October 22, 2010
Strange Lunar Brew
Bullseye on the Moon -- the LCROSS impact site
A year ago, the LCROSS (Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite) mission team announced the detection of water in the impact plume produced after the Centaur separated from the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and crashed into the Moon. We now have more detailed information on the water and some other substances detected during that event. Some of these elements and compounds were expected, others are very strange indeed.
Because the spin axis of the Moon is perpendicular to the plane of its orbit with respect to the sun, the Moon’s poles get grazing solar illumination. This means that the floors of craters and low areas are in permanent shadow and extremely cold. The DIVINER instrument on LRO measured these temperatures for the first time and found some areas as cold as 25 Kelvin (25° above absolute zero, -273° C), making them colder than the estimated surface temperature of Pluto. Because these areas are so cold, any molecule or atom of a volatile substance that gets into them is trapped. These dark areas are referred to as “cold traps” where, over very long periods of time (billions of years) significant amounts of these elements and compounds might accumulate.
Since water is one of the most abundant compounds found in the Solar System, we expected some accumulation of it at the lunar poles. It was on this basis that scientists have been searching for water ice on the Moon for the past 20 years, using a wide variety of techniques, including spectral reflectance, radar, neutron and gamma-ray sensing and ultraviolet imaging – all techniques done remotely from space. Landing at the poles and surveying the lunar surface to actually see what was there, was next on the list.
A plan to soft-land a long-lived rover near the poles and conduct an extended surface mission surveying polar resources was discarded when the Ares rocket became the focus of NASA’s lunar return effort. A smaller mission was improvised to hurl an impactor (the spent upper stage of the rocket that launched the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter) into the polar deposits so the spacecraft could analyze the material shot off into space from the collision. Although this is still “remote sensing” of the deposits, at least the material would be ejected out of the dark, cold regions into open space where we might get a look not only at the water but also some other volatile substances that might be there.
The LCROSS team’s published data from the mission reveals a cold witches’ brew deep inside Cabeus crater. The finding of significant lunar water has confirmed data from earlier missions, while the ejecta plume from the LCROSS impact reveals more modest amounts of a variety of other substances. The Near-IR spectrometers on the LCROSS shepherding satellite detected abundant water (H2O) but also hydrogen sulfide (H2S), ammonia (NH3), methanol (CH3OH), methane (CH4), ethylene (C2H4) and sulfur dioxide (SO2). The uv-vis spectrometer found carbon dioxide (CO2), sodium, silver, and cyanide (CN). Aboard the distant LRO spacecraft, the ultraviolet LAMP imager detected hydrogen (H2), nitrogen, carbon monoxide (CO), sodium, mercury, zinc, gold (!), and calcium. But water, present in quantities between 5 and 10 weight percent, is the most abundant volatile substance present.
In lunar terms, this is a very odd association of materials. Whereas we had found these elements and compounds in the returned lunar rock samples (some in vanishingly small quantities), the presence of significant amounts of ammonia and methane is significant; these gases are common components of cometary nuclei. One idea about the origin of water ice at the poles of the Moon is that it is derived largely from comets, which have continually hit the Moon over geological time. An alternative model suggests that most of the volatiles of this cometary debris are lost to space and the water and hydroxyl (OH) molecules found on the lunar surface come instead from the interaction of solar wind hydrogen with metal oxides in the lunar soil. In this model, heat provided by micrometeorite impact causes the solar wind hydrogen to reduce the metal oxides into native metal (like Fe0) and OH, which attaches itself to mineral faces. This hydroxyl is widespread over the lunar surface and was mapped by the Moon Mineralogy Mapper on the Chandrayaan-1 spacecraft over a year ago.
The newly published LCROSS data showing large amounts of volatiles normally associated with comets strongly suggest that at least some of the lunar water is of cometary origin. However, the detection of large amounts of free hydrogen (H2) in the ejecta plume supports significant preservation of solar wind hydrogen in the cold traps as well. It appears that both sources contribute to the water on the Moon and more analysis is necessary to determine which process is responsible for what fraction of the deposits. The clear message of the new work is that the processes and history of lunar volatiles are complex and poorly understood. Once again, the Moon shows us that its history, as well as its current state, is richer and more nuanced than we had thought.
