Moon Shot - The Next Step

[joertexas]

Okay, folks. Since I've been dragged kicking and screaming into this lunar ice mining mission thing, I thought I'd create a new thread for planning purposes...

So far, Rhys, Logan, Sam and myself, among others, have been kicking the figurative tires on this idea. We've used our Google-Fu and found that there are ideas and plans galore available to us. What we didn't have is a clearinghouse for these ideas.

Mark's original objective for PERMANENT was, and is, to establish a human presence in space outside of our governments' scientific and flag planting efforts. In short, he wants to make a difference here while opening space to human settlement.

The only way we can accomplish this is to use fuel and other materials from the moon. I ask everyone to please forward web links to one of us, or post them here, and to contribute to the discussion so we can hammer out a plan.

If you think this plan is a bad idea, then that is your opinion. However, the purpose of this thread is to advance the idea and come up with a saleable plan, not to debate the idea.

Thanks,

JR

[joertexas]

Okay, to kick things off, I'm submitting this link as something to think about:

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

There are 21 teams in the race at this time..

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

We might be able to piggy back. Perhaps not win all the x prize money ourselves. However it might get us our probe mission as we want. At a reduced flying cost.

http://astrobotictechnology.com/2010/03/15/astrobotic-announces-expanded-opportunities-to-send-payloads-to-the-moon/


In addition, some commentary from the Nasa Space Flight forum on the google x prize.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21531.0

The prize money would be nice. However I am more concerned with the state of the hydrogen at the lunar poles. As that will tell us how the next step should be accomplished.

[JohnHunt]

Great! I'm all in!

But I have a clarifying question first. You mention's Mark's objective as to establish a human presence in space. But then the two of you immediately shoot very well short of this idea by referencing very minimalistic Google Lunar xPrize missions. This is extremely far from establishing a human presence in space.

So what is this thread about? Developing a mission for:
1) how we in this forum can get our own first minimalistic moon mission?
2) all phases of a mission from the very first xPrize-like mission all the way through to a lunar human colony? or
3) a set of missions to establish a human presence on the moon presuming that we can get entities (e.g. NASA, an international consortium, commercial, etc) to fund a robust set of missions.

Let me tell you what I hope this thread to be about. I would like for it to be all about Mark's goal of establishing a permanently manned off-Earth base, I would say on the moon.

I would like for us to be initially agnostic about how we get there. We do not rule out one thing or another. It doesn't have to be 100% commercial or private. We may (and in my opinion will) develop a plan and a method of selling the idea which will win huge funding (preferably the largest funding which is NASA). I have a definite and I think practical idea of how this can be done. I would be willing to participate in developing a pay-as-you-go or commercial only design plan but I personally feel that it will be a waste of time because the plans for NASA are still up in the air and could, I believe, be directed in a productive direction and would be the fastest way to achieve our goals.

[JohnHunt]

Let me add the following resource. Paul Spudis has an excellent vision for how to return to the moon.

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/12SpudisNDU.pdf

A key point he makes is as follows:

"What is needed is an architecture that permits lunar return with the least amount of new vehicle development possible (and hence, the lowest possible cost.) Such a plan will allow concentration of effort and energy on the most important aspects of the mission: learning how to use the Moon’s resources to support space flight beyond low Earth orbit".

[joertexas]

Great! I'm all in!

But I have a clarifying question first. You mention's Mark's objective as to establish a human presence in space. But then the two of you immediately shoot very well short of this idea by referencing very minimalistic Google Lunar xPrize missions. This is extremely far from establishing a human presence in space.

So what is this thread about? Developing a mission for:
1) how we in this forum can get our own first minimalistic moon mission?
2) all phases of a mission from the very first xPrize-like mission all the way through to a lunar human colony? or
3) a set of missions to establish a human presence on the moon presuming that we can get entities (e.g. NASA, an international consortium, commercial, etc) to fund a robust set of missions.

Let me tell you what I hope this thread to be about. I would like for it to be all about Mark's goal of establishing a permanently manned off-Earth base, I would say on the moon.

I would like for us to be initially agnostic about how we get there. We do not rule out one thing or another. It doesn't have to be 100% commercial or private. We may (and in my opinion will) develop a plan and a method of selling the idea which will win huge funding (preferably the largest funding which is NASA). I have a definite and I think practical idea of how this can be done. I would be willing to participate in developing a pay-as-you-go or commercial only design plan but I personally feel that it will be a waste of time because the plans for NASA are still up in the air and could, I believe, be directed in a productive direction and would be the fastest way to achieve our goals.

Your hope is correct - I started this thread expressly to discuss any and all plans we can devise to get us to the moon, by whatever method. I mentioned the Lunar X Prize merely as a means to an end.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Great!

Is there a means to making decisions here? We all have our opinions. In a forum we can discuss ideas endlessly but how do we as a group come to conclusions? Do we need to first agree upon an overall plan and then break it down and figure out the components?

[joertexas]

Let me add the following resource. Paul Spudis has an excellent vision for how to return to the moon.

http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/12SpudisNDU.pdf

A key point he makes is as follows:

"What is needed is an architecture that permits lunar return with the least amount of new vehicle development possible (and hence, the lowest possible cost.) Such a plan will allow concentration of effort and energy on the most important aspects of the mission: learning how to use the Moon’s resources to support space flight beyond low Earth orbit".

My "aha" moment in this report came at the part where the lunar temps are in the -50C range - well within the capabilities of most materials to withstand..

JR

[JohnHunt]

OK, In order to help facilitate thus process, let me try to describe a basic outline here.

Let's say that the destination is the moon.

The end goal will be a manned base with enough capability that a couple of things are within reach: 1) the capability to support commercial activities which could be profitable and 2) providing enough of its own life support to put it within reach of being self-sustaining.

The goal is to reach this state as soon as possible working with any entities who could help us reach that goal.

The path of how to get there is open to discussion. What we are working on is to identify that path. When we figure out this path then our strategy would be to promote this plan until those with the ability to make it happen have adopted it as their own.

[JohnHunt]

Now, presuming we are agreed upon the basic outline then I'd like to begin suggesting my personal recommendations.

I think that there can be a convergence of interests and plans if we come up with a smart, inexpensive, and safe plan. I think that China's interest is national pride. They would rather see a Chinese land on the moon than be a junior partner in the US Mars mission. If the US goes to an asteroid and Mars, China will still go to the moon. Same with India. Russia wants to make money along the way.

I think that the interest of the US is to continue to lead but within a budget. So, if we show the Admin that the development of the moon can still be done cheap enough while not jeopardizing glorious things like going to an asteroid and a moon of Mars then they will go for it. They are not rejecting the moon. They think that they have to choose between the moon and these other things because Constellation was costing so much. Show them a very cheap Constellation where others are bearing much of the costs and they will come along.

Now, the interests of xPrize, SpaceX, XCOR, Masten, etc is to establish a permanent human presence in space and in a way where private companies are making a profit, hence it is sustainable. I believe that this is our motivation too.

So, I see all of this coming together if we can come up with plausible plan that is not too expensive to any entity. But, even if you have a good plan it will not necessarily be adopted. Probably we will need to get representatine. Credible representatives from each entity to buy into it and be willing to publically support it. Then we need enough official exposure to get broad acceptance.

So first we need to come up with a good plan. I believe that the plan is pretty obvious and straight forward and has been pretty well articulated by Paul Spudis. But it needs to be written up in a PR way, graphics produced, given a website, given a name, and then promoted...and soon before irreversible commitments (on the part of the US) are made.

[joertexas]

Great!

Is there a means to making decisions here? We all have our opinions. In a forum we can discuss ideas endlessly but how do we as a group come to conclusions? Do we need to first agree upon an overall plan and then break it down and figure out the components?

Any decision about the direction we take is Mark's alone. This is his forum, and I haven't heard anything from him on this subject at this moment.

JR

[joertexas]

Now, presuming we are agreed upon the basic outline then I'd like to begin suggesting my personal recommendations.

I think that there can be a convergence of interests and plans if we come up with a smart, inexpensive, and safe plan. I think that China's interest is national pride. They would rather see a Chinese land on the moon than be a junior partner in the US Mars mission. If the US goes to an asteroid and Mars, China will still go to the moon. Same with India. Russia wants to make money along the way.

I think that the interest of the US is to continue to lead but within a budget. So, if we show the Admin that the development of the moon can still be done cheap enough while not jeopardizing glorious things like going to an asteroid and a moon of Mars then they will go for it. They are not rejecting the moon. They think that they have to choose between the moon and these other things because Constellation was costing so much. Show them a very cheap Constellation where others are bearing much of the costs and they will come along.

Now, the interests of xPrize, SpaceX, XCOR, Masten, etc is to establish a permanent human presence in space and in a way where private companies are making a profit, hence it is sustainable. I believe that this is our motivation too.

So, I see all of this coming together if we can come up with plausible plan that is not too expensive to any entity. But, even if you have a good plan it will not necessarily be adopted. Probably we will need to get representatine. Credible representatives from each entity to buy into it and be willing to publically support it. Then we need enough official exposure to get broad acceptance.

So first we need to come up with a good plan. I believe that the plan is pretty obvious and straight forward and has been pretty well articulated by Paul Spudis. But it needs to be written up in a PR way, graphics produced, given a website, given a name, and then promoted...and soon before irreversible commitments (on the part of the US) are made.

I can't add anything to that summary of the issue :-)

So... a plan.

There are innumerable plans out there for lunar mining operations. How do we sort out the best plan for our needs from all the possibilities?

For all my insistence on a simple plan with basic equipment, operations in extreme conditions (vacuum, heat, cold) is fairly involved. As one example, regular lubricants are useless in vacuum. Even electric motors must be built under exacting standards to be usable in space. So, even simple solutions won't be cheap.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Any decision about the direction we take is Mark's alone. This is his forum, and I haven't heard anything from him on this subject at this moment.

Well, maybe. If what we come up with is to represent the official PERMANENT position then I would agree. And/or if what we come up with is consistent with his opinion then he presumably wouldn't mind it being PERMANENT's position. But, if we come up with a plan which he wouldn't want to be the official position of PERMANENT then I doubt that he would mind that an independent position was berthed in these forums. So, let's just move forward and Mark can participate as he sees fit.

