Jobs for the 21st Century
US Patent #5,305,974
A Mars Shuttle for $10 Billion
Fast Manned Expeditions to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn,...
Product catalog
Links to other Sites Services
Tickets to Mars

7.0 The first lunar base

       The first lunar base will most probably be entirely
   robotic.  The reasons are very simple and practical.  First,
   the costs of maintaining a robotic base will be much lower
   than the costs of a manned base.  Second, due to the absense
   of humans, there will be no loss of life among the
   crew.  Third, the initial tasks which need to be done at a
   lunar base can be easily carried out by robots.  Fourth, far
   fewer and less complex facilities are necessary to sustain
   the robots than would be required to sustain humans.
       In order to accomplish any task, only four things are
   necessary: resources, power, labor, and planning.  Some people
   think that money is also necessary, but it is not.  Money is
   only used to trade for one or more of the other four.  On the
   moon, we will have free resources!  That is, nobody will charge
   us for the materials we find there.  This is in marked contrast
   to the earth, where you must pay someone for every resource
   you need except air or seawater (if you are near the ocean).
   The moon also has an abundance of free power - solar power.  Again,
   nobody will charge us for using the solar power we find there.
   Our labor at the first lunar base will be androids.  Since they
   must be operated from the earth they will not be free, but they
   will cost roughly the same as earth-bound workers.  Most planning
   can be done here on earth and thus will not be too expensive.
   Indeed hundreds of companies around the world are already making
   lots of plans for space, the moon, lunar bases, trips to Mars
   and so on.  Thus we will be able to reap the results of that
   planning at very low cost.
   7.1  Site selection
       Any fool with a map of the moon and a few darts can select
   sites for a lunar base.  The question is how much more data if any
   are needed in order to make a better selection. The site of the first
   lunar base must be chosen to satisfy as many needs as possible.  The
   four primary criteria are: (1) the base must be able to communicate
   with the earth at any time, (2) the site must be relatively flat for
   safe landing of imports, (3) the site should possess the raw
   materials from which we plan to extract our lunar products,
   and (4), it should be as close to one of the poles as is practical.
       The first criterion limits sites to the near side of the
   moon.  The second and third criteria constrain the sites to
   the maria.  And the last suggests a northern mare since there
   are few maria in the south and we plan to build an important base
   at the north pole of the moon.
       It is clear that we must make our site selection from orbital
   photos because the Apollo landing data are far too limited a sample
   to have any hope of picking an optimal location.  Fortunately there
   have been quite a few successful lunar photographic missions. The
   following list was gleaned from [21, p.25-54], "Solar System Log"
   by Andrew Wilson.   This list, which is a subset of that given in
   [21], shows only the successful US photographic missions
   to the moon and does not include the Apollo missions which have
   separately accounted for many thousands of pictures of the
   moon.  Also not listed are numerous Soviet missions which have
   also returned large numbers of pictures.
*  Spacecraft        Launch date         Pictures returned
   ----------        -----------         -----------------
   Ranger 7          July 28,1964              4,316
   Ranger 8          February 17,1965          7,137
   Ranger 9          March 21,1965             5,814
   Surveyor 1        May 30,1966              11,350
   Lunar Orbiter 1   August 10,1966              211
   Lunar Orbiter 2   November 6,1966             208
   Lunar Orbiter 3   February 5,1967             182
   Surveyor 3        April 17,1967             6,326
   Lunar Orbiter 4   May 4,1967          99% of near side
   Lunar Orbiter 5   February 5,1967     99% of moon
   Surveyor 5        September 8,1967         19,118
   Surveyor 6        November 7,1967          29,952
   Surveyor 7        January 7,1968           21,038
        One candidate appears to be the mare Frigoris which spreads
   roughly over the area from 50 to 60+ degrees north latitude and
   extends from about 30 degrees east longitude to 30 west longitude.
   7.2  Delivering materials to the moon
       Delivering materials to the moon is a critical cost
   factor in all lunar financial calculations.  Estimates of the cost
   vary widely.  Michael Simon gives a range of $5,000 to $15,000 per
   kilogram [LB1, p.534] while Lewis and Lewis give $20,000 per kilogram
   [14, p.207].  Perhaps the best way to estimate the cost is to use
   Duke's rule of thumb that you need 7 tons in LEO for each ton placed
   on the moon [LB1, p.66].  One can then simply multiply the LEO cost
   by 7 to get the lunar soft-landing cost per kilogram.  We arrive at:
*  Table 7.2-1 Cost per kilogram of material soft-landed on the moon
   Booster      LEO cost   Lunar cost
   Proton        $ 2,381    $ 16,667
   Energia       $ 2,727    $ 19,089
   Titan 4       $35,133    $245,931
   Shuttle       $39,898    $279,286
       Sources: see section 4.1
       All of these costs are based upon soft landings made by ordinary
   rockets from the earth.  Apart from the high cost, this method also
   dumps tons of exhaust gases into the lunar atmosphere which tends to
   damage the high vacuum which exists there now.  It has been estimated
   by Richard Vondrak that during each of the Apollo landings the lunar
   atmosphere was doubled for a period of two weeks [Nature, vol. 248,
   4/19/1974, p.657-9].
       There are at least three ways to deliver materials to
   the surface of the moon which use little or no propellant!  They
   are the skyhook, the EMPL, and the direct impact method. Let's
   briefly review each of these techniques.
   7.2.1  The skyhook
       The skyhook is extensively discussed in Space Inc, by
   Tom Logsdon [37, p.212-222].
   The concept of the skyhook can be simply understood as follows.
   Nearly everyone has heard of geostationary satellites.  They are
   those satellites which remain stationary overhead and are used
   to beam television programs down to satellite dishes all over
   the world - different satellites for different parts of the world
   of course.  They remain stationary over a single spot on the
   earth because their orbital speed happens to match the rotational
   speed of the earth below.
       Those who are not mathematically inclined can skip this
   and the following two paragraphs.  The altitude can be calculated
   from the following two relationships.  First, the square of the
   orbital velocity at any radius, "r", is given by:
*      G * M / r                       7.2.1-1
       Where G is the universal gravitation constant (6.672e-11) and M
   is the mass of the earth (5.976e+24).   And second, the orbital
   period, one day, is given by the distance traveled which is two
   times pi times the radius, divided by the orbital velocity.
*      2 * pi * r / v = one day        7.2.1-2  or
       2 * pi * r / one day = v        7.2.1-3
       You simply square 7.2.1-3 and set it equal to 7.2.1-1 and
   solve for "r".  This yields "r" = 42,245 kilometers, which is the
   distance from the center of the earth.  By subtracting the radius
   of the earth you get 35,868 kilometers above the surface which is
   22,292 miles - the altitude of geostationary satellites.
       Well, imagine that you hung a long long
   cable down from one of those satellites.  The end of the cable
   would simply hang stationary over some spot on the ground - and
   would extend up into the sky and out of sight.  Hence the name
   skyhook.  Then you could simply attach an elevator to the cable
   and climb out into space.  Too bad it doesn't work!  Apart from the
   atmosphere interacting with the cable, the big problem is that
   no known material is strong enough to make a cable that long.
       But a modified form of the skyhook could be used to place
   objects or payloads onto the surface of the moon.  This scheme
   works because the moon has no atmosphere to obstruct our operations.
   First you would establish a satellite in a highly elliptical orbit
   around the moon.  That means that the satellite would be high
   above the moon during parts of its orbit and low over the surface
   during other parts of its orbit.  Imagine that the satellite
   came down to only a few miles above the surface.  Then we could
   let down our skyhook and pick up or drop off a payload to or from
   the surface of the moon.  In either case a fast moving "truck" on
   the surface would match speed with the moving skyhook before
   pickup or dropoff so that there would be no big jerk on the
   payload.  Of course this scheme is not easy to implement and
   preceding explanation has excluded many of the important details.
   For more on skyhooks see [14, p.157-9], [23, p.168],
   [LB2, p.10, p.12], and/or [SM 16, p.279-81].
   7.2.2  The electromagnetic lander
       The second method is the EMPL.  Electromagnetic projectile
   launchers can and will be built on the moon because they
   constitute far and away the least expensive way to get material
   off the moon.  But what is not often noticed is that the EMPL
   could also be used to slow down an object which was flying in
   from space.  Most people these days have heard of Mag-Lev trains.
   Mag-Lev stands for magnetic levitation because the train is
   actually lifted off the "tracks" by magnetic fields.  The magnetic
   fields are also used to accelerate and decelerate the train
   (note the key word "decelerate").  One can then imagine
   such a train car in an elliptical orbit around the moon.  As it
   swung low over the surface of the moon, it could be maneuvered
   to touch down on a mag-lev track which would then decelerate
   the payload to a stop.  This landing scheme would not be simple
   to implement either.  But in spite of that, some individuals
   have worked on the idea - see for example A.B. Binder in [LB2, p.26].
