Producing renewable jet fuels from Carbon Neutral Methanol
Tuesday, December 24, 2019
The Ten Most Popular Articles and Videos on New Papyrus in 2019
Producing renewable jet fuels from Carbon Neutral Methanol
Monday, December 16, 2019
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
An Existing Site Policy for Small Nuclear Reactors
 |
| Commercial Nuclear sites in the US (Credit: US NRC) |
by Marcel F. Williams
Commercial nuclear power currently provides more than 19% of the electricity in the US, and about 53% of America's-- carbon neutral-- electricity. But in combination with renewable energy resources (hydroelectric, wind, solar, etc.), only 36% of America's electricity generation is carbon neutral.
The Palo Verde nuclear site in Arizona is the largest power plant in the United States, generating 3.3 GW (gigawatts) of electricity. But existing nuclear sites can be much larger. The Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear site in Japan has seven nuclear reactors with a gross installed capacity of 8,212MW.
There are currently 60 nuclear sites in the US, generating more than 100 GW of electricity. If all sixty of these existing sites were generating at least 8 GW of electricity then commercial nuclear power could generate 480 GW of carbon neutral electricity (93% of current US electricity production). Combined with current renewable energy production, all of America's electricity could be carbon neutral with a 10% surplus in carbon neutral electricity production.
 |
| Global mortality rate for electricity production (Credit: Forbes) |
 |
| X-Ray of NuScale Reactor Assembly (Credit: NuScale) |
In Portland, Oregon, a company called NuScale is developing a new type of Small Modular Reactors (SMR) that could be centrally mass produced and transported (in three segments) by truck, rail or by barge practically anywhere in the world.
NuScale's nuclear reactor technology has many advantages:
1. They're inherently safe. The large surface area to volume of the small 60 MWe reactors doesn't physically allow the nuclear fuel contained in these reactors to ever get hot enough for the fuel to melt. Even if water is totally evaporated or lost from the reactor, the surrounding air will still provide enough natural cooling for the nuclear material to remain solid. While commercial nuclear power is still the safest way to produce electricity per kilowatt produced, replacing existing nuclear power plants with NuScale units should increase nuclear safety substantially more.
2. NuScale would also place their small nuclear reactors underground making them less vulnerable extreme weather conditions or potential acts of terrorism.
3. A power producing facility can operate in packs of up to 12 reactors (720 MWe) so that the plant can continue producing electricity while one or more of the reactors is being removed for refueling
4. A NuScale 720 MWe facility would only require 60 acres (18 hectares) of land. A wind powered facility that could produce a similar amount of electricity would require 130,000 acres (200 square miles). A centralized solar power plant would require 32 to 54-- square kilometers-- of land in order to equal the electricity production of an 18 hectare 720 MWe NuScale facility.
 |
| Notional 18 hectares NuScale 720 MWe site (Credit: NuScale) |
Current nuclear power plants require 1.3 square miles for a single 1000 MWe nuclear facility. And most existing nuclear sites were originally designed to accommodate two to four 1000 MWe reactors. So, in theory, the 2.6 to 5.2 square miles in area of current nuclear sites could easily accommodate several 720 MWe NuScale power units. So NuScale facilities could easily produce more than 8000 MWe of electricity at existing nuclear sites in the US.
 |
| NuScale nuclear reactor component being transported by rail (Credit: NuScale) |
While commercial nuclear power plants produce base load electricity, they have to be complimented with regional electric power units capable of producing peak load electricity or back up electricity in case a nuclear facility has to be temporarily shutdown because of refueling or because of a natural disaster such as an earthquake or tsunami.
 |
| 10.7 MWe rated methanol electric power plant at Point Lisas, Trinidad (Credit: Mendenhall Technical Services): |
Natural gas electric power plants have the lowest capital cost. But natural gas is a fossil fuel that would increase global warming and the rise of global sea levels. Fortunately, natural gas power plants can be cheaply and conveniently retrofitted to use-- methanol. And nuclear electricity could be used to produce methanol directly from air and water or through the microwave pyrolysis of urban garbage and sewage, agricultural biowaste, and from forest waste (dead trees and other fire hazardous forest materials). Methanol dehydrated into dimethyl ether could be used as a diesel fuel substitute for vehicles cheaply retrofitted to use dimethyl ether. Methanol can be converted into carbon neutral gasoline and carbon neutral jet fuel. Methanol can be used directly a cleaner marine fuel substitute for sea vessels. And methanol can be used directly in fuel cell/battery powered automobiles, trucks, sea craft, and even aircraft.
 |
| Methanol powered ferry (Credit: Stena Germanica) |
The increased electrical capacity of existing nuclear sites could also be used to produce hydrogen for the next generation of supersonic and hypersonic aircraft and space launch vehicles. Hydrogen could also be used for the carbon neutral production of ammonia for fertilizer for the agricultural industry.
 |
| Notional hydrogen fueled hypersonic airliner (Credit: Reaction Engines) |
In Arizona, using NuScale reactors to increase electrical capacity at the Palo Verde site to 8000 MWe (4700 MWe of additional power) could be used to supply more-- carbon neutral-- electricity to neighboring California and for the Sonora and Baja California provinces of Mexico. Mexico could use the additional power supplied by the US to pump-- seawater-- directly from the Gulf of California into salt water reservoirs near the Arizona/Sonora border. Such seawater reservoirs could be used for the creation of recreational marine water lakes in southern Arizona and for the production of needed potable water through nuclear powered desalination.
If the US, finally, begins to recycling at least some of its spent fuel from commercial nuclear sites then it might be politically easier to reopen nuclear sites that have been decommissioned or are scheduled to be decommissioned for the deployment of inherently safe NuScale reactors.
