Tuesday, April 11, 2017

Reusable Heavy Cargo and Crew Landing Vehicles for the Moon and Mars

Notional ETLV-4 rendezvous with propellant producing water depot @ EML1 with orbiting solar power plant (where propellant depots dock when converting water into LOX/LH2) in the background.
by Marcel F. Williams

In 2018, NASA will launch the first unmanned test flight of its wide body super heavy lift vehicle, the Space Launch System (SLS). That first launch will also test the first uncrewed version of the Orion spacecraft. Coincidentally, 2018 will also be the same year that private companies, thanks to  the  financial help of NASA, will return American astronauts into orbit aboard private spacecraft. Crewed Orion/SLS missions are not scheduled to occur until at least the year 2021.

Congress has directed NASA to reveal the design of a  microgravity Deep Space Habitat (DSH)  by 2018. Unfortunately, the American space agency continues to ignore the use of a DSH as a gateway for crewed missions to the lunar surface while simply ignoring the significant  physiological problems associated with potential multiyear interplanetary missions within a microgravity environment.

Orion MPCV docked @ SLS propellant tank derived Deep Space Habitat (Credit NASA)

 The primary purposes for a  Deep Space Habitat (DSH) should be to:

1. Serve as a gateway to the lunar surface. Astronauts traveling from the Earth or from the lunar surface could dock their spacecraft at an EML1 habitat, taking temporary advantage of the more spacious accommodations before transferring to vehicle fueled destined for the lunar surface.  

2. Serve as a storm shelter during the occurrence of major solar events. This will probably require at least 30 cm of water shielding for the areas within the habitat that the astronauts will be occupying. Major solar events can last for several minutes to several hours.

3. Serve as a maintenance and repair station for reusable lunar shuttles (ETLV) and orbital transfer vehicles. Flex Craft docked at the DSH could also be utilized  for extravehicular repairs to  nearby water/propellant depots and associated solar arrays at EML1.

4. Test the effectiveness of various levels of water shielding required to mitigate cosmic radiation and potentially brain damaging heavy nuclei. In theory, 20 cm of water would be enough shielding to to stop the penetration of the heavy nuclei component of cosmic rays while 30 cm of water would reduce overall  annual cosmic radiation exposure to less than 25 Rem per year during solar minimum conditions. Solar storm events would also be significantly mitigating with 30 cm of water protection. Minimizing the mass of radiation shielding required for safe interplanetary travel would be essential for reducing the amount of propellant required for such missions.

5. Test the integrity and reliability of the pressurized habitat structures that might also be used for habitats on the surface of the Moon and Mars and for rotating  artificial gravity habitats for space stations placed in cis-lunar orbits, Mars orbit, and for crewed interplanetary journeys. 

Of course, a  DSH would be a-- destination to nowhere-- without developing vehicles capable of transporting humans and heavy cargo to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. And, in my opinion, most Americans and members of Congress will continue to believe that  America's glory years in space are in the past until American astronauts are once again  walking on the surfaces of other worlds-- this time to stay.

NASA's beyond LEO ambitions are severely  hampered by the fact that it continues to operate a relatively expensive (~$3 billion/yr) LEO program (ISS) without a significant increase in the NASA budget for its beyond LEO program. While it has been presumed that much more funding will be provided for NASA's beyond LEO missions once the ISS program comes to an end, there are still efforts to extend the ISS program beyond 2024, again, without increasing the NASA budget in order to pay for its continuation.

Bigelow Aerospace plans to deploy its first private commercial space habitats to LEO  in 2020 aboard the ULA's Atlas V rocket. If this private space company is successful then there's really no reason for NASA to continue the ISS program beyond 2020 since private companies will be able to do  research and development at LEO.   This, of course, would allow NASA to use ISS related funds to develop the cargo and crew landing vehicles, habitats, and related infrastructure for crewed missions to the Moon and Mars.

 Allowing foreign astronauts to participate in NASA's beyond LEO program could provide additional funding for NASA. By 2018, Russia plans to charge NASA,  $81 million per astronaut for transport  to an from the ISS. NASA could charge  foreign space agencies $150 million for each astronaut participating in one of its  beyond LEO missions. The Orion MPCV is capable of accommodating as many as six astronauts. If two of those astronauts were from foreign space agencies paying NASA to join the mission then  NASA could save $300 million per crewed SLS launch.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has estimated that the cost of developing a crewed two stage lunar lander  at approximately $12 billion. Former NASA director,  Charlie Bolden,  estimated the cost of developing a lunar landing vehicle at approximately $8 to $10 billion.

Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the surface of the Moon just seven years after NASA invited  eleven private firms  to submit proposals for the Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) in July of 1962. So if we assume that it will take seven years to develop an extraterrestrial landing vehicle or vehicles ( using a COTS type of funding for more than one vehicle), then annual development cost over the course of seven years might range from approximately $1.1 billion  to $1.7 billion. We can also assume that an additional  $1.1 billion a year to $1.7 billion a year over the course of an additional seven years would then be needed to fund the development of a future Mars landing vehicle.  Such annual funding for  extraterrestrial landing vehicles would still leave ample funds for financing the development of lunar and martian habitats and the associated infrastructure.

Boeing Aerospace 2.4 meter Super Light Weight cryotank (Credit Boeing Aerospace)
However, the development time, cost, and recurring cost  for an extraterrestrial landing vehicle (ETLV) could be substantially reduced if: 

1.  A single stage vehicle, or vehicles,  were developed instead of a-- two stage vehicle

2. An ETLV was developed that was largely derived from technology that either already exist or is currently in development

3. An ETLV was developed that utilized LOX/LH2 common bulkhead propellant tanks instead of two different tanks for liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen

4. An ETLV was developed that were capable of transporting cargo and crews to the surfaces of both the Moon and Mars and back to the orbits of the Moon and Mars

5.  An ETLV was  developed that had pressurized habitat and airlock areas derived from re-purposed ETLV propellant tanks. 

