WI: Lunar Water discovered during Apollo?

[RanulfC]

Isn't all the water in or under shadowed polar craters? That makes it very hard for Apollo to reach - they didn't stray far from the lunar equator - Apollo 15 was as far as they got and even that was considered risky. Harrison Schmidt IIRC proposed some riskier mission profiles e.g. a Farside landing but even he didn't suggest the poles AFAIK. I recently looked into the delta-V needed to get into lunar polar orbit from LEO and IIRC it isn't much higher (less than 10%) than lunar equatorial orbit, but could they have managed the extra delta-V?

The report I cited, (might as well https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1205/1205.5597.pdf) points out that there was a hope of finding water or volatiles of some type in the general regolith because that would of course allow some future expansion to utilize those resources. There was speculation of subsurface ice, trapped water vapor, or maybe even trapped water but as we've seen the methodology which was aimed at finding assumed substantive 'water' found nothing and so the Moon was declared "bone-dry" (which is an 'odd' phrase considering bones are in fact NOT dry per-se but let me not digress in that direction... I have way to many OTHER directions to digress after all ) and therefore a resource "sink" rather than opportunity.

It boils down to how 'easy' extracting water is.
To put it very bluntly even in today's context of OTL it was pretty clear that while it might be more difficult using 'standard' methods to get Water on Mars for example, you could probably literally 'drill-a-hole' and pump volumes of water for use. Before the "Cold Trap" concept took hold to extract water or most other resources from the Lunar regolith you have to process tons of material instead which seems a vastly more complex task. Ice, trapped water vapor or actual water deposits are vastly easier to extract but when serious study was aimed at Lunar resource extraction in connection with Space Colonization was undertaken it became clear you're going to be processing a huge amount of material anyway so various resources are going to be available.

Arguably current thinking is aimed at being "lazy" and aiming for the easiest to extract sources so Mars looks better than the Moon despite being more difficult and expensive to get to. (Hence the arguments about how Mars is 'easier' to get to than the Moon if you play the numbers right)

As for higher-latitude Apollo missions the need for more propellant in the LM ascent stage was a major factor. Lunar polar orbit was rather straight forward, landing, taking off and plane-change for TEI was a killer. Apollo Applications Program had planned an extensive surface mapping mission to Lunar Polar orbit but the key was there was no landing involved.
http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum29/HTML/001592.html

Randy

 

[fasquardon]

Really I've yet to find anywhere in the early Apollo planning where they considered a powered drill rig and frankly they should have because it's rather obvious. Then again they didn't actually fly a 'real' scientist till the last mission and THAT was a 'last minute' thing so there's that to "work" with. When you compare 'original' Apollo, (mainly Earth orbital with some possible Lunar applications) to the "panic" Apollo Lunar program it's rather obvious that everyone was more concerned with simply 'getting there' in the latter whereas the former was concerned with getting comprehensive results. The ugly truth is the former had no budget and the latter no 'time' for such distractions.

I am reminded of this thread, where e of pi and I spent a while discussing the Nova-A and Nova-B concepts.

The Nova-B would have been able to send 2 more tonnes through TLI than the Saturn V could, for probably a roughly similar cost (likely a bit higher, but not cripplingly so). That could certainly translate into a better drill than Apollo was able to bring in OTL, or other more capable instruments or tools that might find water...

I don't know if it's enough to manage a polar landing, but I bet the max-sized 7-module version of the Convair/Ehricke Nova would be able to get a LEM to a polar site.

We have played the ‘short’ game already and historically it has failed us every time its suggested. We reject the ‘long’ game because it does not appeal to our need for quick gratification but historically it is the ONLY way to win. Time to mature-up and decide if we’re going to actually get serious about this ‘game’ of space exploration or just keep dabbling till the “extinction level event” sets up the next species for being ‘top dog’ on Earth…

Bravo sir! A brilliant rant.

And I found your ideas on the balkanization of the space advocacy movement very interesting... Though I think a big driver is the disappointment of Apollo ending and things then progressing slowly, so I suspect that even with Lunar water, people would be blaming each-other for why things weren't progressing faster.

fasquardon

 

[catalfalque]

Apologies - my thread is not intended to cadge off yours, I was thinking about it overnight and it was intriguing me what you could do with water on the Moon. In mine I assumed humans took it there.

 

[RanulfC]

What's the weight issue one of the reasons they didn't even consider a drill?

Eh?

looks like no weight problem and was there speculation that there was water before the first mission that way they bring with them on the first mission? or is it not feasible

I was replying to the post by RanulfC which I interpreted to mean based on his research they never planned on a a drill for the Apollo project. I2 later saw where are there was a drill and read the posts regarding it but I didn't really see a need to go back and edit my post

This was my fault as I should have been clearer. I meant no plans to carry more than a human powered Core (Soil) Sample Drill which was all they had. this was specifically for the Heat Transfer Experiments with a 'side' application, (since they were withdrawing the regolith to place the sensor) as a soil core drill. The sample size is really small and narrow which doesn't give a very good picture of the subsurface properties.

Such a drill is going to mass probably about the same as this drill but the core-size, horse-power, and difficulty of operation are going to be significant. Note I also said 'deep enough' because they need to hit layers (and ensure a sample size big enough to reduce the 'assumption' of contamination closer to the center of the core) with provably lunar hydrox compounds. As I noted they DID find them but assumed they were contamination because how 'easy' the samples could have been contaminated.

Randy

 

[e of pi]

I am reminded of this thread, where e of pi and I spent a while discussing the Nova-A and Nova-B concepts.

The Nova-B would have been able to send 2 more tonnes through TLI than the Saturn V could, for probably a roughly similar cost (likely a bit higher, but not cripplingly so). That could certainly translate into a better drill than Apollo was able to bring in OTL, or other more capable instruments or tools that might find water...

I don't know if it's enough to manage a polar landing, but I bet the max-sized 7-module version of the Convair/Ehricke Nova would be able to get a LEM to a polar site.

Funny you should mention that, as I haven't quite been able to get it out of my head, either.

