Author Topic: NASA-Funded Study on Low-Cost Public-Private Return to the Moon  (Read 52607 times)

Offline Hotblack Desiato

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
  • Austria
  • Liked: 74
  • Likes Given: 52
It is what I have said before. 10,000,000 space fans and proponents chipping in $100 a year would make a $1B/year private space program. That could buy say 4 Falcon Heavy launches and the payload for them per year. 200+ tons of stuff to grow your Lunar endeavors.

Just a simple idea:

That organisation could team up with either Netflix, Youtube Red or Amazon Prime. 10-25$ per month, depending on the stream quality, the streaming partner provides the service, the billing and so on, and the organisation provides the actual content, construction of the hardware, interviews with the staff and so on.

With 10 million customers/supporters, it should be easily possible to exceed 1B$ per year, enough to host such a program.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
The NASA study members were probably hopping the stimulus to private entities such a public private Lunar mission would result in this sort of private services competing for NASA business where NASA just buys individual services from various providers or a re-seller sells them a complete package of transport and housing with cargo support on the Lunar surface for scientific exploration.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Quote
The NASA study members were probably hoping the stimulus to private entities such a public private Lunar mission would result in this sort of private services competing for NASA business where NASA just buys individual services from various providers or a re-seller sells them a complete package of transport and housing with cargo support on the Lunar surface for scientific exploration.
NASA is not a business.
And what these study members are hoping for, has always been the case. And the only hope involved is that NASA to stop throwing a numerous wrenches into the this process which is hoped for.
Or if there is a NASA business, it is appear the long term practice of this business is to inhibit what these study members are are hoping for.

NASA assigned task is to explore space. And what NASA should be exploring in Space is the Moon. And NASA is doing just about everything imaginable other than exploring the Moon.
In terms of how NASA should explore the Moon, NASA should explore the Moon to determine if and where there is minable lunar water in the Lunar poles.

Once this exploration is done, then NASA can use this information to determine what other things NASA should explore in Space. And it seems likely to me, that after exploring the Moon to determine where and if
there is minable lunar water, that NASA should then explore Mars to determine if and where there could locations on Mars where human settlements could be viable [or most viable].

So NASA does not build lunar bases in the near term- as these are not needed to explore the Moon to determine if and where there is minable lunar water.
In terms of bases built- NASA should build bases on Mars [probably]. Because a base on Mars is needed to explore Mars.
Perhaps Europe or other countries can build bases on the Moon in order to "explore other aspects of the Moon"- once more is  known regarding whether there is minable lunar water.
Or it's certainly possible lunar bases might be needed at some point in the future. Though it's possible that instead of "a base",  a hotel on the Moon might be made for lunar tourists. And/or mining operation other than mining water may be started and bases might related to building and operating lunar telescopes or various other kinds of projects.
But NASA doesn't need to get bogged down with lunar base building or mining lunar water, in same way that NASA do not try to manage Earth's global satellite market. Or NASA lunar base building and lunar water mining would be continuation of "the business" throwing wrenches into the process.
 
Edit: Here is article somewhat related [though nothing about space exploration is mentioned in it]:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429021/secular-creationists-matt-ridleys-evolution-everything

[Oh, actually, other than this bit:
"No one, writes Ridley, anticipated that when Gutenberg made printed books affordable, increased literacy would create a market for spectacles, which would lead to improved lenses and the invention of telescopes, which would produce the discovery that the Earth orbits the sun."]

« Last Edit: 12/27/2015 07:39 pm by gbaikie »

Offline Paul451

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3553
  • Australia
  • Liked: 2518
  • Likes Given: 2180
Because a [manned] base on Mars is needed to explore Mars.

No it isn't. Putting humans on the surface is a terrible way to explore Mars.

For exactly the same reasons that it's not necessary to put a manned base on the Moon to "determine if there's minable water-ice on the Moon".

Offline QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Australia
  • Liked: 4477
  • Likes Given: 1108
Putting humans on the surface is a terrible way to explore Mars.

That's just a terrible goal.
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Because a [manned] base on Mars is needed to explore Mars.

No it isn't. Putting humans on the surface is a terrible way to explore Mars.

For exactly the same reasons that it's not necessary to put a manned base on the Moon to "determine if there's minable water-ice on the Moon".

First I am guessing you not against having humans within 2 light seconds from Mars, if so, as far as I am concerned "on Mars " can be any manned base within 5 light seconds of the Mars surface.

But I generally favor Mars manned base on the martian surface for the purpose of exploring Mars.
At this point in time, I can't say where exactly this base should be, or I think we need more robotic mission to explore Mars in order to find a site for the first manned Mars base.
And such robotic exploration for a site for a base, could include Mars moons.

