Author Topic: SpaceX for Moon Base (Read 41407 times)

MATTBLAK · « **Reply #20 on:** 07/21/2017 02:07 pm »

This is why I think the Deep Space Gateway - or at least the similar concept of it in some sort of very high lunar orbit - could really be the main arrival and departure point for most of the rest of the Solar System. I'm with Chuck on that point. Landing on and placing Outpost(s) on the Moon should be a goal in of itself - not necessarily climbing in and out of the Moon's gravity well continuously. This is why I think a 'jumping-off' point of a Space Gateway or Propellant Depot/Farm could be pretty useful.

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #21 on:** 07/21/2017 02:08 pm »

If a moonbase is going to be anymore than 6 people in government funded outpost, the moon will need to pay its way. Tourism might allow for few more permanents with regular visitors but 100s is going to need an export industry.
Selling water or rocket fuel to other government funded activities is also very limited market that can be met robotically.

I'm all for moonbases or mooncities just realist when it comes to economics. Up to now space exports have been limited to data (TV, communication, images, weather). High tech manufacturing is showing promise but even if successful may not make it out of LEO.

Energy is a massive market that space can and needs to tap into.

Darkseraph · « **Reply #22 on:** 07/21/2017 02:35 pm »

Expanding on the point about more frequent launch windows to the Moon, there are more benefits to this than economies of scale through more frequent reuse. SpaceX has a reputation for quickly iterating designs, even after accidents. Mars does not allow you iterate rapidly due to infrequent launch windows. If a mission fails or underperforms, it could take years before that technology can be attempted again with design fixes or upgrades.

The following can potentially be tested and iterated on the Moon more rapidly:

1. Methods to detect, extract and process water-ice from regolith.
2. Propellant production
3. Navigation and landing on rough terrain without the aid of GPS.
4. Tunnel Boring in a near-vacuum enviroment.
5. Autonomous retrieval of large space vehicles from uninhabited bodies.
6. Space suits and pressurized electrical vehicles.
7. Logistics of setting up a settlement on Mars in a similar environment.
8. Detection of subsurface voids (lava tunnels) and their entrances.

Obviously some techniques cannot be tested on the Moon that involve use of an atmosphere for EDL or propellant production.

wannamoonbase · « **Reply #23 on:** 07/21/2017 02:55 pm »

I think it's important to point out that for some people they think of going back to the moon or on to Mars in the Apollo Sorte style.

I think a return needs to concentrate resources and build up capability in a single area. Once something is established then you can roam and expand.

A huge advantage of the moon is being able to tele-operate equipment from earth. There would be a significant build up and placement of resources before a human foot hits the surface.

clongton · « **Reply #24 on:** 07/21/2017 03:22 pm »

Quote from: wannamoonbase on 07/21/2017 02:55 pm

A huge advantage of the moon is being able to tele-operate equipment from earth. There would be a significant build up and placement of resources before a human foot hits the surface.

The time lag of Earth/Moon is 1.3 seconds - just long enough to be aggravating for teleoperations. I would suggest that the Space Gateway station be placed at EML-2 with a communications array at EML-1. Part of the crew function at the Gateway would be global teleoperation control of robotic activities on the surface in advance of human habitation. That does not necessarily preclude human sorties on the surface in the mean time. But at least in the beginning human stay time on the surface will be limited, while properly planned robotic operations can be monitored and controlled 24/7 from the Gateway Station at EML-2. As required human intervention on the surface can supplement/enable the continuing robotic operations from a nearby location (EML-2).

savuporo · « **Reply #25 on:** 07/21/2017 03:35 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 07/21/2017 03:22 pm

The time lag of Earth/Moon is 1.3 seconds - just long enough to be aggravating for teleoperations.

There is nothing aggravating about 1.3 seconds of command lag. Predator drones have more than that, and Lunokhod did just fine with 40 y old tech

Kansan52 · « **Reply #26 on:** 07/21/2017 04:31 pm »

Moon Base
Rail gun launcher
L5 Habitat
Rest of the System

blasphemer · « **Reply #27 on:** 07/21/2017 04:45 pm »

Isnt time lag actually the round trip time? Thats what is needed to actually see a response to a command. So time lag for Moon teleoperations is 2.6 seconds.

punder · « **Reply #28 on:** 07/21/2017 04:56 pm »

I read Musk's comments with great relief. The Moon is something we can do soon, even, if it comes to it, with existing or near-term launch vehicles. But certainly there are many political monkey wrenches waiting to be thrown.

