From (by) RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net (email me there please)… This is a sub-site
to main site at www.rocketslinger.com …
This web page last updated 22 May 2024
Artemis
Accords Proposed Coverage for Lunar Impact Cargo Deliveries
Abstract
This sub-page to www.ResearchGate.net (at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380783853_Artemis_Accords_Proposed_Coverage_for_Lunar_Impact_Cargo_Deliveries
) is duplicated at www.rocketslinger.com also (at http://www.rocketslinger.com/RIFFLE/ ). This
is purely speculation and internet research here. No hardware was constructed or tested. Previous pages (by the same author) are
linked to discuss details about custom-built “impact runways” on the moon, for
receiving fuel-saving high-velocity “crash landings” of high-G-forces-tolerant
cargo. In the most primitive forms
(early on in the moon settlement process), such impacts could be VERY
simple… Simply a
set-aside “Expanse” of raw, undeveloped moon surface for cargo impacts. At a very low impact angle for incoming
cargo, the impact area forms an “Ellipse”.
Therefore, for this paper, such an area is called a RIFFLE Range, for Regolith
Impacting Fuel-Frugal Lunar Expanse (or Ellipse,
take your pick). This calls to mind a
rifle range on Earth, and similar rules will apply on the moon, as on
Earth. Shooting times must NOT overlap
with times set aside for setting up targets and-or gathering cargo/bullets!
Eventually, RIFFLE Ranges will surely
proliferate, as the economies and efficiencies (landing-fuel is much reduced
compared to soft landings) become clear, for suitable cargo. The Artemis Accords should be updated or
amended to cover this topic. Details are
discussed here. Additional associated
topics are addressed as well. Where
should RIFFLE Ranges be located? In the
further future, what are some other designs (other than those already discussed
in previous papers) for advanced, customized “impact landing zones”?
Contents
Preamble, and Bits of Boilerplate
Summary of
the Need for Moon Impact Landings
“Geology”
(Moonology?) and Technical and Technological Considerations for Locating RIFFLE
Ranges
Artemis
Accords Recommendations Concerning RIFFLE Ranges
Further
Embellishments on an Improved Impact (RIFFLE) Range
Chemistry of
Processed, Modified Moon Dust
As before, as with
other sub-pages of www.rocketslinger.com, part of the intent here is to “defensively publish” miscellaneous
ideas, to make them available to everyone “for free” (sometimes called
“throwing it into the public domain”), and to prevent “patent trolling” of
(mostly) simple, basic ideas.
Accordingly, currently-highly-implausible or speculative design ideas
(frequently marked as such) are sometimes included, just in case they ever
become plausible, sometimes through radical new technology developments (and often
in materials sciences).
Dear Reader,
excuse me as I will often slip out of stilted formal modes of writing
here. I have no boss, bosses, or styleguides to please with these “hobby” writings of mine,
so I’ll do it my way! I’ll often use a more informal style from here on in,
using “I”, “we”, “you”, etc. “We” is you
and me. “You” are an engineer, manager,
or other party interested in what’s described here. Let’s thwart the patent trolls, and get ON
with it!
PS, if some of my speculations are
wrong (based on mistaken assumptions), please email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net, and note that I’m open to co-authoring articles, even if they
are short, as in, corrections or updates to this article, for example. If you send comments, please specify whether
or not you’re open to having your name mentioned (up to and including being
named as a co-author) in any follow-up article(s).
I wrote two previous
papers concerning fuel-saving impact-landing cargo deliveries to the moon. The first is listed here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338534654_High-G-Force_Impact-Landings_Methods_of_Cargo_Delivery_to_Earth's_Moon_or_Other_Heavenly_Bodies_Lacking_an_Atmosphere . This paper is long, and first considers
practical designs for impact-landing cargo “runways”, and then moves on to
describe currently-impractical designs which could accommodate living
passengers. The mathematics of impact
velocity, “G” forces, and “runway” lengths are detailed here. And the second paper is listed here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/360935871_High-G-Force_Impact-Landings_Methods_of_Cargo_Delivery_to_the_Moon_Spinning-Barrel-Style This second paper is shorter, and involves
what is probably a not-very-practical idea, which is to impart “spin” onto the
cargo, to shorten the impact-landing ellipse or custom-built “landing strip”. The “shooter” (orbiting mothership) would
accumulate “spin” (when “shooting” spinning cargo), which (“spin”) would
periodically have to be disposed of.
This is a major, serious problem!