Or generally speaking I think NASA should have more than one base on Mars and it seems possible that a space station or base on one of Mars moons could be the first Mars base.
But I see the purpose of all Mars exploration being related to whether Mars is suitable location for human settlements.
And at this point in time I would rule out the Mars moons as suitable location for Mars settlements- possible a location similar to Earth's moon, a location to mine and do various human activities. Or rather than possible, make that, a probable location for various kinds human activity/projects.

In terms the Moon vs Mars exploration. I think NASA exploration for minable lunar water should be limited to Lunar polar regions and within 1 meter of the lunar surface. So the Moon target of exploration is less
than 1/2 million square km and is concerned with the lunar surface.
And in terms of Mars, I have no clue what regions should be excluded from exploration, so at this point in time, 144.8 million square km and plus it's moons. Plus we should some exploration of Mars L-points- particularly 1 and 2.  And 4 and/or 5 could be useful locations for satellites which support a Mars exploration program though not sure if it's near term priority.

Finding water on Mars is an important aspect related to whether Mars can have human settlement, and this water which could be useful may be hundreds of meters below the surface. So Mars NASA exploration may be more 3 dimensional than the NASA lunar exploration for minable water.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 12:41 am by gbaikie »

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
I couldn't be bothered to go through the entire thread so this may have been addressed already.

SpaceX is currently developing a Methalox architecture, possibly replacing the Kerolox Falcons later this or early next decade.

Using Kerolox/Methalox for Earth launch and Hydrolox for in-space propulsion is bound to increase costs as two separate propulsion systems have to be developed and maintained. Relying purely on Methalox would allow for increased commonality across the board, all the way from Earth to the Moon and to Mars.

In this light, an interesting question is: could sufficient quantities of methane be mined from Lunar polar ice to sustain a cislunar architecture based solely on Methalox propellant?

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
I couldn't be bothered to go through the entire thread so this may have been addressed already.

SpaceX is currently developing a Methalox architecture, possibly replacing the Kerolox Falcons later this or early next decade.

Using Kerolox/Methalox for Earth launch and Hydrolox for in-space propulsion is bound to increase costs as two separate propulsion systems have to be developed and maintained. Relying purely on Methalox would allow for increased commonality across the board, all the way from Earth to the Moon and to Mars.

In this light, an interesting question is: could sufficient quantities of methane be mined from Lunar polar ice to sustain a cislunar architecture based solely on Methalox propellant?

"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"
http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm

"With a combination of near-infrared, ultraviolet and visible spectrometers onboard
the shepherding spacecraft, LCROSS found about 155 kilograms (342 pounds) of water
vapor and water ice were blown out of crater and detected by LCROSS. From that,
Colaprete and his team estimate that approximately 5.6 percent of the total mass
inside Cabeus crater (plus or minus 2.9 percent) could be attributed to water ice alone."
And further down in article:
"Then came the ‘much more.’ Between the LCROSS instruments, the Lunar Reconnaissance
Orbiter’s observations – and in particular the LAMP instrument (Lyman Alpha Mapping Project) –
the most abundant volatile in terms of total mass was carbon monoxide, then was water,
the hydrogen sulfide. Then was carbon dioxide, sulfur dioxide, methane, formaldehyde,
perhaps ethylene, ammonia, and even mercury and silver."
http://www.universetoday.com/76329/water-on-the-moon-and-much-much-more-latest-lcross-results/


So in terms making CH4, and assuming one is spliting water and having H2, and then combining
the H2 with Carbon monoxide [CO] gives methane. Or converting iron oxide with CO to get
CO2, then combining it with H2, one could have plenty of CH4. Or even if one just uses CH4 which exist
one might have hundred of tons of it if mining say 1000+ tons of water.

But we need the Moon to be explored to determine if and where there is minable water.
And generally it seems to me that exporting lunar water and lunar LOX could be a better
value than exporting H2 or CH4. Or the moon would a have surplus of O2 and the energy
needed to split water, would tend to make water [not split] quite cheap.
Or lunar LOX and water would more competitive with LOX or water shipped from Earth and
less competitive or not viable to be competitive with Earth launched H2 and CH4.

Or NASA mars exploration can't make lunar water mining "minable" as it's too small of a
market, with Mars settlement it's a different matter.