------

Now, let me suggest that the organizing philosophy for our plan be as follows:
THE INEXPENSIVE DEVELOPMENT OF THE MOON FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. But, given the current circumstances, let me add to that our first plan be to elucidate a plan which has a shot at getting a modest amount of NASA funding to facilitate that commercial development of the moon. Here's why I say this...

SpaceX is presumably going to be launching their first Falcon 9 within a month or so. If it is successful then the idea will get a big boost that private, commercial companies can deliver for NASA at significantly less expense. That moment might be key.

That moment should be exploited to say that this demonstrates that commercial companies can help NASA achieve goals in space for low cost PROVIDED that there is the potential for eventual profit for commercial companies. So, actually NASA is leveraging its financial investments to get commercial companies to put up their own money to open up space. Just like this is (presumably) succesfully happening with LEO, likewise, NASA can facilitate the same thing for the commercial development of lunar resources for the benefit of a cis-lunar economy.

HOWEVER, NASA's facilitation cannot jeopardize the Administration's plan for a manned visit to an asteroid and martian moon. Our plan argues that BOTH can be done within budget. The way that it can be done is to ensure that Obama's manned space program is adequately funded to keep it on it's timeline. However, his goals are not at all aggressive (an asteroid visit in 15 years, visiting a martian moon within 30 years?). So there should be enough money in the interim to challenge commercial companies to deliver a variety of lunar-based projects. If NASA could spare 1 billion/year for 15-30 years imagine how much could be accomplished on the Moon. If SpaceX can open up LEO for approx. $200 million/year for 8 years then imagine what could be accomplished at 5 times this for 3 times that long especially now that LEO access is presumably getting cheaper. I could be wrong but I think that the commercialization of cis-lunar space could be accomplished at $1 billion/year.

PERMANENT does not presume NASA funding nor should we. If commercial companies don't get NASA funding then PERMANENT should have a backup plan to pursue our goals anyhow. But, if there is a chance at getting NASA funding then, hey, why not?

I feel like it is important to decide now if our plan should be constructed in such a way so as to pursue NASA funding. If we presume the availability of a billion dollars a year verses only what is available vis-a-vis requiring profit every step of the way then the plans could be totally different. Given the current NASA-commercial opportunity, I think that our first plan should seek NASA funding.

Would you agree?

[moonus111]

I don’t believe politicians and leaders (the dumbest and dimmest minds among us) are going to buy into a specific plan. Even among our own community we have differences. PERMANENT advocates for a set of specific plans, but everybody has a say and things change from time to time with new discoveries.

To get leaders on board we have to communicate simple facts to them. So simple it becomes moronic. One idea I had was to try to get Al Gore’s attention with some sort of “Space Based Power can solve Global Warming” message. The idea however has expanded a bit.

Sometime in the next 6 months I’m going to put some pages on my website with some “targets” for a campaign to inform leaders through letters, and other means. I have to come up with a better word that “target” though. The concept is to list individuals that are passionate (or at least have a public career like CEO’s) based on issues like energy, economy, global warming, etc. And include a sample letter to send to them. Obviously this will break the walls down to where non-leaders can start the babble that usually comes out with specific plans. Since SPS is a non-specific plan, it would be safe to say that multiple entities will attempt with a variety of strategies.

There is historical precedence for this in Portugal… it follows my Henry the Navigator bit. Since nobody is sure what strategy will work best, it goes to say that many must try a variety.

I’m staunchly against the specific plan concept, because it has been tried many times before and failed miserably. Most recently the Constellation Project. But in our area look at the horrible website that was the Artemis project. I joined the Moon society the other day and I feel a little vindicated that for ~15 years I avoided it….
More in depth though, if we decide to promote a specific plan, then those who are savvy can be brought out of the woodwork to point out the technical flaws. A general plan is more adaptable, and can be dumbed down so that leaders can hear it, given their lack of ability to comprehend it is better to show them only the simple facts.

Hopefully after this we will see some investment in specific plans and concepts that PERMANENT has in the play book. Once there is an established industry on the moon the sky is no longer the limit, and projects/the economy will be booming with expectations.

[JohnHunt]

Hi Logan,

I agree that any plan can't just be a matter of a lot of details. It needs an overarching concept that can survive scruitiny, objections, and even changes. For me, the overarching concept here is The Affordable Commercial Development of Space. One can argue with specific plans for how this can be accomplished but it is more difficult to say that space shouldn't be commercially developed in order to open space up to humanity in a sustainable way.

Indeed, it appears that this is an idea whose time has come. Remember that it was Bush's NASA that started COTS and it is Obama's NASA that is expanding it to crew-to-LEO. What we'd be saying is "Great! Let's take this principle and expand it to not just two limited programs but an ongoing place in NASAs programs". Specifically, let's set it as a principle that, besides what NASA is doing otherwise, that NASA is also going to facilitate US companies to ensure that we continue to lead as cis-lunar space is commercialized.

What order NASA funds different projects? Well, that can be fought out. But the principle of commercial space stands.

[Mark Prado]

Yes, the "agnostic" :) approach seems most appropriate at this time. Nonetheless, it is very useful to come up with any potentially viable looking project and program scenarios, in as much specificity as feasible.

The forum is good for covering various schools of thought and debating the direction PERMANENT should go. While I have my own vision of PERMANENT's direction and focus -- where it should and should not go -- I don't want to be dictating its direction, instead setting the general direction, assimilating inputs, encouraging some, trimming others with stated reason (and always open for appeal, albeit a lot of things I judge unrealistic being relegated to footnotes or less), and so forth.

The goal is mission plans. We don't want to be just another endless discussion forum and that be it, as that will go nowhere. We must create more structure. The forum is fine for discussing mission scenarios but is not the best structure for presenting a mission plan concisely to the general public nor for organizing its components or managing its development. We should have a summary on the website, a heirarchical outlined work breakdown structure separately, a backoffice project management system, ... and some links from those structures to forum threads on particular issues. Issues can be vetted here on the forum, then later summarized in the website structure.

Some people are partisan to the moon, some to asteroids, others to Mars and/or its moons. All have their strengths and weaknesses, and I hope to minimize my biases. Others can maintain theirs if that's what turns them on to contribute to the debate. If Christopher Columbus knew the true size of the Earth, he would never have sailed west to get to India (and would not have found "indians" and America ...). However, while passion is good for initiating creativity and pushing it forward, others can refine the missions and better define sustainable designs. Again, issues can be vetted here on the forum, then later summarized in the website structure.

The things we should pursue are:

Open source designs. Similar to Linux (which runs my servers), Firefox (beats the hell out of MS IE, indeed leads it), and some other successful open source platforms, we should have something like that for hardware useful for space missions. Having this on the internet can create synergies, stimulating designers to work together. We need a work breakdown structure. A wiki for this?

Publications database of literature, including technical literature, which is the theoretical and empirical basis of specific designs. The old PERMANENT website had this up until 1998 when the volunteer left his employer / Lotus Notes server. The world has changed alot since 1998 and proprietary IBM/Lotus Notes is practically dead, whereby the best open source standard is PHP/MySQL. A volunteer ported it to PHP/MySQL about 6 years ago though it needs some work still, I haven't been able to find him again (Brett Corbin in Australia) and I haven't done any export/import from the old Notes database to this new one (can do this later), much less picked up on the last 12 years. This will require a group effort and be open to the public for free.

Wiki -- I reviewed a whole lot of them, made a decision on the most appropriate (tradeoffs) and started it up but nobody has stepped forward to run it and develop it. This was discussed before by some peole on this forum, that we need a Wiki ... which is fine as a parallel development and an experiment at collaborative contributions, but nobody has made any contributions. We could begin a section on mission proposals for starters.

For years, I've tried to find a reliable PHP/MySQL programmer. A few have volunteered but NONE have followed up. As usual, people like to talk in email and on forums but when it comes time to do some actual work, most will flake off before doing anything at all. Talking the talk is always easier than walking the walk.

So several months ago, I started learning PHP/MySQL myself. Imagine that, the Director learning to program in the trenches. However, it is actually very useful in tweaking others' work since I can change it quicker than ask somebody else to do it, and experiment with layouts and designs, while the programmer works on the core. In the end, however, I simply don't have time to create these things, so i need a programmer for most of the work.

So, I will probably hire a programmer again. Since we've received only one small donation in the past year, it looks like paying the programmer will come out of my pocket.

I already paid a programmer to work on some of our PERMANENT databases, though I've created some myself. More on that later....

There is no one format for information to go into. It will take a combination of formats and ways of searching to find information.

In about a month, I hope to have something presentable, some structure. Then, I want people to add to it.

There is a lot of existing work out there, and it's far more productive to first organize and index this than to reinvent the wheel, so this should be the start of our work.

While there are some creative people here who can submit their own mission plans here, as a group our focus should be rebuilding the website and its links to many existing resources on the web. It's almost 10 years out of date. A lot has sprung up since then ... and a lot has died as well. (At least we're "permanent".)

And honestly, my formal involvement in the US space program (advanced planning for the Pentagon side) dates back to before the internet web (and indeed, I quit my space job to get into internet applicaitons, just went broke along the way, though turned the corner more than 5 years ago with Sam's help).

You don't see it but I've been laying the foundation for PERMANENT version 2. Please be patient for about a month, until around July 1. And mark my words here. I will probably spend about $1000 between now and then, plus have even greater "opportunity loss", but the time has come for "longterm" investment.

Likewise, I'm not keen to jump into the Google Lunar X-Prize with a half baked plan that's sugar coated, unless somebody has some real plans -- maybe our first open source design? I'd rather get back on track building on a useful, solid foundation, the underlying muscle and meat for the long haul. However, if somebody sees an application like the Google Lunar X-Prize that motivates them to do some work, I could find a way to plug that into the overall foundation and maybe something will crystallize and grow around it.

Someone suggested I chime in on this discussion, so this is it.

[joertexas]

<snip>

Likewise, I'm not keen to jump into the Google Lunar X-Prize with a half baked plan that's sugar coated, unless somebody has some real plans -- maybe our first open source design? I'd rather get back on track building on a useful, solid foundation, the underlying muscle and meat for the long haul. However, if somebody sees an application like the Google Lunar X-Prize that motivates them to do some work, I could find a way to plug that into the overall foundation and maybe something will crystallize and grow around it.

