A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

Excellent points made in this lecture by Jeff Greason of XCOR that commercial space can get us to the Moon and Mars orders of magnitude more cheaply than the NASA estimates.

This is important because supporters of a "Mars first" approach such as Robert Zubrin take that stance because of the idea a lunar return would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But this is by following the usual governmental financing approach. By following commercial space and not requiring all new "giga"-rockets, it could be done for a fraction of those estimates.

Then all Mars supporters would come on board to support a return to the Moon.

NewSpace 2014 - Pathways to Human Exploration: Are there alternatives to NASA? - YouTube

A new study concluded the cost for a lunar colony could be cut by an order of magnitude over NASA estimates by following the commercial space approach:

COLONIZING THE MOON MAY BE 90 PERCENT CHEAPER THAN WE THOUGHT
AND THAT IN TURN COULD HELP US GET TO MARS, SAYS NASA-COMMISSIONED STUDY
By Sarah Fecht Posted July 20, 2015
http://www.popsci.com/colonizing-moon-may-be-90-percent-cheaper-we-thought


Bob Clark
 
Personally, I'd rather see a fleet of special-purpose vehicles designed and built, each vehicle designed for a specific part of a mission. The Lunar Module was the 1st (and so far only) special-purpose manned vehicle ever built. Everything else that I've seen has been a single vehicle built for everything from lifting man from the surface of the earth, to getting them into any sort of beyond LEO orbit, and then getting them back to the surface of the earth.

On a side note, a few of the Apollo astronauts are on record as saying that there are several parts of the earth to moon and back mission that are exceptionally dangerous. The part of the mission where you can buy-the-farm the fastest was liftoff from the Earth to LEO. The part that is hard simply because it is the most difficult to practice ahead of time is the actual lunar landing. The part that is the least forgiving is the reentry back into the Earth's atmosphere. Many folks have proposed using a space elevator to eliminate #1 and #3, but what about a space elevator from the lunar surface to the L1 Lagrange Point to eliminate #2? I've yet to see any studies on what it would take to build that.

Once you're on the lunar surface directly under the L1 point, then a series of underground mag-lev tubes (like that hypertube thingie that Musk has proposed) that circle the lunar globe about 0.5 km under ground with stations that allow side trips to interesting locals would be the next thing to build. Using He3 on the moon as a refrigerant to produce a superconducting circuit where power is applied to it on the sun-lit side of the moon and radiators cool the circuit on the shade-side of the moon. The power transmitted along this circuit could be used to power the mag-lev, plus any number of settlements all around the lunar surface. And what's really neat is all the raw materials needed to build the mag-lev tubs, and the super conducting circuit (including the He3) are already on the moon.

Just an idea.

Dantassii
HUMONGOUS IMS shipbuilder
 
All that above seems really expensive...

Has anyone done any reliable studies about how much it would cost to mine and ship water to LEO compared to when you launch it from earth?
 
All that above seems really expensive...

Has anyone done any reliable studies about how much it would cost to mine and ship water to LEO compared to when you launch it from earth?

Actually, as part of a AIAA Spacecraft Design Contest Entry back in the late 1990's a couple of classmates and I determined that mining Near Earth Asteroids (NEA) for water and carbon and mining the moon for metals then assembling spacecraft from these materials in lunar orbit was the most efficient in terms of cost per kg of materials. In fact, the only material that absolutely HAS to come from the Earth's surface is living creatures. Bring seeds and humans from Earth is the only thing you can't bring in from anywhere else.

We also determined that cheap human access to space in the form of LEO was by far the most expensive component (in terms of $$$/kg) in any sort of manned space flight. To save $$$ on that most expensive component, we determined that if humans went into space to colonize it instead of explore it, we could literally cut the cost in half.

Explore = Go someplace, look around, then come back

Colonize = Go someplace, look around, build a home, have children, and live the rest of your life there

Very simple economics actually. Doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to figure it out.

Oh, and our AIAA Spacecraft Design Contest Entry won.

Dantassii
BS Aerospace Engineering, MS Mechanical Systems Engineering, PhD Aerospace Engineering
Why yes, I am a Rocket Scientist :)
 
...

On a side note, a few of the Apollo astronauts are on record as saying that there are several parts of the earth to moon and back mission that are exceptionally dangerous. The part of the mission where you can buy-the-farm the fastest was liftoff from the Earth to LEO. The part that is hard simply because it is the most difficult to practice ahead of time is the actual lunar landing. The part that is the least forgiving is the reentry back into the Earth's atmosphere. Many folks have proposed using a space elevator to eliminate #1 and #3, but what about a space elevator from the lunar surface to the L1 Lagrange Point to eliminate #2? I've yet to see any studies on what it would take to build that.

...


There have been studies on the lunar space elevator. Because of the Moon's lower gravity it could be done using current materials, no nanotubes required. The cost estimates are also surprisingly cheap. See this Facebook page for discussion and references on it:

https://www.facebook.com/LunarElevator?fref=ts

Bob Clark
 
There have been studies on the lunar space elevator. Because of the Moon's lower gravity it could be done using current materials, no nanotubes required. The cost estimates are also surprisingly cheap. See this Facebook page for discussion and references on it:

https://www.facebook.com/LunarElevator?fref=ts

Bob Clark

I dont think we really got to that stage yet. When we have enough people and material travelling to and fro the moon that we can build "highways" in space. Hypersonic Rotovators should make everything cheaper but the startup costs are huge.
 
Detailed discussion of the fact that with the higher payload capability of the Falcon 9 v1.1 we can do circumlunar missions on a *single* launch of the Falcon 9 v1.1 + Dragon:

"Golden Spike" circumlunar flights.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/12/golden-spike-circumlunar-flights.html

Bob Clark

That blog post was discussing using a hydrolox stage half-sized to the Centaur to do the translunar injection (TLI). However, here I speculated the Falcon 9 v1.1/Dragon might be able to do a circumlunar flight on its own using the Superdraco thrusters on the Dragon to do the TLI:

"Golden Spike" Circumlunar Fights, Page 2.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2014/03/golden-spike-circumlunar-fights-page-2.html


The problem was given the dry mass of the Dragon version 1, about 4.2 metric tons, you could only carry about 250 kg payload.

However, the upgraded Falcon 9 v1.2 is supposed to increase the payload for GEO satellites by a third. That will bring it from 5,745 kg to 7,600 kg. Then that would be enough to carry passengers for the original Dragon.

But now the new version of the Dragon with the life support, and landing legs would be heavier. I've seen discussion on space forums the new mass would be 6 metric tons, but I don't know if that is the actual number released by SpaceX. Anyone know that?


Bob Clark
 
Last edited:
The SpaceX Falcon Heavy could serve as the basis for a low cost return to the Moon:

NASA scientists say we could colonise the Moon by 2022... for just $10 billion.
What are we waiting for?
FIONA MACDONALD
22 MAR 2016
All of the papers in the special edition of New Space are freely available online for you to peruse and use to plan your future in space. Get dreaming, because it's closer than you think.
"It is time to go back to this Moon, this time to stay," concludes the journal's preface. "and funding is no longer the main hurdle."
http://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-sc...colonise-the-moon-by-2022-for-just-10-billion


Bob Clark
 
Yeah let's go.. come on quick quick...!! should be no problem at all... after all
Been there.. Done that
:thumbup:

I'm going to luvvvv the stories they're going to come up with this one..
'OMG... the aliens have stolen the landers... there are aliens up here.. you know - truth!'
:rofl:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top