6. An ETLV was  developed that was  capable of being reused for at least for ten round trips to and from their destinations (the surfaces of the Moon or Mars)

7.  An ETLV was  developed that was capable of also being utilized for unmanned robotic and cargo missions

8.  An ETLV was  developed that was capable of also being utilized as a crewed orbital transfer vehicles between LEO, Low Lunar Orbit, and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points

Front view of notional singe stage reusable ETLV-4 derived from 2.4 meter in diameter cryotanks
Side view of notional singe stage reusable ETLV-4 derived from 2.4 meter in diameter cryotanks


Up to 40 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant in four 2.4 meter in diameter propellant tanks 

Four RL-10 derived CECE engines 

2.4 meter in diameter propellant tank derived central crew habitat area with lower heavy ion shielded storm shelter   

Twin 2.4 meter in diameter propellant tank derived airlocks 

Inert mass without heavy ion water shielded area: ~12 tonnes 

Inert mass with heavy ion water shielded area (22 cm of water): ~17 tonnes 

Gross mass: 57 tonnes 

specific impulse: 445 seconds

Due to reduced vehicle mass, reductions in vehicle components, and reduced vehicle complexity, Lockheed-Martin  concluded that the development  cost and recurring cost for a lunar lander could be substantially reduced if a reusable single stage vehicle were developed instead of a two staged spacecraft.   NASA reached a similar conclusion back in the late 1980s when JPL proposed its own single stage LOX/LH2 lunar landing vehicle.  

Boeing developed and tested a 2.4 meter cyrotank as a prelude to its development of a 5.5 meter in diameter, Super Light Weight Tank, that might possibly be used for the 5.5 meter LOX tank for the SLS upper stage (EUS). The 2.4 meter tank was successfully filled with liquid hydrogen chilled at  –423 °F  and cycled through-- twenty-- pressurization and  vent cycles.  If Boeing's 2.4 meter tank were utilized in a common bulkhead configuration for storing LOX/LH2 propellant in an Altair-like vehicle then such tanks could be utilized for a reusable single staged spacecraft. 

Four RL-10 derived CECE (Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine) engines, currently in development by Aerojet Rocketdyne,  could enhance vehicle safety with engine out capability and would be capable of up to 50 restarts. This should enable the vehicle to be used for at least 10 round trips from the surfaces of the Moon or Mars and to various orbital regions near each celestial body.  The CECE engines are also supposed to be designed to have a throttle capability ranging from 104% of thrust down to just 5.6%, which should allow an extraterrestrial landing vehicle to land on worlds as large as the Moon and  Mars or as small as the moons of Mars. However, thrusters near the bottom of an ETLV could also be used to land on the surfaces of the small low gravity martian moons.

Utilizing Integrated Vehicle Fluid (IVF) technology currently being developed by the ULA, helium and hydrazine would no longer be required for an extraterrestrial spacecraft with some ullage gases even being utilized for  attitude control. With the addition of  NASA emerging cryocooler technology, solar powered cryocoolers could reliquify some ullage gases, eliminating the  boil-off of hydrogen and oxygen.

Pressurized crew areas and airlocks derived from re-purposed ETLV propellant tanks, could further reduce development and recurring cost.  The twin cryotank derived airlocks allows more room within the cabin while allowing astronauts to leave the vehicle without having to decompress and then re-pressurize the crew cabin.  With the airlocks positioned just a few meters above the landing pods, pressure suited astronauts could depart the vehicle just few meters above a planetary surface, reducing the difficulty and risks associated with exiting and entering the spacecraft.   The low position of the airlocks should also make it convenient for mobile robotic vehicles to be deployed to the surface of a the Moon or Mars or the moons of Mars for robotic exploration and potential sample  returns to orbit.

NASA's ADEPT deceleration shield concept (Credit NASA)
Developing a  landing vehicle that could be used for crewed missions to both the lunar and martian surfaces would, of course, substantially reduce development cost.  A spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts from surface of Mars to Low Mars Orbit (~4.4 m/s delta-v)  would also be easily capable of transporting astronauts from the surface of the Moon to Low Lunar Orbit or to any of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points (less than 2.6 m/s delta-v).

Landing such an extraterrestrial landing vehicle on the surface of Mars, however, would require the development of a deceleration shield. NASA is currently doing research on two types of deceleration shields: HIAD and ADEPT. The rigid ADEPT deceleration shield could allow spacecraft to deploy up to  40 tonnes of payload  practically anywhere on the surface of Mars. After the ADEPT deceleration shield was discarded, a delta-v of less than 0.6 meters per second would only be required to land the vehicle on the martian surface

Notional ADEPT deployment of 40 tonnes of cargo to the martian surface (Credit NASA)

An extraterrestrial landing vehicle capable of transporting astronauts from the surface of Mars to low Mars orbit would also be capable of transporting astronauts from LEO to Low Lunar Orbit or to any of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. Utilizing the ETLV in such a manner, however,  could make the Orion MPCV obsolete,  allowing astronauts to be transported into orbit by Commercial Crew vehicles and then transferred to a propellant depot fueled  ETLV  for easy access to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points and Low Lunar Orbit and to the lunar surface.
Notional CLV-7B cargo lander derived from 2.4 meter diameter cryotanks

A cargo lander (CLV) derived from the crew version of the ETLV could easily be derived using all seven 2.4 meter in diameter pressurized tanks to carry propellant. With a  diameter of at least 7.2 meters, such a cargo transport could deploy large and heavy structures as large as 8.6 meters in diameter to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars. Pressurized habitats derived from an SLS propellant tank technology with diameters up to 8.4 meters  could easily be deployed to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars by such an ETLV derived CLV. 
ATLETE robots could be used  for offloading heavy cargo to the surfaces of the Moon and Mars aboard a notional CLV-7B (Credit: NASA)


Up to 35 tonnes of LOX/LH2 propellant in seven 2.4 meter in diameter propellant tanks 

Four RL-10 derived CECE engines 

Specific impulse: 445 second

Inert mass without payload: ~8 tonnes 

Gross mass without payload: ~43 tonnes 

Capable of accommodating cargo with diameters as large as 8.6 meters 

Notional SLS propellant tank derived  regolith shielded habitat for the Moon and Mars with an 8.4 meter in diameter pressurized habitat area that could be deployed to the lunar or martian surface using the CLV-7B and ATHLETE technologies. 

