SpaceX Dragon spacecraft for low cost trips to the Moon.
Robert Clark
Moon mission are large craft that would require a heavy lift launcher
for the trip. However the Dragon spacecraft is a smaller capsule that
would allow lunar missions with currently existing launchers.
The idea for this use would be for it to act as a reusable shuttle
only between LEO and the lunar surface. This page gives the dry mass
of the Dragon capsule of 3,180 kg:
SpaceX reveals first Dragon engineering unit.
DATE:16/03/07
By Rob Coppinger
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/16/212634/picture-spacex-reveals-first-dragon-engineering-unit.html
The wet mass with propellant would be higher than this but for use
only as a shuttle between LEO and the Moon, the engines and propellant
would be taken up by the attached propulsion system. With crew and
supplies call the capsule mass 4,000 kg.
On this listing of space vehicles you can find that the later versions
of the Centaur upper stage have a mass ratio of about 10 to 1:
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/alpha/alpndexc.htm
The Isp's given for the RL-10A engines used on these stages are
around 450 s, but an updated version with a longer, extensible nozzle
has an Isp of 465.5 s:
This page gives the delta-V's needed for trips within the Earth-Moon
system:
Delta-V budget.
Earth–Moon space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth.E2.80.93Moon_space
The architecture will be to use a larger Centaur upper stage to serve
as the propulsion system to take the vehicle from LEO to low lunar
orbit. This larger stage will not descend to the surface, but will
remain in orbit. A smaller Centaur stage will serve as the descent
stage and will also serve as the liftoff stage that will take the
spacecraft not just back to lunar orbit, but all the way to back to
LEO. The larger Centaur stage will return to LEO under its own
propulsion, to make the system fully reusable. Both stages will use
aerobraking to reduce the delta-V required to return to LEO.
For the larger Centaur, take the gross mass of the stage alone as
30,000 kg, and its dry mass as 1/10th of that at 3,000 kg. For the
smaller Centaur stage take the gross mass as 10,000 kg and the dry
mass as 1,000 kg. The "Delta-V budget" page gives the delta-V from LEO
to low lunar orbit as 4,040 m/s. In calculating the delta-V provided
by the larger Centaur stage we'll retain 1,000 kg propellant at the
end of the burn for the return trip of this stage to LEO:
465.5*9.8ln((30,000 + 10,000 + 4,000)/(3,000 +10,000 + 4,000 + 1,000))
= 4,077 m/s, sufficient to reach low lunar orbit. For this stage alone
to return to LEO, 1,310 m/s delta-V is required. The 1,000 kg retained
propellant provides 465.5*9.8ln((3,000 + 1,000)/3,000) = 1,312 m/s,
sufficient for the return.
The delta-V to go from low lunar orbit to the Moon's surface is 1,870
m/s. And to go from the Moon's surface back to LEO is 2,740 m/s, for a
total of 4,610 m/s. The delta-V provided by this smaller Centaur stage
is 465.5*9.8ln((10,000 + 4,000)/(1,000 + 4,000)) = 4,697 m/s,
sufficient for lunar landing and the return to LEO.
The RL-10 engine was proven to be reusable for multiple uses with
quick turnaround time on the DC-X. The total propellant load of 40,000
kg could be lofted to LEO by two 20,000+ kg payload capacity
launchers, such as the Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton.
The price for these launchers is in the range of $100-140 million
according to the specifications on this page:
Expendable Launch Vehicles.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/elvs.shtml
So two would be in the range of $200-$280 million. The Dragon
spacecraft and Centaur stages being reusable for 10+ uses would mean
their cost per flight should be significantly less than this. This
would bring the cost into the range affordable to be purchased by most
national governments.
Still, it would be nice to reduce that $200 million cost just to bring
the propellant to orbit. One possibility might be the heavy lift
launchers being planned by NASA. One of the main problems in deciding
on a design for the launchers is that there would be so few launches
the per launch cost would be too high. However, launching of the
propellant to orbit for lunar missions would provide a market that
could allow multiple launches per year thus reducing the per launch
cost of the heavy lift launchers. For instance, the Direct HLV team
claims their launcher would cost $240 million per launch if they could
make 12 launches per year:
JULY 23, 2009
Interview with Ross Tierney of Direct Launch by Sander Olson.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/07/interview-with-ross-tierney-of-direct.html
This launcher would have a 70,000 kg payload capacity. However, if you
removed the payload fairing and interstage and just kept the
propellant to be launched to orbit in the ET itself and considering
the fact that the shuttle system was able to launch 100,000+ kg to
orbit with the shuttle and payload, it's possible the propellant that
could be launched to orbit could be in the range of 100,000 kg. Then
the cost per kg to orbit would be $2,400 per kg, or about a $100
million cost for the propellant to orbit.
Reduction of the per launch cost for the heavy lift launchers would
then allow affordable launches of the larger spacecraft and landers
for lunar missions.
Bob Clark
Alan Erskine
> The Orion spacecraft and Altair lunar lander intended for a manned
> Moon mission are large craft that would require a heavy lift launcher
> for the trip. However the Dragon spacecraft is a smaller capsule that
> would allow lunar missions with currently existing launchers.
> The idea for this use would be for it to act as a reusable shuttle
> only between LEO and the lunar surface. This page gives the dry mass
> of the Dragon capsule of 3,180 kg:
Not that much smaller and not that much lighter - Orion's CM was/is only
about 4.5 tonnes - it's the SM with all the propellant that makes it
heavy, and Dragon's only got to return from LEO, so it's much less
propellant-hungry than a Lunar mission (LOI, Earth return etc).
Robert Clark
Do have a ref for that? This page gives the mass of the capsule as
9,500 kg:
Orion (spacecraft).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
> ... The total propellant load of 40,000
> kg could be lofted to LEO by two 20,000+ kg payload capacity
> launchers, such as the Atlas V, Delta IV Heavy, Ariane 5, and Proton.
