AHC: Build a space station on the moon by 1999
- Thread starter CCK
- Start date
Well, I remember there was an idea called Moonlab in the novel Voyage (Stephen Baxter), which had a Skylab orbiting the moon. I'm not sure if it was based off any actual plans, but I suppose you could try that direction.
Benefits:
Longer study of the moon
Ability to examine outgoing probes
The ability to send men (or women) down on an annual basis
Drawbacks:
Inability to create a permenant settlement on the actual moon (maybe studies would go to an O'Neill cylinder situation.
Potential cost
It takes longer to get to the Moon than it does to get to, say the ISS.
Benefits:
Longer study of the moon
Ability to examine outgoing probes
The ability to send men (or women) down on an annual basis
Drawbacks:
Inability to create a permenant settlement on the actual moon (maybe studies would go to an O'Neill cylinder situation.
Potential cost
It takes longer to get to the Moon than it does to get to, say the ISS.
Time is the least of your worries. It's the extra delta-v that's expensive. Especially, if you're talking ON the moon, not just around it.
Consider the cost/size difference between a Saturn IB which sufficed to launch Apollo capsules to Skylab, and the full up Saturn V that was required to put 2 men on the moon.
Assuming you wanted your Moonbase permanently staffed, that's going to require 2 Saturn V's per year (assuming a 6 month rotation, and I don't think you'd want to go longer than that), plus whatever number of Saturns it took to get the supplies there to keep 2 men alive longer than a couple of days.
It would be far more expensive than the ISS, which is iOTL just borderline feasible with multinational cooperation.
So. A Moonbase requires either 1) massively cheaper launching costs, and/or 2) some incredibly important reason to go there.
Until you get far cheaper launch costs, you'd need a wrecked alien spacecraft or something like that to make it worth the cost.
Mr.Progressive
Banned
We keep the Space Race/Program going full force after Apollo. We don't cut NASA's budget, we expand it.
Maybe after landing on the moon, the Soviets say that they will land on Mars first. This keeps the Space Race going.
We might build Stations in orbit earlier, and buoy outposts on the moon. If both sides were 100% dedicated on landing on the moon and showing who was best, we could have had a moon base by 1980!!!!
Maybe after landing on the moon, the Soviets say that they will land on Mars first. This keeps the Space Race going.
We might build Stations in orbit earlier, and buoy outposts on the moon. If both sides were 100% dedicated on landing on the moon and showing who was best, we could have had a moon base by 1980!!!!
No it wouldn't be, it's valuable stuff, but regolith would wear the mining equipment out in no time.
Radiation in lunar orbit or in unshielded habitats on the surface would be outside the Earth's magnetic field, astronauts would hit maximum allowed exposure rather quickly.
Archibald
Banned
Build it within a lunar rille
But I agree there's still no economical transportatio system to the lunar surface even today. Saturn V / Apollo / LM / LOR worked but did not made economical sense.
Perhaps a lunar tether might change that. I've heard that a rotating tether might catch a payload on the lunar surface and bring it back to lunar orbit. Next issue obviously is to reach lunar orbit economically...
But I agree there's still no economical transportatio system to the lunar surface even today. Saturn V / Apollo / LM / LOR worked but did not made economical sense.
Perhaps a lunar tether might change that. I've heard that a rotating tether might catch a payload on the lunar surface and bring it back to lunar orbit. Next issue obviously is to reach lunar orbit economically...
Had Soviet manage to land on Moon, Nixon had push for Moon base
Either with Modified Larger Saturn V with Soild Booster to bring Hardware to moon
or using a reusable Nuclear Shuttle that Take Sturn V payload in Low orbit and bring them to Moon orbit
Quote by Mr.E.
yes it was study here an Saturn S-IVB stage is brought in by Apollo CSM into Stabile Lunar orbit.
the payload was multi docking adapter and Slora-cells and equipment to transform the S-IVB fuel tank into space Station AKA wet workshop.