Someone suggested I chime in on this discussion, so this is it.

Thanks, Mark. Since my personal strength is in working out details, I will do my best to help fill in the outline for the best plans we can devise to get started.

I see the Xprize as a potential tool. If we can figure out a way to exploit it, we'd be foolish not to take it. If not, then we move on.

I am firmly convinced that a lunar mining operation to extract water from north polar ice, crack some of it into fuel, and make it and water available for sale in LEO is the most feasible way to make money and get things going in the near term. The first step in that process is to actually find ice on the moon and assay it accurately.

JR

[Mark Prado]

Actually, I would prefer to join up with one of the 21 current registrants rather than reinvent the wheel and start off on our own, so researching them would be the best first step. Who is willing to research all the groups and come back with an executive summary report? We could put that onto the website as an update about the different groups. Even if they are not the winner, they may be very helpful to our goals in other ways in the longterm.

If none are interested in the extra cost of going to a lunar pole, then it might be worth doing on our own registration, if we decide that the lunar polar volatiles are important enough (though I'm not convinced at this time). I have some ideas on how to ramp this up structurally, with a 2014 landing date. (I've seen a space mission done before from scratch in less than 2 years, very up close and personally.) I'd be very encouraged with JR / JoeTexas helping to start this!

At this point, the counter argument of a minimal rover to win the prize with the minimal requirements of the competition is an argument which would rule out my enthusiasm. Once the prize has been won, it's difficult to keep that amount of enthusiasm and momentum going after the HD resolution images have been sent back to the public and corporate sponsors. "Flags and footprints". Like Apollo dies -- spend more money on more of the same? The value of gaining the technology shouldn't be overhyped, as success in space is not about technology, it is about commitment.

Despite the higher cost of landing on a lunar pole, and the extra cost of acquiring and transporting extra sensor equipment to get more data on polar frozen volatiles, a polar landling should be our mission, as part of the longer program we promote.

That said, I might note that I'm not convinced that the lunar poles are a viable source of water for LEO -- though haven't ruled it out, either -- and the jury is still out on that, in my estimation. I covered my own calculations in another message on this forum.

Water is not the only thing we can export from the Moon. Not at all ...

The reason I say this is because I surely wouldn't want to base the value of a mission or lunar base on that preposition, mainly water to LEO, which would open up the whole concept to criticism based on that one point (and wrongly so). There are always lots of rational people out there who can rightly criticize such a basis, as well as egomaniacs out there wanting to make a name for themselves by an image of being smarter than the big guys by being the "devil's advocate". Therefore, I think it's important to wrap up water for sale in LEO as "one of the potential benefits", and keep a list of other benefits. Even if that doesn't pan out, the lunar polar volatiles and an eventual lunar base there are important nonetheless.

At the same time, I'm well aware of the counter arguments which have been going around by some "experts" and groups the last 30 years that we need to identify ONE product to make the plan viable and attract investment by a clearly defined plan.

While I won't go into the details of that debate here and now, I do want to state that we should promote the multiple potential benefits of a lunar polar base. Maybe a little bit of something for most everyone. It's premature to make a judgement on many things, and it's a much more complicated and less forseeable future. Maybe, in the Columbus spirit, we should call the base location Indianium or something like that. (If Columbus had known how far away the Indies really were, he would have never discovered America and "indians", but look at how important his journey was!)

We should also research how a surface probe can give us significant information which the polar probe could not, and what equipment would be worth sending on that probe, for measuring volatiles of multiple sorts, not just hydrogen or water.

It might be worth registering on our own, but before we register, I'd like to get some credible design started so it doesn't turn out to be just a short publicity stunt, more or less, and so we have a structure for people to contribute to.

Notably, this prize was announced in 2007 with a landing due date by December 2012 for 20 million, or 2014 for $15 mil. Time is running rather short for organizing this. The formal deadline for registration is the end of this year (or perhaps for switching horses).

The $ 15-20 million potential reward (if not beaten) is not a lot of payback for something like this, and we must see it as a small payment and publicity for a much longer term program which will cost a whole lot more than that.

In the times before Burt Rutan's group won the first X-Prize, people closely involved in the effort were saying that the reward, while helpful, would not cover costs and it was mainly for publicity and further fundraising. Indeed, it took years to raise the money for the X-Prize, and Rutan just waited until the money became available, then built the plane and won it.

Rutan eventually attracted the attention of Richard Branson, of course, which became Virgin Galactic .... Also, he sold the design and research data, if I recall correctly, and probably came out viable and ready for the next step rather than deep into debt, but I don't know the details of that. Branson and his businesses are rather complicated, to say the least. It would be good for somebody to research and report on that more accurately, as my statement here is off the cuff and based on hearsay (and in fact I prefer to hear multiple sides of every story before jumping to any conclusions).

Space Ship One is fine for straight up and down into space, but there are redesigns for suborbital and orbital flight, so the usefulness of Space Ship One has been debated.

Whatever we may spend our time and resources on about the Google X-Prize, it should be to lead us to utilizing lunar materials, not just sending more photos and an email from the Moon and then basking in the limelight with little more to say.

[joertexas]

We certainly need to 'run and find out' exactly what resources are available at the lunar poles. I think that the north pole would be a better choice for a first mission, since it's terrain isn't quite so rugged as the south pole.

Based on admittedly brief research, the current teams seem to be focused on landing in the mares. Since one of the X Prize goals is to find previous lunar exploration vehicles, and another is to survive the lunar night, that is reasonable of them. I will research this further...

Regardless of our success with the X Prize, I'd like to deploy a lander with several small rovers; armed with whatever survey equipment is needed to search for lunar ice, and to perform regolith assays. The idea is to gather sufficient data to plan a followup mission to extract whatever we do find.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Hi Joe,

I'm really confused here. Your first post seems to be talking about our developing a PERMANENT plan for the development of the Moon for the purposes of establishing a human presence in space. That's what I have been running with. But posts since that time seem to be discussing something far more limited which is the lunar X-Prize. So, which is it?

[JohnHunt]

Mark,

Getting off topic here but, in reply, I think that we need to be realistic about using a Wiki approach. There are only about 10 people who are active on this forum and I do think that it is fairly likely that any plan will likely be the product of a very few people. Logan points out the apparently dead state of the Artemis Project and I hope that we don't head down that path.

May I suggest that, when it comes to the big picture plan for the development of space, that we each lay out our own visions as best as we each can. Then, in this forum we debate the different visions, tweak them, and see if we can settle upon one particular vision as PERMANENT's. Perhaps you could have a benevolent veto power :). Other visions that don't become the PERMANENT vision can still be pursued and even discussed here but at least we'll have one vision which we can focus effort on.

Then, once we have a Vision, whoever wants to put a significant amount of work on any part of the Vision could do so. Probably you should serve as editor of the Vision to ensure that it makes sense as a whole.

Then at some point we need to look outside of ourselves to turn that Vision into reality. 10 people is simply not enough to make a go of it as a new company or some such thing. And, probably, no one here has the gravitis necessary with the powers-that-be. So, a big part of what we'll do is to shop the idea around to see if we can sell the Vision to some big players.

[joertexas]

Mark,

Getting off topic here but, in reply, I think that we need to be realistic about using a Wiki approach. There are only about 10 people who are active on this forum and I do think that it is fairly likely that any plan will likely be the product of a very few people. Logan points out the apparently dead state of the Artemis Project and I hope that we don't head down that path.

May I suggest that, when it comes to the big picture plan for the development of space, that we each lay out our own visions as best as we each can. Then, in this forum we debate the different visions, tweak them, and see if we can settle upon one particular vision as PERMANENT's. Perhaps you could have a benevolent veto power :). Other visions that don't become the PERMANENT vision can still be pursued and even discussed here but at least we'll have one vision which we can focus effort on.

Then, once we have a Vision, whoever wants to put a significant amount of work on any part of the Vision could do so. Probably you should serve as editor of the Vision to ensure that it makes sense as a whole.

Then at some point we need to look outside of ourselves to turn that Vision into reality. 10 people is simply not enough to make a go of it as a new company or some such thing. And, probably, no one here has the gravitis necessary with the powers-that-be. So, a big part of what we'll do is to shop the idea around to see if we can sell the Vision to some big players.

I think this is a good idea :)

JR

[JohnHunt]

Joe,

What's the purpose of this thread? Limited X-Prize concept or How to establish a permanent presence of humans in space?

May I suggest that we end this thread and open two new threads dedicated to each topic?

[Rhyshaelkan]

If everyone wishes for me to change the name then say so. Good threads get buried when we make threads for every diverging subject.

[joertexas]

Joe,

What's the purpose of this thread? Limited X-Prize concept or How to establish a permanent presence of humans in space?

May I suggest that we end this thread and open two new threads dedicated to each topic?

The purpose of this thread is to aid in developing a concrete plan to land a robotic mission at one of the lunar poles to assay likely locations for exploitable deposits of lunar ice.

This mission may or may not win one or more of the X Prizes, but it will be the lead mission in an effort to establish a lunar base. That base, in turn, will support future manned space operations.

So, the X Prize isn't even a topic. If we can win something, great. That will help us with cash and good PR. I will keep their requirements in mind, but I won't design the mission around the X Prize.

When Mark kicks off whatever he's planning to launch around July 1st, I'll chime in with the ideas I've come up with over the last week or so. My plans tend to change a lot as I learn more about the subject at hand, but I think I've come up with a decent starting point for a mission plan. I'll post it and see what happens...

JR

[joertexas]

I've been busy with moving and preparing for a car trip, so I haven't had much time to work on this.

If anyone can locate a source of small electric motors that can run in vacuum, post the link. Everything we're putting up there has to move.

Also, we need any information on topography at the lunar North Pole. IMO, the south pole is just too rough to risk a landing.

JR

[asteroid-wildcat]

Joe,

A quick Google search lead me to these electric motor manufacture sites.

http://www.empiremagnetics.com/index.htm

http://www.kollmorgen.com/website/com/eng/index.php

http://www.cedrat.com/en/technologies/actuators.html

Some things that I had not considered before. Heat is a common issue with electric motors in vacuum. The manufacturers charge an awful lot for the space rating.