> The price for these launchers is in the range of $100-140 million
> according to the specifications on this page:
>
>
> So two would be in the range of $200-$280 million. The Dragon
> spacecraft and Centaur stages being reusable for 10+ uses would mean
> their cost per flight should be significantly less than this. This
> would bring the cost into the range affordable to be purchased by most
> national governments.
> Still, it would be nice to reduce that $200 million cost just to bring
> the propellant to orbit. One possibility might be the heavy lift
> launchers being planned by NASA. One of the main problems in deciding
> on a design for the launchers is that there would be so few launches
> the per launch cost would be too high. However, launching of the
> propellant to orbit for lunar missions would provide a market that
> could allow multiple launches per year thus reducing the per launch
> cost of the heavy lift launchers.
An even lower cost possibility for the capsule and lander might be
one proposed by the University of Maryland aerospace engineering
department:
Phoenix: A Low-Cost Commercial Approach to the Crew Exploration
Vehicle.
http://www.nianet.org/rascal/forum2006/presentations/1010_umd_paper.pdf
As with the Orion CEV, this Phoenix spacecraft was intended to be
used in conjunction with a separate lander for lunar missions.
However, by using it both for the trip from LEO and as the lander you
get great savings in cost.
On page 3 of the report is given a breakdown of the weights of the
various subsystems. By removing the propulsion system as I suggested
for the Dragon for this purpose, the mass with crew would be about
half that of the Dragon, at about 2,000 kg.
Then assuming again 10 to 1 mass ratios for two Centaur style stages
for propulsion, we would need about half the propellant load as for
the Dragon, about 20,000 kg, which could be lofted by a single launch
of the current largest launchers.
Then the cost of lofting this propellant load to LEO would be about
$100 million. And if a new heavy lift launcher could get a $2,400 per
kg launch price, it would only be in the range of $50 million.
This would increase even further the market for such low cost lunar
missions.
Bob Clark
Alan Erskine
>
> Do have a ref for that? This page gives the mass of the capsule as
> 9,500 kg:
>
> Orion (spacecraft).
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29
>
>
> Bob Clark
Oops. Sorry about that. It's 64% heavier.
Alan Erskine
This page tells more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Dragon - With
a payload of 6 tonnes, the total "CM" mass is 10.2 tonnes; so it's
heavier than Orion.
Robert Clark
> a payload of 6 tonnes, the total "CM" mass is 10.2 tonnes; so it's
> heavier than Orion.
This is actually the fully loaded mass. Remember the Dragon is to be
used both for crew transport and for cargo transport. The max 6 tonnes
payload mentioned is for when it used for cargo transport. Of course
it doesn't have to carry any cargo besides, crew provisions, when used
for manned flights.
Bob Clark
Mike DiCenso
That's because the crew IS the cargo in that configuration along with
their provisions as well as their other gear. I'm a bit skeptical
about this comparison since it neglects the amount of structure
required to keep the crew safe from radiation while going through the
Van Allen Radiation Belt as well as through deep space to the Moon,
and for the duration the capsule is in orbit. Also how much of an
increase in size will the service module on a Dragon need to
accomadate fuel and supplies for the greater duration as well as the
Lunar braking manuever, and the burn to get back to Earth. How much
bigger of an engine for these manuevers?
Is Musk's hype about the Dragon heat shield correct, or will that need
additional material as well?
How much extra mass will the launch escape system add? If the Centuar
is to be reusable, how much extra mass to the structure does that add?
Your recovery scenario glosses over this aspect, including recovery
methods.
-Mike
Pat Flannery
>
> That's because the crew IS the cargo in that configuration along with
> their provisions as well as their other gear. I'm a bit skeptical
> about this comparison since it neglects the amount of structure
> required to keep the crew safe from radiation while going through the
> Van Allen Radiation Belt as well as through deep space to the Moon,
> and for the duration the capsule is in orbit.
That might be workable; the Apollo CM's hull was thick enough to provide
adequate radiation protection while passing through the radiation belts,
due to speed of the passage at the injection speed for TLI and the
structural strength needed for ascent g's and those experienced during
reentry.
At least in the Constellation plan where the Orion stayed unmanned in
lunar orbit while the Altair carried the crew to the surface for a
month-long stay*, the trick was making the very lightweight Altair have
a reasonable amount of radiation protection if there was a solar storm
while it was on the surface.
*As to what the Altair's crew was going to be doing during the two weeks
of lunar night is anyone's guess. I imagine you could take the rovers
out with headlights on them, but considering that light doesn't get
diffused in a vacuum, that sounds like a really good way to drive over
the edge of a 10' cliff that you thought was a minor dip in the terrain. :-D
Pat
Robert Clark
> one proposed by the University of Maryland aerospace engineering
> department:
>
> Phoenix: A Low-Cost Commercial Approach to the Crew Exploration
>
> As with the Orion CEV, this Phoenix spacecraft was intended to be
> used in conjunction with a separate lander for lunar missions.
> However, by using it both for the trip from LEO and as the lander you
> get great savings in cost.
> On page 3 of the report is given a breakdown of the weights of the
> various subsystems. By removing the propulsion system as I suggested
> for the Dragon for this purpose, the mass with crew would be about
> half that of the Dragon, at about 2,000 kg.
> Then assuming again 10 to 1 mass ratios for two Centaur style stages
> for propulsion, we would need about half the propellant load as for
> the Dragon, about 20,000 kg, which could be lofted by a single launch
> of the current largest launchers.
> Then the cost of lofting this propellant load to LEO would be about
> $100 million. And if a new heavy lift launcher could get a $2,400 per
> kg launch price, it would only be in the range of $50 million.
> This would increase even further the market for such low cost lunar
> missions.
>
Especially innovative about this design is the "parashield" thermal
protection. Not only is this lightweight but another advantage is that
it has a higher protective area so that you can use a larger volume
cylindrical structure rather than the usual conical structure for the
capsule. From the report "Phoenix: A Low-Cost Commercial Approach to
the Crew Exploration":
"Figure 5.9-1: Phoenix ParaShield in stowed and deployed
configurations."
http://oi51.tinypic.com/14e9vd4.jpg
Also, with a 20,000 kg mass for the propulsion system and 2,000 kg
mass for the capsule. The total 22,000 kg mass might be launchable by
a single large class launcher, in the $100-$140 million cost range.