Existing sites can easily accommodate the relatively tiny amounts of spent nuclear fuel produced at commercial facilities. But some US states have laws preventing the deployment of new nuclear reactors until there is a long term solution for spent fuel. So clearly demonstrating that spent fuel from commercial nuclear reactors can be recycled to produce more energy should nullify any state measures that attempt to use spent fuel as an excuse for not building more nuclear power plants.
The TVA (Tennessee Valley Authority) is a Federally owned utility that could start the process of recycling spent fuel by utilizing plutonium extracted from spent fuel in thorium fuel configurations in existing nuclear power plants and in future SMRs. The TVA should also be one of the first American utilities to deploy the next generation fast reactors that would be fully capable of utilizing spent fuel.
References and Links
US electricity production in 2018
Top ten nuclear power plants by capacity
NuScale's Small Modular Nuclear Reactor Passes Biggest Hurdle Yet
How much land does nuclear, solar, and wind really need?The Ultimate fast facts guide to nuclear energy
Land needs for wind, solar dwarf nuclear power plant's footprint
Producing renewable jet fuels from methanol
Utilizing renewable methanol to power electric commuter aircraft
Methanol as a marine fuel
Renewable methanol as liquid electricity
Serenergy's 800 kilometer plugin hybrid methanol fuel cell car
Thor and the thorium solution for plutonium from commercial nuclear reactors
LAPCAT A2 hypersonic hydrogen fueled airliner
Monday, November 11, 2019
Producing Renewable Jet Fuels from Carbon Neutral Methanol
Using carbon neutral nuclear, hydroelectric, solar, wind, or OTEC technologies, this simplest of alcohols can be easily derived from a variety of renewable resources:
1. The pyrolysis of urban garbage and sewage
2. The pyrolysis of agricultural bio-waste
3. The pyrolysis of dead trees and other potentially fire hazardous materials from forest
4. Hydrogen produced through water electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 waste from the pyrolysis of garbage and sewage
5. Hydrogen produced through water electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 directly extracted from the atmosphere
6. Hydrogen produced through water electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 extracted from carbonaceous materials within seawater
7. Hydrogen produced through water electrolysis and synthesized with CO2 extracted from flu gases from methanol electric power plants, syngas electric power plants, or wood burning power plants.
Automobiles can be relatively cheaply converted to use methanol or methanol could be used in high efficiency methanol fuel cell/battery electric automobiles. Methanol can also be blended with gasoline up to 15% without any vehicular modifications. And methanol can also be converted into gasoline and can be either mixed with petroleum derived gasoline or can totally replace gasoline derived from fossil fuels.
Methanol can be dehydrated into dimethyl ether as a substitute for diesel fuel. Diesel fuel vehicles would only require relatively inexpensive modifications to utilize dimethy either from methanol.
Methanol is already utilized as a marine fuel substitute for some sea vessels. And methanol is a favored clean fuel substitute for marine vessels.
Future short range commuter aircraft using batteries could greatly extended their ranges by using methanol fuel cells.
Methanol could be used to safely and conveniently store hydrogen for future liquid hydrogen fueled super sonic and hypersonic aircraft and space rockets. When aircraft fueling is required, hydrogen could be extracted from methanol storage tanks through energy efficient heat reformation and then chilled into liquid hydrogen before being pumped into an aircraft or spacecraft.
 |
| Process for converting methanol into jet fuel |
More recently, David Bradin, has proposed producing jet fuel directly from methanol. Such a process would require some of the methanol to be converted into olefins primarily ethylene and propylene, with some amount of butylene and higher olefins using a methanol-to-olefins catalyst and then oligomerizing them under conditions that provide olefins that a in the jet fuel range. The olefins can then optionally be hydrotreated and/or isomerized. A second portion of methanol can be converted into dimethyl ether using a zeolite catalyst. The dimethyl ether is then reacted over a catalyst to form hydrocarbons and aromatics within the jet fuel range. All or part of the two separate product streams can be combined, to provide jet fuel components which include isoparaffins and aromatics in the jet fuel range. This process can be used to produce a variety of jet fuel compositions, such as JP8, Jet A, and JP1. JP8 is jet fuel that is widely used by the US military for both sea craft and ground vehicles. Jet A are jet fuels that are widely used by commercial airlines in the US.
Links and References
Process for producing renewable jet fuel composition
Utilizing Renewable Methanol to Power Electric Commuter Aircraft
Methanol EconomyMethanol gasoline blends
‘Methanol economy’ gains ground with technology, market developments
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Monday, September 9, 2019
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Tuesday, August 20, 2019
Wednesday, July 24, 2019
Monday, July 15, 2019
Tuesday, July 2, 2019
Sunday, June 23, 2019
Tuesday, June 18, 2019
Commercial Launch Demand to Private Microgravity Habitats at Low Earth Orbit
 |
| Notional 7 meter in diameter Blue Origin space habitat (Credit: NASA & Blue Origin) |
By Marcel F. Williams
A 2018 Pew Research poll suggest that 42% of Americans would be interested in traveling into space. But, so far, only seven super wealthy individuals have been able to do so with their own private funds. Multimillionaire Dennis Tito was the first tourist to travel into space to the ISS. Billionaire Charles Simonyi was the first space tourist to pay for two trips to the ISS.