Actually preceding these
2 papers, I also wrote https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335218915_Ping_Pong_Mass_Momentum_and_Kinetic_Energy_Exchange_as_a_Method_of_Spacecraft_Propulsion which is relevant here,
as we’ll see further below, when (after briefly making some specific “Artemis
Accords” amendments-suggestions to cover moon-impact cargo deliveries) I will
get around to covering yet more variations of the designs of more-advanced
moon-impact cargo decelerator devices.
This (above) paper is where I first started writing about a fairly
obvious idea, which is to use moon dust in the path of the incoming cargo
vehicle, to slow it down. See Figure #1
there, and associated text, under the heading of “Dust Clouds or ME-Bouncers
for Use on the Moon”. In that paper,
I described using moon-dust clouds for decelerating an incoming spacecraft,
with the dust clouds launched from long distances away, and without recycling
the dust. Here, I will describe using
dust shot out at short distances, possibly with additives in the dust, and with
the dust being recycled.
I will
try to avoid repeating myself too terribly much from previous papers, but it is
all about saving some VERY significant amounts of fuel (reaction mass) burned
up during soft landings.
High-G-forces-resistant cargo (especially if properly packaged) could
include the following, and perhaps more, in no particular order:
‘1) Bulk non-delicate
food supplies for humans, and animal feed for livestock and “lab rats” etc. as
well. And pets too, some day! Humans need their creature comforts and
“companion animals”!
‘2) Tools of some
kinds, which are high-“G”-forces resistant.
Even circuit boards can be designed to withstand high G forces.
‘3) Refined
metals. Sifting fragments of metal out
of the moon dust should require a LOT less energy and work than processing
metal ores on the moon!
‘4) Carbon, nitrogen
(as a gas in well-protected COPVs, or as solid fertilizers) and other elements as
needed for moon agriculture.
‘5) Carbon for fuel.
Carbon is rare on the moon, and would be needed (along with hydrogen that can
be sourced from moon-polar cold traps) for producing methane fuel on the moon. SpaceX, for example, likes to use methane
fuel. The “Sabatier Process” for
generating methane could thus be used on the moon, economically, given
crash-landed bulk carbon supplies.
Here (modified
from a previous paper) is a list of forms of bulk carbon,
that might be suitable for being properly packaged and sent as impact
cargo: In what form do we bring in
carbon? Carbon dioxide gas hardly makes sense,
certainly not in the long term, because the oxygen part of this gas is already
readily available on the moon, tied up in water (at the poles) and metal and
silicon oxides (everywhere). So... Coal?
Oil? Tar? Propane? Graphite? Charcoal? Structural plastics, PVC, epoxy, graphite, graphene, nanomaterials,
or other carbon-containing structural materials composing parts of the cargo vessel? Diamond (or even lonsdaleite)
would be nice, but is obviously too expensive! All of these are possibilities. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon and https://www.chemicool.com/elements/carbon.html for
interesting (and relevant) facts about carbon. For now, consider this: Pure carbon turns into
a gas at a temperature of 5,530 °C or 9,980 °F. Our impact-landing on the moon will create a
lot of frictional heating. So, if the
form of our carbon (we exclude diamond here for obvious reasons) is relatively
pure carbon, very little of it will heat enough to gasify (and be lost to us,
escaping in the non-existent “atmosphere” of the moon). Other forms of carbon (chemical compounds
containing much oxygen or hydrogen, for example) will form complex gasses
(including what we could simply call “smoke”) at much-much lower temperatures,
and be lost to us, if frictionally heated on the moon’s surface. So we want to stick to more-pure carbon for
bulk cargo, especially on the outer (abradable)
layers of the cargo vessels. Candidates
then are graphite (pure or near-pure carbon), charcoal (50% to 95% carbon, see http://www.fao.org/3/x5328e/x5328e0b.htm ,
typically around 70% to 80% carbon at the center of the distribution-shape bell
curve), coal-charcoal or coal-“coke”(see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coke_(fuel) , about
85% carbon for good-grade or steel-grade coke), petroleum coke (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum_coke , about
98.0% to 99.5% carbon for the pure grades), or anthracite coal (see https://geology.com/rocks/coal.shtml , about
over 87% carbon) . Incorporating such forms of carbon into pockets in the outer
layers (“shells”) of a cargo vessel will be an option. Enclosing carbon into metal spheres is also
another option. See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338534654_High-G-Force_Impact-Landings_Methods_of_Cargo_Delivery_to_Earth's_Moon_or_Other_Heavenly_Bodies_Lacking_an_Atmosphere for more
details.
