Moonbase

We stayed up late last night talking about a concrete plan for Moonbase. 
We talked of the goal as well as the means, and I think we came to some
good conclusions.  Maintaining the mundane aspects of the mission are
important.  The idea that one needs to spend time, effort and resources on
the operation, not on R&D.  Basically we started with what the purpose
would be.

The goal would be to establish an optical interferometry telescope on the
surface of the moon that would be able to greatly increase our
astronomical observations.  An excuse, perhaps, but firmly rooted in good
science.  Much like the military support for research in Anarctica, this
mission would be run by the military.  It is a known operational mode for
them.

Next, in order to perform this mission, a space transportation system to
the moon and back would need to be constructed.  An easy and sensible
variation on existing operational capability is Shuttle C, a shuttle
derived vehicle which would replace the orbiter with a cargo pod.  The
allowance for carrying out the mission would be several of these launches
per year, as well as several launches of existing shuttles per year, over
a several year period.

The next thing my brother wanted in order to carry out his mission was a
vehicle, to be launched by a Shuttle C which could ferry people and
minimal cargo between LEO and the moon's surface.  It would be able to
carry a pilot and six people.  Its fuel tanks could be launched
seperately, and it might be possible to return the vehicle to Earth for
maintenance.

My brother also wanted to be able to have emergency escape vehicles which
could successfully return astronauts from the surface of the moon if
necessary.  Habitation modules would be lofted by Shuttle C for a soft
landing on the moon's surface.  Supplies inside these modules would be
sufficient for an extended period.  There would be no attempt to recycle
or produce signicant materials on the moon's surface.

Another aspect discussed was the need for protecton from solar flares. 
Initial visits back, to select landing sites and test out the ferry would
be scheduled during periods of relative calm.  Instead of a rover as such,
a moon bulldozer would be sent up with initial habitation deliveries to
allow the astronauts to bury the modules under sufficient lunar soil to
protect against the flares.

After conducting tests on the ferry, a full detachment of 6 men would be
sent to man the modules for a period of up to 6 months.  Their primary
goal, past making their base operatonal would be to prepare for the
arrival of the telescope modules.  This would consist of laying the
foundation, setting up communications gear, etc.  As with many of the
machines involved with the project, the telescopes would be many in
number, and as the first arrived on the surface (boosted by the Shuttle C
rocket) problems could be detected before others were sent, in time for
operational modifications to be made.

We came to believe that after some two years, and approximately twelve
shuttle or shuttle C launches, the optical interferometry telescope would
be fully operationak.  The cost of such a venture would be on the same
order as the Space Station, and would successfully achieve its goal of
returning the moon's most valuable product initially - a greatly improved
eye on the cosmos (Pretty Pictures).

Because of its operational nature, that is the application of existing or
near existing technology to the solving of a clearly defined goal, its
chance of success within budget would be high.  Given the operational
capabilities, other scientists or commercial ventures wishing to go to the
moon or wanting to make use of the components would be welcome as
available or paid for.  In the end, the wisdom of the plan as laid out is
the fact that these are all things we know how to do today.  The analogy
with Anarctica is appropriate.  It is not commercially viable, nor shold
it have to be if the scientific knowledge gained is great.

To achieve success on the moon, one needs a certain threshold of effort. 
The idea of a military-style, Antartic expedition still remains foremost
in my mind.  That a command infrastructure provides the backbone for
otherwise scientific efforts.  This current concentration on a spece
station seems misplaced.  The sooner you get access to mass nd raw
materials, the better.  If only for shields.  And the stability of a
planetary suface should not be neglected.  Supplement the Russian station
with a few extra modules, but get to the moon Asap.

We know that an initial moon venture is still very expensive.  There is
the question of how successful tele-operators and robots on the surface of
the moon might be.  To what end?  Establishing the basics of a sustainable
base.  Inevitably we come back to water, to hydrogen.  Early on, if we
can't get it from an AA, then maybe it has to be brought up from Earth's
surface.  Small quanities, I know.  But shuttle fuel tanks remain good
simple carriers of such.  Or maybe the right thing to do is just carry it
up in the cargo bay or on a rocket.  High cost.

Getting a lunar bulldozer to the moon.  Use of various launch vehicles to
send up supplies.   Use of shuttle as a big bus, to send up larger groups
of people.  Getting an infrastructure in place to do moonbase.


Getting Into Orbit

Getting out of the gravity well is my favorite. If there were an easy way
into orbit, I wonder what the effect would be?  It could be very
profitable for those willing to brave the frontier.  Right now, the cost
factor of getting there holds us back.