The LCROSS results indicate that a variety of useful substances are present in the polar cold traps. Water is our principal object for future resource extraction, being one of the most valuable and readily available substances for spaceflight imaginable (i.e., a life-support consumable, a medium of energy storage and rocket propellant). However, both ammonia and methane have a variety of industrial uses, as well as being ready sources of nitrogen and carbon, two elements essential for the support of human life. Sulfur is also a useful element and appears to be present in fair quantity as both native sulfur and sulfide. Some reports suggest that the high concentration of mercury makes lunar water unusable; this impression is incorrect. Impurities can be removed from harvested polar water easily through the technique of fractional distillation, a common industrial process on the Earth for hundreds of years.
Some of the components of the polar suite are perplexing. For example, silver (Ag) shows a very strong peak in the uv-vis spectra. In lunar samples, silver is extremely sparse, occurring at the parts per billion level. Mercury (Hg) is also rare in lunar samples but it is a very volatile substance and the processes that preserve volatiles in the cold traps would work to increase and concentrate mercury at the poles relative to equatorial areas of the Moon. But silver is not volatile (its melting temperature is about 1000° C), so why would it concentrate at the poles? With such bizarre associations, scientists will be looking over this new data with keen interest. To determine the composition, physical nature and distribution of these deposits, a robotic surface rover needs to be sent into the polar cold traps to take detailed measurements.
Just after it has been relegated to a “been there, done that” status, the Moon again shows us we have a lot to learn about its history, physical state and the potential value of its resources. We must take the initiative to learn more as the Moon is crucial in developing and advancing a sustainable space faring infrastructure.
34 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
The web editors have closed comments for this blog.
The discovery of carbon and nitrogen compounds is exciting. This in addition the hydrogen and oxygen make the moon seem much more hospitable.
The reports of mercury caused me some anxiety. But separation of mercury from water is easily doable with fractional distillation?
I’ve heard liquid mercury in a rotating container will form a perfect paraboloid. I would imagine a huge mercury mirror on the moon would be an astronomer’s wet dream.
Comment by Hop David — October 22, 2010 @ 10:11 pm
I have to admit that I now find the deposition of materials at the lunar poles absolutely fascinating!
Obviously, a region where both oxygen and hydrogen resources are abundant would be of great value for a manned lunar base and for resupplying space depots withing cis-lunar space. But the presence of carbon and nitrogen resources at the lunar poles would also be of great value for hydroponically growing plants for food.
Hydrogen, water, and hydrocarbons could also be of value as cheap sources of radiation shielding material for manned interplanetary space craft: its a lot cheaper to transport such materials to an L1 interplanetary launch port from the Moon than from the Earth’s deep gravity well.
With potential manned missions to the asteroid or to Mars set in the relatively far future (middle 2020s and 2030s), I think its time for NASA to prioritize both our manned and unmanned space program towards the Moon.
After more than 3000 votes on a Wall Street Journal poll, more than 80% of those who have voted favor the building of of lunar base.
http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/would-you-support-building-manned
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 22, 2010 @ 10:55 pm
>>a robotic surface rover needs to be sent into the polar cold traps to take detailed measurements.
Uh, about a few decades overdue.
Comment by kert — October 23, 2010 @ 3:46 pm
They say that the poles act as a cold trap for particles blown off the sun or for comet material that crashed there at one time in the past. Theory has it that the moon was formed when a Mars sized body crashed into the earth. That being the case is it possible that that part of the earth would have retained some of earths water when that happened or would things have been too hot at that time to retain water?
At home I have water from 150-200 ft. in the crumbly bed rock in my well. Is there likely to be a water table on the moon or will this water be frozen surface water?
Comment by Gary Warburton — October 23, 2010 @ 11:04 pm
Gary,
is it possible that that part of the earth would have retained some of earths water when that happened or would things have been too hot at that time to retain water?
Up until recently, I would have said that it is extremely unlikely for the newly formed Moon to retain any water. However, we’ve recently found that water did exist in the deep lunar interior billions of years ago. We’re not sure whether this water came from the proto-Earth or the Theia impactor.
Is there likely to be a water table on the moon or will this water be frozen surface water?
It’s likely to be all ice as the external water added to the Moon is concentrated in the upper few meters of the surface, where temperatures and pressures do not permit liquid water.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 24, 2010 @ 6:30 am
The presence of volatiles, energy and carbon compounds suggests to me that biological hazards may well exist on the Moon. The Apollo landings now seem to have been in the lifeless equatorial deserts – who knows what has been ticking over in the shadows? We should exercise extreme caution, not just for the sake of Earthly life but also for any putative Lunar life!