The crew would be launched on a separate high reliability man-rated
launcher such as the Soyuz to link up with the vehicle in orbit.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
The price for these commercial lunar flights could be cut
dramatically if instead of hauling the fuel from the Earth, it could
be obtained from the Moon. This would require automated systems to
produce propellant from the materials on the Moon.
Then as a precursor to show this is feasible it would be necessary to
do a smaller unmanned lunar lander mission that demonstrates ISRU
propellant production. We will want to do a reusable, round trip
mission to also show the feasibility of the manned missions. However,
as a low cost first step we'll only do an expendable one-way lander
that drops off an electrolysis station to produce hydrogen/oxygen from
the water found by LCROSS to be near surface in the polar regions.
To keep costs low we'll use the Russian Dnepr rocket:
Dnepr specifications.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/elvs/dnepr_specs.shtml
According to this page, the price is $10-$13 million for up to 4,500
kg to LEO. So we'll need to keep the total mass for the lander and the
propulsion system under 4,500 kg.
One possibility for the propulsion might be the solid motor "Star"
series, but multiply staged. Find the specifications for the Star 48
version here:
Star 48 - Specifications.
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/motors/star48_specs.shtml
They have a good mass ratio at around 18 or 19 to 1. And a moderate
Isp, from 286 s to 292 s. However, it should be noted that the low dry
mass indicated, which results in the high mass ratio, is coming from
the fact this is only considering the nozzle and casing. Reaction
control thrusters and the avionics assemblies are not included in this
dry mass.
A more accurate accounting for the dry mass for this upper stage might
be here:
PAM-S.
"Solid propellant rocket stage. Loaded/empty mass 2,182/220 kg. Thrust
66.60 kN. Vacuum specific impulse 288 seconds.
Cost $ : 4.060 million."
http://www.astronautix.com/stages/pams.htm
Note this page, with the higher dry mass, indicates this upper stage
with the Star 48 engine does also use reaction control thrusters. The
extra mass was about 100 kg added onto the 111 kg Star 48 bare mass.
I'll reserve 100 kg for the RCS and avionics within the mass of the
payload, and use the bare masses for the Star engines in the delta-V
calculations. The final, smallest stage will have slightly more
powerful RCS than needed and for the lower stages I'll rely on spin-
stabilization and the upper stage RCS for stability while the lower
stage motors are firing.
Let's calculate how much payload we could deliver to the Moon's
surface. This page gives the delta-V requirements in the Earth-Moon
system:
Delta-v budget.
Earth–Moon space.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget#Earth.E2.80.93Moon_space
To get to the lunar surface from LEO would require a delta-V of 5.93
km/s. The stages used will be the Star 48B:
STAR 48B - Short Nozzle PAM STS.
"Effective Isp (vacuum): 286.0 sec
Motor Loaded Mass: 4705.4 lb, 2134.3 kg
Motor Burnout Mass: 245.4 lb, 111.3 kg"
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/motors/star48_specs.shtml ,
the Star 37FM:
STAR 37FM.
"Effective Isp (vacuum): 289.8 sec
Motor Loaded Mass: 2530.8 lb, 1148.0 kg
Motor Burnout Mass: 162.5 lb, 73.7 kg"
http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/motors/star37_specs.shtml ,
and the Star 30:
Star 30.
"Gross mass: 492 kg (1,084 lb).
Unfuelled mass: 28 kg (61 lb).
Diameter: 0.76 m (2.50 ft).
Specific impulse: 293 s."
http://www.astronautix.com/engines/star30.htm
Estimate the payload to the Moon as 400 kg. The delta-V needed for
Trans Lunar Injection will be in the range of 3.05 to 3.25 km/s:
Trans Lunar Injection.
History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_Lunar_Injection#History
The delta-V you could get from the Star 48 first stage would be:
286*9.8ln((2134.3+1148+492+400)/(111.3+1148+492+400)) = 1,857 m/s.
The delta-V you get from the Star 37FM second stage will be:
289.9*9.8ln((1,148+492+400)/(73.7+492+400)) = 2,125 m/s. The two lower
stages give you a total of 3,982 m/s, sufficient for TLI.
You need now 5,930 - 3,982 = 1,948 m/s additional delta-V to complete
the landing. The delta-V you get from the Star 30 will be:
293*9.8ln((492+400)/(28+400)) = 2,109 m/s, sufficient for the landing.
The total gross mass of the 3 stages plus payload will be
2,134.3+1,148+492+400 = 4,174.3 kg, within the lift capacity of the
Dnepr 1. The cost of the Dnepr 1 might be $13 million. The costs of
the upper stages? The Astronautix page on the PAM-S powered by the
Star 48 motor gives the price as $4.06 million. The Star 37 is smaller
by half, and the Star 30 is smaller by an additional factor of one-
half. Then we might estimate their prices as $2 million and $1 million
respectively, for a total cost of these upper stages of $7 million.
Then the total launch cost might be $20 million.
We would have to add onto that the cost of the avionics and the cost
of the lander.
Bob Clark
Matt
Other mathematical exercises to consider:
1. How much metal would it take to build ships for the exodus that is
the stuff of science fiction?
2. What percentage of the GPP (gross planetary product) can be devoted
to building interstellar craft?
3. How much fuel can we devote to shipping people off-world?
4. At the current rate of population growth, how long does it take for
the earth's population to double?
5. How many ships would it take to transport 7 billion people to other
planets?
6. To how many destinations would they be sent to avoid overpopulating
those planets in a short time?
7. How many ships would we need to launch each day to keep this
planet's population constant at its current level?
8. How many people would it take to "overpopulate" a newly settled
planet starting from zero infrastructure?
9. Given the opportunity to stay on Earth or to make a hazardous,
one-way, years-long journey to a world where there is no
infrastructure, how many would sign up to leave?
10. If only the cream of the crop is shipped off-world, how long can
the exodus continue before the population left behind collapses and no
more ships are sent?