   7.2.3  The lunar slide lander
       The third method is the direct impact method.  As it sounds,
   it consists of simply crashing payloads into the surface of the
   moon.  It is clear that if no retro-rockets are used, the
   velocity of any projectile as it approaches the surface of the
   moon will be at least lunar escape velocity - which is about
   2.4 kilometers per second or 5,370 miles per hour.  We can
   however determine the impact angle by careful planning and
   the expenditure of a relatively small amount of propellant.  Our
   payload can be maneuvered into a highly elliptical orbit such
   that at its low point (called the periselenium) it is nearly
   tangent to the surface of the moon, in other words horizontal.
   Finally, when the payload is about to pass over the runway in the
   proper direction, we would use a small thruster on board the payload
   to drop it onto the runway where it would slide to a halt.  One such
   lunar slide lander was described by K.A. Ehricke in [LB1, p.848-853].
   Another lunar crashlander was described by E.F. Marwick in [LB2,
       The lunar slide lander is by far the easiest (and cheapest)
   to construct with regard to lunar facilities, requiring only a
   long flat runway.  It will require very little propellant to be
   discharged into the lunar environment. Its construction will involve
   selecting an appropriate site which is flat and level and relatively
   free from large boulders.  The whole area will then be cleared of
   rocks just as the farmers used to do.  This will produce a field
   covered with regolith.  Depending upon the depth of the regolith
   it may be necessary to cover it with additional regolith to
   increase its depth.
       Imagine that you were standing at the site of the LSL to
   watch the landing of a payload.  Up in the blackness you would
   see nothing but millions of stars in a black sky.  The earth and
   perhaps the sun too would be about 30 degrees above the horizon.
   The payload would be invisible somewhere up among the stars
   and still many miles away.  Finally way off in the distance,
   coming from the south and close to the horizon you would see the
   firey plume of the onboard thruster firing upward to push the
   payload down.  In seconds the payload would hit the LSL.  There
   would be a spray of regolith but no sound as the payload embedded
   itself deeply in the soil.  An android, sitting in his MPV,
   would drive out to the pit where the payload was stuck.
   He would begin digging to recover the payload and load it
   aboard the MPV.
       It may be possible to combine the skyhook and the lunar slide
   lander to yield a system which uses no propellant at all.  To do
   this it would be necessary to have a spacecraft orbitting the
   moon with which payloads coming from earth would rendezvous.  This
   spacecraft would then be responsible for landing the payloads.  The
   obvious penalty would be the cost of the lunar orbitting platfrom
   equipped with the skyhook - few things in life are free.
   7.3  Lunar products
       The moon has no life of any kind - no plants and no animals.
   It is simply a large body of rock and dust.  But it is also loaded
   with treasure.  It contains nearly all the known elements and they
   are often found in higher purity than they are found here on
   earth.  Unfortunately, it has little of three of the elements most
   important to life on earth - namely, hydrogen, nitrogen, and carbon.
   But, as we shall see, "little" is a relative term.
       Since we plan to commence mining operations in one of the
   maria, let us look at the components of the soil there.   The
   following table is based on Apollo mare soil samples as given
   in [LB1, p.382].
*  Table  7.3-1
   Element    Symbol  Percent(by wt)
   Oxygen       O      42.26
   Silicon      Si     19.68
   Iron         Fe     11.92
   Calcium      Ca      8.53
   Aluminum     Al      7.20
   Magnesium    Mg      4.68
   Titanium     Ti      4.65
   Sodium       Na      0.35
   Manganese    Mn      0.15
   Chromium     Cr      0.10
   Total               99.52
       Also let us look at the concentrations of some other
   interesting elements in the lunar soils.
*  Table 7.3-2
   Element   Symbol    ug/gram        source
   Sulfur      S      *1000          [4, p.159]
   Chromium    Cr      700-3600      [LB1, p.598]
   Barium      Ba      85-767        [LB1, p.598]
   Nickel      Ni      131-345       [LB1, p.598]
   Strontium   Sr      104-234       [LB1, p.598]
   Hydrogen    H       10-211        [LB1, p.572,584]
   Carbon      C      *115           [4, p.159]
   Potassium   K      *83            [18, p.133]
   Nitrogen    N      *50-100        [4, p.159]
   Florine     F       37-278        [LB1, p.598]
   Helium      He      30            [2, p.169]
   Zinc        Zn      6-49          [LB1, p.598]
   Copper      Cu      6-31          [LB1, p.598]
   Thorium     Th      1-13          [LB1, p.96]
   Uranium     U       0-3           [LB1, p.598]
     * - ppm (parts per million, assumed by weight)
       Now it is time to consider what products are worthwhile
   extracting from the lunar regolith.
       Four products are of immediate interest:
*  1. Silicon for solar power arrays
   2. Aluminum for solar power arrays
      (and possibly for use as a propellant)
   3. Helium-3 to be used in fusion reactors on earth
   4. Oxygen for use as a propellant
   7.3.1  Solar power arrays
       The most accessable form of power available on the moon
   is solar power.  Everything we want to do requires power.  Power
   is like money in that you can't have too much of it.  Williams
   et al [51, p.275] have estimated that the equipment necessary
   to mine enough regolith to produce one ton of helium-3 per week
   would weigh nearly 1000 tons and require about 3 Mw of power
   to run it.  Assuming no operation during the lunar night, this
   facility could mine enough helium-3 each year to satify the
   total electricity demand of the US.  The incident solar radiation
   at the surface of the moon is about 1400w per square meter where
   the surface is perpendicular to the sun's light.  This is higher
   than most places on earth because the moon has no atmosphere to
   decrease the transmission of the light.  Assuming a 10% solar
   cell efficiency, it would take about 21,500 square meters to
   produce 3Mw.  This would be a square about 150 meters on a side.
   Even at only 1 kilogram per square meter this would be about 25
   MT (including some extra for packaging).  Bringing that much weight
   from earth would be very expensive.  We wish to avoid that cost by
   bringing a manufacturing facility instead.  This will allow us
   to build on site an unlimited quantity of solar cells which
   of course corresponds to an unlimited power supply - instead
   of the limited amount of 3Mw (or any amount).  Texas Instruments has
   developed a new "low technology" process for producing solar cells
   which they claim will cut solar cell costs in half [52, p.76].  The
   cost is not of concern here; rather, the fact that these solar
   cells can be produced without complex "high technology" processes.
   The TI process requires low grade silicon and aluminum foil [52,
   p.76]. Fortunately the moon has plenty of both.  You can see from
   table 7.3-1 that about 20% of the lunar surface is silicon and
   another 7% is aluminum.
       Given these huge quantities of aluminum and silicon,
   we should be able to dump regolith into a machine and have
   silicon and aluminum pop out the other side.  In short, we will need
   silicon and aluminum producing  machines and the TI solar cell
   machine.  With these three machines, we can build a solar array of
   any size we want - 3Mw or 3000Mw.
   7.3.2  Helium-3!
       Why helium-3?  The short answer is that all the electricity used
   in the United States in 1987 could have been generated from 28 tons
   of helium-3 [10, p.4].  Based upon its utilization for the
   production of electricity on earth, its value has been
   estimated at $1,000,000,000 per ton [10, p.4]. The problem
   is we don't have much helium-3 here on earth.
      Nuclear fusion is the process of combining light atomic
   particles to produce heavier atomic particles.  This is how
   our sun produces its power.  Hydrogen is "fused" to produce the
   element called helium.  Hydrogen occurs in three forms called
   isotopes: hydrogen (1 proton), deuterium (1 proton, 1 neutron),
   and tritium (1 proton, 2 neutrons).  All three isotopes are
   available here on earth. Deuterium oxide (heavy water) is present in
   water at about one part in 5000 [110, p.28] and can be relatively
   easily  concentrated to nearly 100% by electrolysis.
   Tritium is radioactive with a short half-life (12.3 yr) and thus
   is not found in nature. However, it is produced in heavy water
   fission reactors when a deuterium atom captures a neutron
   from a fissioning uranium atom.  And it can also be produced by
   fissioning a lithium-6 atom with a neutron in a bomb [8]
   or in a liquid lithium reactor.  Unfortunately lithium-6
   constitutes only about 6% of all lithium, but lithium-6 is a
   lot easier to separate from lithium-7 than U-235 from U-238.
       Most fusion work has involved the D-T (deuterium,tritium)
   reaction because it is the easiest reaction to start - i.e.
   the one requiring the lowest ignition temperature [2, p.172].
