Lunar Water Creates New Capabilities in Space

Posted on October 8, 2015 by Paul Spudis

I have a new post up at Air & Space on the real value of going to the Moon to learn how to extract, process and use the water at the poles.  Comment here if so inclined.

This entry was posted in Lunar development, space industry, space policy, space technology, Space transportation. Bookmark the permalink.

26 Responses to Lunar Water Creates New Capabilities in Space

  1. Joe says:
    October 8, 2015 at 7:09 am

    Good article, as usual.

    Takes on the issue that often comes up (implicitly rather than explicitly) in discussions of Lunar resource development.

    SpaceX on-line supporters seem to see Lunar resource development as a threat to Musk’s “dream” of reusable Falcon 9 rockets flying 100’s (if not 1,000’s) of times a year. Therefore they vociferously oppose such development (making the “miss the point” argument about it being supposedly cheaper to launch all required resources from Earth).

    The ironic thing is that Lunar resource development is probably the only thing that might create a practical market for all those Falcon 9 flights (or their equivalent).

    • AndrewWorth says:
      October 8, 2015 at 10:27 am

      “SpaceX on-line supporters seem to see Lunar resource development as a threat to Musk’s “dream”. . . “. It may “seem” that way to you, but my observation is that SpaceX, and NewSpace supporters in general are the ones pushing hardest for up-skilling, initially with fuel depots and later with ISRU.

      • Joe says:
        October 8, 2015 at 1:26 pm

        I based my statement on the encounters I have had in the comments sections of this web site and others as well as various articles.

        While some of the SpaceX fans do indeed support fuel depots (as long as all the fuel is delivered from Earth – by SpaceX rockets of course), virtually none showed any interest in ISRU unless it involved Martian resources.

        This matches well with Musk’s Martian fixation. Interestingly Musk does not seem interested in fuel depots. He wants a really, really big rocket. A rocket big enough to place 100 Metric tons directly on Mars in a single launch (as a side note that would require this behemoth to be able to place the mass equivalent of a fully fueled Saturn 5 into LEO). It would also be reusable and fly (what else) 100’s (if not 1,000’s) of times a year.

        All that to support building a colony on Mars for 80,000 (or is it 800,000) people by 2030.

        • AndrewWorth says:
          October 8, 2015 at 2:44 pm

          “I based my statement on the encounters I have had in the comments sections of this web site and others as well as various articles.”

          Evidently you don’t read the same articles and blogs that I do.

          “to place the mass equivalent of a fully fueled Saturn 5 into LEO”

          Which the concept rocket would be unable to do (by a long way), hence the need for fuel depots.

          • Joe says:
            October 8, 2015 at 2:58 pm

            “Evidently you don’t read the same articles and blogs that I do.”

            Evidently. Try reading a few of the comments sections on this website.

            “Which the concept rocket would be unable to do (by a long way), hence the need for fuel depots.”

            You better get in touch with Musk and tell him to get his act togehter.

    • gbaikie says:
      October 8, 2015 at 9:59 pm

      –The ironic thing is that Lunar resource development is probably the only thing that might create a practical market for all those Falcon 9 flights (or their equivalent).–

      Mars settlements *require* mining water in space.
      Mars exploration doesn’t.
      But Musk is focused on settlement, rather than Mars exploration.

      I think Mars and the Moon require exploration first. And neither has been explored.

      NASA should explore Mars due to the possibility that Mars might be suitable for Mars
      settlements. But we don’t know that Mars is suitable for Mars settlement, just as we don’t know if the Moon has minable water.
      NASA should explore the Moon to help determine if lunar water is minable.
      Whether lunar water is minable depends upon many factors, but one factor that NASA can control, is exploring the Moon to determine whether it could be minable.
      Likewise NASA can explore Mars to determine if human settlements are possible.

      But NASA can’t or shouldn’t mine lunar water, and NASA can’t or shouldn’t settle Mars.

      If one comes to the conclusion that NASA should explore Mars due to the potential for settlements [rather some quest to find alien life], and you realize that lunar water mining [or other mining of water in space] is *required* for Mars settlements, then it’s logical to explore the Moon to determine if there is minable lunar water, because it supports future Mars settlement

      • billgamesh says:
        October 9, 2015 at 10:25 am

        “If one comes to the conclusion that NASA should explore Mars due to the potential for settlements-”

        “-explore the Moon to determine if there is minable lunar water, because it supports future Mars settlement.”