Not a mathematical calculation, but a question about the societies
portrayed in science fiction: If only the "cream crop" is sent, who
will clean toilets on the settled worlds? Did you ever see anyone
cleaning toilets on the Starship Enterprise?
Give a listen to "The Intergalactic Laxative" by Donovan:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCpnwJQhoYY
Pat Flannery
>
> Not a mathematical calculation, but a question about the societies
> portrayed in science fiction: If only the "cream crop" is sent, who
> will clean toilets on the settled worlds? Did you ever see anyone
> cleaning toilets on the Starship Enterprise?
I think they are supposed to be self-cleaning; considering that they
have "Sonic Showers", lord knows how the toilets work.
According to Nicholas Negroponte (the guy who has the project to give
all the poor kids around the world the crank-driven computers, so they
can watch internet porn also) in the future all the real work is done by
robots and humanity just sits around having fun:
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/363111/october-25-2010/nicholas-negroponte
...till the robots become sentient and decide to kill off all of their
slavemasters of course. Isn't it wonderful when science fiction becomes
reality? ;-)
Pat
Robert Clark
> series, but multiply staged. Find the specifications for the Star 48
> version here:
>
>
> To get to the lunar surface from LEO would require a delta-V of 5.93
> km/s. The stages used will be the Star 48B:
>
> STAR 48B - Short Nozzle PAM STS.
> "Effective Isp (vacuum): 286.0 sec
> Motor Loaded Mass: 4705.4 lb, 2134.3 kg
> Motor Burnout Mass: 245.4 lb, 111.3 kg"http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/motors/star48_specs.shtml,
>
> the Star 37FM:
>
> STAR 37FM.
> "Effective Isp (vacuum): 289.8 sec
> Motor Loaded Mass: 2530.8 lb, 1148.0 kg
> Motor Burnout Mass: 162.5 lb, 73.7 kg"http://www.spaceandtech.com/spacedata/motors/star37_specs.shtml,
>
> and the Star 30:
>
> Star 30.
> "Gross mass: 492 kg (1,084 lb).
> Unfuelled mass: 28 kg (61 lb).
> Diameter: 0.76 m (2.50 ft).
> Specific impulse: 293 s."http://www.astronautix.com/engines/star30.htm
>
> Estimate the payload to the Moon as 400 kg. The delta-V needed for
> Trans Lunar Injection will be in the range of 3.05 to 3.25 km/s:
>
> Trans Lunar Injection.
>
> The delta-V you could get from the Star 48 first stage would be:
> 286*9.8ln((2134.3+1148+492+400)/(111.3+1148+492+400)) = 1,857 m/s.
> The delta-V you get from the Star 37FM second stage will be:
> 289.9*9.8ln((1,148+492+400)/(73.7+492+400)) = 2,125 m/s. The two lower
> stages give you a total of 3,982 m/s, sufficient for TLI.
> You need now 5,930 - 3,982 = 1,948 m/s additional delta-V to complete
> the landing. The delta-V you get from the Star 30 will be:
> 293*9.8ln((492+400)/(28+400)) = 2,109 m/s, sufficient for the landing.
> The total gross mass of the 3 stages plus payload will be
> 2,134.3+1,148+492+400 = 4,174.3 kg, within the lift capacity of the
> Dnepr 1. The cost of the Dnepr 1 might be $13 million. The costs of
> the upper stages? The Astronautix page on the PAM-S powered by the
> Star 48 motor gives the price as $4.06 million. The Star 37 is smaller
> by half, and the Star 30 is smaller by an additional factor of one-
> half. Then we might estimate their prices as $2 million and $1 million
> respectively, for a total cost of these upper stages of $7 million.
> Then the total launch cost might be $20 million.
> We would have to add onto that the cost of the avionics and the cost
> of the lander.
>
As a point of comparison the Dnepr has been studied to be used to
launch a 500 kg payload to GEO by using two Star solid motors and
lunar gravity assist:
Dnepr (R-36M2).
"The Dnepr launch vehicle does not have the capability to deploy
payloads directiy into GTO. However, Kosmotras has studied a technique
to deliver small spacecraft to GEO using the gravity of the Moon to
provide the plane change and perigee raising. In this scenario, the
spacecraft is attached to Star 48A and Star 27 solid motors, supplied
separately by ATK Thiokol. The Star48A would send the spacecraft to
the Moon, where a gravity slingshot maneuver would lower the transfer
orbit inclination from 50.5 deg to 0 deg, and raise the orbit perigee
to geostationary altitude. When the spacecraft reaches perigee of the
new transfer orbit, the Star 27 motor would fire to circularize the
orbit at GEO. Using this method, a 500 kg (1100 lbm) spacecraft could
be delivered to GEO."
http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/East_Europe_3/Dnepr/Description/Frame.htm
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
>
This page has this link to a video of a panel discussion at the Space
Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
Resources.
http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/1999/11/moon-mars-or-asteroids-americas-next.html
About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
excavated material.
This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
transmission capability.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
> Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
>
> WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
> The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
>
> About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
> comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
> and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
> shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
> profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
> excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
> shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
> excavated material.
> This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
> pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
> rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
> might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
> simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
> transmission capability.
>
Both Russia and China are planning lander mentions to the Moon as
early as 2012 to test the presence of volatiles in the lunar polar
regions, such as with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna-
Glob]Luna-Glob[/url] mission. Even more important may be their in situ
investigation of valuable minerals suggested by the LCROSS mission. It
would be quite ironic if the U.S. LCROSS mission first demonstated the
presence of these minerals but Russia and China were first to exploit
them.
There have been some arguments that it is important for the U.S. to
investigate the retrieval of valuable rare earth elements from the
Moon because of their strategic importance, while China maintains the
overwhelmingly largest supply of them:
Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National Security?
By Leonard David
SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
posted: 04 October 2010
08:10 am ET
http://www.space.com/news/moon-mining-rare-elements-security-101004.html
The U.S. not sending its own lander probes and in the near term may
allow Russia and China to have abundant supplies of these minerals
with the U.S. dependent on them for its own supplies.
