I Moon vs Earth for launch to Mars

[Al_]

Since this thread seems to be comparing "Starting on Earth" with "Starting on the Moon with all necessary materials pre-positioned there", might I suggest an even better answer is to start on Phobos?

Great idea!
To get the required infrastructure up there, may I suggest first sending robotic mining equipment to the Moon...

 

[Al_]

Shouldn't cost much more than a small town petrol station, really.

We seem to be getting somewhere.
About a million for a small town gas station perhaps? And if I may be allowed to say that a trillion is too high, that gives us a range of 10^6 to 10^12.
Anyone got anything that could pin it down further?

 

[PeroK]

We seem to be getting somewhere.
About a million for a small town gas station perhaps? And if I may be allowed to say that a trillion is too high, that gives us a range of 10^6 to 10^12.
Anyone got anything that could pin it down further?

There are two sorts of project. A project that essentially you have done before, perhaps many times, and for which you can accurately estimate the costs. And a project that is significantly beyond anything you have ever done before. The latter project comes not only with an almost unlimited potential for cost overruns - whatever budget you put on it - but also with the significant chance of eventual failure.

I wouldn't bet on an EU project that attempted to deliver a Moon base being an eventual success. As an EU citizen (for the time being at least) I might feel it was beyond the capability of the ESA and was a project with too high a risk of failure.

The only sense in which I would disagree with the $1 trillion is that you might spent all of it and still not have your Moon base.

 

[Ken Fabos]

There are two sorts of project. A project that essentially you have done before, perhaps many times, and for which you can accurately estimate the costs. And a project that is significantly beyond anything you have ever done before.

Historical examples of exploration and colonisation relied on proven, economically viable technologies that were in every day use. They also went to places where basic necessities already existed in familiar forms and in abundance; whilst the lunar "exploration" was purpose built technology, it also overlapped broadly with ongoing development of other aerospace technologies. And whilst the Moon landings certainly qualify as exploration it was never purely for that reason or done comprehensively by sending people there. Manned missions were never the best and most cost effective way of doing exploration. Other motivations figured highly. If there is a historical precedent for colonisation where everything had to be purpose built using technology in advance of what was in common use I'm not aware of it.

Tourism to the Moon is not going to be a fantastic demonstration of the richness of the resources of the moon, I think it will be a fantastic demonstration of the richness of Earth. As a staging post for Mars the Moon would only work if there is already advanced industrial capability in place there and the people there want to send a mission to Mars - ie the moon has to have an advanced economy of significant size and complexity first, which developed for other reasons. Otherwise it's an extra complication to an already complex mission; it would add to the costs and difficulties rather than ease them. I don't think that kind of development will happen unless there are resources that can be exploited and exported to Earth at competitive costs and frankly I don't think there is anything on the Moon or Mars that cannot be mined, refined, processed and produced - and delivered - far cheaper locally.

I think one of the most fundamental things that has to be in place for any large scale activities in space - including Moon or Mars - is a comprehensive and compelling business plan. One that demonstrates the potential for a good financial return based on exploitation of space resources - financial returns, not necessarily for the colonists but for the Earth based investors. Spin off earnings may help but I think that only if the economics of the core activities are compelling will it work - the spin off's won't be sufficient.

 

[stefan r]

proven, economically viable technologies that were in every day use.

Here is a picture from 2012 of field tests Hawaii:

Oxygen production is certainly proven. We do not see a lot of commercial machinery that extracts oxygen from rocks. That is because oxygen is available from in an atmosphere everywhere on earth.

SpaceX claims that it can use the BFR for launch to orbit, land on + launch from the moon, and launch to Mars. They also intend to use the BFR for earth to Earth traveling. (video) They currently plan to start launching in 2022. They drew us a picture of it on the moon:

The plan for launching to Mars includes several rendezvous for refueling. (video, refueling at 2:20)

SpaceX has not built a BFR yet. But the schedule will either be on time in 2022 or get delayed. The rockets will either work or fail. If we assume that BFR works then we can talk about the best source for the LOx. We can also contemplate which orbit would be best for the rendezvous.

Since this thread seems to be comparing "Starting on Earth" with "Starting on the Moon with all necessary materials pre-positioned there", might I suggest an even better answer is to start on Phobos?

Phobos should be the destination IMO.

Why do you say Phobos instead of Deimos? More generally: is it better to have the fuel depot/station higher or lower in a gravity well? Would that apply to Callisto vs Europa? How much of a detour is too much?

 

[Noel]

Has this shown to be a real problem? It sounds to me like a Star Trek problem.

Using some made-up numbers to illustrate: if we built a totally autonomous mining and fuel depot on the moon for a cost of a trillion dollars and it reduced the cost of manned trips to Mars from a hundred billion dollars to eighty billion dollars apiece, how many trips to Mars would we need to make in order to break even on the cost of the lunar facility?

