A Lunar Colony

nexium · Aug 3, 2005

My guess is few problems with building a small swimming pool in reduced gravity, but risk of drowning increases as the gravity decreases. Your inner ear will be less likely to tell you the correct direction to the surface in reduced gravity. Neil

spaceinator · Aug 3, 2005

woops....

tap_sa · Aug 3, 2005

Shallow pools might be best. Diving into deep pool from a high tower would be especially risky. I imagine low hydrostatic pressure means water's resistance is lower, although it's inertia is of course the same. If you plunge into the water same speed than, say, jumping from 10m (~30ft) tower on earth, you might dive very deep. Small buoyancy forces might be a nasty surprise to a diver wanting to get back on the surface.

mrmorris · Aug 3, 2005

"Vacuum distillation is more energy efficient, but it does not separate the volitiles from the water as fully" I wasn't actually advocating vacuum distillation, but rather pointing out the error in his statement about energy. However, you can certainly use partial vacuum distillation to selectively vaporize and extract volatiles, then reduce the pressure or increase the heat to boil off the water. This is how they make things like low-alcohol beers and wines (i..e boiling off some of the alcohol while leaving the water). "...may not get hot enough to kill some kinds of micro-organisms." Unless these organisms are themselves subject to vaporization... they won't be exiting the distillation chamber along with the water vapor. I don't believe the ability to evaporate is a common trait of micro-organisms. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

j05h · Aug 3, 2005

Arobie, Sure. Take a look at a pic of an existing Roman aquaduct, one that uses several tiers of true arches. This structure is incredibly strong for the materials used. Take that structure, deepen it (several tens of meters wide) and wrap it in a circle in the center of a crater, perhaps "Endurance" sized, the whole structure is maybe the size of the Coliseum. Tiers are built up along the outer rim as well. Instead of a dome, the whole crater is covered in a ring of barrel vaults, with columns running down to the boulevard between the lowest tiers. Small domes and lightpipes are constructed in the vaulting and perhaps under the structure. In the center of the crater, a glass-domed atrium provides a major common space. Food crops and fish are grown in the aquaduct tiers, with shops,housing and food processing structures added later throughout the structure. With tunnelling machines, tunnels can be constructed under the crater to other facilities. The crater covering would be somewhat simiar to a large Catholic cathedral stretched longer and wrapped into a circle. I'll make some 3d models of it soon. I put some links below, I recommend looking for Roman vaults, Justinian's Cistern and other examples (persian and chinese) of arch structures. My favored construction method is Nader Khalili's sandbag domes, linked below. Another probably usable setup would be sun-bricks of some material. Both can create the described structure. Robots would do most of the work, there would be bulldozers, brick/sandbaggers, a sinterer (for making solid surfaces) and frame system for erecting several sizes of arch. Not sure how long it would take, but site selection and prep could occur on an early conjunction, then on the next flight opportunity, the in-bound crew could tele-op with increasing fidelity. The crater is dozed and sintered before the crew lands. Tele-ops could theoretically continue through final structure of a primitive vaulted hab, but maintenance issu <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

arobie · Aug 4, 2005

ethos42, Hello and welcome to the space.com forums! Excellent first post. So, starting an organization to pull through on this idea and build our Lunar Colony. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Well, I'm not sure if I want to bring this up or not, but here goes. A few months ago, spacester started a couple of threads on these boards dealing with designing a settlement for Mars. Mars Settlement precursor thread Let's Design a Settlement for Mars! Mars Settlement Financing Mars Settlement and NASA and the People's Space Agency And last but not least: Mars Settlement: Phase I Summary Those threads started in March this year and lasted many months and got pretty long. I'm sure some people over in Missions and Launches got quite tired of them. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> The threads outlined a Mars Settlement, developed a financial plan, and resulted in the founding of the ACCESS Space Foundation. If your curious, ACCESS = "Active Citizens for the Cultivation, Exploration, and Settlement of Space" (In the threads, what is referred to as PSA "People's Space Agency" was later named ACCESS.) Kadetken, I remember you saying somewhere in your i

majornature · Aug 4, 2005

Take a good astronomy course or two and you can add several dozen examples of your own, I'd bet./b> My astronomical goals are beyond the moon. I rather study why most crimes happen when the moon is full. Like I said, nothing to do on the moon. I rather take a free fall in Jupiter's Great Red Spot. Zochy Coisma Di Thom Pozix Xi !!! <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>

arobie · Aug 5, 2005

Josh, Wow! You've definitely caught my intrigue. It sounds very interesting. It sounds like it will look very impressive. I can't wait to see your 3d models.