As with the plans for mining copper and gold from the sea floor, the
importance of the REE's and their rising prices have led to
suggestions sea floor mining should be undertaken for them as well:
With Limited Deposits of Rare Earth Metals on the Surface, Eyes Turn
to the Seafloor.
By Clay DillowPosted 11.12.2010 at 10:58 am
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-11/limited-deposits-rare-earths-surface-eyes-turn-seafloor?page=
That they could be financially profitable to be mined from the sea
floor despite the expense raises the possibility lunar mining for them
could be financially profitable if they are in the high concentrations
expected.
As I mentioned simple lander missions could be mounted for a few tens
of millions of dollars if, for example, launched on the Russian Dnepr
rocket. NASA might be disinclined to make use of this method of
launching quick, low cost precursor missions. However, the U.S. could
encourage business concerns to undertake such missions by offering tax
breaks on the minerals returned from lunar mining. This if successful
would have strategic benefits as well as making possible large scale
interplanetary missions, including manned ones, from the use of the
lunar propellant that would naturally become available during the
lunar mining for minerals.
Bob Clark
hal...@aol.com
>
> The U.S. not sending its own lander probes and in the near term may
> allow Russia and China to have abundant supplies of these minerals
> with the U.S. dependent on them for its own supplies.
> As with the plans for mining copper and gold from the sea floor, the
> importance of the REE's and their rising prices have led to
> suggestions sea floor mining should be undertaken for them as well:
>
> With Limited Deposits of Rare Earth Metals on the Surface, Eyes Turn
> to the Seafloor.
>
> That they could be financially profitable to be mined from the sea
> floor despite the expense raises the possibility lunar mining for them
> could be financially profitable if they are in the high concentrations
> expected.
> As I mentioned simple lander missions could be mounted for a few tens
> of millions of dollars if, for example, launched on the Russian Dnepr
> rocket. NASA might be disinclined to make use of this method of
> launching quick, low cost precursor missions. However, the U.S. could
> encourage business concerns to undertake such missions by offering tax
> breaks on the minerals returned from lunar mining. This if successful
> would have strategic benefits as well as making possible large scale
> interplanetary missions, including manned ones, from the use of the
> lunar propellant that would naturally become available during the
> lunar mining for minerals.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
The US is BROKE!!! lets repeat that WERE BROKE:(
We dont have the $$$ to fund social security, day to day operations,
let alone moon operations:(
Let alone the NEXT terrorist hit here will collapse what remains of
our economy.......
under such grim fiancialks it will be hard to impossible to raise
funds for any out of this world projects.......
Robert Clark
> Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
>
> WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
> The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
>
> About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
> comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
> and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
> shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
> profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
> excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
> shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
> excavated material.
> This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
> pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
> rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
> might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
> simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
> transmission capability.
>
As a point of comparison there is a company planning to do deep sea
mining starting in 2013 at a depth of 1,600 meters:
October 08, 2010
Nautilus Minerals the first commercial ocean floor gold and copper
mining company.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2010/10/nautilus-minerals-first-commercial.html
They estimate the costs would be $70 per tonne of excavated material
but with the minerals valued at $1,000 per tonne. (Compare this to the
estimated $1,000,000 per tonne on the Moon from the LCROSS data.)
They would also use remote operated vehicles on the sea floor for the
mining. The delay time in their case would only be fractions of a
second though rather than the 3 seconds required from the Moon.
Then we need an estimate for the costs of remote operation of mining
vehicles on the Moon as there is for the sea floor.
Bob Clark
dlzc
On Nov 23, 6:52 am, "hall...@aol.com" <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
...
> The US is BROKE!!! lets repeat that WERE BROKE:(
>
> We dont have the $$$ to fund social security, day to
> day operations, let alone moon operations:(
>
> Let alone the NEXT terrorist hit here will collapse what
> remains of our economy.......
>
> under such grim [fiancials] it will be hard to impossible
> to raise funds for any out of this world projects.......
We are broke, because we have no frontier... it seems to me. Anybody
with a new idea gets thrown in jail, rather than powering expansion.
90+% of my state's budget is spent providing / operating prisons,
either for children while their parents work, or those found guilty of
some crime.
We have no money for social security, because those with money have
other needs than supporting old people. We've stopped taking care of
our parents (or those folks that decided it was inconvenient to have
kids), so I guess we have to implement "Logan's Run" or "Solylent
Green". Because the politicians borrowed that money to fund day-to-
day operations, replacing it with IOUs for decades.
Terrorists won't collapse the economy, the politicians will do it for
them, right afterwards. Watch, they'll trigger an EMP blast into our
luggage next, to make sure any electronics there is disabled
permanently.
We either invest in the future (and a space plane that does more
damage to the ozone layer than the Concorde, isn't that), or we won't
have one.
I disagree with Robert's (apparently) favorite method to getting to
space, but we need something. The money spent never leaves the
planet. It only makes high-tech jobs. Jobs that aren't dedicated
towards reducing the surface population one explosion at a time.
David A. Smith
Robert Clark
> early as 2012 to test the presence of volatiles in the lunar polar
> regions, such as with the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna-
> Glob]Luna-Glob[/url] mission. Even more important may be their in situ
> investigation of valuable minerals suggested by the LCROSS mission. It
> would be quite ironic if the U.S. LCROSS mission first demonstated the
> presence of these minerals but Russia and China were first to exploit
> them.
> There have been some arguments that it is important for the U.S. to
> investigate the retrieval of valuable rare earth elements from the
> Moon because of their strategic importance, while China maintains the
> overwhelmingly largest supply of them:
>
> Is Mining Rare Minerals on the Moon Vital to National Security?
> By Leonard David
> SPACE.com's Space Insider Columnist
> posted: 04 October 2010
> 08:10 am ET
drives the non-US space-faring nations. It is disappointing that
planners in our [U.S.] space program have not invested in that scope
or time scale,' Pieters added. 'Other than the flurry over looking for
water in lunar polar shadows, no serious effort has been taken to
document and evaluate the mineral resources that occur on Earth's
nearest neighbor. Frustrating!'"
http://www.space.com/news/moon-mining-rare-elements-security-101004.html
>
> The U.S. not sending its own lander probes and in the near term may
> allow Russia and China to have abundant supplies of these minerals
> with the U.S. dependent on them for its own supplies.