50

 

[|Glitch|]

Building the First Spaceport in Low Earth Orbit

Watch John Blincow from Gateway Foundation and Tom Spilker from JPL discuss constructing The Gateway, a spaceport through the method of "Block Construction." This lecture took place at the Keck Institute for Space Studies/Caltech on January 13, 2016.



Even though this lecture was two years ago, it seemed pertinent to this thread.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Why do you say Phobos instead of Deimos?

Reason 1: I said Phobos because I didn't think people would get the point if I said "start on the Martian surface". My point (which seems to be missed) is that this is essentially the same as answering the question "How does one best get from New York to LA?" with "Start in Anaheim!"

Reason 2: If I said funding a trillion-dollar moonbase with tourism is like Judy, Mickey and the orphans' "Hey, let's put on a show!" people wouldn't understand the reference.

 

[Ken Fabos]

Stefan @55 - those are not pic of technology that are economically viable and in every day use. The technologies to get people to Mars safely, provide essential for them there and return them are not what I call proven and in every day use.

This is probably stretching the discussion beyond the initial subject even if I didn't start the stretching, but - I remain very doubtful about the worth of manned missions to Mars or Moon - doubtful that it can be done except at great cost or that any of the proposed missions can deliver any financial returns that are not the recycling of Earth's wealth back to people on Earth. Especially, I can't see it as a viable pathway to colonisation in space - which I think can only be an emergent outcome of an enduring history of commercially successful exploitation of space based resources - those core activities being commercially viable in their right - in the service of a large and successful Earth economy.

I don't believe that establishing colonies can work as a primary motivation; like I said in previous post, I don't think there will be anything on either Moon or Mars that can be turned into something that can profitably be exported to Earth. "Lifeboat" scenarios compete directly with Deep Bunkers and I think Deep Bunkers (many already in existence) will remain the preferred choice. Enduring survival of any space colony requires that it have all it's own, widely comprehensive industrial and technological capabilities; it needs to be a large, successful, resourceful and broad based economy, the equivalent (I suspect) of a large industrial nation's economy. Or else it's not going to survive long past when it's equipment wears out.

But then, I don't count Mars or Moon as particularly worthwhile targets in the first place. Tourism isn't enough despite the hype and apparent willingness of some people to pay very large amounts of money. Souvenir Mars rocks won't be enough. The Reality TV broadcast rights won't be enough. Being able to make water and air or other materials for on-site use using equipment brought from Earth won't be enough. New patents developed along the way won't be enough. Proving the viability of mining of asteroids with actual refined ingots delivered to Earth cheaper than can be obtained on Earth would be a real step forward - and I suspect that is something still far beyond our current or near future capabilities.

A tourist destination on the Moon or Mars would be like having a resort at the South Pole or at the top of Mt Everest - it may be viable as a outside owned, outside operated, outside investor profiting venture but it won't and can't make the backbone of a viable, self-reliant colony.

 

[sophiecentaur]

The point of the Moon is that it has raw materials

This has been discussed many times, already. The Earth has readily available raw materials on or near the surface as a result of volcanic activity. The surface of the Moon is very different as there has been little or no such activity. Perhaps meteorites could be a source of some useful elements but where would the other elements and compounds come from for the chemical extraction processes?
People seem to ignore just how totally different every aspect of life would be away from Earth.
My comments would possibly not apply in the extremely long run but the OP is discussing the initial steps of planetary exploration.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Elon Musk is rich, but that doesn't make his "hope" impress me. I'm convinced he's going to crash and burn.

If people aren't careful, I can see Elon Musk becoming the 21st century version of Nicola Tesla in the minds of the public. I agree that he could very likely crash and burn because a space project would not be important enough or 'too big to fail'. Many of Musk's competitors would just be laughing up their sleeves (or out loud).

 

[nikkkom]

What are you talking about? With his prices and accelerating launch rate, Musk is already killing Proton and ULA. Arianespace is next to the chopping block. What "crash and burn"?

 

[stefan r]

Stefan @55 - those are not pic of technology that are economically viable and in every day use. The technologies to get people to Mars...

I was hoping this thread could include more orbital dynamics. We have samples of rocks that got here from Mars.

Of over 61,000 meteorites that have been found on Earth, 132 were identified as Martian as of 3 March 2014.

During the late heavy bombardment both the Earth and the moon were hit by many asteroids. There must be both terrestrial and lunar meteorites on Mars. Can we estimate the ratio? Most of this happened 3 to 4 billion years ago. It is nice that we are not likely to see a major comet impact in out lifetimes. We can still talk hypothetically about the relative probability of a surface chunk making the trip instead of falling back down.

 

[sophiecentaur]

What "crash and burn"?

Have they actually launched a Mars Project yet? Crash and burn doesn't only imply a financial fail. How many fails (or lost lives) will regular investors fund? The market doesn't have the same attitude to projects that JFK managed to instil into a whole nation.

