New thought on building a lunar colony

This is also on alt.fan.heinlein. No, not cross posted, as far as I know we
can't do that from aol, it is just an old fashioned cut and paste.

I have been giving a colony on the moon more thought (so what else is new,
right?) and I think I have been using the wrong concept for getting there.
What we do is research Star Trek type transporters and...ok, seriously.

My concept up until now has been to use existing boosters (perhaps Ariane 5) to
put landers into lunar transfer orbit. The Ariane 5 can put about 4500 kg into
this orbit. We still use these, but perhaps in a different way.

Another concept I have discussed at times is to build an orbital transfer
vehicle (OTV) later on in order to shuttle things back and forth, with landers
at the lunar end of things to bring stuff down. It might be built in sections,
then launched with a mass driver.

I have come to the conclusion this is bass ackwards. The very first thing
launched, from Earth, should be this OTV. It doesn't have to be all that much.
It needs an engine (almost certainly ion power, similar to what is being used
in Deep Space One http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2000/ast15jun_1.htm ), an
attachment point for what we launch (more can be added later, built on and
launched from the moon), ion fuel (NASA likes xenon, I prefer magnesium because
it is abundant on the moon), navigation, steering thrusters, solar panels and
structure to hold all this together. I don't even think it would weigh all
that much. We might be able to send it in one launch. If not, it should be
possible to design it in sections that can be assembled in orbit. I see no
need for this to be manned.

Then, instead of 4500 kg landers sent directly to the moon, we send landers
weighing about 18 tons into low Earth orbit to rendezvous with this OTV. It
ferries them to lunar orbit, they detach and land, and repeat as needed. With
big landers, it might be feasible to make them return capable just in case we
need to evacuate.

It looks to me like this might require fewer total launches than sending
landers directly into Lunar transfer orbit.

It was only recently that I found out about DS1 and that ion drives are out of
the lab and into space already. I think this would be less practical with
chemical propulsion, but even then it might be the way to go.

--
Ferengi rule of acquisition #192: Never cheat a Klingon...unless you're sure
you can get away with it.

In article <20040328201029.05123.00000261 DeleteThis @mb-m05.aol.com>,
lvpokerplayer DeleteThis @aol.com (LV Poker Player) writes:

 >I have been giving a colony on the moon more thought (so what else
 >is new,
 >right?) and I think I have been using the wrong concept for getting
 >there.
 >What we do is research Star Trek type transporters and...ok,
 >seriously.

I decided to step in from the Usenet sidelines with
my two cents' worth.

I do _not_ have sufficient level of detail to judge the feasibility
and economy of launching a Martian mission from Earth orbit (ala
Jefferson Starship's "Blows Against The Empire") versus a lunar
launch. Both approaches require a supporting infrastructure.

IMO "What is the supporting infrastructure, and how can we
beneficially (re)use that infrastructure?" is a worthwhile and
motivating question. IMO Federal budgetary pursestrings will
tighten in the foreseeable future, and our Senators and
Representatives increasingly will ask "What are We purchasing?"

Back to the Usenet sidelines for me.

"All Rights Reserved"?
If I 'right' must I reserve?

I got no problems.
Other people got problems.
00: 21 _8 02 03/35 06 09

Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
--
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging & security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.amazon.com" target="_blank">www.amazon.com</a>
Last book review: "Guerrilla Television" by Michael Shamberg<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->