Just saw this on the Space.com forum:
Lunny Poligon.
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunny_poligon.html
The Russians are already planning a robotic base on the Moon that
will include mining elements to take place after their exploratory
lunar resources mission.
It's time for the U.S. to get on the ball.
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
> Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
>
> WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
> The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
>
> About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
> comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
> and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
> shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
> profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
> excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
> shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
> excavated material.
> This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
> pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
> rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
> might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
> simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
> transmission capability.
>
Some more of the print and video presentations for the space
manufacturing conference are online:
Archives of Space Manufacturing 14 | Space Studies Institute.
http://ssi.org/2010-conference-space-manufacturing-14/archive/
Space Manufacturing 14 on USTREAM: Space Manufacturing 14: Critical
Technologies for Space Settlement, Space Studies Institute at NASA
Ames Conference Center.
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/space-manufacturing-14
Especially interesting are the presentations of Dr. Greg Baiden,
expert on teleoperated mining:
Prof. Greg Baiden, Laurentian University; Penguin Automated Systems
.
Terrestrial Telerobotic Mining technology: An Enabler for
Extraterrestrial Habitation, Mining and Construction.
http://ssi.org//2010/SM14_presentations/101031_SSI_Baiden-lunch.pdf
Prof. Greg Baiden, Luncheon Speaker.
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11154673
He mentioned that they were able to do teleoperated mining with up to
1.7 second time delays, and he thinks they could do it at up to 3 to 4
second delays, which would suffice for the Moon.
Bob Clark
hal...@aol.com
> On Nov 22, 9:49 pm, Robert Clark <rgregorycl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > ...
> > This page has this link to a video of a panel discussion at the Space
> > Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
>
> > WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
> > The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
> > Resources.http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/1999/11/moon-mars-or-asteroids...
>
> > About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
> > comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
> > and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
> > shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
> > profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
> > excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
> > shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
> > excavated material.
> > This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
> > pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
> > rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
> > might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
> > simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
> > transmission capability.
>
> Some more of the print and video presentations for the space
> manufacturing conference are online:
>
>
> Space Manufacturing 14 on USTREAM: Space Manufacturing 14: Critical
> Technologies for Space Settlement, Space Studies Institute at NASA
>
> Especially interesting are the presentations of Dr. Greg Baiden,
> expert on teleoperated mining:
>
> Prof. Greg Baiden, Laurentian University; Penguin Automated Systems .
> Terrestrial Telerobotic Mining technology: An Enabler for
>
> Prof. Greg Baiden, Luncheon Speaker.http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/11154673
>
> He mentioned that they were able to do teleoperated mining with up to
> 1.7 second time delays, and he thinks they could do it at up to 3 to 4
> second delays, which would suffice for the Moon.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Recently someone propsed a far side teleoperated moon mission wiuth
astronauts at a L point, but not land.
I wondered why bother sending astronauts the speed of light del;ay
would be minimal........
Robert Clark
In regards to the Dragon being able to perform BEO missions, Elon
Musk, and I presume the SpaceX engineers, believe it can. Elon
mentioned the success of the heat shield on the Dragon reentry about 8
and 1/2 minutes into Wednesday's post flight press conference. He said
the Dragon heat shield was designed to survive even worst case Mars
and lunar return trajectories, and from the performance during the
flight SpaceX is confident it could be used for that purpose. He then
said this opens up possibilities for the Dragon as a potential
replacement for the Orion capsule, presumably for circumlunar
missions:
NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 1.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9MaFqZUQkE
In this portion of the post flight conference about 4 minutes in, in
response to a question Elon says anything the Orion spacecraft can do
the Dragon can do and actually more since the Dragon heat shield is
sufficient for even Mars return trajectories. And therefore he says
for any missions being considered by NASA for the Orion capsule, the
Dragon capsule should also be considered:
NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc
Bob Clark
Robert Clark
...
>
> In regards to the Dragon being able to perform BEO missions, Elon
> Musk, and I presume the SpaceX engineers, believe it can. Elon
> mentioned the success of the heat shield on the Dragon reentry about 8
> and 1/2 minutes into Wednesday's post flight press conference. He said
> the Dragon heat shield was designed to survive even worst case Mars
> and lunar return trajectories, and from the performance during the
> flight SpaceX is confident it could be used for that purpose. He then
> said this opens up possibilities for the Dragon as a potential
> replacement for the Orion capsule, presumably for circumlunar
> missions:
>
> NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
>
> In this portion of the post flight conference about 4 minutes in, in
> response to a question Elon says anything the Orion spacecraft can do
> the Dragon can do and actually more since the Dragon heat shield is
> sufficient for even Mars return trajectories. And therefore he says
> for any missions being considered by NASA for the Orion capsule, the
> Dragon capsule should also be considered:
>
> NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
> Aboard Part 4.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc
>
Another major consideration is the reduced development costs SpaceX
has been able to accomplish compared to the usual way of doing things.
In this part of the post flight news conference a questioner notes the
development cost for Falcon 9, which he implies includes that of the
Dragon, was in the range of $400 million, while for the Orion capsule,
over $4 billion:
NASA and SpaceX Press Conference After Falcon 9 Launch with Dragon
Aboard Part 4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WOfj-k_Irpc
The comparison might be a little unfair in that SpaceX has said it
might take an additional $300 million to man-rate the Falcon 9 and
Dragon capsule, mostly due to an escape system and flight tests.
But still even then your're talking about multiple times more in
development costs by the "old space" companies.
Bob Clark
hal...@aol.com
>
> The comparison might be a little unfair in that SpaceX has said it
> might take an additional $300 million to man-rate the Falcon 9 and
> Dragon capsule, mostly due to an escape system and flight tests.
> But still even then your're talking about multiple times more in
> development costs by the "old space" companies.