The Russian space agency has charged these super wealthy individuals between $20 million to $40 million to travel to the ISS. And because of the extraordinarily high cost of space travel, space tourism has been exclusively for the super wealthy.
 |
| Multimillionaire Dennis Tito (far left) became the first space tourist in April of 2001 |
There are over 2100 billionaires on Earth. 52,000 people in the world who are worth over $100 million with 15,000 of those individuals living in the US alone. So there are at least 52,000 people on Earth who could afford to travel to a space and to a space station at current prices.
Companies like Bigelow Aerospace have also been developing their own private space habitats that they hope to deploy some time during the next decade. And NASA has recently presented space habitat concepts from several private space companies including Blue Origin and Lockheed Martin.
 |
| Notional 8.4 meter in diameter SLS derived microgravity habitat (Credit NASA) |
A large microgravity recreational area should also be available for guest. And the recreational area should be at least as spacious as the accommodations experienced by astronauts aboard the old 6.6 meter in diameter Skylab facility. Notional habitats derived from the New Glenn upper stage (7 meters in diameter), Bigelow's Olympus: BA-2100 (12.6 meters in diameter), and SLS propellant tank technology derived habitats (8.4 meters in diameter) should provide spacious environments for microgravity recreational activities.
A Cupola window viewing area of the Earth should be continuously available for guest.
 |
Samantha Cristoforetti taking photos within the ISS Cupola (Credit: NASA) |
 |
| Notional FlexCraft single person vehicle (Credit: NASA) |
If the polls are correct then their should be at least 6300 super wealthy Americans who desire to travel to a space station-- and can afford to do so. And if there is a similar statistical desire world wide, then there should be at least 22,000 super wealthy people who want to travel into space-- and can afford to do so.
Annually, if just 10% of the super wealthy who desired to travel into space (2200 people)-- did so-- that would require 440 to 550 private commercial launches every year. In 2018, there were only 111 successful space launches with only four them being crew launches. So space tourism should create dramatic increase in the launch rate accompanied by substantial reductions in launch cost. But even if it were only 1%, that would require 44 to 55 private commercial launches every year.
But what if there was a national or even an international lotto system that could allow private individuals to risk an American dollar for a chance to travel into space? What if 42% of adult Americans risked $5 a year, on average, for a chance to travel into space through a Space Lotto system? That would generate approximately $1.2 billion a year for crew launches. And that would be enough money to send 24 average Jane's and Joe's into space every year (5 to 6 additional crew launches).
But you could add even more incentive for Americans to purchase Space Lotto tickets if winners were given a monetary prize of $250,000 (less than 1% of the cost for the round trip ticket to space). Winners could be given $125,000 initially for their time off from work for astronaut training and traveling into space. An additional $125,000 would be given to them once they returned from space.
If 42% of the world's adult population were willing to participate in Space Lotto system with a similar financial reward but only risked $2 per year, that would still generate $5 billion a year. That could purchase enough tickets for 100 winners per year (20 to 25 additional crew launches).
Optimally, a single private space habitat might be able to accommodate 36 tourist flights per year for a 10 day stay. Ten habitats would be required to accommodate 360 flights per year. So, obviously, there would also be a significant launch demand just to deploy the private habitats needed to accommodate potential tourist.
Recreational activity within the interior of the 6.6 meter in diameter Skylab space station.
References and Links
Space tourism? Majority of Americans say they wouldn’t be interested
NASA LEO Commercialization Study ResultsSpace Tourism
Space Adventures
FlexCraft
Bigelow aims to sell rides to space station on SpaceX Dragon ships for $52M a seat
The World's BillionairesYou're not rich until you have $100 million, says rich people
Ultra high-net-worth individual
Here's where the world's richest 0.00168% live
Sunday, June 2, 2019
Ford's Bipedal Package Delivery Robot
Saturday, May 25, 2019
Uranium from Seawater as an Unlimited Source of Renewable Energy
 |
| Ocean view under golden skies (Credit Simeon Muller) |
The reprocessing of spent fuel (fissile uranium and plutonium) from commercial nuclear reactors could slash uranium demand in half, providing more than two centuries of uranium supply at current levels of use. However, using terrestrial uranium and spent fuel recycling to provide all of the world's energy needs with current light water reactor. So the current generation of nuclear reactors could not utilize-- terrestrial uranium-- to completely supplant the environmentally harmful fossil fuel economy that is causing global warming and global sea rise.
 |
| Countries with the largest terrestrial uranium reserves |
Countries with the largest uranium reserves by metric ton (tonnes)
Australia----------------------1,780,800
Kazakhstan--------------------941,600
Canada-------------------------703,600
Namibia------------------------463,000
South Africa-------------------449,300
Niger----------------------------411,300
Russia--------------------------395,200
Brazil---------------------------276,800
China---------------------------272,500
Greenland---------------------228,000
Ukraine------------------------220,700
Mongolia-----------------------141,500
India----------------------------138,700
United States------------------138,200
Uzbekistan---------------------130,100
Czech Republic----------------119,300
Source: Wikepedia
However, the next generation of Fast Neutron Reactors could produce 30 to 60 times as much energy as current commercial nuclear reactors. And at current rates of global energy use, that could allow terrestrial uranium to power human civilization on Earth for more than 600 years. Fast Neutron Reactors could also use thorium in combination with uranium to power human civilization for more than a thousand years.
But while affordable terrestrial sources of uranium are less than ten million tonnes, the world's oceans contain more than 4 billion tonnes of uranium-- naturally dissolved within seawater. Utilized in Fast Neutron Reactors, that would be enough nuclear fuel to power human civilization for more than 300,000 years. And marine uranium would still be able to power the current generation of nuclear reactors, with spent fuel recycling, for about 10,000 years.
