NASA’s post-Apollo Integrated Program Plan (IPP) was conceived with the idea that a durable space-based infrastructure would be of great benefit. Paul Gilster, on the Atomic Rockets Posterous Blog points out quite rightly that if we ever build one, it will have to be because we’ve found a compelling reason to do so, one wrapped up in economics and perhaps … the need for resources. It was against the backdrop of NASA’s Integrated Program Plan that Convair proposed the Helios and Super Nexus boosters (subjects of my previous posts in this series). Other proposals which followed suit were Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas Reusable Nuclear Shuttle, Borowski and Dudzinski’s LANTR/LUNOX proposal. The RNS was intended for roundtrip crew and cargo flights between space stations in LEO and lunar orbit. In January 1970, NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center presented contractors with an ambitious RNS traffic model calling for 157 Earth-moon flights between 1980 and 1990 by a fleet of 15 RNS vehicles, each toting 50 tons of cargo. As Gilster details (on Atomic Rockets Posterous): ”Andrews (Andrews Space, Seattle) and colleagues Gordon Woodcock (Space America Inc.) and Brian Bloudek have been putting together a scenario for near-term commercialization of space, one that takes a hard-headed look at the economic drivers that humans need to make their presence beyond Earth sustainable. “Andrews made the case at this year’s International Astronautical Congress in Prague that mining scarce resources on the moon and Near Earth Objects could be the key to commercial development that will become critical as we face future shortages. “What kind of resources are we talking about? Andrews enumerates quite a few, a list on which items like rhenium — used in fuel-efficient aircraft engines — stand out. The price of rhenium is now over $11,000 a kilogram, twelve times what it was just four years ago. Reserves of indium, which is used in solar cells and LCDs, are forecast to run out within ten years, and so is the hafnium we use in computer chips and nuclear control rods. Such shortages and accompanying price increases can be the driver for space commercialization. Andrews proposes moving the mining and smelting of key non-renewable resources to the Moon, providing access to high grade ores. What Space Offers “Two-thirds of known meteorites are iron/nickel in composition, containing mostly iron but about 5-30 percent nickel and a few tenths of one percent cobalt, along with high concentrations (at least by standards on Earth) of strategic metals, from the platinum group to gold, gallium, germanium, iridium and others. Says Andrews: “Interestingly enough the lower the Fe-Ni metal content in the meteorite, the more enriched the Fe-Ni metal is in these rare and precious metals and elements. These elements readily dissolve into the metal that exists, and the less metal that exists, the less diluted they are. Many asteroids are richer in most of these precious metals than the richest Earth ores which we mine. Further, these metals all occur in one ore when it comes to asteroids, not in separate ores. “We don’t know how abundant rare Earth elements that can be mined actually are on the Moon, but Andrews wonders whether there are parallels between craters on the Earth and the Moon. The impact crater at Sudbury, Ontario is rich in iron, nickel, cobalt, copper and platinum group metals. Are these metals debris from an ancient impactor, or did they well up from within our planet after the impact? A study of impact craters on the Moon may give us some answers, for all asteroid impacts on the Moon should have left their debris on the surface, since the Moon lacks plate tectonics. What we need to learn is whether they are found there in concentrations we can mine. What We Need to Know “Lunar prospecting, then, is a first step in determining the existence of asteroidal metal containing nickel, cobalt and platinum-group metals on the surface. We have much to learn, including not just the quality and location of ores, but also the location of volatiles like water. We also need to learn what happens when asteroidal nickel/iron is made into metal products, and to what extent we will have to rely on engineered alloys to get the desired result. At present, of course, we cannot test the processes we might use on the lunar surface, requiring a preliminary manned base there to work through these contingencies. “Andrews works out a simple cost model exploring mining, processing and shipping operations, comparing these to existing costs. With platinum, for example, selling at close to $40,000 per kilogram, a price that is itself escalating, the case for lunar mining is clearer than that for more plentiful products like cobalt. Even so, working in the lunar environment poses huge challenges: “A very important lesson learned is that most resource production equipment must be made on the Moon. Shipping it is unaffordable. For example, we assumed 90% of the mining and hauling equipment was made on the Moon. Even though this equipment is very productive (our estimates were that a miner or hauler could process on the order of 100,000 times its own mass in a year) so much of it is needed that indications are about 90% must be made on the Moon. That probably means electronics, electric motors, gears and bearings made on Earth and everything else on the Moon.”