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.
get nasa out of the way.........
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
passengers out at the end of the trip because they could not withstand
accelerations, like in that advertisement of a shooting star that
looked quite like my girlfriend of the Berlioz family I could not hold
on to the laptop/card documenting the pic in it because the laptop was
stolen? I suspect this of more than one such spatial venture: not
enough funding for biophysical research or modeling being offset by
direct Human experimentation...
Danilo J Bonsignore
David Spain
>
> this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.
>
> get nasa out of the way.........
Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is a
different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting and
facilitator more than a program office.
I'd dearly love to see the program office brought into the auspices of an NGO
dedicated to exploration. Much like the National Geographic Society, as
proposed by Rand Simberg in his blog. With NASA reverting to the traditional
NACA role of expertise and assistance. There are after all, enormous
infrastructure investments already in NASA, with facilities that remain unique
in the world and still relevant today.
The key to enabling all of this, of course, is getting the cost of space
flight down to within reach of private organizations. The jury is still out, IMHO.
Dave
Fabrizio J Bonsignore
> this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.
You have never played videogames? There should be as many space
service providers as, say, radio stations or local bus lines, or even
internet domains! It is the way knowledge and capital tend to
accumulate when you start with a successful commercial-technological
base. You can see it in simulators, I mean, videogames (was the army
spending billions of budget into GAMES?). NASA can reaccomodate, but
who was the IMBECILE (60 IQ or less) who decided that all internet
content be given under DUMPING? I am a fan of space pictures I find
for free everywhere; even NASA can find a way to turn some *products*
into commercial ventures then act as compensation chamber/regulatory
body... though I still remember a recent magazine announcing a new
spatial venture with an engine development picture I remember from my
early childhood in the seventies! (Automatic debris collection,
anyone?)
Danilo J Bonsignore
namekuseijin
> Not a mathematical calculation, but a question about the societies
> portrayed in science fiction: If only the "cream crop" is sent, who
> will clean toilets on the settled worlds? Did you ever see anyone
> cleaning toilets on the Starship Enterprise?
According to Douglas Adams in "The restaurant at the end of the
Universe", Earth was actually colonized by the crew of a spaceship
composed entirely of middle-man, including toilet cleaners and hair
stylists. To answer your other question, still according to the book,
the original population of the planet died after a pestilent infection
spread because there was no one to clean telephones anymore...
Adams saw farther than most... :)
Pat Flannery
> hal...@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.
>>
>> get nasa out of the way.........
>
> Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is
> a different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting
> and facilitator more than a program office.
Oh God, that's the last thing they need.
Yoyodyne Industries is interested in developing a new upper stage for
the Delta 4; and NASA sends them a consultant to help them out - the
consultant bears an uncanny resemblance to Groucho Marx:
"Are you our NASA consultant?"
"I don't know, who's asking? You aren't with any congressional
investigating committee, are you?"
"No."
"Then I'm your NASA consultant."
"Well, we sent you our basic concept outline, what did you think of it?"
"I thought it had some basic problems, like the fact it exists for
instance...shred all copies of it, and burn the remains."
"Why?"
"The whole thing must never be seen by the public! You have outrageous
and completely un-American concepts in that report! Why, if you do
things that way you could bankrupt the whole aerospace industry.
Children will starve because of what you have done...do you want that on
your conscience? Starving children crawling around on the floor, too
weak to stand up and drop dead like men? I think not!"
"Okay, what's wrong with it in detail?"
"I don't even know where to start...where are the multiple design
revisions?"
"What?"
"You must redesign it at least ten times before you even consider
building it, with each redesign correcting some flaw that somehow got
through the prior redesign, like in your case maybe forgetting to put
engines on the upper stage in the original design, or specifying that it
should be built using metric iron stove bolts in redesigns #2-8. Play
that right and you can make even the simplest things take years to build
and assure continued work for your design engineers.
We have a little shrine built to Space Station Freedom in this regard,
as by the time we had completed the last redesign, we had spent all the
money that was going to be used to actually build it. There were giants
in those days, designers of renown!"
"Well this concept is fairly straight-forward and uses off-the-shelf parts."
"You have damned yourself twice in that one sentence! Nothing is
straight-forward in rocketry! Do you remember how long it took us to get
the Shuttle's toilet to work right? And that was just a crapper, not an
upper stage. "Off-the-shelf parts" are a sure road to disaster, as they
are never optimized for the new design. Who cares if the development of
new parts cost 1,000 times as much as using existing parts if they up
performance by 1%? Even better is to modify off-the-shelf parts into
something completely unrecognizable, as this lets you claim you are
saving taxpayer money! Do you realize that the Shuttle SRB's are highly
modified Estes "D" engines? Or that its ET started out as a "slightly
enlarged" B-58 Hustler drop tank?
Don't even get me started on where the orbiter main engines came from,
let's just say that their ancestors powered many a racer in the Indy
500. With luck you can spend at least three times as much modifying
stock parts as you would building entirely new ones."
"The idea is to spend as much money as possible?"
"OF COURSE THE IDEA IS TO SPEND AS MUCH MONEY AS POSSIBLE! This is to be
sold to the government on a cost-plus basis! If it costs a hundred
million dollars to build it, and you get a 10% profit on it, that's only
ten million dollars - chicken feed! Children crawling around on the
floor trying to subsist on a diet of dust and dead cockroaches! But
now...if it cost, a _billion_ dollars to build, you are getting one
hundred million dollars! Now _that's_ the way to do business! The
stockholders are happy, the employees can feed their starving children
T-bone steaks, and you get a knock-out trophy wife and three Mistresses
on the side!"
"But it's designed to be more economical than the existing stage; that's
its selling point..."
"More economical or _cheaper_? Do you think the government wants some
sort of crappy upper stage like you would find at a Dollar Store?
No, they will be highly suspicious of anything that costs less than what
they are currently using. You must be creative in ways to up its costs
to what the government is expecting - why gold-plate things when you
could make them out of solid gold? Jeweled bearings on the turbopump
will make it run smoother, and if those jewels were diamonds, they would
be almost completely wear-free.
