A Lunar Colony

nexium · Sep 13, 2005

I agree, The 100 degrees k regolith in the polar low lands will be helpful for cooling the condencer of the solar thermal power tower. When the sun sets behind a nearby mountain for a day, the still hot regolith at high elevations can supply some power. I changed my post on page 12 to reflect this improved performance. My guess is the mirrors will be superior, but troths can be used to preheat the working fluid and double as raditors when shaded by a nearby mountain for a day. Neil

craig42 · Sep 14, 2005

Nexium. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />but can we trust our Earth leaders to make life and death decisions for Moon colonests? New Orleans and Missisippi/Katrina suggest colonists should make their own decisions. <hr /></blockquote> True but by the same token do you really want the leaders wasting time bickering? As I said before that structure's for <blockquote>In reply to:<hr /> in any situation other than an emergency<hr /></blockquote> Sure there should be a lunar governor, maybe two (or one and a deputy)but why do we need four, when Earth can provide oversight? Dan_Casale You said; <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Still, if the desire is an independent colony, they must be able to resolve all issues on their own<hr /></blockquote> That of course depends on how you define independent. Is the colony financially independent, resource independent, politically independent or completely Earth independent? What about the financers? They're going to want some control over the colony. I can't see political independence being practical for a lunar colony, for Mars and beyond yes. <blockquote>In reply to:<hr />I have been working on it a long time.<hr /></blockquote> It shows, the post is a credit to your skill, perseverance and passion. I suspected that perhaps you were more interested in Mars, but of course, it is applicable in both environments. I like your thoughts on communication, would be nice to see a colony LAN develop not just for communication purposes, but so that we could monitor and control systems from one central command module (which could be changed if the need arose.) A few wireless PDAs would also be essential, as there will be no black and white print newspapers to read on the lunar base! Finally my little push; Night would not be too problematic if we build at the poles

dan_casale · Sep 14, 2005

Here is a copy of the first lunar paper. I tried to include Mars elements to show that the plan could work for both locations. But you can see the progression. Note the solar PV sail idea. I thought it might work, but now I think that gravity would be too great. Unanswered questions: Is 1/6 gravity enough to maintain human health? How much of a problem is the 672 hr day? (28 earth days) What is the minimum amount in each category that can be used to bootstrap? How long would your human ideally spend on the moon before returning to earth? Do you know of any additional websites/books that could be researched in for further data on the physiological side of spaceflight/colonization? Possible locations Moon Locations: Reasons to go: Supply parts and propellants to LEO and GEO. Alter the paths of asteroids that might strike Earth. Poles: The south pole is believed to have the most water and was selected for the industrial site. The industrial site would house the electrical generation, and smelting facilities. Equator: Several equatorial locations have been considered. Two on the earth-side near the horizon, and one on the middle of the far-side directly opposite earth. The two earth-side bases would receive/send earth supplies. The far-side base would be used during the new moon and as an observatory. Habitats: Surface built domes: Built by telepresence controlled robots prior to human arrival. Inside surface is coated to prevent air loss possible coating are: Aluminum: Mined from lunar resources Glass: Mined from lunar resources Fused rock Lava Tubes: Discovered by manual exploration or orbiting sensors. The lava tubes have the inner surface sealed to prevent air from escaping. If a opening to the lava tube is not available to the surface a Tunnel Boring Machines (TBM) is used to create an entrance. Inside surface is coated

brucegagnon · Sep 20, 2005

The only reason America wants a base on the moon is as a weapons platform to fire upon anyone daring to defy them. That's the big plan. Bush wants weapons in space. Kennedy was no visionary either. He admitted that Apollo was all about beating the Russkies to our big cheese disk. He never cared about colonising space and neither does Bush. It's all a big scam I'm afraid. We're being duped.

rubicondsrv · Sep 20, 2005

Yet another troll post by bruceGagnon. If you wish to discuss weapons in space please start a new thread. Thank You <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

dan_casale · Sep 20, 2005

I say dupe-away. It still requires a base and people to support it. Commercialization will follow and the goal will have been achieved.