Edit: One should not think of Mars exploration getting much of lower cost of rocket fuel from Moon. Or lunar export will sell stuff at market value, and market value of rocket fuel will influenced by earth launched
cost and prices***. Should not expect lunar LOX to be 1/2 price of Earth shipped LOX, but even if it was, it would not effect the cost much of a NASA mars exploration program [at 1/2 price it's hundreds of millions difference compared to 100 billion dollar program- or expecting cheaper rocket fuel reduce program costs by more than 1% is unlikely to impossible].
So lunar rocket fuel is mostly about the Moon, and selling to NASA for Mars exploration probably could seen as secondary market.
But commercial lunar activity will lower NASA costs in different ways, other than significantly cheaper rocket fuel.
And a more important aspect is political support for Mars exploration- or program which should require decades of exploration would get funding: were there commercial lunar water mining on the Moon- or even if there was serious interest in investing in such commercial enterprise.

If people are mining the Moon, it does require a visionary congress to see the possibility that eventually there will be commercial interest in Mars, and particularly if congress has lobbyists of a variety commercial interest wanting Mars as part of their market.

Now with Mars settlement one has private buyers of lunar rocket fuel, and larger market size- those factors can lower prices by quite a bit. And then the prices would disconnected from Earth launch costs- assuming there is free lunar rocket fuel market in competition.

*** One factor is with lunar competition, this will add competition to earth launched rocket fuel.
Or SpaceX lower costs aren't lowering NASA cost in sense it gets low cost launcher, but it's competition to other major aerospace companies will make their higher cost "less sellable" to NASA. Or SpaceX main influence is it's effect upon entire US and global aerospace industry. So, lunar rocket fuel could be a check upon excessive price inflation and will be another driver of innovation.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 06:02 am by gbaikie »

Offline DLR

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 497
  • Liked: 20
  • Likes Given: 0
So large quantities of LCH4 could potentially be produced on the Moon ... that certainly is good news.

Fundamentally however, whether Lunar mining makes economic sense depends on a range of factors: geology, technology, launch costs and production volumes. A fully and rapidly reusable BFR could very well ruin the business case for any near-term space-based propellant mining operation, be it on the Moon or a NEA.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
So large quantities of LCH4 could potentially be produced on the Moon ... that certainly is good news.

Fundamentally however, whether Lunar mining makes economic sense depends on a range of factors: geology, technology, launch costs and production volumes. A fully and rapidly reusable BFR could very well ruin the business case for any near-term space-based propellant mining operation, be it on the Moon or a NEA.

I would say that high Earth launch costs make commercial operations of any type on the Moon harder. Or any dramatic lower of Earth launch cost makes any commercial lunar operation easier.
If one had invested 10 billion dollars and starts mining lunar water, and then one get a fast and massive lowering  of earth launch cost, the party investing 10 billion dollar at older higher launch cost, will have a degree of de-valuation of that investment. Or suddenly one could a lot competition, because competitors can now spend 5 billion rather than 10 billion and have same infrastructure.

But business is not that simple, as business is all about time and the future. So the party who spent 10 billion is in position to dominate the market- one could go public, or one merge a bigger capital investor, and in such a disaster can actually be something that ends up making a lot money. Or lose 5 and gain 50 billion in investment dollars. And one change the business plan from 100 tons a year, to 5000 tons per year.
Or the party there already on the Moon could have huge advantage, of course it could be disruptive and cause bankruptcy.
But if mining water on the Moon- the default mode is a possibility of bankruptcy due to multiple factors, and lower earth launch rate should be something one expects to happen and one plays it accordingly.
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 06:04 am by gbaikie »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
So large quantities of LCH4 could potentially be produced on the Moon ... that certainly is good news.

Fundamentally however, whether Lunar mining makes economic sense depends on a range of factors: geology, technology, launch costs and production volumes. A fully and rapidly reusable BFR could very well ruin the business case for any near-term space-based propellant mining operation, be it on the Moon or a NEA.
IMO there is a far more immediate reason why mining the moon to reach mars does not really make sense.
(a) The primary argument for Mars as a HSF destination is that it has the volatiles and other elements we need to make living there possible.
(b) The amount of volatiles needed to run your rockets far exceed what the volatiles you need for basic living requirements.

So.. if you can produce enough volatiles on the moon to reach Mars, you have just proven you don't need to go there. You have a glut of resources to begin learning how to live of the land right there on the moon, four days from earth.

Sure, Mars is big whereas the lunar poles are just patches of icy turf, but master the lunar poles and all the asteroids and beyond are yours as well, an endless field of patches of icy turf that extend from here out to the Oort cloud.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
So large quantities of LCH4 could potentially be produced on the Moon ... that certainly is good news.