Before
considering amending the Artemis Accords to accommodate RIFFLE ranges, let’s
first cover some associated background considerations.
OBVIOUS CONCERNS: Locating RIFFLE ranges should leave ample
room between the range(s) and human and-or robotic outposts (or eventually,
cities and towns). Targeting mishaps is
one concern. Stirred-up moon dust is
another. To make up for the separation
distances, moon railroads can be used.
See https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/nasa-details-plans-for-railway-system-on-the-moon/7605113.html and
other sources to get started on studying that.
Another
obvious concern is environmental impact (impact indeed, ha!). The moon is a wasteland, sure. But if too much of it is covered with RIFFLE
ranges, the virgin, unadulterated original “Geology” (Moonology,
Lunarology) of the moon will be lost to science. Not good!
Fewer and smaller RIFFLE ranges will be better! Moderation in all things!
LOCATION-LOCATION-LOCATION is
everything, here as in Earth real estate!
Putting the cargo-entrance at the mouth of a “box canyon” would help
catch impact debris (and fragments of cargo) on the walls and far-end-wall of
the box canyon. Most if not all Earth
box canyons are formed by erosion, I believe.
So maybe we can form a box canyon out of moon-crater walls. An entrance to the crater can be formed by
knocking an entrance gap in the crater walls, which can be done with impacting
cargo, blasting and-or moon-dirt-moving equipment, or even drilling a large
reinforced entrance HOLE in the crater wall!
For this latter idea to work, precise and reliable impact-cargo
targeting would be needed, to avoid damaging the tunnel entrance hole-walls. Protecting said “lip” of the tunnel entrance
via the use of “explosive armor” is an option.
See Figure #5 (and associated text) of https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338534654_High-G-Force_Impact-Landings_Methods_of_Cargo_Delivery_to_Earth's_Moon_or_Other_Heavenly_Bodies_Lacking_an_Atmosphere for more
details about that. “Explosive armor”
used here may damage or destroy the occasional poorly-guided cargo vessel, but
will protect our presumably quite expensive infrastructure!
I think
that the above ideas deserve no drawings.
If I am wrong, I can provide drawings.
Email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net and I
can provide drawings and-or other clarification.
LUNAR SEISMOLOGY: Seismological listening posts on the moon are
rare, and will likely remain so for some time to come. For triangulation methods to work best (with very
few listening posts compared to on Earth), and for using cargo impacts for
generating sound waves and listening to them, the precise timing and locations
of cargo impacts would probably be VERY nice data to have! So this ties into new methods of precise
time-keeping on the moon, and moon time zones.
See https://www.usatoday.com/story/graphics/2024/04/23/why-moon-time-zone-is-needed/73288518007/ as a
randomly grabbed source for that. Also,
precise GPS-style impact-location reporting on the moon would be nice. See https://tempo.gsfc.nasa.gov/news/using_GPS_signals_at_the_moon and
other sources for details about that.
GPS based (or partially based) on moon-orbiting satellites might also
fit in here.
Finally
for this topic, having the cargo impact vessels carrying some electronics
capable of reporting precise time and location of impact, up to the last
nano-second before impact (and perhaps likely-often the destruction of said
electronics), the history of underground nuclear testing is perhaps relevant. Being-destroyed diode arrays were used, I
have been told. These expendable diode
arrays or other embedded systems were used to record data up until their
destruction in an underground nuclear detonation, I believe. I can find no details about that. However, such details may possibly be
relevant and useful here. Or maybe electronics
can simply be hardened to withstand impact.
I would bet that the latter case is true and best.
Having
the precise location (if not the time) of impact will also be useful for
locating and gathering cargo fragments and debris. TV cameras mounted on tall poles surrounding
the RIFFLE range might be a good, helpful idea as well. Orbiting cameras might be too distant to help
much… Or maybe they COULD help here as
well! TDB…
Gravitational wave observatories on the moon might
best be located far away from RIFFLE ranges, to avoid interference. See https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20210025418/downloads/White%20Paper%20Topical%20Lunar%20Gravitational.pdf and
other easily-found sources for background reading for this.
For
precisely targeting the impacting cargo vessels, laser-reflecting passive moon
target-tags would likely be very useful.
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retroreflector and
other easily-found sources.
Now that associated
locational and technically associated matters have been described, let’s move
on to the Artemis Accords, and how they (accords) might best be amended to
cover matters associated with “RIFFLE ranges”.