Even the initial bid should be only slightly less expensive and slightly
more capable than the existing competition, with the promise that by the
time it enters service it will cost around twice what was stated, be
years behind schedule, and not be able to do what was promised. Take a
look at that Lockheed F-35B program; that's the way you do it!"
"But, they'll just cancel it then."
"No, no, NO! They _can't_ cancel it! Because you were smart enough when
the government signed the contract for its design and manufacture to
make sure the government's penalty fee if they canceled it would be more
than the profits to be realized if it was actually put into service, and
you would make a net profit! Watch the movie "The Producers" sometime;
that's how you do it! This upper stage could be your very own
"Springtime for Hitler". You are that big marlin that has got the Old
Man Government's hook in its mouth, and is dragging him straight out to
sea! He doesn't dare cut and run, and by the time its all over it will
be him, not you, that gets fed to the sharks.
Now, that's the American Way!
I hope I've been of help...but there's one last secret I'm going to
confide to you."
"What, what?"
"There is nothing greater than having an "independent" analysis done of
your project by an outside group that will endorse its merits. Remember
how the Mathematica Study thought that the Space Shuttle was going to
cut launch costs?"
"Yes."
"Well, if you phrase the question to an independent analysis group
correctly, they will always come to the conclusion you want them to.
In the case of Mathematica it was casually mentioning that if they
didn't endorse NASA building the Shuttle, tens of thousands of NASA
employees would be out of work, and many of them were avid hunters who
owned high-powered rifles with telescopic sights on them.
It changed the whole equation." ;-)
Pat
David Spain
> On 12/13/2010 5:29 AM, David Spain wrote:
>> hal...@aol.com wrote:
>>>
>>> this makes nasa irrevelant, which is sad but perhaps necessary.
>>>
>>> get nasa out of the way.........
>>
>> Bob, I disagree; it doesn't make NASA irrelevant. But what it enables is
>> a different role for NASA. NASA can move into the roles of consulting
>> and facilitator more than a program office.
>
> Oh God, that's the last thing they need.
> Yoyodyne Industries is interested in developing a new upper stage for
> the Delta 4; and NASA sends them a consultant to help them out - the
> consultant bears an uncanny resemblance to Groucho Marx:
...
:-D
Pat,
Whatever you are using, I want some....
;-)
Dave 'John YaYa' Spain
Robert Clark
> > launch a 500 kg payload to GEO by using two Star solid motors and
> > lunar gravity assist:
>
> > Dnepr (R-36M2).
> > "The Dnepr launch vehicle does not have the capability to deploy
> > payloads directiy into GTO. However, Kosmotras has studied a technique
> > to deliver small spacecraft to GEO using the gravity of the Moon to
> > provide the plane change and perigee raising. In this scenario, the
> > spacecraft is attached to Star 48A and Star 27 solid motors, supplied
> > separately by ATK Thiokol. The Star48A would send the spacecraft to
> > the Moon, where a gravity slingshot maneuver would lower the transfer
> > orbit inclination from 50.5 deg to 0 deg, and raise the orbit perigee
> > to geostationary altitude. When the spacecraft reaches perigee of the
> > new transfer orbit, the Star 27 motor would fire to circularize the
> > orbit at GEO. Using this method, a 500 kg (1100 lbm) spacecraft could
> > be delivered to GEO."http://www.b14643.de/Spacerockets_1/East_Europe_3/Dnepr/Description/F...
>
> This page has this link to a video of a panel discussion at the Space
> Manufacturing Conference 14 held in October this year:
>
> WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 2010
> The Moon, Mars, or Asteroids: The Future of Extraterrestrial
>
> About 12 minutes in, one of the panel members made an interesting
> comparison between what is considered to be a profitable mine on Earth
> and what the LCROSS data suggests is available near surface in some
> shadowed craters on the Moon. He said a mine on Earth might be
> profitable if you can make in the range of $150 per ton of material
> excavated. But judging from the LCROSS data, the minerals available in
> shadowed craters might value in the range of $1,000,000 per ton of
> excavated material.
> This might be sufficient justification for some mining companies to
> pay for a low cost exploratory lander mission. For instance the Dnepr
> rocket can lift 550 kg to TLI at a cost of $10 to $13 million. This
> might be sufficient mass for a lander with a descent rocket with just
> simple instruments such as a APXS and infrared spectrometers and radio
> transmission capability.
>
The estimates from the value of minerals in shadowed craters on the
Moon stems from the LCROSS mission results that showed precious metals
within the impacted crater such as gold and silver:
SCIENCE -- October 21, 2010 at 2:05 PM EDT
Moon Blast Reveals Lunar Surface Rich With Compounds.
BY: JENNY MARDER
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2010/10/its-confirmed-there-is-water.html
Here mission scientist Peter Schultz says the amount of silver would
not be enough for mining, but does not mention the amount of gold:
October 21, 2010 | Contact: Richard Lewis |
NASA-engineered collision spills new Moon secrets
http://news.brown.edu/pressreleases/2010/10/lcross
The amount of gold is potentially startlingly high. The LCROSS
suggest it could be as high as 1.6%, thousands of times higher than
what might be available in even the richest gold mines on Earth:
REPORT
LRO-LAMP Observations of the LCROSS Impact Plume.
Science, 22 October 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6003 pp. 472-476
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/330/6003/472.abstract
The full-text of the article is not free on the site. This Google
cache page though has a HTML version that shows the abundance amounts
for the various chemicals detected:
If the actual amount is anywhere close to this amount then this would
provide mining opportunities for gold even when you take into account
the much greater transportation costs for getting it from the Moon.
What HAS to be done, like yesterday, is to send lander missions to
confirm those startling amounts indicated by the LCROSS mission. The
LCROSS readings for gold are only upper bounds. It needs to be
determined if the actual amounts are really close to that. If so, then
this is a real game changer. People have been asking what is the real
"killer app" for space travel? IF the LCROSS results are true then you
have it right there, lunar mining. Even more, this is in fact a killer
app for beyond Earth orbit space travel as well!
Bob Clark