A Lunar Colony

arobie · Jul 25, 2005

A lunar city is possible with today's technology. We are now seeing NASA set out it's plan for a Lunar outpost at the south pole by 2018. That is excellent, and go NASA!, but it is only a scientific outpost. I'de like to see cities on the Moon. Actually, let me correct myself and use some correct terminology. Settlement: Determines the viability of and leads to a colony. Requires continual investment, or in other words is not trade-balanced. No children born. Colony: Is trade-balanced, but not necessarily self-sustaining. Children can be born. City: A self-sustaining human habitation. Children are born. Going by those definitions, we should call this incorrectly called "Lunar City" a Lunar Settlement or Lunar Colony. Our goal in this thread is to design a Lunar Colony. We will have to see how quickly we can turn a settlement into a colony. No children will be born in our colony until more reseach is done on the matter of birth in low-gee, although they could economically be supported with food and living space. We want this colony to have the ability to grow. What would be the purpose of the Colony? A purpose big enough to be the only purpose needed is simply "Just to be there." Having people working on the Moon, on a place that is easily visible in the night sky that other people can easily see is enough justification. The purpose of this can simply be put as "To establish a Lunar Colony." That is purpose enough, taking another step towards being space-faring. One very important thing: This colony's purpose is not just to do science. It is not being established with science as the goal from the start. It will do science if it can support doing science. Ok, now that I've explained that, off to the fun part, designing the Colony. The two biggest concerns on the Moon are radiation and micro-meteorites. Peop

spaceinator · Jul 25, 2005

First of all, there is no way NASA well get anything remotely close to a lunar outpost by 2018. I'm not saying this isn't possible... We have the technology we need (except for better artificial ways of replenishing O2), but NASA is too big and bureaucratic to get anything done that quickly. They said the ISS would be done and we would be on Mars 20 years ago. However I definitely think it is a good thing have colonies on the moon(research and residential) for one it would be a lot easier to regularly launch stuff like research satellites and telescopes so it would be very good for research companies. It would also help deal with the overpopulation that will become inevitable in the next centuries(s). Not to mention a good outpost for further manned space exploration. First though, I think smaller private companies need to catch up w/NASA technologically (which is already starting to happen though slowly). Once this happens and space flight becomes relatively cheaper, hopefully in the near future, plans for a lunar outpost will be feasible.

le3119 · Jul 25, 2005

Do you have any graphic representations to reinforce your descriptions? I agree that the main purpose of a lunar colony is to be there. When people look up at the sky at the Moon, they'll know humans live there just as they do here on Earth. I hope we see an outpost by 2018. It wouldn't be so expensive to fit the ISS with a space dock and two small lunar transports. We should be setting things up now: the fuel refinery for one thing.

MBA_UIU · Jul 25, 2005

"First of all, there is no way NASA well get anything remotely close to a lunar outpost by 2018. " Maybe not in 2018, but by 2020 House's NASA Bill Embraces Bush Plan By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: July 23, 2005 WASHINGTON, July 22 (AP) - The House overwhelmingly endorsed President Bush's vision of sending people back to the Moon and eventually to Mars as it passed a bill on Friday to set NASA policy for the next two years. The bill was approved by a 383-to-15 vote after a collegial debate in which lawmakers emphasized their commitment not only to Mr. Bush's space exploration plans but also to traditional programs at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, like science and aeronautics. Originally, the measure would have shifted $1.3 billion from exploration to other NASA programs. But after administration objections, lawmakers restored the money for exploration during floor debate by adding to the bill's bottom line, which is at $34.7 billion. The bill was the first NASA policy measure to pass the House in five years http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/23/politics/23nasa.html San Antonio scientists map moon return Web Posted: 07/25/2005 12:00 AM CDT Michelle Koidin Jaffee Express-News Staff Writer Behind a wooden laboratory door on the Northwest Side, scientists quietly are working to put people back on the moon. They are designing an aluminum device that will be slightly bigger than a shoebox and weigh a little more than a big newborn baby. Before long, the $6 million spectrometer dubbed LAMP — Lyman-Alpha Mapping Project — will be built and strapped to a rocket bound for the moon in 2008, where it will create images to identify good landing spots for astronauts and, if it exists, ice in craters. "If we want to build a base in the future, we could use that resou <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <img id="268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/6/8/268587ce-7170-4b41-a87b-8cd443f9351a.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" /> </div>

