International Lunar Landing Sites
Welcome to the International Lunar Waystation (ILWS) working group! Please relate discussion on this thread to the identification, analysis, and selection of a collection of international lunar landing sites. Taking into account lunar geology, topography, available energy sources, and the potential for in-situ resource utilization (ISRU), the objective of this thread is to identify and classify lunar sites suitable for multipurpose international use.
Ad Luna!
(The site selection for both robotic and human landings is dependent upon eight
factors including 1) general accessibility of landing site (orbital mechanics), 2) landing site safety, 3) mobility, 4) Mars analog characteristics, 5) power, 6)communications, 7) ISRU considerations, 8) geologic diversity.)
The 8 points above are taken from ’RETURN TO THE MOON: SITE SELECTION PROCESS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR NASA’S
LUNAR EXPLORATION PROGRAM.’ J.L. Heldmann1, J.M. Moore1, P.C. Lee2, B. Girten1, and C.P. McKay1,
1NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA, 94035, USA, 2 SETI Institute, Mountain View, CA 94043, USA)
Although our site selection is for a waystation not a lunar exploration mission, the points above are still relevant.
Below are some of my first thoughts regarding suitable landing sites (I have only considered points [5, 7 and 8 above] so far):
Geology of moon rocks: mare basalt found in lunar maria lowlands- contain heavy elements including Iron, oxygen, Titanium.
Anorthosite found in lunar highlands- contain lighter elements including silicon, calcium and aluminium.
Breccias found all over, fused rock from meteorite impacts- not sure about mineral content.
Polar site benefits: permanently sunlight areas, close to areas in permanent shadow- may provide shelter from radiation? May contain ice? still speculative
Site should still be close to diverse rock types both mare basalts and anorthosites.
.
Suggested site: Both poles seem suitable, have heard mention of shackleton crater near south pole. Unless chosen for permanent sunlight conditions, confirmation of Ice is necessary before committing to polar site.
Equatorial site benefits: already visited, diverse geological terrain, easy access to mare basalt and anorthosites (though this should be just as true for polar site)
Changes in sunlight (2 out of every 4 weeks in darkness) could be a good thing if aim of the mission is to prepare for missions to mars and other bodies, in order to test systems under changing conditions. For a permanent habitat permanently sunlight regions make sense as stability and regular is desirable, but for waystation changing environments are better to push and test systems for unknown conditions or less than ideal conditions.
Suggested sites: Any of the Apollo landing sites would be of interest, as they are the only places that have been visited, and plenty of research into the suitability of these sites should have taken place before selection. The latter mission (Apollo 15-17) landing sites may be better choice as they included more geologically diverse sites (I think!) then initial missions as they had the leisure of spending more time on science, whereas the initial missions were more about getting there and back in one piece...
Apollo sites: Sea of tranquillity, Oceanus Procellarum, Fra Mauro, Hadley-Apennine region, Descartes, and Taurus-Littrow (Sea of Serenity).
Maybe have one polar landing site and one equatorial site, also if main purpose of polar site is power generation (permanent sunlight) maybe the whole waystaion doesn’t need to be located at the pole, but the power generation part can transmit/route power to base located at some distance (some form of power grid), giving greater mobility to station as a whole, mobile stations would also have benefits where the whole station can be moved with relative ease, but I haven’t heard much on mobile stations except for the idea.
These are just first thoughts and each aspect mentioned above can be researched in greater detail, any comments, suggestions or criticisms are welcome..
Cheers
Satinder
In the Planetary society report a landing site in the South Pole-Aitken basin is selected as a Lunar Way Station location in the example scenario for a Lunar Way Station. Maybe this would be a good starting point. Several different sites contained within the South Pole-Aitken basin could be analysed and the compared against some kind of checklist to see if they match up to desired attributes of a potential landing site. Other potential landing sites could then be subjected to the same checklist and then further analysed. This checklist could be similar to the nasa one mentioned at the start of my last post...The site selection for both robotic and human landings is dependent upon eight factors including 1) general accessibility of landing site (orbital mechanics), 2) landing site safety, 3) mobility, 4) Mars analog characteristics, 5) power, 6)communications, 7) ISRU considerations, 8) geologic diversity...
Satinder
After having read through some previous threads regarding Space habitats on the surface and under ground (these were mainly in the general discussion and welcome thread) I have some questions of my own, maybe our resident geologist (time scientist) could help clarify or offer an opinion.