   However, that reaction produces large amounts of energetic
   neutrons [7] which require large amounts of shielding and are
   difficult to convert into electricity. The next easiest
   reaction to start is D-D, but this reaction produces only
   a tiny fraction of the power of the D-T reaction [7].
      Nuclear fusion can also occur with helium-3 although
   its ignition temperature is much higher [2] - that being one
   of the drawbacks of helium-3.  The deuterium - helium-3
   reaction "is of major interest because the fuel and the
   main reaction products are charged particles, which are
   not radioactive" [2, p.167].  This means two things: first,
   that the world need not fear another Chernobyl because this
   fusion reaction is environmentally safe, and second, that
   electric power can be produced directly from the charged
   particles produced by the reaction. That means a higher
   plant efficiency.  A tandem mirror reactor design proposed
   by J.F. Santarius [9] offers the possibility of a 70% overall
   plant efficiency [2, p.173].
      The two major components of the universe are hydrogen
   and helium. The proportions of these components are estimated
   to be 93.4% hydrogen and 6.5% helium [2, p.167].  Helium itself
   occurs in two forms: helium-3 and helium-4.  The former
   contains two protons and one neutron for an atomic weight
   of 3 and, hence, is called helium-3.  The latter contains two
   protons and two neutrons for an atomic weight of 4 and, hence, is
   called helium-4, or just helium.  Unfortunately, helium-3 is much
   rarer than helium-4 and very little helium-3 is available on earth.
   In the primordial universe there were only about
   140 helium-3 atoms per million helium-4 atoms [1].  Our sun is about
   92.1% hydrogen and 7.8% helium [3] thus indicating how much hydrogen
   has been burned into helium.  Hot gases are constantly given off by
   the sun and they radiate out into space in all directions.  This is
   called the solar wind and it contains roughly the same components as
   the solar corona [4] which include hydrogen, helium, oxygen, carbon,
   nitrogen, and other elements and compounds in trace amounts [3].  The
   ratio of helium-3 to helium-4 in the solar wind is about
   480 ppm (parts per million) [5].  The lunar regolith has been
   absorbing part of the solar wind for billions of years. Analysis of
   samples from the Apollo landings has shown that the concentation of
   helium-4 in the regolith is about 30 ppm and that the ratio
   of helium-3 in the samples is about 400 ppm of helium-4 [6].
   A detailed estimate given in [2, p.170] shows that the lunar
   maria contain over 600,000 tons of helium-3 and a further
   500,000 tons in the highlands for a total estimate of
   1,100,000 tons for the lunar surface [2, p.170].
        Based upon its utilization for the production of electricity
   on earth, its value has been estimated at $1,000,000,000 per ton
   [10, p.4].
   7.3.3  Lunar oxygen
       Quite a large number of papers have been written which
   discuss recovering oxygen from the moon for shipment down to
   low earth orbit.  A short list follows:
*  1. [LB1, p.531-542] "A Parametric Analysis of Lunar Oxygen
      Production", M.C. Simon.
   2. [LB1, p.543-550] "Lunar Oxygen Production from Ilmenite",
      M.A. Gibson, C.W. Knudsen.
   3. [LB1, P.551-558] "Oxygen Extraction from Lunar Materials:
      An Experimental Test of an Ilmenite Reduction Process",
      R.J. Williams.
   4. [LB1, p.559-570] "A Carbothermal Scheme for Lunar Oxygen
      Production", A.H. Cutler, P. Krag.
   5. [LB2, p.22] "Delivering Liquid Oxygen to Low Earth Orbit",
      Bilby, McGlamery, Ashley.
   6. [LB2, p.34] "Oxidation and Reduction of Ilmenite; Application
      to Oxygen Production on the Lunar Surface", R.A. Briggs,
      A. Sacco Jr.
   7. [LB2, p.43] "Lunar Mining of Oxygen Using Fluorine",
      D.M. Burt.
   8. [LB2, p.52] "Conceptual Design of a Lunar Oxygen Pilot
      Plant", Christiansen, Simonds, Fairchild.
   9. [LB2, p.156] "Parameters for Electrolysis of Molten
      Lunar Rocks and Soils to Produce Oxygen and Iron", Lewis,
      Haskin, Lindstrom.
   10. [SM 22, p.123-131] "Lunar Oxygen Production by Vapor
      Phase Pyrolysis", W.H. Steurer.
   11. [SM 20, p.360] "Silicon, Aluminum, and Oxygen from
      Lunar Ore", R. Keller.
   12. [SM 25, p.69-77] "Magma Partial Oxidation: A New Method
      for Oxygen Recovery from Lunar Soil", R.D. Waldron.
   13. [SM 43, p.331-341] "Lunar Oxygen Production by Pyrolysis of
      Regolith", C.L. Senior.
   14. [SM 44, p.342-345] "Lunar Production of Oxygen by Electrolysis",
      R. Keller.
   15. [SM 45, p.346-351] "Design of an Automated Process Control System
      for Lunar Oxygen Production", B.D. Runge & T. Stokke.
       We do NOT recommend shipping of lunar oxygen to LEO for several
   good reasons.  They are:
       1.  It appears that fuel lifted from earth will be significantly
   cheaper than fuel from the moon - at least for a very long time.
   This assertion is based upon the apparently very low cost of payloads
   lifted via conventional powder guns or hydrogen gas guns.  See
   section 4.2.
       2.  The establishment of such an operation would take several
   years and would cost billions of dollars if it were established in
   the manner suggested by most of the above authors.
       3.  If the oxygen were lifted off the moon by rocket, that would
   damage the precious vacuum there and if the oxygen were lifted off
   the moon via an EMPL, one would have to wait years for the
   establishment of that facility.  There is also the question of where
   the rocket engines come from if rockets are used.
       4. The propellant selection is also questionable. The highest
   specific impulse would be that of LOX and LH2.
   But since there is very little hydrogen on the moon, the
   necessary hydrogen would still have to be lifted from earth.  This
   amounts to 14.3% of the mass rather than 11.1% because LOX and LH2
   are normally burned in the ratio of 6 to 1 rather than 9 to 1.
       5. If another propellant is selected, such as aluminum, which
   could be manufactured on the moon, then one must consider the cost
   of establishing that manufacturing facility.
   7.4  The first small EMPL
       We need a small EMPL at the site of the first lunar base
   to get our valuable products off the moon.  The EMPL is by far the
   best way to get material off the moon.  It requires only
   electricity and it doesn't produce any exhaust gases.  The
   amount of electricity required can be calculated easily from
   the mass of the moon and its radius [42, p.343].  That number
   works out to 0.784 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.  The corresponding
   number for the earth is 17.36 kilowatt-hours per kilogram.  Many
   articles have been written about lunar EMPLs, especially by
   T.A. Heppenheimer [43, p.301-309], [44, p.176-183], [45, p.242-9],
   [46, p.305-12], [LB1, p.155-167].  Also see [SW 5, p.157],
   [LB2, p.21], [LB2, p.68].
       How much power is required by the EMPL?  Well, that too is
   easy to estimate.  The kinetic energy of an object is given by
   one half of the product of the mass times the square of its
   velocity.  Assuming a one kilogram mass and a velocity of three
   kilometers per second gives a kinetic energy of 4.5MJ (megajoules).
   If in addition, we launch the object in 1/2 second, then the power
   required is 4.5MJ per 1/2 second or 9Mw (megawatts).  That is,
   9Mw per kilogram of mass to be launched.  Notice that this is
   continuous power.  The power demands can be reduced by any
   amount by using capacitors to drive the EMPL - but that means
   we need the capacitors.  Using capacitors, we can launch 1 metric
   ton projectiles roughly every 1000 seconds or 16.67 minutes with a
   9Mw solar power array.
       How big will the EMPL be?  Using the basic equations of
   distance, velocity, and acceleration and the two known parameters
   given above (3 kilometers per second velocity and 1/2 second
   launch time) we can easily calculate that the length of the
   EMPL will be 750 meters.  The acceleration will be about 600 gees
   or 600 times earth's pull of gravity.  Of course, these parameters
   can be changed if others appear more suitable.  It is merely
   750 copies of a 1 meter unit all lined up in a row or 375 copies
   of a two meter unit.  One must keep in mind that the power
   required to drive the EMPL varies inversely with the length of
   the EMPL.  That means that an EMPL one half the length needs
   twice the power and so on.
       Where should we place the EMPL?  If we were on the "top" of the
   moon, we could launch projectiles horizontally to hit the earth.
   If we were on the moon's equator, we would have to point the EMPL
   straight up to hit the earth.  Thus it is clear that the proper
   launch angle is approximately:
*      Launch angle = 90 - latitude of launch site
       Therefore, if the site of our first lunar base is at 60 degrees
   north latitude, then we would want to launch at 30 degrees from the
   surface.  So we would look for a convenient crater whose northern
   rim has a slope of about 30 degrees.  That is where we would build
   the first small EMPL.