arobie · Jul 25, 2005

le3119, No, I'm sorry. I don't have graphic representations. These are just ideas in my head. In this thread, I'de like to brainstorm and see if we can develop a lunar colony. I started it out with some guidelines from which to brainstorm, even if that first post didn't make complete sense. I apologize for that. The ideas that I put out (I can't claim them to be mine) were just to start us off. To simplify that long post, I'de like to design here with yall's help a Lunar colony based on large domes built by teleoperated robots. This colony is not a science research center, but instead just a colony of ordinary people. (A science research center is NASA's job. Or, if we wanted to, we could start another thread later to design a lunar research center.

I'm glad that we agree on the purpose of this Lunar Colony. That is the part that I think is most likely for people to get caught up on. If you have any questions about my starting ideas, please feel free to ask. I'll try to answer as best as I can, but I don't know everything. It is my hope that in this thread, we can figure alot of this stuff out. This is a thought exercise. Let's design a Lunar Colony! A rule that I forgot to mention: Let's design this as if it were to be built in the very near future. In other words, we can only use technology that exists today. No future tech. ;-)

kdavis007 · Jul 25, 2005

Well we should not depend on NASA period...

le3119 · Jul 26, 2005

Good idea! I've been developing a lunar outpost, to be located on the northern rim of the Copernicus Crater, off course it can be nearly anywhere. The design includes: A fold out module, about a 40' cube that serves as the central "environmental dome", accomodating a garden, a cafe and excercise machines. A collapsable dome is fine, but a cube, it seems to me, is quicker and cheaper. The "cube" serves as the hub, long cylindrical modules fan out on six sides. There are two fold out "workshed" structures, one is a garage for lunar land vehicles, the other serves as a hanger for one or two lunar landers. These structures serve as radiation and meteor sheilds, but are not pressurized. They occupy the terminal ends of two of the "spokes" in the design. All of the cyndrilical modules are partly buried below the lunar surface, and are covered with about 1 meter of lunar soil for radiation and meteor shielding. The central cube is partly buried, but not covered with soil. Globular airlock modules join the cylindrical modules and permit access to the outside. More to come...

chew_on_this · Jul 26, 2005

NASA can't even get their gas guage to work. I'd be nervous.

scottb50 · Jul 26, 2005

The only problem with cubes is the stress due to pressurization. A ball would be optimum but a cylinder would work nearly as well, the ends would require added mass, but not all that much. Connecting Cylinders together works at every level and using the same basic cylinder provides a simple and quickly implemented solution. If the only design work needed is a common cylinder, that can be built in any number of sizes it makes things infinitely simpler. An HLV would be built around propellant cylinders and non-structural aerodynamic shells. These same cylinders could be used for propellant tanks on an upper stage and then converted in orbit to use as LEO Station elements and even Moon Colony Elements. Why demand a seperate structure for every application when you can do it all with a single, simple design. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

majornature · Jul 26, 2005

A lunar city is possible with today's technology. We are now seeing NASA set out it's plan for a Lunar outpost at the south pole by 2018. That is excellent, and go NASA!, but it is only a scientific outpost. I'de like to see cities on the Moon. A Lunar Colony sounds good. But first NASA should think of building an artificial atmosphere to burn up those tiny meteorites and protect the colony from extreme radiation and gravity so that the colony can stay on the ground and feel comfortable working in that kind of environment. As I said before, a lunar colony sounds good but who wants to live on the moon in a lunar dome...I mean it's a great place and all to study the stars but it will still be boring because you can't just walk outside on the moon like you can on Earth. I for one don't want to be stuck in a Lunar dome just to live on the moon. I'll pick Mars before I pick the moon to live on. True Knowledge Exists in Knowing That You KnowNOTHING!!!!!/safety_wrapper> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> We are born. We live. We experiment. We rot. We die. and the whole process starts all over again! Imagine That! <img id="6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264" style="width:176px;height:247px" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/14/4/6e5c6b4c-0657-47dd-9476-1fbb47938264.Large.jpg" alt="blog post photo" width="276" height="440" /> </div>

cyrostir · Jul 26, 2005

knowing how frail human bones get from long periods in outerspace - I would hope to have a large supply of milk!!!