arobie · Aug 5, 2005

craig, I had only responded to your first post when I responded to you earlier, now I'de like to respond to your second and third. First, I'de like to say that I only really respond when I have something to quibble about. If I don't respond to something you say, you can assume that I agree with it. I love the even longer rambling monoloque. Fun read so don't be ashamed of long posts. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Transport I really like the mass drivers, and we should make them a project to undertake, but not immediately. We won't need the ability to send large amounts of mass up to orbit, not in the beginning. We'll need that ability eventually, and we should plan to build the mass drivers before that time comes. It's hard to plan out exactly when it needs to be built because it depends on how well our mining operations are underway. We should plan in a mass driver, but we don't want to build it right in the beginning. I've never heard of oxygen-oxygen engines. Do you have any links on the matter? Communication Bringing the Moon into our internet should be a priority after building the colony, moving in, and accomplishing the first priority of survival. It's an invaluable link back to Earth. It will make the Lunar Colony seem less isolated to the colonists and it will fight against boredom. The internet is definitely a large source of entertainment for me. I love doing the type of stuff that we are doing in this thread, and I couldn't do it without the internet. It will be important to the colonists for communication with family and friends on Earth, and just to keep up with what is happening on Earth, if they are interested. Timing I agree that it is unwise to determine the maximum stay time until we know more about the adversities. I propose that the One year stay be the starting time for a Lunar stay. We know astronauts have stayed in zero gee fo

j05h · Aug 5, 2005

A- The book is actually "The Millenium Project - Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps" by Marshall T. Savage, isbn 0-316-77163-5. High Frontier is by Gerard K. O'Neill, isbn 0-9622379-0-6. They are both extremely good books. I also recommend Colonies in Space by Heppenheimer and all of Dr. John Lewis' books. for the lunar pole estimates, those numbers are still relevant, I believe. The real question is how the hydrogen is stored in those shadowed craters - there is some question whether it is water ice. If it's hydrogen in another form, it might not be economic to extract and recombine/liquify. I think this was covered on sci.space.policy a while ago. I think NEO "dead" comets are the place for H2O extraction, again I recommend John Lewis "Mining the Sky" for more info. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

craig42 · Aug 6, 2005

Arobie, Thank you, for your advice. As you may have gathered I am new here. I agree that mass drivers can wait to be enacted until demand for materials in orbit is high enough. Until then we can use rockets to send our material. This why I favour using a Lunar – Earth orbit ferry to dock with landing vehicles in orbit as opposed to direct missions. You can use it to send materials and/or other exports on the way home. As for Oxygen-Oxygen engines, whoops that’s a typo. I meant Aluminium-Oxide engines, it is referenced here J05H, what other from would the hydrogen have to be in for extraction to be so difficult as to make Earth launched hydrogen (at today’s launch prices) competitive?

j05h · Aug 7, 2005

>what other from would the hydrogen have to be in for extraction to be so difficult as to make Earth launched hydrogen (at today’s launch prices) competitive? It was discussed a long time ago on sci.space, the equipment that detected water signatures on the moon was measuring reflections from hydrogen, not actually water. The hydrogen could be locked in a mineral or implanted from the solar wind. There are probably other possibilities, it's the common assumption that lunar hydrogen = water. It shouldn't be a deal breaker, there are other sources of water in the inner solar system that are energentically easier than the lunar poles. Mining near-Earth comets for water should be a far simpler process than any form of lunar mining. Bags, inflatable mirrors, lightweight structures and a simple, non-corrosive, non-crygenic product than can be both structure and fuel for return craft. The first real property fights in outer space are going to revolve around a few very useful (materials & orbit) NEOs that provide plentiful water to Earth orbit. That said, I think that any well-thought water mining enterprise can beat the price of Earth-launched water with the first returns. www.neofuel.com has a bunch of mission profiles for lunar and asteroidal H2O return. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

tempel1 · Aug 7, 2005

Dear friends Go here please: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press-release-details.cfm?newsID=117 ” The spacecraft's VELOCITY RELATIVE TO THE SUN is at about 26 kilometers per second (about 59,250 miles per hour). Cassini is now more than 9 million kilometers (almost 6 million miles) from Earth”. Since our probe is launched from the earth, it has already a velocity of 65,000 miles per hour (earth's velocity). Why have NASA engineers steered Cassini on this trajectory? http://www.space.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=h_cassini_trajectory_02.gif&cap=The Instead of increasing Cassini's velocity they have slowed down it at 59,250 miles per hour. NASA engineers think the earth is the center of our solar system and don't consider earth's velocity. In this wrong way Cassini has travelled for 2 200 000 000 miles to meet Saturn. Cassini would have been able to fly along a straight line travelling for less than 1 000 000 000 miles. 65,000 miles per hour (earth velocity) + 36,000 miles per hour (spacecraft's velocity) = 101,000 miles per hour 1 000 000 000 miles : 365 days : 24 hours : 101,000 miles per hour = 1.13 years If NASA engineers considered the earth's velocity, Cassini could meet Saturn in one year!

spacester · Aug 8, 2005

I've stayed away from this most excellent and fun thread until now but I can resist no longer.