However, uranium from seawater is also an intrinsically renewable source of energy. The world's oceans naturally contain uranium dissolved at a concentration of about 3 parts per billion. But the amount of uranium content within marine waters is controlled by a steady state chemical interaction between water and rocks on land and in the ocean. So no mater how much uranium is extracted from the ocean, the uranium concentration in seawater remains the same because of its continuous interaction with the Earth's crust that contain approximately 100 trillion tonnes of uranium. That's a 7.5 billion year energy supply if Fast Neutron Reactors are utilized or a mere 250 million year supply of fuel to power all of human civilization using current commercial nuclear power technology and reprocessing.
Of course, in about a billion years, the ever increasing temperature of the sun will cause the oceans to boil. This will make the Earth-- uninhabitable-- long before the sun turns into a red giant. So, basically, there's more than enough renewable marine uranium to power all of human civilization on Earth until the end of life on Earth!
 |
| Acrylic fiber test material for uranium extraction from seawater (Credit: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and LCW Supercritical Technologies) |
 |
| US marine territorial exclusive economic zones (Credit: NOAA) |
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and LCW Supercritical Technologies have recently had a major breakthrough in their uranium extraction from seawater research. They've managed to extract five grams of yellowcake from seawater by using acrylic fibers. The inexpensive yarn they've developed is both durable and reusable with an innate ability to selectively absorb uranium from seawater. And the material also appears to perform much better in warmer water where the extraction rate could be three to five times higher than in cold water. This could make the extraction of uranium from warm marine waters compatible with Ocean Nuclear Power production in remote tropical waters. Researchers at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory believe that the acrylic material that they've developed could be ready to be a manufactured on a commercial scale in about 10 years.
Links and References
Seawater yields first grams of yellowcake
Uranium from the sea: Sequim lab links yarn and seawater to expand energy options
Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable
Uranium MarketsNuclear Energy Factsheet
How Much Fuel Does It Take To Power The World?
Processing of Used Nuclear Fuel
Rapid Advancements for Fast Nuclear Reactors
Deploying Ocean Nuclear Energy Flotillas into International Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synthetic Fuels, Industrial Chemicals, and Fertilizers
Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals
The Case for Remotely Sited Underwater Nuclear Reactors
Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?
The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production
Thursday, May 9, 2019
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
The Fastest, Safest, and Most Economically Sustainable Way to Return to the Lunar Surface
by Marcel F. Williams
“I’m taking nothing off the table, and we’re not compromising safety. Anything we don’t need to do we can delay. There’s future launches, there’s future things we can test, but right now, how do we get boots on the moon in 2024?” (NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine)
It is now a directive of the Executive Branch of the United States for American astronauts to return to the surface of the Moon by 2024. But the type of transportation infrastructure developed for a US return to the lunar surface could largely determine whether, or not, America will strategically and economically dominate the Moon, cis-lunar space, and the rest of the solar system.
It is estimated that between 100 million to one billion metric tons (tonnes) of water ice may exist at the Moon's north and south poles. Exploiting polar ice deposits on the lunar surface for the production of rocket fuel is one of the principal arguments for returning to the Moon. Lunar hydrogen and oxygen propellant would make it much easier to send humans to Mars. And lunar propellant and propellant dept technology could also give astronauts easy access to the surfaces of Mercury and Jupiter's Galilean moon, Callisto, two additional worlds that could be potentially colonized by humans someday.
Liquid oxygen comprises nearly 86% of the mass of LOX/LH2 propellant and nearly 89% of the mass of water. So even if there were no ice deposits on the Moon, the extraction of oxygen directly from the lunar regolith would provide humans with an almost endless supply of oxygen for utilization as propellant.
So any reusable spacecraft developed to return humans to the surface of the Moon should also be inherently designed to utilize potential lunar propellant resources-- once such lunar resources become available. But until lunar ice and regolith resources can be exploited hydrogen and oxygen, or water, will have to be launched into cis-lunar space from the Earth's surface.
The primary purpose for a Lunar Gateway at NRHO (Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit) is to make it simple and easy to routinely visit the lunar surface from that delta-v bridging location. Yet NASA is currently advocating a highly complex and inherently more dangerous transportation infrastructure to operate out of the NRHO Gateway. NASA's current gateway transportation architecture requires two or three different spacecraft in order to transport astronauts on a simple round trip between NRHO and the lunar surface. And the elements are not even completely reusable.
 |
| Notional Lockheed Martin reusable lunar landing spacecraft on the lunar surface (Credit: Lockheed Martin) |
Lockheed Martin, on the other hand, has proposed a simple-- single stage-- spacecraft that can operate out of NRHO. And its completely reusable. The Lockheed Martin's reusable spacecraft concept is derived from the ULA's future Centaur V and ACES rocket technologies. These cryogenic oxygen and hydrogen fueled upper stages will be used in the ULA' new Vulcan rocket system-- which is supposed to go into operation in 2021.
Lockheed Martin's Notional Reusable Crewed Lunar Landing Vehicle
Propellant: 40 tonnes of LOX/LH2
Inert Weight: 22 tonnes
Engines: Four RL-10 derived engines
Maximum delta-v capability: 5.0 km/s
Maximum number of crew: Four
Two of the 22 tonne Lockheed Martin lunar landing vehicles, which I will refer to as the R-LL (Reusable Lunar Lander), could easily be deployed to LEO by a single Block I SLS launch within the 8.4 meter (7.5 meter internal) payload fairing equipped with an extra barrel section. The notional lunar spacecraft, however, would have to be fueled by propellant depots. But propellant depots would be essential if NASA is really serious about exploiting lunar resources to produce hydrogen and oxygen. So there's no logical reason not to develop cryogenic depots now!