 

[nikkkom]

Have they actually launched a Mars Project yet? Crash and burn doesn't only imply a financial fail.

That was not my point. You said "many of Musk's competitors would just be laughing".

As things go now, there *won't be* "many Musk competitors". At best, a few foreign launch providers will be surviving by subsisting on launching their governments' payloads. In US, NASA and ULA are becoming not viable as launch providers - the price gap is scary. Also, SpaceX success spurred a few private copycats, notably Bezos' Blue Origin looks technically promising (and it is backed by Bezos' $80B!). Even if SpaceX somehow fails, it already have shown the way how to make space much more accessible. Someone else will succeed.

 

[sophiecentaur]

That was not my point. You said "many of Musk's competitors would just be laughing".

As things go now, there *won't be* "many Musk competitors". At best, a few foreign launch providers will be surviving by subsisting on launching their governments' payloads. In US, NASA and ULA are becoming not viable as launch providers - the price gap is scary. Also, SpaceX success spurred a few private copycats, notably Bezos' Blue Origin looks technically promising (and it is backed by Bezos' $80B!). Even if SpaceX somehow fails, it already have shown the way how to make space much more accessible. Someone else will succeed.

You are making the assumption that Space X will actually succeed. Fact is, to most people, it makes little difference whether or not it succeeds and the "competitors" I referred to will not necessarily cease to exist. They may have failed or just withdrawn from the field when they see they are not going to get any immediate returns

 

[nikkkom]

You are making the assumption that Space X will actually succeed.

They succeeded (wildly) as a launch provider. And fingers crossed, they may launch their first 64ton-to-LEO Falcon Heavy this month, making their rocket the largest, by the factor of 2.5, operational launcher in the world. For the price of one Ariane-5 launch!

Cost of launch was the largest obstacle for all of humanity's space efforts, Moon/Mars programs included. SpaceX dramatically lowered that. Now, even if SpaceX magically disappears right this day, it would not matter: now we _know_ how to make launch much cheaper.

I'm not emotionally attached to SpaceX per se. If someone else builds the Mars base, it's fine with me.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think the big difference between a Launch and an Expedition is who would pay for it. Customers will be queuing up for their satellites to be taken into orbit at a good price. Who is prepared to invest private funds in a project with a totally unknown return? How long term do investors, other than nations, work?

 

[Chronos]

Looking at it from a purely physics standpoint, a launch from the moon is much easier than a launch from earth. The escape velocity from the moon is just over 2 km/sec whereas from Earth you need over 11 km/sec The problem is in getting all the llaunch resources from Earth to the moon. If the raw materials needed are already present on the moon. problem solved. [mostly].

 

[mfb]

Launch technology has essentially stagnated for 50 years after fully maturing in 10. What is needed isn't "advances", but a totally new and radically better launch technology materializing out of thin air.

There are two companies working on this radically better launch technology, and two more are looking into it. Or should I say "landing technology"?

Don't get me wrong; I don't think robotic lunar mining is on the foreseeable horizon as something we WILL do, but it at least it is foreseeable as something we CAN. do.

Reusing rocket components is something we do now. SpaceX recovered the first booster just two years ago, now they have reflown a couple of them, reflown two Dragon spacecraft , and they seem to recover the fairings at least partially. Reusing the full rocket is something we can do in maybe 5-10 years. That is a leap as large as from expendable aircraft to reusable aircraft.
Exactly: There were never expendable aircraft. No one built them because they would have been ridiculously expensive. With rockets there was a market even for expendable rocket. Imagine how large the market can be if we can use the rockets like airplanes.

SpaceX has not built a BFR yet. But the schedule will either be on time in 2022 or get delayed. The rockets will either work or fail. If we assume that BFR works then we can talk about the best source for the LOx. We can also contemplate which orbit would be best for the rendezvous.

BFR can go to the Moon and back with a lot of in-orbit refueling - with something like 2000-3000 tons of fuel launched from Earth. It can bring back something like 200 tons of payload from the Moon, maybe twice that amount if it gets refueled on the surface. Using that payload for fuel wouldn't make any sense even if we would have free and unlimited tanks on the Moon.From LEO you need 4.3 km/s to reach Mars. From the surface of the Moon you need about 3.5 km/s. If you want to mate a rocket from Earth with fuel from the Moon the fuel from the Moon needs 5.7 km/s delta_v just to reach LEO (3.2 of it can be done with aerobraking) and 5.7 km/s more if you want the system back on the Moon for the next trip - for a sum of 8.2 km/s for a Moon<->LEO shuttle. That is nearly what you need from Earth to LEO. And producing 1 ton of oxygen on Earth is much easier than producing it on the Moon. With chemical rockets, as long as you build the rocket on Earth and don't have a lunar space elevator or similar, it makes no sense to bring fuel from the Moon.
If we consider lunar space elevators, we can also consider concepts like the StarTram which can potentially launch things to space at basically the electricity costs once it runs. If LEO launches are as cheap as an airplane flight, there is no point in a Moon-based propellant production, you just launch more from Earth.