Fundamentally however, whether Lunar mining makes economic sense depends on a range of factors: geology, technology, launch costs and production volumes. A fully and rapidly reusable BFR could very well ruin the business case for any near-term space-based propellant mining operation, be it on the Moon or a NEA.
IMO there is a far more immediate reason why mining the moon to reach mars does not really make sense.
(a) The primary argument for Mars as a HSF destination is that it has the volatiles and other elements we need to make living there possible.
Mars has earth levels of CO2 and water.
25 trillion tonnes of CO2 in Mars atmosphere whereas Earth has about 3 trillion tonnes CO2 in it's atmosphere [though 1000 times as much in the oceans].
Without at least 150 ppm of CO2 in earth atmosphere, plants would die and therefore Earth would not support animal life.
Quote
(b) The amount of volatiles needed to run your rockets far exceed what the volatiles you need for basic living requirements.
Not if you include farming as a basic living requirement.
In space environment where crew are shipped supplies to live, per crew in ISS one needs about 10 tons of water per year. And if crew stay at ISS 6 month, each crew uses more than 100 tons of rocket fuel getting to and from ISS. Or uses more than 100 tons of LOX per year per crew per year by the rockets to get them there and back.
But anyone living on Earth is using about 1000 tons of water or more to live for a year. Or:
"Overall, the world is using 9,087 billion cubic meters of water per year. "
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/graphic-science-how-much-water-nations-consume/
So 9 trillion tonnes for 7 billion people.
World use of rocket fuel per year is roughly about 50,000 tonnes.
Or human settlement in space is different than human space exploration.
And leaving Mars or the Moon require less rocket fuel than going from earth surface to LEO.
To start commercial lunar water mining one needs somewhere around 100 tons of water mined per year
which one need to increase to about 1000 tons per year within a decade of starting lunar water mining- to be profitable.
If the the total water mined on the Moon was around 2000 tons per year, this could support any rocket fuel NASA needs for it's Mars exploration program, and support a crazy amount use of the Moon- several bases/research/hotels, lunar telescopes, etc.
To provide support related to Mars settlements, and even more lunar activity than easy to imagine, one would need about 20,000 tonnes of lunar water mined per year. Or that would be a moon with more space launches than Earth has today.
If you want swimming pools and/or to grow crops on the Moon that kind stuff, one could  would add addition 20,000 tons or more of water needed to be mined per year. 
But this is roughly around less than 100 population on the Moon and there would high cost of water and much recycling of water. Or water could cheap in terms current value of water- it could be about $10 per kg- which is 100 to 1000 times more for water as one spends for water on Earth.

In comparison were there 100 population on Mars, water could be about $1 per kg.
If one were to get 100 population on Mars, this suggests one would "have to" have a rapid growth of population- or within 10 years one should assume a population growth resulting in a Mars population of 1000. Or if this does not happen, one could provide this as proof that Mars settlements are not viable.

Or it has to have high population growth or eventually Mars will only have ghost towns.
And a factor related having such growth is having water which is less than $1 per kg [$1000 per ton].

Within a century the moon is unlikely to have water less than $1 per kg- unless it's importing it from space- space rocks.

Now were the Moon to have water valued at around $1 per kg, one is at "a point in time" of shipping stuff off of the Moon is about $10 per kg. Or to ship solar panel from Moon to GEO should cost much less than $100 per kg- which translates into the potential of  Earth SPS as viable.
It also roughly translates into electrical power on the moon as cheap or cheaper than electrical power on Earth.

On the Moon one can easily get something which is comparable to Earth SPS.
One have network of solar power at lunar pole which provide constant electrical power from the sun, without  any need to store electrical power [though making rocket fuel is storing electrical power as chemical energy which can converted back into electrical energy- so with rocket fuel being made, one doesn't need twice or more of power plant capacity to handle the varying loads on the grid- it can be balanced easily.
So with solar alone the Moon can get as much electrical power as needed- making more electrical energy then Earthlings currently use. But the Moon is also a good place to make nuclear energy.
So with the Moon one could have electrical power at 1/2 the cost as on Earth and have water, 100 times the price on Earth. That not a great place to grow crops.
For purpose of crops, Mars can get more solar energy than earth can get for growing crops- unless Earth grow crops in the oceans. Or per acre, on Mars one can get more sunlight for crop use- because Mars doesn't have thick atmosphere and lacks clouds. Or California has best crop land in the world because it's a desert and they have cheap water to use. All of Mars could be like California, if it had a lot of water to use.
Quote
So.. if you can produce enough volatiles on the moon to reach Mars, you have just proven you don't need to go there. You have a glut of resources to begin learning how to live of the land right there on the moon, four days from earth.
The Moon is the gateway to this solar system. The Moon is Hong Kong to Earth as Hong Kong was to China and the world.
A difference is the Moon could be used to mine more iron than all iron ever mined on Earth.
Though Mercury would be better place to mine iron.
Quote
Sure, Mars is big whereas the lunar poles are just patches of icy turf, but master the lunar poles and all the asteroids and beyond are yours as well, an endless field of patches of icy turf that extend from here out to the Oort cloud.
Yes, but Mars could be good match for the moon to trade with- Mars has cheap CO2 and might have cheap water. Though in terms of cheap water the solar system has many earth oceans of water, but Mars also could good place to mine space rocks. So even if Mars doesn't have more fresh water than Earth, it could get more fresh water than Earth.
 