The optimal propellant depot design would be a-- water depot-- that simply uses solar electricity to convert liquid water into hydrogen and oxygen though electrolysis and then into liquid hydrogen and oxygen through cryo-refrigeration. However, much simpler depots could be directly derived from the propellant tanks of existing upper stages and could utilize NASA's new helium or nitrogen cryorefrigeration technology.
Propellant could be easily transferred to a spacecraft by docking the spacecraft to the propellant depot, automatically connecting the spacecraft fuel hoses, and then firing thrusters to create simulated gravity through acceleration. Useful acceleration for propellant transfer can be as little as 0.00004 g.
Both water and propellant could be easily deployed to LEO and NRHO by commercial launch vehicles. The Falcon Heavy should be able to deploy more than 15 tonnes of propellant to NRHO and the future Vulcan Heavy rocket systems should be capable of routinely deploying more than six tonnes of propellant to NRHO per launch. Monthly propellant launches by each system could deploy enough liquid hydrogen and oxygen to NRHO for at least six R-LL round trips to the lunar surface per year. NASA only sent astronauts to the moon six times from 1969 to 1972 during the entire Apollo program.
 |
| Lightweight, disposable, propellant tank derived from Centaur 3 LOX tank capable of storing 26 tonnes of liquid oxygen (Credit: ULA) |
Much larger depots, directly derived from the ULA's Centaur V or ACES upper stage rockets, could be deployed to LEO with the ability to self deploy themselves to NRHO. Such vehicles could store up to 68 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant. So Falcon Heavy and Vulcan Heavy launches to NRHO could transfer their propellant directly to the large depots for long term storage. Reusable ACES tankers could also transport propellant originally deposited by commercial launchers to LEO to NRHO. This could allow technology such as Boeing's Phantom Express to continuously deploy propellant to LEO that could later be exported to NRHO.
Total mass of a water or propellant that can be deployed to LEO via daily launch of a single Phantom Express space plane:
Daily - 1.36 to 2.27 tonnes
Monthly - 40.8 to 68.1 tonnes
Yearly - 496.4 to 828.6 tonnes
Yearly amount of water or propellant that could then be transported by reusable ACES spacecraft to NRHO by a single Phantom Express space plane: 200 to 330 tonnes
Once lunar water and propellant are being manufactured on the lunar surface then the R-LL could also be used as a reusable lunar tanker. Simply replacing the crew transport module with a water tank, a single R-LL tanker could transport more than 40 tonnes of water to NRHO from the lunar surface. And after 12 round trips, a single R-LL tanker could deploy more than 480 tonnes of water to NRHO before its RL-10 derived engines would have to be replaced.
Of course, propellant depots deployed to both LEO and NRHO would also make it easy for reusable spacecraft to travel between LEO and NRHO. So an Orion/ACES spacecraft could eliminate the need of using a super heavy lift vehicle to transport astronauts to NRHO.
Under NASA's current scenario, billions of dollars would be spent developing three lunar elements with one or two of the expensive elements having-- no long term future-- as far as the pioneering of the Moon and the rest of the solar system is concerned. The complexity of a three stage vehicle also enhances the risk to astronauts. And it delays the-- inevitable development-- of propellant depots, a technology that is essential for the exploitation of lunar propellant resources.
So, under the scenario presented here, the propellant depot and reusable spacecraft architecture designed to return astronauts to the Moon would give NASA and America's launch companies almost complete strategic and economic dominance over cis-lunar space by 2025. And NASA could have astronauts on the surface of the Moon at the south lunar pole before then end of 2024.
SLS and Commercial Launch Scenario for Returning Astronauts to the Lunar Surface by 2024
2020
SLS Block I: Uncrewed test launch of Orion/SM/ICPS to DRO (Distant Retrograde Orbit)
2021
SLS Block I: Crewed launch of Orion/SM/ICPS on a trans lunar injection lunar flyby.
Commercial Launch: Propulsion and Power Bus deployed to LEO for self deployment to NRHO
2022
Commercial Launch: Remaining Gateway elements deployed and assembled LEO
Commercial Launch: Commercial Crew launch to inspect the Gateway before it is deployed to NRHO later in the year
SLS Block I + ICPS upper stage: Two fully fueled ICPS or Centaur V upper stages, or a combination of both are deployed to LEO for a docking rendezvous with the Gateway at LEO. The two boosters transport the Gateway to NRHO (More Gateway component mass can be transported to NRHO if water for radiation shielding is transported to the Gateway later by commercial launchers)
Commercial Launch: Two FlexCraft vehicles launched to NRHO Gateway
Commercial Launch: Beginning of commercial launches of water and other supplies to NRHO Gateway
2023
(Last use of RS-25 engines from the Space Shuttle legacy)
SLS Block I: Crewed launch of Orion/SM/ICPS or Orion/SM/Centaur V to NRHO Gateway
Commercial Launch: Vulcan/Centaur launch of ACES propellant depot to LEO
Commercial Launch: First commercial launches of liquid oxygen tankers to LEO
Commercial Launch: First commercial launches of liquid hydrogen tankers to LEO
2024
(New RS-25 engines now being produced and utilized)
SLS Block I: Two R-LL reusable spacecraft launched to LEO utilizing commercial propellant depots at LEO to redeploy to NRHO. Both vehicles are initially used to deploy robotic vehicles to the lunar surface for sample returns. One R-LL goes to the north lunar pole. The second R-LL goes to the south lunar pole.