   7.5  Lunar hydroponic facility
       Why do we need a lunar hydroponic facility?  Of course
   there are multiple reasons.  The first and most obvious is
   simply to support human visitors.  Is clear that people need
   food and it is far too costly to import food from the earth.
   Second, we need to make sure that we can successfully grow
   food in the harsh environment of the moon before we send
   people there.  And third, it will verify that we can build
   a significant facility by remote control from the earth.
       What are the problems we must overcome?  The biggest
   problem is the lunar night.  When the sun goes down, the
   temperature will fall from 120 degress Centigrade to -150
   degrees Centigrade [LB1, p.388].  However, at a depth of only
   150 centimeters below the surface, the temperature is estimated to
   be nearly constant at about -20 degrees Centigrade [LB1, p.617].
   This is about the average of the day and night temperatures.
   Thus if we were to bury the facility, it would only be necessary
   to elevate its temperature by about 45 degrees Centigrade.  In
   addition, an underground facility would be protected from solar
   and cosmic radiation although radiation protection is less
   important for plants than for people.  It would also protect
   the facility from punctures by micrometeors to which a surface
   facility would be vulnerable.  Of course a burried facility
   is more difficult to illuminate but a system
   of mirrors and fiber optic cables will solve that problem.  If
   such a system were employed, it would be "low tech", it would
   be less dangerous than electric lighting, it would have very
   low maintenance, and it could be lit with light from anywhere
   on the surface of the moon.
       The simplest way to overcome the problem of the sun going
   down is to have solar arrays in several different parts of the
   moon so that at least one will always be in sunlight. Of course
   a polar array will always be in the sunlight if it is tall
   enough or if its geometry is specially designed.
   7.6  What has to be taken to the moon?
       The most significant decision regarding what we first send
   to the moon will be whether or not we plan to have humans on the
   moon early in the program.  The answer is no!  They are not needed
   and are not cost effective.
       The following equipment seem to be required:
*      1. Nuclear power source
       2. Aluminum extraction machine
       3. Silicon extraction machine
       4. Solar cell machine
       5. Androids
       6. Multi-purpose vehicles (MPV)
       7. Volatile extraction machine
       8. "Mond" process equipment
       9. Vapor deposition machine and molds
       10. Mold maker machine
       11. Landing guidance system
       12. Communication equipment
       13. Miscellaneous critical components
       In the following sections each of these components will
   be reviewed briefly.
   7.6.1  Nuclear power source
       There are really only three ways to provide power to
   the first lunar base: (1) solar power (photovoltaic)
   arrays on site, (2) beamed power from earth, and (3) a nuclear
   power source on site.  Other options such as batteries or
   gasoline powered generators simply won't last long enough.  The
   moon has no winds, tides, waves, or "selenothermal" power to be
   harnessed either.
       Solar power (photovoltaic) arrays are a good power source.
   They last for many years.  But they have some problems of their own.
   First, the current photovoltaic technology will provide only
   about 21 watts per kilogram of solar cells [61, p.69].  That
   means 21 kw per metric ton or 4.76 metric tons per 100kw.  That
   in itself is not too bad, but remember that the solar cells
   will receive only limited illumination during the lunar night. That
   light is "earthlight" as opposed to sunlight or moonlight.
   Although earthlight is perhaps 100 times as great as moonlight,
   it is tiny compared to sunlight.  It has been suggested
   by Dani Eder [SM 11, p.301] that sunlight be used during the
   day to heat the regolith until it glows (using mirrors of
   course) and then direct that glow onto the solar cells during
   the lunar night.  This seems marginal considering the mass of
   the mirrors and their supporting structures that must be
   brought from earth and deployed.  One also wonders how fast the
   exposed surface would cool (and therefore stop glowing) when the
   ambient temperature drops to -150C - but it needs to be
   investigated further.
       Beamed power from earth could provide the answer, but it
   would require an array of receivers to be emplaced on the
   moon.  If these are simply solar cells, then all we would need
   would be some powerful lasers on the earth focusing their
   beams on the arrays on the moon.  Clearly this beamed power
   would only be required during the lunar night.  Of course we
   assume that the arrays would still function with reasonable
   efficiency even though the wavelength of light of the laser
   beam would obviously be far different than the full spectrum
   received from the sun. It would require several multi-megawatt
   lasers here on earth, perhaps located in desert areas 120 degrees
   apart around the world.  The array on the moon would be
   circular and closely packed so that a significant portion of
   the spread beam could be intercepted and recovered there.
       Nuclear power, on the other hand, will work day and night for
   many years. Remember the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid).
   Since there won't be any people at the initial base we won't need
   any heavy shielding for our reactor.  Thus we can have either
   more power continously or more power for a longer period.
   The US government has invested millions of dollars in the
   development of a small nuclear power plant for use in space.
   This program (SP-100) is quite mature and the financial investment
   has already been made.  J.R. French has written an interesting
   paper called "Nuclear Powerplants for Lunar Bases" which
   discusses the SP-100 reactor in detail [LB1, p.99-106].  This
   article mentions that the mass of the reactor is less than
   3 metric tons and that it will produce 100kw for at least 7
   years.  If we purchased one or two of those reactors, it would
   power our project and would also help amortize their development
   costs. The interested reader might also review "Nuclear Energy -
   Key to Lunar Development", by Buden and Angelo [LB1, p.85-95].
   7.6.2  The aluminum extraction machine
       It was mentioned in section 7.3 that aluminum constitutes
   roughly 7% of the maria regolith.  Therefore, one should be able to
   simply feed in regolith and produce aluminum foil (by vapor
   deposition), other aluminum items and aluminum-depleted
   regolith as products.  This machine will operate on electricity
   supplied by the nuclear reactor.  Any heat that is required will
   be supplied by the sun via mirrors.  The foil product will be
   fed to the solar cell manufacturing machine.  By the way, this
   foil should be very shiny since there will be no oxygen in the
   atmosphere to oxidize it and destroy the shine - so it could
   be used for mirrors as well.
       Eventually wire will be needed to build electromagnets for
   the EMPL.  It is well known that aluminum is used for power
   transmission lines but it is not as good a conductor as silver
   or copper.  Silver is very rare in lunar soils and even copper
   is only present in small quantities (see table 7.3-2).
   7.6.3  The silicon extraction machine
       The maria regolith is nearly 20% silicon.  Thus we can
   build a machine which will produce silicon from regolith.
   This silicon need not be high grade for the "low technology"
   solar cell production process being developed by Texas
   Instruments [52, p.1,76].  The silicon extraction machine will also
   operate on electricity from the nuclear reactor.  Again, any heat
   that is required will be provided by a solar furnace. The silicon
   product will be fed to the solar cell manufacturing machine.
   7.6.4  The solar cell machine
       Hopefully this machine will be built for us by Texas
   Instruments.  Eric Graf, marketing manager of TI's photovoltaic
   program, told me that they would be too busy to take on other
   projects until the end of 1994, but perhaps then they could be
   enlisted in our project.  The proposed machine would simply
   accept the aluminum and silicon produced by the preceding two
   machines and would produce solar cells as its product.  Of course
   we expect that other inputs will be required as well, but we
   will simply have to wait until that information becomes available.
       The TI process produces 4 inch square cells which are assembled
   into 12 x 4 inch strips.  It will be the responsibility of the
   androids to collect the strips from the solar cell machine and to
   assemble them into working arrays.
   7.6.5  Androids
       The robots which will operate the first lunar base will be
   androids. They will do all of the "manual" labor at the base.  These
   androids will be remotely controlled from the earth - a truly exciting
   computer game!  We will need as many as six to ten crews on earth
   to operate the androids 24 hours a day.  There will be plenty to do
   even during the lunar "night" since there will still be enough light
   to see clearly and therefore to accomplish useful work.  The nuclear
   power source will provide electricity to keep most operations going.
       We will need at least three earth stations from which to control
   the lunar operations.  They could be located 120 degrees apart on the
   earth.  For example: at 110 - 120 W in the US or Mexico, at 0 - 10 E
   in north Africa or Europe, and at 120 - 130 E in Australia or Japan.
       Initially the androids will unpack all the equipment from the
   lander.  After selecting a suitable nearby site, they will assemble
   the machines, connect up the electric power from the reactor to each
   of the machines, run all diagnostic checks and activate them.  They
   will keep the volatile extraction machine supplied with fresh regolith
   using the MPVs.  When solar cell production begins, they will have
   the additional responsibility of assembling and connecting the cells
   into arrays.