[joertexas]

Joe,

A quick Google search lead me to these electric motor manufacture sites.

http://www.empiremagnetics.com/index.htm

http://www.kollmorgen.com/website/com/eng/index.php

http://www.cedrat.com/en/technologies/actuators.html

Some things that I had not considered before. Heat is a common issue with electric motors in vacuum. The manufacturers charge an awful lot for the space rating.

This is true. Other issues in space are: radiation exposure, temperature extremes, outgassing, sublimation of lubricants, and arcing. The motors are very specialized for these applications.

JR

[joertexas]

After some research, I think that the eastern rim of Hinshelwood crater looks like the best landing site. So far, I haven't found any close-up images or maps of this area of the moon. If anyone has a source for good high resolution images or maps of this area, please post them.

JR

[JohnHunt]

If anyone has a source for good high resolution images or maps of this area, please post them.

Here (http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/431341main_CPR20map20North20pole.jpg)'s a large picture but it frustratingly lacks the north pole exactly. I think that these pictures (http://the-moon.wikispaces.com/North+Pole) are about the best that you're going to get.

Joe, how confident are you that there is water ice on the north pole. I'm getting conflicting reports about the south pole. The impactor kicked up water but in pretty small amounts. I have been told that it is anywhere from very low (non-mineable quantities) to 5-10%. This account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6061984.stm) quotes Dr. Spudis as indicating that there is not necessary slabs of water ice at the south pole.

[joertexas]

Joe, how confident are you that there is water ice on the north pole. I'm getting conflicting reports about the south pole. The impactor kicked up water but in pretty small amounts. I have been told that it is anywhere from very low (non-mineable quantities) to 5-10%. This account (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6061984.stm) quotes Dr. Spudis as indicating that there is not necessary slabs of water ice at the south pole.

Well, I'm about as confident as one can get from a quarter million miles away. The LRO's radar isn't definitive proof, but I'm familiar with the circular polarization scheme they are using, at least from a user's perspective. I'd say that, between all the instruments' readings and the results of the LCROSS mission, we have a better than even chance of finding water ice. I'd be surprised to find slabs - given the probability that the ice was scattered from asteroid impacts, small granules would be more likely found.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Once again, this is why a rover needs to be sent to get first hand information. A rover will establish what plan to take to get lunar access.

This page here (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/Mini-RF/multimedia/feature_ice_like_deposits.html) states that there is 600 million tons of water ice at the north pole. It would be the key to making it all happen.

Someone likened that much water/hydrogen, to launching one space shuttle a day for the next 2000 years.

[joertexas]

Once again, this is why a rover needs to be sent to get first hand information. A rover will establish what plan to take to get lunar access.

Which reminds me - I need to get back on that lunar backhoe design. If anyone wants to help with the rovers, Rhy and I are using 3D Canvas from www.amabilis.com and emailing the files back and forth. If anyone else is interested in the lunar rovers mission, contact me and I'll send you the relevant files.

*** The only caveat is... DON"T SHOW MY DRAWINGS TO RARES. I'd hate to lose him because he fell down laughing and hurt himself :D

Seriously, I'm no artist, but the program lets me manipulate solid shapes and figure out the designs I want. Once we get some good designs hammered out, then we can maybe ask Rares to make some renderings.

Of course, I will be happy to send Rares the files, too. Now, where did I put that liability waiver... ;)

JR

[joertexas]

Okay. folks, I think I've found some LRO images of the proposed landing area on the ridge between Hinshelwood and Peary craters:

http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-3-CDR-V1.0/M101425493LC

If my map skills are correct, Hinshelwood is at the bottom of this strip,and

http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-3-CDR-V1.0/M103751935LC

right in the middle of this strip. Look for the crater with the very brightly illuminated rim. The large, dark crater to the right is Hinshelwood. Both of these pics were taken in the summer. If you look "down" and a bit right of the above mentioned crater, there is a well lit area that seems to have few craters, and would be a good place to land and set up a solar array.

I'm not sure about scale of the pics, but this is a good start.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Solid work finding those images. I took the liberty of suggesting a landing spot.

Here were my criteria for a landing spot:
#1 - The landing spot should be visible.
#2 - It shouldn't be on a slope but at flat as possible.
#3 - There shouldn't be too many nearby craters.
#4 - It should be easily, visibly recognizable.
#5 - It should not be too far from Hinshelwood Crater (<1 km)

-------

Visible - Simply, the landing site shouldn't be where it is dark (e.g. within a crater)

Slope - Since the sun is coming at a glancing angle, I presume that those areas which are darkish were less on a slope.

Nearby Craters - Landing on the rim of Hinschelwood itself might not be safe enough. Overshooting a bit and that's the end of you. So, if you look at the picture I have attached, you will see that there are no large craters immediately at the landing site although there are some to the "East"? a bit. Interestingly it seems as though the places which have the least craters also tend to be on slopes.

Easily Recognizable - There are some nearby irregularly shaped shadow areas. The landing site itself is near one of two dark spots.

Near Hirshelwood - The landing site is something like 0.8 km from the rim of Hirshelwood Crater.

[Rhyshaelkan]

Two ways to attack the craters. Battery power, as the craters will be in full shadow. Recharging at the lander. Or an extension cord, allowing the bot to keep a relatively toasty 0ºC, and maintain motive functions while in shadow.

Possible difficulties of battery power.

1. Running out of power before getting back to the lander.
2. Weight.
3. Design and cost of batteries.

Possible difficulties of extension cord.

1. Limited range.
2. Cord wear as it is drawn across the lunar landscape. Or wear as it is spooled in and out of its holder.
3. Lunar dust possibly binding the coiling device.
4. Cord management. Getting the cord hung up on a stone.

If some would like to make additions to the list or solutions to problems. Or Pros of either method. Please feel free to continue the discussion.

[JohnHunt]

Actually, my previous post re: a landing site was done thinking of a manned craft. If the craft were an initial prospector then it would be entirely robotic - perhaps a hopper - and so the landing location might be based upon being on the high ground or some other criteria.

[JohnHunt]

Could there be the option of beamed power from the lander such as power transmission via laser or microwave beam? That way, if the rover ran out of power before getting all the way back, it could still receive enough power so long as it was within visible range.

[joertexas]

The landing spot I picked was in the brightest area on the crater rim, down and right in the photo (which would be northeast) from that smaller crater with the brightly lit rim.

My reasoning is that it looked to have the fewest craters, and it's up in the light where the solar panels will work the best. Another issue is we have to maintain LOS to earth for communications.

However, I'm still looking for topographic maps of this area. These pics are still fairly large scale (1/64" = 3.24 meters), so I'd like to get a better look at the area before making a decision.

JR

[joertexas]

Two ways to attack the craters. Battery power, as the craters will be in full shadow. Recharging at the lander. Or an extension cord, allowing the bot to keep a relatively toasty 0ºC, and maintain motive functions while in shadow.

Possible difficulties of battery power.

1. Running out of power before getting back to the lander.
2. Weight.
3. Design and cost of batteries.

Possible difficulties of extension cord.

1. Limited range.
2. Cord wear as it is drawn across the lunar landscape. Or wear as it is spooled in and out of its holder.
3. Lunar dust possibly binding the coiling device.
4. Cord management. Getting the cord hung up on a stone.

If some would like to make additions to the list or solutions to problems. Or Pros of either method. Please feel free to continue the discussion.

Well, if we had the F9H to work with, the power situation would be better (Thanks to Sam for shooting us down on that :P)

But, we can still get about 4 amps at 220v out to a kilometer from the solar panels. I think that we can manage the cord well enough with a small rover or two to keep an eye on it, and good insulation to protect the conductors from damage.

JR

[JohnHunt]

I think that we can manage the cord well enough with a small rover or two to keep an eye on it

Boy, I just don't know about an extension cord. Wouldn't there be frequent problems on a return trip with a loop of extension cord getting snagged on a rock? I suppose it could follow directly back the way that it came and that the lander pulls the cord taught each step of the way. Or that second rover could undo any snags but they had better not both get snagged at the same time. I think that I'd rather just make sure that no trip is done beyond battery capacity.

Well, now this has me thinking. What if an extension cord is laid down as though it were a highway along a common route? The rover drives along it, connects to it at the point, fully charging just before it leaves that route. Then it comes back anywhere along that route, recharges and drives back to base long that route.

[joertexas]

My reasoning for using a power cord is that the backhoe rover will need mre power than batteries can supply when it's working in the crater looking for ice. We will need lights, heaters, and a lot of time on the hydraulics to get the work done. The backhoe can't be expected to run back and forth to charge its batteries.

There are a lot of issues with this approach, but I can't think of another way to supply a lot of power without a lot of weight. Fuel cells are a possiblity, but I haven't explored that option yet, since solar panels and wire seems to be the simplest answer.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

I am for the power cord option as opposed to beamed power, due it its complexity. All I have to do is look up a chart to know how much wattage can be pushed down X power cord. Microwave transmitted and received power, not so much.

While microwave transmission does work. The very reason why our SPSs are based on it. It is much less common. However if it can be shown "this aperture can beam Z power, and this aperture can receive W power"... but then also comes in weight and cost.

Having been on the end of an umbilical before for diver's training. Cable management is required. But with proper care shown, it is a non issue. If that requires both forward and rearward looking optics. To see where we are going and where we have been at the same time. Then that is something that we might have to do. Write up some driving procedure for the bot pilots to avoid entanglements.

*shrugs*

Since this is the concept stage. Think of what can go wrong. Think about what needs to be done to make it right. For wireless power transmission, batteries, and cords. Then see which can be feasibly done at the lowest cost/weight. Voila! It does not have to be rocket science =)

[joertexas]

Since this is the concept stage. Think of what can go wrong. Think about what needs to be done to make it right. For wireless power transmission, batteries, and cords. Then see which can be feasibly done at the lowest cost/weight. Voila! It does not have to be rocket science =)


We will also have several small bots - cameras on wheels - available to keep an eye on things. The trick will be figuring out how to get the backhoe into the areas where we suspect the ice is hiding.

So far, I haven't found any good closeup images of the proposed landing area. More data is being released all the time, and the search website actually makes sense to me now ;) So, we don't know the lay of the land there with any certainty.