SLS Block I: Crewed launch of Orion/SM/ICPS or Orion/SM/Centaur V or Orion/SM/EUS to NRHO Gateway
Three members of the Orion crew boards one of the R-LL spacecraft for the first human mission to the south lunar pole. Three other crew members remain at the NRHO Gateway to serve as an emergency rescue team in case the first vehicle experiences a serious malfunction while on the lunar surface.
Commercial Launch: Vulcan/Centaur Launch of ACES depot to LEO to self deploy to NRHO
Commercial Launch: Beginning of commercial deployment of liquid oxygen tankers to NRHO
Commercial Launch: Beginning of commercial deployment of liquid hydrogen tankers to NRHO
Commercial Launch: Vulcan/Centaur launch of reusable Orion/ACES to LEO for crew transport between LEO and NRHO using propellant depots
Launch Vehicles that could be used to help return humans to the surface of the Moon
SLS Block IB: 110 tonnes to LEO (operational 2024)
SLS Block I + ICPS upper stage: 95 tonnes to LEO (operational in 2020)
SLS Block I : 70 tonnes to LEO (operational in 2020)
Falcon Heavy: 63.8 tonnes to LEO (currently operational)
Vulcan Centaur Heavy: 34.9 tonnes to LEO (operational 2023)
Delta IV Heavy: 28.4 tonnes to LEO (currently operational)
Vulcan Centaur: 27.5 tonnes to LEO (operational 2021)
Upper Stages that could be deployed to LEO by an SLS Block I Launch
ICPS: Total mass: 30.7 tonnes; empty mass: 3.49; propellant mass: 27.2 tonnes (currently operational)
Centaur V: Total mass: ~ 46 tonnes; empty mass: ~5 tonnes; propellant mass: 41 tonnes (operational 2021)
ACES: Total mass: ~ 73.5 tonnes; empty mass: ~ 5.5 tonnes; propellant mass: 68 tonnes (operational 2023)
EUS: Total mass: 140 tonnes; empty mass: 15 tonnes; propellant mass: 125 tonnes (operational 2024)
With NASA's new super heavy lift capability, America will be able to deploy large and heavy structures (up to 110 tonnes in mass) to LEO with a single launch. This should enable NASA and private space companies to deploy huge reusable spacecraft with crewed interplanetary capability to LEO. Single launches of the SLS will also be able to deploy enormous microgravity and artificial gravity space habitats to LEO with pressurized volumes greatly exceeding that of the International Space Station.
With its propellant depot architecture, reusable ACES spacecraft working alone or in pairs could transport at least 40 to 80 tonnes of payload from LEO to practically anywhere within cis-lunar space. An reusable EUS that could utilize propellant depots would have substantially more capability.
Cargo landing vehicles directly derived from the notional R-LL vehicle should be able to land more than 40 tonnes of payload on the surface of the Moon.
Finally, by using commercial spacecraft to reach LEO, a propellant depot architecture could allow astronauts and tourist to easily travel between NRHO and LEO. This would make it unnecessary to launch astronauts to NRHO aboard a super heavy lift vehicle that is only infrequently used to launch passengers. At the Gateway, single stage reusable vehicles could be used to travel between the lunar surface and NRHO. And suddenly private commercial space tourism could expand beyond LEO-- all the way to the practically any place on the surface of the Moon. And a new economic age of space travel will have begun!
Links and References
Bridenstine says “nothing off the table” as NASA develops new lunar plan
How Much Water Is on the Moon?
Realistic Near-Term Propellant Depots: Implementation of aCritical Spacefaring Capability
Status of Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) for Gateway
ACES Stage Concept: Higher Performance, NewCapabilities, at a Lower Recurring Cost
A Study of CPS Stages for Missions beyond LEO
Status of Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) for Gateway
Utilizing the Centaur V and ACES 68 for Deep Space SLS Missions
ACES Stage Concept: Higher Performance, NewCapabilities, at a Lower Recurring Cost
ULA’s Vulcan Rocket To be Rolled out in Stages
ULA's Tory Bruno (Twitter)A Study of CPS Stages for Missions beyond LEO
Tuesday, April 9, 2019
Tuesday, April 2, 2019
Inflatable Biospheres and Bio-Tori for Large Outpost and Colonies on the Lunar Surface
 |
| Notional regolith bag covered Kevlar biosphere and bio-torus next to two solar powered cylindrical SLS propellant tank technology derived lunar regolith habitats on top of a microwave sintered lunar outpost floor. |
NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) scheduled to go into operation by 2020 or 2021. But large cargo landing vehicles are going to be required in order to utilize the SLS for the deployment of lunar outposts habitats. Large multilevel pressurized habitats derived from SLS propellant tank technology could be deployed to the lunar surface on top of cargo landing vehicles designed to fit within a 10 meter in diameter SLS payload fairing. Such multilevel habitats for the lunar surface could be 8.4 meters in diameter, with two to four levels available for habitation. The average apartment in the US provides approximately 82 meters of floor area. With each 8.4 meter in diameter level providing more than 55 square meters of floor area, a single multilevel SLS deployed lunar habitat could provide lunar astronauts with 105 to 210 square meters of habitation floor area.
 |
| X-Ray of notional SLS propellant tank derived Lunar Regolith Habitat |
However, substantially larger lunar habitats would require the deployment of inflatable structures.