Although my questions are not directly connected to landing site selection, they relate to in situ resource utilisation which may have an effect on landing site selection.
(1) Would it be possible to tunnel into the highlands in order to (a) get at the silica, aluminium etc and (b) gain protection from radiation? But I guess then one would need to consider the dangers of causing landslides, the effectiveness of anorthosite material as a shield compared to the mare basalt and regolith (as anorthosite is made of lighter elements and mare basalt contain heavier elements, would anorthosite be less effective as a shield but easier to excavate?)
(2) Would tunnelling equipment used for [subways and underground trains (such as channel tunnel link between France & England)] be better suited than drilling/mining technology? Both would be heavy to launch, but the tunnelling would allow for underground shelter alongside mineral excavation.
Satinder
Satinder (and everyone else),
I apologize for being "off the map" in recent weeks. I've been unavailable due to a heavy workload at my job. I must say that your input has been very welcome on all fronts, and I'll need to do a little more research before I can answer the 'tunneling vs. drilling' question completely. However, my gut reaction is that while the anorthosite is indeed less dense than the basin basalts, with any appreciable thickness (3 feet+), the effectiveness of anprthosite as a radiation shield would be quite sufficient. As far as landslides are concerned, I think because the static stress due to gravity on the moon's surface is so much less than we are used to on Earth, I think we wouldn't have to worry much about 'slumping' or cave-ins, assuming the anorthosite is well-consolidated to begin with, and not fractured from impacts, etc. Great ideas! -I'll have more when I get a chance.
we could reengineer the tunneling machine
considering the gravity on the moon
then the maximum hardness of the material
then all we have to do is account for the torque stress on the
actual drill
the rest of the machine could be made from
carbon fiber with titanium suports
making it really light
it would have to be assembled on the moon
but that shouldn't be a problem
or it could be assembled at the way station
and lowered with the LL
either way the materials could be brought up a few pieces at
a time to the iss with the souyez voyages
even if we had one, we could make it work
the only problem is the initial drill
because you have to have a coolant for the blade
and we might end up with alot of water ice inder the
machine, wich could cause some problems and solve others
like dust would be encapsuled in the ice
from all the drilling
but this of course relies on a availible source of water
or element oxide molecule and element hydrogen molecule
but even if we have to isolate the o2 and h2 and make water
the pp should be enough to make it happen
--------------------------------------
one kind word can warm 3 winter months
japanese proverb
Thanks for the response Ben,
I was beginning to think everyone had already left for the lunar waystation without me! ..I know its difficult when under a heavy workload. I appreciate the feedback. Thanks for sharing your gut feeling on the mining vs tunneling Q. I know your still on the research for that Q, but if Anorthosite can provide shielding at depths of 3ft or more, and land slides, cave ins are less likely than they are on Earth, then I suppose a lunar base of any type could be situated in the highlands or lowlands, over ground or under ground (depending on how well consolidated the ground material is) and depending on the activity or system being tested. So our landing site selection need not be dependent on what the ground material consists of, if we want to go underground. Our selection could instead reflect our needs (ISRU), systems testing etc. Your response was close to the answer I was hoping for, but I suppose I shouldn't speculate too much before the question is answered more completely.
Thanks
Satinder
Was just thinking, If most of the international landing sites are situated in one or two regions (either or both poles would be ideal), irrespective of the mission's end destination (except for maybe equitorial destinations), then traffic maybe easier to co-ordinate. Once teams have landed, they may proceed to their respective destinations on the surface using ground based and GPS navigation. Another advantage of landing at both poles would be easier access to the dark side as well as the near side of the moon from either pole. Maybe in the beginning one polar and one equitorial site would be better as the distance between the two would be less then the distance between poles (incase of emergency evacuation), then the 2nd pole could be the location for a third landing site. I dont know if it is anymore hazardous to land at the poles of the moon then other prospective landing sites...will try and find out.
Satinder
Neeraj,
thanks for the link to the article ‘Not so Picture perfect: proposed Lunar Landing site has drawbacks’ (Space.com). It was an interesting article as it does highlight several problems with polar sites such as landing, negotiating the terrain after landing etc.
But I think the author is more concerned that the US government is likely to build only one lunar outpost, in this scenario getting the location as close to perfect would make sense, but as our landing site selection is international, there will be more than one outpost to select sites for....still no takers for either pole? The author himself states that the poles will be part of the lunar future, playing a supportive role not a lead one.