       When the lunar slide lunar becomes operational, they will also
   have to retrieve the payloads landed each day.
   7.6.6  Multi-purpose vehicles (MPV)
       There is a clear need for vehicles to carry heavy loads
   during the construction of the first lunar base.  They must be
   light but strong and they must be able to tolerate the wide
   temperature swings which they will face on the moon.
       These vehicles will be designed to be operated by humans,
   but will actually be operated by the androids.  Here on earth
   the operator will wear a headset which will allow him to see
   what the android sees.  He can then tell the android what to do.
       The vehicles will need a scoop similar to that of a front
   loader.  This scoop will be used to feed regolith into the
   various machines which will process it.  It would also be helpful
   if they had a blade which could be used for grading the site of the
   lunar slide lander and a rake to help remove the rocks from the
   site.  Perhaps other devices would also be useful such as a crane,
   a winch, a jack-hammer, an auger, a backhoe, etc.
   7.6.7  Volatile extraction machine
       The volatiles will be the first products to be extracted
   from the regolith.  Oxygen is the only (potential) volatile
   which constitutes more than a fraction of a percent of the
   moon.  It amounts to about 42% of the lunar maria surface.
   Oxygen of course has many uses, but we are really interested
   in the gases (and carbon) which are present in low concentrations.
*  Element   Symbol    ug/gram        source
   Hydrogen    H       10-211        [LB1, p.572,584]
   Carbon      C      *115           [4, p.159]
   Nitrogen    N      *50-100        [4, p.159]
   Florine     F       37-278        [LB1, p.598]
   Helium      He      30            [2, p.169]
     * - ppm (parts per million, assumed by weight)
       This machine will simply heat the regolith (using
   concentrating mirrors rather than electricity) and collect
   whatever gases boil off.  According to the above list we could
   expect 10-211 grams of hydrogen per metric ton of regolith,
   about 115 grams of carbon and so on.  We will probably get a
   lot of oxygen too - far more than the other gases put together.
   The machine will separate the gases so that they may be put to
   good use.  We will need a special tank to hold the helium
   because as anyone who has taken high school chemistry knows,
   helium will seep through any container and escape.  At a billion
   dollars a metric ton, helium-3 is worth over $28,000 per ounce
   or about 70 times as valuable as gold.  Thus we want a multi-
   walled tank which constantly pumps out the outer layers and
   puts the helium back into the inner layers.
       Hydrogen may be converted to water to make storage less
   dangerous.  It could also be combined with florine to make
   hydrofluoric acid which could then be used to recover materials
   from the regolith using the process described in R.D. Waldron's
   paper, "Total Separation and Refinement of Lunar Soil by the
   HF Acid Leach Process", [SM 23, p.132-49].
       The carbon will be combined with oxygen to give
   carbon monoxide.  Initially we will need as much carbon monoxide
   as possible to make up for losses in the Mond process. Later
   the carbon and/or carbon monoxide can be converted to carbon
   dioxide to be used to grow food for humans.
   7.6.8  "Mond" process equipment
       Over a century ago Ludwig Mond invented the gaseous carbonyl
   process.  This is a very simple process wherein various metals
   in the feed material are dissolved by carbon monoxide at a
   pressure of 10 to 100 atmospheres and a temperature of 100 to
   200 degrees Centigrade.  The product is a clear liquid which
   contains the dissolved metals in the form of carbonyls or
   compounds of the metals and carbon monoxide.  Lewis and Lewis
   give an excellent account of this technique in "Space Resources:
   Breaking the Bonds of Earth" [14, p.203-205,260-265].  Many
   metals form gaseous carbonyls including: iron, nickel, cobalt,
   osmium, iridium, ruthenium, rhodium, tungsten, chromium, and
   others [14, p.261].  It is important to notice that aluminum,
   magnesium, and titanium are missing from this list. (See table
   7.3-1).  This means that those three metals will be left in
   the residue once the Mond process is done.
       The liquid carbonyls can be fractionally distilled to separate
   out each of the metals.  This is a simple process and can easily
   extract the iron carbonyl.  The remaining carbonyls can be
   stored in tanks for further processing at some later date.
   The amount of non-iron carbonyls should not be
   more than a few percent of the amount of iron carbonyl.
   7.6.9  Vapor deposition machine
       Chemical vapor deposition is a very interesting process
   whereby a solid object can be built up by depositing layer upon
   layer of metal from a metal vapor onto the surface of a mold.
   Lewis and Lewis give a nice description of this technique [14,
   p.262-4].  In our case we would use the iron carbonyl provided
   by the Mond process machine described in the preceding section.
       Using molds brought from earth or made locally (see next
   section), high purity iron parts could be built up by the
   chemical vapor deposition (CVD) technique.
       The regolith is about 12% iron by weight.  That is a huge
   amount of iron.  For every 30 grams of helium we will get
   about 119 kilograms of iron.  For every 1 gram of helium-3
   (1 part in 2500 of helium), we will get about 9917 kilograms
   or 9.917 MT of iron.  For every kilogram of helium-3 we will
   get 9,917 MT of iron.  For every metric ton of helium-3 we will
   get 9,917,000 MT of iron.  The conclusion is that we can build
   all of our structures out of iron and still have so much left
   over that we won't know what to do with it.  Perhaps we can
   build Isaac Asimov's "Caves of Steel" - cities covered by domes
   made of steel.
       During the deposition of the iron onto the molds, large
   amounts of carbon monoxide will be liberated.  This gas will
   be collected and recycled back to the Mond process machine.
   It will require about 300 kilograms of carbon monoxide
   (which is about 129 kg of carbon and 171 kg of oxygen)
   to dissolve the expected 119 kilograms of iron in each ton of
   regolith, but each ton of regolith will only give us about
   0.25 kilograms of new carbon monoxide.   Remember that we will
   also get a few kilograms (3-5 perhaps) of other carbonyls.
   This means that we will have a net loss of carbon (which will
   be tied up in non-iron carbonyls).  Of course this can be
   solved by depositing out those other metals to free up
   the carbon monoxide.  Another possibility is to import carbon
   from the earth.  This would simply be payloads of graphite
   which would land on the lunar slide lander.
   7.6.10  Mold maker machine
       It is clear that we can send only a limited number of
   molds to the moon on the first landing, so there will be
   many parts that will have no molds.  The mold maker will be
   computer controlled and will be capable of making molds to
   reproduce any moderate sized part.  Since a large object can
   be made out of a number of smaller parts, this should allow us
   to make anything.  Mold patterns will be transmitted from earth.
       A completed set of molds will be turned over to the
   gas deposition machine for fabrication of the actual part(s).
   Replacement parts can be produced and the new parts can be
   installed by the androids - even on each other.
   7.6.11  Landing guidance system
       The lunar slide lander will need some on site equipment
   to help guide the payloads to (relatively) safe landings.
   Due to the slow rate of rotation of the moon, a satellite in polar
   orbit around the moon will pass over a given spot only about
   once every 27 days.  That means that we will have only one
   chance every 27 days to land each payload.  Conversely, if
   payloads are sent up from earth once a day, we will eventually
   have once chance per day to land a payload.
       From the rotational period of the moon and the radius of the
   moon we calculate that the equatorial rotational velocity is about
   2.313 meters per second or 8.327 km/hr.  The rotational velocity
   decreases to zero at the poles.  The velocity at any latitude is
   the equatorial velocity times the cosine of the latitude.  Thus
   at 55 degrees north, the rotational velocity will be 4.776 km/hr.
   This means that if a satellite is in a two hour polar orbit, it will
   pass 9.552 km further west on each orbit.  Payloads will be in
   polar orbits because any satellite in polar orbit will eventually
   pass over the entire surface of the planet below and therefore
   could land anywhere it chose.  A satellite in an inclined orbit
   will never pass over any area of higher latitude than the
   inclination of its orbit.  In the case of earth, that means
   that the space shuttle whose orbit is inclined 28.6 degrees,
   will never pass over any area north of 28.6 degrees north
   latitude or south of 28.6 degrees south latitude.
       It seems likely that there will be many payloads orbiting
   the moon just waiting for the moment when they will pass over
   the lunar slide lander so that they can land.  The landing
   guidance system must keep track of all payloads in orbit and
   their positions.  It must calculate which payload will be the
   next to land and precisely when the on board thrusters must
   be fired to adjust the orbit and bring the payload down on the
   slide lander.  The components of this landing system must be
   deployed, checked out, and activated by the androids.
   7.6.12  Communication equipment
       The lunar base will be operated remotely from the earth.
   This implies several communication and control sites located
   at widely separated locations around the world so as to be
   able to monitor operations 24 hours a day.