What are you talking about? With his prices and accelerating launch rate, Musk is already killing Proton and ULA. Arianespace is next to the chopping block. What "crash and burn"?

None of them will cease to exist. The US government wants to have two launch providers, Russia and the EU want to have their own rocket for government satellites. SpaceX will probably get an even larger share of the commercial market.

 

[stefan r]

From LEO you need 4.3 km/s to reach Mars. From the surface of the Moon you need about 3.5 km/s. If you want to mate a rocket from Earth with fuel from the Moon the fuel from the Moon needs 5.7 km/s delta_v just to reach LEO (3.2 of it can be done with aerobraking) and 5.7 km/s more if you want the system back on the Moon for the next trip - for a sum of 8.2 km/s for a Moon<->LEO shuttle.

The rendevous in LEO might work poorly. Earth-moon Lagrange 1 looks a lot better. From EML1 it takes 1.2 km/s to reach mars. The launch from lunar surface to EML1 needs 2.5 km/s. Getting to EML 1 from LEO requires 3.8 km/s. So the astronauts, rocket, and luggage (and methane?) lose 0.7 km/s when they make a detour to EML1.
The worst part would be landing the methane needed to lift oxygen.

If we consider lunar space elevators, we can also consider concepts like the StarTram which can potentially launch things to space at basically the electricity costs once it runs. If LEO launches are as cheap as an airplane flight, there is no point in a Moon-based propellant production, you just launch more from Earth.

If we go solar the electricity costs are lower on the moon. No clouds or atmosphere to block sunlight. The StarTram itself would work much better on the moon. The magnetic sled does not need to leave the surface so magnetic breaks can recycle the electricity. There is no need for a heat shield. The cargo does not hit an atmosphere. The ship does not have to fit into a tube. A lunar StarTram would not need to be elevated so there is no active support structure. Refrigerating kilometers of niobium-titanium conductor drains a lot of power. I have not seen a suggestion for magnetic launch Earth direct to Mars would likely be thousands of km.

Anything that makes launch to LEO cheap or easier will also make establishing lunar colonies/depots cheaper or easier.

 

[sophiecentaur]

There were never expendable aircraft.

Actually, there were several occasions during WW2 when troops and equipment were landed by (non-reusable) gliders. It made sense at the time, on an Engineering basis. Link.
There can always be a use for a non-reusable craft.

 

[Al_]

Why do you say Phobos instead of Deimos?

Interestingly, Deimos has a 30hr rotation. This means that people and plants might be able to adapt to the day-night cycle.
Plenty of dust for shielding. A spacecraft that rotates for simulated gravity on the journey to Deimos would be able to continue rotating there, even with added shielding. Super low gravity means takeoff might be possible even with ion drives! Possibility that the interior contains water ice, and the low-g makes digging easier. From Diemos, it would be possible to control robots exploring the surface of Mars in real-time, virtual realty style.

 

[Al_]

I can see Elon Musk becoming the 21st century version of Nicola Tesla

I think not. Elon Musk seems much more hard-headed than Tesla. His degree, if I recall, was Economics and Physics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Elon Musk seems much more hard-headed than Tesla.

That's not setting the bar all that high.

 

[sophiecentaur]

I think not. Elon Musk seems much more hard-headed than Tesla. His degree, if I recall, was Economics and Physics.

I wasn't comparing the men so much as comparing the public reaction to them. I reckon Musk would stand every chance of the post of POTUS and would have members of both parties vote for him.

 

[Al_]

constructing The Gateway, a spaceport through the method of "Block Construction."

Nice video!
But, it looks like all the materials have to be launched from Earth. That's a lotta launches, and a load of money, even at Musk prices.
It mentions using extraterrestrial materials, but only after the gateway is built.
I think if we put 5% of the effort into Lunar mining, we'd reduce the costs of this station greatly.
Then, once it's built, with Lunar materials and robots controlled from Earth by virtual reality telemetry, this would be a great construction location and launch location for any Mars mission or further out. Although, as said, the Lagrange points might make more sense in terms of delta-V

 

[Al_]

The worst part would be landing the methane needed to lift oxygen.

Can't wait to see prospecting on the Moon. What if there are Lunar hydrocarbon deposits? Well, why not, there are primordial hydrocarbons on Earth?
Looks like there are - https://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2011/pdf/1425.pdf
And if not, well, we can use a H2 / O2 rocket.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Can't wait to see prospecting on the Moon.

Very different from prospecting (and refining) on Earth. Getting there could be a minor problem, in comparison I think.

 

[mfb]

The rendevous in LEO might work poorly. Earth-moon Lagrange 1 looks a lot better. From EML1 it takes 1.2 km/s to reach mars. The launch from lunar surface to EML1 needs 2.5 km/s. Getting to EML 1 from LEO requires 3.8 km/s. So the astronauts, rocket, and luggage (and methane?) lose 0.7 km/s when they make a detour to EML1.
The worst part would be landing the methane needed to lift oxygen.