I can see uses for Scott's modules here. I am very much in the ISRU camp as far as building materials go, but there will be a need for alternate habitats for any man-tended operations. IOW if you decide that you need to send human technicians to help your robotic operation work, you're going to need a place for them to stay. Actually, I've been thinking that an early step in the Huge Dome building project could be building a small dome. This could provide an early test of the technology: the main tech to be proven being the ability to create and stack bricks, tie the dome down to the surface and make a 'glass bottle' inside the rock dome, along with testing airlock installation. If successful, this small dome would be open for business long before the main dome. If not, you carry on with module-based habitats. More is better. Of course the main competition for the modules in this role will be Inflatable Habitats, but here is where I see the module strategy winning the day: once the main dome is complete, they can be utilized exterior to the dome, converted from Habitats to other uses such as storage. No matter how big the dome, it will be nice to use a lot of the volume with a minimum of support infrastructure. (BTW, Scott's modules are growing on me in general) Let's suppose the human presence at the dome-building site is built up over time. This would leave you with a lot of modules. They would be enough to start another lunar community! Who knows where they could go from the dome building project, but they could help keep the lunar development momentum going. But to get back to the small dome, maybe an igloo design would be called for. It could be a thick-walled half-sphere sitting on the lunar surface, with a tunnel thru the bedrock: down, then horizontal, then up to a module that would provide docking for whatever craft <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

le3119 · Aug 9, 2005

Check out www.MoonMiner.com, this is a data-rich site with more details than I've seen anywhere else. He really gets into resources as an econoomic motive for going back. The Lunar Prospector and Clementine probes found ice signatures in permenantly shaded craters at both north and south poles, back in the late 90s. See: Lunar Ice in Shaded Craters I vote for the Peary Crater, directly over the North Pole as a base location. A base can be sheltered from solar radiation inside the crater, while solar collectors can be setup on the crater's outer slopes, permanently exposed to sunlight. Future laser sails or thermal rockets can receive energy from lasers fired from the north polar location, sending these vehicles into the solar system. A network of lunar sats would keep the base in contact with Earth and LEO.

scottb50 · Aug 9, 2005

The main drawback I see to domes is safety. If they are the size I think you are proposing you would have to consider the time needed to evacuate if a problem occurs and having enough domes in a settlement to deal with an emergency. While a dome would provide a large open space, large open spaces could be a huge risk. I also see the need for quite a bit of technical machinery and support systems to do what you are proposing, which would require a lot of resources being transfered, a pretty expensive proposition. The Modules I propose would be upper stage propellant tanks and cargo containers, in their first life, converted as needed for other uses at a destination or in LEO. A typical Module would be 30x60 feet, internal free space, that could be used in any number of ways. Each Module would have ten Docking Adapters putting an exit within fifteen feet of anywhere inside. Adapters would allow the Modules to work like Legos. Mate the Adapters and open the hatches. Once an initial settlement is in place then we could start exploring the project you talk about. I'm talking version 1.0 and your talking version 4.0. It has to get started as safely and cheaply as it can to allow the things you are talking about to come about. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

craig42 · Aug 9, 2005

le3119, How much sunlight is a colony going to get inside the crater? We don't want to avoid the light just the radiation. ScottB50, Domes are certainly at risk. As with your modules, we should not rely on a single one for the colony. I would like to keep the greenhouse areas separate from the main living habitat anyway to reduce contamination, from any plants that the colonists might like to grow. These greenhouses could double as emergency evacuation centres. As could any modules left over from the early construction phase. (I certainly envisioned your modules being used before the dome. They would work well for small scales such as construction sites or scientific outposts but I don't think the average person would go for them. Another possibility is to take the Malaysian approach and build twin domes with a pressurised "bridge" between them (or perhaps underground tunnels as you suggested earlier for reaching airlocks), so that each acts as the escape route for the other. I like the idea of building a small dome early on as that could be used as an agricultural dome.

