Under four billion

[paperburn1]

I find the question of economics and space colonization weird the way it is usually discussed. People usually leave to another place because the new place is better to live than the place they left. Not because they could make a bunch of money by trading with the place they came from. If that happens at all, it seems only incidental. A colony in space would have to have something intrinsic that gives a better standard of living to those that live there.

But trading with the place they came from has supported colony's time immemorial. and for a better standard of living int may just be a better place to worship the way you want. ) Plymouth mass comes to mind.

[Blankbeard]

Warning: There are huge error bars on this. Consider this for amusement only.

800 sq ft (76 m^2) per person fits into a 9x9 m area
7 people
Just as much common room and storage
1134 sq m perimeter 36 m square 144m
3 m ceilings 1296 m^2 walls 532 m^2 per level
Habitats are placed in a grid pattern
Wall composition outer-inner 3' concrete 1' vacuum panel 4" fiberglass batt 1' air gap (inflatable hab) 1" poly Apx 70R value (metric)
Concrete and fiberglass locally produced
Total surface area 3656 m^2

Average lunar temp 130K
Goal temp 80F 303K
Heat losses = (303-130 K)/70R per m^2 = 2.5W per m^2 * 3656 = 9kw

3m high aquaculture "basement" under the main habitat
From here: http://www.greenpinelane.com/TI_SMARTLAMP_TEST.aspx 300 w LED per sq meter (assume 60% efficiency so 500w/sq meter
Assuming this http://1bog.org/blog/live-off-the-land-2/ is correct
76666 sq foot to produce 9200 calories each day = 8.4 sq foot per calorie per day
Target 4000 calories per day per person = 3156 sq m per person, assume trays are stacked (hydroponics may achieve around 5 times this density)
3156 x 500 W/m^2 * 8hr per day = 12.6 KWh = 526 kw continuous

Assume 2 kw continuous for lighting, appliances, computers

Total power needs 9+526+2 =537kw. Assuming 1kw net per 9.5 sq meters and sun 50% of the time you need a bit over 10,000 sq meters of solar panels weighing 133 tons.
Batteries. Assuming you need to run no longer than 15 days, I think that comes to 537kw * 24 hours * 15 days /250 wh/kg = 773 tons of lithium ion batteries.

at 35 tons per launch you'd need 26 Falcon Heavy launches to get all of this to the moon.

There's another 3 billion in costs for you.

[kunkmiester]

Loose the aquaponics, if we got to that point I'd be fabbing that stuff in situ, moving the fabbers for that is a whole nother ball game, but I'd be trying to do it over time.

You do point out I'm still too low on the power, even after quadrupling it. With planned two week missions to begin with, you'd time your mission during the lunar day so you don't avhe to store that much. The robots I was planning to have battery powered though, mostly for volume constraints--I'd want them to be able to go places that sufficient solar cells would be too big for, and tunnel boring would probably end up on a leash, since I can't see it worthwhile to pull that machine out every few hours to charge up.

Which reminds me, I need to get earth moving figures set up, time to excavate the base is based on that, that number is important.

[kcdodd]

Assuming there is not too much wind, one could erect a foil reflector to make a crude solar concentrator for maybe less mass per solar watt. At lease until something can be built more permanently. Plus if it gets ripped up it could still be recycled. And central collector might be small enough to shield during storms. Harder to shield big solar farm for a storm.

[hanelyp]

Wall composition outer-inner 3' concrete 1' vacuum panel 4" fiberglass batt 1' air gap (inflatable hab) 1" poly Apx 70R value (metric)

I expect fiberglass batting will insulate better at near vacuum martian ambient pressure than at the higher pressure inside the habitat. If the vacuum panel is insulation, thickness is if little importance, and the fiberglass batting becomes insignificant. For that matter, a simple dead gas space of martian ambient pressure and composition between an inner pressure bubble and outer protective shell would provide a fair amount of insulation.

[Blankbeard]

http://www.ecbcs.org/docs/Annex_39_Report_Subtask-B.pdf

Vaccum panels use an areogel core so they do not have a thermal conductivity of zero. Even if they did, supports would still conduct heat away from the habitat into the surrounding. Also, the chance of a gas leaking into a simple space would need to be accounted for. The R-Value of a 4" air gap is between .18 and .80 while the corresponding vacuum panel has an R-Value of around 22 and the aerogel core prevents gas from seeping in. I don't think you want a nearly inevitable failure to eliminate all of your insulation.

[hanelyp]

A gas filled aerogel core wouldn't insulate as well as a vacuum filled aerogel core, but should still insulate at least as well per inch as fiberglass batting. The major point of the fibers in that insulation is to immobilize air, dead air being a fairly good insulation in its own right. As a secondary effect, the fibers obstruct radiant heat transfer.

[Blankbeard]

Loose the aquaponics, if we got to that point I'd be fabbing that stuff in situ, moving the fabbers for that is a whole nother ball game, but I'd be trying to do it over time.

You do point out I'm still too low on the power, even after quadrupling it. With planned two week missions to begin with, you'd time your mission during the lunar day so you don't avhe to store that much.