        Human beings require one gravity. It just keeps being ignored. The space colonization movement of the 1970’s really started with the singular conclusion that NO natural bodies in this solar system besides Earth are suitable for “settlement”- due to the requirement for one G.

        There is a long list of other reasons why Mars is a non-starter as a second habitat for humanity. But emoting sci-fi fans from the days of H.G. Wells all the way to the present have always been easy targets for scammers trying to make a buck (or get public support).

        It is really a bad thing that this attaching of the ice on the Moon directly to Mars settlement is coming up more and more often. It drags the critical resource for space exploration down into the cesspit of P.R. gimmicks and phony space advocacy.

        • gbaikie says:
          October 10, 2015 at 1:00 pm

          We sent animals into orbit, because we were uncertain that humans could live for relatively short periods in orbit.
          We currently know that humans can live in orbit for more than a year, but we also know that the human body adapts to micro-gravity and this has various health consequences which begin immediately once in micro-gravity and over months of time, it worsen and have longer effects.
          We can assume that in low gravity- the Moon or Mars, the human body will also adapt to this low gravity and have similar
          effects as occurs in micro-gravity but we can also assume that differences between micro-gravity and say 1/3 of earth’s gravity are also quite different.
          For instance fire is quite different in micro-gravity, whereas fire on Mars would behave fairly similar to how it behaves on Earth.
          Or a toilet in micro-gravity has to be different than a toilet in micro-gravity, whereas a toilet on Mars could very similar to a toilet used on Earth. And living areas of enclosed environment like a submarine on Earth are similar to living areas on Mars- this is not the case when in micro-gravity.

          A reason for exploration is to discover these types of differences, people once thought humans could not go faster than about 20 mph, and now human can travel at hundreds of mph, but there consequence of traveling at over 20 mph- ie, a collision at over 20 mph can be lethal. And we could not possible know about all the consequences of going over 20 mph, without actually going at speeds faster than 20 mph and learn ways of dealing with traveling at these higher speeds.

          I would say making a top down type decision of assuming human can only survive in a 1 gee environment, is a policy decision which is criminal or at least, stupid.
          One could decide that you don’t want to go more than 20 mph or that you don’t want to live in environment greater or less than 1 gee, but such personal choices are quite different a public policy type decisions.-particularly when it’s not based upon any information.

          One aspect is the need to explore Space, another aspect of this, is lower the cost to get into space.
          In my opinion NASA needs to explore space in such manner that it’s related to how one can lower the costs to get into space. So in terms of priority of exploration, NASA’s top priority
          should exploration that could lead to lower the costs of going into space.
          If there was commercial lunar water mining this would lower the costs of getting into space. NASA mining lunar water wouldn’t lower the cost of getting into space. So NASA should explore the Moon to determine if and where there could be minable water on the Moon. That NASA has failed to do this over the last 10 years or so, is failure of the agency, whereas not sending crew to Mars, has not been a failure of the agency- rather than desire of doing this first, is the policy failure.

          And that it took until 1998 to determine that there could water in the Moon, is another failure of this agency over the many decades, it’s existed.

          And that NASA do not have system that can refuel rockets in LEO, is another long term failure of the agency and general NASA focus upon having a earth launch owned and operated by the agency as been a failed policy over the decades- it’s the wrong focus of the limited resources NASA is provided to explore Space.

  2. billgamesh says:
    October 8, 2015 at 7:40 am

    “-the skills and technologies needed to acquire and use off-planet resources-“to launch tons of water from Earth is to completely miss the point of attempting it—we are learning how to “cut the umbilical cord”-

    Any dialogue with the NewSpace sycophants presently hijacking the discussion about space exploration inevitably devolves into their screaming cheap. When presented with any plan that requires government resources or things outside the capability of billionaire hobbyists the NewSpace mob wails and gnashes their teeth, crying out it is just too expensive and a waste of tax dollars.