Besides water ice, the poles are the only places on the Moon where sunlight is available without interruption. Put up a tall mast and hang the arrays on it like sails, with a motor in the base to rotate the arrays continuously at 1rpM (1 revolution per Month, ha!). In 1/6 g and vacuum, the structure can be very lightweight. A really big array might be a circular arrangement of solar panels on the surface, with a 1rpM 45-degree mirror situated above. Again, at low g and with no wind, the mirror structure could be relatively insubstantial--something like beefed-up SpiderFab, with aluminized Mylar for the mirror. Like a giant ladies' compact sitting halfway open on the ground, turning like a slow-motion sunflower. My, what a lovely image.

AncientU · « **Reply #29 on:** 07/21/2017 05:26 pm »

Quote from: clongton on 07/21/2017 01:39 pm

Quote from: guckyfan on 07/21/2017 12:06 pm
A stepping stone it is not.

...
Everybody wants to go somewhere right now - especially after spending decades going round and round and round. We are ALL impatient (including me). However all these worlds have been around for a very long time and they are not going anywhere else anytime soon. Rushing things just to get it done, no matter how exciting that may be, is not the right thing to do. Plan the work and then work the plan. Take the long view. What is the most efficient (not quickest) way to spread humanity into the solar system? What is the most sustainable way to spread humanity into the solar system? Taking shortcuts and getting it done (relatively) fast is certain to doom the entire effort to failure. We need to take our time and do it right the first time.

...

emphasis mine

Appreciate you spending time to detail your thoughts... I'm sure they've had sufficient gestation over the last few decades!

One note: This is the second time. We won a race (a sprint, not a marathon) and neglected the long view -- and we are, or were, setting ourselves up to do that again at Mars. Let's not...

CuddlyRocket · « **Reply #30 on:** 07/22/2017 12:30 am »

Quote from: punder on 07/21/2017 04:56 pm

Besides water ice, the poles are the only places on the Moon where sunlight is available without interruption. Put up a tall mast and hang the arrays on it like sails, with a motor in the base to rotate the arrays continuously at 1rpM (1 revolution per Month, ha!). In 1/6 g and vacuum, the structure can be very lightweight. A really big array might be a circular arrangement of solar panels on the surface, with a 1rpM 45-degree mirror situated above.

It's probably cheaper, quicker and more reliable (no motors) to simply take up more solar cells. You can lie them on the ground and use local slopes to even things up through the lunar solar day.

Phil Stooke · « **Reply #31 on:** 07/22/2017 12:37 am »

A vertical cylinder works well too, always half illuminated whatever the solar azimuth is, and no need for motors etc.

Phil Stooke · « **Reply #32 on:** 07/22/2017 12:39 am »

"Isnt time lag actually the round trip time? Thats what is needed to actually see a response to a command. So time lag for Moon teleoperations is 2.6 seconds."

Yes... and 2.6 seconds didn't noticeably mess up Apollo communications.

oiorionsbelt · « **Reply #33 on:** 07/22/2017 02:55 am »

Quote from: CuddlyRocket on 07/22/2017 12:30 am

Quote from: punder on 07/21/2017 04:56 pm
Besides water ice, the poles are the only places on the Moon where sunlight is available without interruption. Put up a tall mast and hang the arrays on it like sails, with a motor in the base to rotate the arrays continuously at 1rpM (1 revolution per Month, ha!). In 1/6 g and vacuum, the structure can be very lightweight. A really big array might be a circular arrangement of solar panels on the surface, with a 1rpM 45-degree mirror situated above.

It's probably cheaper, quicker and more reliable (no motors) to simply take up more solar cells. You can lie them on the ground and use local slopes to even things up through the lunar solar day.

Shackelton crater

RocketmanUS · « **Reply #34 on:** 07/22/2017 03:45 am »

Quote from: sanman on 07/21/2017 08:03 am

https://www.space.com/37549-elon-musk-moon-base-mars.html

Quote
"To really get the public real fired up, I think we've got to have a base on the moon," the billionaire founder and CEO of SpaceX said today (July 19) at the 2017 International Space Station Research and Development (ISSR&D) conference in Washington, D.C.