With the standard lengths, the capability of the Nova-B 166 configuration would be about two tons higher than the Saturn V, which translates non-linearly to lunar capability. You get about 1.5 tons more into lunar orbit, and from there to the surface all the crew cabin, avionics, and stuff is already "paid for" so the increase in payload enabled by raising the viable LM gross mass from the ~15.2 tons (16.5 tons on 15, 16, and 17) to more like 16.7 to 18 metric tons goes all to surface payload--raising that from about 300 kg historically to more like 1,100 kg--almost tripling the cargo capacity of the LM.

With a 20% stretch in development to fully utilize the capability of the F-1 (and minimize burnout acceleration on the stages to help keep within more tolerable limits), the 166 configuration of the Nova-B should be capable of about 57 metric tons through TLI--25% more than the historical Saturn V for a relatively similar cost. Like how the 2-ton increase from 45 tons to 47 tons buys a lot more increase in surface capability, the same is true here...but with a base increase of 20%, the results are something like 2.2 metric tons of payload to the lunar surface, nearly 7x the historical Saturn V capability and 2x the unstretched Nova-B's surface capability from a 47-ton through.

The fully stretched 7-module version throws a terrifyingly capable 67 metric tons through TLI--enough for a LM capable of putting about 5 metric tons of payload down on the surface along with the ascent stage(though the LM would need to be about 2x the size of the OTL LM descent stage, so this isn't a modification--it'd need to be built about this big to start. Of course, with the capability on hand from early Saturn planning, it just might be.) This would pretty much enable anything Saturn proposed from a two-landing LM Shelter-plus-LM Taxi mission in a single launch--in short, J-class missions ITTL would be all three crew on the ground for at least a few weeks, maybe something close to a month, with substantial surface hardware for both mobility and science.

 

[trurle]

This before we get into the historical fact that monopolies tend to NOT decrease costs and there’s no way that this is NOT a monopoly since the plan is fully based on using ONLY SpaceX assets. (Could they use “New Armstrong/Glenn”? Yes but doing so would make no economic sense since the more flights the ITS/BFR makes the ‘cheaper’ it is and supporting the ‘competition’ isn’t sound business policy)

This may have wrong assumption what SpaceX Mars adventure (and tentative BFR/ITS vehicles) is for-profit project (in fact it is not a.f.a.i.k). Seems the ITS/BFR is going be a sink of resources (including finances) hoarded by E. Musk from his other projects. Therefore, talking about "costs" of ITS alone is largely pointless.

Caveat: Technically, this is historical. We really did find water in lunar rocks during Apollo. But it was so trace that it was assumed to be contamination.

Let us assume that a manned mission to the moon lands in one of the places that we currently know to have large quantities of water in some form. To the best of my knowledge, none of the cancelled missions were to anywhere that we have presently confirmed to have appreciable amounts water - nor were any of the launched missions. So, obviously, we need to change things up a bit.

Regardless, without launching too many more Apollo missions (maybe 1-2 more than historixally), one does discover water in useful quantities on the moon.

How does his change space flight?

Back to original task, main problem with lunar water extraction is actually electrical power. To reliably mine/harvest water ice zones on Moon, you need to pull >10 km long cable from your solar power hub to any drilling equipment you have in permanent shadow. Other options (operating from nuclear or with battery-powered vehicles) are even less plausible. Realistically, we are talking about 5 ton+ class landers (similar to Apollo in size) to just deploy water extraction infrastructure, without any base equipment which is going to consume water. Therefore, the impact of early finding water ice on Moon will not be felt may be until 2040 AD.

 

[Wolttaire]

Yes but they could brin the parts to the moon and assemble it there and it on the surface all they have to do it just look at it and just have the moon going to one of the close craters

 

[fasquardon]

Funny you should mention that, as I haven't quite been able to get it out of my head, either.

With the standard lengths, the capability of the Nova-B 166 configure would be about two tons higher than the Saturn V, which translates non-linearly to lunar capability. You et about 1.5 tons more into lunar orbit, and from there to the surface all the crew cabin, avionics, and stuff is already "paid for" so the increase in payload enabled by raising the viable LM gross mass from the ~15.2 tons (16.5 tons on 15, 16, and 17) to more like 16.7 to 18 metric tons goes all to surface payload--raising that from about 300 kg historically to more like 1,100 kg--almost tripling the cargo capacity of the LM.

With a 20% stretch in development to fully utilize the capability of the F-1 (and minimize burnout acceleration on the stages to help keep within more tolerable limits), the 166 configuration of the Nova-B should be capable of about 57 metric tons through TLI--25% more than the historical Saturn V for a relatively similar cost. Like how the 2-ton increase from 45 tons to 47 tons buys a lot more increase in surface capability, the same is true here...but with a base increase of 20%, the results are something like 2.2 metric tons of payload to the lunar surface, nearly 7x the historical Saturn V capability and 2x the unstretched Nova-B's surface capability from a 47-ton through.

The fully stretched 7-module version throws a terrifyingly capable 67 metric tons through TLI--enough for a LM capable of putting about 5 metric tons of payload down on the surface along with the ascent stage. This would pretty much enable anything Saturn proposed from a two-landing LM Shelter-plus-LM Taxi mission in a single launch--in short, J-class missions ITTL would be all three crew on the ground for at least a few weeks, maybe something close to a month, with substantial surface hardware for both mobility and science.

So, let's sketch out a TL:

The Convair Nova is chosen instead of the Saturn V in TTL because its modular design allows it to easily be scaled up or down depending on the mission profile that ends up being chosen.

Just as OTL, NASA chooses the Apollo, LEM and single launch Lunar-orbit rendezvous approach they did in OTL. But in TTL, they are throwing it all at the moon with the more powerful Nova-B 166.

Among the improvements in science capability is better drills which leads to the discovery of hydrated minerals deep below the surface. But shallow enough that reaching them and refining water from these minerals is feasible with equipment that can fit in the mass constraints of the Nova. (Interestingly, just how "wet" do hydrates on the moon need to be to be practical for 1970s technology to support a base with ISRU water?)