Comment by Bob Shaw — October 24, 2010 @ 10:53 am
Dr. Spudis, since there was nothing to stop the deposition of other impact materials within these frigid shaded craters, isn’t it most likely the regolith inside is a granular mixture of the pulverized materials seen elsewhere on the lunar surface in addition to frozen water, hydrocarbons, and ammonia?
Possible pure layers of ice at the top of a shadowed crater would seem more likely to come from the constant formation of hydroxyl and the redistribution of evaporated hydroxyl rather than from asteroid or cometary origin.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 24, 2010 @ 1:17 pm
isn’t it most likely the regolith inside is a granular mixture of the pulverized materials seen elsewhere on the lunar surface in addition to frozen water, hydrocarbons, and ammonia?
Yes. There’s no doubt that at least some fine regolith is admixed with the ice.
Possible pure layers of ice at the top of a shadowed crater would seem more likely to come from the constant formation of hydroxyl and the redistribution of evaporated hydroxyl rather than from asteroid or cometary origin.
The problem I have with that is that the rates don’t seem to permit that mechanism. For the “pure” ice that I’m seeing with the radar, we would need a mechanism that deposits vastly grater quantities of ice than mixing regolith (soil) with it. If the ice is coming from a slow, steady state delivery of hydrogen atoms or hydroxyl molecules, I would expect significant regolith mixed by impact gardening. The fact that we see this “pure” (i.e., regolith-poor) ice suggests more of a stochastic process, whereby large amounts of water are added suddenly and in great quantity. That suggests a mechanism more like cometary addition.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 24, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
Very interesting! Since we’re not going to have much of a manned space program for awhile, it would be nice to send a slew of robots into the interior of those shadowed craters at the lunar poles to thoroughly investigate, perhaps within the next 5 years.
The current administration might be able to save some face as far as their hostility towards the Moon by supporting such extensive robotic missions on the lunar surface as just part of their new agenda.
But there’s no doubt in my mind that the more we learn about these volatile resources at the lunar poles, the more pressure there will be for the US to finally establish permanently manned facilities on the Moon.
I get a sense that the American people are actually excited about the prospect of water on the Moon. And the more scientist like yourself talk about lunar water, the more support there seems to be for a lunar base!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 25, 2010 @ 1:48 am
Minor correction: LRO-LAMP detected H2, CO, Hg, & Ca all right, but only provided upper limits on N, Zn, & Au, I’m afraid. LAMP has nothing to say about Na, either, as it doesn’t have any strong features in the LAMP bandpass.
Comment by Randy Gladstone — October 25, 2010 @ 9:17 am
Randy,
Thanks for the corrections. The Na peak was observed in the uv-vis data from the LCROSS shepherding satellite (as noted above) but not in the LAMP data. My error.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 25, 2010 @ 9:51 am
Dr. Spudis-
It seems that the termination of the Constellation Program would hinder future lunar exploration; both robotic and human. The research from previous and current missions have provided evidence to show that we need to further our investigations on the Moon. Why wouldn’t we continue our lunar explorations?!
ECSU Undergraduate Student,
C. Wood
Comment by Courtney Wood — October 25, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
Courtney,
The Constellation program had funding issues and it was not likely to get additional money. But the real problem with our space program is the cancellation of lunar return as a strategic goal. Architectures and programs can be fixed or modified, but they chose instead to simply drop the objective.
The Moon remains an important and useful destination. At some point, this will be recognized again. It is entirely possible to establish a permanent lunar presence under the existing budgetary environment. It just requires an approach that uses small, incremental steps.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 26, 2010 @ 4:54 am
@C. Wood,
The basic problem with the Constellation program, IMO, was the fact that there was no serious funding in the budget for the core heavy lift vehicle (Ares V core booster). There was also no serious funding for the Altair lunar landing vehicle. Such funding was going to have to wait until the completion of the controversial Ares I crew launch vehicle and the termination of the ISS program (Congress now intends to extend the ISS program at least until the year 2020).
Ironically, the new authorization act actually starts funding a heavy lift vehicle right now even though the lunar destination has been terminated by the current administration. Although the current administration has suggested a journey to an asteroid by the year 2025, NASA really has no specific manned beyond LEO mission goals right now. So using the heavy lift architecture to build a Moon base could still be a viable option for the more immediate future.