Once the cargo lander is  on the surface of the Moon and after its payload is deployed,  water bags could be securely attached to the top of the  CLV-7B. This could allow the CLV to be reused as a water transport tanker capable of transporting  at least 35 tonnes of water from the surface of the Moon to EML1. Using its CECE engines for ten round trips could enable the CLV to  deliver more than 300 tonnes of water to   propellant producing water depots located at EML1.

With the capability of landing crews and payloads on the Moon and Mars, the ETLV-4 crew lander and the CLV-7B cargo lander should also be capable of  someday landing crews and cargo on the surfaces of the planet Mercury and on Jupiter's moon, Callisto, two other viable worlds for potential commercialization and human settlement. Within Jupiter space, automated unmanned ETLV-4 spacecraft operated from an outpost on Callisto could transport mobile robotic vehicles to the Jovian moons within Jupiter's deadly radiation belt (Ganymede, Europa, and Io) for continuous robotic exploration and sample returns from these interesting but heavily radiation inundated  worlds.

Links and References

Composite Cryotank Technologies; Demonstration

CECE (Common Extensible Cryogenic Engine)

An Integrated Vehicle Propulsion and Power System for Long Duration Cryogenic Spaceflight (ULA)

 The SLS and the Case for a Reusable Lunar Lander

Finally, some details about how NASA actually plans to get to Mars


Private Space Habitat to Launch in 2020 Under Commercial Spaceflight Deal

Russia is squeezing NASA for more than $3.3 billion — and there's little anyone can do about it

Apollo Lunar Module

Substantially Enhancing the Capability of the SLS Architecture by Utilizing EUS Derived Propellant Depots and Reusable Orbital Transfer Vehicles

ADEPT Technology for Crewed and Uncrewed Missions to the Planets


Landing on Mars with ADEPT Technology


Inflatable Biospheres for the New Frontier 


Living and Reproducing on Low Gravity Worlds

Friday, February 3, 2017

Leasing the Moon

The near side of the Moon
by Marcel F. Williams

At the bottom of the world lies an icy continent larger than Europe-- but with only 5000-- temporary-- residents. While the continent of Antarctica can be explored, this polar condominium cannot  colonized or commercially exploited in order. It is argued that this is the only way to protect Antarctica's pristine environment.

Of course, the same environmental philosophy could also be argued for Earth's other continents: North America, South America, Africa, Australia, and Eurasia.

 But some have advocated that the Moon should also be under the same environmental protection as Antarctica. This, of course,  would prevent the colonization of the Moon and the commercial exploitation of lunar resources.

On the Earth's surface, only about 3% of the land area is urbanized with cities, towns, and suburban areas.  But the human utilization of the Earth's surface grows to 43% if we include the amount of land used for agriculture.

I happen to be  a strong advocate for preserving the Earth's environment and the environment and natural beauty of the other major worlds in our solar system. Trying to convert Mars into an Earth-like world would be an abomination, in my opinion.  But I don't believe that people should object to a reasonable level of commercial exploitation and colonization of other worlds -- if it proves to be possible to do so under a lower gravity environments.

And this should also apply to Antarctica, in my opinion.

The 1% Rule

What if the nations of the world passed an international law that allowed up to 1%  of the terrestrial environment in Antarctica to be commercially exploited and even colonized (up to 140,000 square kilometers of territory) by the other nations of the world while also preventing at least  99% of the rest of the continent from being settled or commercially exploited? That would mean that up to 140,000 square kilometers of land could be colonized or commercially exploited on the Antarctican continent.

Under this scenario, individual nations would be   allowed to lease territory in Antarctica for $1 million  per year for one square kilometer of land (100 hectares).  While probably only the wealthiest nations would be able to afford to lease and exploit territory in Antarctica,   the  revenue-- from the leases-- would be equally divided amongst every nation on Earth. Because of the need to administer the leases, the UN (the United Nations) as an entity would also a receive a share of the revenue equal to that of the individual nations.  So, in theory,  as much as $140 billion in annual revenue could be annual generated from the leasing of 1% of the territory on Antarctica.

I'd also charge-- a  renewal fee-- of $1 million per square kilometer of leased territory  every 20 years.

Nations leasing territory in Antarctica would have the right to sublease some or all of its territory to private entities. If governments subleased territory for  perhaps $100,000 a year per hectare, each square kilometer of territory could potentially be worth up to $10 million per year.

Antarctica (Credit: Wikipedia)
To prevent enormous blocks of land from being leased in a single region by a single government, I'd limit the amount of continuous land that can be leased in Antarctica by a single nation to just 25 square kilometers within a radius of five kilometers. I'd also forbid a nation from leasing  land in Antarctica that is less than 100 kilometers away from other lands that they are leasing in Antarctica. I'd also forbid other nations from leasing land that is within 5 kilometers of land being leased by another nation. This would allow potentially valuable regions in Antarctica to be colonized or exploited by multiple nations within a particular region. 


Surface area: 14 million square kilometers

Maximum leasable land area (1%): 140,000 square kilometers ($140 billion per year)

Maximum continuous area allowed to be leased by a single nation: 25 square kilometers within a 5 kilometer radius

Minimum gap between leased areas among different nations: 5 kilometers

Minimum gap between  areas leased by the same nation: 100 kilometers

The Lunar Territories

I would also advocate a similar international law for  the exploitation and colonization of the lunar surface and the preservation of at least 99% of the lunar environment on the lunar surface. A maximum of 1% of the lunar surface could be leased to national governments who would be allowed sublease parts of their leased territories to private individuals and commercial companies.  