After reading the article I’m not totally convinced by the author’s arguments, conclusions or biases, he seems to think that anyone who is pro polar has jumped on the bandwagon, and are blind to problems associated to landing at the poles.
The first problem that he highlights is in Paragraph 5:
‘The problem with the polar sites is that they are ghettos. These places of ‘eternal sunlight’ are surrounded by very inhospitable terrain, uneven mountainous terrain with very confining and limited flat areas, shadows extremely long and shadow patterns constantly changing making visual cues as to one’s whereabouts or heading all but meaningless’
In response:
Visual cues are not the only method of landing or navigation, radar, microwave, radio, infrared imaging are used regularly for modern aircraft in poor or reduced visibility. Instrument landing sytem (ILS), Transponder landing system (TLS), Microwave landing system (MLS), Beam approach Beacon system (BABS) are systems that could effectively be used to deal with the problem of visibility,
The TLS & MLS are all weather precision landing system. I will write more about these in another post and on the lunar navigation thread (along with other methods of radio navigation).
Problems regarding surrounding inhospitable regions are more serious as being trapped in a polar ‘ghetto’ wouldn’t be much fun.
Setting up of infra structure is crucial before maintained human presence on the moon.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, Power generation could take place at the North Pole without a base having to be located there. Also it would be better to prepare for periods without sunlight and locations that don’t receive eternal sunlight.
As our proposed base is a waystation all lunar terrain should be of interest. Sites close to maria but not highland (a little west, east or south of the nearside mare complex). There are cities on Earth that have more than one airport so there is no reason why there should only be one landing site for a whole Moon.
Poles are still important locations; at least one of the poles could accommodate a minimum of one base and one landing site if landing problems can be overcome and if there is the possibility to travel on the ground. A path is needed through, around, over or under (tunnelling) inhospitable terrain. As the author himself mentions, there are plans for a lunar rail network, powered from the permanent areas of sunlight.
Safety is important. Maybe advanced robotic missions could attempt to land at polar sites initially testing landing tech and also preparing the landing sites for human landing by setting up landing beacons, radio equipment and possibly altering the terrain?!
Inhospitable terrain may be good for testing systems of a waystation if they are to be used on other planetary bodies.
There should be more than one landing site for regular traffic, landing Site selection could either be dependent upon the mission or independent if landing sites act like airports for all lunar traffic (different mission travel routes are taken after landing).
If landing site selection is dependant upon the mission then I think the poles could be visited by specific missions. If landing site selection is for a lunar spaceport then a safer, less inhospitable location is desirable.
Temperature swings
I agree with the author’s observation that we need to know how to handle the thermal cycles right away. My favourite solution again tunnelling!
There will no doubt be problems inherent in trying to land at the poles, but if the location is important enough and if the experience gained can benefit other planetary landing missions then these problems are there to be solved. Otherwise there are plenty more potential landing sites.
Satinder
Belovelife
Thanks for the input. If the machines are re engineered to be lighter then this could reduce launch weight considerably, if assembly is in orbit or on the lunar surface then launch weight could additionally be spread out into more manageable payloads, adapting the drilling tips to be more suitable to the lunar surface would also increase chances of success. Suitable coolant would be an issue but hopefully one that could be solved with relative ease, dust would be another issue as I understand that it sticks to everything. If water ice traps some of the created dust, it should make dealing with the dust easier but wouldn't it contaminate our water ice with dust? (if we want to use the water source for anything other than coolant).
I'm not sure if I fully understand the necessary coolant and dust considerations with regards to excavating on the moon.
I read some of your posts on the habitat design thread, with some interesting alternative/complimenatary methods to tunnelling. The Pillar and room seemed to be an interesting way of excavating and creating habitat space. What type of machinery is used for this method? is it standard drilling/mining equipment? Maybe a combination of pillar & room, and tunnel boring machinery would meet most underground excavation needs?
Both could be integrated into the lunar waystation's testing platform designed to test equipment for the waystation's role as a 'planetary outpost test bed’.
There was also something in one of your posts about either heating or glazing the inner walls to create a airlock standard seal, I just havent been able to relocate this post recently. I would be interested in any further information on this.
Satinder
and room thing id done (at least in salt caves)
with a skylift-like machine with a boom
basically a all weel streering forklift with massive hydrolics along with a chain pull system
the "boom" would be a big arm that can have any attachment to it
i was thinking the 4 electric motors in a roataing module at the end of a booom could dig nice tunnels
but it would all depend on the hardness of the material being cut
--------------------------------------
one kind word can warm 3 winter months
japanese proverb
Seems like a lot of very good considerations are already summarised in this thread. Great work!