See Artemis Accords provisions at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemis_Accords , and
note that some provisions that are highly relevant to RIFFLE ranges include
“transparency”, “interoperability”, and ”open sharing of scientific data”. Accordingly…
ALL IMPACT CARGO DATA SHOULD BE SHARED, as much
as is possible, between Artemis Accord entities and others as well (Russia and
China come to mind). This includes
precise times and locations of cargo impacts, of course.
“SABBATH TIMES” for no
cargo impact landings should set aside and coordinated as is needed. A gravitational-waves event is
anticipated? Then set aside a “silent
time” for this event, so that said waves-events can be “listened to”,
noise-free, as best as is possible. Periodic
“Sabbaths” or “silent reflection times” might also best be set aside to listen
for “moonquakes” and asteroid-on-moon impacts, to avoid cargo-impact
noise-pollution (for lunar seismology of course, as well as for future moon-based
gravitational-wave astronomy). Such
Sabbath times may be longer or shorter, but should SURELY be coordinated!
COMMON-SENSE PROVISIONS include
limiting areas for RIFFLE ranges (to minimize “environment impacts” on the
moon), sharing them between common owners, and costs-and-resources sharing
(reimbursements between shared owners and users should clearly be
included). Shooting-times versus
cargo-recovery times should be SHARPLY delineated! This latter provision is beyond obvious!
I can’t
think of anything else, can you? Email
me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net if you
have anything to add, please… Or “ping”
NASA and-or “Artemis Accords” people about such matters, as I plan to do soon…
Search
above (in this document) for search-string “form a box
canyon out of moon-crater walls”. Take
that idea and add to it. The length of
the within-the-crater slowing-the-impacting-cargo-down-path-length could be covered
(with a “roof”), forming an artificial (but very straight) “impact cave”. The roof could be a half-pipe, with the open
side pointed down. It would be made of “mooncrete”, sintered regolith, or other material, and
probably be metal-reinforced. It would
need to be inspected, maintained, and repaired now and then. It might best be suspended on pillars. The pillars might be cylindrical… Or “V” shaped to resist (deflect) impacts,
with the sharp (bottom of the “V”) edge facing the incoming cargo and
debris. Or the half-pipes (“cave” roof)
could be suspended, at least partially, on a suspension bridge’s cables. As usual, if you need drawings for clarity,
email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net .
Now referring to related
ideas as I have described in previous papers, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335218915_Ping_Pong_Mass_Momentum_and_Kinetic_Energy_Exchange_as_a_Method_of_Spacecraft_Propulsion is at least slightly
relevant. Back-tracking slightly, what I
mean to say is that within our moon-surface “decelerating device”, be that a
“box canyon” or a fake “box canyon” created out of a crater, with our roof covering
the “line of fire” (of incoming cargo), we could surround the “line of fire”
with mass-launchers launching moon dust to shoot upwards, to bounce off of the
“roof” here, with the launches (of dust) being fairly precisely timed, such
that the dust is concentrated right beneath the roof, so as to slow down the
incoming cargo. In the above document,
we take a look at how, perhaps, moon dust could be modified to be less abrasive
(and softer?) for use as a decelerator.
Search (in the above-reference document) for the below search-string…
“Perhaps we can affordably
manufacture (on the Moon) materials that will deform on impact with the
being-slowed-down spacecraft’s “heat shield”?”
Some of the ideas listed
there will not be repeated here…
Now https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338534654_High-G-Force_Impact-Landings_Methods_of_Cargo_Delivery_to_Earth's_Moon_or_Other_Heavenly_Bodies_Lacking_an_Atmosphere (of all 3 of my previous
related papers) is clearly the most relevant here. Speculations there include those concerning
building moon-dust-filled trenches as “linear decelerators”, and such things
could be built on a crater floor, as I’m now describing here. The trenches could be made of “mooncrete” as shown there in Figure #6. I don’t think that they’d be worth their trouble
and expense (on a crater floor) in the context that I’m describing now, where I
propose a roof instead. One could just
pile up a long heap of moon-dirt and dust underneath the linear “line of fire”
and be done with it, if that long heap is even needed at all. The above paper describes both a “linear
decelerator” and a “curved or circular decelerator”, both of which involve
elements that could be used here. See
Figure #6 for a linear decelerator trough, and Figure #9 for a curved trough,
in the above-referenced document. And of
course, read the surrounding text there, please!
