We'll see. A lot can happen between now and then. The US is not as united as it was during the 1960s and it hasn't got a President who has the nous or vision that John F Kennedy had when he first announced that the US would go to the moon.
aviation developments
- Thread starter gf0012-aust
- Start date
True. However 1) they have an extremely dynamic and innovative civilian space "industry", and 2) there is a desire to remain in the lead in space, so this might just happen. 5 years is not a lot of time to get it done, however.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I think the other motivations for the US are China’s lunar ambitions and just as important, the possibility of manufacturing rocket fuel from lunar water. This would very useful as it reduces the cost for a Mars mission.
My understanding is that a "significant" presence of lunar water is at this time only hypothetical.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I guess “significant” is somewhat vague but water is present on the moon and it is probably the only viable reason for further exploration. As the attached article mentions, it is about the rocket fuel.
Why mining the water on the Moon could open up space exploration
Why mining the water on the Moon could open up space exploration
If the objective is to set up a fuel depot in low earth orbit with fuel.extracted from moon water, it would be a lot cheaper just boosting the fuel from Earth on a tanker version of Space X's Super Heavy/Starship.
Being a 100% completely reusable system, the only cost incurred would be the launch fuel consumed in transporting.the fuel intended for.storage in the depot.
Why spend billions to set up a fuel production infrastructure on the moon?
Being a 100% completely reusable system, the only cost incurred would be the launch fuel consumed in transporting.the fuel intended for.storage in the depot.
Why spend billions to set up a fuel production infrastructure on the moon?
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I doubt that. In any event, using the moon as a launch point to Mars has advantages due to gravity. Water also provides life support for a moon base. If useful minerals are available for construction of space vehicles all the better. If China were to have a moon base, the US would have to have one, regardless of whether there is any economic benefit. Defence would mandate this IMO.
Just to clarify, in the context of the more affordable way of establishing a fuel depot in LEO what are you doubtful about?
I would suggest that there are other minerals on the moon besides water that make it viable for further research and subsequent exploitation. Given that current theory suggests that the moon is comprised of the same material as the Earth it can be argued that similar minerals should be found within the moon's rocks. Construction of space exploration vehicles on the lunar surface, or in near lunar orbit, may also be possible at some stage in the future.
At the present point in time, establishing a fuel depot in NEO is probably cheaper if water is the base of the fuel - i.e., LOX, however given modern rocketry kerosene and solid rocket fuels still have to be lifted into orbit from Earth. Therein lies the problem until another method of propulsion that doesn't involve chemical propellants is FOC.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
The cost of launching payloads of fuel (almost worthless compared to an equivalent mass of satellites) is huge. Doing this from the moon allows much smaller rockets to lift the same mass of fuel. Yes, the initial start costs for a moon base are significant. Planetary exploration by humans will require much larger spacecraft that could be built in larger sections on the moon and then lifted into lunar orbit for final assembly, again with smaller rockets. A trip to Mars requires fuel and water. Establishing a base on Mars would require an enormous quantity hence a really big spacecraft. If the water and minerals are present, a lunar base will be much less expensive for large scale deep space exploration and exploitation. Perhaps some future exotic heavy lift space propulsion will be developed that will allow large spacecraft to be launched economically from earth but the chances this will happen anytime soon are similar to fusion reactors.
There have been some interesting inputs in this thread. Now I am not sure if you allude to the elephant in the room I see. If China is the first to create a permanent base on the moon, as is my thinking, who owns the moon? There is no precedent in this space and the Moon Treaty doesn't include China. If the moon has viable uses for military or economic reasons, The Great Game will become even greater.
Launching payloads into orbit is expensive if you throw away your rocket booster every time you launch.
The advent of reusable rocket hardware pioneered by Space X has turned the cost paradigm of rocket launches on it's head. As stated previously, Space X's Super Heavy Booster ( with nearly 2X the power of Saturn V) and Starship second stage are 100% reusable, so the major cost in lifting fuel into LEO is only the fuel consumed during launch itself. Basically peanuts.
The advent of reusable rocket hardware pioneered by Space X has turned the cost paradigm of rocket launches on it's head. As stated previously, Space X's Super Heavy Booster ( with nearly 2X the power of Saturn V) and Starship second stage are 100% reusable, so the major cost in lifting fuel into LEO is only the fuel consumed during launch itself. Basically peanuts.
Last edited:
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
Yes, the reusable booster will reduce costs but how many times can it be reused and what are the refurbishment costs? What is the turn around time. How many launches would be needed to construct a spacecraft capable for a first time mission to Mars? I guess multiple smaller modules could be sent first to Mars prior to the manned spacecraft's launch.
However, in order to actually establish a base on Mars that can be for permanent living will require a mega amount of transported stuff first. Performing this effort first on the moon would be an easier and safer way for "proof of concept". If successful and with lunar resources hopefully available, getting the necessary startup resources to Mars should be much easier.
However, in order to actually establish a base on Mars that can be for permanent living will require a mega amount of transported stuff first. Performing this effort first on the moon would be an easier and safer way for "proof of concept". If successful and with lunar resources hopefully available, getting the necessary startup resources to Mars should be much easier.
Redlands18
Well-Known Member
There is actually a quite good Docudrama out called Mars* which is about a fictional colonisation of Mars, while it’s centred around Mars not the Moon it covers in the 2nd Season basically the same question you have asked about who owns another Planetary body.
Can be found on Netflix Australia*
Interesting announcement from Reaction Engines - I'd pretty much thought they'd prove the tech then sell it but from this it looks like they're looking to get into building something that flies, even if only as a test bed.
www.reactionengines.co.uk
I'll be interested to see if the low cost LEO market still exists in the current format by the time they get airborne of course. As a recon platform, this may be very interesting however.
Conceptual study into hypersonic test bed for SABRE technology :: Reaction Engines
Cranfield Aerospace Solutions, Reaction Engines, BAE Systems and Frost & Sullivan evaluating high-speed flight-test.
www.reactionengines.co.uk
I'll be interested to see if the low cost LEO market still exists in the current format by the time they get airborne of course. As a recon platform, this may be very interesting however.
John Fedup
The Bunker Group
I’ve made a few posts about Reaction Engines in Missiles and WMD within the Hypersonic developments thread (probably in other forgotten threads as well). They absolutely have some interesting stuff in development which overlaps several areas and is definitely a company to watch. Any suggestions as to where we should be posting stuff about them so we see everything in the same place?
Interesting question. I've watched this firm since their involvement in HOTOL and really..do you still put them in the "wow..if only.." category or do move them into something more substantial?