dan_casale · Sep 26, 2005

>>...is a thorium or uranium reactor. I'd favor the former as there is LOTS more thorium than uranium and there are no proliferation or warhead issues.<< Isn't Thorium readily absorbed by the human body and stored in Calcium?

spacester · Sep 26, 2005

Well nuclear energy on the moon would be great, but we should not be disingenuous in our path to getting permission to use it. The night is long but the resource is rich, so the obvious thing to try is to store the energy to get you through the night. It will not be easy but it's just the sort of problem humans are good at figuring out. Before moving on to high-tech systems, I took a look at Potential Energy. Gravity may suck, but it is very dependable. If you could move a bunch of mass up a hill and then extract the energy as it goes back down the hill at night, you'd potentially have a very reliable system. But as one might expect, the weak lunar gravity field makes it rather impractical. Where did I put that calc? Ah, here it is . . . A cube of regolith of 45.5 m on edge raised 50 m above the surface would contain 12.6E9 Joule of energy, which would, ignoring inefficiencies, allow you to generate 10 kilowatts of electricity for 350 hours. Moving on to Kinetic Energy, flywheel storage is an interesting possibility. Quick research turned up a pdf of this flywheel-based kinetic energy storage device. Extrapolating from that data indicates that it would require 14 units to do 1 kilowatt continuous for 350 hours 1 kilowatt is not enough energy to get humans through the night. We really need more like 10 kW, so let’s look at Chemical Energy. Hmm . . . how big of tanks do we need to store Hydrogen and Oxygen to get us thru the night? Let’s ignore the problems associated with liquid hydrogen for the moment, the volume in gaseous form will be huge I would expect. *** A reference from Harvard gives 4.23 lb./cu.ft. Liquid and 0.005229 for the Gas Hmm . . . how big of tanks do we need to store Hydrogen and Oxygen to get us thru the ni <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Sep 28, 2005

steve, I totally agree that we need solutions for living away from the poles. It may be that the poles are where the energy industry is, and that the energy is then "transported" to the equatorial habitats. But even that approach requires development of the poles before any place else. So we need an energy strategy that lets us live anywhere using locally produced energy. The energy density of solar power is not so bad. I'm surprised that you make such a blanket "end of story" statement. You seem to be fixated on 'efficiency'. I know of no definition of efficiency that applies here. Are you saying that if we cannot run our industries during the night, we should not even bother? You make hay while the sun shines, and you sleep at night. It's just the cycle time that changes.

bitbanger · Sep 28, 2005

How about mirrors at Earth-Moon L4 and/or L5 focusing sunlight on collectors wherever power is needed. Small mirrors shouldn't be too hard to deploy at first, expanding as the need for more power does. From L4 and L5 you should be able to supply power to all but about 20% of the backside of the moon (anyone want to do the math?) Sell the power to whoever needs it and you've got the beginnings of an orbital enterprise.

nexium · Sep 30, 2005

I can't do the math for a one square kilometer mirror at L4 and L5. Perhaps someone here can. My guess is a small illuminated spot is all but impossible. If one square kilometer of sunlight illuminates a million square kilometer of the moon's surface, the received energy density is way too low. If the one square kilometer mirrors orbit the moon barely clearing the mountain peaks, high energy density can be received briefly at numerous surface energy collection sites, because the energy beam is much shorter. Tidle effects complicate the mirror design, but such mirrors may be practical with technology available soon. We can practice now with mirrors supported by balloons free floating in Earth's atmosphere. Neil

dan_casale · Sep 30, 2005

One square Kilometer 1,000 x 1,000 = 1,000,000 square meters * 1340 watts = 1.34 Megawatts power. Giving the mirror a slight curve would allow the light to be focused on a much smaller spot. I bet the astronomy group would like to point that mirror at a number of other objects during the lunar day.