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 06:18 am by gbaikie »

Offline KelvinZero

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4286
  • Liked: 887
  • Likes Given: 201
Sorry gbaikie I just couldn't process most of that. You have to find a way to argue more succinctly.

You will probably feel im picking tiny elements and ignoring the rest, but there is just nothing anyone can do when faced with an infodump like that.

Quote
Not if you include farming as a basic living requirement.
In space environment where crew are shipped supplies to live, per crew in ISS one needs about 10 tons of water per year. And if crew stay at ISS 6 month, each crew uses more than 100 tons of rocket fuel getting to and from ISS. Or uses more than 100 tons of LOX per year per crew per year by the rockets to get them there and back.
But anyone living on Earth is using about 1000 tons of water or more to live for a year. Or:
"Overall, the world is using 9,087 billion cubic meters of water per year. "

I could pretty much rest my case on the above evidence. ISS: 10 tons of water, 100 tons of rocket fuel.

However, that ten ton figure is because ISS throws water away. It is not claiming to be a recycling environment. It is a bunch of research projects cobbled together. It is not converting that water into energy via E=MC2 !!!

In a properly recycling environment water usage for just living should be just leakages.

Anyway, if you master the moon you also master all those other places I mentioned before, so it is ignoring what I said to compare the resources on mars to the resources on the lunar poles.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2015 10:50 pm by KelvinZero »

Offline Steven Pietrobon

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39215
  • Adelaide, Australia
    • Steven Pietrobon's Space Archive
  • Liked: 32735
  • Likes Given: 8178
For purpose of crops, Mars can get more solar energy than earth can get for growing crops- unless Earth grow crops in the oceans. Or per acre, on Mars one can get more sunlight for crop use- because Mars doesn't have thick atmosphere and lacks clouds.

Sunlight on Mars per unit area is much less on Mars, since Mars is at about 1.6 AU, which means sunlight is about 60% less. The atmosphere on Earth doesn't reduce the amount of sunlight by that much, except in the presence of clouds. The Mars atmosphere can also greatly reduce the amount of sunlight due to dust storms.
Akin's Laws of Spacecraft Design #1:  Engineering is done with numbers.  Analysis without numbers is only an opinion.

Offline Arb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 553
  • London
  • Liked: 514
  • Likes Given: 433
Or for a grade 8-10 level explanation see http://tomatosphere.org/teachers/guide/grades-8-10/mars-agriculture

Quote
Above the Earth's atmosphere the solar irradiance is slightly more than 1300 W/m2 (1300 watts per square metre). The Earth's atmosphere is not perfectly transparent to sunlight and about one quarter of the Sun's light is absorbed or scattered before it reaches the surface.

At the Earth's surface, with the Sun directly overhead at local noon (clear dry atmosphere), the solar irradiance is reduced to about 1000 W/m2 (1000 watts per square metre). This value is highly variable depending upon such things as the amount of dust and water vapour in the atmosphere.

At local noon on Mars, with Sun directly overhead, the solar irradiance is 590W/m2 (590 watts per square metre).

All the above measurements are taken with the incident light perpendicular to the absorbing surface. Of course if the sunlight falls on the surface at an angle, less energy will be incident (per square metre) on the surface.

...

The Sun's intensity on a horizontal patch of the Earth's surface of 590W/m2 occurs when the Sun is a mere 36 degrees above the horizon.

« Last Edit: 01/01/2016 12:02 am by Arb »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
For purpose of crops, Mars can get more solar energy than earth can get for growing crops- unless Earth grow crops in the oceans. Or per acre, on Mars one can get more sunlight for crop use- because Mars doesn't have thick atmosphere and lacks clouds.