I do believe, however,  that there are some areas on the lunar surface that need to be more carefully managed and even banned from potential commercialization and colonization.  I think it should be internationally agreed that territory  on the far side of the Moon below 70˚ north or south (well beyond the polar regions) should be banned from commercial exploitation and colonization.

Positions of the Earth-Moon Lagrange Points (Credit: Maccone)
Because the far side of the Moon is blocked from electromagnetic noise emanating from the surface of the Earth, this region of the lunar surface has always been viewed as the perfect location for future radio telescopes and phased array detectors. However, the prospect of outpost and colonies located at the EML4 and EML5 Earth-Moon Lagrange points would shrink the radio shielded areas on the backside of the Moon to a territorial radius of 910 kilometers extending from the lunar equator at a 180˚ longitude. Again, forbidding nearly all of the territory on the far side of the Moon from being leased would prevent it from being explored or used as an astronomical observatory. But it would prohibit the permanent deployment of spacecraft and potential habitats at EML2.

Protected Antipode circle on the farside of the Moon (Credit: Maccone)

 I'd also prevent the ice at the lunar poles from being-- over exploited--  by limiting the maximum leased area within the polar regions to 1%. Since it is estimated the north and south poles of the Moon may contain as much as 6.6 billion tonnes of water ice. Assuming that areas in the polar regions that don't contain significant amounts of ice are avoided, perhaps up to 10% (660 million tonnes) of the ice in the polar regions could eventually be exploited under these rules.   Over a 200 year period of maximum legal exploitation, up to 3.3 million tonnes of water ice could be mined each year.  About 1000 tonnes of water per year would be required for NASA's human cis-lunar and Mars operations during the next 25 years. A lunar population of more than 450,000 people could probably be supported over a 200 year span, a lot more if a significant portion of the water is recycled and oxygen from the lunar regolith is exploited for air.

Probable ice deposits in the lunar south pole (Credit: NASA)

While such a large and growing lunar population might put intense political pressure on allowing even more polar ice to be exploited, it might be more sustainable for future Lunarians to start importing hydrogen from other regions of the solar system: the NEO asteroids, Mars, Mercury, Callisto, Jupiter's atmosphere, the asteroid belt, the Greek and Trojan asteroids of Jupiter's orbital arc. Water and energy could be produced  By using the Moon's almost limitless oxygen resources, hydrogen can be converted into  water and energy.   The import of substantial amounts extraterrestrial hydrogen into cis-lunar space could also give the Moon the economic advantage of exporting its  oxygen resources to LEO and the Earth-Moon Lagrange points for propellant and to produce water and energy.


Surface area: 38 million square kilometers

Maximum leasable land area (1%): 380,000 square kilometers ($380 billion per year)

Maximum leasable area in polar regions (1%)

Regions not available for leasing: Regions on the far side of the Moon below 75 degrees latitude (north and south) including the Protected Antipode Circle,  a circular piece of land 1820 kilometers in diameter on the far side of the Moon shielded from potential radio signals from orbital habitats and colonies located at EML4 and EML5. 

Maximum continuous area allowed to be leased by a single nation: 25 square kilometers within a 5 kilometer radius

Maximum continuous area allowed to be leased in the polar regions by an individual nation: 16 square kilometers within a 3 kilometer radius 

Minimum gap between leased areas among different nations: 5 kilometers

Minimum gap between  areas leased by the same nation: 100 kilometers

Minimum gap between  areas leased by the same nation in the polar regions: 50 kilometers

Under these rules,  the 51km in diameter Shoemaker crater alone would have enough area to legally exploitable area to accommodate ice mining by  more than a dozen countries. Even with the 100 km gap between leased regions, the US could still lease several ice rich areas in the lunar south pole.

The Martian Territories

With a surface area of nearly 145 million square kilometers, nearly 1.45 million square kilometers of land could be exploited or colonized by the nations of the Earth with a potential revenues of nearly $1.45 trillion a year if all the territories legally allowed to be occupied were leased. But because Mars is much larger world, I'd allow up to 100 square kilometers of continuous land to be leased by an individual nation within a radius of 10 kilometers.

Map of the martian surface (Credit: NASA)


Surface area: 145 million square kilometers

Maximum leasable land area (1%): 1.45 million  square kilometers ($1.45 trillion per year)

Maximum continuous area allowed to be leased by a single nation: 100 square kilometers within a 10 kilometer radius

Minimum gap between leased areas among different nations: 5 kilometers

Minimum gap between  areas leased by the same nation: 100 kilometers

I think its obvious, under these rules, that far less than 1% of the land area on these extraterrestrial worlds would ever have to be leased in order to sustain human civilization in the solar system over the next 1000 years.


Links and References

Antarctica - Wikipedia

“Protected antipode circle on the Farside of the Moon,” Acta Astronautica 63 (2008), pp. 110-118. 


Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Siting Ocean Nuclear Power Plants in Remote US Territorial Waters for the Carbon Neutral Production of Synfuels and Industrial Chemicals

US island territorial waters most suitable for floating nuclear synplexes:

Uninhabited islands: Jarvis Island, Palmyra Atoll and Kingman Reef, Johnston Atoll, Howland and Baker Islands, Aleutian Islands (Near Islands, the Rat Islands, Buldir Island and the Island of the Four Mountains)

Islands exclusively occupied by the US military: Wake Island, Midway Atoll

by Marcel F. Williams

The fossil fuel dominated energy economy of modern human civilization has now pushed the carbon dioxide (CO2)  component of our atmosphere above 400 parts per million. This is a 40% increase in carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere since the start of the industrial revolution.  The Pliocene epoch was last time CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as high , the geologic period that preceded the Pleistocene and the emergence of our genus (Homo). So modern humans are currently living within an atmosphere that is not only alien to our species but also to are genus.    