Moonlab wound sever as docking site for Apollo CSM while there LM is down on moon for weeks.
Either with Modified Larger Saturn V with Soild Booster to bring Hardware to moon
or using a reusable Nuclear Shuttle that Take Sturn V payload in Low orbit and bring them to Moon orbit
Quote by Mr.E.
yes it was study here an Saturn S-IVB stage is brought in by Apollo CSM into Stabile Lunar orbit.
the payload was multi docking adapter and Slora-cells and equipment to transform the S-IVB fuel tank into space Station AKA wet workshop.
Moonlab wound sever as docking site for Apollo CSM while there LM is down on moon for weeks.
To me, the biggest difficulties with getting a Lunar-Orbiting Space Station are twofold.
One: Getting it there. The Saturn V could manage about 47,000 Kg to TLI and with minor modifications, a little over 50,000 Kg to TLI is quite reasonable. This by my math, allows up to 34,000 Kg for the station itself (with an assumed Isp of 441s for the LOI stage with reserve for lunar impact once its job is done) should the Dry Workshop design be selected. While the USSR proved that a little over 20,000 Kg was enough for the job, this was only for LEO and not permanently stationed, as such, building it out of two or three sections is the most likely outcome here.
Two: Lumpy Lunar Gravitational Field. It is at that. So you first need to find an orbit that is stable for LLO to minimise the propellant usage for station-keeping requirements. Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time and money just keeping it there by this one measure alone.
This is not to say it's impossible, but without the precise Political Environment to enable the funding to be made available, it's essentially DOA.
So to make it happen, you really need to have the USSR really perform well during the 2nd half of the Space Race, and that is a massive can of butterflies when you consider the economic and political conditions of the late-1960's USSR. Not to mention their oft-spotty Quality Control.
One: Getting it there. The Saturn V could manage about 47,000 Kg to TLI and with minor modifications, a little over 50,000 Kg to TLI is quite reasonable. This by my math, allows up to 34,000 Kg for the station itself (with an assumed Isp of 441s for the LOI stage with reserve for lunar impact once its job is done) should the Dry Workshop design be selected. While the USSR proved that a little over 20,000 Kg was enough for the job, this was only for LEO and not permanently stationed, as such, building it out of two or three sections is the most likely outcome here.
Two: Lumpy Lunar Gravitational Field. It is at that. So you first need to find an orbit that is stable for LLO to minimise the propellant usage for station-keeping requirements. Otherwise, you're going to be spending a lot of time and money just keeping it there by this one measure alone.
This is not to say it's impossible, but without the precise Political Environment to enable the funding to be made available, it's essentially DOA.
So to make it happen, you really need to have the USSR really perform well during the 2nd half of the Space Race, and that is a massive can of butterflies when you consider the economic and political conditions of the late-1960's USSR. Not to mention their oft-spotty Quality Control.
Riain
Banned
It's been a while since I've pored over astronautix, but IIRC the Apollo hardware variants could reasonably easy to stretch to two week missions, conveniently enough the length of the lunar day. This is a good start.
A permanent moonbase would require stuff like space tugs and probably reusable moon landers. But with evolved Apollo rockets with various booster proposals the throw weight to emplace them shouldn't be too much of a problem.
A permanent moonbase would require stuff like space tugs and probably reusable moon landers. But with evolved Apollo rockets with various booster proposals the throw weight to emplace them shouldn't be too much of a problem.
I'm assuming you mean He<sub>3</sub> (light Helium, not Tritium or some weird 3 atom hydrogen molecule).
Since we can't get fusion to work today with deuterium and tritium, and deuterium +Helium3 is harder, it has essentially no value today. It might, if we can ever get fusion to work, but until then, advanced (harder) fuel cycles are mere pipe dreams.
Safe bet, since that's usually what's touted as a lunar resource. It isn't great though, I mean sand wears equipment out quickly enough, and regolith is less like sand and more like ground up scoria from what I've heard, and thus would be a real pain to try to mine.