Sunlight on Mars per unit area is much less on Mars, since Mars is at about 1.6 AU, which means sunlight is about 60% less.
Correct
Quote
The atmosphere on Earth doesn't reduce the amount of sunlight by that much, except in the presence of clouds. The Mars atmosphere can also greatly reduce the amount of sunlight due to dust storms.
The atmosphere on earth doesn't reduce the amount of sunlight by much- when the sun is near zenith.
And only a small portion of earth at anytime has the sun near zenith.
When sun is near zenith with a clear sky on earth it reduces  the sunlight of 1360 watts per square meter to about 1000 watts per square meter of direct sunlight. If include direct and indirect sunlight then it's total is about 1120 watts per square meter:
"...the direct sunlight at Earth's surface when the Sun is at the zenith is about 1050 W/m2, but the total amount (direct and indirect from the atmosphere) hitting the ground is around 1120 W/m2"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight
But as I said only a small portion of earth at anytime has the sun near zenith.
Or this small portion of Earth is about 78.5 million square km of the total area of 510 million square km
of entire earth surface. Or  78.5 million square km  of the sunlit half of the Earth which is 255 million square km.
Or this area is about 1/3rd of sunlit portion of earth.
So this portion which has more intense sunlight is 3 hours [45 degrees] east, west, north and north of where the sun is at zenith on Earth. During either Equinox the zenith is at the equator, and at mid summer of northern hemisphere it's directly above the line of Tropic of Cancer. And with the winter solstice it's above the line of Capricorn.
3 hours east is 45 degrees, and 90 degrees of longitude for east and west of zenith. And north it's 45 degrees latitude, or both north and south it totals 90 degrees of latitude.
And a degree of latitude or longitude is about 111 km. Or 111 times 360 degree equals 39,960 km. And Earth's circumference is about 40,000 km.
Or the area of circle with 4995 km radius- or say 5000 km is 78.5397 million square km.
So in region further than 5000 km from the point of zenith the sun is below 45 degree at noon.
And were one at equator at the time of Equinox, 3 hours before noon and 3 hours after noon, has the sun below 45 degree above the horizon.

"The Sun's intensity on a horizontal patch of the Earth's surface of 590W/m2 occurs when the Sun is a mere 36 degrees above the horizon."

So 2/3rd of sunlit earth has 45 degrees or less.
And in terms of 36 degrees or less it's about 1/2 of the sunlit earth- or about 1/2 of which earth gets less sunlight on a clear day during a daylight than 590W/m2 - and Earth can have clouds during the daytime.

Now the level surface of Mars during the 12 hours of daylight does not get 590W/m2, but if you point at the sun one can get near this amount of sunlight during daylight.
And other than having a "southern exposure effect" crops can't be pointed at the sun, so crops are NOT going to get  590 watts per square meter for 12 hours of daylight [not going to get 7 kW hours of sunlight- whereas an array which points at the sun CAN. But there is isn't much of Earth which can get 7 kW of sunlight per average day if one is pointing an array at the sun. Or cloudy weather prevents this- so places like deserts on Earth can get this much sunlight-  regions like the southwest US, Sahara desert, and large parts of Australia, do get this much or more.  But these are a small portions of the total Earth surface, and don't have much of the world's population living in or near these areas.

Edit: I should note that plants don't need much solar flux per square meter to grow well. A 100 watts per square of sunlight [direct and/or indirect sunlight] would be enough. Or what plants need is UV and something like 10 watts per square meter of UV for indoor plants is about enough. Or growing lights don't give more more than this. Or referring back to above wiki reference:
"In terms of energy, sunlight at Earth's surface is around 52 to 55 percent infrared (above 700 nm), 42 to 43 percent visible (400 to 700 nm), and 3 to 5 percent ultraviolet (below 400 nm)."
And most earth gets of UV is 3 to 5% of 1000 watts [30 to 50 watts of UV]. And plants grow when total sunlight on Earth is less than 500 watts per square meter [15 to 25 watts UV per square meter]. Or crops grow at amazing rate in Alaska and Alaska does not get much more than 500 watts of sunlight. And UV light bulb watts is not just UV- or plants don't use all wavelength of such light bulbs- though perhaps a large percentage- depending on the type. Or LED plant light might be designed have a very high percentage usable by plants- and or course as they are highly "energy efficient" they also don't have much total watts used.
Ie: Amazon ad:
"These growing lamps emit the wavelength of light which can be fully absorbed by the plants photosynthesis; no energy waste like fluorescent lights etc. 660 and 430nm; 630 and 460nm are respectively 4 peaks of growth spectrum for maximum chlorophyII A and B production. Sources rich in red light are more efficient and beneficial for photosynthesis, best for blooming and fruit .The Chlorophyll and Carotenoid need blue much, good for the photosynthesis, best for promoting the leaf."
http://www.amazon.com/Efficient-Hydroponic-TaoTronics-Greenhouse-Combination/dp/B00GNWK2XO
« Last Edit: 01/02/2016 06:57 am by gbaikie »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
Sorry gbaikie I just couldn't process most of that. You have to find a way to argue more succinctly.
Ok. I have to start by stating your premise.
Which is, if the Moon can support human settlements, why explore Mars?
Or why not just focus on the Moon- it's got everything that is needed.