Just finished talking with my friend back in DC.  Says the industry is
still in a real bad slump.  I wanted to talk to him about the Popular
Science article they had about various new methods of getting into orbit. 
The most promising of these is Boeing's concept of a piggyback
configuration, where the engineers only have to worry about Mach 3 and
above.  Info about the Delta Clipper - only $50 mil but they made use of
many of the advances of the NASP or Single Stage to Orbit projects.  Arpa
currently has a decision to make on various funding paths.  Cryogenic
engines.  Computational modeling of the plumes.  Clever engineering. 
Lectures where they would show actual parts, rather than just viewgraphs.

Seems like a good book to write would be "Schemes for getting into orbit".
And you could explore all these different ways, focusing on capital
costs, safety, price per kilo, etc.  But it would not primarily address
why you want to get into orbit, which this Millenial book does.

It seems to me that a number of the MF ideas could be tested almost
immediately.  First, they should begin their algae feeding.  For Bifrost
testing, it would seem like the principle of vaporizing ice off the back
of a sled via lasers could be tested on a linear track.

Frankly I have my doubts.  The mass-driver technology they blindly
postulate needs a bit of reality.  From my brother's work, it seems like
it is non-trivial to do one that is more than 1 kps.  The rail guns at UT
Austin max'd out at 2 kps.  They postulate a 5 kps variety atop
Kilamanjaro.

One of my brother's pet ideas is a pressure-fed booster.  The problem
everyone is seeking to solve is cheap paths to orbit.  Bifrost might not
be the way to go.  PF rockets may not be the way to go.  But there has got
to be a way.  An article in Business Week that I read today (on DCX)
mentioned both Pegasus and the possibility of ICBM's.  But don't we do
that already?  What is a Titan IV anyway?  The launcher for Clementine was
supposedly $20 mil.  Question about cost inevitably gets you into gov't
accounting, a messy beast.  But it would seem ICBM's are already well paid
for.

My brother has spent alot of effort on the pressure-fed rocket idea. 
Methods of getting into orbit fall into various categories, and this one
falls in between solids and liquid rockets.  Bifrost has an advantage on
the longer term of being easy on the consumables.  But very expensive in
capital and politcal costs.  At one level, it might make sense to follow a
Pegasus approach.  Cheap, small rockets.  At some point in time they are
going to have to have a successor to shuttle.  It would seem wise to break
it into heavy-lift and manned.  But for the costs, it will require a
better political definition of what is being achieved.

Space is harsh and expensive, but it still seems like the critical field
of play.  SDIO seems to have created an alternate path for the funding of
space research and transportation schemes.  I was surprised to learn that
DCX was also funded by SDIO, much like Clementine.  And at a similar level
- slightly less than $100 mil.  Pegasus was a DARPA thing, but it also was
of that same class (non-NASA), and for an SDIO purpose (Brilliant
Pebbles).  SDIO has done a wonderful job, in part because it is a young
organization.  A greater can-do mentality.  To get something real working
for a finite amount of money.  SDIO as an end-run organization to get
around the existing bureaucracy.

Mass in Orbit

Had a good technical discussion with a co-worker about the way to do space
exploration.  As always, the concept of making more use of shuttle fuel
tanks kept coming up.  Under the current scheme they almost reach orbit,
but are pushed back down into the atmosphere to burn up.  With a bit of
effort they could be brought into orbit and parked, for a variety of uses.

One could make them a little bit bigger, and have them carry up some extra
hydrogen and oxygen.  They could make good space station modules.  You
could organically add them to a space station, or just corral them for
later use.  One might even consider landing them on the surface of the
moon.  See Gene Myers' book _ET Solutions_ (1990) for a full run down
of ideas here.

One doesn't want to just create space junk, stuff that would be considered
a burden or dangerous.  It needs to be localized, not expensive to keep it
in orbit, firmly tied down.  Why do we haul the orbiter up and back each
time?  Perhaps to save the main engines and the heat shields.  How much is
the entire package?  Would there be an easier way to get the engines back
without all the other junk?  As a package it might make sense.

As things develop there should be a commodity price for aluminum or water
in earth orbit.  Extra H or O in these parked fuel tanks could be bid on.
Someone should be able to pick up a Wall Street Journal and find out what
a kilo of one of these substances in earth orbit is going for.

Bookshelf

- Gene Myers, _ET (External Tank) Solutions_, 1990.

- George Henry Elias, _Breakout Into Space_, 1990.

- Freeman Dyson, _Infinite in All Directions_, 1988.

- Gerrald O'Neill, _The High Frontier_, 1976.

- Neil Ruzic, _The Case for Going to the Moon_, 1965.