spacester · Aug 9, 2005

Scott, going with a HUGE dome instead of something more modest is unconventional. But it is a deliberate choice. Conventional plans don't get built. The logic is very much like the logic behind Settling Mars with the first people we send, instead of scout missions first. Simply put, if it isn't big enough to capture the public's imagination, I have no idea how we are going to finance it. It is counterintuitive: the project cannot start too small, or it will not start at all. It will remain just another paper study if it's just going to be a few people tromping around doing science. A publicly funded space project must be a project that is easily understood by the average Joe. It's a lot easier to say "Let's go play in a HUGE lunar dome!" than "Let's have a few folks hang out in tin cans and see if they can survive." (Not that I think that way - I just want us to go, domes or no domes - hey, I like your modules, just not for everything <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> ) If it's a community of people doing things, well that will get the public on board. As to the safety of domes, the point is well taken. My dome design has multiple safe havens spread across the habitat area. It is a true statement that large open spaces pose a huge risk. BUT, if you build a dome that will last for millenia, barring a large impact event, you will actually end up safer IMO. The dome should be made leakproof, it's not that hard, not that much pressure difference. If the dome does spring a leak, crews would be all over it and fix the problem. If not, then you use the safe havens and evacuate. But if we have 100+ folks on site, evacuation is going to take awhile anyway. I'm thinking there is a central cylinder under the dome. We build that after the igloo to provide a large glass bottle within the dome as a huge safe haven. It would also reduce the radiation exposure as low as possible for those <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Aug 9, 2005

Domes are certainly at risk. As with your modules, we should not rely on a single one for the colony.... I am saying a colony should be multiple Modules, each one totally self contained and capable of sustaining the inhabitants from other Modules if they have a problem requiring evacuation. I would think at it's lowest point a three Module structure should be able to handle about 30 people, if forced to find refuge in one or two that would not task the system. As I tried to say earlier the problem I have with domes is what you look at as an advantage, lots of open space. That puts you further away from an escape route. The Moon or Mars doesn't significantly matter here, you have a structural failure, impact damage, or whatever, the closer you are to an escape path the better. I also don't see the need for a dome for agriculture. If you mean exposing plants to direct sunlight I doubt they would like that very much. The best bet would be hydroponics using solar power to power grow lights, you could do that anywhere. (or perhaps underground tunnels as you suggested earlier for reaching airlocks), /> I don't think I suggested that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Aug 9, 2005

It is counterintuitive: the project cannot start too small, or it will not start at all. It will remain just another paper study if it's just going to be a few people tromping around doing science..... I have to disagree. It has to start with a few people paving the way for those to follow. You can't expect to send hundreds of people to somewhere no one has ever been before and expect them to carve out an existance. Sure it's great to create the enthusiasm to go, but look at the Gold rushes, 1 in 1,000, or less, suceeded. I think there is a lot of future in Space and more will develop once we can get there, just like California and Alaska. What I don't want to do is over-extend and offer false hopes. You might reap the immediate benefits but eventually it implodes. Simply put, if it isn't big enough to capture the public's imagination, I have no idea how we are going to finance it... I have talked about a World wide communication system, based on orbiting relay stations, that would require crews to maintain and service equipment. A user has a low powered tranceiver, basically a keyboard and monitor that communicates with Super-computers through, orbiting relays. Tie these in to Televisions and remote sensors or controllers and you could do everything you can do, sitting in your living room or in front of you PC on a hand-held device, from anywhere in the world, at any time. This would give an incentive to need orbiting assets and since reaching orbit is the gateway to the Universe the public woud pay the way, which is only fitting. A publicly funded space project must be a project that is easily understood by the average Joe. It's a lot easier to say "Let's go play in a HUGE lunar dome!" />> If Tourism is the only source of revenue you can think of then your right, there is not that much money out there to sustain the Moon, let alone Mars. If it's a community of people doing things, well t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

craig42 · Aug 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />the project cannot start too small, or it will not start at all.<hr /></blockquote> No, not so, I agree with Scott on this. A huge dome is a good project finish but there's nothing wrong with starting small. The 'tin cans' will be fine for construction 'trailers' until the dome can be moved into. What exactly do you mean by robotic prep work? It sounds like an eventually manned base. We're better off having a small building crew up there in case the robot has problems and/or to show Joe Public "look men (and women) are building your HUGE lunar Dome to go PLAY in right now." As for the safe haven it's got to be easy to get to from any point in the dome. Since we're going to need infrastructure to distribute water, air, food, etc. I'm thinking using underground tunnels that could perhaps double as evacuation routes to the "safehaven"