I think you should define exactly what activities you see going on here before you go any further. That's really going to dictate what you need to have and how much it costs to get.

If all you want to know is where do people get hundred billion dollar estimates, they pull them out of their behinds. There are numerous commercial estimates of putting people on the moon for tourism or other purposes for less than a billion dollars per trip. If you only go once, the cost per trip will obviously be higher.

Which reminds me, I need to get earth moving figures set up, time to excavate the base is based on that, that number is important.

What advantages do you see for excavating tunnels versus building on the surface and forming walls around your habitat? Tunnels seem an unneeded expense to me - hard to dig and likely to collapse at some point.

A gas filled aerogel core wouldn't insulate as well as a vacuum filled aerogel core, but should still insulate at least as well per inch as fiberglass batting. The major point of the fibers in that insulation is to immobilize air, dead air being a fairly good insulation in its own right. As a secondary effect, the fibers obstruct radiant heat transfer.

If you'd like to experiment with different wall compositions, go for it. To halve the heating cost, you're going to have to double the insulating value of the wall. That's a tough order while retaining enough structural stability to make a useful wall. And you'll only save 4.5 kw of generation.

[GIThruster]

If all you want to know is where do people get hundred billion dollar estimates, they pull them out of their behinds.

Bullshit. There have been dozens of careful studies done, several lasting decades. You don't know anything about this subject. Instead of sharing your ignorance, I suggest you look for the studies. "Under 4 Billion" is a pathetic joke. A self sustaining colony is a trillion dollar investment with no foreseeable return. An outpost or base OTOH is a much smaller investment, but it still needs a financial base in support and it is still much larger than $4 billion.

[Blankbeard]

If all you want to know is where do people get hundred billion dollar estimates, they pull them out of their behinds.

Bullshit. There have been dozens of careful studies done, several lasting decades. You don't know anything about this subject. Instead of sharing your ignorance, I suggest you look for the studies. "Under 4 Billion" is a pathetic joke. A self sustaining colony is a trillion dollar investment with no foreseeable return. An outpost or base OTOH is a much smaller investment, but it still needs a financial base in support and it is still much larger than $4 billion.

And of course, you neglect to actually provide any, Mr Pentawatt.

Late 1950's Project Horizon 6 billion estimated costs
Late 60's Project Lunex 7.5 billion by 1971.
Mid 80's JSC base 90 -150 billion for a self sustaning base using the Space Shuttle (!)
Artemis 1.5 billion

Notably, all of the above predate the discovery of ice on the moon.

2011 http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Bib ... /p/102.pdf

We estimate that a fully functioning lunar
outpost – capable of producing ~150 tonnes of water per year and roughly 100 tonnes of propellant – can be established for an aggregate cost of approximately $88 billion (Real Year dollars), including peak funding of $6.65 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics 15 billion starting in Year 11. This total cost includes development of a Shuttle-derived 70 MT launch vehicle, two versions of a CEV (LEO and translunar), reusable lander, cislunar propellant depots and all robotic surface assets, as well as all of the operational costs of mission support for this architecture. The outpost is deployed and operations are fully implemented within 10-15 years of program start, but as the use of robotic assets early in the program makes the schedule flexible, we can either accelerate or slow the progress of the program, as fiscal circumstances require. Human arrival comes relatively late in the process, after we have established a productive resource processing facility but within a few years of the arrival of robotic surface assets. Still, this architecture provides for 5 human missions within the 16-year time window that we studied and many more after that at rates of 1 or 2 per year.

Again, not trillions. And if you'd bothered to actually read the thread, you'd see the OP isn't talking about anything more than an outpost.

[GIThruster]

The $88B price tag is not unrealistic for a base unless one expects NASA to be heading the project. They could never come in under that number. I think though, you have greatly overestimated the utility of water on the Moon. Best estimates from the Moon Impact Probe's data indicate less water than on Earth's driest deserts. It is Zubrin who has been telling people there is lots of water on the Moon. It's not really so. If you're going to plan to use the water, you need to keep in mind there is probably less than 10 ppm, assuming you go to the right places in crater shadows. Everywhere else there is none. And this is one of the reasons why Musk proposes a Mars base, because Mars actually has the kinds of things one needs for ISRU.

Too, when you look at the numbers for an $88B lunar base, you're confronted with the fact that it proposes designing new spacecraft much more cheaply than NASA has ever accomplished. It neglects the cost of developing a fission reactor. There is no cost for developing ground vehicles and low gee vacuum smelters. There's no cost built in for developing an air exchange system. All the simple, basic stuff one deeds for a base or a colony is missing. It's just the big line items that are considered, such as launch costs and a few vehicles. Where are the billions of dollars to develop rocket engines that run on lunar regolith? Where's the cost for developing a lunar sling? Just saying, any competent treatment of the lunar base concept that pretends to use ISRU needs to build in the cost of development of those technologies, and they are not going to cost less than $4B.

And seriously, look at the skyrocketing costs of Orion and then apply them to Altair. You absolutely can't have NASA involved if you want to have managable development costs.

