Using the Blue Origin LV naming convention as a guide... I suspect New Armstrong will be as a earth based launch vehicle ... whereas New Glenn is about shifting cargo to low earth orbit, New Armstrong will be about shifting cargo to the moon, and so as a guide the Nova Family of rockets would be a good starting point for New Armstrong...

http://www.astronautix.com/n/nova.html

Being a business, I am sure Blue Origin are thinking of how they can make the Moon a profitable business for itself and supporting the businesses in orbital around earth rather than just being a trucking company on government hand-outs from Nasa... so I posit that the business case for this LV will not be justified for at least 10-20 years ...

I suspect New Armstrong would use evolved BE-4 engines equal in performance to the Aerojet M-1 or even bigger, rather than the Russian N-1 30+ engine approach that Space X are using....

It would be big, and re-usable, but re-entering and landing into the ocean, and so handled like a ship.... It depends on the size of the cargo ...

Yet I do posit in order to make an enterprise on the Moon profitable it would be mining that would be the business case. I am not including Helium 3, as this just conjecture at present, and I do not see Fusion energy becoming practical in the next 1-20 years [as much I would like !]. It would have to be extremely rare elements such as Iridium and others that are extremely rate, but have a high value; so mining them on the moon would be economic. There would need to be processes on the moon to refine the ore, and there would be some kind of "bulk carrier" that would return the mined product back to earth ..... "Ladies you are not in Kansas! "
Assuming that the New Glenn rocket makes its maiden launch next year, it is possible that Blue Origin could market New Armstrong as a launch vehicle to carry nuclear-powered interplanetary and interstellar space probes into outer space.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37635
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21709
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #84 on: 08/07/2022 01:13 pm »

Assuming that the New Glenn rocket makes its maiden launch next year, it is possible that Blue Origin could market New Armstrong as a launch vehicle to carry nuclear-powered interplanetary and interstellar space probes into outer space.

It is possible now.  There is no need to wait. It can market New Glenn for that now.   And New Glenn flying doesn't make New Armstrong anymore viable.

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #85 on: 08/07/2022 07:19 pm »
Still don't see case for NA. For BLEO missions most of payload is fuel to get beyond LEO. The $Bs spent on NA development could be spent on Lunar ISRU fuel production.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2022 09:46 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39283
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25276
  • Likes Given: 12124
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #86 on: 08/08/2022 03:49 pm »
Still don't see case for NA. For BLEO missions most of payload is fuel to get beyond LEO. The $Bs spent on NA development could be spent on Lunar ISRU fuel production.

Fully reusable NA would be cheaper per kg than lunar propellant. Also, Bezos has enough money for both.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2022 09:46 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline TrevorMonty

Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #87 on: 08/08/2022 05:22 pm »
Still don't see case for NA. For BLEO missions most of payload is fuel to get beyond LEO. The $Bs spent on NA development could be spent on Lunar ISRU fuel production.

Fully reusable NA would be cheaper per kg than lunar propellant. Also, Bezos has enough money for both.

Why would it be cheaper. The labour cost in robotically mined lunar ISRU is few mission control staff. Compare that to NA ground crew and all launch infrastructure that requires continuous maintenance.

R&D, build and delivery costs for ISRU equipment would be similar to getting NA working reliably.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2022 09:47 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1829
  • USA
  • Liked: 1496
  • Likes Given: 2592
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #88 on: 08/08/2022 06:07 pm »
Still don't see case for NA. For BLEO missions most of payload is fuel to get beyond LEO. The $Bs spent on NA development could be spent on Lunar ISRU fuel production.


The only application for NA is to generate threads on message boards. Like starship, it can be whatever anyone wants it to be.
« Last Edit: 08/08/2022 09:47 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 580
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 618
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: New Armstrong Speculation and Discussion - Thread 2
« Reply #89 on: 08/09/2022 01:55 pm »
Until we know why Blue Origin will need New Armstrong, there is no basis to speculate on its size and configuration. Just as the Saturn V was designed around the Apollo moon landings, so will New Armstrong be designed and sized for whatever goal Blue Origin has in mind. Whatever that goal is remains the mystery to be revealed.

 

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