   The androids will be sending two video channels and one audio
   channel each and other cameras placed around the lunar base
   will also be sending video channels.  The earth stations on the
   other hand will communicate mostly over low bandwidth channels.
   All this implies significant communication requirements and
   hence equipment.  This equipment is needed on site from startup
   and therefore must be delivered on the first landing.
   7.6.13  Miscellaneous critical components
       There will be many components which we cannot build at
   the lunar base due to lack of resources or manufacturing
   facilities.  In addition, there may be component failures
   which result in equipment not working - including the androids.
   We must anticipate which parts are most likely to fail and
   provide spares which can be installed by the androids.  TV
   cameras and computer chips seem like good examples.
       We plan to build several major facilities at the lunar
   base including the EMPL, the hydroponics facility, the crew's
   quarters, and a railroad.  The "brains" of each of these
   facilities probably should be sent on the first trip due to
   their fragility.  The lunar slide lander will be a very rough
   landing and fragile payloads will be difficult to land safely.
   7.6.14  Summary of initial regolith processing
       There will be five machines which will sequentially process
   the regolith to produce as their primary product - solar cells.
   They are: (1) the volatile extraction machine, (2) the "Mond"
   process machine, (3) the aluminum extractor, (4) the silicon
   extractor, and (5) the solar cell machine.  Along the way
   numerous other products will be produced.  The vapor deposition
   machine which fabricates parts and the mold maker can be deployed
   separately.  The following list indicates the inputs and products
   of each of the machines.
       (1) Volatile extraction machine
       inputs        products          destination
       --------      ----------        ---------------
       regolith      oxygen            tanks
                     hydrogen          water, tanks
                     nitrogen          tanks
                     florine           tanks
                     helium            tanks
                     carbon monoxide   "Mond" process(2)
                     other gases       tanks
                     residue(1)        "Mond" process(2)
       (2) "Mond" process machine
       inputs              products          destination
       --------            ----------        ---------------
       residue(1)          iron carbonyl     vapor deposition
       carbon monoxide(1)  other carbonyls   tanks
                           residue(2)        aluminum machine(3)
       (3) Aluminum extraction machine
       inputs        products          destination
       --------      ----------        ---------------
       residue(2)    oxygen            tanks
                     aluminum          solar cell machine(5)
                     residue(3)        silicon machine(4)
       (4) Silicon extraction machine
       inputs        products          destination
       --------      ----------        ---------------
       residue(3)    oxygen            tanks
                     silicon           solar cell machine(5)
                     residue(4)        titanium recovery
       (5) Solar cell machine
       inputs        products          destination
       --------      ----------        ---------------
       Aluminum(3)   solar cells       power array
   7.7  Summary of initial lunar base development
       The initial purpose of the first lunar base is to establish
   the nucleus of a bootstrapping operation which will
   eventually lead to the establishment of numerous manned bases
   at many different sites all over the moon.
       In order to minimize costs there will be one and only one
   soft landing on the moon.  Also in order to minimize costs,
   no humans will be sent to the moon for several years during
   which time the facilities necessary to maintain humans will
   be constructed from local materials.
       The initial tasks to be performed are:
*      1. Set up and activate initial base components
       2. Begin assembly of large solar power arrays
       3. Prepare the lunar slide lander
       4. Receive payloads from earth and assemble them
       5. Expand the labor force
       6. Expand the production facilities
       7. Begin producing lunar products - iron and helium-3
   7.8 Costs of lunar projects
       The cost of space projects is often difficult to determine.
   The Soviet Union has conducted a long series of lunar missions
   including two Lunokhod rovers, at least three sample-return missions,
   and numerous photographic missions.  Lunokhod 1 traversed more than
   10 kilometers of the moon and returned over 20,000 TV pictures.
   Lunokhod 2 traversed more than 37 kilometers of the moon and returned
   over 80,000 TV pictures [31, p.142]. Lunokhod 1 traveled at 0.1 km/hr
   and Lunokhod 2 traveled at 0.2 km/hr [14, p.183].  Sadly we have no
   cost figures for any Soviet missions - so they have been left out.
       Similarly, we have no cost data on the recent (January 1991)
   Japanese lunar mission or their future lunar or Martian missions.
   So they have been omitted also.
   7.8.1  Past unmanned US lunar projects
       For the reader who may be looking for detailed information on
   various space missions, we recommend the "Solar System Log" by
   Andrew Wilson, published by Jane's, London, 1987 [Ref 21].  This
   book provides copious data and many pictures and diagrams of most
   extraterrestrial exploratory space missions up to the date of its
   publication.  The only significant omission is the US Apollo
   program.  Data given in the following four paragraphs are excerpted
   from Wilson's book.  Ranger series
       The US built 9 Ranger spacecraft in the early 1960s to support
   the Apollo program.  They were intended to obtain closeup images
   to the moon's surface by the simple means of crashing into the moon.
   The spacecraft would simply transmit TV images as they came down.
   Of the nine rangers, three were successful, Rangers 7,8, and
   9.  Together they returned over 16,000 pictures of the moon.  The
   program cost about $267 million in 1965 dollars [21, p.30].  That
   scales up to $1.105 billion in 1990 dollars.  Lunar Orbiters
       The Boeing Company built five lunar orbiters for $80 million as
   part of a $200 million program [21, p.38].  These orbiters were
   spectacularly successful.  All five orbited the moon and returned
   pictures.  Together they photographed 99% of the moon.  All of the
   orbiters were deliberately crashed into the moon when they ran out
   of film so that they wouldn't interfere with later issions. The cost
   of the program in 1990 dollars would be about $828 million.  Surveyor series
       The US built seven Surveyor spacecraft in the 1960s which were
   intended to support the Apollo program.  They were supposed to
   soft-land and survey the planned Apollo landing sites. Of the seven,
   five successfully landed on the moon and returned pictures (see table
   7.1-1).  The series had severe development problems and cost
   about $469 million in current dollars ($2 Billion in 1984 dollars)
   which was far more than the original estimate of $50 million
   [21, p.36].  Summary of unmanned US lunar programs
*  Spacecraft               Cost (yr)         Cost (1990$)
   Ranger series (9)      $267 M (1965)        $ 1.105 B
   Lunar orbiters (5)     $200 M (1965)        $ 0.828 B
   Surveyors (7)          $469 M (1965)        $ 2.514 B
   7.8.2  The Apollo (manned) program
       Originally there were ten moon landings scheduled, but the
   number was cut to seven because of escalating costs [15, p.5].
   The Apollo 13 mission suffered an explosion about 90% of the way
   to the moon causing the mission to be aborted.  The crew was lucky
   to return alive.  The other six mission were successful, landing
   twelve men on the moon and returning 382 kilograms of soil and
   rocks.  The first landing, by Apollo 11, was at 16:17:43 EDT on
   July 20,1969.  Four hours later Neil Armstrong became the first
   human to set foot on the moon.   Apollos 15,16, and 17 carried
   rovers which weighed about 209 kilograms each [23, p.96].  The rovers
   greatly extended the range of those missions, but were left on the
       The Apollo moon landings were a "stunt" - a very expensive
   stunt.  The US cannot afford another super-expensive stunt such
   as a joy-ride to Mars for three to six astronauts.  Future projects
   must be profitable - and they can be.  Apollo 11
*  The Apollo 11 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   July 16,1969           [41, p.73]
       Landing                  July 20,1969            "
       Landing Site             Sea of Tranquility      "
       Location   (deg,min)     (0,10 N, 23,35 E)      [41, p.78-9]
       Time on Moon (hours)     21.53                  [41, p.73]
       EVA time     (hours)     2.24                   [17, p.337]
       Range   (kilometers)     0.25                    "
       Number of samples        58                      "
       Weight of samples (kg)   21                      "
       Crew:  Edwin Aldrin      second person to walk on the moon
              Neil Armstrong    first person to walk on the moon
              Michel Collins  Apollo 12
   The Apollo 12 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   November 14,1969       [41, p.73]
       Landing                  November 19,1969        "
       Landing Site             Ocean of Storms         "
       Location   (deg,min)     (3,20 S, 23,40 W)      [41, p.78-9]
       Time on Moon (hours)     31.50                  [41, p.73]
       EVA time     (hours)     7.50                   [17, p.337]
       Range   (kilometers)     2.0                     "
       Number of samples        69                      "
       Weight of samples (kg)   35                      "
       Crew:  Alan Bean
              Charles Conrad
              Richard Gordon  Apollo 14
   The Apollo 14 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   January 31,1971        [41, p.73]
       Landing                  February 5,1971         "
       Landing Site             Frau Mauro crater       "
       Location   (deg,min)     (3,25 S, 17,55 W)      [41, p.78-9]
             Time on Moon (hours)     22.50                  [41, p.73]
             EVA time     (hours)     9.4                    [17, p.337]
             Range   (kilometers)     3.3                     "
             Number of samples        227                     "
             Weight of samples (kg)   42                      "
             Crew:  Edgar Mitchell
                    Alan Shepard
                    Stuart Roosa  Apollo 15
   The Apollo 15 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   July 26,1971           [41, p.73]
       Landing                  July 30,1971            "
       Landing Site             Hadley-Appenines        "
       Location   (deg,min)     (26,05 N, 3,50 E)      [41, p.78-9]
       Time on Moon (hours)     66.92                  [41, p.73]
       EVA time     (hours)     18.5                   [17, p.337]
       Range   (kilometers)     27.9                    "
       Number of samples        370                     "
       Weight of samples (kg)   77                      "
       Crew:  James Irwin
              David Scott
              Alfred Worden  Apollo 16
   The Apollo 16 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   April 16,1972          [41, p.73]
       Landing                  April 21,1972           "
       Landing Site             Cayley Plains           "
       Location   (deg,min)     (8,45 S, 15,30 E)      [41, p.78-9]
       Time on Moon (hours)     71.03                  [41, p.73]
       EVA time     (hours)     20.2                   [17, p.337]
       Range   (kilometers)     27.0                    "
       Number of samples        731                     "
       Weight of samples (kg)   96                      "
       Crew:  Charles Duke
              John Young
              Thomas Mattingly  Apollo 17
   The Apollo 17 mission        Datum                  Source
       Launch                   December 7,1972        [41, p.73]
       Landing                  December 11,1972        "
       Landing Site             Sea of Serenity         "
       Location   (deg,min)     (20,25 N, 30,35 E)     [41, p.78-9]
       Time on Moon (hours)     74.98                  [41, p.73]
       EVA time     (hours)     22.1                   [17, p.337]
       Range   (kilometers)     35.0                    "
       Number of samples        741                     "
       Weight of samples (kg)   111                     "
       Crew:  Eugene Cernan
              Harrison Schmitt
              Ronald Evans
.  Cost of the Apollo program
        The 1991 NASA Pocket Handbook shows the cost of the Apollo
   program as $20.444 billion in current year dollars [67, p.C-16].