The enhanced greenhouse effect resulting from the ever increasing amounts of  carbon dioxide being  put into the atmosphere by human activity  is already starting to melt the  the polar icecaps. And melting icecaps are  gradually increasing global sea levels. Rising sea levels caused by increased amounts of atmospheric CO2 is nothing new in the natural history of the Earth.  But the deposition of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere by human activity is something new. And it threatens to  rapidly expose our species and the other plant and animal species currently living on our planet to higher global temperatures and sea levels not seen in millions of years. In the decades and centuries to come, the results of global warming from human activity could drown our coastlines and our coastal cities while causing the mass extinction of many, if not most, of the plant and animal species on our planet.

Politicians have tended to expressed concern about the long term consequences of  carbon dioxide induced climate change from human civilization. But in reality,  there has actually been very little serious pressure placed on  the global  energy companies to shift from a fossil fuel economy to a carbon neutral energy economy. Fear that a shift from fossil fuels could threaten economic prosperity has often been expressed by the global energy companies. And some politicians beholden to the economic might of the energy companies have even denied that CO2 induced global warming is a problem at all.  Of course, since the energy companies have trillions of dollars invested in the fossil fuel economy, they really have no  incentive to move away from a fossil fuel economy.

Top Ten Greenhouse Gas Emitters in 2014 

China - 29.55%

USA - 14.95%

European Union - 9.57%

India - 6.56%

Russia - 4.95%

Japan - 3.58%

Iran - 1.73

South Korea - 1.71%

Canada - 1.58%

Brazil - 1.40%

Fortunately, we Americans and other democratic republics around the world do have an interest and the power  to do what's best for humans and for the Earth's environment. And countries that tend to care about the quality of their environment  also tend to develop economies with the most  prosperity.  And it is in the long term  interest of human society to move towards a carbon neutral economy as rapidly as possible in order to protect the Earth's environment and the quality of human life and economic prosperity.

World Energy Consumption

China - 20.2%

USA - 19.0%

Russia - 5.8%

India - 4.4%

Japan - 4.3%

Germany - 2.7%

Canada - 2.6%

France - 2.1%

No Shortage of Uranium

Despite the phobia that surrounds the industry, nuclear energy would seem to be the simplest and the  most rapid way to deal with the threat of human greenhouse gas induced climate change. Nuclear power produces nearly 20% of the electricity in the US and nuclear energy represents approximately 6% of the world's energy consumption.

The current world demand for uranium is over  70,000 tonnes per year. Terrestrial uranium resources exists in ore reserves that are economically viable at $59 per pound in US dollars.  But it is estimated that there are approximately 5.5 million tonnes of proven uranium reserves at a cost below $130 per kilogram. With the resurgence of nuclear power, the exploration for new uranium sources could increase total terrestrial uranium reserves to more than 16 million tonnes. So there should be enough uranium to supply current global nuclear power demand for at least 200 years. But this is clearly not enough provided electric power and synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals for all of civilization.

Nuclear breeding technologies such as fast neutron reactors or ADS accelerator reactors could increase fuel supplies by a factor of 140 since fissile uranium 235 only represents about 0.7% of natural uranium. But terrestrial reserves of fertile thorium are even more plentiful. There is at least 3 times as much terrestrial thorium 232 as there is uranium 238. Thorium would be one of the easiest ways to recycle the plutonium produced from the fission of  uranium 235  within fertile uranium 238. So nuclear technologies that also utilize fertile uranium and thorium supplies in breeding technologies could provide civilization with all of the electric power, fuel, and chemicals that it needs. 

While terrestrial deposits rich in uranium and thorium are relatively  limited, the Earth's oceans contain about 4.6  billion tonnes of uranium. That's also  enough nuclear fuel to provide electric power and synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals  for human civilization for at least a few thousand years without the need for breeding technologies.

However the uranium content of the oceans is naturally replenished by a natural equilibrium between the hydrosphere and the terrestrial environment. And the rocks that chemically interact  with the Earth's hydrosphere contain nearly 100 trillion tonnes of uranium.  So whenever uranium is extracted from seawater, it is replenished by is chemical interaction with the Earth's rocks and soil, leaching their uranium content into the rivers and oceans. Marine uranium, therefore, is a renewable resource that could provide all of humanity's energy needs for the next billion years, about the time when the Earth's oceans will probably disappear because of the continuing natural increase in the sun's luminosity.

Current technology can extract uranium from seawater at a price of $200/lb of U3O8. Nuclear fuel, however, only represents less than 12% of the total cost of electricity from nuclear power plants and the  uranium ore itself, only represents about 46% of the total  cost of the fuel before it is enriched and fabricated for use in a nuclear reactor.   So even at quadruple the current price of uranium, marine uranium would only increase the cost of electricity from nuclear power by a meager 15%.

Environmentally Safest Commercial Energy Technology on Earth

Despite a few serious accidents in Japan, the Ukraine, and in the US, commercial nuclear power is still statistically the safest form of electric energy production. Unfortunately, we live in a global society that still has an inordinate  fear of ionizing radiation. This is despite the fact that  humans and all other plant and animal species on this planet live on a world and within a universe that is naturally radioactive-- and always has been! 

Global Mortality Rate related to commercial energy production (deaths/trillion kWhr)

Coal (global average) 170,000

Oil - 36,000

Biofuel/Biomass - 24,000

Natural gas - 4000

Hydroelectric (global average) - 1400

Solar panels (rooftop) - 440

Wind - 150

Nuclear (global average) - 90

Wind and solar energy have long been touted as-- safe long term solutions-- to climate change. But such renewable systems are extremely land intensive and  only produce energy when the wind is blowing or when the sun is shining. While the storage of wind and solar energy would solve this problem, it would also require a substantial  increase in the number of wind and solar power facilities in order to make up for the majority of time when energy is not being produced and the lowered efficiency of energy storage and power production from stored energy.  Wind and solar power plants  also have significantly shorter lifespans than commercial nuclear power plants that can last at least 60 years or longer.  So replacing old wind and solar power plants with new facilities could double or even quadruple the number of units required to produce the same amount of energy as nuclear power plants could.

Solar power currently produces less than 0.1% of the energy consumed in the US. So even if solar energy production were increased by 100 times, it would still produce less than 10% of America's current energy needs-- and even less for the even larger American populations thirty to forty years from now.