Finding water means that NASA do a couple more Apollo missions than in OTL, but even in TTL, Apollo has to die. But in this scenario, NASA is much more focused on a moon base as the next step. While building a productive moon base plays better in Congress than the idea of another "flag and footprints" spectacle on Mars did in OTL, it is still too much too soon. So NASA scales back its plans to a "shuttle" and a space station.

The space station looks alot like Skylab, but the "shuttle" uses a Nova-derived launch system. The Nova 11 is developed as a replacement for the Saturn IB as well as a way to test out the boosters for the new shuttle (ITTL, the shuttle uses 2 F1A powered boosters developed from Nova 1st stage modules). Additionally, NASA develops the Apollo service module into a bare-bones OTV to support their space station as well as to launch satellites to higher orbits and push probes out into deep space. One of the functions of the space station is experimenting with a fuel depot for OTVs. Just as in OTL, the shuttle is a disappointment, but what had been planned as an interim stopgap, the Nova 11, turns out to be a versatile launch system, and continuing manufacture of medium lift LVs and continuing ability to get men into space while the shuttle is developed means that NASA is able to re-boost TTL's skylab and keep it going into the 80s.

During the mid-80s to the mid-90s, TTL's "star wars" craze means again development money is available to study heavy lift versions of the Nova again, like the Nova 12, 133, 144 and 177. That, along with consistent NASA interest in the moon base as the next goal after skylab, means that in the 90s, when trying to employ ex-Soviet rocket scientists doing things besides weapons designing, means that instead of the ISS, Russia, the USA and the smaller partners opt for the ILS - International Lunar Station. A big part of what makes that base possible being the knowledge that oxygen and water can be obtained on the moon, greatly reducing the cost of re-supply once extraction is up and running at the base.

fasquardon

 

[RanulfC]

I am reminded of this thread, where e of pi and I spent a while discussing the Nova-A and Nova-B concepts.

The Nova-B would have been able to send 2 more tonnes through TLI than the Saturn V could, for probably a roughly similar cost (likely a bit higher, but not cripplingly so). That could certainly translate into a better drill than Apollo was able to bring in OTL, or other more capable instruments or tools that might find water...

I don't know if it's enough to manage a polar landing, but I bet the max-sized 7-module version of the Convair/Ehricke Nova would be able to get a LEM to a polar site.

And haul a MOLAB around to do it
https://gizmodo.com/nasas-moon-bound-geology-lab-that-never-quite-got-off-t-1606803507

But as I noted here NASA goes ahead with super-heavy Nova rockets: Impact on Space Commercialization? Apollo just wasn't set up to do any "real" exploration. It was all pretty much tacked on to a 'get-there-get-back' program. Expansion and 'utility' were very much secondary to that goal and that significantly effects what you can get out of the program as well. Now we can and did get a lot out of it over time but AT the time not so much.

Bravo sir! A brilliant rant.

And I found your ideas on the balkanization of the space advocacy movement very interesting... Though I think a big driver is the disappointment of Apollo ending and things then progressing slowly, so I suspect that even with Lunar water, people would be blaming each-other for why things weren't progressing faster.

Yes there was disappointment and some anger at the slow progress but as a community most were willing to put up with it till it became clear that the 'promise' was never going to be fulfilled. (Also I think a lot of embarrassed self-anger when we realized that in fact no 'promise' had been made or implied and we were in fact 'fooling' ourselves) Right up till the last Shuttle was built and it became clear that's all we were getting we could trick ourselves into thinking the "real deal" was just around the corner, (and it didn't help that it became 'popular' in the public even though it had no real support, the attempt at an "Earth II" TV series was a good example here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_II) and "Space" colonization and industry were on the verge of taking off. At that point anger turned towards NASA and with no real hope, (really there was no real concept of 'commercial' development at that point either in launching or in operations, everyone, even those of us who'd been only marginally depending on the 'government' to get things started, were aware that the government HAD to start it as there was no commercial interest or support) of commercial or industrial development outside government contracts and the 'niche' of satellite deployment that we fell to despair. And infighting since it seemed a 'binary' choice of government, (who obviously had both the budget and resources but not the will or interest) or 'other' (which arguably had the will and interest but neither a real 'plan' nor the budget or resources) and which side you fell into would later be additionally stressed when possible "commercial" and/or "private/NGO" concepts came around.

This may have wrong assumption what SpaceX Mars adventure (and tentative BFR/ITS vehicles) is for-profit project (in fact it is not a.f.a.i.k). Seems the ITS/BFR is going be a sink of resources (including finances) hoarded by E. Musk from his other projects. Therefore, talking about "costs" of ITS alone is largely pointless.

Oh it isn't "currently" a for-profit venture, it can't be, but as it and/or variants are going to replace the Falcon-series and WILL be for-profit the tentative planning is there. Falcon and SpaceX were in fact started and supported the same way but quite obviously it can't remain that way. Most basically while Musk wants to put people on Mars he can only 'carry' the burden so far and frankly that's why he's always insisted this was ONLY going to be a 'transportation system' and not a 'colonization' system. He's going to have to make a profit at some point or it stops when the money runs out and it WILL run out rather quickly given the nature of the effort.

"Worse" from a recovery Space Cadet viewpoint is it will leave nothing behind it if it does. It goes from "Point A" to "Point B" and back and builds up only specialized infrastructure supporting only itself at very specific points at either end. Mostly a hoped for propellant capability on Mars but that doesn't address getting to Mars and back outside that system. (One could argue that given a propellant source on Mars then 'anybody' can use it but its simply not that easy or straightforward and does nothing to expand the ability to GET to Mars in the first place. This is a conscious call-back to the Mars Direct architecture it's based on) The focus was, is and will remain on "Mars" and anything else is either a distraction or a means to support that focus.