   The Augustine Report states that the Apollo program development
   cost was about $94.07 billion in 1990 dollars [60, p.24].  The cost
   of the whole Apollo program was about $116 billion in 1991 dollars
   [63, p.91].
   7.8.3  Current lunar projects
       James Asker wrote a brief report in Aviation Week [AW 51, p.44]
   in the 12/2/91 issue which mentioned that NASA is currently
   considering four lunar missions - three orbiters and one lander.
   According to Michael Griffin, the new associate administrator for
   exploration, "any one is in the $100 million class" [AW 51, p.44].
   7.8.4  Future lunar projects
       Several of the proposals which have been put forward by
   various organizations include lunar bases as part of an overall
   plan to establish Martian bases.  We are primarily interested
   in projects which include cost estimates.  NASA oversight subcommittee report
        Richard Lewis relates the following two proposals in "Space
   in the 21st Century" [Ref 15].  He cites a 1966 report of the staff
   of the House subcommittee on NASA oversight which suggested that a
   permanent lunar base could be established by 1970 using the Saturn 5
   - Apollo transportation system.  This base would cost about $3.4
   billion a year (in 1966 dollars)[15, p.103].  This would be
   equivalent to about $13.7 billion per year in 1990 dollars.  Clearly
   expenditures of this magnitude are out of the question in today's
   budget climate.  Keaton/Gelfand proposal
       Lewis also discusses a proposal that Paul Keaton and Eric Gelfand
   of Los Alamos National Laboratory put together in January of 1982
   for a self-sustaining lunar base [15, p.106].  They cited a 1968
   Stanford/Ames study which described a 276 ton lunar research station
   which would sustain 24 people.  The development costs were estimated
   at $17.4 billion in 1968 dollars (or about $65.25 billion in 1990
   dollars)[15, p.106].  Hoffman/Neihoff
       Stephen Hoffman and John Neihoff of Science Applications
   International Corporation presented a paper entitled "Preliminary
   Design of a Permanently Manned Lunar Surface Research Base" at a
   NASA sponsored symposium in Washington D.C. in October of 1984
   [LB1, p.69-75].  This paper outlined the steps and component
   modules needed to establish this base.  It would be occupied by
   up to seven astronauts.  The following cost analysis was given
   which includes three years of operation [LB1, p.74].
*  Table 7.9-1   Cost of a permanently manned lunar base ($ B)
   Component               Reconnaissance     Surface Base
   Shelter                        0.1              -
   Trailer(2)                     1.5              -
   Rover(2)                       1.4              -
   Permanent modules               -              5.8
   Chemical processing plant       -              0.9
   Nuclear power plant             -              0.5
   Lunar excursion module         2.7             1.4
   Lunar logistics lander         2.7             3.6
   Orbital transfer vehicles      0.8             3.0
   OTV crew module                1.6             0.6
   On-orbit assembly and test     1.0              -
   STS recon      (12 launches)   1.3              -
   STS deployment (25 launches)    -              2.7
   STS operations (54 launches)    -              6.0
   Mission control center         0.5             2.1
   Training/ ops development      2.0             5.0
   Mission ops                    0.7             3.1
   Logistics                      0.2             0.9
                       totals =  16.5            35.6
                 Grand total  =                  52.1
       In updating this estimate we note that Hoffman & Neihoff have
   dramatically underestimated the cost of the space shuttle.  Their
   estimate is about $111 million per flight.  The actual cost
   to the US taxpayer is at least $1 billion per flight.  Thus the
   91 launches mentioned above (STS) would cost at least $91 billion not
   $10 billion.  The remainder of the estimate ($42.1 billion) can
   simply be raised by 25.7% to account for inflation between 1984 and
   1990 - giving $52.9 billion.  Thus the whole project in 1990 dollars
   would be $143.9 billion.  Edward Teller's lunar laboratory
       The National Defense University sponsored a space symposium
   in Washington in 1984 called "America Plans for Space".  Edward
   Teller, one of the original inventors of the hydrogen bomb,
   presented a paper which outlined a lunar laboratory staffed by
   12 people which Teller believed would cost about $1.4 billion
   per year plus eight shuttle resupply flights per year.  The
   resupply flights were expected to deliver 240 tons of men and
   supplies to the base each year [48, p.33-44].
       In order to update this estimate we again inflate the 1984
   dollars by 25.7% to get 1990 dollars - giving $1.76 billion per
   year.  Eight shuttle flights would cost about $8 billion, so the
   total program would be about $9.76 billion per year in 1990 dollars
   plus several billion in startup costs.  Lunar manufacturing proposal
       Another paper entitled "Living off the Land" by Gregg Maryniak
   also appeared in "America Plans for Space" [48, p.53-80].  In this
   paper several scenarios were presented for manufacturing facilities
   set up on the moon.  The most interesting one, "case 2", called
   for a fully automated facility consisting of 15 one-ton modules
   with equipment which would be supervised from earth.  Initial
   production would be 80 tons per year and the facility would
   automatically double its production every 90 days.  Fifteen shuttle
   flights would be required to implement this scheme.
       The cost of this proposal would be about $15 billion for the
   shuttle flights and at least another billion for development of the
   manufacturing equipment plus earth based operating costs.  NASA lunar base scenario
       One of NASA's lunar base scenarios was outlined in an article
   by Craig Covault in Aviation Week [AW 6, p.22-4] in the 5/11/87
   issue.  This plan was estimated to cost $80 billion over 20 years
   [AW 6, p.22] and would establish a lunar base in the 2005 - 2010
   time frame.  A detailed series of missions was listed:
*  1. A Lunar Polar Observer satellite would be launched in 1994.
   2. An unmanned sample return/rover mission was planned for 1996.
   3. Larger unmanned rovers would be sent in 1997, 1998, and 1999.
   4. Two manned flights per year would be made from 2000 to 2005
      to establish the first base.
   5. An oxygen production plant would be installed about 2005 to
      provide propellant for subsequent missions.
   6. The base would be completed over the years 2005 to 2010 with
      four manned flights per year [AW 6, p.23-4].
       When adjusted for inflation since 1987, the cost would be about
   $92 billion in 1990 dollars.  Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory proposal
       [AW 53, p.84-5]  Lowell Wood leads a group at Lawrence
   Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) who are developing a plan
   which would produce permanent manned bases both on the Moon and
   Mars before the turn of the century and for a mere $10 - $12
   billion.  Highlights of this proposal are as follows.  It
   requires no HLV.  Components would be combined into 50 - 70
   ton packages which could be lifted by Delta or Titan 4 rockets.