 |
| X-Ray of notional regolith bag shielded biosphere on the lunar surface (Credit: NASA) |
 |
| Inflatable torus extraterrestrial habitat (Credit: NASA, 1961) |
Lunar Statistics
Diameter relative to the Earth: 27.3%
Surface area relative to the Earth: 7.4% (Land area not covered by water only comprises ~ 29% of the Earth's surface)
Surface gravity: 0.17g
Regolith depth: 2 to 8 meters
Annual amount of cosmic radiation on the Lunar surface during the solar minimum - 38 Rem
Annual amount of cosmic radiation on the Lunar surface during the solar maximum - 11 Rem
(Maximum amount of radiation allowed for radiation workers on Earth per year - 5 Rem)
(Maximum amount of radiation allowed for adult female during nine months of pregnancy -)
The biodome and the upper and outer exterior of the bio-torus could be covered with regolith bags that are either 2.5 meters or 5 meters in thick, depending on what level of radiation protection is desired for the habitat. At least, 10 centimeters of lunar regolith is required to protect humans from the cell killing heavy nuclei component of cosmic radiation. Thermal fluctuations of the lunar surface may also require as little as 10 centimeters of lunar regolith. Assuming an average regolith density of about 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter, at least 60 centimeters of lunar regolith would be required to protect the habitat from micrometeorites.
Its relatively easy to shield habitats and even humans in pressure suits from the heavy ion component of cosmic radiation. But most cosmic ray particles are composed of the smallest ionized atoms: protons (85%) and alpha particles (ionized helium atoms) which are much more difficult to shield against. Most protons and alpha particles streak harmlessly though the vacuous space between the atoms of the human body. But the relentless rain of these cosmic ray components inevitably results in impacts upon our body tissues.
On average, humans receive about 620 mrem per year of radiation due to a combination of sources from both cosmic and terrestrial radiation sources. The maximum recommended radiation exposure for a pregnant woman is 50 mrem per month which comes very close to the average radiation exposure that humans on Earth experience in a year.
The maximum level of radiation exposure for radiation workers on Earth is 5 Rem per year. And that would require approximately 2.5 meters of regolith shielding. But the maximum level of radiation exposure allowed for a woman during the term of her pregnancy is just 0.5 Rem. So lunar regolith shielding would probably have to be increased to 5 meters (the same level of radiation shielding provided for humans by the depth of the Earth's atmosphere). Inflated with an Earth-like atmospheric pressure, biospheres and bio-tori could easily support the weight of 5 meters of regolith.
Of course, there would be no shortage of available regolith on the surface of the Moon. Just one hectare of regolith on the lunar surface could provide between 20,000 to 80,000 cubic meters of shielding material (2 million to 8 million cubic meters per square kilometer) for large pressurized habitats. And the excavation and deposition of lunar regolith and even the production of regolith bags could be done by robots teleoperated by personal employed on the surface of the Earth.
During solar minimum conditions, the maximum radiation exposure on the lunar surface can exceed 3000 mrem per month. A hardened pressure suit designed to protect against the heavy nuclei component of cosmic radiation could reduce general cosmic radiation exposure by two thirds. But even 1000 mrem (one Rem) per month would exceed annual radiation levels for radiation workers in less than six months. Pregnant lunar colonist would probably have to remain inside the protective confines of their habitat during nine months of pregnancy. But even if lunar colonist spent only 10% of their time outside of pressurized habitats (less than 2 Rem of annual exposure within radiation hardened pressure suits ), that would still avail them to more than 16 hours a week of EVA time on the lunar surface. But I seriously doubt if most lunar colonist will spend more than 5% of their time outside of the comfort of their lunar habits.
So it seems likely that Lunar colonist will spend at least 90 to 95% of their time on the Moon within the confines of pressurized habitats. So living on the Moon will mostly be about living within the protective confines of pressurized habitats that are also designed to protect its inhabitants from the dangers of micrometeorites, extreme thermal fluctuations, and excessive radiation exposure.
So if future Lunarians are going to have to spend the overwhelming majority of their time-- indoors, such pressurized habitats should be as comfortably-- spacious-- as possible. Once large SLS propellant tank technology derived habitats are on the lunar surface, much larger (inflatable) habitats could be deployed by the SLS.
 |
| X-Ray of 40 meter in diameter lunar biosphere surround by two bio-tori |
A second SLS Block I launch could deploy five 3 meter in diameter and 3 meter high airlocks: one to be connected to the bottom of the biosphere and two each to be connected the bottoms of the two bio-tori on opposite sides. Six 3 meter in diameter expandable tunnels will also be deployed to linearly connect the airlocks to each other and to allow astronauts to enter and exit the base of the inflatable habitats. Six expandable regolith walls will be included to provide a firm regolith base for the biosphere and the bio-tori. Six 2.4 meter in diameter ECLSS modules will be included: two to be attached to the a biosphere airlock and individual modules to be attached to each of the bio-tori airlocks. Piping will be provided to connect the ECLSS modules to external radiators. And wiring will be provided to connect the ECLSS to external solar, nuclear, and chemical power units. Again, these payloads will initially be deployed to LEO before be transported to NRHO and then to the lunar surface by reusable LOX/LH2 vehicles.
Once deployed to the lunar surface, the inflated Kevlar biosphere would be 40 meters in diameter. An 18 meter in diameter bio-torus would surround the biosphere. And an additional 6 meter in diameter bio-torus would be placed with the lower cavity between the biosphere and the external bio-torus.The pressurized biosphere and bio-tori would sit on top a regolith base. Airlocks beneath the biosphere and bio-torus would be connected to cylindrical metallic tunnels internally pressurized with cylindrical Kevlar bags would provide astronauts with easy access to the other sections of the habitat while also allowing them to exit the habitat or to connect to exterior habitats.