The manufacture of solar panels produces at least 10,000 times as much toxic waste as nuclear power plants. The spent fuel from commercial nuclear power plants is so tiny that all of the spent fuel ever produced by the commercial nuclear industry in the US could be housed in an area the size of a football stadium only a few meters high. Of course, most of the content from spent fuel could be recycled to produce even more carbon neutral electricity.

Environmentally, wind power plants are well known to be deleterious to predatory birds and bats that feed on pest that either harmful to humans or their food supplies.  And while some find them aesthetically beautiful, others find them eyesores the destroy the beauty of the local landscape. 

No American lives have ever been lost as the result of exposure to excessive amounts of radiation from the commercial nuclear industry. and America currently has the most  commercial nuclear reactors currently operating. But as remarkably safe as nuclear power plants are today, they would be even safer if they were deployed on the Earth's oceans.

MIT floating nuclear reactor concept (Credit: MIT)

Lack of coolant (water) caused the partial  meltdowns at the Light Water reactors at  Fukushima in Japan and at Three Mile Island in the US. However, the deployment of light water nuclear reactors out to sea could offer the commercial nuclear industry an inherently safe environment for producing carbon neutral energy.  The ocean's almost infinite heat sink of seawater would  completely eliminate the possibility of nuclear fuel meltdowns for light water reactors deployed out at sea.

Most proponents of floating nuclear reactors would like  to moor such power plants just 10 to 20 kilometers offshore. While this might be convenient for supply electric power to coastal towns, cities, and industries, it might also leave such facilities easily vulnerable to attacks from both the sea and air by hostile entities.   While such attacks on a floating nuclear facility would probably pose little danger to the public and to the environment,  the resulting sociological and political  effects could be  financially devastating for companies that own or who manufacture such facilities.
US Navy floating modular platform concept (Credit: US Navy)

Deploying a floating nuclear reactor within the cavity of a pair of  floating storm shelters, cement barriers designed to enclose and shield the facility from severe weather and from potential aerial and ocean attacks,  could greatly enhance the protection of floating nuclear reactors.  Such floating barriers could easily be derived from the US Navy's modular floating platform concepts.  They could completely envelope a floating reactor by simply using tugs to pull the larger half of a shelter over the smaller half of the shelter. While such barriers wouldn't make it absolutely impossible for floating nuclear power plants to be seriously damaged, they  would  make it very difficult and extremely expensive for potential terrorist to damage a floating nuclear facility.
Floating storm shelters derived from the US Navy floating platform concepts. Under this concept, the floating reactor would mostly be housed within the smaller shelter.  Normally, the cavity of the larger shelter would face the cavity of the smaller shelter less than 100 meters away.  This would allow sea vessels to easily arrive and depart from the floating reactor. During a major storm, tug boats would move the larger shelter over the smaller shelter, completely enclosing the floating reactor within the two storm shelters. This would also be the configuration in case some entity attempts to damage the floating reactor by air or by ship.    

How Many Reactors? 

US Energy Consumption in 2015
(Credit: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory):

39.0% - Electricity 

28.4% - Transportation

21.8% - Industrial chemical and other  processes (minus the electricity utilized)  

  6.7% - Non-electrical residential heating and cooking

  4.1% - Non-electrical commercial heating, cooking, and other processes

About  409 1.1 GWe (1100 MWe)  terrestrial nuclear reactors would be required to completely replace all of the electricity currently produced in the US by other sources of electricity (coal, natural gas, hydroelectricity, wind, solar, etc.). That would require a five fold increase in current nuclear electric power production.  Some of the electricity could be used to convert urban and rural biomass into methanol for the production of electricity during  peak load hours. Such a substantial increase in  nuclear electric power production  in America could easily be accomplished by simply accommodating up to eight 1.1 GWe nuclear reactors  at every existing site in America.

A five fold increase in terrestrial nuclear power  would still only meet about  39% of America's total energy needs. And, of course, these figures don't even account for future American electricity demand 30 to 40 years from now due to simple population growth. This figure also doesn't  include the probable increase in electricity demand from the growth in the number of  automobiles that either partially or totally use electricity. This figure also doesn't include the increase in domestic electricity demand if all Americans switched from using natural gas to electricity for cooking, space heating, and water heating.

Even with a shift towards electric vehicles, the demand for transportation fuel for planes, ships, and ground vehicles is still going to be enormous. And huge amounts of energy will also be required for the production of industrial chemicals and fertilizers.

Major carbon neutral synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals that could be manufactured at remotely sited floating nuclear synplexes

1. Methanol

2. Gasoline

3. Diesel Fuel

4. Jet fuel

5. Dimethyl ether 

6. Liquid hydrogen

7. Liquid oxygen

8. Fresh water

9. Sodium Chloride

10. Ammonia

11. Urea

12. Formaldehyde

13.  Chlorine

14. Uranium

It would require at least 964 synthetic fuel producing nuclear reactors (1100 MWe each) to replace America's current gasoline needs.  441 reactors would be required  to replace America's diesel fuel demand.  152 reactors would be needed to replace current civilian and military jet fuel demand. These figures, of course, don't account for future demand over the next 30 or 40 years due to population growth. So 1557 1.1 GWe floating nuclear reactors would be needed to provide the carbon fuels for all of America's-- current transportation needs.

Number of 1.1 GWe (1000 MWe) nuclear reactors needed to annually supply all of America's current transportation fuel needs:

964 floating reactors -  carbon neutral gasoline production

441 floating reactors - carbon neutral diesel fuel production

137 floating reactors - carbon neutral  production of civilian jet fuel

15 floating reactors - carbon neutral production of military jet fuel

An additional 1195 floating reactors would be needed to meet America's industrial chemical and fertilizer needs. So just to replace fossil fuels for transportation, industrial chemicals and chemical fertilizers would require 2752 1.1 GWe floating nuclear reactors.

