I have a dumb question

Jun 28, 2024
3
0
10
Visit site
Why can't we take a inflatable balloon tent to the moon and make a Self-sustaining ecosystems like the garden in a bottle in doing so we will have a "base" on the moon
 
[Micro-]Meteorites.

One needs a smooth protective cavern to inflate it in.

The inflatable must sustain high atmospheric pressures ...... perfectly.

Any exposure to sunlight will require transparent ballistic shielding.

The Moon's surface is made of unerroded volcanic glass shards.

Outer space is a hostile environment to life as we know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tinus
Jun 28, 2024
3
0
10
Visit site
Thanks

But still if we use Kevlar the volcanic Glas won't be a problem

I am not a astroleger but in my mind from school there's no wind to push the sand around so if the material is strong the sand glass won't damage it to bad to use something like an inflatable tent will cut cost dromaticly Putting fruit and vegetables in the ecosystem will cut cost of food granted vegans will win this one as animals will cos damage to the structure
So according to the garden in a bottle this will be self sustaining in the sense of food

My real question is can something like that work
 
I'm all in for a Moon base. But you'll need to establish a stage coach line first. A self sustaining environment would be extremely difficult to produce. I haven't heard of a functioning one except earth. Light would have to be supplied for for half the time for plant life.

Any Moon base would require reliable logistics. Supply runs. Communications. And personnel rotations. A Moon day limit. And recovery time back home.

A very large project. A continuing cost project. Is there anything there that can cover the cost?

Maybe a pet moon rock? Two week getaways? Ask marketing.

I would like to see some construction projects on the far side(or not see). For scopes and antennas.

Very large scopes and antennas. Add a quiet laser network for them.
 
Jun 28, 2024
3
0
10
Visit site
I'm all in for a Moon base. But you'll need to establish a stage coach line first. A self sustaining environment would be extremely difficult to produce. I haven't heard of a functioning one except earth. Light would have to be supplied for for half the time for plant life.

Any Moon base would require reliable logistics. Supply runs. Communications. And personnel rotations. A Moon day limit. And recovery time back home.

A very large project. A continuing cost project. Is there anything there that can cover the cost?

Maybe a pet moon rock? Two week getaways? Ask marketing.

I would like to see some construction projects on the far side(or not see). For scopes and antennas.

Very large scopes and antennas. Add a quiet laser network for them

I'm all in for a Moon base. But you'll need to establish a stage coach line first. A self sustaining environment would be extremely difficult to produce. I haven't heard of a functioning one except earth. Light would have to be supplied for for half the time for plant life.

Any Moon base would require reliable logistics. Supply runs. Communications. And personnel rotations. A Moon day limit. And recovery time back home.

A very large project. A continuing cost project. Is there anything there that can cover the cost?

Maybe a pet moon rock? Two week getaways? Ask marketing.

I would like to see some construction projects on the far side(or not see). For scopes and antennas.

Very large scopes and antennas. Add a quiet laser network for them.
Yes for scopes and so on even for studies as they do on the international spaces station many even a lunch base to move out more

The way I think is we can't build bigger spaceship on the moon as it will be easier to lunch from the moon as Less gravity so bigger ship's will be easier to get of not needing so much power to brake free from Earth

I don't know if wiki hase got it right but there are "minarels" on the moon


That can be mind to build bigger spaceships
 
An inflateable habitat on the Moon would not provide radiation shielding. On Earth, we have an atmosphere of low molecular weight gases that will stop incoming high energy particles. High molecular weight material must be much more massive than our atmospere. It would be very difficult to pile enough regolith on top of a balloon in order to provide the shielding. The best option on the Moon is to go underground.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe
An inflateable habitat on the Moon would not provide radiation shielding. On Earth, we have an atmosphere of low molecular weight gases that will stop incoming high energy particles. High molecular weight material must be much more massive than our atmospere. It would be very difficult to pile enough regolith on top of a balloon in order to provide the shielding. The best option on the Moon is to go underground.
To equal Earth's atmospheric depth takes a five foot thick depth of simple dirt.
 
To equal Earth's atmospheric depth takes a five foot thick depth of simple dirt.
But simple dirt is made of high Z atoms and will not shield. The high speed ionized atomic nuclei simply bounce off them without losing energy. As a result, about 2 to 3 times the amount is needed. The lower gravity on the Moon would help, but 12-15 feet of regolith is a problem. Much easier to set up shop in a lava tube,
 
But simple dirt is made of high Z atoms and will not shield. The high speed ionized atomic nuclei simply bounce off them without losing energy. As a result, about 2 to 3 times the amount is needed. The lower gravity on the Moon would help, but 12-15 feet of regolith is a problem. Much easier to set up shop in a lava tube,
Bill, you are wrong according to a lot of mighty knowledgeable experts. A depth of Earth atmosphere from edge of space to sea-level matches to five foot depth of dirt. Space stations will construct armored emergency shelters just about equaling that, though more compact. Stanford Torus in-space colonies will have lighter rotating inner tubes (still with differing depths of material) and non-rotating outer tubes filled throughout their lengths with five feet plus depths of excess construction sludge materials from the Moon and captured asteroid and other meteor materials.

Bill, a lot of physicists and engineers have done a lot of work over the years figuring this out. I don't think all those professional expert-types can be so wrong!
 
Heavy material does not stop energetic particles as well as light materials do. When a heavy ion from outer space hits a heavy ion in your proposed shielding, it will not stop or slow down, all it will do is bounce off. Eventually the human gets the full dose, only in smaller particles as a "shower".