Personally, I really don’t believe the Obama administration was serious about the manned asteroid mission in the first place. I think such missions were set so far into the future in the hope that private industry would develop their own beyond LEO manned spaceflight capability so that it would be unnecessary for the Federal government to conduct such missions.
I think Obama’s real goal was to end the government manned space program in order to replace it with private commercial manned space programs. This would allow him to use those government funds for more important social programs:-)
There are some of us, however, who believe that such a policy would actually kill the goose that laid the golden eggs. Studies continue to show that NASA is a technological and economic positive for private industry and our country as a whole. And there wouldn’t even be the possibility of private commercial space programs in the US if it weren’t for NASA!
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
I really seems to me that these latest data establishes that the logical first place for a manned colony is the Moon and not Mars. If you take a look at Zubrin’s Space.com article a ways back his main reason for why the Moon isn’t the logical destination for colonization is as follows:
> Why not then the moon? The answer is because there’s not enough there….For all intents and purposes, the moon has no hydrogen, nitrogen, or carbon — three of the four elements necessary for life….While sustaining a lunar scientific base under such conditions is relatively straightforward, growing a civilization there would be impossible.
Well, all that’s changed now. Now that there seems to be plenty of hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon on the Moon we can then compare costs. With the Moon being able to be prepared telerobotically, no need for extensive supplies or shielding, lower craft/fuel size, and lower risk from a delaying failure event, it seems obvious to me that the Moon is the logical next step.
As for any argument that you MUST have humans on Mars in order to find out if we are alone in the universe (i.e. independent origin of life), many more advanced rovers can be landed on all parts of Mars for the same cost as a single manned mission there.
And a spin off benefit of making the Moon the next logical step is that a whole new cis-lunar economy will be established and Lunar Ice To Leo (LITL) will provide the fuel for economic asteroid, Deimos, and Mars missions.
Case closed.
Comment by JohnHunt — October 26, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
> Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 26, 2010 @ 1:12 pm
>== I think Obama’s real goal was to end the government
> manned space program in order to replace it with private
> commercial manned space programs. ==
Well, I’m sure your right about ending the gov program – but what was proposed would not in any sence support developing a commercial alternative.
>== such a policy would actually kill the goose that laid
> the golden eggs. Studies continue to show that NASA is
> a technological and economic positive for private
> industry and our country as a whole. ==
It can be – at the least NASA buys advamnced gear giving a market for commercials to develop it. Once – but no more.
:’(
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 27, 2010 @ 9:35 am
> Comment by JohnHunt — October 26, 2010 @ 9:10 pm
>== I really seems to me that these latest data establishes
> that the logical first place for a manned colony is the
> Moon and not Mars. ==
Frankly neither are suitable for colonization. (low grav, litle supplies) Though research and tourist bases make sense.
>==And a spin off benefit of making the Moon the next
> logical step is that a whole new cis-lunar economy
> will be established and Lunar Ice To Leo (LITL) will
> provide the fuel for economic asteroid, Deimos, and
> Mars missions.
That’s not really a economy – more a welfare program; and every reasonable analysis I’ve seen (or ones I’ve done for grins) its cheaper to launch the material from Earth to LEO. Same way the SSPS analysis by the DOE found Earth launching the big SSPS stations in peaces was much cheaper.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 27, 2010 @ 9:57 am
Kelly,
every reasonable analysis I’ve seen (or ones I’ve done for grins) its cheaper to launch the material from Earth to LEO.
I guess that depends on what your definition of “reasonable” is. I know if two different studies, one by Gordon Woodcock back in the 1990′s and a second one by the Colorado School of Mines in 2003 that concluded producing propellant on the Moon for export and use in cislunar made economic sense.
But even if it doesn’t initially pay for itself, learning how to extract and use off-planet resources is a worthy R&D task in itself. It is a skill that we must master to establish permanent human presence in space. So why not use the Moon as it is close and has what we need?
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 27, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
@Kelly,
Its certainly cheaper to launch lunar oxygen and hydrogen to L1 from the Moon that from Earth as far as the delta-v requirements are concerned. And the same is true to LEO, especially if aerobreaking is used to reach Earth orbit.
Additionally, a lunar transport vehicle could easily be developed into a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle which would substantially lower cost even further.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 27, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
I guess that depends on what your definition of “reasonable” is. I know if two different studies, one by Gordon Woodcock back in the 1990′s and a second one by the Colorado School of Mines in 2003 that concluded producing propellant on the Moon for export and use in cislunar made economic sense.