They lose 0.5 km/s when they are nearly there. You need about 9 km/s to go to LEO and 3.8 km/s more to go to EML 1. At that point you are nearly at TMI already. Refueling at EML saves your rocket the last 0.7 km/s only.

If we go solar the electricity costs are lower on the moon.

Installation costs are orders of magnitude higher. Yes, that is a plural.
The same applies to all fixed launch installations.

 

[mheslep]

What "crash and burn"?...

Musk has four kids, several ongoing business concerns where thousands depend on him, and yet says things like

There have to be reasons that you get up in the morning and you want to live. Why do you want to live? What's the point? What inspires you? What do you love about the future? If the future does not include being out there among the stars and being a multi-planet species, I find that incredibly depressing

He increasingly sounds more like the alienated kid who went to live in the Alaska wilderness (never seen alive again) than, say, Neil Armstrong.

 

[stefan r]

saves your rocket the last 0.7 km/s only.

That increases the payload ~25%. That removes the infra-structure for 20% of the rockets. Some parts of the "payload" would not be delivered (controls, frame etc). So passengers and cargo arriving and remaining at Mars would increase more than 25%.

Shuttles should be traveling back and forth from Mars. The launch to EML1 does not need food production, waste recycling or exercise spaces. You could pack people in tight.

I think methane is coming back from Mars. The Delta-v for Sending it to EML1 is only slightly higher than sending it to LEO. Maybe send it to both?

 

[mfb]

That increases the payload ~25%. That removes the infra-structure for 20% of the rockets.

So we can spend 20% of the project cost on the Moon if it delivers enough fuel. I don't see what you would save elsewhere - you would just put fuel in the now empty last stage. The filling hardware might lead to additional mass.

I think methane is coming back from Mars.

I don't think using more than the absolute minimum to get back from Mars makes sense. It is so much easier to send it to space from Earth.

 

[stefan r]

So we can spend 20% of the project cost on the Moon if it delivers enough fuel.

Somehow we got that backwards. The astronauts need an extra 0.7 km/s to stop off in L1. See post #71.

Is hard to make it work without non-rocket assist.

 

[mfb]

The astronauts need extra fuel but that fuel was supposed to come from the Moon. The rocket that launches from Earth can be smaller as it only has to go to EML 1. Unless we refuel in LEO with fuel from Earth, in that case we don't save rocket mass, we only save a bit of LEO refueling.

 

[ISamson]

In terms of my concern of my own safety... Definitely the Moon!
I don't want to be blown up by 'a bunch of crazy "experimental" scientists doing "important development work" next door or in my city'.
No thank you!

 

[mfb]

All rocket launches are done in safe distances from everything not related to the spaceflight.

 

[Ilythiiri]

First, about fuel part. I thought "why O₂ must mean oxidation, why not oxygen ion thruster?".
Then i googled this paper:
"OXYGEN-PROPELLANT PLASMA THRUSTERS FOR CIS-LUNAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION MISSIONS"
https://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/handle/2027.42/76753/AIAA-1998-3994-519.pdf?sequence=1Anyway, it's still discussion about Moon base for space travel facilitation.
Including assumption that humanity needs to become spacefaring in the long run, all that with supervolcanoes, asteroids and whatnot.
Considering current political dynamics, "long run" may be a teeny bit misleading term - read up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age_Collapse, then http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615?via=ihub

Again, what Moon is and space station isn't - raw materials.
(Also, a point with stationkeeping costs for low mass/high surface area orbital structures like solar, mirror or EM funnels.)

The Earth has readily available raw materials on or near the surface

Yup, we need products, not raw mats.

So yes - a (business) plan for making usable products out of regolith/craters. Products with a discount of >6km/s deltaV.
https://i.stack.imgur.com/ZLpuN.png - cislunar orbits and deltaV budgets in 1 pic.
>6km/s discount, because fuel used to get to GEO is not wasted, spacecraft within the scope of this discussion is going to NEO and beyond.
>6km/s discount, because getting to LLO from Moon is not just smaller gravity well. It's also no drag = no impulse loss over time.

People seem to ignore just how totally different every aspect of life would be away from Earth.

We're not talking about "life" - living there, we're talking about industry.
1.25s lag is not significant for remote operation.
Robotic assemby chambers are way beyond prototype phase.

For industry, vacuum is beneficial - no convective heat loss(more problems with cooling but Mr.Stirling may help in more than 1 way), no pesky oxidation for materials and machines.
I also consider vacuum as a "product". Deep vacuum is expensive to make and maintain; it's necessary for quite a number of industrial applications, and desirable but not cost effective for a lot more(including 3D metal printing). Distilling with "free" vacuum and "cheap" heat/insulation would look different. Quotes because deltaV tax.