"Having some permanent presence on another heavenly body, which would be the kind of moon base, and then getting people to Mars and beyond — that's the continuance of the dream of Apollo that I think people are really looking for," Musk told NASA ISS program manager Kirk Shireman, who interviewed him onstage at the conference.

Now that Musk has called for a Moon base to be established as part of getting humanity off-world, how will this impact SpaceX's overall roadmap into the future? It seems the Red Dragon missions are being shelved, as well as propulsive landings for Dragon in general.

If the recent creation of the US National Space Council may be leading to new plans coalescing in relation to the Moon, then is SpaceX merely reactively realigning with the way the winds (and dollars) are blowing? To what extent is Mars rocket now morphing into Moon rocket for the nearer term?

Since going to the Moon offers a distinct set of challenges compared to going to Mars, what particular issues will SpaceX most have to get a handle on, and how will they have to adjust their technology development to meet the new mission requirements?

In what ways can a Moon base help with SpaceX's long-term goals of colonizing Mars?
By pursuing a lunar agenda in near term, how much farther out does this push the SpaceX timeline for Mars?

Could Musk/SpaceX treat us to a Moon-landing/Moon-base video, just to show us what their vision for the Moon looks like?

Same launch vehicle can be used for either Lunar or Mars.

F9 could be used for Lunar with horizontal lander and in-space refueling for both lander and crew capsule.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41682.0
ITS could be used for the moon or the smaller version we may see.

ITS would be better to test land on the moon first. However with ITS both Lunar and or Mars could be possible exploration and base missions. I see ITS still being developed just a smaller version than was presented last year. A flexible path forward without having to choose between the two from who ever may fund the launcher and possible missions.

octavo · « **Reply #35 on:** 07/22/2017 05:41 am »

Here's some pure speculation: The early destruction of the giant carbon fibre test tank, the unexpected complexity of FH, and Amos 6 have all helped to convince Musk that the IAC ITS is too ambitious, even for him. I think the smaller BFR, perhaps with lined tanks is the result.

We should also remember that Musk more and more, rubs shoulders with the political elite and probably has good reasons to punt the idea of milestone based competitive contracting and the Moon in 2* talks in as many weeks.

*When he spoke to the Governors he didn't specifically talk about a moon base, but he did deliberately reference Apollo

guckyfan · « **Reply #36 on:** 07/22/2017 07:20 am »

Quote from: sanman on 07/21/2017 08:03 am

Since going to the Moon offers a distinct set of challenges compared to going to Mars, what particular issues will SpaceX most have to get a handle on, and how will they have to adjust their technology development to meet the new mission requirements?

It seems to land significant payload on the moon without surface propellant production they will need a tanker to LLO. So they need to make sure a tanker can survive LLO and earth return.

Otherwise not that much adjustment, I believe. They can land on the moon and drop cargo in a time of the lunar cycle that supports ITS thermal capability as it is. They won't develop any ground infrastructure IMO. They will leave that to others, just be the transport company. Unlike Mars where ITS will have the role of habitat for the first landing.

KelvinZero · « **Reply #37 on:** 07/22/2017 08:48 am »

Has anyone referenced Elon Musk's old moon comments? Im not sure how to find them, but I remember there were very old comments that a moon base would probably appear before a mars one. I see this not so much as a new direction as something he chose not to talk about for a while.

Pipcard · « **Reply #38 on:** 07/22/2017 09:05 am »

With all the talk of using lunar resources, what does that mean for hydrolox (if LCROSS turned out to be wrong about the apparent presence of carbon on the Moon), which SpaceX abandoned in favor of methane because of hydrolox's "PITA factor?"

blasphemer · « **Reply #39 on:** 07/22/2017 09:38 am »

In the long term, an aluminium oxygen rocket could make a lot of sense for the Moon. Both elements are very abundant on the Moon. Specific impulse is in low 200s but it this ought to be enough for a reusable lander since only 2.5 km/s is needed to get from the Moon to L1 or back.

Developing such Al-LOX reusable lander could be a worthwhile thing for NASA to do, while commercial space takes care of other things.