Excellent modeling and great explanations. I really like the design of the lander. Is it designed to be reusable too? Great explanation on the economics of space industry. I wonder if it might not be cheaper to mine near earth asteroids and get at rare earth minerals directly. Longer round trips, though.

Awesome my friend...did you see the X-37-B Secret Landing landing ? ;-)

Nice indeed! Well done render. Interesting that there was an article (space.com I believe) as well that one of the NASA managers is suggesting reuse of any salvageable components of the ISS when they plan to de-orbit the structure in 2020ish to build out launch systems from Earth orbit. I'm sure we will find this idea getting dumped in a drawer to gather dust and the opportunity wasted like America’s Lost Space Program ideas.

Hi geirla, Thanks for the compliments -- and to answer your question, yes indeed the Lander is reusable -- I probably should have included some info on the multi-mission role intended for the Lander in the RNS program. The LSM serves as a cargo tug, a cargo-landing platform, and passenger transport. Cargo payloads would be launched to LEO via a shuttle, a shuttle-derived HHLV, or via a Saturn 1b. Once in LEO the RNS itself, flying autonomously, or via remote-piloting, could match orbits and dock and retrieve the cargo-pallet -- in other scenarios the LSM would be used in cargo-tug mode for this purpose -- the idea behind the system is resource-flexibility. Passengers (crews shuttling to and from the Lunar installations) would board the LSM docked at the station which would then transfer and dock to the RNS for the 36 hour trip to Lunar orbit -- the RNS itself would never dock at the station, but rather would remain in parking orbit -- at a safe distance. I would envision the RNS used as a phase one vehicle for initial start-up of Lunar industrialization -- we need to test out all these contingencies (low –g/vacuum mining, refining, and smelting, assembly and construction techniques, not to mention logistical support of these)on the moon first if we are to make any serious effort at establishing a human presence elsewhere in the solar system -- not to mention the fact that the moon is a perfect place to develop and test high-performance nuclear propulsion systems: no atmosphere. In my next post I will go into how Borowski's four engine LANTR should be phased in as a trans-lunar shuttle and detail how a Lunar oxygen mining operation dovetails very nicely with Dana Andrews proposal.

MagikUnicorn, Very cool link my friend, thanks!

Nice, excellent modeling and renders.

splendid model and scene!

I love the designs and the modeling, top-notch work! I do wonder where we'd be by now if we'd have been able to keep the Apollo-scaled investment in the space program going. There's been some fascinating conceptual work on methods for reaching orbit that don't require the vehicle carrying its fuel supply, so maybe these ships might someday fly after all? Excellent and very impressively detailed work!

Fantastic modeling! Great presentation. Corrie

Impressive models and great presentation!

Very interesting presentation!

Your modeling and texturing is consistently detailed, credible and impressive. Really fine work!

Very impressive image and credible looking spaceship design. How big is that Lander, it looks huge? As with all your work excellent presentation! All the best and very Merry Christmas to you and yours. Cheers, David

Hi David, I was trying to come close to the original RNS Cargo-Tug & mated Lunar Descent Stage -- however for these I had no blue-print references, only the cheesy 1970's illustrations. The lander is approx 26 ft. X 20 ft. X 18 ft. Not including gear-down height, which adds another 6 ft. I probably should have added a scale notation on this, the center lander images are shown at a larger scale than the NTR Booster.

I've just looked at what I've missed while I've been away theses last few weeks. Your modelling continues to be of exeptional quality William. Goodnes only knows why hollywood have not picked you up.