    This mantra is incredibly frustrating because these creatures claim to be all about space exploration but in reality are anti-space and have an agenda that goes nowhere but LEO- which is not really space at all. They will make noise about Mars and making us a “multi-planet species” yet when it is actually shoved in their face and they can’t avoid addressing the hard questions they default to snarky veiled insults and complaining on libertarian principles. A shaky facade as their flagship company is the poster child for corporate welfare.

    The best example is of course the SLS; it is obligatory for the private enterprise fanatics to always make a Carthago delenda est statement about how the SLS should be canceled. I respond with my own version naming the space station to nowhere and the hobby rocket as items that must be done away with. The SLS is presently the only vehicle specifically designed to carry humans Beyond Earth Orbit and calls for its cancellation are for that reason. Going directly to the Moon dumps the NewSpace LEO business plan in the trashcan.

  3. billgamesh says:
    October 8, 2015 at 7:49 am

    “When it comes to human interplanetary missions (as it inevitably does), we require hundreds of tons of material, all delivered to some marshalling area in space (e.g., LEO, GEO, Lagranians, or some other departure point).”

    Any long duration missions into deep space will require massive shielding and artificial gravity. This is the dirty secret NASA does not want to talk about. No matter how willing to permanently damage their bodies astronauts are the decision is not going to be theirs- and nobody is going to sign off on profoundly debilitating and dosing human beings just for a T-shirt. The damage is certain and so is that damage being a showstopper.

    Sending humans on multi-year deep space missions automatically means true spaceships with well over a thousand tons of water as a cosmic ray shield and an artificial gravity system. This automatically makes chemical propulsion useless for human interplanetary missions- only nuclear energy will work. And it may as well be stated in no uncertain terms- only one form of propulsion is viable- nuclear pulse propulsion. This means hydrogen bombs and those cannot be used inside the Earth’s magnetosphere, which extends almost to the Moon.

    It is not that “space is hard”, it is that the truth about space is hard. The most basic truths about space exploration the public must come to understand is that LEO is not space and there is no other place to go to acquire shielding, assemble, test, and launch nuclear missions but the Moon. LEO is the worst possible place to put together spaceships and the smaller-cheaper-better hobby rocket scam makes the “flexible path” an unworkable mess.

  4. billgamesh says:
    October 8, 2015 at 7:53 am

    “The proposed Falcon Heavy (if it works and costs as advertised) would emplace even more mass (about 22,000 tons for the same amount of money).”

    Falcon light blew up as I recall on its 19th flight while ULA just went one hundred in a row- without blowing up. You get what you pay for. The cheaper-is-better crowd continues to proclaim a new age of cheap lift and just don’t get it: when the space station to nowhere closes shop, NewSpace is over. Low Earth Orbit (LEO) is not space. The mob of Ayn Rand worshipers who are anti-space, anti-NASA, anti-government, while posing as good ole boys waving the flag, have done more damage to space exploration than both shuttle disasters.

    As the ISS deteriorates it costs more and more per year and very soon there will be a call to pour extra billions into this hole in LEO. Lashing together 3 hobby rockets to carry more junk up there to go in circles- going nowhere- is just more corporate welfare. The ideological war between those scamming taxpayers to continue this sham and those supporting Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO) operations with the Space Launch System (SLS) is real. The ice on the Moon and the Space Launch System to reach it should be the central focus of all true space advocacy.

    NewSpace is the enemy. I have said it for years and have been banned from almost all the popular space forums for saying so. The time is coming when that sordid mess also known as “private space” and “commercial space” will either be exposed and rejected or finally and completely ruin any near term possibility of human beings again traveling in space. Abandoning LEO and funding more tooling and workers for SLS cores at Michoud is the only hope. A public works project to establish a permanent base on the Moon is the worthy goal- not LEO tourist stations and boot prints on Mars.

    • Paul Spudis says:
      October 8, 2015 at 9:37 am

      NewSpace is the enemy

      I don’t think that they are “the enemy” — they simply are one piece of an overall space strategy that is currently in complete disarray.

      Some of the over-the-top statements by people like Musk are eminently mockable, but there nothing wrong with a company developing their own space hardware and offering it or its use on the open market. However, shoveling federal corporate welfare for development to selected companies and calling it “private” or “commercial” space has replaced evolving a sensible strategy for incorporating and encouraging commercial capabilities for the emergence of markets.