Both those were written before the recent volatile discoveries. I would expect the recent discoveries of water and other hydrogen compounds would make their cases more compelling.
Could you give pointers to these studies?
I believe the moon could be a less expensive source of propellent to LEO and EML1 or 2. However it is hard for me to make this case as I have little idea how much it would cost to mine lunar propellent.
My argument rests on the notion that single-stage, reusable tankers for trips between the moon and LEO are plausible. Whereas propellents from earth must be delivered with multi-stage expendables.
I’d very much like to see the arguments of Woodcock the Colorado School of Mine folks.
Comment by Hop David — October 27, 2010 @ 11:14 pm
Could you give pointers to these studies?
Although I have a copy of the DARPA study, I have not been able to find it on-line.
UPDATED: My lovely wife has reminded me where you can find a presentation version of the Colorado School of Mines Report:
http://www.higp.hawaii.edu/srr/SRR-VI-presentations/Blair-ISRU_Cost_Benefit_SRR6.ppt
This is not the final full report they presented to DARPA, but contains the essence of it.
For Gordon Woodcock’s work on lunar resources, check out these references:
http://www.uapress.arizona.edu/onlinebks/ResourcesNearEarthSpace/resources09.pdf
http://lib.uah.edu/researchassistance/files/NNL06AE27P.pdf
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1334
There is also a paper Gordon wrote for AIAA Space 2007, but only the abstract and first page are available on the internet for free:
http://pdf.aiaa.org/preview/CDReadyMSPACE07_1808/PV2007_6080.pdf
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 28, 2010 @ 4:46 am
Dr. Spudis, one of your colleagues in China has something interesting to say about China’s views on lunar exploration. He even paraphrases a little Tsiolkovsky:
http://opinion.globaltimes.cn/commentary/2010-10/581744.html
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 28, 2010 @ 11:52 am
> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 27, 2010 @ 12:00 pm
>
>== But even if it doesn’t initially pay for itself, learning how to extract
> and use off-planet resources is a worthy R&D task in itself. It is a skill that
> we must master to establish permanent human presence in space. So
> why not use the Moon as it is close and has what we need?
Might be a worth R&D effort, but not at the cost of making missions more expensive and more complicated.
As to a permanent presence in space – THAT absolutely and foremost require economically self supporting presence in space. The US is covered in the ghost towns of places founded for various ideological etc reasons. Its the places that could pay there way (even if totally non self sufficient) that survived. So I really give more weight to our space efforts learning to not ignore practical factors.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 28, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
> Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 27, 2010 @ 1:48 pm
> == It s certainly cheaper to launch lunar oxygen and hydrogen to
> L1 from the Moon that from Earth as far as the delta-v requirements
> are concerned.=
Yeah but you pay in $’s (or votes in NASA’s case) not in joules.
> Additionally, a lunar transport vehicle could easily be developed
> into a reusable single stage to orbit vehicle which would substantially lower cost even further.
SS from Luna to LLO/LEO? Or SS from Earth to somewhere?
I don’t follow.
In any event if you boost the fuel from Earth, you don’t really add any costs, since space launch systems per launch costs are nothing compared to your fixed costs (Launch no shuttles a year, or a dozen, and the costs per year are the same). But adding the Lunar “shuttle” likely doubles your total capital and yearly costs.
By the way – where were you going to serve your lunar RLV? Did you think of the cost of the mining facilities?
Don’t fell bad if not – the L5 colony folks didn’t think it through eiather.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 28, 2010 @ 12:17 pm
Might be a worth R&D effort, but not at the cost of making missions more expensive and more complicated.
Learning how to use the resources of the Moon is the mission. Or it was, until we turned our national space program into an aerospace corporate welfare program.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 28, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
> Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 28, 2010 @ 2:14 pm
>== Learning how to use the resources of the Moon is the
> mission. Or it was, until we turned our national space program
> into an aerospace corporate welfare program.
That’s never been the goal of any mission I ever saw. Hell space was never really the mission for NASA.
More then that, unless the resources pay their way – they are just waste.
As for a aerospace welfare program. At least were preserving US aerospace space capacity – though really now, you can’t even say that.
Sadly about all the public cares about NASA is the prestige of having a NASA, and jobs in districts.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 28, 2010 @ 2:33 pm
That’s never been the goal of any mission I ever saw.