   A total of 24 launches would be required.  The first is estimated
   to cost $500 million, the second $250 million, and the rest would
   cost $150 million each.  It would use inflatable modules 15 meters
   long and 15 meters in diameter.  Interior components would be
   prefabricated.  A 53.3 ton LEO "gas" station would electrolyze
   water into its components which would be liquified to yield
   liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen.  In 1994 70 tons of payload
   would be lifted to the Moon with 215 tons of fuel from the LEO
   gas station. This 70 ton package would include a lunar hopper,
   2 tractors, a return module with 10 tons of fuel, a "snowblower"
   to cover inflated modules, and a greenhouse module with food,
   water, and air for 4 people for 10 years.  This facility would
   produce oxygen from Lunar soil.  In 1996 a 70 ton Mars mission
   would leave LEO using 265 tons of fuel from the LEO gas station.
   It would reach Mars in 1997 after a 305 day trip.  The package
   sent to Mars would include a return module which would be left in
   orbit and 4 Mars base modules including a rover, a Mars hopper,
   an instrument package, an oxygen from carbon dioxide machine,
   and a life support system for 399 days.  Some of the crew would
   return in 1999 with Martian samples leaving the remainder of the
   crew.  Subsequent missions would expand the facility.  This
   proposal was not popular at NASA headquarters [AW 56, p.59] -
   perhaps it was too cheap.  The Ride Report
       In August of 1987 a report called "Leadership and America's
   Future in Space" by Sally Ride was released [Ref 108].  This report
   outlines four leadership initiatives: (1) mission to planet earth,
   (2) exploration of the solar system, (3) outpost on the moon, and
   (4) humans to Mars.
       The proposal for an outpost on the moon consisted of three
   phases: (1) search for a site, (2) return to the moon, and (3) at
   home on the moon.
       The first phase would begin with the Lunar Geoscience Observer
   satellite.  It would be followed by landers or rovers if necessary.
       The second phase "proposes that a crew be transported from the
   space station to lunar orbit in a module propelled by a lunar transfer
   vehicle.  The crew and equipment would land in vehicles derived from
   the transfer vehicle.  Crew members would stay on the surface for one
   to two weeks setting up scientific instruments, a lunar oxygen pilot
   plant, and the modules and equipment necessary to begin building a
   habitable outpost" [108, p.30].   The crew would then return to the
   space station.  By 2005 the outpost would have 5 semi-permanent
   occupants.  Several such flights would be necessary to establish
   the base.
       Phase three would expand facilities to include a closed-loop
   life support system and an operational oxygen production plant.
   Permanent staff would reach 30 personnel by 2010.
       A thinly disguised budget for this project was given [108, p.46].
   It included about $45 billion for mission specific items, about $22
   billion for work common to both lunar and Mars projects, and about
   $21 billion for program support.  This is a total of $88 billion in
   1987 dollars to cover the period through 2010.  Inflating by 15% to
   1990 dollars we get $101 billion.  Summary of lunar proposals
*  Table 7.9-2   Lunar proposals
   Initiator                Year    Personnel      Cost (1990 $ B)
   House staff report       1966       ?            13.7 per year
   Keaton/Gelfand           1982      24            65.25
   Hoffman/Neihoff          1984       7           143.9
   Edward Teller            1984      12             9.76 per year
   Gregg Maryniak           1984       0            16
   NASA 20 yr program       1987     10-20 ?        92 over 20 years
   Ride report              1987      5-30         101 over 20 years
   LLNL (lunar portion)     1990       4             4 ?
   7.9  Financial considerations
       Our proposal calls for one and only one unmanned lunar mission.
   This mission would place the equipment outlined in section 7.6 on the
   moon via the Soviet Energia heavy lift booster.  The payload placed
   on the moon would depend on whether the flight went directly to the
   moon in which case the delivered tonnage would be about 25 metric
   tons, or whether the payload were lifted to LEO where a refueling
   operation would take place before sending the payload on to the
   moon.  In the latter case the payload landed could be roughly six
   times as great or about 150 metric tons.
       Let us consider the costs of the equipment listed in section
   7.6.  Except for the androids and the nuclear power source(s), it is
   likely that $1 million per metric ton will be sufficient to acquire
   those machines. The androids will be provided by "the business" and
   will therefore cost nothing. Thus we can expect that the cost of the
   equipment will be no more than $25 million in the first case and no
   more than $150 million in the second case - plus the cost of the
   nuclear power source(s).  Keep in mind that the second case requires
   refueling facilities in low earth orbit.  This implies that we will
   develop and deploy an inexpensive earth to LEO lift capability
   such as Bull's superguns before we send our first payload to
   the moon.  Clearly this costs money and means a major delay compared
   to the first case.
       In order to operate the lunar base continuously it will be
   necessary to have at least three and preferably more, control centers
   positioned around the world and manned by at least two sets of
   operators.  At 12 people per site, three sites, and a cost of
   $100,000 per person per year, that would be an initial support cost
   of about $3.6 million per year not counting the cost of their
   communication equipment.  We would attempt to share sites
   associated with existing deep space networks so as to avoid the
   costs of building major new facilities.
       If the Earth-to-Moon EMPL were available, the lunar facility
   could be rapidly expanded, perhaps even doubled every few months.
   Additional units of the original equipment would be landed on the
   lunar slide lander.  The androids would retrieve the projectiles
   and assemble the parts into working units.  Additional androids
   could be produced in the same way thus expanding the work force.
   7.10  Financial summary
       In contrast to most other proposals, our proposal requires
   only one unmanned mission to establish the first permanent lunar
   base.  This base would be operated remotely from earth from a set
   of three faclities located about 120 degrees apart around the
   world.  The estimated cost would be:
*  Item                           Est. cost ($ M)
   Development of lunar equipment      25
   Communication equipment              2
   Nuclear power sources               15
   Energia delivery to the moon       750
                                     $792 M  + $3.6 M per year
   7.11  Political summary
   7.11.1  The first lunar base
       1. The base should be located on a northern mare on the near
   side of the moon - perhaps the Mare Frigoris.  This will allow
   relatively easy access to the north pole of the moon which will be
   the site of the second lunar base.  This location will also allow
   the construction of a small electromagnetic launcher with the
   proper geometry to launch projectiles back to earth from the site.
       2. The first base should be entirely robotic and would be
   operated remotely from earth.  Only one soft landing on the moon
   would be required to establish this base.  The required equipment
   is listed in section 7.6.  At least three supporting facilities
   will be required, spaced equally around the earth.
       3. Subsequent materials would be delivered to the lunar base
   by "throwing" them to the moon with an electromagnetic launcher
   (EMPL).  This launcher would cost about $6 billion and would be
   paid for by a group of utilities and/or oil companies - who would
   be repaid in helium-3 from the moon.  This is the cheapest method
   of delivering materials to the moon (less than $2000 per kilogram)
   and since it uses so little propellant neither the earth nor the
   lunar vacuum will be significantly effected/polluted.
       4. A lunar slide lander will be contructed at the first base
   to assist in the landing of materials "thrown" from earth (see
   section 7.2.3 in the LSL).  The LSL is the cheapest and simplest
   method for landing material on the moon and it requires very little
   propellant to be exhausted into the lunar environment.
       5. Lunar oxygen delivered to LEO will not be economically
   competitive with water/ice lifted from earth until it can be lifted
   off the moon without rockets.   In other words, once the small EMPL
   is built at the first lunar base (see section 7.4), then lunar
   oxygen could be thrown down to earth at competitive prices - perhaps.
   7.11.2  Helium-3
      1. Helium-3 is the ultimate fuel for the 21st century.
   We must find an alternate fuel to oil because it will be
   exhausted by the middle of the 21st century.
      2. Helium-3 is worth at least $1,000,000,000 per ton.
   This fuel is available on the surface of the moon. The
   moon's surface is estimated to hold at least a million
   tons of helium-3.  There is sufficient helium-3 on the
   moon to power human civilization for 1000 years.
      3. Helium-3 is not radioactive and nuclear fusion
   reactors do not produce radioactive products thus nuclear
   fusion reactors using helium-3 are environmentally safe.
      4. Helium-3 will reduce the greenhouse effect on earth.
   Millions of tons of carbon dioxide are injected into our
   atmosphere every year by our fossil fuel burning power
   plants.  They can be replaced by helium-3 plants thus
   reducing the output of greenhouse gases.
      5. The nation which harnesses helium-3 will dominate the
   21st century.  That nation will have unlimited low cost
   power while everyone else will have to pay higher and
   higher prices for disappearing oil.
      6. Helium-3 is a can't lose proposition. It's profitable,
   necessary, and environmentally safe.  Will we go for it or
   just watch while others go get it?