      • billgamesh says:
        October 8, 2015 at 10:59 am

        “-a sensible strategy for incorporating and encouraging commercial capabilities for the emergence of markets.”

        There is only one big commercial market up there in that vacuum right now and it is for GEO satellites. I don’t count the defense industry or science projects as “commercial.” I am often mocked for over-the-top statements and one that drew several derisive responses concerned the possible demise of this single space-sustaining enterprise:

        https://iceonthemoon.wordpress.com/2015/05/14/the-coming-zeppelin-satellite-apocalypse/

        I submitted the concept to NASA when they solicited “revolutionary ideas” in a program some months back. No word back yet:)
        H-bombing Mars into a garden of Eden makes much more sense though.

        As I have commented here many times, the logical first human revenue generator in space is crewed GEO telecom space stations. The key to replacing the satellite junkyard with a couple dozen large space stations is of course the thousands of tons of water-as-radiation-shielding required. And since spending billions on launching tap water into GEO is a non-starter acquiring that water from the shallow lunar gravity well is the real key.

        In my view the sensible strategy for encouraging the emergence of a new market in lunar water is to start by properly branding these scheming anti-space libertarian muckrakers as the certain enemy of space exploration. Must be my military background that prevents me from perceiving them as anything else.

      • AndrewWorth says:
        October 8, 2015 at 1:35 pm

        “. . .shoveling federal corporate welfare for development to selected companies and calling it “private” or “commercial” space has replaced evolving a sensible strategy for incorporating and encouraging commercial capabilities for the emergence of markets.”

        I sort-of agree with you.
        But, in different markets transactions work in different ways. Buying a bus ticket is cash in advance, building a house is often done with payments for benchmarks in the construction: floor, roof, walls etc completed, and with orbital launch the payment is often made in advance; a chunk on the launch agreement being signed than another chunk 2yrs before launch, more 1yr before launch etc.

        It could be argued that the COTS program is simply a way for the US Government/NASA to develop a competitive market by encouraging multiple new launch providers, and that if it’s a strategy that works, it’s a program that will benefit both parties in each agreement – the launch providers and the US Government/NASA. That’s all that’s really needed to make a reasonable commercial agreement: Both parties are willing participants and both parties see a benefit for themselves in the transaction.

        When a revolution is happening in an industry unusual contracts and methods to get from A to B are made.

        • Paul Spudis says:
          October 8, 2015 at 1:49 pm

          Buying a bus ticket is cash in advance, building a house is often done with payments for benchmarks in the construction: floor, roof, walls etc completed, and with orbital launch the payment is often made in advance; a chunk on the launch agreement being signed than another chunk 2yrs before launch, more 1yr before launch etc.

          You started off with a good analogy, but then lost that thread.

          Instead of buying a bus ticket in advance, we are paying Greyhound to design and develop an entirely new bus coach, one that’s validated to meet a variety of our requirements. We pay for the design, fabrication and test phases — if it works, they own it and then charge us additional money for each trip.

          In other words, we pay, they keep and own. Hardly equitable, I would say. But any event, certainly not “private sector.”

        • billgamesh says:
          October 8, 2015 at 6:51 pm

          “When a revolution is happening in an industry unusual contracts and methods to get from A to B are made.”

          When a rip-off is being perpetrated on the public unusual contracts and methods of stealing are used.

          A certain internet “entrepreneur” stepped in after the Columbia disaster with a promise to deliver cargo and astronauts to the ISS. In addition to a campaign contribution preceding the infamous “blunt been there speech”, this bizarro Tony Stark type sued the Air Force of his adopted country and threw the spy satellite program into disarray. He should have been more worried about insuring his hobby rocket did not blow up instead of trying to land on barges.

          There is no revolution.

  5. Marcel Williams says:
    October 8, 2015 at 11:52 am

    The primary advantages of extracting water from the lunar poles is that these substantial resources could:

    1. dramatically reduce the cost of operating a permanent lunar outpost (no need to import water for drinking, washing, food preparation, growing food, or for the production of air)

    2. dramatically reduce the cost of traveling to and from the lunar surface from LEO since water can be converted into rocket fuel for reusable landing vehicles operating between LEO, the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and the lunar surface

    3. substantially reduces the cost of traveling from cis-lunar space to Mars or Venus orbit by providing crewed interplanetary vehicles with water for drinking, washing, food preparation, radiation shielding, and propellant (LOX/LH2). Lunar water would be a game changer for any sustainable human missions to Mars.