Carrying more than a km of cable won't do any good, no matter how much power is available on the other end. For those of you who wish to research it further, I'm planning for 1,875W of power from the solar panel array. If we step up the voltage to 480V, that gives us (1875W/480V) 3.9A of power available. A 3 conductor cable of #12 aluminum wire weighs 26.79kg per km, exclusive of the insulating material. According to accepted practices http://www.electrician2.com/calculators/wireocpd_ver_1.html

we end up with 331V, or 1292W, at the other end, a loss of 30.9%.

Even if we had more power available, we really don't have the payload capacity to carry more cable. Our payload breaks down as follows:

Scout Rovers (4 ) 20kg
Comms Relay Rover 20kg
Digger Rover 200kg
Solar Panel System 50kg
Misc Mechanical 41kg

Totals 331kg

The "Misc Mechanical" entry is for the cable and reel. The weight for the scout rovers also includes the battery chargers to keep them running. The solar panel system is a small trailer with a folding arrays that will be towed into position by the backhoe. The lander itself will have 1,000W of power available from its own panels, plus batteries of the same capacity.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Perhaps when better resolution of the landing site comes online we can find a place to touch down that would not require such a long power cable. Shame aluminum is not as good a conductor as copper, but copper weighs so much more.

Third option is fuel-cells. However that would require the bot to return to the lander, off load its water. Then the lander would have to have the cracking and pressurizing equipment to return the water to a state usable by the fuel-cells.

If the fuel-cell route was desired both the lander and backhoe could launch with a full charge of hydrogen and oxygen. Then the rover burns its fuel to a point where it must return to the lander. Off load the water generated by the fuel-cell. Then take on a new charge of hydrogen and oxygen than the lander has ready. While the backhoe continues its work the lander can crack and store a the new charge.

But that would require the lander to have the solar power necessary to perform those cracking and pressurizing functions in a timely manner based on how long the rover can last on a charge of fuel. As well as the cracking and pressurizing equipment and storage.

Some pros for the fuel-cell system include:

No cable to get tangled up. No cable to get dusty. No spooling required. No cable to get damaged and short out.

Cons for the fuel-cell system:

More equipment on the lander. Limited time cycles for the backhoe to work. Loss of fuel when water is off loaded. Loss of hydrogen and oxygen when taken aboard the backhoe. Engineering can keep these losses minimal. But loss will still be there.

here (http://horizonfuelcell.com/store/h1000.htm) is a possible "off the shelf" fuel-cell that would suit our needs. Not sure about it being vacuum ready. It also runs on hydrogen and air, so performance might even be improved with burning 100% H2 and O2. A benefit is it will generate heat. Keeping the bot comfortable in the cold craters.

Just trying to outline the options available to us.

[JohnHunt]

Joe, You have given us some ideas as to what you are thinking about but I'm hoping to get more. Although all plans are tentative now, can you lay out in summary form what this prospecting mission might look like front to end?

For example:
- launcher,
- how cis-lunar space would be traversed,
- how to land on the north pole,
- what/who's lander,
- how many kg payload delivered to the lunar surface,
- what are all of the components of the lunar surface equipment

Re: Strategies:
- If we're making the effort to go all the way to the Moon, might we want to be able to sample multiple shadowed craters? Might a hopper serve our needs better?
- If what we're interested in is the concentration of H2O in samples, might it be better to have the analyzer on the moving rover so as to cut the total travel distance in half?
- We probably don't need a sample return since the H2O concentration (and maybe other volatiles) assay can be done either on the lander, hopper, or rover. But, if water is being brought back to the lander, and maybe it is being cracked already for a fuel cell, then might enough cryogenic fuel be produced to allow for takeoff from the lunar surface and maybe even to a fiery death (or better yet aerocapture) to demonstrate that returning lunar water fuel to LEO is doable hence setting the stage for follow-on ventures such as Sustainable Space Development (SSD)? In other words, this isn't just an interesting science project, it is a prospecting venture in preparation for industrial mining of lunar resources.

[JohnHunt]

One more thing...

The lunar water ice that we might come across might be a percentage of the lunar regolith or slabs of ice. If slabs of ice then a backhoe might have difficulty extracting it. Should we have two ways of sampling ice (e.g. a backhoe and a core drill). Speaking of a core drill, might we want to be sampling well below the regolith surface?

[joertexas]

The mission will go something like this:

Launch with a single Falcon 9, with a direct insertion into a translunar injection orbit. The flight will take about 4-5 days. The spacecraft stack will consist of a lander and an orbiter. Upon arrival at the moon, the orbiter's engine will fire and insert the stack into a polar Low Lunar Orbit (LLO).

The lander will separate from the orbiter and retrofire for descent to the lunar surface. The landing will be accomplished somewhere along the ridge we've discussed, ensuring that the location is within line of sight to earth, and is within sight of the orbiter for communications relay if needed. We can scout the landing area before descent begins using cameras on the lander. The lander will have to be capable of an autonomous landing, since the 3+ second communications delay makes remote landing command difficult, if not impossible.

The lander will deliver 331kg of cargo to the lunar surface, consisting of four scout rovers, a communications relay rover, a lunar backhoe, and a towed solar panel array. The lander will have its own solar panels, cameras and communications equipment to support the rovers. At this time, no high level autonomous functions are planned for the rovers, since they can be teleoperated.

While on the surface, we will operate the rovers for as long as we can, gathering information about the surrounding area. The lander will have a limited amount of fuel, but there should be enough reserve for one or two short hops.

The assay test for water is, of course, the main reason for the mission, so I'd like to include the test equipment on the backhoe. However, the lander will be fueled by dinitrogen tetroxide and hydrazine to save weight and reduce the complexity of the engine assembly, so we won't be able to refuel it from lunar resources.

The point of this mission is to find water ice. Other objectives are to possibly find more deposits, and to accurately map the area for a follow-on mission. Hopefully, we will accomplish these goals in time to win a Google X-Prize, but that is strictly a tertiary concern.

JR

[joertexas]

One more thing...

The lunar water ice that we might come across might be a percentage of the lunar regolith or slabs of ice. If slabs of ice then a backhoe might have difficulty extracting it. Should we have two ways of sampling ice (e.g. a backhoe and a core drill). Speaking of a core drill, might we want to be sampling well below the regolith surface?

Rhy came up with the idea of using a small jackhammer attachment to sample hard ice, but I think that the ice will be in fine powder form. We haven't gotten that far in the design process, though.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Yes, if the surface of Luna is any clue. I do think the water-ice will be quite crushed. As each of those micro-meteor impacts would generate some slight heating. We might run into crushed/fluffy/crusty re-frozen ice. While we might not have ice sheets. We might still have to grind our way through to mine the ice. In my opinion I think we should forgo the jackhammer. It will add weight with, most likely, little gain. The backhoe should at least be able to scrape the slab ice, enough for a sampling. We will just give it some nice sharp teeth ;)

We might want the backhoe able to flip its head to lift up rather than dig down. Not sure if the backhoe will have enough mass to dig down without lifting itself up in the light lunar gravity. So an upwards scraping motion might be a better way to chew through the water-ice crust.

All in theory though. We will know when we get there. All in all, the more things we try to plan for will save us from possible headaches later.

As for the hops to new locations. Those can be automated too. 1. this is where we are. 2. This is where we are going. 3. This is the terrain to follow to go from point A to point B. Not unlike a cruise missile's programming.

[joertexas]

We could have the backhoe load itself with regolith and rocks for ballast so it can dig better. The hoppers could use simple spring loaded mechanisms to dump the material when it's no longer needed.

Although the technology for autonomous operations is certainly within reach, we would need much better maps of the proposed landing areas to permit such operations. Read the account of the Apollo 11 landing.. ;)

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Yup I remember the Apollo 11 account. Almost going down in a crater.

[joertexas]

Yup I remember the Apollo 11 account. Almost going down in a crater.

I don't know about the crater, but I do remember Armstrong talking about dodging boulders as big as cars...

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

From what I recall. They were targeted to come down in a rough crater. So Armstrong took manual control to set them down safely. With just seconds of spare fuel left. Heroic stuff, heh.

[joertexas]

From what I recall. They were targeted to come down in a rough crater. So Armstrong took manual control to set them down safely. With just seconds of spare fuel left. Heroic stuff, heh.

Armstrong was a test pilot. After having to eject from the Flying Bedstead (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Bedstead), the Eagle landing was a walk in the park :)

I think I've found our small lunar rovers. Add a camera, lights, and space rated electronics, this design should work just fine:

http://www.rc-truckncar-tuning.com/rccrawler.html

The motors for all our toys can be had here:

http://www.empiremagnetics.com/

The prices for the motors are hideous, but they apparently will work, and the company has the expertise to properly engineer them for our applications.

Addendum: And here (http://www.casconpump.com/pdfs/CS-459.pdf) is an example of a space rated hydraulic pump, using mineral oil of all things..

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Even as expensive as they are. They would be "off the shelf". So we would not have to design the whole thing from scratch. Save a bundle that way. They even have volume pricing to lower the costs further.

Eventually we will have to come up with our own processes if we ever want to make astro-industry happen.

[joertexas]

Even as expensive as they are. They would be "off the shelf". So we would not have to design the whole thing from scratch. Save a bundle that way. They even have volume pricing to lower the costs further.

Eventually we will have to come up with our own processes if we ever want to make astro-industry happen.

The problem we have now is that everything has to be specially engineered for the missions, and there is no room for failure. Imagine how expensive your car would be if it had to run for 100,000 miles right out of the factory with no tuneups, maintenance, or fuel stops..

JR

[joertexas]

I visited a local hobby shop Sunday on an unrelated errand, and lo and behold, they had a rock crawler out on the counter. The particular vehicle I examined had a fair amount of plastic parts, but it seemed to be a solid design for the small rovers.

I was able to hold one axle down on the table, and twist the other axle 90 degrees in either direction. The machine's mobility has to be seen to be believed. Of course, we would have to first select a design with all metal parts, then ensure that everything on the vehicle is space rated.

There is a larger version of the crawler that could serve as the communications relay robot. Since the gravity is much lower, the machines can handle more weight on the moon than they can here.