The atmospheric pressure within the biosphere and within the bio-torus would be the same atmospheric pressure as on Earth. And this will allow people working in the bio-torus to move easily back and fourth between the bio-torus and the biosphere without the need of to deal with differences in pressure.
 |
| Notional biodome recreational floor area of a 40 meter in diameter bio-torus |
With a floor area of 1257 square meters within a spacious biodome 20 meters high, the upper hemisphere of the 40 meter biosphere could be used for a variety of recreational purposes (tennis, volleyball, basketball, gymnastics, swimming, etc). The biodome could also provide astronauts with a spacious area for relaxation if landscaped with grass and trees and other aesthetically pleasing foliage.
The lower hemisphere would be composed of four expansive habitat floors, 2.4 to 3 meters high, providing apartments, laboratories, and gyms and more than 1200 square meters of habitable floor space. The floors, rooms, and apartments will be composed of prefabricated sections manufactured on Earth and assembled within on the Moon within the pressurized biosphere. Ceiling, floor, and wall panels and beams and other structural components could be transported to the lunar surface by reusable and expendable commercial lunar transports. So the lower half of the biosphere should be able to provide at least four expansive levels for habitation, with the lower hemisphere alone far exceeding that of the floor area for SLS propellant tank derived habitat modules.
The surrounding 18 meter bio-torus would also consist of multiple levels that are composed of modular components. But, under this scenario, the bio-torus would be divided into five levels. The top level would be used for orchards (apple, orange, lemon, cherry, and peach trees) and also for raising large fauna: pigs, miniature cows, sheep, and possibly even ostriches. The second level would be used for poultry. The third and fourth level would be used for growing fruits and vegetables: bananas, pineapples, watermelons, tomatoes, carrots, lettuce, potatoes, corn, wheat, sugar beets, etc. The bottom level of the bio-torus would be used for aquaculture: brine shrimp, fish, oysters, etc.
The inner 6 meter in diameter bio-torus would be largely used for storage and for emergency habitation in case something serious should occur inside of the biosphere.
The entire facility would be designed to comfortably accommodate between 50 to 100 individuals.
Diameter and mass of Kevlar biospheres and bio-tori pressurized at 14.7 psi (101.3 kPa) with a safety factor of four without regolith shielding and structural support
40 meter in diameter biosphere: 27.5 tonnes
Surrounding 18 meter in diameter bio-torus: 38 tonnes
Surrounding 6 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 2.5 tonnes
Mass of an M1-Abrams Tank - 62 tonnes
100 meters in diameter biosphere: - 430 tonnes
Surrounding 50 meter in diameter bio-torus: 759 tonnes
Surrounding 16 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 44 tonnes
Mass of a Boeing 747 - 440 tonnes
200 meters in diameter biosphere: 3438 tonnes
Surrounding 100 meter in diameter bio-torus: 6071 tonnes
Surrounding 32 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 348 tonnes
Mass of the Eiffel Tower - 7300 tonnes
300 meters in diameter biosphere: 11,600 tonnes
Surrounding 150 meter in diameter bio-torus: 20,512 tonnes
Surrounding 50 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 1264 tonnes
Mass of an Ohio-Class atomic submarine - 16,764 tonnes
400 meter in diameter biosphere: 27, 500 tonnes
Surrounding 200 meter in diameter bio-torus: 48, 574 tonnes
Surrounding 60 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 2478 tonnes
Mass of a cruise ship - 100,000 tonnes
1000 meters in diameter biosphere: 430,000 tonnes
Surrounding 500 meter in diameter bio-torus: 759, 000 tonnes
Surrounding 160 meter in diameter interior bio-torus: 44, 000 tonnes
Mass of the Golden Gate Bridge - 804, 673 tonnes
Much larger inflatable facilities will probably require the Kevlar material to be exported from Earth in small sections to be woven together by machines deployed to the lunar surface. And, eventually, Kevlar threads will be manufactured on the lunar surface from lunar materials mostly found at the lunar poles.
Biospheres that are 400 meters in diameter could be very attractive for human colonization of the Moon. The 200 meter high bio-domes of such facilities would be able to provide artificial lakes and lagoons at least 200 meters in diameter with surrounding sandy beaches where you could not only swim but also put on a pair of wings and fly under the low lunar gravity. The top half of the surrounding 200 meter in diameter bio-torus could also be used for housing familiar to that on Earth plus recreational parks and 100 meter lakes and lagoons. And with a 100 meter high rooftop, there should also be enough room in the bio-torus to strap on a pair of wings and fly at least 50 meters above the ground within the upper half of the bio-torus.
Links and References
Inflatable Biospheres for the New Frontier
Structural Design of a Lunar Habitat
Inflatable space habitat
Inflatable Habitation for the Lunar Base
Living and Reproducing on Low Gravity Worlds
Information for Radiation Workers
Doses in Our Daily Lives
Ionizing Radiation
GLOBAL LUNAR REGOLITH DEPTHS REVEALED
ECLSS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
CINEMA FANTASTIC
Popular Posts
-
by Marcel F. Williams Tuscany is renowned for its beautiful cities of Florence and Siena, and is historically famous as the birthplace ... -
Links and References Was the Swamp Ape Bipedal? Marine Adaptations in Human Kidneys Morphological Evidence of Marine Adapta...
-
Two ATHLETE robots joining twin habitat modules together Establishing a permanent and continuously growing human presence on the surface of ... -
NASA Selects Companies For Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle Studies WASHINGTON -- NASA has selected 13 companies for negotiations leading to poten... -
by Marcel F. Williams During the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration decided to create jobs in the US by expanding electric power... -
by Marcel F. Williams In 2002, Nature magazine announced to the world that French paleontologist, Michel Brunet, and his colleagues had disc...