Randy

 

[trurle]

Yes but they could brin the parts to the moon and assemble it there and it on the surface all they have to do it just look at it and just have the moon going to one of the close craters

The on-site assembly is a persistent topic among the space-related fantasies. In brief, on-site assembly makes things terribly expensive, not cheaper. Now you need not just to bring pre-assembled equipment. You now need to bring assembly equipment and some human or robotic arms to do the assembly. In the environment when the total financing is constraint, the on-site assembly proposals are shelved indefinitely.

 

[RanulfC]

Back to original task, main problem with lunar water extraction is actually electrical power. To reliably mine/harvest water ice zones on Moon, you need to pull >10 km long cable from your solar power hub to any drilling equipment you have in permanent shadow. Other options (operating from nuclear or with battery-powered vehicles) are even less plausible. Realistically, we are talking about 5 ton+ class landers (similar to Apollo in size) to just deploy water extraction infrastructure, without any base equipment which is going to consume water. Therefore, the impact of early finding water ice on Moon will not be felt may be until 2040 AD.

No long cable needed really you just plunk a SNAP reactor (the legacy of the NASA Space Nuclear Auxiliary Power program with the SNAP-10/50 and eventually 100 using Russian technology http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a146831.pdf) down less than a kilometer from the deposits and go to town. Yes you need to 'plunk' down some significant payload but you are assuming that anyway since there's no viable reason for extraction without an already existing infrastructure to service and support in the first place. No "Lunar Outpost" or "Lunar Base" needs this amount of water on a regular basis. The entire premise is wide scale exploitation, exploration and use.

A base or outpost on the Moon, (or Mars for that matter) CAN use a local source to alleviate some issues with shipping it it but really the effort usually outweighs the result. It's based on the terrestrial analog where you 'simply' drill down to a water source and pump it up for use. It's not that simple off-Earth. The investment of equipment and support time is larger by far, (you can automate a lot but the initial set up and continued maintenance and support is always going to be larger) and be more precarious BECAUSE it's not on Earth where you are surrounded by a rather benign and forgiving environment and where you pretty much know all the particulars of the sourced water. Almost none of this applies to non-terrestrial water.

And that assumes you're going for the most 'easy' obtainable and direct water source which arguable on the Moon is actually NOT the permanently shadowed craters. As I've been pointing out the regolith itself has hydrox compounds in it, close enough to 'terrestrial' type as to be dismissed as contamination for a bit over 20 years. You have to 'process' a lot of regolith to get it out but you aren't power limited since you don't have to get it from higher latitude locations. It's actually somewhat 'easier' to do than harvesting the ice might be. And it should be noted you get other resources such as oxygen from the same processing which you'd have to 'crack' the water to obtain from ice.

Something to keep in mind is that while Apollo missions were basically limited by their water supply, (they literally threw it away as part of the life support system) later, post-Apollo missions because of the perceived 'lack' of Lunar water were forced to plan and adopt more efficient water usage. As well it's important to point out that while the regolith represents an actual source of "Lunar" water the ice-traps are mostly limited resources that evolved over time and any sufficient usage WILL in fact limit their use. (Arguably the water on Mars is similar as we've still found no sign of an actual hydro-logical system there)

But the regolith source for water was realized in the late-70s because of the concept of having to process large amounts of regolith in order to obtain resources for Space Colony construction. Despite the scientific consensus of a "Dry Moon" even simple calculations showed you were going to end up with a lot of 'water' (and oxygen and other resources) as a byproduct of such processing. Enough so that you could support most of the implied industry and colonization of Cis-Lunar space from the Moon alone! (Going to the asteroids for volatile's and minerals was all about "building" lakes on the Space Colonies and pretty much what they'd use the cold-trap water for and don't let anyone tell you different ) This didn't exactly cause anyone to question the "Dry Moon" consensus, (other than non-scientist Space Advocates/Space Cadets but who listens to them anyway ) but it did bring into question the idea that the Moon was as barren of resources as had been suggested. Again you had to process 'tons' of regolith but doing so got you 'ton's of resources and this scaled both up and down. It takes bringing some equipment to the Moon, setting it up and running and maintaining it but that WAS the idea now wasn't it?

No it actually wasn't, well not outside those aforementioned "Space Advocate/Space Cadet" circles anyway. Space and the Moon was just to hard to get to and 'support' to thin to allow the large expenditure and effort needed. And in 'official' circles the idea of pretty much repeating Apollo all over again was the default they kept coming back to. Even so cracks began to appear as studies such as FLO and "LUNOX" began to show you could ramp that effort back a bit and actually find uses for the Moon if you didn't mind the 'distraction' of the 'diversion-of-effort' which we all know is how it's argued today.

To address the main question again we really don't need an extended Apollo or post-Apollo manned program to raise the chances and promise of Lunar water but we could have really used a more comprehensive post-Apollo, (or during Apollo for that matter) Lunar science and survey program. It took till the 90s OTL for this to happen and it has in fact dwindled again in favor of LEO and interplanetary (mostly Mars) missions despite the new evidence and science it brought forth.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

The on-site assembly is a persistent topic among the space-related fantasies. In brief, on-site assembly makes things terribly expensive, not cheaper. Now you need not just to bring pre-assembled equipment. You now need to bring assembly equipment and some human or robotic arms to do the assembly. In the environment when the total financing is constraint, the on-site assembly proposals are shelved indefinitely.

The thing is it's not such a 'binary' issue. You ALWAYS have to bring equipment with you and likely have "some assembly required" stuff that someone has to assemble and maintain. "Turn-Key" single piece installations are always only going to be short term viable. In a constrained financial environment the latter is arguably "cheaper" than the former but only for the short term. Unfortunately all space exploration has been keyed to and practiced as 'short-term' arguably BECAUSE of that 'financially constrained' environment, and the lack of cost-effective transport, ensures those constraints never go away. Alleviate either and most of the 'constraints' go away very rapidly.

I'm sure you've seen as many plans as I have for fully robotic 'resource' extraction lander's which will work quite well for the limited time they are 'required' (usually enough to provide propellant for a sample return vehicle) which are arguably perfect for a one-time use. Move beyond that and you have to start using both assembly AND maintenance systems to provide adequate support. And in the case of local 'resource' extraction it's very much TANSTAFL (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tanstafl) and either you pay up front or you don't play. Our current paradigm is not to play.