JR

[Rhyshaelkan]

Anything particularly wrong with using plastics in space? Are you worrying about the +250 temps or the -250 temps or both ;)

[joertexas]

Anything particularly wrong with using plastics in space? Are you worrying about the +250 temps or the -250 temps or both ;)

I'm hoping that the rovers won't have to put up with those extremes. The lander's cargo box should be able to maintain more moderate temps during the trip, and the polar envrionment isn't supposed to be that severe in sunlit areas. Still, I'd like to have the most temperature insensitive materials we can reasonably provide for the mission.

JR

[joertexas]

Okay, I've worked out some tentative mass and power budgets for the rovers. Finding the rock crawlers really solved a lot of engineering headaches, and the backhoe is beginning to take shape.

The solar panel array is next on the list for rough-in, and, in some especially good news, I have enlisted my friend Vanessa's help for the lander design. Her schedule doesn't permit her much free time, but she has graciously agreed to work on the design as her time permits.

So, the orbiter's rough design is complete, as is the design for the small rovers. The lander and backhoe designs are in progress, and the solar array is yet to be started.

The landing site depicted on the images I posted here is actually northeast of Hinshelwood, but it still seems to be a good place to land. I found another LROC image of the northeast rim of Hinshelwood, and it looks pretty good, too. Of course, the final landing site won't be selected until we have imagery in hand from our own orbiter.

Once the basic designs are all complete, then we can incorporate that into a business proposal for the mission.

JR

[JohnHunt]

Wow, great progress. Does the mission have a name?

[joertexas]

Wow, great progress. Does the mission have a name?

No, that part of the plan falls on you and Logan :D

Seriously, I have no clue what to call it.

JR

[JohnHunt]

There is a similar discussion over at the forum at NASASpaceFlight.com I found it interesting that they are talking not just about assaying lunar water ice but also more broadly characterizing the subsurface

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21652.10;wap2

There is one other way to characterize the subsurface that wouldn't require drilling: seismic survey. Deploy an array of geophones, then call in KelvinZero's air strike. The geophones in the oil and gas industry are called "jugs"; they have a little spike on the end; they're connected by a wire, and they pay someone, the "jug stomper" to plant the spike in the ground, and then stomp on the geophone. However, if you skipped the spikes, and just laid them on the lunar crater floor, it would work just fine. To deploy them, have a couple of mortar-like tubes on either side of the lander. An explosive charge would shoot out the wire and geophone array on each side. So you could deploy a hundred meter array, and probably still stay within your 60 kg limit. Even if the array was only 10 meters wide, it would still generate useful information. Then to generate the vibrations, either call in the air strike, or bring along a few grenades, and fling them a safe distance away.

[JohnHunt]

Joe mentioned earlier about the solar panel system being at 50kg.

The following article is titled: Solar-cell arrays in space to deliver 200 watts/kg.

http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=974836

If 90% of the solar panel system were solar panels then this would give 9,000 watts.

The Spirit and Opportunity rovers require about 100 watts each just to move, although I understand that they move more slowly than we'd probably want.

Also, what about thin mirrors located in sunlight on high points which direct sunlight to panels which are located in the crater. This could be a light weight way of beaming energy.

Also, at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover

the rovers' power supplies hovered between 300 watt-hours and 900 watt-hours per day

Joe, Why did you choose 331 kg for the total mass of the system. In a previous discussion Elon Musk indicated that he could deliver 1,000 kg to the lunar surface for $80 million.

[joertexas]

Joe mentioned earlier about the solar panel system being at 50kg. The following article is titled: Solar-cell arrays in space to deliver 200 watts/kg. If 90% of the solar panel system were solar panels then this would give 9,000 watts.

Standard solar panels produce about 50W/kg, according to the research I've done. If these new panels are available, I'll be delighted to use them.

The Spirit and Opportunity rovers require about 100 watts each just to move, although I understand that they move more slowly than we'd probably want.

The backhoe's energy budget is about 1kW at the moment. The heaters and hydraulic pumps will use the lion's share of that while the machine is digging.

Also, what about thin mirrors located in sunlight on high points which direct sunlight to panels which are located in the crater. This could be a light weight way of beaming energy.

I'm planning to use lithium ion battery packs to power the rovers. They're simple and rugged - and proven tech.

Joe, Why did you choose 331 kg for the total mass of the system. In a previous discussion Elon Musk indicated that he could deliver 1,000 kg to the lunar surface for $80 million.

According to Jaqar's orbit calculation software, the Falcon 9 can throw 1,973kg into a translunar injection orbit. After that, the mission Dv budget is 3.223 km/s, including braking into a low lunar orbit, landing and a fuel reserve. Now, I am using 100kg of cargo capacity to provide us a orbiter, but that still puts a little over 330 kg (current figure) on the surface.

Musk may have been contemplating a Falcon 9 Heavy mission. It certainly can put 1,000kg on the lunar surface (barely), and the price has drifted up to $95M for a launch.

JR

[JohnHunt]

The backhoe's energy budget is about 1kW at the moment.
Where do U get info for such requirements. Did U get that from the Phoenix lander news?

Musk may have been contemplating a Falcon 9 Heavy mission. It certainly can put 1,000kg on the lunar surface (barely), and the price has drifted up to $95M for a launch.
Musk has gone on record saying that he would sell Falcon flights to any Google Lunar X-Prize contender "at cost". No idea what that might actually mean but it's a hopeful sign that maybe we could get an F9 for less than the stated price even if we can't accomplish the prospecting mission in time.

[joertexas]

Where do U get info for such requirements. Did U get that from the Phoenix lander news?

No, I've been researching all sorts of space missions, and checking their numbers against information from manufacturers and other sources about the relevant equipment. I'm also a certified aircraft mechanic, so I know something of how these machines are put together.


Musk has gone on record saying that he would sell Falcon flights to any Google Lunar X-Prize contender "at cost". No idea what that might actually mean but it's a hopeful sign that maybe we could get an F9 for less than the stated price even if we can't accomplish the prospecting mission in time.

I sure plan to find out what he meant. The going rate for a Falcon 9 launch is $56M, and who knows what it will be when we're ready to fly. I'll take any discount I can get, and you can bet I'll ask. That's why this planning session is important - we need to get a viable plan hammered out and put into circulation.

JR

[moonus111]

Okay, so this project appears to be quickly approaching the stage where my skills would be of service. I'm willing to help if we want to build a promotional website about the project.

Whatever we do though, we have to plaster permanent all over it, you know to show team pride!

[joertexas]

Okay, so this project appears to be quickly approaching the stage where my skills would be of service. I'm willing to help if we want to build a promotional website about the project.

Whatever we do though, we have to plaster permanent all over it, you know to show team pride!

What would you need from the design team to make the promotional website? I have some basic 3-D renderings of the lander, the orbiter, and a parts breakdown of the backhoe. The solar panels trailer is still pending basic design layout.

If Rares is available, he does excellent work, and I'm sure he could make something good from my drawings.

The rock crawlers are featured on YouTube, and I plan to use a 1/10 scale version for the scouts, and a 1/5 version for the comms rover.

JR

[joertexas]

Okay, I've posted pictures of the lunar lander and orbiter stack, and a parts layout of the lunar backhoe in my photo albums page on this forum.

JR

[JohnHunt]

The rock crawlers are featured on YouTube

When I watch the rock crawlers, they are always crawling on rocks. How confident are we that they will do well on fine regolith? Might a tracked vehicle be better?

[JohnHunt]

Somewhere I saw a proposed lunar lander which, after it landed, would rotate it's body (relative to the planted legs). The result of the rotation would be that the landing rockets would be pointed up and the payload (e.g. rover) would be underneath the body to be easily lowered by cables.

Second, I am thinking that it would be well to have a common lunar lander undercarriage. Rather than landers being designed for one specific task, have the lander undercarriage be the same mission-to-mission regardless of what is being unloaded.

This is probably more important for follow-on missions than just a one-off prospecting mission. But consider that there might be follow-on prospecting missions to characterize the best ice to be found including in other craters.

For ongoing mining operations, I think it best to use a common undercarriage that is used again and again to deliver different types of payloads (e.g. solar panels, ISRU, robonauts, etc) so that eventually we are so confident in their safety that we could imagine placing a volunteer expeditionary astronaut on that common undercarriage.

Also, please consider whether a shell is needed or not. Flying through "empty" space is quite safe. Micrometeorites are quite rare. The risk is that pebbles kicked up from landing/ascending exhaust might ricochet back. But this can be monitored to see if it is a real problem. Also, landing sites can be prepared to minimize this risk before astronauts are sent.

[joertexas]

When I watch the rock crawlers, they are always crawling on rocks. How confident are we that they will do well on fine regolith? Might a tracked vehicle be better?

I'm confident enough to buy one and try it on sand to see how it does :)

We will have to develop metal wheels that will work in soft sand. As the Apollo mission proved, though, the loose regolith isn't that deep.

JR

[joertexas]

Somewhere I saw a proposed lunar lander which, after it landed, would rotate it's body (relative to the planted legs). The result of the rotation would be that the landing rockets would be pointed up and the payload (e.g. rover) would be underneath the body to be easily lowered by cables.

I pickd this design because it keeps the rocket nozzles high to reduce the amount of dust that is blown around. The cargo box is slung underneath, which eliminates any mechanisms to deliver the rovers to the surface, other than simple fall down to open doors.

Second, I am thinking that it would be well to have a common lunar lander undercarriage. Rather than landers being designed for one specific task, have the lander undercarriage be the same mission-to-mission regardless of what is being unloaded.

This is probably more important for follow-on missions than just a one-off prospecting mission. But consider that there might be follow-on prospecting missions to characterize the best ice to be found including in other craters.

For ongoing mining operations, I think it best to use a common undercarriage that is used again and again to deliver different types of payloads (e.g. solar panels, ISRU, robonauts, etc) so that eventually we are so confident in their safety that we could imagine placing a volunteer expeditionary astronaut on that common undercarriage.

This mission is flying on a small launcher, the Falcon 9. Any follow-on missions will probably have a much higher cargo capacity, so everything will have to be scaled up. The cargo box pixtured is only 3m x 2.5m x 1.5m, so that's only suitable for small missions.

