tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post2798707492454176204..comments2015-03-06T12:15:29.825-08:00Comments on Armchair engineering: Lunar resources and a new Space RaceMarijn Molemanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10374646748718489690noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-89992288428956454592014-02-05T11:31:53.439-08:002014-02-05T11:31:53.439-08:00May I add something to point 5? It might be an ide...May I add something to point 5? It might be an idea to send lunar resources to Earth using magnets. Couldn't we build something that works with MagLev that propels containers with resources, thanks to the moon's low gravity and lack of atmosphere, to Earth? You could launched them on certain points in the moon's orbit so that they'll land around a place where you can easily retrieve it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04812536050030723922noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-90347185333930112792013-12-24T17:56:59.840-08:002013-12-24T17:56:59.840-08:00I didn't say that a colony on the Moon should ...I didn't say that a colony on the Moon should be set up to manufacture and launch satellites. I said that an-- already established-- colony on the Moon would dominate the satellite manufacturing and launching of satellites. <br /><br />The first true colonies on the Moon (thousands of people) will probably grow gradually as the result of space tourism to the lunar surface probably starting in the late 2020's IMO. There are 14,000 people on Earth worth more than 250 million dollars. By the time lunar tourism starts, the cost of traveling to the Moon could be less than $50 million per individual if reusable lunar shuttles and orbital transfer vehicles are utilized. And those prices are likely to drop dramatically if at least 100 wealthy people or lunar lotto winners a year travel to the lunar surface. <br /><br />Human space flight is expensive because there is so little demand for it. But once hundreds of people are traveling into space on an annual basis then prices are going to fall dramatically and soon thousands will be traveling into space causing prices to decline even more dramatically. <br /><br />Marcel Marcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-61791805352702839812013-12-24T11:01:02.772-08:002013-12-24T11:01:02.772-08:00Thanks for the calculation. However, I can give a ... Thanks for the calculation. However, I can give a heuristic argument that a mineral processing plant on the Moon would cost far less than $100 billion. Such estimates are based on what the Apollo program cost, or the Constellation program would have cost.<br /> But that was based on including the huge development costs for the large HLV launcher and all the individual components from scratch. However, we're assuming the development of the launcher, the Falcon Heavy, will be paid for by SpaceX itself. That takes off a really large component of the development cost. <br /> Remember also all the various in space stages could be taken from all the already developed stages we have available now which again takes off a large amount from the development cost. During Apollo remember all these stages had to be developed from scratch since it was still in the early days or orbital rockets. <br /> Now the delta-v to the lunar surface is about 6 km/s from LEO. A high efficiency Centaur-like stage can get about its own fueled mass in payload to 3 km/s. So about 1/2 the total mass would be payload to 3 km/s. Then by using staging about 1/2 again, or 1/4th, the total mass would be needed to get to the 6 km/s needed for lunar landing. So taking the cost to LEO by the Falcon Heavy as $2,500 per kg, the cost to the lunar surface would be in the range of $10,000 per kg, assuming smaller costs for the much smaller in space stages than the Falcon Heavy itself.<br /> Then if you were to take a $100 billion cost to set up a processing plant on the Moon, since the plant itself would cost far less than that even if it were say $1 billion, you would be saying the launch cost to the Moon would be in the range of $100 billion. But this would be saying the mass of the processing plant would be in the range of 10,000,000 kg. Clearly it would not have to be anything near that. For instance there exist small *portable* processing assemblies for purifying gold ore.<br /><br /><br /> Bob ClarkRobert Clarkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16114043697010364282noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-43981414089595662772013-12-24T05:52:49.020-08:002013-12-24T05:52:49.020-08:00Launching the few dozen satellites for slightly le...Launching the few dozen satellites for slightly less is not a good reason for setting up a colony with thousands of inhabitants. Marijn Molemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10374646748718489690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-52971697874877134912013-12-24T05:48:52.453-08:002013-12-24T05:48:52.453-08:00How else do you want to do it? A cannon? Won't...How else do you want to do it? A cannon? Won't allow for global lunar access. Setting up the network to move it around the moon will cost you decades and trillions. <br /><br />There won't be a return of investment for 5 years, there won't even be one in 12 years, it will take decades or even centuries and hundreds of billions of dollars. This isn't making a bottle of whiskey.Marijn Molemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10374646748718489690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-72358344064621993002013-12-23T10:20:23.283-08:002013-12-23T10:20:23.283-08:00A satellite manufacturing and launching facility o...A satellite manufacturing and launching facility on the lunar surface would require more than a government Moon base. It would require a lunar colony probably numbering in the thousands-- even though a lot of the work could probably be done by people on Earth utilizing tele-operated robots. <br /><br />But the US government really doesn't manufacture anything. Private industry does. Private factories on the Moon, within government licensed territories, for manufacturing and launching satellites could be up an running by the 2040s or 2050s, IMO. <br /><br />Marcel <br /><br /> Marcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-87340957913519448442013-12-22T14:22:31.671-08:002013-12-22T14:22:31.671-08:00" They are extremely expensive to get back an..." They are extremely expensive to get back and the ROI would take so long (if there was any profit at all) that it simply isn't worth it for a long, long time."<br /><br />Fortunately, getting raw materials off lunar surface does not require rocket propulsion, which throws your entire calculation out of the window.<br />Also, not everything is supposed to be profitable within 3-5 year investor time window, some things take long time to pay back.<br /><br />Funny that you can open a 12 year old bottle of whiskey ?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-79911987058473128922013-12-22T04:14:08.657-08:002013-12-22T04:14:08.657-08:001. This is mostly true. However, China's ambit...1. This is mostly true. However, China's ambitions quite obviously also have political motives, and I doubt it's as black and white as that.<br /><br />2. That satellite business is mostly from commercial companies. A self-sustaining moon base would be state-run; there is no near-term return of investment so few commercial entities would want to invest in that. Commercial companies would likely want to keep their satellite manufacturing business down on Earth. Think about it, it wouldn't be very efficient to ship groups of workers and materials to the moon, which takes far more than just going to GTO, only to launch spacecraft from there for slightly less. <br /><br />3. There is no reason to put this on the moon instead of in orbit or down on Earth. Any potential saving from higher efficiency is completely minimal compared to the massive costs of assembling and maintaining such a facility in orbit. <br /><br />Elon Musk has said he wants to stab space-based solar power in the heart, and he's bloody right. It doesn't work, it's inefficient, it's expensive and there really is no reason why we couldn't do it much more cheaply and efficiently down on Earth. Nuclear, I don't even know why that would have to be space based. We have it on earth, it works fine, and newer generations of nuclear are even safer than the ones we currently have, which have only failed us once because of a tsunami. <br /><br />4. Thorium is common on Earth, there is no reason to take it from the moon.<br /><br />5. That's an interesting concept and I'll admit that I can't argue against it.<br /><br />6. Can't really argue against that either, although I doubt it would be very profitable.Marijn Molemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10374646748718489690noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8062571400334852082.post-78264047731160569872013-12-21T10:23:39.878-08:002013-12-21T10:23:39.878-08:001. While the leadership in America is mostly domin...1. While the leadership in America is mostly dominated by cynical lawyers, the leadership in China is mostly dominated by scientist and engineers. China is thinking decades ahead-- not just a few years ahead<br /><br />2. The first nation to establish a self sustaining industrial colony on the Moon will dominate the satellite manufacturing and launch industry because of the Moon's enormous gravity well advantage over the Earth. Satellites are currently at the core of a $200 billion a year satellite based telecommunications industry. <br /><br />3. Clean energy for the Earth could be supplied directly from the Moon from solar power plants or even nuclear power plants<br /><br />4. Some regions of the Moon are rich in thorium. Exporting thorium enriched up to 1% with fissile uranium 233 could be exported from the Moon to Earth for use in nuclear power plants on Earth<br /><br />5. The US NAVY has already invented the portable electric gun that could launch material off the surface of the Moon. If this terrestrial weapon were used to launch lunar material into orbit, light sails that use no fuel at all could hurl that material into Earth orbit. Space planes that fly home empty could return with lunar materials such as enriched thorium. <br /><br />6. The first nation to have a reliable lunar transport system that could allow people to travel round trip to the Moon for less than $50 million per ticket could dominate the emerging space tourism business. Their are currently 14,000 people in the world worth more than $250 million. Just 50 super wealthy individuals traveling to the Moon every year would be a multi-billion dollar a year industry. <br /><br />Marcel F. Williams<br /><br />Marcel F. Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16245086958213100840noreply@blogger.com