On the other hand, when a heavy ion hits a hydrogen atom in water, plastic, etc, it will have some of its energy absorbed. After many collisions it is stopped and the energy converted to heat.

The ratio of heavy/light shielding mass for a given level of attenuation is a function of the incident mass and energy but in general is about 2.5 to one as I recall.

On Earth we have 15 psi of light weight atoms above each square inch of surface. If it were rock it would need to be 37 psi. With the Moon's one sixth gravity, it would only press down with a force of 6 psi. Lunar regolith has a specific gravity of 1.5, thus a density of .056 pounds per cubic inch, thus a weight of 9e-3 per cubic inch, thus we need a thickness of 55 feet.

This is where the problem is.
 
Bill, you're claiming it is impossible for life to live in, and live in transit of, space with little protective mass but having adequate shielding. You are saying we aren't going anywhere, life can't go anywhere including UFO aliens, because of impossibilities, because of impossible to solve problems, regarding shielding. That we must forget breaking out, in-mass (en-masse), and just produce the impossible Utopia of Earth!

In that case Hawking was right! We've got 1,000 years maximum until we are extinct! I, for one, don't believe we aren't going to break out, to birth out to those frontiers, in mass! I believe the experts, I've read, that you don't believe . . . that you, among others, constantly naysay!

Lord Kelvin said in the 1890s that humans could and would NEVER fly in heavier than air craft!

John von Neumann said in the 1940s that computers would only grow larger until they occupied whole city block size warehousing and no one but the largest, richest, nations and corporations would be able to afford one!

And on, and on, all through history, the naysayers and their stated impossibilities along with their proofs!
 
Last edited:
News flash. Without enormous shields, astronauts outside the Earth's protective magnetic shield for long periods of time are going to get very sick. The needed shielding is the same as what we have here on Earth, either 30,000 feet of air, or its equivalent, 40 feet of water or 55 feet of lunar regolith type material. A very strong magnetic field can work but not at the poles, same as Earth.
 
Last edited:
News Flash! we are going to break out from the Earth, in mass! Life, in mass, is going occupy, live in, work in, and transit, outer space. And we are going to do the impossible! We are going to do it impossibly creatively (that which cannot possibly be done per the naysayers such as....)!
 
News flash! Per the naysayers, life should not even exist in the universe, but it does! Per the naysayers, humans should never have risen to the heights of creatively manipulating and controlling their environments, matters and energies, but it has!
 
With a little luck we might be getting some better shielding materials. And methods.

Going underground will work, but at great expense and resource. We need something that's thin, light weight and can BLOCK high speed particles. Something that could be worn would be most excellent. Might be applied to anything. A paint or film would be a dream.

Everybody has heard of graphene. And now there are dozens of materials with the one or two atomic layered structures. And I'm sure many more are coming. We have not even begun to apply some of these custom materials. These atomic "strips" can be layered.

But some we have. We now have a substance, a material that can be applied like a coating, a paint or film, that can BLOCK all EM fields. This is quite a feat. This will change electrical design and engineering and eliminate a lot of noise. And interference. Inter equipment interference. I think in no time it will be used for modulation. Possibly selective filtering. Tuning.

The same for thermo dynamics. Both blocking and harvesting heat, and heat conversion.

Some of these paints have been used to monitor stress on buildings and bridges. And detect points of corrosion. And has surprised lots of structural engineers.

I would like to see a keel coating next. A sterile coating.

I think the same will happen with shielding. And with an intermittent deceleration method.....that might take only millimeters of material. Even a centimeter or two. We won't block and shield against them, we'll catch them. And find a good use for them.

We need to catch these things anyway for solar travel. It's an environment resource that has to be advantaged.

Future looks real good for the materials field.
 
Doing the frontier "magical" per past naysaying generations, the frontier impossible possible according to past generations, is what humans do best . . . is what humans have always done best!
 
Last edited:
Energetic particles can be deflected by magnetic fields. It is simply a matter of how strong we can make the fields and how we can arrange them to minimize our radiation dose. A bipolar field would have but two openings, one at each pole. We could put our conventional shielding there, not eliminating it but minimizing it.
But then we have the problem that the field has steered a vast amount of particles into the N and S pole, just like the aurora on Earth. We would need much thicker shielding. Maybe it would not work out.
 
Mar 29, 2021
40
9
4,535
Visit site
Energetic particles can be deflected by magnetic fields. It is simply a matter of how strong we can make the fields and how we can arrange them to minimize our radiation dose. A bipolar field would have but two openings, one at each pole. We could put our conventional shielding there, not eliminating it but minimizing it.
But then we have the problem that the field has steered a vast amount of particles into the N and S pole, just like the aurora on Earth. We would need much thicker shielding. Maybe it would not work out.
extra shielding would not be needed if the cage is properly grounded.
 
A field shield would be very expensive energy wise. The relative u of space is small. It's relative because the u of matter and the u of space have different references.

The radiation particles are charged. If we slow them down, we can glue them. The process of gluing them generates current. A passive shield that generates juice as it's bombarded with particle radiation.

We have to learn to live off the land out there. Catching particles. Catching heat.

The method is layered deceleration. 1000s of steps. Slowing it down a little at a time. Digital deceleration.
 
With a magnetic shield to deflect charged particles, there is no cage involved. The magnetic field is generated by a current. It could be a perpetual current in a superconductor thus would need no power source, once the initial current is set up.
 

Latest posts