Randy

 

[trurle]

No long cable needed really you just plunk a SNAP reactor (the legacy of the NASA Space Nuclear Auxiliary Power program with the SNAP-10/50 and eventually 100 using Russian technology http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a146831.pdf) down less than a kilometer from the deposits and go to town. Yes you need to 'plunk' down some significant payload but you are assuming that anyway since there's no viable reason for extraction without an already existing infrastructure to service and support in the first place. No "Lunar Outpost" or "Lunar Base" needs this amount of water on a regular basis. The entire premise is wide scale exploitation, exploration and use.

Yes, it is the part i call "less feasible". Nuclear power for spacecraft in recent decades is becoming less available, not the other way. Even Pu-238 RTGs are always in short supply, and nuclear reactors for spacecraft are not available in US for 53 years, and in Russia for 30 years in row now. Well, if you believe in miracles, you can believe in bright future of Kilopower reactor. My forecast is what it would be "born dead" due regulations overhead though.

And that assumes you're going for the most 'easy' obtainable and direct water source which arguable on the Moon is actually NOT the permanently shadowed craters. As I've been pointing out the regolith itself has hydrox compounds in it, close enough to 'terrestrial' type as to be dismissed as contamination for a bit over 20 years. You have to 'process' a lot of regolith to get it out but you aren't power limited since you don't have to get it from higher latitude locations. It's actually somewhat 'easier' to do than harvesting the ice might be. And it should be noted you get other resources such as oxygen from the same processing which you'd have to 'crack' the water to obtain from ice.

As a side byproduct from oxygen production - may be. The water equivalent present in illuminated locations is <1%, and high-temperature process (>1200C) is needed to extract and then purify it. It mean even more electrical power..to the point of making a cable to shadow and getting better stock being a cheaper solution. For the start: the process requires platinum electrodes and spinel crucibles, both of which are actually not very long lived in the required environment of silicate melt.

Of course, i seen some "elegant" proposals to use RF heating and regolith-crucibles to reduce equipment mass..but you will just end this way with lower output and much worse volatiles quality (basically sulfuric acid instead of intended water and oxygen).

 

[RanulfC]

Funny you should mention that, as I haven't quite been able to get it out of my head, either.

With the standard lengths, the capability of the Nova-B 166 configuration would be about two tons higher than the Saturn V, which translates non-linearly to lunar capability. You get about 1.5 tons more into lunar orbit, and from there to the surface all the crew cabin, avionics, and stuff is already "paid for" so the increase in payload enabled by raising the viable LM gross mass from the ~15.2 tons (16.5 tons on 15, 16, and 17) to more like 16.7 to 18 metric tons goes all to surface payload--raising that from about 300 kg historically to more like 1,100 kg--almost tripling the cargo capacity of the LM.

With a 20% stretch in development to fully utilize the capability of the F-1 (and minimize burnout acceleration on the stages to help keep within more tolerable limits), the 166 configuration of the Nova-B should be capable of about 57 metric tons through TLI--25% more than the historical Saturn V for a relatively similar cost. Like how the 2-ton increase from 45 tons to 47 tons buys a lot more increase in surface capability, the same is true here...but with a base increase of 20%, the results are something like 2.2 metric tons of payload to the lunar surface, nearly 7x the historical Saturn V capability and 2x the unstretched Nova-B's surface capability from a 47-ton through.

The fully stretched 7-module version throws a terrifyingly capable 67 metric tons through TLI--enough for a LM capable of putting about 5 metric tons of payload down on the surface along with the ascent stage(though the LM would need to be about 2x the size of the OTL LM descent stage, so this isn't a modification--it'd need to be built about this big to start. Of course, with the capability on hand from early Saturn planning, it just might be.) This would pretty much enable anything Saturn proposed from a two-landing LM Shelter-plus-LM Taxi mission in a single launch--in short, J-class missions ITTL would be all three crew on the ground for at least a few weeks, maybe something close to a month, with substantial surface hardware for both mobility and science.

So, let's sketch out a TL:

The Convair Nova is chosen instead of the Saturn V in TTL because its modular design allows it to easily be scaled up or down depending on the mission profile that ends up being chosen.

Just as OTL, NASA chooses the Apollo, LEM and single launch Lunar-orbit rendezvous approach they did in OTL. But in TTL, they are throwing it all at the moon with the more powerful Nova-B 166.

Among the improvements in science capability is better drills which leads to the discovery of hydrated minerals deep below the surface. But shallow enough that reaching them and refining water from these minerals is feasible with equipment that can fit in the mass constraints of the Nova. (Interestingly, just how "wet" do hydrates on the moon need to be to be practical for 1970s technology to support a base with ISRU water?)

Finding water means that NASA do a couple more Apollo missions than in OTL, but even in TTL, Apollo has to die. But in this scenario, NASA is much more focused on a moon base as the next step. While building a productive moon base plays better in Congress than the idea of another "flag and footprints" spectacle on Mars did in OTL, it is still too much too soon. So NASA scales back its plans to a "shuttle" and a space station.

The space station looks alot like Skylab, but the "shuttle" uses a Nova-derived launch system. The Nova 11 is developed as a replacement for the Saturn IB as well as a way to test out the boosters for the new shuttle (ITTL, the shuttle uses 2 F1A powered boosters developed from Nova 1st stage modules). Additionally, NASA develops the Apollo service module into a bare-bones OTV to support their space station as well as to launch satellites to higher orbits and push probes out into deep space. One of the functions of the space station is experimenting with a fuel depot for OTVs. Just as in OTL, the shuttle is a disappointment, but what had been planned as an interim stopgap, the Nova 11, turns out to be a versatile launch system, and continuing manufacture of medium lift LVs and continuing ability to get men into space while the shuttle is developed means that NASA is able to re-boost TTL's skylab and keep it going into the 80s.