scottb50 · Sep 30, 2005

But, is there enough to do there to justify it? If you use solar to provide Hydrogen and Oxygen you can collect and store it and use it as you need to. Nuclear is no panecea, it has obvious plusses here on the surface, but, in Space, we don't need it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

scottb50 · Oct 1, 2005

I think the best solution would be a sealed solar/fuel cell system. Solar power is used to separate water, the Hydrogen and Oxygen are stored cryogenically, with enough reserve to last an appropriate amount of time. Fuel cells are powered by the Hydrogen and Oxygen and the water exhausted is continuously recycled. The station has steady high quality power. I would think the ISS would make a good example as to power needs, or at least offer a starting point. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

spacester · Oct 3, 2005

steve, um I think I have a pretty good handle on the physics but I have no grasp whatsoever on your logic. First, you said solar wasn't efficient enough. I asked for a particular definition of efficiency that applies, as of all the definitions I know of, none apply AFAIK. You seem to have dropped that line of argument, er reasoning, and shifted to energy density. I grok energy density, it's not an advanced concept. Now you're trying to tell us that we need 2 GIGAWATTS (!!!!!!!) of power to run "any lunar hab". You cannot be serious. Do you have any idea how much electricity that is? A very rough rule of thumb for US residential energy usage is 1.0 kilowatt for an average household. So you're saying we need the amount of electricity that would power 2 MILLION homes on Earth to be in place on the Moon before ANY hab can be set up????? Like I said, nuclear would be fabulous, but I see nothing to be gained from being disingenuous in our sales pitch. We're going to tell the public that we need 2 GIGAWATTS or we can't even get started???? Little "meteors" will take out a panel or two at a rate of maybe one per 100 years (guessing). Medium size "meteors" will make for a bad day for any surface equipment. The nuclear facility will certainly not be "immune" to large meteors or solar flares - are you going to be using any electronics in this nuclear plant? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

TheShadow · Oct 3, 2005

A self repairing polymer in that application is an interesting concept. Do you have any technical information that shows either the material that would lend itself to that application, or the properties such a membrane would have? Remember, the pressure inside would necessarily be quite high, probably over 11psi. That would put a lot of stress on the membrane and make self-repairing difficult I would think. Also, I doubt that an electrical field could be generated on such a large structure that would successfully repel enough of the charged particles to make it worth while. Any charged particles that could be stopped by such a field wouldn’t be a danger anyhow. lunar colonies will be buried under the regolith for a long time to come. If there are any, I am sure that is where they will be. I don’t see any part of a lunar habitat or colony above ground, except for entrances. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

scottb50 · Oct 4, 2005

I would oppose Nuclear on the Moon or Mars, there is no need for it. Solar and water are all you need. Raw materials exist to make glass at both the moon and Mars and the technology dates to our earliest technologically advanced ancestors. Meaning we can build a hell of a lot of solar cells out of moon dust. I still say water is the only way we leave here. We have to take it with us, propulsion will waste it into Space, but everything else will recycle. What do we need with 2Gig of power? The ISS uses less than 100KW, I doubt any facility put on the moon would be that much bigger than ISS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

bitbanger · Oct 4, 2005

Actually hydrogen is the only consumable we need to ship to the moon. The lift costs from earth are much lower since the oxygen in water is about 80% of the mass. One of the most effective processes to mine oxygen on the moon produces water as an intermediate component. This same process also produces iron and titanium dioxide as byproducts. The way to approach colonizing the moon (or LEO) is to figure on bootstrapping as much as possible. The first step is to put an oxygen mining robot on the moon and start producing oxygen and iron. (consider selling some of the oxygen to NASA) Work on a way to manufacture solar cells from local materials, but in the meantime ship in an array of solar panels to generate electricy. Next put a small solar mirror at L4/L5 to provide power for the entire lunar day. (consider selling power to NASA's lunar base) Start small, build as needed. I would expect NASA to require a nuclear reactor to power thier base rather than solar. It would also cost a couple of billion to build, test and launch. So lets be generous and assume a power requirement of 500kW. Assuming a 10% conversion efficiency for cheap solar cells this works out to a solar collector of about 62 meters x 62 meters, or about 3900m^2. Of course this only works for 14 days out of every 28, so you use half the power to crack water (produced out of the shipped in hydrogen and lunar oxygen) and a fuel cell for the night. Putting in a small L4 mirror reduces the need for the fuel cell and also increases daytime power generation. Of course the biggest hurdle in all of this is the cost to LEO. That is still the major thing holding back private enterprise in space.