Then you didn’t read the documents establishing the Vision for Space Exploration:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=13404
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19999
But I’m not surprised. Nobody at NASA read them either.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — October 28, 2010 @ 3:56 pm
@ Kelly Starks “I don’t follow.
In any event if you boost the fuel from Earth, you don’t really add any costs, since space launch systems per launch costs are nothing compared to your fixed costs (Launch no shuttles a year, or a dozen, and the costs per year are the same). But adding the Lunar “shuttle” likely doubles your total capital and yearly costs.”
Ten manned flights to the Moon would require ten super heavy lift vehicle launches plus ten Altairs plus possibly ten Orion launches on heavy lift vehicles.
However, if you used lunar oxygen and hydrogen, only ten Orion launches to L1 or lunar orbit would be required and only one super heavy lift launch for the reusable Altair vehicle. So you’d use 9 fewer heavy lift vehicles and 9 fewer Altair vehicles. I guess you could add an additional supper heavy lift launch to deploy the 10 to 20 tonnes of ice mining equipment on the Moon which hopefully should last for several years.
Mining lunar water at the poles is probably going to take a shovel to dig up the ice crystal rich regolith and a microwave oven to melt it. And probably all of this will be done by machines teleoperated from Earth.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 28, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
> Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 28, 2010 @ 6:07 pm
> Ten manned flights to the Moon would require ten super heavy lift
> vehicle launches plus ten Altairs plus possibly ten Orion launches on heavy lift vehicles.
Not sure what your referring to as a super heavy. But if your using constellation as a ref, each flight to the Moon would require a Altair and LEO to LLO booster launched no a Ares-5, and a Orion launched on a Ares-I. Rough guess, total program cost $15-$20, given GAO numbers.
[Note constellation manages to not only be humiliatingly backward of a design, significantly less safe then current generation craft – and staggeringly expensive compared to every other launch fielded.]
> However, if you used lunar oxygen and hydrogen, only ten Orion
> launches to L1 or lunar orbit would be required and only one super
> heavy lift launch for the reusable Altair vehicle. ==
Nit, Altairs arn’t reusable, and you still need the “super heavy” (Altair-5 ish) though a smaller one to get the Orion to the moon if you relpaced Altair with a reusable.
>== So you’d use 9 fewer heavy lift vehicles and 9 fewer Altair vehicles. ==
Actually if you assume a reusable Altair you’d still need the Orion and LEO-LLO booster launched. I suppose you could field a smaller LEO to LLO booster that could only boost a Altair, or a Orion (not both at once like Constellation). Given this smaller Ares-V would likely cost about the same to develop and fly as the bigger one, and you’ld need one extra launch to Launch the Altair to the Moon, then another one to launch a Altair cargo craft to land your 10 to 20 tones of ice mining equipment on the moon (could a Altair without return stage land 20 tons?)
Constellation 10 flights
10 Ares-V launches with 1 Altair and 1 LEO-LLO stage each
10 Ares-I launches with a Orion each.
Or in your configuration 10 flights
12 Ares-V launches
– 1 w Altair and a LEO-LLO stage
- 1 w cargo Altair, mining gear, and a LEO-LLO stage
- 10 w a LEO-LLO stage
10 Ares-I launches with a Orion each.
So you add 2 heavy launches and need to land mining equipment. Also you need to field and service the mining gear – and given the EXTREAMLY abrasive nature of lunar soil – that could be a hassle.
Really you also need to land a servicing area to service the Altairs between flights – so say another heavy lift with LEO to LLO stage and cargo Altair?
You really don’t save anything in the flights (given the fixed cost issues, the extra flights likely don’t increase your cost noticably eiather), but you don’t save anything.
Frankly the one plus would be a reusable Altair. Upgrade it so it could do LEO to Lunar surface adn back and eliminate the trans stages, and you could have something valuable.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 29, 2010 @ 12:31 pm
@Kelly Starks
I didn’t say that the latest Altair concept was reusable. I said the Altair vehicle should be developed into a reusable vehicle. That would mean developing a single stage LOX/LH2 vehicle that could utilize lunar oxygen and hydrogen instead of a two stage vehicle with a LOX/LH2 descent stage and a hypergolic ascent stage. Such single stage lunar landers have been proposed numerous times in the scientific literature since then end of the Apollo program.
