• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

The Best Method To Get Cargo To The Moon

Dryson

Commodore
Commodore
The best way to efficiently deliver cargo to the Moon is basically combining several systems together. We have to eliminate the wasteful spending on single mission module and material use.

The first stage would be to use the Falcon X series of reusable rockets to send a modified MPLM (Multi-Purpose Logistics Module) into LEO. That stage of the mission is easy and already has been proven an extreme success.

The next stage of the mission would be to create a docking hub that would allow the modified MPLM to dock to while the module waited for delivery to the Moon.

The transfer hub really shouldn't be that difficult to design either as systems from the ISS could be engineered for use in the Transfer Hub.

The most costly aspect of delivering cargo to the Moon is stage three or LEO to Lunar orbit Transfer.

Two methods could be employed to deliver cargo to the Moon and return samples and other material from the Moon to the Earth.

The base of stage three revolves around designing a craft similar to the Asteroid Capture and Return (ACR) spacecraft that would be re-engineered
to capture a MPLM/Cyngus/HTV hybrid cargo module while the module was in space and close to the Moon. The Cargo Capture and Return (CCR) spacecraft would dock with the MPLM using a docking system very similar to the Orion Crew Vehicle docking system. The CCR would capture and dock with the MPLM and then return to the Moon to perform a Lunar descent where the crew on the Moon would then retrieve the cargo module and ready the CCR for its next capture and return mission.

Another mission would involve the CCR traveling to the Transfer Hub to pick up the MPLM directly to then return it to the Moon thus establishing a need for cargo logistics management in space ports training and degree.

The reason why I chose the ACR as the base concept for the CCR is that the ACR/CCR both encapsulate the capture object thus reducing the overall height of the capture vehicle itself. The second reason the ACR was used is because the bag that surrounds the captured asteroid would provide additional protection for against UV radiation for the MPLM as well as increased micrometer protection.

The third reason is that the inner capture tube that surrounds the MPLM that the after the MPLM is slid into during capture would have additional racks that could be used for storage of smaller cargo modules.

The main point of the CCR design is that it needs to be reusable.

So basically what we are looking at is a Falcon or Bluebird Origins base of propulsion and landing systems that would also include very similar automated guidance systems.

Then couples together.

The upper portion of the CCR would be based on the Asteroid Capture and Return spacecraft but would be re-engineered to dock with a modified MPLM as well as having attachment points on the exterior of the interior storage tube.

The skirting around the interior module capture tube would lower once the CCR was on the Moon to then allow the crew to use ramps to unload the first set of cargo modules on the exterior of the interior capture tube.

Access hatches to the MPLM itself would then be removed so that the cargo module could then be unloaded.

Once the cargo of the MPLM was offloaded cargo could be loaded back into the MPLM to return to Earth. Once the CCR has launched it would deploy the MPLM that would then return to Earth under its own propulsion. Once in Earth orbit the CCR would either splash down in the ocean or it could be retrieved by a reusable rocket sent to retrieve it.

If you are an artist and would to draw a rendition of the design above. Go for it and....Let's see what ya got.
 
Last edited:
I've been partial to Alexander Bolonkin's lunar cable-car system (Page 122) since I first encountered it in a Stephen Baxter short story ("Planck Zero", if memory serves) circa 1990. :)
 
I've been partial to Alexander Bolonkin's lunar cable-car system (Page 122) since I first encountered it in a Stephen Baxter short story ("Planck Zero", if memory serves) circa 1990. :)

The Space Elevator is a novel idea but in all practicality would not be feasible for many reasons.

The Space Elevator design could be used in transferring cargo to and from the surface of the Moon to a base in orbit around the Moon, given that the gravity of the Moon is far less than Earth and would not create the immense drag coefficient on the Space Elevator that the Earth would.
 
Last edited:
Another idea would be to use a shorter version of the Hyper Loop to accelerate cargo pods using the orbital energies of the Earth to launch a cargo pod towards the Moon. In flight thrusters would then position the cargo pod along a corrected trajectory of intercept where an automated version of the Orion Crew vehicle would remotely grapple the cargo pod for delivery to a Space Elevator base or using the reusable entry systems employed on the Falcon or Bluebird Origins rockets in a modified Orion Crew Vehicle.
 
Yeah, right... My guess is that no country or corporation will ever invest in such infrastructure that appears to suffer from multiple single points of potential failure.. It'll be simpler to mine asteroids, process the ores in situ, and then drop processed minerals down the gravity well using cheaply manufactured ablative heat shields.
 

If the tether could be wrapped with a coating of micro resistant material that was plyable the tether just might work for as a short range system of a couple kilometers above the Moon. It would be very expensive to say the least.

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19900015845.pdf

Here is a link to the concept of hybrid Orion/Falcon cargo vehicle transfer craft. Its just a base image to get people thinking along a similar idea.

The vehicle itself would have enough fuel because the Orion has enough fuel for a mission to the Moon and then back to Earth. But since the vehicle would not be returning to Earth it would have enough fuel to conduct maybe three or four lunar orbit capture, lunar descent and the lunar ascent and capture missions before needing to be refueled.

The cargo rig docking point is used for Lunar based ULD unloading system that the logistics crew on the Moon would use to then pick the cargo from the MPLM and then pack it on the ULD for later storage.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aircraft_cargo_(ULD)_loader_in_operaton.jpg

https://imgur.com/YNqseGh
 
I like your plan.