Also, please consider whether a shell is needed or not. Flying through "empty" space is quite safe. Micrometeorites are quite rare. The risk is that pebbles kicked up from landing/ascending exhaust might ricochet back. But this can be monitored to see if it is a real problem. Also, landing sites can be prepared to minimize this risk before astronauts are sent.

The major issue in space for equipment is thermal control. The Indian lunar orbiter actually overheated and failed after several months of operation. Of particular concern is the batteries - their operating temperature range is rather narrow, and they will require careful monitoring.

The cargo box also serves to protect the rovers during landing. In fact, we're toying with the idea of attaching the cargo box with pyrotechnic bolts so it can be jettisoned in certain situations to allow the rovers to survive a bad landing. It has a crush pad at the bottom, and it may also have outriggers to help keep it upright.

JR

[asteroid-wildcat]

Interorbital systems hooked up with Lutz Kayser formally of OTRAG (Interesting story regarding the challenges faced by an early commercial space company). Lutz and Wernher von Braun were close colleagues and Kutz knows his stuff.

Take a look at what Interorbital is planning regarding a sample return mission to the moon. They are even pre-selling lunar materal.

http://www.interorbital.com/Lunar%20Sample%20Return_1.htm

I'm also going to post this in the news section.

[joertexas]

This company seems to be a good prospect for the parts and such we will need:

http://www.honeybeerobotics.com/index.php

JR

[moonus111]

What would you need from the design team to make the promotional website? I have some basic 3-D renderings of the lander, the orbiter, and a parts breakdown of the backhoe. The solar panels trailer is still pending basic design layout.

If Rares is available, he does excellent work, and I'm sure he could make something good from my drawings.

The rock crawlers are featured on YouTube, and I plan to use a 1/10 scale version for the scouts, and a 1/5 version for the comms rover.

JR

This all helps, but first things first

1.) Name
2.) url

If anyone has suggestions I'm open on both, I'd love to build a subdomain under permanent, but I think access might be a bit of an issue with the big man.

[joertexas]

This all helps, but first things first

1.) Name
2.) url

If anyone has suggestions I'm open on both, I'd love to build a subdomain under permanent, but I think access might be a bit of an issue with the big man.

Operation Polar Ice?

JR

[Sam Fraser]

For lack of imagination, here are a few:

Ice Breaker
Ice Trekker
Ice Scout
Ice Skater
Ice Oasis
Ice Surveyor

Animal names related to the poles that could be used:

Penguins
Polar bear/cubs
Seals
Huskies

Also maybe names of famous polar explorers. (Sorry, that's all I got.)

This all helps, but first things first

1.) Name
2.) url

If anyone has suggestions I'm open on both, I'd love to build a subdomain under permanent, but I think access might be a bit of an issue with the big man.

I'll talk to Mark about a PERMANENT subdomain. :)

[Rhyshaelkan]

Ice Pirates? :P Silly but great cult movie.

[moonus111]

I went ahead and set up a website as a subdomain under one of my testing websites. Don't worry we can move it wherever/whenever and name it in the future. Anyone want permissions/logins just ask. Also it's pretty bare for right now I'm gonna work on getting it pretty. If anyone wants to work on content feel free to either ask for a login, or wait until I've got logintobogan working.

Remember it can be moved later if we make it good enough for the big man's approval of *subdomain*.permanent.com.

I have no problem having my webhost hosting the sql database, as I don't know if the host for permanent hosts sql, I can also turn it over whenever.

remember I've got to do a lot of tweaking to get it right so it looks pretty basic right now... not even a theme.


http://icemoon.squabbydoodoo.com (http://icemoon.squabbydoodoo.com)

[Rhyshaelkan]

Good stuff Moony. I do not know SQL, PHP, XML, or even HTML. A good BLT is great for lunch though.

[joertexas]

I think I've worked out the major components we will need for a polar exploration mission. They are:

1. A lander to carry equipment to the surface, and to provide communications relay and power.

2. An orbiter to provide surveillance and communications coverage for the mission.

3. Three or four 5kg scout rovers based on a radio control vehicle rock crawler chassis, each carrying a mini video camera and lights.

4. A 20kg communications relay rover, also based on a rock crawler chassis, to assist with communications continuity.

5. A 200kg backhoe with a push blade and a water sampling unit to enter craters and search for water ice.

6. A solar array trailer with 4 to 6 panels, providing 1-2kW of power for the rovers on a portable platform.

The next step in the process is to design each of these components in sufficient detail to estimate development time and costs.

Also, I've posted a composite picture (http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=19) of the landing area.

Comments?

JR

[JohnHunt]

2. An orbiter to provide surveillance and communications coverage for the mission.

What orbit would it be in? Would it be within line of sight at all times or would we have intermittent connections and hence intermittent operations?

3. Three or four 5kg scout rovers based on a radio control vehicle rock crawler chassis, each carrying a mini video camera and lights.

Yes, I see the need for scouts before the backhoe goes out. If the backhoe is running all over the place doing its own searches, it might get stuck and then that is the end of the mission. If you first have the scouts going out in different diections, if one gets stuck you have two or three others still searching until the most favorable location is identified. Then the single backhoe can make a single trip.

However, it may be that a mini video camera is not sufficient to determine if a location is favorable for water ice. If the ice is in particles mixed in with the regolith, it may not be visible at the resolution of a video camera. As with the Mars Polar Lander, the ice might be just a bit below the surface only knowable if you dig. Should these rovers be a bit more capable? How about including a probe that can test for ice? Should maybe one of them with a little backhoe be held back until a potentially favorable but uncertain location is found? Also, if the little rovers had any way of determining water ice concentration, could we keep driving them them, characterizing the water concentrations at a large number of locations within the crater until, one-by-one they get stuck or otherwise stop operating. Then the backhoe could be sent to an easy icy location, confirm the presence and concentration of water ice and then move on to do the same at the location with, hopefully, the highest concentration.

4. A 20kg communications relay rover, also based on a rock crawler chassis, to assist with communications continuity.

Would this thing move when a rover stops moving because it has driven out of range? Could the rovers be able to tell us if they are getting close to being out of range (e.g. # of bars). What range would you expect the relay rover to have? Do you think that moving it to the "center of mass" of the rovers would be the best use of it?

5. A 200kg backhoe with a push blade and a water sampling unit to enter craters and search for water ice.

Why a push blade? With a backhoe, of what use is a push blade?


Any thoughts about these rovers helping each other get unstuck? Also, what about a high-speed poker or flipper bar as a random attempt to get a rover out of a situation (sort of like those insects which snap their abdomen vs thorax and so get off their back)? Maybe the lunar regolith is such that this isn't necessary (e.g. no drifts, dirt which holds its shape rather than gives way). If the rovers fall on their backs, can they keep driving?

6. A solar array trailer with 4 to 6 panels, providing 1-2kW of power for the rovers on a portable platform.

Might there be any advantage for the panels to be separable from the portable platform?

The next step in the process is to design each of these components in sufficient detail to estimate development time and costs.

Because this area is outside of my training, any help on my part could be either:
- finding and running the current concept past other engineers to solicit technical feedback,
- searching websites for components which may be considered for use,

How would you like for me to help?

[joertexas]

2. An orbiter to provide surveillance and communications coverage for the mission.
What orbit would it be in? Would it be within line of sight at all times or would we have intermittent connections and hence intermittent operations?

The orbiter would have to be placed in a polar orbit. We'd have to coordinate with NASA and whomever else has vehicles flying at the time for a safe altitude. My guess at the moment is a 75-100km orbit altitude. That would give us a few minutes of transmission time on each pass. An orbital mechanics expert can figure out the best operating altitude and the best spacecraft orientation, and we can configure the orbiter accordingly.

Should these rovers be a bit more capable? How about including a probe that can test for ice? Should maybe one of them with a little backhoe be held back until a potentially favorable but uncertain location is found? Also, if the little rovers had any way of determining water ice concentration, could we keep driving them them, characterizing the water concentrations at a large number of locations within the crater until, one-by-one they get stuck or otherwise stop operating. Then the backhoe could be sent to an easy icy location, confirm the presence and concentration of water ice and then move on to do the same at the location with, hopefully, the highest concentration.

Anything else we add to the scout rover would have to be lightweight. We're up against the 5kg weight limit as it is, especially if we have to include some telemetry links and sensors. Also, they may not be able to get into the areas with ice very easily due to the cold and line of sight issues. I would like for them to survey the landing area as much as possible, and help the backhoe find its way down into the craters.

Would this thing move when a rover stops moving because it has driven out of range? Could the rovers be able to tell us if they are getting close to being out of range (e.g. # of bars). What range would you expect the relay rover to have? Do you think that moving it to the "center of mass" of the rovers would be the best use of it?

The relay will be a rock crawler, too, so it will be able to go anywhere the scouts can. I'd like for it to have the capability to transmit and receive directly from Earth, but I don't yet know if that's possible. In any event, its job is to establish and maintain radio contact with any of the other rovers at need.

The radio range is something else that needs more research. I don't expect to have reception at anything more than line of sight distance, so we will need to design the antennas with that requirement in mind. Also, we may need to have wires to lay for communications, especially with the backhoe.

Why a push blade? With a backhoe, of what use is a push blade?

A blade can help the backhoe cut a road, move other rovers, and anything else it can push, and even help flip the backhoe right side up if it rolls over. It can also level a spot for the solar panel unit if needed. The blade also stabilizes the backhoe as it digs by taking the load off the suspension. We won't have outriggers, so the blade will be vital.

Any thoughts about these rovers helping each other get unstuck? Also, what about a high-speed poker or flipper bar as a random attempt to get a rover out of a situation (sort of like those insects which snap their abdomen vs thorax and so get off their back)? Maybe the lunar regolith is such that this isn't necessary (e.g. no drifts, dirt which holds its shape rather than gives way). If the rovers fall on their backs, can they keep driving?

Anyone who gets one of the rovers stuck will be fired ;) These questions will be answered as we test drive the prototypes over simulated terrain. We can develop and test different schemes for a) not getting stuck or flipped over, and b) getting turned right side up if the rover does roll over. I don't see a need to push the rovers to their limits, especially since they will be geared down to increase their range and operating time.
If the backhoe is available, it would certainly be able to rescue a scout. However, I'd evaluate the situation carefully before I sent any second rover after a stranded one.
Might there be any advantage for the panels to be separable from the portable platform?