That is hard to explain succinctly.

I could say it's for political reasons. Though that's not saying anything or that is saying
everything. Everything is not in the direction of being succinct. And not anything because the whole
problem is political {it goes without saying- and applies any topic you like}.

I could say that if the Moon doesn't have commercial minable water, that I am not interested
in the Moon as destination in the near term. Or in the near term [a couple of decades], the moon would not be a gateway.

Or the point of the Moon having billions of tons of water is not important. It's only important in the sense
that indicates it's possible that the Moon has some minable water [less than 1 million tonnes of minable water is enough to make the Moon relevant].

I think it would be a bad idea for NASA to explore the Moon to determine if and where there could be lunar settlements. Though that could be almost be the same as NASA exploring the Moon to determine if and where there could be minable lunar water.
Or former is bad idea because it's going in the wrong direction.

Now it's a wrong direction because I am talking about what NASA should do, or not talking about what **people**should do- what people should do is not the issue.

Though I will say,  that it appears to me that most people do not appear to want to live on the Moon- though many might want to work on the Moon. Or if there was lunar job offers, one should not have shortage of people who want that job.

« Last Edit: 01/01/2016 08:55 pm by gbaikie »

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
A 100mt production of water from a source with 5% concentration by mass that exists only in the first 10cm of regolith depth would require a processor/digger that digs a 1m wide swath to travel at .7cm per minute or 2.5m/hr. This is using a digger processor that rolls out an umbilical that provides power and has a tube to pump back water to the storage and power facilities on the crater rim. The processor would dig up the 10cm's of regolith 1m wide process it cool it back down and then deposit it back onto the surface.

This is an example that 100mt of water mined in 1 year is not a very high rate for a small machine. Water produced is 190ml/minute so the tube in the umbilical would not have to be very large ~1cm diameter at most for low pressure levels for significant volume.

What I am saying is a single crawler processor machine can easily produce water at this rate. It is only then a matter of additional power to support more crawler processors or ones that cut a wider swath 2m, 5m or even 10m to greatly increase production over 10 years to 5000mt/year. With a fully reusable Lunar lander Xeus based on the Vulcan ACES doing 20 round trips per year carrying 100mt of prop per trip to EML2 making available 2000mt of prop/year at EML2 for interplanetary HSF missions.

All of this is probably doable (just the mining equipment and operations part) with $2.4B in investments (~$1.2 for development and exploration, and $1.2B for mining systems and deployment) spent over 15 years. At 20 years total profits have reach $2.35B on the total investments of $2.4B at a water sale price at Lunar surface of $500/kg.

Estimated price of prop (LH2/LOX) at EML2 to be $2,600/kg. Best price for prop from using a FHFT reusable at $75M per launch (15mt per launch delivered to EML2 at a time) is $5,000/kg at EML2. So the price is durable over long period possibly as long as 20 years of operations until new LV's with >1/2 the costs of $/kg or other sources (asteriods) are developed. Even then value of water and prop on Lunar surface would still be under any other competitor for possibly longer than even 20 years of operations. 10 years of operations at 5000mt/year at $500/kg price for water at a 20% profit margin is $5B in PROFIT or a revenue amount of $2.5B/year. This would not be a small company.

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1592
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
A 100mt production of water from a source with 5% concentration by mass that exists only in the first 10cm of regolith depth would require a processor/digger that digs a 1m wide swath to travel at .7cm per minute or 2.5m/hr. This is using a digger processor that rolls out an umbilical that provides power and has a tube to pump back water to the storage and power facilities on the crater rim. The processor would dig up the 10cm's of regolith 1m wide process it cool it back down and then deposit it back onto the surface.

This is an example that 100mt of water mined in 1 year is not a very high rate for a small machine. Water produced is 190ml/minute so the tube in the umbilical would not have to be very large ~1cm diameter at most for low pressure levels for significant volume.