During the mid-80s to the mid-90s, TTL's "star wars" craze means again development money is available to study heavy lift versions of the Nova again, like the Nova 12, 133, 144 and 177. That, along with consistent NASA interest in the moon base as the next goal after skylab, means that in the 90s, when trying to employ ex-Soviet rocket scientists doing things besides weapons designing, means that instead of the ISS, Russia, the USA and the smaller partners opt for the ILS - International Lunar Station. A big part of what makes that base possible being the knowledge that oxygen and water can be obtained on the moon, greatly reducing the cost of re-supply once extraction is up and running at the base.

fasquardon

You guys are scary at times you know that right?

I'd point out it "might" be less likely TTL that the "shuttle" is a failure since you have a Space Station to support, (OTL that would come 'later' if at all) this means you get quite a different "shuttle" than OTL. Further with an OTV available even a minimal one there is going to be pressure to use it and like OTL Shuttle-Decision a very great deal of pressure to utilize it for as many payloads as possible. Further once we have propellant depots on-orbit getting to and from Lunar orbit costs drop even though it's not directly obvious. (Pushing a satellite to GEO and something to Lunar orbit are not that different in the general scheme of things) I will point out that I'd question if TTL's Congress, ("If pro is the opposite of con then is Congress the opposite of Progress?" ) will be any more supportive of such a program given they in fact didn't even want NASA to have the capability of going back to the Moon let alone Mars? (It really didn't help that NASA was always adamant that ANYTHING always led to going to Mars even the Shuttle but...)

On the other hand I'll argue that while the NOVA-Shuttle/Space Station/OTV is going to be less desirable from the Astronaut Corps' viewpoint, (they're mostly 'truck-drivers' despite the space flight time in this case which means you won't see as many scientists or test pilot applicants) it DOES check off the box of 'mostly' needing manned flights to do everything. I'd also point out that TTL actually going BACK to the Moon would be less of a "Congressional/Presidential" decision since doing so now doesn't require quite the heavy commitment that it would OTL.

On the question of extraction there's enough hydox compounds in the regolith that you can extract oxygen and water vapor by heating it to the point it 'boils' off and you can hit those temperatures with a rather simple solar furnace set up. Feed it regolith over the two week day and you should have plenty for the two week night with reserves that will build up. As I noted above though you then need to maintain and operate it which with a 'base' is not so difficult but at a 'outpost' set up where it's often unmanned and 'shut-down' you have to plan in expeditions to get everything running before you can go off exploring.
I should point out the 'setup' process and initial operating capability phase is going to be somewhat more expensive than just bringing supplies with each expedition but that's the difference between "visiting" and actually "exploring" after all. Whoever's paying will probably initially balk at the upfront cost and that's where you have to 'sell' it to them as a long run versus short run plan. To this day people complain about the SEI 90-day study costs but if you keep in mind it was a 20-30 year 'plan' that built up not just the ability to go to Mars but built up Cis-Lunar infrastructure and capability to do it over-and-over again at an arguably marginal cost with a Lunar Base and Cis-Lunar transportation and distribution system in place that pretty much opened the Solar System the cost makes a lot more sense. (Downside being this was all paid for upfront by the American taxpayer and required constant and direct support of both those taxpayers and the government who'd be running the whole thing)

Another thing to keep in mind is you're getting more than 'just' oxygen and water from this set up. It outputs aluminium and other minerals in the regolith and you need to deal with this as well which might drive up the "maintenance" and "processing" costs since you need people and systems to deal with it unless you just 'dump' it or run the system at a lower efficiency. (More regolith but fewer byproducts to deal with and you DO 'dump' the used regolith, which current science suggests may actually 'recharge' over time from the solar wind ) The 'danger' (on a more philosophical level really ) is that unlike say Little America in Antarctica which is the normal 'analog' of an off Earth base such a Lunar base processing Lunar materials for local use ALSO produces an arguable resources set of 'outputs' that can be used not only locally but all the way to LEO at a somewhat lower cost than bringing those materials up from Earth. (The whole Space Industrial Revolution argument) But the whole process of going back and forth to the Moon on a regular basis, (and a similar argument with cheaper and more regular access to LEO) means the the assumed costs there are going to be lower than one would initially think making the process of using local materials less cost effective. I've seen very good and thought out arguments both ways but in the end it would appear that when the cost of 'shipping' comes down to the cost of propellant and having propellant at both ends of the system being rather cheap then the cost of moving materials really does come down to how much 'fuel' you use to move things around.

In Cis-Lunar space the propellant (energy really) cost of getting from the surface of the Earth to LEO is always going to be higher than that of bringing similar materials from the Moon to LEO so the "real" cost probably comes down to manufacturing costs of what exactly you 'need' in LEO rather than the materials themselves. The difference between a "simple" aluminium module shell and the equipment and system to fit it out for habitability are going to be the drivers in other words. Building the whole module on Earth and shooting it into orbit with a "Nova-Shuttle" is obviously going to be "cheaper" than bringing it from the Moon to meet system to be installed from Earth in LEO. On the other hand bringing those fittings out from Earth the Moon to be installed in a habitat built on the Moon using Lunar aluminum is not so clear cut and the argument that you can ship 'more' systems if you don't ship the shell has merit.

In other words the shift in thinking, planning and operations that needs to take place from space exploration where we were at Apollo, (and arguably still are OTL today) to that where such a Lunar base resource extraction system is used is very much a significant paradigm shift.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Yes, it is the part i call "less feasible". Nuclear power for spacecraft in recent decades is becoming less available, not the other way. Even Pu-238 RTGs are always in short supply, and nuclear reactors for spacecraft are not available in US for 53 years, and in Russia for 30 years in row now. Well, if you believe in miracles, you can believe in bright future of Kilopower reactor. My forecast is what it would be "born dead" due regulations overhead though.