What products?
Structural materials, shielding, tanks, wiring.
https://www.sawe.org/papers/3662 - "...Most spacecraft structures represent approximately 20% of the total spacecraft mass..."
3D printing is way beyond prototype phase.
And yes, fuel - it needs not be oxygen. No drag = high I_SP low thrust shines.
Ion thrusters are way beyond prototype phase.

Drone ion tug(solar powered), shuttling LEO - EML1.
Modular engineering, 3 drones, 2 teleoperated assembly chamber, 2 3D printers(using lunar dust to print more drone frame parts, for starters).
Hi-tech parts for more drones/printers/chambers.
Plus, almost insignificant moment of power/heat supply infrastructure for all this (:
1 Falcon9 lifts 8300kg to GTO.
Unspecified amount of years and failed attempts later - our first Moonshine distillery/melt separator is up and running!

If we need to lift only hi-tech from Earth - electronics, drives, batteries, sensors, coatings, specialized alloy parts - the price of spacecraft , industrial machinery and drones in situ drops. Mass (relative) abundance would change a number of considerations in design stage.

I am obviously aware of multitude of technical challenges - material properties in vacuum like outgassing and sticking and ablation, moon dust, statics, solar wind, etc. And challenges bring opportunities(ex. sticking = welding things together).
Also I am obviously aware of multitude of technical challenges we're not aware of (: - because we're not there to look.

Huge pile of know-how is needed to make it all feasible and afterwards profitable.
Yet, there is no other way to get this know-how - only testing engineering solutions in practice works.

 

[sophiecentaur]

https://lunarvolatiles.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2015/10/Lunar-Prospecting-Overview_Colaprete.pdfwhich shows people have been thinking about the problem of prospecting on the Moon. It makes quite good reading but it is a shame that there is no mention of timescale. At least, none that I could find. As timescale is a 'known unknown', I would have expected it to be discussed.

 

[Al_]

1.25s lag is not significant for remote operation.

Erm, I wouldn't go that far.
It is very hard to control things consistently without collisions etc. with that degree of lag.
But, combining recent driverless car collision avoidance, and robotic manipulation skills that exist today, with human oversight and slow control where needed, I think we could have lunar robots controlled from Earth doing pretty much anything in the fields of prospecting, mining, refining, manufacturing and construction. That is, without a huge leap in the technology from where it is today.

Furthermore, a lag like that can be simulated on Earth. Is there a lab somewhere that has simulated lunar soil, vacuum, the lag, smart robots, VR, AI, and some prospecting tools? Surely not too expensive to do?

 

[sophiecentaur]

1.25s lag is not significant for remote operation.

I would assume that any robot prospecting / mining equipment would be pretty well autonomous and would not need to be micromanaged. A 1.25s delay would be of no more consequence than if the managers on Earth were telling the staff at the coal face what to do.
I am very impressed by what Curiosity has done, despite the long delay in the loop. Reliability has been pretty stunning and that is a really essential requirement for anything that has to operate away from Earth. In an environment where there are no life forms to speak of, the problem of bugs getting into the system and causing unforeseen problems. No much fun to live in but benign for a robot.

 

[russ_watters]

They succeeded (wildly) as a launch provider.

This would depend on one's definition of "success". As a launch provider company, mine would require them to be profitable over a long-term so they don't go out of business 10 years from now. They are not publicly traded yet but best I can tell, they are not profitable. What is definition/criteria that leads to "wildly successful" as a result?

Cost of launch was the largest obstacle for all of humanity's space efforts, Moon/Mars programs included. SpaceX dramatically lowered that. Now, even if SpaceX magically disappears right this day, it would not matter: now we _know_ how to make launch much cheaper.

I don't think I've ever seen a cost analysis, so where did you get that from? E.G., what is the cost per pound to LEO vs, say, a Titan IV -- keeping in mind that if the company isn't profitable, the price is for some reason being kept impossibly low and my have to rise.

What are you talking about? With his prices and accelerating launch rate, Musk is already killing Proton and ULA. Arianespace is next to the chopping block. What "crash and burn"?

Those are all start-ups. Many if not most start-ups "crash and burn", so you appear to be setting the bar of "wildly successful" right on top of the bar for "crash and burn". To me, if you want to judge SpaceX as "wildly successful", you should be comparing them to Lockheed.

 

[russ_watters]

For industry, vacuum is beneficial - no convective heat loss(more problems with cooling but Mr.Stirling may help in more than 1 way)...

This is badly backwards. For the vast majority of machines and other electrical devices we use, convective heat loss is not a problem; it is a requirement to keep them functional. Cooling equipment on the moon will be a massive problem. A quick calc tells me that 1MW of heat dissipation (a small manufacturing plant) at 50C requires a 45x45 meter radiator -- which will only function at night; 2 weeks a month. So, double that and add thermal energy storage.