    4. provide propellant for reusable OTVs stationed at the Lagrange points that are utilized to retrieve malfunctioning commercial and military satellites from GEO and GPS orbits for repair at a Lagrange point space habitat before re-deploying back into operation.

    5. give Commercial Crew vehicles capable of reaching LEO easy access for its passenger to the lunar surface via reusable LOX/LH2 shuttles

    So the exploitation of lunar water would make practically everything we do in space much safer, cheaper, and easier to do.

    Or NASA could keep on pretending that lunar ice resources and even oxygen resources don’t exist and continue whining about how impossibly expensive it is for humans to travel to the Moon and Mars:-)

    Marcel

    • billgamesh says:
      October 9, 2015 at 1:17 pm

      “-reusable landing vehicles operating between LEO,-”

      I strongly doubt the practicality of a spacecraft from the Moon diving 200,000 miles into Earth’s gravity well and radiation belts from GEO to pick people up from LEO. Super Heavy Lift Vehicles bypassing LEO and going directly to and returning directly from the Moon are by far the most efficient method. LEO is a dead end Marcel.

      “-reduces the cost of traveling from cis-lunar space to Mars or Venus-”

      Not even addressing the fact that chemical propulsion is a non-starter for human interplanetary missions why would we go to Mars or Venus? If we had a fleet of true spaceships launched and supported from a Moon base replacing our nuclear deterrent on Earth then scientists might ride along on missions of opportunity (like scientists sometimes are guests on nuclear submarines under polar ice). In that respect the ocean moons of the gas giants are far more interesting and worthwhile destinations.

      “-retrieve malfunctioning commercial and military satellites from GEO and GPS orbits-”

      A couple dozen large shielded GEO telecom space stations crewed with technicians would completely replace the satellite junkyard and be superior in all respects. Assembling these stations in lunar orbit and transiting them back across cislunar space to GEO would remove the need for retrieval and repair.

      “-Commercial Crew vehicles capable of reaching LEO easy access for its passenger to the lunar surface via reusable LOX/LH2 shuttles-”

      Again, LEO is a dead end. As for LOX/LH2; while it is the highest performing practical propellant combination it is not so practical without a massive Earth-based support infrastructure. The volatiles most likely trapped in lunar ice may be used to make methane which would be a much easier to handle and store propellant for the first generation of reusable lunar shuttles. Later generations may use beam propulsion and hydrogen as a mono-propellant.

  6. Grand Lunar says:
    October 8, 2015 at 12:53 pm

    Excellent as always.

    To add to the list, lunar water would also be useful in nuclear thermal rockets, whenever we finally put them to use.

    I recall programs that have spoken of other lunar resources that could be put to use.
    Have you written on those as well?
    I.E, about the presence of titanium and aluminium, for example?

  7. billgamesh says:
    October 8, 2015 at 9:15 pm

    In my view there are three likely avenues of approaching lunar resource utilization.

    The first is to use robots as companies like Moon Express are exploring. It is possible that semi-expendable robot landers will be able to ferry water up to empty upper stages in lunar polar frozen orbits. If this proves practical then a thriving industry in cislunar space can be established without even landing humans on the Moon again.

    The second is to find super large lava tubes theorized to exist in certain areas. These tubes may be very large- so large that small cities can fit inside them. This would allow humans to move right in with inflatable structures but would require human-rated landers. Because these tubes are not likely to exist near any of the polar ice deposits then a way to transport water from these polar regions to the tube sites will also be required.

    The third avenue was proposed by Gerard K. O’Neill and had a minimal human presence on the lunar surface using electromagnetic rails guns to launch vast amounts of building materials into cislunar space for constructing artificial spinning hollow moons. The ice on the Moon may make this even easier by using Jules Verne gas guns to fire large payloads of ore and water towards space factories.