You also forgot about the fact that if you don’t use lunar resources, a manned lunar base would have to be resupplied with oxygen and water and food from the Earth. You also have to mine thousands of tonnes of lunar regolith for mass shielding in order to protect astronauts from galactic radiation. There’s no way you’re going to be able to transport that amount of mass from Earth to the lunar surface to protect astronaut’s bodies and brains from the deleterious effects of cosmic radiation.
Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 29, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
> Comment by Marcel F. Williams — October 29, 2010 @ 11:52 pm
> I didn’t say that the latest Altair concept was reusable.
> I said the Altair vehicle should be developed into a
> reusable vehicle. ==
That has merit – but it would require a complete redesign, and some facilities on the moon to allow servicing of it. An older simpler concept was to launch from a shuttle bay in orbit (or refuel after being deployed from a shuttle) and fly fro LEO to lunar surface, then back to LEO, then be recovered and landed in a shuttle for servicing adn ater relaunch. Or refuel a new generation orbiter in LEO and have it boost with the lander in the bay to lunar orbit. The lander lands, adn later launches back to the orbiting orbiter. The crew and lander return to Earth.
Given these configs would be vastly cheaper to develop then constellation, and cheaper to operate (and you wouldn’t throw everything away every flight) they’ld be a real plus.
> You also forgot about the fact that if you don’t use
> lunar resources, a manned lunar base would have to be
> resupplied with oxygen and water and food from the Earth.==
Waters pretty easy to recycle, the rest are a trivial weight compared to ship and crew. Adding all the extra stuff for food production etc would cause a huge scale up of bases and systems and costs. …And the crews likely going to complain about limited diet.
>== You also have to mine thousands of tonnes of lunar
> regolith for mass shielding in order to protect astronauts
> from galactic radiation. ==
That just involves dragging lose dirt over the station. Not exactly ISRU in the normal sense.
Though it was found that lunar soil, mixed with ice adn concrete, and microwaved hot while extruded, made spectacular concrete if you want to start worrying about really big bases.
Comment by Kelly Starks — October 30, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
My BOTE calculations indicate that a capability to loft thousands of tons of lunar propellant could be achieved within 3 to 10 years of first manned landing. Once completed, you could expect to be able to loft a kilogram of propellant to L1 for something on the order of $1500 USD/kg, so to get it to LEO, it would cost more like $3600/kg. This figure takes into account the ongoing overhead cost of the lunar station and amortizes the initial construction costs.
I have a question for Dr. Spudis: The LCROSS results showed a veritable witch’s brew of various volatiles. What are the implications for the content of the ice detected in the northern anomalous craters? In particular, are ammonia, CO2, and methane also transparent to circular polarization radar? If so, then could you speculate on what you think the relative concentrations of these species would be inside these northern craters?
Comment by Warren Platts — November 2, 2010 @ 4:58 am
Warren,
Radar only detects RF-transparent material. All of the “contaminant” (i.e., non-water ice) materials found in the LCROSS spectra, such as ammonia and methane, would not be distinguished in the radar backscatter. Ice is ice. It is for that reason that I advocate a surface rover at the poles, equipped with instruments to make in situ analyses of the ice. That’s really the only way we’ll be able to say what’s there with any degree of certainty.
Comment by Paul D. Spudis — November 2, 2010 @ 5:42 am
> Comment by Warren Platts — November 2, 2010 @ 4:58 am
>
> My BOTE calculations indicate that a capability to loft thousands
> of tons of lunar propellant could be achieved within 3 to 10 years
> of first manned landing. Once completed, you could expect to be able
> to loft a kilogram of propellant to L1 for something on the order of
> $1500 USD/kg, so to get it to LEO, it would cost more like $3600/kg.
> This figure takes into account the ongoing overhead cost of the lunar
> station and amortizes the initial construction costs. ==
Not seeing your envelop I don’t know what your assuming for construction costs, equipment etc, or even how many tons per year you were assuming. But if your contracting for a thousand tons of lift a year, after fielding and paying for “facilities” hundreds of dollars a pound to LEO from Earth would not be hard to get. Elon Musk mentioned $500 a lb with his Falcon 9’s if he could get hundreds of tons of lift contracts per year. So for thousands of tons, and budgeting for a better launch vehicle (obviously your not going to need thousands of tons of lifts of fuel, unless you have much better Earth to LEO and Earth to Lunar transport then now), you could certainly undercut that significantly.
Comment by Kelly Starks — November 2, 2010 @ 9:55 am