craig42 · Aug 10, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> Domes are certainly at risk. As with your modules, we should not rely on a single one for the colony.... <hr /></blockquote> I understood your modules would be multiples, let me rephrase. It is my opinion that regardless of technology, geometry, architecture or any other variables the colony should not rely on a single pressure vessel to provide a habitable environment, as loss of atmosphere would be catastrophic. Does that make more sense? <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> the problem I have with domes is what you look at as an advantage, lots of open space. That puts you further away from an escape route<hr /></blockquote> This leads me to my second 'rule' IMHO, Each pressure vessel must have an easy egress route through which the entire complement of human occupants can move rapidly without mechanical assist to another independent habitable pressure vessel. In your case modules are close enough together to quickly evacuate. I envisioned pressurised tunnels underneath the domes to allow people further away from backup pressure vessels to reach it. These pressure vessels could be your modules or spacester's underground safe haven. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I also don't see the need for a dome for agriculture. <hr /></blockquote> Again, I haven't explained clearly <img src="/images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> I think you suggested earlier building a small dome to test the technology. Building a few more would give us extra data. This was just an idea for one possible use. Modules could work depending on how transparent they are, I just don't like underground very much. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />If you mean exposing plants to direct sunlight I doubt they would like that very much.<hr /></blockquote>

arobie · Aug 11, 2005

Excellent job my friends. Cool debate and very good points brought up. Domes or Modules? Safety This is of course extremely important and I'm glad it has been brought up. Excellent point that huge open spaces are a huge open risk. But if there's a will there is a way. There are ways to take precautions against this. This dome is not going to be flimsy or easily breached. To protect against radiation, built out of basalt, the walls would have to be atleast 3 meters thick to protect against Solar Storms. The common micrometeorite does not have the firepower to blast through 3 meters of solid rock. Micrometerorites are the only real problem we can guard against. We could make the dome impervious to X cm size meteor, but there is always the chance that a X+1 cm meteor strikes. There is really nothing we can do to protect against something like that. A 3 meter thick dome would seem to offer better meteroite protection than a module could. If a meterorite big enough to smash a hole though those three meters of solid rock were to hit a module, it wouldn't matter where the exits were because no one would live long enough to reach the exits. But still, there is always that one in a million chance that such a meteor could hit the dome or that the dome could spring a leak do to other reasons, and if it does we need to have precautions taken so that people could safeguard against that. I like spacester's idea for a safehaven(s) under the dome. It could also serve purpose for any possible very severe solar storms. Modules for use During Constuction I could buy that and I can see the reason for having people on the Moon during construction. The reason I see is for repairs and possibly controlling the very complex parts of the operations. Everything else can be done from Earth. I guess now is the time to reveal the strategy for teleoperations. Teleoperations Strategy

spacester · Aug 11, 2005

There is a lot of agreement here . . . The modules are fine for construction; they are great for construction in fact. But going on first principles . . . What I am looking at is maximizing the dollars spent on as large a facility as possible. IMO until the size of the final product gets to a certain minimum size, it will not sustain the tourist traffic needed to make the financing work. I'm trying to keep the ACCESS thing separate from this thread, but there is in fact have a financing plan. It simply does not work if the project is not grand enough. If there are other financing plans, I'm all ears. We can sell armies of robots to build something that will last forever, a grand space in space that their progeny can visit. Having said that, I agree there is nothing wrong with starting small, just as long as you don't intend to stay small. For starters, it seems clear that a module-only strategy is not the way to build a huge permanent facility. They are a perfectly valid way to build up a collection of habitats for a daytime-only community. Perhaps you could get through the long night, but to me it seems more likely the mode will be 2 week stays. Which would be great, but is not the same thing as a continuous population of folks in a stable environment. To build a facility to meet that criteria, it seems totally clear that you must use local building materials. The one thing the moon has in abundance is rock: little rocks, huge rocks, sand and dust . . . but especially the lunar maria, deep and vast fields of basalt. So what do you build out of basalt? Well, first you develop the tech to turn it into building material by making it the size you want, then a way to move it around where you want. Then all kinds of possibilities open up. Me, I like a dome for lots of reasons. YMMV The whole focus of my personal vision has been to find the best possible very first mission (to each of 3 destinations in the overall progra <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Aug 11, 2005

I forgot to check for a new post, oops. Well I'll be back after reading our thread leader's latest . . . edit: Cool ideas. Teleoperation will work, there is no reason why the "labor" of building a lunar dome needs to cost a thing. What we need is bandwidth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

A Lunar Colony

nexium

Guest

spaceinator

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

j05h

Guest

arobie

Guest

majornature

Guest

arobie

Guest

arobie

Guest

j05h

Guest

craig42

Guest

j05h

Guest

tempel1

Guest

spacester

Guest

le3119

Guest

scottb50

Guest

craig42

Guest

spacester

Guest

scottb50

Guest

scottb50

Guest

craig42

Guest

craig42

Guest

arobie

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page