scottb50 · Oct 4, 2005

The problem with shipping Hydrogen and making Oxygen locally is the weight that would have to be carried. Hydrogen would need to be transported either as a highly compressed gas or liquid, either would take pretty substantial containers. Producing Oxygen would take quite a bit of equipment that would also have to be delivered. Water, on the other hand can use a light-weight container and can be stored indefinitely with little or no maintenance. Water can be used repeatedly so the amount that would be needed would be fairly minor anyway and the water needed for crew use would have to be transported anyway. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

tap_sa · Oct 4, 2005

If/when someone wins NASA MoonROx Challenge we'll know that machine weighing less than 25kg can produce more than 5kg of O2 in just 8 hours. If it could be operated just one whole lunar day (2 weeks) in a row it would produce 210kg of O2, over eight times it's own weight. That is of course the point in ISRU plants, they have to be able to produce multiple amounts of their own mass as end products during their lifetime. Shipping H2 isn't such a big problem, modern tanks have mass fractions over 0.90 . Boil-off during the short trip to moon is manageable. Water to moon is 8/9ths of coal to Newcastle. Ship the O2 ISRU plant, and methane/ammonia if you worry about H2 storage. Carbon and nitrogen are important to jumpstart at least partial selfsustaining.

mental_avenger · Oct 4, 2005

Scott says: I would oppose Nuclear on the Moon or Mars, there is no need for it. Solar and water are all you need. A small nuclear reactor can be shipped to the Moon or to Mars ready to run. Any outpost or colony will need a lot of reliable power right away. They certainly won’t be able to wait until they build enough solar cells (which will require a lot of power to build). Scott says: Meaning we can build a hell of a lot of solar cells out of moon dust. If it were that easy, PV cells wouldn’t be so expensive here on Earth. If they are difficult and expensive to make here, they would be 1000 times more so on the Moon, and 100 times more so on Mars. Scott says: The ISS uses less than 100KW, I doubt any facility put on the moon would be that much bigger than ISS. Remember this famous quote? “Computers will never need more than 64k of memory”. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Oct 4, 2005

bitbangers says: The first step is to put an oxygen mining robot on the moon and start producing oxygen and iron. We’ve heard suggestions for all kinds of “robots” on the Moon, from robots that eat regolith and deposit solar cells, to robots that build cities. If it were practical to build such robots, we would have them crawling all over the Earth producing everything we need. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

bitbanger · Oct 4, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />The LWR found in many Navy vessels, are not only light weight, but efficient.<hr /></blockquote> Define light weight. Would it be less than 100metric tons? Another issue to deal with is political. Nuclear reactors in space, especially of that size, will cause all sorts of international noise. (Outer Space Treaty). This also assumes that the reactor and outpost is a government sponsored project. Based on past performance, I very much doubt that the US will manage that.

bitbanger · Oct 4, 2005

Tap_sa beat me to it!! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> If Hydrogen storage is really a concern, then shipping Liquidified Natural Gas is a better choice. Methane is 25% Hydrogen by weight to Water's 20%. Even liquified it is less dense than water, but much denser than LH2. Even better instead of shipping O2 which is plentiful on the moon, you ship carbon which is very rare. On top of that, Water will require energy to crack into H & O, while methane releases energy when combined with locally produced Oxygen.

bitbanger · Oct 4, 2005

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />Sure, more efficient solar panels can be built, but at great cost compared to nuclear sources.<hr /></blockquote> The other approach is not to build really expensive solar panels, but to build more of them. There is lots of realestate on the moon right now, so covering a couple of square kilometers with solar panels can generate quite a bit of energy. Even better if the panels are locally produced. Sure, having a couple of gigawatts of electricity available would simplify things. But what is the probability of convincing the UN to allow it, and getting a government to fund launching and planting a nuke on the moon? Personally I find it much more likely that private industry will lead the way once the cost to orbit problem is chipped away at enough. (go Elon!!!)

A Lunar Colony

nexium

Guest

craig42

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

brucegagnon

Guest

rubicondsrv

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

spacester

Guest

spacester

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

nexium

Guest

dan_casale

Guest

scottb50

Guest

scottb50

Guest

spacester

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

scottb50

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

tap_sa

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

bitbanger

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page