I noted that but will point out the difference between "not having built them in decades" and "not being able to build" them is huge. The regulator and arguably "legacy" of nuclear protests (power and weapons being equally opposed) environment is the main factor in this. We not only know very well how to construct and operate the needed reactors in older forms but are well versed in how to construct 'better' ones today than even a decade ago. What is missing is the industrial system to construct them on anything but a limited scale because we pretty much shut that down almost two decades ago. This is strictly a US problem but Kilopower actually shows we can still do so any time we want to. (Neither "regulatory" not "public concern" issues are obviously problems when there is a government requirement to be met)

In fact neither the regulatory nor 'public protest' (and there's actually far less of either than is normally assumed) would prevent the deployment of such a reactor. Musk himself has noted that if he needed to he could replace the solar power system of the ITS with a nuclear one without too much either economically and regulatory issues. The main issue would be getting the US government to 'lease' him the HEU core which could be an issue but if need be he can fall back on other designs if the US government balked at a Kilopower type reactor. Pu-238 is actually only 'short' in the US and Russia because both ramped down their weapons production programs which were the only source for it. India, China and France all have 'reprocessing' systems that could be sourced for use if some international regulations were re-negotiated. (And they actually felt like selling) Russia in fact has recently gone back into production of advanced RTGs having found the market still viable and like the US has actually moved from Pu-238 to HEU designs. They don't produce many but considering they have a less regulatory or public-protest prone environment the interest is obviously there for selling them. India and China have both produced and tested space power and propulsion reactors of a sub-scale design and plan on continuing to do so which obviously means that there is also no reason to depend on either US or Russian production.

The capability is there should the need be there and as you've pointed out it's rather obvious solar won't cut it so the "need" would be there under the circumstances.

But you can still use solar power, you just need to do it without wires
http://space.nss.org/media/2008-Energizing-The-Future-Of-Space-Exploration.pdf
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576502000735
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20000074095
https://engagedscholarship.csuohio....&httpsredir=1&article=1575&context=etdarchive
http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/2004ESASP.567..165L/0000165.000.html

Interestingly enough if you look into direct Solar Pumped Laser technology your efficiency quite obviously goes up a great deal.

Randy

 

[RanulfC]

Hmmm, it occurred to me I might want to expand on why even though the Lunar regolith has "hydrox" compounds why the Moon was scientifically considered 'dry' for so long. First let me point out that beyond possible use as a source of 'easy' Lunar water for "utility" use the cold-trap ice is not of interest to Lunar scientist in at all. Why? It's not "Lunar" water as it comes from non-Lunar sources. This makes it of interest to Planetary and Space scientist as those would be its sources but as it isn't a product of or 'produced' on the Moon it is in fact 'contamination' to Lunar science.

Now once it became obvious that the Moon had no deposits of LUNAR produced ice or water vapor, (and that's was not certain but also not very obvious) and the most 'likely' source of the hydrox compounds was some form of 'contamination' due to sources such as the solar wind or periodic passes through the Earth's solar wind driven "atmospheric" tail then the first order of business in studying Lunar soil samples is to 'dismiss' the contamination. Hence you arrive at the Lunar soil (regolith) being obviously very 'dry' with no water content.

Quite an easy logic trap to fall into and with a limited sample base to draw from also easy to support and hard to argue against. Still not all the compounds could be eliminated as contamination and outside the science point of view if you were assuming some sort of processing, (such as to get oxygen or aluminum) then you're also going to get some water vapor. How much? Initially thousands of pounds of regolith for a couple of gallons of water, and much larger amounts of oxygen and aluminum. And then there's the Lunar atmosphere. It has one and it's mostly argon is vanishingly (pun intended) concentrations but quite significant for a supposed 'vacuum' world. (Enough that if you're looking to propose a high-vacuum industrial process you actually have to find a way to eliminate it) Oddly enough there's a similar amount of hydrogen in that atmosphere, some of which is obviously from the solar wind but not ALL of it. And if some of that hydrogen comes from the Moon itself then just as logically all those hydrox compounds in the regolith can't be just contamination. And if your still thinking resource extraction your percentage of water per pound of regolith just jumped up. Continuing along those lines since it's easier to extract water from ice and there are craters on the Moon that are permanently in shadow AND pile on top the factoid that we discover the Earth itself is being bombarded by "space water" in the form of what looks to be like free-flying chunks of space volatiles so the Moon must be as well you suddenly have space and planetary scientific interest in the Moon again.

And the consensus and basics of the "Dry Moon" comes apart as it becomes clear that even IF the hydrox compounds are from 'contamination' by space born sources, (and likely not given how they're spread around) it is STILL a Lunar process which means the Moon has more water than we thought.

Where this causes problems is if your focus isn't really the 'science' but the practical utility of the matter is that it would seem pretty straight forward that breaking up chunks of ice and melting them (cold-traps) to gain water is going to be cheaper and easier than running thousands of pounds of regolith through a solar furnace a day with a system attached to draw out the water and oxygen. You'd be right if that ice wasn't so tough to get to and to process to the point where processing the regolith comes out to pretty much the same amount of effort for the same output of resources. And you actually get more oxygen from the regolith.

From a practical stand point you don't choose, you use whatever is available and "local" and go from there. But since you are doing all this on the Moon, (or Mars for that matter) the devil is in the details because you had to plan and bring all the equipment you needed to extract the water with you in the first place and the equipment and systems to do one process can't do the other. Hence you need to not only decide which your going to do but have a very specific idea of where your going to do it on the surface and detailed knowledge of the conditions at that site.

Given what we know currently, (and I'd stress this is just as importantly a point on Mars as the Moon, and we need to know more of course) there are certain places where your extraction is going to be better than others. The Lunar highlands and Mare Crisium looks to be the better spots for regolith processing while we all know the high-latitude craters where ice is expected. The point is we won't really KNOW unless we go there and characterize the spots and get enough details to make coherent plans. That takes an effort in targeted exploration both robotic and human if we're honest along with the financing, will and support to carry it out.

Randy

 

[trurle]

In general, bad quality of papers you cited showing you need to learn a lot yet before discussing. No offence, just advice. By the way, i worked in JAXA exactly on topic on power beaming hardware, and can testify the sub-society of beamed power is nearly insane, so it is partially not your bias.