A small piece of mobile equipment (a digging machine for example) with a 10 kW motor would require a 4.5x4.5 meter radiator - and again, could only function 2 weeks a month. Mobile, daytime operation would require "cold" tanks or some exotic form of cooling such as the ice sublimation system (needs water) that the astronauts used.

This type of problem is why building an entire industry on the moon is a monumental challenge, even without the extremely high cost of getting it there. An awful lot of engineering will need to be invented just to make it work, at very high cost.

 

[mfb]

This would depend on one's definition of "success". As a launch provider company, mine would require them to be profitable over a long-term so they don't go out of business 10 years from now. They are not publicly traded yet but best I can tell, they are not profitable. What is definition/criteria that leads to "wildly successful" as a result?

As far as I see, SpaceX and Orbital Sciences/Orbital ATK are the only launch providers worldwide with self-developed rockets with (a) no guaranteed government launches and (b) more than a couple of launches. I'm not sure if Orbital Sciences never had cost+ contracts from the US but let's give it the benefit of the doubt.
The 43 launches of Pegasus had a combined maximal payload of about a single Falcon 9 launch, and all Minotaur launches combined have about the same payload, and the 7 Antares launches together have the payload of 2 Falcon 9. In other words, Orbital ATK launches much smaller rockets. SpaceX is the only fully commercial company launching large rockets (with the largest existing rocket sitting on the launch pad at the moment). That alone is quite some success.

SpaceX makes money. The Motley Fool comes to that conclusion as well. Despite having the cheapest rocket in its size class. The first estimate is from June 2017, the second is based on launches until October and not including booster reuses. SpaceX now reused five, and out of the next five missions four will reuse a booster (one satellite is too heavy for that). Not reusing boosters is getting the exception, and you can use the reusability numbers from the first link for the costs per launch. That increases the profit a lot.

E.G., what is the cost per pound to LEO vs, say, a Titan IV

Titan IV: 21700 kg to LEO for $432 million (1999 dollars), or $630 million in 2017 dollars. $30,000/kg.
Falcon 9: ~16000 kg to LEO for $62 million (2017 dollars), or $3800/kg. Note that the payload is an estimate because you don't get the $62 million any more if the rocket has to fly expendable.

I don't know why you picked Titan IV, as it is a particularly expensive rocket. You can get an Atlas V lifting 15,000 kg to LEO for $130 million, or $8700/kg (if you take the very cheapest option everywhere), and Ariane 5 can lift 16,000 to 20,000 kg for $165 to $220 millions, roughly $10,000/kg. Both ULA and Arianespace have guaranteed launch contracts from the US and the EU, respectively, unlike SpaceX they only have to pay for the rocket and launch itself with these prices.

What are you talking about? With his prices and accelerating launch rate, Musk is already killing Proton and ULA. Arianespace is next to the chopping block. What "crash and burn"?

Those are all start-ups. Many if not most start-ups "crash and burn", so you appear to be setting the bar of "wildly successful" right on top of the bar for "crash and burn". To me, if you want to judge SpaceX as "wildly successful", you should be comparing them to Lockheed.

Proton, ULA and Arianespace are not start-ups. Proton is not even a company.
Lockheed (now launching via ULA) is officially a company, but the financing looks like a government project. They get a lot of money every year even without any launches just to keep existing, and have additional "cost+" contracts: "Whatever you have to spend for the rocket, we pay it, and then give you x% extra". That is not what you would expect from a company.

 

[Ilythiiri]

Erm, I wouldn't go that far.
It is very hard to control things consistently without collisions etc. with that degree of lag.

I would assume that any robot prospecting / mining equipment would be pretty well autonomous and would not need to be micromanaged.

I rather had in mind teleoperated repairs of machinery and navigation path/task forming(like current military drone operators), not micromanagement.
I imagine moon dust(+statics) will be in a category of "aggresive sandpaper environment" rather than "nuisance", for moving parts/joints.

This is badly backwards. For the vast majority of machines and other electrical devices we use, convective heat loss is not a problem; it is a requirement to keep them functional. Cooling equipment on the moon will be a massive problem. A quick calc tells me that 1MW of heat dissipation (a small manufacturing plant) at 50C requires a 45x45 meter radiator -- which will only function at night; 2 weeks a month. So, double that and add thermal energy storage.

I work in a chemical industry, so it was rather industrial process angle - 50cm of insulation for chemical reactor with quite a surface area. Same with (s)melter.
Orbital processing facility would be superior to Moon one - you wouldn't actually need tankage/high temperature materials. Structural required only for inertia, not weight. Heating raw material into a blob held together by surface tension and some magnetic fields, and heat loss limited to radiative cooling by vacuum and volume/surface ratio.
Some angular moment(maybe applied during heating by precision targeting of solar mirrors) and you have a melt pie or bar for easier processing/cooling.