What I am saying is a single crawler processor machine can easily produce water at this rate. It is only then a matter of additional power to support more crawler processors or ones that cut a wider swath 2m, 5m or even 10m to greatly increase production over 10 years to 5000mt/year. With a fully reusable Lunar lander Xeus based on the Vulcan ACES doing 20 round trips per year carrying 100mt of prop per trip to EML2 making available 2000mt of prop/year at EML2 for interplanetary HSF missions.

All of this is probably doable (just the mining equipment and operations part) with $2.4B in investments (~$1.2 for development and exploration, and $1.2B for mining systems and deployment) spent over 15 years. At 20 years total profits have reach $2.35B on the total investments of $2.4B at a water sale price at Lunar surface of $500/kg.

Estimated price of prop (LH2/LOX) at EML2 to be $2,600/kg. Best price for prop from using a FHFT reusable at $75M per launch (15mt per launch delivered to EML2 at a time) is $5,000/kg at EML2. So the price is durable over long period possibly as long as 20 years of operations until new LV's with >1/2 the costs of $/kg or other sources (asteriods) are developed. Even then value of water and prop on Lunar surface would still be under any other competitor for possibly longer than even 20 years of operations. 10 years of operations at 5000mt/year at $500/kg price for water at a 20% profit margin is $5B in PROFIT or a revenue amount of $2.5B/year. This would not be a small company.

I generally don't think the entire operation is done by one company. And biggest company maybe the company that sells electrical power at lunar surface. So it's either solar or nuclear- probably solar.

Offline oldAtlas_Eguy

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5304
  • Florida
  • Liked: 5005
  • Likes Given: 1444
A 100mt production of water from a source with 5% concentration by mass that exists only in the first 10cm of regolith depth would require a processor/digger that digs a 1m wide swath to travel at .7cm per minute or 2.5m/hr. This is using a digger processor that rolls out an umbilical that provides power and has a tube to pump back water to the storage and power facilities on the crater rim. The processor would dig up the 10cm's of regolith 1m wide process it cool it back down and then deposit it back onto the surface.

This is an example that 100mt of water mined in 1 year is not a very high rate for a small machine. Water produced is 190ml/minute so the tube in the umbilical would not have to be very large ~1cm diameter at most for low pressure levels for significant volume.

What I am saying is a single crawler processor machine can easily produce water at this rate. It is only then a matter of additional power to support more crawler processors or ones that cut a wider swath 2m, 5m or even 10m to greatly increase production over 10 years to 5000mt/year. With a fully reusable Lunar lander Xeus based on the Vulcan ACES doing 20 round trips per year carrying 100mt of prop per trip to EML2 making available 2000mt of prop/year at EML2 for interplanetary HSF missions.

All of this is probably doable (just the mining equipment and operations part) with $2.4B in investments (~$1.2 for development and exploration, and $1.2B for mining systems and deployment) spent over 15 years. At 20 years total profits have reach $2.35B on the total investments of $2.4B at a water sale price at Lunar surface of $500/kg.

Estimated price of prop (LH2/LOX) at EML2 to be $2,600/kg. Best price for prop from using a FHFT reusable at $75M per launch (15mt per launch delivered to EML2 at a time) is $5,000/kg at EML2. So the price is durable over long period possibly as long as 20 years of operations until new LV's with >1/2 the costs of $/kg or other sources (asteriods) are developed. Even then value of water and prop on Lunar surface would still be under any other competitor for possibly longer than even 20 years of operations. 10 years of operations at 5000mt/year at $500/kg price for water at a 20% profit margin is $5B in PROFIT or a revenue amount of $2.5B/year. This would not be a small company.

I generally don't think the entire operation is done by one company. And biggest company maybe the company that sells electrical power at lunar surface. So it's either solar or nuclear- probably solar.
The only thing this company is doing is mining and selling the water. Someone else 1) provides power, 2)store the water and 3)manufactures (splits the water) LH2/LOX. Then another transports probably a vehicle like Xeus from Lunar surface to EML2. Another provides habitats and another general supply services (food, parts, etc). That's a possible 7 companies. Not counting launch providers and EML2 infrastructure related systems and services.

The question is how much above and beyond NASA purchases of water and prop at EML2 would others (including commercial) purchase. A $1B/year budget to purchase prop at EML2 would give NASA ~400mt of prop per year or ~800mt or prop for each Mars mission every synod. This $1B purchase amount is probably toward the max NASA would be buying even after 20 years from now (year 2036). 800mt of prop at EML2 is ~ a 180mt round trip payload to Mars  low orbit. This is a large mission. For landing and return to orbit the without surface refueling the mission size shrinks a lot because of the propellant for the vehicle that lands and returns to Mars orbit. But still much larger than anything currently seen in NASA planning.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0