le3119 · Jul 27, 2005

Different module designs gives opportunity for experimentation. I agree that cylindrical modules are optimal: they can basically form the upper stage of a rocket ship, they can be inflatable too. I'm studying different module designs that can fold out to form a central pavillion, like a base "commons".

arobie · Jul 27, 2005

Ok, a few things I need to bring up. . . NASA and this colony. For the purposes of this discussion, NASA matters none. Anything that NASA can, cannot, or won't do has no effect on our planning this colony. They won't be planning the colony, building it, or running it. Therefore, their failings, support, or budget won't effect this. I want to free ourselves of the constraints of thinking within NASA's limits. Zero-gee and Bone & Muscle Atrophy I understand that this is a problem. It will have to be researched extensively. Because of bone and muscle atrophy, there will have to be regular circulation of colonists on the Moon. I say a normal stay would have to be a year long stay for a person if they intended to return to Earth. If a person wishes to live out his/her life on the moon, they may as long as they completely understand that it will not physically be possible for them to return to Earth. The hardest effects of living in low gravity is returning to higher gravity once one has become weaker. If a person does not intend to return to Earth gravity, then the problem has been avoided. A lunar base built out of modules Modules are great for space ships and space stations, but I am not quite as keen on building an entire lunar colony out of them. Building a lunar colony out of them requires that we have to transport them there in the first place. I would rather, since it is possible, build our colony out of materials on the Moon. The biggest bonus to the insitu resource utilization philosophy is that we don't actually have to transport the materials over there. We won't have to transport and land an entire colony on the Moon. All that we need to do is build it there. Granted, we will still have to transport the robots over there with which to build the colony, and in our infantile stage of development, there will still be many things which we will have to transport to make the co

arobie · Jul 28, 2005

Am I making sense? If not, please feel free to inform me so. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

scottb50 · Jul 29, 2005

In some ways. I don't see the feasibility of using lunar materials for quite a long time, just refining the processes and getting equipment to handle, process, prepare and assemble them would seem to be a fairly complicated process that would take a lot of assets on site to accomplish. The difference I see for a dome or a Module, as I have proposed, is a dome would have to be transported as cargo and setup on the surface. A Module could be used as a cargo container and converted once attached to the existing Modules on the surface. That seems to be a much more efficient way of doing things. As for overall size of a facility I would think the smaller the better would be optimal, that way any failure could be localized. To begin with each Module should be self-sufficient in an emergency, as the facility grows different nodes would attach to the initial structure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tomnackid · Jul 29, 2005

"However I definitely think it is a good thing have colonies on the moon(research and residential) for one it would be a lot easier to regularly launch stuff like research satellites and telescopes so it would be very good for research companies. It would also help deal with the overpopulation that will become inevitable in the next centuries(s). Not to mention a good outpost for further manned space exploration. " ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Where are those satellites and telescopes that you plan to launch from the moon going to come from? Until there is very sophisticate manufacturing and a significant industrial base there they will come from Earth. If they are coming from Earth anyway why make a pointless detour to the moon? As to alleviating overpopulation how are you planing to transport hundred's of millions of people to the moon???? It would have to be AT LEAST on the order of hundreds of millions to make any kind of dent in population growth. Besides, in the countries that have space programs populations are dropping like a rock. For a viable Lunar settlement you have the ask the question what has the moon got that we can't get cheaper and more easily on Earth? Most likely it will be something we can't even think of yet.