Just
right now, my primary idea being discussed is to use a “roof” (perhaps a
half-pipe with the open side down), and shoot dirt (dust) upwards at it at the
right time. Alternately (or in conjunction
with this), dust and dirt could be dispensed at the right time, from dust
hoppers or bins, through holes in the roof.
The above document discusses this kind of idea starting with
search-string “How
about a mostly-self-contained moon-dust-recycling fountain?” Again, the incoming cargo is slowed down by a
“fountain” and-or “shower” of moon dust in the “line of fire”. As usual, if you need drawing or
clarifications, email me at RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net please…
I personally think
that an upwards-shooting fountain of dust is the best solution for this case
right here. It can be precisely
timed. The downwards-fed shower (perhaps
fed by Archimedes Screws at the bottom of a trough or bin, through holes in the
roof) can NOT be shot out in a tightly-timed burst, with any kind of simple and
reliable design, as far as I can puzzle it through. So shoot it up; don’t trickle it down!
This
same above document discusses the forms that an upwards-shooting dust-shooter
might take. Search for search-string “cruder methods of
throwing up the moon dust” and then read on down from there. Having stewed on it, I think that the
“centrifugal pump” (AKA “silo silage filler”) method is vastly inferior for
this application, for moon abrasive dust causing wear-and-tear, and for lack of
quick and concentrated fire-up (initialization, or quick, tightly-timed
shooting). The gas-powered “shooter”
piston sounds like a MUCH better choice here!
AKA gas (pneumatic) shooter-pistons (“air guns”), in the referred-to
document. Please note the
following: If being-shot moon dust is
too abrasive, then the abrasive dust could be packaged (within the loaded shooter
pistons) in many small paper, plastic, canvas, or other bags, or one large bag,
with less-abrasive peripheral “filler” (at the edges of the shooter piston
walls) lubricative power such as talcum, for example. This would reduce wear-and-tear on the piston-walls
(barrel walls) of the “shooters”, of course.
That is, we should prevent the nasty moon-dust from contacting the
“shooter” walls. Alternative lubricating
powders include Molybdenum disulfide (MoS2), Graphite, Boron nitride, Tungsten
disulfide, Mica, and Zinc oxide.
Fancy lubricating
powders are likely (near guaranteed) to be too expensive. Instead, your lubricating powder might be
moon dust specially processed to be less abrasive. Design a dirt-smasher that emulates erosion
on Earth. This might be like a concrete mixer,
hammer-mill, crusher-rollers, or a blender.
Feedstock is moon dust to possibly include sand and gravel-type
particles, possibly plus water or other liquids. Volatiles on the moon being utterly precious,
they (volatiles) should all, or perhaps just mostly, be removed for recycling
from the being-shot mix (to include the lubricants spaced between the
center-load and the shooter walls), before being shot out. The processed dust-dirt-etc., plus additives
most likely, can also be recycled AFTER being used (shot out). We’ll get to that in a bit, further below.
I envision at
least three (3) different kinds of specially prepared moon dust here, all
possibly being prepared with many or few processing steps, and with many or few
additives.
‘1) The core or middle
of the “load” to be shot up at the roof.
Such load-core could be enclosed in a bag or bags, as previously noted,
to keep abrasives away from shooter-walls.
If the load-core is somehow compressed together into as solid-enough
plug-shape, such that it retains its shape sufficiently to NOT require a bag or
bags, then of course, we can dispense with bags. The load-core will almost definitely need
additives, possibly including volatile ingredients, to create this solid (or
solid-ish) un-bagged plug-shape.
The load-core may
possibly be specially formulated to cling to the “linear decelerator” roof, to
linger there longer to do its job better.
Particles may (via additives) be “encouraged” to stick together in clumps
or strings, for the same reasons. So,
using my BEST, most scientific chemistry vocabulary, said specially formulated
and processed moon dust may be clumpy, sticky, stringy, gooey, greasy, and-or
slimy! (Gopher guts are not a likely
ingredient, but, not being a chemist, I really don’t know what the optimal
additives should be).
‘2) We will need a lubricant between the
load-core and the shooter walls, not only to protect the walls from abrasion,
but also possibly (depending on the “sticky, stringy, gooey, greasy, and-or
slimy, etc.” nature of the load-core) to alleviate the need for cleaning the
shooter after the shot is dispensed.
‘3) We will need to
pile up dirt (maybe, or maybe not, needing much processing and additives)
against the far-side crater wall to slow down the impact of any cargo (or cargo
debris and the debris of the loads cores plus lubricants) that emerges from our
“linear decelerator” there. This
dirt-pile might possibly (with additives) take the consistency of mud, clay, or
tar. Using specially manufactured
“pillows”, mattresses, or air bags is possible, but absurd in my mind at least!
