From: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu (Doug Mohney)
Subject: Re: Lunar "colony" reality check
Date: Mon, 09 Nov 92 21:22:27 GMT
Organization: Computer Aided Design Lab, U. of Maryland College Park
Reply-To: sysmgr@king.eng.umd.edu

In article <BxEt07.G32@techbook.com>, szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>Lunar "colony" reality check:
>
>* The moon has no significant sources of hydrogen, nitrogen,
>  or carbon.  Wishful thinking about polar volatiles or
>  scrounging solar wind particles are hardly significant.

Until a full recon of the moon is done, it's hardly significant to
comment about polar volatiles. Unless you've already been there, hm?

>* 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.  

You're full of it here. One of your heros, Robert Zubin, whom you quoted
earlier in the year, says oxygen can be pulled out of the rock. You have free
power from sunlight (let me simplify for you: SOLAR CELLS) once the factory is
on site. 

Or would you like to say Zubin, who has put forth proposals for "Lunar Direct"
and "Mars Direct" is just flat-out wrong? 

>* 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.

If you're citing Biosphere II, the science being done is highly questionable.

>* 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. 

You don't have to store hydrogen in liquid form. Pick an intermediary which
doesn't go poof. You also assume a flat-line technology for storage.

>* The annual per capita consumption of water in the
>  U.S. is over 500 tons.  In this as in many other
>  areas, the "colony" will be living in abject 
>  poverty despite the $billions spent on its
>  construction.

Gosh Nick. You need to talk to the Greenpeacers. They'll tell you that our
consumption of water is one of the most wasteful in the world.  

{Our: Refering to the United States of America. I would not propose to speak
for the masses of Maple-Leaf land :) }

Pulling THAT particular statistic off the wall borders, on, well, stupid.

>* It takes more than a rocket payload full of hydrogen
>  to make the water needed by industry.  If we're to have any 
>  significant manufacturing industry in space, we're going to need 
>  tons of volatiles.

Assuming we use same processes here on earth as we would in space. Without
taking advantages of the unique advantages of the environment. 

>  For example, here is the water used to make 
>  a few kinds of products on earth:
>
>			gallons/unit
>			------------
>finished steel, ton	40,000
>automobiles, unit	12,000
>trucks, buses, unit	20,000
>ref: Mark's Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers, 1987

Sure. And figures cited are open-loop processes. Not closed-loop. You can
afford to dump water into the ecosystem and it'll come back for re-use.
Off-planet, you won't want to do dat. 

I wouldn't be surprised if some of those meaningless-to-this-discussion figures
have gone DOWNWARD as a result of the late '80s push to be more environmentally
friendly. More inputs, such as water, mean higher costs. Certain companies,
such as 3M, recognize the phrase of "waste not, want not." 

Oh, by the way, you don't say if the gallons/unit is a U.S. large-steel
factory, a mini-mill, or made in Japan. Which is it?

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

Based on your peanut-gallery facts, certainly.

However, since most of your other assumptions are baloney, I can't see how any
of your other assertions can be taken as valid. 

>* SSF bare-bones habitat operations costs will be $2 billion
>  per year.  Scaling for transport costs gives over $10 billion
>  per year for a bare-bones lunar "base".   Redesign will cost
>  even more than SSF cost,  since industry has no reason to
>  participate beyond the usual NASA-contractor mode. 

This has already been addressed earlier, mostly with your assumption of major
hardware bending.
  
Give it up. If it's not an asteroid or comet, you urinate on it.


                 Play in the intelluctual sandbox of Usenet 

  -- >                  SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU                        < --
Newsgroups: sci.space