From: aws@iti.org (Allen W. Sherzer)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Organization: Evil Geniuses for a Better Tomorrow
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:24:39 GMT

In article <BxEt07.G32@techbook.com> szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:

>* The moon has no significant sources of hydrogen, nitrogen,
>  or carbon.  

Well it looks like we won't need those Lunar geochemical mapping missions
Griffin requested. Good thing they didn't get funded. This was previously
regarded as an open question and now Nick has solved it for us. All
that we need now is for Nick to tell us just HOW he discovered this. So
how about it Nick? How do you know there are no volitals on the moon? Your
Nobel Prize awaits.

>  Wishful thinking about polar volatiles or

The discovery of what seems to be ice at the polls of Mercury make the
posibility of Lunar ice a lot more than wishful thinking.

>  scrounging solar wind particles are hardly significant.

Depends on what your doing. If your mining He3, then huge amounts of
water will be produced as waste.

>* A livable atmosphere is mostly nitrogen, not oxygen.

Which comes as a rude suprise to the astronaust who lived for
weeks on end on pure oxygen.

>* Plants and animals need copious amounts of hydrogen, nitrogen,
>  and carbon.

Recycle.

>* There is no affordable way to crack oxygen out of lunar
>  rock or to recycle it.  This would cost, at bare minimum,
>  tens of millions of dollars per astronaut per year.  

Nick is behind on the literature. Several inexpensive methods exist
and have been tested.

>* Because of transportation costs for recycling equipment,
>  recycling on the moon is far more expensive than recycling on 
>  earth.  Even on earth the best attempt at building a livable, 
>  working biosphere masses hundreds of thousands of tons and leaks 
>  over tens of tons of air per year.

Biosphere II is a different problem Nick. Extrapolating Lunar mass
costs from this isn't going to get you anywhere.

>* Hydrogen is extremely innefficient to transport from
>  earth.  The stoichiometric volume of LH to make water is
>  _larger_ than the volume of oxygen; huge amounts will
>  be wasted on tankage.  Much of the LH will leak before
>  it can be used; it's extremely difficult and expensive
>  to store even for the few days trip. 

Good point. I guess we will need to ship it in another form like
methane or some other hydrocarbon. We can mix it with Lunar oxygen
to make water from the hydrogen and use the carbon for life support.
This kills two birds with one stone.

>* The annual per capita consumption of water in the
>  U.S. is over 500 tons.  

How many uses of water will there be on the moon for the average person?
A large fraction of that 500 tons is likely used to water lawns; we won't
be doing that on the moon. Between recycleing and finding alternative 
ways most of that can be eliminated.

>finished steel, ton	40,000
>automobiles, unit	12,000
>trucks, buses, unit	20,000
>ref: Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 1987

Most of this is for processes which will have lunar equivalents which
don't use water. Abundant and cheap solar energy will provide alternatives.

>* There is no signficant economic resource on the moon. 
>  Revenues as a percentage of costs will be 0%.

1. Contract research. There is still a lot we don't know about the moon and
   some money can be made selling research services.
2. He3. May not pan out for a while but if it does....
3. Energy. The moon can supply energy for Lunar or orbital bases
   power beaming to Earth.
4. Shielding for spacecraft. Bulk shielelding will be cheaper to transport
   from the moon than from Earth.
5. Oxygen. The moon will provide a cheaper (enenrgy wise) source of oxygen
   for space stations, and upper stages. If water is found at the polls then
   all fuel requirements for beyond LEO could be met from the moon.
6. Test facilities. When Nick sends his automated astroid miners out there
   he will need a local test facility to qualify hardware and test 
   technology. The moon is the obvious choice.

>* SSF bare-bones habitat operations costs will be $2 billion
>  per year.

We have delt with this one before. You are still overestimating launch
costs by one to two orders of magnitude. This estimate was both unsupported
and wrong then and now.

   Allen

-- 
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Allen W. Sherzer | "A great man is one who does nothing but leaves        |
|  aws@iti.org     |  nothing undone"                                       |
+----------------------166 DAYS TO FIRST FLIGHT OF DCX----------------------+
Newsgroups: sci.space