So now we will
have (in between shooting times of course) machines, remote-controlled
machines, robots, and humans (in supervisory mode mostly) working on our
crater-floor much-upgraded version of a RIFFLE range, gathering cargo and cargo
debris, and gathering expended greasy-grimy (but not gopher-guts-containing) “moon
slime” dust-based “decelerant”, primarily from the
shot-out load-cores. They are highly
likely to contain volatiles, which will escape over time. So we’ll want to gather the biggest chunks
and thickest layers of this expended “stuff”, for sure, for recycling of
course. For preserving freshness of the
volatiles in this “stuff”, we’ll want to gather the freshest, first, as
well! For this reason, I propose that
different cycles of this “stuff” be colored with different colors of dye. Now human and machine
vision can go after the freshest “stuff” first. This is what I do to keep track of how old my
hummingbird-feeding liquids are, when I feed the birds, so this method has been
scientifically validated!
Please note that
with the here-envisioned scheme, we can recycle the moon dust repeatedly. Each time it is banged into and sloshed around,
sharp edges on micro-grains will be ground down (eroded). Less abrasiveness is good for our incoming
cargo vessels! What kind of additives
might we want to add? Lubricant powders
as listed above? To
reduce abrasion? Plastics, silicone, or other synthetic compounds? As a “flocculant” causes
particles suspended in water to clump together, we should probably wish to
cause our moon-dust particles to cling together, to increase the dust-inertia
(or resistance) that the incoming cargo vessels will encounter. Also as previously remarked, having the
“stuff” cling to the roof may be a good idea as well. We might want to call our mix “moon
slime”! And we will probably want to
differently formulate our “moon slime” for that which is cast upwards into the
“line of fire” of the incoming vessel, versus what formulation of (mud, clay,
or tar-like) “goop” might be piled up against the far-distant crater wall,
where some cargo (or fragments thereof) escape our decelerator, and impact said
far crater wall. Moon slime dripping
from our roof is good! This consistency
and texture may differ from stiff tar-like blow-absorbing “goop” piled against
the far crater wall. This “goop” may
even contain salts, for moderating temperatures of said “goop”, to temperature-stabilize
stiffness of the goop.
I’m out of my “comfort zone”
concerning the chemistry (and mechanics) here.
Dear Reader, if you can write a paper concerning this, please let me
know! I can co-author with you if you
want, but I’m not at all sure about what I can add… I’m no chemist!
Moon-slime
(on my SHOULDER, can make me cry!) and moon-goop, recycled, will build up
particles and micro-particles of cargo-fragments (carbon and metals, for
examples). Crater-floor processing
machines, while recycling said slime and goop, could periodically pull out said
carbon and metals for use on the moon.
If moon agriculture demands more smooth, polished particles of moon soil
(as opposed to raw, sharp-edged, virgin moon dust), then such polished
particles can perhaps be pulled out as well.
Speaking
of recycling… As remarked upon in a
previous paper, the “air” (or other gas) in the “air guns” should be recycled
as well. The barrels of these guns will
be equipped with sliding “push plates” to push out the central load-cores plus
peripheral lubricants. The sliding “push
plates” will be held captive at the barrel-tip, so that most of the gas can be
pumped back out (of the barrel) for later re-use. Gun powder is an alternative to gas, but I
consider it too harsh and aggressive. Gunsmoke would presumably be too hard to recycle as
well. I could be wrong!
Well,
I don’t have anything (that’s not obvious) left to say. So it’s time to quit! I, for one, am sure hoping that nations and
corporations can cooperate in space and on the moon, to include coordinated
and-or shared uses of RIFFLE ranges, and refined RIFFLE ranges. And now I quit!
Back to main web site at www.rocketslinger.com … Send
comments or corrections to RocketSlinger@SBCGlobal.net please…
References
Stauffer,
Titus. (2020). High-“G”-Force Impact-Landings
Methods of Cargo Delivery to Earth’s Moon (or Other Heavenly Bodies Lacking an Atmosphere)
Stauffer,
Titus. (2020). High-"G"-Force
Impact-Landings Methods of Cargo Delivery to the Moon, Spinning-Barrel-Style
Stauffer,
Titus. (2019). “Ping
Pong" Mass (Momentum and Kinetic Energy) Exchange as a Method of
Spacecraft Propulsion