At this stage, I would believe a polar landing site would be best suitable due to its immense advantages concerning thermal control and power availability from sunlight. Equatorial sites are extremely difficult to manage from a technical/engineering point of view (even if they might be favourable for other reasons).
Current discussions focus on two main sites, both in the vicinity of the lunar south pole: the rim of Shackleton crater and Malapert Mountain. Both provide solar illumination for 80 percent of the time and more.
They should definitely be visited by robotic precursor mission(s) prior to the human landing to survey the site and to prepare it with landing beacon, etc.
Concerning the tunnelling: it is a great idea, however I fear the equipment to be too heavy (even if re-engineered). Potentially natural cave systems on the Moon (Lava Tubes) might provide the same advantages like radiation shielding without the need for heavy equipment. Unfortunately I don't know if there are any in polar regions.
But when assuming burying of the habitat in the soil or in a lava tube, it also provides for more stable thermal conditions than on the surface and might actually allow for different sites than polar if an adequate solution to the power problem (nuclear?) can be found.
Juergen
Wow Great things are going on, for the LA Luna, landing site.
I am impressed by the view and counter views, which is the great source to highlight both for supportive issue and other wise to come to rational conclusion.
My suggestion is at the maximum ration we will encounter is at the polar area, where the foreign partical will interact the most, so much more radiation we will encounter there.
we will have our Autonomous power generation unit at the polar for trapping the Sunlight ( Direct, the Best option) and the Radiation particals, for energy which will then transfer the necessary power, offcourse by traditional method to where we needs.
if we want to have habitat on the surface, we will be needing the new sheilding materials.....very powerful much more stronger than the ozone layering, i suggest the heavy water based to trap and diffused the heavy particles....
Belove life, juergen and agravat…thanks for the recent input.
Lava tubes would make great shelters, providing protection from cosmic and solar radiation, micrometeorites, dust and temperature swings. As lunar lava tubes have yet to be explored, incorporating this need into landing site selection could be a possibility. Although this may then mean the exclusion of polar sites, as the Polar Regions appear to show no sign of lava flows associated with lava tubes.
As the Lunar waystation is a test bed for enabling technologies and planetary outpost infrastructure, its design could incorporate exploration tools such as rovers equipped with radar imagers and drilling technologies in order to access and explore features such as potential lava tubes and then assess their suitability for habitation. As the tunnel diameters and volume of space available within any lunar lava tube network is unknown (Hadley Rille was found to be 1km wide during Apollo 15), it would be necessary to obtain such data before designing module components of any lunar base or waystation destined for any intact lava tube networks. Lunar observation missions such as LRO, Selene and Chandrayaan-1 could take detailed images of potential lava tubes.
Although some tunneling and drilling technologies (for Human transport and shelter) would be extremely heavy to launch, and may have difficulty operating in the regolith environment. I am optimistic that tunneling systems designed and built with these and other problems in mind will prove their worth in Human planetary exploration. Accessing lava tubes and other natural features may also require such technology. Maybe it will take more time before these systems are feasible, but a waystation could incorporate the testing of scaled down tunnelling/drilling systems.
Agravat you suggested the use of heavy water to trap heavy particles, any further detail on this would be great.
I think we should continue discussion on landing sites, although I'm in favour of polar site benefits over equatorial sites, thanks to Juergen I am also very excited by the possibilities presented by lava tubes.
Satinder
Hi Friends
Thanks for the input and i totally agree with you guys..
suggestion:
1. Bio dome : which NASA has been researching could be used for WAy station. ( But should be capable of withstanding overheated Sun rays, Cosmic rays, High energy particals etc.... ( layered with heavy water or other black body materials.... to trap the High energy particals.
2. Also Moon soil supports the Plant growth...( marigold blooms of lunar soil under biodome, with controlled environment.
3. underground Biodome, or more specifically common shelter could be best option as the moon will be frequently visited by the comet debris.....
4. we can provide the underground sunlight by the array of mirror Automated controlled materials to be operated by computer ) to received the amount of sunlight we needed..... could be arranged by automated focal length adgesting or material controlled film coting....
I do agree the landing site should be the discussion... But we cannot issolate other issue as well to give workable solution...
need to have the feasibility report as i have said earlier...
Bipin B
Receive the lastest announcements, discuss space-related topics with other members.
Joined: 2007-02-14