But you can still use solar power, you just need to do it without wires
http://space.nss.org/media/2008-Energizing-The-Future-Of-Space-Exploration.pdf

http://space.nss.org/media/2008-Energizing-The-Future-Of-Space-Exploration.pdf
This is purely theoretical work. It assumes all technology is magically available already, in the form most suitable for author fancy.
http://space.nss.org/media/2008-Energizing-The-Future-Of-Space-Exploration.pdf

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0094576502000735

I have not seen such a wild numbers for years. 350 W/kg in 2003..while in 2005-2015 average power density was 2 W/kg and maximal about 5 W/kg? The author should go off heroin immediately.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20000074095

Same heroin-driven authors

https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1575&context=etdarchive

This one a solid work, receiver at least. Not much progress happened with transmitters though.

http://adsbit.harvard.edu//full/2004ESASP.567..165L/0000165.000.html

Interestingly enough if you look into direct Solar Pumped Laser technology your efficiency quite obviously goes up a great deal.
Randy

Again, magical technology review. What if beamed power plant built by somebody to dream specs..

By the way, i participated in professional solar-pumped laser discussion back in 2015. The efficiency of proposal which is currently under ESA research grant was 10% (well, better than 7% of microwave beam)

 

[fasquardon]

You guys are scary at times you know that right?

Why am I scary now?

I'd point out it "might" be less likely TTL that the "shuttle" is a failure since you have a Space Station to support, (OTL that would come 'later' if at all) this means you get quite a different "shuttle" than OTL.

Nah. Even with a space station AND going back to the moon, there's no way NASA is allowed to have the budget to launch enough shuttles to make the R&D investment worthwhile.

The expectations for the shuttle were so overblown there is no way that is consistent with the laws of physics that it can avoid being a disappointment unless some secondary PoD shifts expectations to much more solid ground.

I had been thinking that something like the OTL shuttle with ker-LOX boosters would be the "shuttle" of TTL, but I realized something: with a space station program ongoing, there's less pressure to force together cargo and manned launches in order to guarantee the manned program will survive in the lean times. So the astronauts can focus on working on the space station or doing interesting things in the manned orbiter and computers can be the truck-drivers on resupply and cargo launches.

On the other hand I'll argue that while the NOVA-Shuttle/Space Station/OTV is going to be less desirable from the Astronaut Corps' viewpoint, (they're mostly 'truck-drivers' despite the space flight time in this case which means you won't see as many scientists or test pilot applicants) it DOES check off the box of 'mostly' needing manned flights to do everything. I'd also point out that TTL actually going BACK to the Moon would be less of a "Congressional/Presidential" decision since doing so now doesn't require quite the heavy commitment that it would OTL.

Um. Why would NOVA-Shuttle/Space Station/OTV make astronauts mostly "truck drivers"? Even if cargo launch is intended to be via manned shuttle, most of what the manned shuttle would be doing is going up to the space station where astronauts would work.

And it's a pretty sure thing that a manned shuttle didn't take on all launch capacity for exactly the same reasons it didn't in OTL plus Nova being built into the new shuttle - if NASA wants to rebuild the Nova 11 (which would be their main cargo launch vehicle), they'd have the most important part flying regularly on the shuttle and even if they lost the ability to get new J-2 stages, they could find alternatives. So however things go, I expect the Nova 11 to be the main medium lift LV for NASA.

In Cis-Lunar space the propellant (energy really) cost of getting from the surface of the Earth to LEO is always going to be higher than that of bringing similar materials from the Moon to LEO so the "real" cost probably comes down to manufacturing costs of what exactly you 'need' in LEO rather than the materials themselves. The difference between a "simple" aluminium module shell and the equipment and system to fit it out for habitability are going to be the drivers in other words. Building the whole module on Earth and shooting it into orbit with a "Nova-Shuttle" is obviously going to be "cheaper" than bringing it from the Moon to meet system to be installed from Earth in LEO. On the other hand bringing those fittings out from Earth the Moon to be installed in a habitat built on the Moon using Lunar aluminum is not so clear cut and the argument that you can ship 'more' systems if you don't ship the shell has merit.

The cost of the man-hours of engineers and PhD scientists on Earth is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay lower than the cost of astronaut man-hours though.

I suspect that Lunar manufacturing would not happen in the 20th Century.

That said, the slag from water and oxygen production would be valuable feedstock later on.

Also, if pure aluminium is produced by this, powdered aluminium and LOX could be used as rocket propellant for getting anywhere from Luna.

In other words the shift in thinking, planning and operations that needs to take place from space exploration where we were at Apollo, (and arguably still are OTL today) to that where such a Lunar base resource extraction system is used is very much a significant paradigm shift.

Well, I am thinking a scientifically more significant Apollo (combined with the opportunities inherent in the Convair Nova design) might be enough to shift the "path of apparant least resistance" from OTL's path to a more Lunar-focused path.

Musk himself has noted that if he needed to he could replace the solar power system of the ITS with a nuclear one without too much either economically and regulatory issues.

You mean the guy who is routinely and notoriously overoptimistic about how easy it is to develop things?

Just sayin'...

By the way, i worked in JAXA exactly on topic on power beaming hardware, and can testify the sub-society of beamed power is nearly insane, so it is partially not your bias.

I've always found the papers I've been able to uncover on beamed power to be frustratingly vague.

Do you have any recommendations on good papers to read to get an accurate overview of the field and what is possible with real engineering?

fasquardon

 

[Wolttaire]

I think congress could support f they just had someone like John macain supporting fervently congress could get the Mooney for them and if he manages to convince a line of presidents then were set

 

[trurle]

I've always found the papers I've been able to uncover on beamed power to be frustratingly vague.

Do you have any recommendations on good papers to read to get an accurate overview of the field and what is possible with real engineering?

fasquardon

Bong Wie, "Integrated orbit, attitude, and structural control systems design for space solar power satellites", 2001