The Artemis Program in Real Solar System - To the Moon and Beyond

[jinnantonix]

I do think it is feasible to integrate the mining, milling, enrichment/processing and storage of fuels in a single launch unit, which roves the surface dropping spoil as it goes, and which docks directly with the space tugs to refuel them.  The rate at which a unit can produce fuel is an issue, especially with no solar power, and I would argue this may possibly be resolved by having many units.   Technically doable, but is this commercially viable?  I doubt it.

[Geschosskopf]

41 minutes ago, jinnantonix said:

I do think it is feasible to integrate the mining, milling, enrichment/processing and storage of fuels in a single launch unit, which roves the surface dropping spoil as it goes, and which docks directly with the space tugs to refuel them.  The rate at which a unit can produce fuel is an issue, especially with no solar power, and I would argue this may possibly be resolved by having many units.   Technically doable, but is this commercially viable?  I doubt it.

Well, the feasibility of a single-launch, all-in-1 unit depends, I would think, on what resources are available, what form(s) they're in naturally, at what quantity per shovelful, and at what depth.  The more you have to separate and refine the desired atoms and molecules out of their matrix and natural compounds, the more gear you need for those functions and the slower the overall process.  The scarcer and deeper the good stuff is, the more spoil you'll have and the bigger the diggers you'll need.  Also, the more likely it is that you'll have to haul the spoil to a distant location (where the concentration of good stuff is nearly zero) so as not to pile spoil on acreage you'll later want to strip-mine.  Methinks there's ample scope here for Murphy's Law to require us to go big or go home,   Especially considering the scale of plant required for even modest industrial-scale resource exploitation here on Earth, where building the required infrastructure is much easier.

As to commercial viability, that depends on the commercial need.  Many types of satellite are in large-scale demand so have created a market for launchers, competition within which has created excess capacity being filled by cubesat stowaways which aren't, in themselves, commercially viable but they can leverage a market tailored to launch bigger, profitable things going further away.  The commercial viability of an ISRU base on the Moon depends on the demand for fuel.  If the only customers are government exploration missions, then the demand is low and that's that.  However, if the Moon really is carpeted in helium-3, or if it's commercially worthwhile to mine NEOs and those miners need fuel, then it's another story.

And in this latter case, then I'd expect to see HUGE ISRU plants on the Moon, with all sorts of tradesmen building and operating them.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Geschosskopf

[jinnantonix]

Here is a KSP simulation of Artemis 3 mission proposed for mid 2024, with a lunar lander comprising a re-usable habitat pod and an expendable transit vehicle which is fully integrated at launch.  No refuelling is required.  The vehicle has a mass of 44 tons at launch and includes a single AJ10-190 OMS engine at 26.7 kN thrust and Isp = 319.  The re-usable lander habitat is a variant of the Orion pressure vessel (uses same jigs and construction methodology, smaller and lighter, and with extra thrusters for return from the moon from LLO to NHRO.  The lunar lander is delivered using two Falcon Heavy launches: the first launch gets the craft to LEO, the second launch has a payload comprising a small docking unit with avionics to allow remote controlled docking of the FH second stage with the lander in LEO.  This docked craft thrusts to 70% of TLI.  The lander then uses it's own engine to proceed to the LOP-G.  Subsequent missions launch the same expendable craft, minus the habitat pod, which docks at the LOP-G.

 

Edited November 3, 2019 by jinnantonix

[jinnantonix]

 

[jinnantonix]