kdavis007 · Jul 30, 2005

I think the Lunar city should be underground.. That way the colony would be protected from the radiation...

spaceinator · Jul 30, 2005

tomnackid~ I agree that all that wouldn't happen for some time. But *edventually* it will be cheaper for many research organizations to move to the moon, and it will give the population somewhere to spread out to if needed. Before this can happen the transportation needs to be cheaper and bases on the moon need to grow to at least reasonably self-sufficient cities. But you got to start somewhere... I was just mentioning some long-term advantages

ehs40 · Jul 30, 2005

well lets get started on it soon!!!

grooble · Jul 31, 2005

Couldn't people wear exoskeletons that would exersise your muscles and make you move as if you were in earth gravity? I was thinking of the new army exoskeletons that could allow people to lift 2 or 3x their own body weight without really noticing and i thought maybe it could be used in reverse.

arobie · Jul 31, 2005

Scottb50, I understand that using in situ resources for space development is new to us, but it is actually not as complicated as it would seem. In fact, mining and refining on the Moon is actually much simpler than it is on Earth. Refining in space is even simpler, but it would be economical for us to refine on the Moon. When I say building the base out of resources on the Moon, I don't mean that we are going all out in situ resource utilization. We are of course gonna take it easy. The only things that I want to make/pull out of the Moon are basalt bricks, an inner dome glass coating, and oxygen. The basalt bricks are easy. There are three options. We can cut basalt bricks straight out of the Moon. We can sinter basalt bricks, or we can cast basalt bricks. I'm not sure if using basalt bricks that we just cut out of the Moon is sufficient. The hardest part of that is the cutting part. Moon rock underneath the regolith is very hard. When the Apollo astronauts tried to drill samples, their drills seized up and they were forced to leave the drills there. Cutting through hard Moon rock is a technical problem, one that will be fun to solve. I'm not sure of the integrity of basalt bricks cut straight from the moon though, so sintered or cast bricks would most definitely be better. Sintering is a process whereby basalt powder or other minerals are heated up to just below their melting point. The material compresses and compacts. It produces a fairly low density material which can easily be cut and shaped. The material can hold small loads in compression, provides good thermal insulation, but cannot take alot of stress in tension and is brittle. The temperature for sintering is around 1100 C. That temperature can be achieved using direct solar energy or microwave or radiant heating. After the temperature is achieved, the material is allowed to cool very slowly. This process would work better on the Moon than it does

craig42 · Jul 31, 2005

Warning long rambling post. Abbreviations and quantities I’ve tried to keep these simple but just in case there is some confusion I’ve added an appendix in at the end of the post. Arobie You haven't given an initial number of occupants, I'm going to take 100 as a base line figure as it is a nice big round number <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Lunar Colony Life Support Atmosphere According to PERMANET (http://www.permanent.com/s-celss.htm ) 8m^2 of Algae can provide enough O2 for one person. So 800m^2 will provide for our colonists. The experiment stacked the tanks so as to reduce space, something we can easily practise. I could not locate data on power requirements. Food According to calculations done on a Nasa site's java program (http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettlement/designer/regen.html) 100 vegetarians nutritional needs be provided with for 1200m^2. Around 15Kw is required for 12m^2 so we would require 1,500Kw. (1.5 Mw) Water According to the ISS design (http://oregonstate.edu/~atwaterj/io.htm) each person requries in kg/per person/per day <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Water in Food --1.15 Food Preparation Water -- 0.79 Drinking Water -- 1.61 Oral Hygiene Water -- 0.36 Hand and Face Wash Water -- 1.81 Shower Water -- 5.44 Clothes Wash Water -- 12.47 * Dish Wash Water -- 5.44 Urinal/Comode Flush Water - 0.49 <hr /></blockquote> or 29.56kg of water a day so we need 2,956kg of water daily. The same person also gives of <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Water from Respiration and Perspiration -- 2.28 Urine -- 1.50 Urine Solids -- 0.06 Hygiene Water -- 7.18 Latent (Evaporated) Hygiene Water - 0.44 Clothes Wash Water -- 11.87 * Lat</blockquote>