    Ideally all three avenues will be exploited and support each other. Eventually beam propulsion would be used for travel in the vicinity of the Moon and finally to enable millions to migrate to space colonies from Earth. The SLS is the first step and succeeding iterations of Super Heavy Lift Vehicles will eventually generate thrusts triple and quadruple that of the original.

  8. billgamesh says:
    October 9, 2015 at 8:04 am

    “Do we intend to operate in the current mode of custom-built, one-off missions or should we instead develop a robust, continuing space-based transportation system, one that can be used to accomplish a wide variety of missions and activities?”

    Dr. Spudis mentioned “one piece of an overall space strategy that is currently in complete disarray”, and that “one piece” that has always really bugged me.

    If the private space god had started with something larger than the maritime equivalent of a canoe I would probably be a true believer. But…..the reality is the building block of this NewSpace “revolution” is a very low-powered mediocre engine that severely limited anything that could be accomplished from the start. We can see the consequences of this in a vehicle that violates the KISS principle 27 times over. I would add the miracle of propellant crossfeed is the guarantor of the optimistic payload and that feature does not appear to be forthcoming.

    When I was 11 years old NASA studied that one piece of an overall strategy that I believe is critical to any effort to expand humankind into the solar system. The present 5 segment SRB at 3.6 million pounds of thrust is the most powerful booster on Earth- but a reusable booster surpassing this awesome device with a much higher thrust and Isp is what is needed.
    I call it “the methane monster.”

    http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19720015132.pdf

  9. Marcel Williams says:
    October 10, 2015 at 10:41 am

    A reusable Extraterrestrial landing vehicle could operate between the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and LEO and between the Lagrange points and the lunar surface using propellant derived from lunar water. A super heavy lift vehicle is great for deploying heavy cargo within cis-lunar space but its an efficient crew launch vehicle since it throws away all of its components– every launch.

    Chemical rockets operating between the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and high Mars orbit would be much more efficient than nuclear rockets operating between LEO and high Mars orbit– because of the substantially lower delta-v requirements when launch vehicles from the Lagrange points. Plus the delta-v requirements to supply water and propellant for interplanetary vehicles launched from the Lagrange points is substantially lower than trying to supply fuel and water from the Earth’s deep gravity well.

    IVF technology being developed by the ULA will enable us to utilize hydrogen and oxygen very efficiently.

    Commercial crew vehicles will been in operation long before the SLS is launching humans into space.

    Marcel

  10. oldAtlas_Eguy says:
    October 10, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    The economics of propellant depots. Depots do not care where the propellant comes from. But even with the cheapest envisioned LV possibly to exist in the next 20 years the BFR/MCT cost of propellant at L2 would be $1,600/kg. BTW the cost of the reusable booster version of the FH for prop delivered to L2 would be greater than $3,200/kg. Now if a Lunar infrastructure for delivery of propellant to L2 to was put in at ~$60-80B development and initial setup with an annual operating cost of $10B that can deliver 17,500mt of prop to L2 a year over the lifetime of all the elements of the system, it can deliver to L2 propellant for $800/kg.

    Conclusion is that it will be more than 20 years and probably even a decade after that that a system that can deliver prop to L2 from Earth to do so at the same cost as a Lunar system. But when evaluating LEO that is not the same story. The cost of delivery of prop from Earth by the FHR would be $1,600/kg equal to the same as it would cost to deliver prop from the Moon. The two systems would be direct competitors fro LEO prop sales and it would be available volume that would determine who the front runner supplier would be. BTW the max amount of prop that the before mentioned Lunar system could deliver per year to LEO would be 8,750mt. But that is also equivalent to over 200 FHR flights in one year. A flight rate not likely to be achievable in the next 10 or 15 years but such a delivery amount from Lunar prop could reach such levels in 15 years without much transfer tug hardware.

  11. billgamesh says:
    October 10, 2015 at 1:43 pm

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-science-committee-leaders-slam-nasa-for-cutting-deep-space-exploration-spending-1444409860

    It’s a strange situation, no doubt about it. Democrat space advocates siding with Republicans, lunar resource advocates trying to take the spotlight off NASA’s Mars fantasy, and the NewSpace mob trying to keep the SpaceX aura intact after their golden child exploded.

Comments are closed.