Title Page
ABSTRACT
Contents
1. INTRODUCTION 16
1.1. Research Background 16
1.2. ISRU Technology 19
2. CONDITIONS OF LUNAR SOIL 25
2.1. Lunar Soil Properties 25
2.2. Water Resources in Lunar Soil 32
2.3. Lunar Soil Strength 38
3. DRILLING SYSTEMS 56
3.1. Drilling Mechanisms 57
3.1.1. Rotary Drilling 59
3.1.2. Rotary-Hammer Drilling 63
3.1.3. Experiments of Drilling Mechanisms 74
3.2. Drill Bits 80
3.2.1. Material 81
3.2.2. Bit Type and Shape 82
3.2.3. Cutting Mechanism 84
3.2.4. Diameter 90
3.2.5. Accumulate of Soil 91
3.3. Ice Drilling Systems 95
3.4. Extraterrestrial Drilling Systems 99
3.5. Heating and Extract 104
4. APPLICATIONS IN MOBILE SYSTEMS 107
5. CONCLUSIONS 115
APPENDIX 116
REFERENCES 152
OUTCOMES OF RESEARCH 196
Table 2-1. Lunar soil grain size distributions 26
Table 2-2. Properties of lunar soil at various depths 27
Table 2-3. Properties of lunar soil about soil density 27
Table 2-4. Average chemical composition at each Apollo mission 29
Table 2-5. Chemical composition of Apollo mission sample and lunar soil simulant 39
Table 2-6. Raw data of sample UCS 45
Table 2-7. Constants of Eq. (2) according to temperature 45
Table 2-8. Table 2-8 Maximum UCS and water mass fraction by temperature 47
Table 3-1. Material properties of drill bit 81
Table 3-2. Comparison of extraction system 105
Figure 1-1. Cost of water in space 20
Figure 1-2. Space excavation cycle 20
Figure 1-3. Vacuum specific impulse analysis of aluminum-oxygen 22
Figure 1-4. Geometry of Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator 22
Figure 1-5. Stirling Radioisotope Generator 23
Figure 1-6. Schematic of Lunar Solar Power system 23
Figure 1-7. Regolith block geometries of Selective Laser Melting 24
Figure 2-1. Lunar soil grain size distributions and USCS 26
Figure 2-2. Apollo mission site map 30
Figure 2-3. Lunar resource distribution map: (a) Mineral map by M3 spectrometer of Chandrayaan-1, (b) 3He distribution, (c) Si distribution, (d) Ti distribution 30
Figure 2-4. Utilization strategies based on lunar soil composition 31
Figure 2-5. Mapping minimal water frost coverage 33
Figure 2-6. Maps the measured neutron flux 34
Figure 2-7. The lunar water cycle as suggested by the NMS observations 36
Figure 2-8. Variation of UCS of JSC-1 lunar soil simulant at 77K 40
Figure 2-9. Variation of UCS of JSC-1a lunar soil simulant at 253K and 77K 40
Figure 2-10. Variation of UCS of FJS-1 lunar soil simulant at 186K 41
Figure 2-11. Variation of UCS of LHS-1 and UK4 lunar soil simulant at 253K 41
Figure 2-12. Particle-size distribution of real lunar regolith and lunar simulants JSC-1, FJS-1, and KLS-1 42
Figure 2-13. Sample preparation process 43
Figure 2-14. Variation in UCS of the sample with water content 46
Figure 2-15. Maximum UCS depending on temperature 47
Figure 2-16. Variation in UCS of the sample with water content of another study 49
Figure 2-17. Supersaturated sample preparation method 50
Figure 2-18. Collection of samples tested in the experiment 52
Figure 2-19. Variation of UCS and density of JSC-1a lunar soil simulant at 253K 53
Figure 2-20. Variation of UCS and density of JSC-1a lunar soil simulant at 77K 53
Figure 2-21. Maximum stress of ice depending on temperature 54
Figure 3-1. The principle behind the difference in excavating performance between (a) rotary and (b) rotary-hammer methods 58
Figure 3-2. Drag bits 60
Figure 3-3. Scattering graph of the mean torque with the angular velocity at constant WOB 62
Figure 3-4. The force response graph of hammer drilling 64
Figure 3-5. Experiments of the ice excavating characteristics at -20°C 64
Figure 3-6. Single-impact tester 67
Figure 3-7. Compressive stresses of single-impact tester 68
Figure 3-8. Compressive stress and displacement of the rod 68
Figure 3-9. Vertical compressive stress of single impact 70
Figure 3-10. Vertical strain of single impact 70
Figure 3-11. Plastic shear strain of single impact 72
Figure 3-12. Granite cyclic fatigue in uniaxial test 73
Figure 3-13. Process of creating simulated icy-soil 75
Figure 3-14. Drill system for test 76
Figure 3-15. WOB by mechanisms 77
Figure 3-16. Soil state after drilling 79
Figure 3-17. (a) Drag bits (first two from the left) and roller cone bits, (b) Cross bit, (c) Button bit 83
Figure 3-18. Sketch of a drag bit and cutter 84
Figure 3-19. Decomposition of the cutter forces 85
Figure 3-20. Conceptual response of the bit 88
Figure 3-21. The diameter of a drill for frozen ground excavation and its ROP 90
Figure 3-22. Accumulation of soil after drilling 92
Figure 3-23. Soil accumulation on the drill bit according to the drilling mechanism: (a) Rotary, (b) Hammer, (c) Rotary-Hammer 93
Figure 3-24. Comparison with filling ratios of auger flute in different drilling parameters 93
Figure 3-25. Calculated densities of conveyed chips in different drilling parameters 94
Figure 3-26. Brush tools of TRIDENT-1 94
Figure 3-27. Electromechanical drill 97
Figure 3-28. Electrothermal drill 98
Figure 3-29. Soil Mechanics Surface Sampler 100
Figure 3-30. Scoop of Viking 101
Figure 3-31. Scoop of Phoenix 101
Figure 3-32. Ultrasonically assisted drilling 103
Figure 3-33. USDC 103
Figure 3-34. Thermal mining 106
Figure 4-1. The MMUM penetrator 107
Figure 4-2. (a) The MMUM system on rover (b) Penetration state 108
Figure 4-3. Schematic of MISWE 109
Figure 4-4. Operation sequence of MISWE 110
Figure 4-5. MISWE reaction curve 111
Figure 4-6. Schematic of TRIDENT 112
Figure 4-7. Mechanisms of TRIDENT 114
Figure 4-8. Ability of TRIDENT 114