Disposing of waste heat - yes it's a big problem, when you can't have evaporative cooling tower with free convection (:
Waste heat accumulation in nearby regolith is not a trivial problem either. Same with industrial vacuum contamination.
But your 45x45 meter radiator(i assume) is passive and flat(also scaling up = more engineering challenges).
"which will only function at night" - print an umbrella, pick coating and angles, then it's "reduced efficiency during day".
Heat pumps will require power but will be smaller/ligher.
Making fractal surface radiator might be easier, if manufacturing is not machining but vapour deposition.
Heat pump is a Stirling engine backwards, in functionality but not in design - it can be engineered as dual purpose lego module.
If heat transfer is mostly conductive - you can guide heat like electricity(wires not pipes).

I have read about sealed Stirling engine, using ultrapure water both as medium and lubricant. But i can't find any reference to it now so might be fake.

As timescale is a 'known unknown', I would have expected it to be discussed.

Timescale, i consider to be not within the scope of this discussion, so i adressed it in a roundabout way.
Again - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800914000615?via=ihub

I take gold member question as a permission to speculate about it:
Building up mountains of know-how, making those shoulders of giants to stand on.
In a nutshell - no director board will approve of investments of this timescale, gaming economical/political/financial system is currently uncomparably more profitable and reliable.
Board of directors - because corporations are bigger and more aggresive than national governments, money/influence wise. For ex. United States are not rich, US banking and war corporations are.
Changing current political\economical system gradually is not realistic, entropy is undoing changes faster than they happen and accelerating.
Economics/manufacturing is global now, so replacing parts is not viable - pull one string and ripples spread everywhere, to an extent and delay.
And radical change will involve transitionary period - no old system already and no new system yet.
This means crash and burn, and new society will be shaped not by will but by ruins of old system.
So, as of now - never? Sorry for offtopic.IMO, purified question of OP would sound:
"Elon, what the hell? Why Mars, why are you skipping steps?" :)

 

[sophiecentaur]

Timescale, i consider to be not within the scope of this discussion, so i adressed it in a roundabout way.

I think timescale is extremely relevant to any such discussion. The word 'investment' appears everywhere when non-governmental projects are involved. Investors always want a return on their investment and time is as big a factor as how much they invest.
Whenever space travel is discussed, the enthusiasts have a habit of moving goalposts in order to justify opinions. They switch from specific details to generalities, as it suits. When pushed, the response is to allow extra time. That's fine (or at least more reasonable) for governments with deep pockets and long term (relatively) plans but a private company can easily fold or withdraw interest and a project can sink without trace (along with minor investors' money). History often repeats itself.
Energy is a huge factor and we do not have fusion yet. When it does arrive, we could make some real progress but . . . .timescale?

 

[nikkkom]

Proton is not even a company.

ILS is a launch company, though, currently launching exclusively Protons.
2012: 8 launches
2013: 7 launches
2014: 3 launches
2015: 4
2016: 2
2017: 3

Aug 4, 2014, Forbes. "International Launch Services Reduces Staff By 25%"

 

[mfb]

ILS is a company, but it is not a startup either. They used an existing rocket, with existing resources and expertise of the companies that founded ILS.

 

[Ilythiiri]

I think timescale is extremely relevant to any such discussion. The word 'investment' appears everywhere when non-governmental projects are involved. Investors always want a return on their investment and time is as big a factor as how much they invest.
Whenever space travel is discussed, the enthusiasts have a habit of moving goalposts in order to justify opinions. They switch from specific details to generalities, as it suits. When pushed, the response is to allow extra time. That's fine (or at least more reasonable) for governments with deep pockets and long term (relatively) plans but a private company can easily fold or withdraw interest and a project can sink without trace (along with minor investors' money). History often repeats itself.
Energy is a huge factor and we do not have fusion yet. When it does arrive, we could make some real progress but . . . .timescale?

Compact fusion would be a game changer for many things :)
But as of now - photovoltaics and generators=heat pumps.

Timescale meaning schedule?
Micro-scale test facility (some tanks, pipes, mirror array, wires, drives, valves, coils, magnets(bearings), electronics, sensors) - 2-3 tons is plenty. Solar farms, cooler farms, cryo heat pump, drones, vacuum 3D print, ion thrust.
All of techologies required have multiple papers published + lot of know-how from sattelite industry and IS.
It's a project - it was said and implications discussed in many previous posts.
Tasks for installing test industrial facility in Moon is as for any project(actually multiple ones in parallel) - management, patent/HR dance, engineering, construction, logistics.
It's all heavily related to budget. Also, money has smell in this case - govt funding vs billionaire will would result in different bureaucracy and scheduling.
Motivated team with 10 billion in less than 15 years would be quite safe bet, judging on a number of latest NASA projects. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_mission_timeline

For space drones and vacuum 3D printing, this one:
https://www.sciencealert.com/3d-print-space-craft-missions-made-in-space
"... next stage of the project is to test the combination of printers and robotic arms and fly a demonstration mission in Earth's orbit.
If we are lucky, we'll see the technology deployed into space by the mid 2020s."