[Blankbeard]

The $88B price tag is not unrealistic for a base unless one expects NASA to be heading the project.

Heh. So you've moved on from your original unsupported claim to a new one.

They could never come in under that number.

The 88 billion is using NASA resources. If you'd read the PDF, you'd know that.

I think though, you have greatly overestimated the utility of water on the Moon. Best estimates from the Moon Impact Probe's data indicate less water than on Earth's driest deserts. It is Zubrin who has been telling people there is lots of water on the Moon. It's not really so. If you're going to plan to use the water, you need to keep in mind there is probably less than 10 ppm, assuming you go to the right places in crater shadows. Everywhere else there is none.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20966242

5.6% in the LCROSS ejecta. Overall abundance 10-1000 ppm. Again, people who actually know what they're talking about are aware of this.

And this is one of the reasons why Musk proposes a Mars base, because Mars actually has the kinds of things one needs for ISRU.

Too, when you look at the numbers for an $88B lunar base, you're confronted with the fact that it proposes designing new spacecraft much more cheaply than NASA has ever accomplished. It neglects the cost of developing a fission reactor.

They don't intend to use a nuclear reactor.

There is no cost for developing ground vehicles and low gee vacuum smelters.

Ground vehicles are in there. Low gee vacuum smelter sounds complex but we already know how to melt stuff in a vacuum.

There's no cost built in for developing an air exchange system.

Probably because that already exists.

All the simple, basic stuff one deeds for a base or a colony is missing. It's just the big line items that are considered, such as launch costs and a few vehicles. Where are the billions of dollars to develop rocket engines that run on lunar regolith?

I think they'd just use the existing ones that run off hydrogen and oxygen.

Where's the cost for developing a lunar sling? Just saying, any competent treatment of the lunar base concept that pretends to use ISRU needs to build in the cost of development of those technologies, and they are not going to cost less than $4B.

No one needs a lunar sling. Sheesh.

And seriously, look at the skyrocketing costs of Orion and then apply them to Altair. You absolutely can't have NASA involved if you want to have managable development costs.

Which doesn't change the fact that your trillion dollar estimate was pulled out of exactly where I said it was.

[GIThruster]

Which doesn't change the fact that your trillion dollar estimate was pulled out of exactly where I said it was.

My trillion dollar estimate is still in force. You are the one who is equivocating. The original discussion in another thread was specifically concerning a COLONY not a BASE. You and others changed the subject, which is fine, but my estimate was not for a base. It is for a colony. I have not changed a thing I said.

You are once again, proving to be a very dishonest person who is willing to say anything if he thinks it is going to win some phony debating point. I am revising my estimate that you are in your late twenties to that you are at most 22. By 23 most people start to grow out of adolescence. Even very bad people usually learn not to do the things you do.

[Blankbeard]

Which doesn't change the fact that your trillion dollar estimate was pulled out of exactly where I said it was.

My trillion dollar estimate is still in force. You are the one who is equivocating. The original discussion in another thread was specifically concerning a COLONY not a BASE. You and others changed the subject, which is fine, but my estimate was not for a base. It is for a colony. I have not changed a thing I said.

Thus a new thread....

You are once again, proving to be a very dishonest person who is willing to say anything if he thinks it is going to win some phony debating point. I am revising my estimate that you are in your late twenties to that you are at most 22. By 23 most people start to grow out of adolescence. Even very bad people usually learn not to do the things you do.

You are giving off serious creepy stalker vibes.

[kunkmiester]

So far no one has asked for access to revise the spreadsheet. Is no one interested in that?

Quick search finds a website suggesting at least one meter of regolith for shielding, NASA would probably demand 5. What are the chances of collapse of piling 5 meters of regolith on top of a habitat, versus cutting a tunnel five meters down? Collapse is probably marginal risk, if you make your tunnel right, but the opportunity to kill a few thousand kilos of needed mass is a good point. I'm of the opinion though that if you want more than a few hundred square feet of space--such as a large colony--you'll want to tunnel, but a tunnel digger can probably be made in situ at that point.

The point here is to be able to send 7+ person trips to the moon to spend two weeks on the moon at a time, in comfort. Everything sent needs to be long term use--you buy something like a tractor or scraper on earth, it tends to hang around for decades in use, it's a very durable good. This is because after people start going to the moon, people will be interested in going longer, and eventually colonizing. If my fleet of robots can also prepare colony sites, that's that much less you have to spend on a colony effort. Frankly, aside from technologies like hydroponics and fabbing that a temporary base wouldn't deal with, the difference between a colony and a base is a matter of scale--a colony is bigger and uses more of the various materials than a base.

I just did a quick bit of math. If you sold 100 million raffle tickets for $1,000 each, you'd get 100 billion dollars. It seems like most people agree that while 4-10 is low balling it, 100 is enough to make it happen. You'd probably only end up with 20 or so people out of that 100 million actually going, but hey, it's worth a dream, right? I was also looking at selling tickets for trips on the transfer vehicle as an orbital hotel for $100, that would probably more palatable to more people. Even better if you can get stock as well as a chance to win.