arobie · Jul 31, 2005

"For a viable Lunar settlement you have the ask the question what has the moon got that we can't get cheaper and more easily on Earth?" It depends on what you mean by that question. If you mean, "What does the Moon have that we can export to Earth that we can't get cheaper and easier from Earth?", The answer is well: "Nothing. Some would say astronomical knowledge, but that doesn't make a Lunar Colony Viable. Others might say energy, but if they are thinking solar power energy, Solar Power Satellites would be much, much better. If they were thinking helium 3, well not yet. It has potential, huge potential to be resource that the Moon exports to the Earth, but not untill we figure fusion out. There is nothing else that we can get on the Moon that it would not be immensely easier and cheaper to get from Earth. Helium 3 is the only thing that the Moon could have an industry of exporting to Earth, but not yet. So as of now, there is nothing that the Moon could export to Earth that we couldn't get easier and cheaper from Earth." If you mean, "What does the Moon have that it could export to space development efforts that the Earth couldn't export cheaper and easier?", well then the answer is: "Anything that the Moon can make would be easier and more cheaply exported from the Moon than from Earth. Oxygen. We need it to breath, but we also use it it in rocket propellant. Oxygen makes up roughly 40% of lunar regolith. In oxygen-hydrogen propellant, oxygen makes up 86% of the propellant. Unfortunately, hydrogen is very rare on the Moon. It will have come from somewhere else, but most all oxygen needs for orbital operations can come from the Moon. Aluminum can also come from the Moon. It is found in anorthite (CaAl2Si2O8) which is abundant in the Lunar Highlands. (The light areas of the Moon.) When aluminum is produced from anorthite, calcium is a biproduct. Calcium is an excellent electrical conductor,

arobie · Jul 31, 2005

kevin, You are right, we do need to protect against radiation, but I don't think burrowing underground is the only way. I think if we use lunar bricks, and build the walls sufficiently thick, we should be fine.

arobie · Jul 31, 2005

stevehw33, I'm glad you've joined this thread. You are correct, the biological problems of living in space are not trivial and cannot be ignored. Low gravity is a serious problem. Our record so far for the longest spaceflight is 437 days, 17 hours, 58 minutes, and 4 seconds. (Gotta love wikipedia!) The record was set by the cosmonaut Valeri Polyakov on a visit to Mir from Jan 8, 1994 until Mar 22, 1995. I propose a standard year long stay at the colony unless the individual colonist requests a longer stay. Polyakov survived his 14 month stay in zero-gravity, so I figure a colonist should be fine on a 12 month stay in 1/6 Earth Gravity. You said: "As mass is not changed, any jumping from even an earth normal height, could break them. Sadly, it's not as easy as 'drinking more milk'.". Do you mean jumping from an Earth normal height in Earth normal gravity or Lunar gravity. Radiation is definitely a large problem. Honestly, I know very little about how dangerous it is as what levels, but I'm going to be doing some research to teach myself. I've found NASA's radiation limits: Radiation Constraints || Radiation Absorbed in Bone Tissue (rem) Daily Average----------------------------0.2 Monthly------------------------------------25 Quarterly----------------------------------35 Yearly--------------------------------------75 Career-------------------------------------400 Source for the above information. (page 4) Does anyone know how much radiation we absorb on Earth in one day with no protection? How about on the surface of the Moon? Under 3 meters of regolith? I'm going to do research, but if you know, please post the info. The paper I links might hold a couple of the answers, but I do not have time to read it through at

A Lunar Colony

arobie

Guest

spaceinator

Guest

le3119

Guest

MBA_UIU

Guest

arobie

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

le3119

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

scottb50

Guest

majornature

Guest

cyrostir

Guest

le3119

Guest

arobie

Guest

arobie

Guest

scottb50

Guest

tomnackid

Guest

kdavis007

Guest

spaceinator

Guest

ehs40

Guest

grooble

Guest

arobie

Guest

craig42

Guest

arobie

Guest

arobie

Guest

arobie

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page