They're pretty fragile, so I'd rather leave them attached to the trailer. The backhoe can relocate the trailer as needed to provide power for the rovers.
The next step in the process is to design each of these components in sufficient detail to estimate development time and costs.
Because this area is outside of my training, any help on my part could be either:
- finding and running the current concept past other engineers to solicit technical feedback,
- searching websites for components which may be considered for use,

How would you like for me to help?

All of the above is a huge help.

I'm also trying to get all of the data I can for the proposed landing site. The ideal state would be to have a complete topographic map of the lunar surface, from 270 to 360 longitude and 89N to 90N latitude. This "pie slice" would encompass most of Henshelwood crater and the NW ridge of Peary crater. The picture I posted has a resolution of about a meter, and the LRO's other data is about the same, I think.

I would eventually like to build a physical model of the landing area to the largest scale I can. The more accurate this model, the better prepared we will be when we arrive.

JR

[JohnHunt]

The relay will be a rock crawler, too

Are relay electronic all that massive? Could several or all of the rock climbers be relays so that they could support each other in a type of network?

Joe, you are posting this on a public forum so I'm going to proactively reach out to some aerospace engineers and get their expert feedback (unless you say otherwise).

[joertexas]

Are relay electronic all that massive? Could several or all of the rock climbers be relays so that they could support each other in a type of network?

Joe, you are posting this on a public forum so I'm going to proactively reach out to some aerospace engineers and get their expert feedback (unless you say otherwise).

A communications relay rover will have to carry a radio transceiver and the appropriate antennas to reach at least the orbiter, and possibly, Earth. The weight limit is 20kg for the whole machine, with 9kg of that allocated to everything after the rolling chassis and batteries. A space rated transceiver is 3.2kg by itself, so that doesn't leave a lot for the other electronics and things like solar panels.

Like everything else, though, the prototyping and testing process will provide better answers..

I've been actively seeking any feedback I can get, so feel free ;-)

JR

[joertexas]

Some of the LRO's laser altimeter instrument data has been published, and someone has converted it to Celestia imagery. The resolution isn't good enough to map the landing area, but it's still worth a look.

This is what the earth (http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=20) and sun (http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/picture.php?albumid=6&pictureid=21) positions are at this time of year from the approximate landing area location. The green circles are crater labels, floated off the moon's surface.

JR

[Mark Prado]

I can set up a subdomain, no problem, or multiple subdomains. Let me know what you would like to call it/them, *.permanent.com

All my databases are MySQL running a PHP front end, including this forum.

As we're getting rather esoteric here, I will continue in email with anybody who wants to discuss it further.

[joertexas]

I just finished reading a book entitled "How to Build Your Own Spaceship", by Piers Bizony. It's a synopsis of the space program, and a light-reading look at the future of spaceflight.

One of the points the author makes is his choice for the best landing site on the moon - Peary Crater.

Made my whole week :)

JR

[moonus111]

Man I just got that book. Thanks for ruining the end! :p

[joertexas]

Man I just got that book. Thanks for ruining the end! :p


Oops - me and my big mouth. Although, it was only a small part of the whole book, and... um, there's still lots of good stuff in there. ;)

JR

[JohnHunt]

I was looking at this image (http://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn7263-sunny-spot-picked-out-for-future-lunar-base.html) to the left. There is an advantage of choosing a landing spot where a peak of eternal light is near a permanently shadowed crater. But the closer they are, perhaps the steeper and more rugged the path between.

But how about this idea. Give the lander a mortar or rocket. It shoots into the crater trailing a wire. It either impacts/implants or falls and deploys an anchor. The lander then begins pulling the wire taut. The end result is a smooth path from peak to ice along which power can be transmitted. The wire could also serve as a safe path along which regolith could be carried to be processed at the lander.

I think that there would be some natural questions about this idea. Would the mass of a 1.5 to 3 km long line be too great to be flown that distance (or even stay within the mission's mass budget?) The initial wire could be thin and could be later strengthened using a runner adding more wires to thicken it.

Might the wire get tangled on itself or on a rock along the way as it is being pulled taut? There is probably a way of packing the wire onto a spool so that it doesn't get tangled on itself. Secondly, additional rockets could fire at the same time. One could be mid-way along the line and be designed to fire upward for a time while the line is being quickly pulled taut. Secondly, another rocket at the lander could fire the opposite direction immediately after the first rocket implants so as to quickly pull the entire string taut.

Alternately, a sub-lander could fly into the crater, and then fire a rocket trailing a wire back towards the first lander, like an anti-tank missile. It flies through an illuminated ring on the first lander which then grabs the wire the moment it goes taut.

It seems to me that model rocket clubs could be voluntarily employed to develop this system.

In future years, I could imagine a system like this using magnets to extract free iron, melting it using solar concentrators, extruding wires and then developing an array of wires to points throughout a shadowed crater in order to scale up mining operations. It could significantly reduce teleoperation time driving rovers up crater walls.

[joertexas]

But how about this idea. Give the lander a mortar or rocket. It shoots into the crater trailing a wire. It either impacts/implants or falls and deploys an anchor. The lander then begins pulling the wire taut. The end result is a smooth path from peak to ice along which power can be transmitted. The wire could also serve as a safe path along which regolith could be carried to be processed at the lander.

This idea may be useful, but we'd have to survey the area first. The main problem I see is the distance from the peak to the bottoms of the surrounding craters. It's at least 10km, and carrying that much wire on the first mission would be difficult at best.

Sooner or later, we will need to lay power lines, though we will probably have to fabricate them onsite.

JR

[JohnHunt]

It's at least 10km

If you look at the polar illumination image I linked to you will find that in the middle of the ridge between the two big craters there is an area with 100% illumination (during Summer months). Then extending NNW (if the top of the image was North) there is a ling heading towards a small area with 100% shadow. Eyeballing it, it seems to me that there's only about 2km between those two points. With 1/3 gravity, perhaps the wire only needs to be 1/3 the cross section to bear the same weight. This would be eqivalent mass to about a 2/3 km (a bit less than a half mile) of wire on Earth.

But even if that small shadowed patch is too small to be confident it has volatiles, The crater in the upper right has a distance of about 4 km between 100% light and 100% closest shadowed.

I'm just concerned about having to drive 8 km over rough, steep terrains between charges.

What about a hopping air bag rocket that extracts reaction mass from ice so as to sample multiple locations within and between different craters?

[joertexas]

If you look at the polar illumination image I linked to you will find that in the middle of the ridge between the two big craters there is an area with 100% illumination (during Summer months). Then extending NNW (if the top of the image was North) there is a ling heading towards a small area with 100% shadow. Eyeballing it, it seems to me that there's only about 2km between those two points. With 1/3 gravity, perhaps the wire only needs to be 1/3 the cross section to bear the same weight. This would be eqivalent mass to about a 2/3 km (a bit less than a half mile) of wire on Earth.

But even if that small shadowed patch is too small to be confident it has volatiles, The crater in the upper right has a distance of about 4 km between 100% light and 100% closest shadowed.

I'm just concerned about having to drive 8 km over rough, steep terrains between charges.

What about a hopping air bag rocket that extracts reaction mass from ice so as to sample multiple locations within and between different craters?

I posted an image of the area taken from the LRO's LOLA instrument here (http://www.forumlog.com/nanobiotechnologyspace/album.php?albumid=6&pictureid=22). The contour lines are 100m apart, and the range circles are centered on the hilltop with the best sunlight exposure - it being the highest point in the image. The smallest circle is 1km, and the others are 5, 10, 15 and 20km. The bottom of Hinshelwood Crater is 15km from the hilltop, and about 10km from the top of the crater's rim.

Moving over this terrain will be a challenge, and a hopper may be useful. I just don't know how hard it would be to make one small enough to carry on the first mission...

JR

[JohnHunt]

Moving over this terrain will be a challenge, and a hopper may be useful. I just don't know how hard it would be to make one small enough to carry on the first mission...

Check out this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aNF_t3TC5s) of ARCA's X-Prize concept. Start at 2:35 to see how a hopper could get over obstructions. If designed well it could fall from a pretty good height and still be in functioning order as it would be its own airbag. However, we wouldn't be able to count on air resistance to achieve a terminal velocity!

[joertexas]

NASA has released more images from LRO. This one (http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-3-CDR-V1.0/M134094696LC)is another view of the proposed landing site taken later in the year than the ones released earlier (http://wms.lroc.asu.edu/lroc/view_lroc/LRO-L-LROC-3-CDR-V1.0/M131720011LC).

JR

[joertexas]

Check out this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aNF_t3TC5s) of ARCA's X-Prize concept. Start at 2:35 to see how a hopper could get over obstructions. If designed well it could fall from a pretty good height and still be in functioning order as it would be its own airbag. However, we wouldn't be able to count on air resistance to achieve a terminal velocity!


The only worry I have about a hopper is control. As the video shows, the engines are blowing dust all over the place. That would make accurate landings difficult, especially in the pockmarked lunar surface. As the images show, there are craters and rocks of all sizes scattered everywhere.

To safely place the Moon Shot lander, we will have to very carefully evaluate two or three landing sites using every scrap of information we can get, program the lander's software for these landing sites, and then vet the landing area visually during the mission. Trying to hop the lander to another site is possible, but it's a high risk operation unless we preplan those hops, too.

The land based rovers are more flexible and safer to operate on the terrain, in my opinion.

JR

[JohnHunt]

What's the main risk for a hop? If I were to take a beach ball to a rocky desert, couldn't I kick it in numerous hops pretty much all day long? Craters don't have any overhangs generally. Rocks can have overhangs (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/lunar/missions/apollo/apollo_14/images/a14_contactrock_fs_lg.gif) but I think that that is pretty rare. To overckome this, design the ball so that the jet can come out one of several holes in different parts of the ball so that if one jet didn't get it to hop then you try a different one.

I don't see that you have to aim it very well. The goal is simply to sample various parts of the crater. When you land, the inside of the ball could use the equipment as a weight so that you could torque the weight to one side to get the ball to start rolling in order to fine tune your immediate destination.

Also, the degree to which you inflate the ball is the degree to which it will bounce.