And, again, these figures don't include the inevitable increase in energy demand due to population growth. And there's also the daunting reality that America only consumes about 20% of the world's energy needs. Could America or other nations provide for the rest of the world's clean energy needs?

Exclusive Economic Zones

America is a nation that's still finding it politically difficult to keep a little more than 100  nuclear reactors currently operational within the US.  And with only four new nuclear reactors (~4.4 GWe) currently under construction, its rather difficult to imagine Americans adding more than 3000 terrestrial nuclear reactors to the continental United States--  over the next 30 to 40 years.

It would be equally as politically daunting, in my opinion, to  attempt to deploy thousands of floating nuclear  reactors along the coastlines of the United States over the next 30 to 40 years. So why even go through the process of  attempting to deploy floating nuclear power plants near any populated American coastline at all when its totally unnecessary!  

Public and environmental  fears about deploying floating  nuclear facilities and floating synthetic fuel producing facilities off the populated coast of continental North America could be completely eliminated by simply transporting such facilities-- far out to sea.

America has economic control over vast amounts of ocean territory thousands of kilometers away from populated coastlines. Some of these Exclusive Economic Zones surround uninhabited islands or islands exclusively occupied by small numbers of  US military personal.

Wake Island, for instance, has about 7.1 square kilometers of land area surrounded by a US   Exclusive Economic  Zone (EEZ) of over 407 thousand square kilometers. Administered by the  United States Air Force, the island is only occupied by 94 US personal. The airfield on Wake Island is currently  used as a mid-Pacific refueling stop for US military aircraft.

The US territory of Wake Island.

If just  one quarter of the Wake Island EEZ territory that is at least 50 kilometers away from the island's land and lagoon area were allowed to be utilized for the deployment of floating nuplexes and synplexes, nearly  100,000 square kilometers of territorial waters would be available. This region could be used to produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals. Another 100,000 square kilometers of territorial water on the opposite side of the island could be exclusively used for potential Seasteading, aquaculture, and floating farms  while the rest of the territorial water (more than half) would be under conservation including the 50 kilometer stretch of water encircling the island.

Floating nuplexes could  consist of eight to sixteen 1.1 GWe nuclear reactors floating along the arc of a circle four kilometers in diameter.   A cruise ship could be placed at the center of the circle, to kilometers away from each floating reactor,  to house the nuclear workers when they're off duty and may also serve as a floating home for their families.

Each floating nuplex would provide between  8.8 GWe to 17.6 GWe of power (more than four to eight times more power than the typical two unit nuclear plants in the continental USA). 

The fuel and industrial chemical producing  synplexes could be positioned between five to ten kilometers away from the nuclear facilities to ensure that any accidental chemical explosions can't potentially damage any of the nuclear facilities or to their protective storm shelters.

Power to the floating synplexes would come from submarine cables connecting them to the floating nuplexes. So the entire   8.8 GWe to 17.6 GWe nuplex  and surrounding synplexes could be deployed within a circle up to 24 kilometers in diameter. In reality, of course, the floating nuplexes and synplexes would physically only occupy an extremely tiny fraction of this 452 square kilometer area.

Within the proposed 100,000 square kilometer area,  more than 221 nuplexes and their surrounding synplexes could be produce between 1945 GWe to 3890 GWe of electric power.  So this one remotely sited region alone could potentially provide the United States will all of its energy needs.

But if we add a quarter of the EEZ waters surrounding the remote uninhabited islands of the Johnston Atoll, Palmyra Atoll, Jarvis Island, and Baker Island and the US Navy occupied Midway Island Atoll then more than 23 TWe of electric power could be produced, more than enough to provide all of the energy needs for the entire planet!

Beyond the tropical Pacific islands, Alaska might be the only State in the Union that might be willing to accommodate thousands of floating nuclear reactors with its Exclusive Economic Zone. This might be particularly true in the vast  EEZ waters both north and south of the Aleutians. Less than 8500 people live on a few of the Aleutian islands with more than half living on the island of Unalaska. But Alaska has more than 3.7 million square kilometers of EEZ territory. So just a quarter of Alaska's EEZ territory could provide energy for the entire planet.

Of course, the US shipyards could  manufacture and deploy floating nuclear reactors to  some of the vast  remote EEZ areas controlled by other nations. It might be in the interest of the United States to deploy at least some of their Ocean Nuclear assets in the Atlantic within the remote and  EEZ areas of strategic allies such as Europe.  The UK Ascension Island EEZ in the South Atlantic might be a particularly suitable for for the deployment of American and possibly British Ocean Nuclear facilities and synplexes.

Using Renewable Methanol in Natural Gas Power Plants and Methanol Power Barges

Beyond the ocean production of transportation fuels and industrial chemicals, remotely sited synplexes could also  easily supply all of the world's electricity needs by simply producing methanol. Remotely sited nuclear synplexes could produce methanol by importing biowaste and other carbon waste imported from coastal towns and cities. Coastal communities would probably pay to have their garbage towed away, reducing or eliminating the cost of ocean transport. A floating plasma arc pyrolysis plant could convert the imported garbage into syngas which could then be converted into methanol. However, since approximately 66% of the carbon in this process is CO2 waste , substantially more methanol could be produced through the production of hydrogen through the electrolysis of water distilled from seawater. 

The US Navy's new synfuel from seawater technology could also be used to produce carbon neutral synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals. 

Ironically, the infrastructure for utilizing methanol for electric power use on continental America already exist thanks to some of the fossil fuel utility companies.   Only minor modifications are required to covert natural gas turbine electric power plants into turbines capable of using methanol to produce electric power. This was demonstrated decades ago.  So the rapid growth of natural gas power plants could be a back door for the emergence of nuclear power in the form of methanol remotely produced far out to sea at floating synplexes.  And the tankers that could ship methanol to continental America could also be powered by methanol as a growing number of vessels are today.