The actual MPLM's are a little expensive, not to mention Italy is no longer making them. But, as you mentioned, could also use a modified Cygnus (or a Bigello inflatable riding the upper stage) . That should get 12000-14000kg to L4 or L5 from a Falcon Heavy without any need for stationkeeping. Just send the goods and "park" it there until it can be retrieved. An advantage of having a station at that lagrange point would be for relatively easy cargo transfer between sent cargo and the gatway (this station could be used not only for lunar resources.. aluminum/lux slurry monoprop, etc. but for voyages further like NEA's, Phobos, etc. That's where the value of the Moon really shows itself. If we don't get away from chemical propulsion for awhile, that's ok: We got a big world in our backyard to be mined for fuel, breathable oxygen, aluminium, even glass, maybe even a little water, though I suppose there will be so little it will have to be managed by whomever ends up being the decision maker for it.

The more a rocket like Falcon Heavy flies, the more efficiency one gets from ground support staff and reliability as the launch cadence increases, provided its not pushed too far. I suspect BFR and New Armstrong may long-term make Falcon Heavy a solution that gets outclassed after awhile, but unlike those designs, it exists.
 
The links and the attached balloons and aircraft remain single points of failure. It seems such an impractical system that it will likely never get funded - well, certainly not in our lifetimes anyway.
Also, the risks of failure are usually considered in terms of material faults or unforeseen severe weather conditions. But there is also significant vulnerability to terrorist attacks. Terrorists are emboldened to attack anything created by the industrialized nations. All they need to do is send up a drone and start cutting up tethers and popping balloons. This proposed design is far too vulnerable.
 
Another idea would be to use a shorter version of the Hyper Loop to accelerate cargo pods using the orbital energies of the Earth to launch a cargo pod towards the Moon. In flight thrusters would then position the cargo pod along a corrected trajectory of intercept where an automated version of the Orion Crew vehicle would remotely grapple the cargo pod for delivery to a Space Elevator base or using the reusable entry systems employed on the Falcon or Bluebird Origins rockets in a modified Orion Crew Vehicle.
I can't see any of those huge monolithic systems like a vac-train-launch or space elevator getting to a point where cost to orbit can approach some of the newer SHLV's like BFR and New Armstrong. These vehicles, at least the BFR might also find even more paying use as point-to-point hypersonic transport, further lowering their costs.

The elevator is slow, so it's already limited to cargo. Who wants to be stuck in an elevator car passing through Van Allen belts for days? The Vac Train/Hyperloop launcher would have to be so large scale it might require tunneling through Antarctic ice sheets, which considering environmental factors and treaties, makes it almost a nonstarter.

There comes a point where O'Neill's ideas win and its simply easier to transport anything from an asteroidal mine to wherever you need it in space

The only really oddball-but-maybe-it-might work idea ive seen to leave earth and go elsewhere that I like, is Airship to Orbit, by JP Aerospace, and they've been continually working and testing their designs for years now
 
Why not simply send automated 3d printers up there and robots that can harvest the necessary resources from the moon itself, convert them into needed materials and then just print what we need on the spot?

Also, there's a ton of trash in orbit. That can be harvested with satellites, broken down into base elements, and then again converted into usable matter for 3d printers.
Designs were proposed for this, so, you don't have to haul all the resources from Earth... just use what's already up there.
 
Last edited:
Why not simply send automated 3d printers up there and robots that can harvest the necessary resources from the moon itself, convert them into needed materials and then just print what we need on the spot?

Also, there's a ton of trash in orbit. That can be harvested with satellites, broken down into base elements, and then again converted into usable matter for 3d printers.
Designs were proposed for this, so, you don't have to haul all the resources from Earth... just use what's already up there.
Yeah, exactly, why bother dragging matter out of Earth's gravity well at great expense? Learn to "live off the land" instead. There is solar energy in abundance to exploit and much less delta-V is required to travel between asteroids than between the Earth and the Moon.
 
Well, I want nuclear power stations on the moon. I actually want all fissile material mined and sent up there--away from Earth. Use the power from nuclear piles to build solar stations on the Moon--for even more power.
 
Well, I want nuclear power stations on the moon. I actually want all fissile material mined and sent up there--away from Earth. Use the power from nuclear piles to build solar stations on the Moon--for even more power.

Or, we could convert all of the nuclear waste here on Earth into high grade plutonium which can be used as a power source in space.
Although Uranium for power source is quite dirty an potentially dangerous.
The moon is much more suitable for Solar energy accumulation... but if need be, we could set up a Thorium facility on the moon.

I prefer the concept of space based solar power... or basically, setting up a Dyson swarm... 1 huge solar collector the size of 10 km would be enough to provide massive amounts of power.
All of the material is already up there in the form of space junk.

Too bad the moon's core is a bit impractical to utilize... otherwise I'd probably argue for Geothermal on it.
 
More selenothermal than geothermal on the Moon, methinks. Solar arrays are the way to go. Much simpler than mucking about with nuclear or drilling holes. Assuming 200 W output per square metre, a 10 km by 10 km array (10^8 square metres) would provide of the order of 20 GW, which is equivalent to about twenty nuclear fission reactors.
 
More selenothermal than geothermal on the Moon, methinks. Solar arrays are the way to go. Much simpler than mucking about with nuclear or drilling holes. Assuming 200 W output per square metre, a 10 km by 10 km array (10^8 square metres) would provide of the order of 20 GW, which is equivalent to about twenty nuclear fission reactors.

It would probably provide more energy.
You have to take into account that there is no cloud cover in space, and on average, the amount of power hitting the solar collectors in space would be about 2.5 times greater than on Earth.
Add to that the premise we developed solar accumulation technology capable of using the infrared spectrum as well that works with conventional technology.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top