Existing  cryogenic carbon capture technology, could   liquify up to 99% of the CO2 produced from the  flu gasses of methanol power plants. That CO2 could then be transported by tankers back to the floating nuclear synplexes for the production of more methanol. Such a fuel cycle could make methanol from nuclear energy, carbon negative (permanently extracting CO2 from the atmosphere as the number of methanol power plants grow). So if floating nuclear synplex are used to replace existing fossil fuel power plants and even carbon neutral nuclear and renewable power plants, floating nuclear synplexes for electricity production would actually be carbon negative-- gradually reducing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere until such facilities finally reach the point where they completely replace other forms of electricity production. So while the growth of terrestrial nuclear reactors would be carbon neutral, the growth of Ocean Nuclear Power plants exporting methanol for electricity production and recycling the CO2  would be carbon negative

106 MWe natural gas powered electric energy barge (Credit: Wartsila Corporation)

Electricity from methanol for coastal towns and cities that don't have existing natural gas power plants could could be quickly deployed through methanol power barges. The US  could   manufactured and deployed such power barges to coastal towns and cities with the US and  around the world. In the US, methanol power barges could also be deployed inland via the Saint Lawrence Seaway to the Great Lakes States or inland states adjacent to the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers with methanol tankers entering the Mississippi River via the Mississippi River Delta.

The waste heat from the methanol power barges could also be used to desalinate seawater, providing both electricity and palitable water to coastal towns and cities. Such electricity and freshwater producing barges might be particularly attractive to states like California which is currently in the middle of a multi-year drought.

Jobs, the Reindustrialization of America, and Seasteading

States with active Shipyards (Credit: MARAD).

Employment related to shipbuilding and repair (Credit: MARAD)

If natural gas is eventually banned in the US for domestic and commercial use for heating and cooking then there will probably be a dramatic increase the use of electricity. And that would probably require an additional 100 land based nuclear power plants.

Replacing the additional 100 land based nuclear reactors with synfuel from Ocean nuclear reactors would require 400 floating reactors. If all 500 land based nuclear power plants were replace by synfuel from Ocean Nuclear power plants then  at least 2000 reactors would be required. This is  because of the substantial  inefficiency of converting electricity into to carbon fuels, transporting the fuel to coastal towns and cities  and then converting those carbon fuels back into electricity again.

However, the cost of electricity at ocean nuclear sites should  be dramatically lower than that of land based nuclear sites because Ocean Nuclear reactors are likely to be centrally mass produced. And most of the cost of nuclear electricity is due to it high  capital cost.  The recycling of flu gases from power plants using fuels from Ocean Nuclear technology could also significantly increase the fuel production since electricity wouldn't have to be used to for the extraction of CO2. 

The deployment of floating nuclear reactors, floating protective structures, floating synplexes, cruise ships, methanol tankers, methanol power barges and methanol powered tankers for the transport of other synthetic fuels and industrial chemicals will, of course, require a resurgence of the US shipbuilding industry. And that would mean a resurgence of hundreds of thousands of new jobs at shipyards in States along the Atlantic and  Pacific Coast and the Gulf Coast  and even within the Great Lakes region. 

Major shipbuilding activities in an Ocean Nuclear economy

Floating nuclear power plants

Floating nuclear storm shelters 

Methanol fueled tankers:

Methanol tankers

Gasoline tankers

Diesel fuel tankers

Jet fuel tankers 

CO2 tankers

Industrial chemical tankers


Methanol electric power barges

Synfuel production barges

Biowaste transport barges 

Cruise ships designed to house floating nuclear power plant workers and synplex personal

Artificial islands and breakwater structures  for ocean nuplex and synplex workers (Seasteading)

But millions of jobs would be created for US citizens operating far out to seas at  ocean nuclear synplexes. And this might well be the beginning of still another major ocean oriented shipyard industry, the creation of artificial residential islands for all of those millions of Americans working far out at sea! Ocean Nuclear and Ocean Synplex workers may end up being the first large group of American Seasteaders.

There should still be a place for terrestrial nuclear reactors in the US, in my opinion. But the future of terrestrial nuclear power is in the mass production of small nuclear reactors that are placed underground for enhanced safety. But most of the energy for electricity, synfuels, and industrial chemicals in the 21st century will probably be produced by floating synplexes powered by remotely sited floating nuclear power plants.

Links and References

Uranium (Wikipeidia)

Advances in extracting uranium from seawater announced in special issue

Uranium Seawater Extraction Makes Nuclear Power Completely Renewable

Fueling our Nuclear Future

The Economics of Nuclear Power

How deadly is your kilowatt?

Solar industry grapples with hazardous wastes

Jinko Solar Apologizes for Pollution


Will Russia and China Dominate Ocean Nuclear Technology?

The Future of Ocean Nuclear Synfuel Production

The Floating Stable Platform: Office of Naval Research

Methanol to Power Demonstration Project

Simple Cycle Methanol Power Plant

Methanol Economy

 The Production and Utilization of Renewable Methanol in a Nuclear Economy

The feasibility and current estimated capital costs of producing jet fuel at sea using carbon diox-ide and hydrogen

Market and Economic Assessment of Using Methanol for Power Generation in the CaribbeanRegion 

Exclusive Economic Zones 

What is the EEZ

U.S. Maritime Limits & Boundaries

Plasma arc gasification

Power Barges around the world 

Waller Marine Power Barges

Blog Archive


Popular Posts

Recent Comments

Destination Moon

glennwsmith said... Very nice, Marcel. This is one of the most beautifully put together, forward-looking, and yet also understated videos which I've yet seen from a major space agency -- and it just goes to show that there's a lot of good material out there if you know where to find it.

G. W. (Glenn) Smith


Stena Line to Covert Passenger Ferry to a Methanol Fueled Sea Vessel

michael jordan said...

Stena Germanica RoPax ferry is the first commercial marine vessel to run on Methanol.It is the largest ferry in the Nordic region and second biggest Ro-Pax ferry in the world.For this overall project cost comes to nearly $25.5m.It measures 240m long and 29m wide and lane metres of 3,907m.It is going to accommodate 300 cars and 1,300 passengers and freight capacity of 46,353t.