A Moon Base Made From Lunar Dust 115
Zothecula writes "The race to build a manned research station on the moon has been slowly picking up steam in recent years, with several developed nations actively studying a variety of construction methods. In just the past few months, the European Space Agency revealed a design involving 3D-printed structures and the Russian Federal Space Agency announced plans for a moon base by 2037. Now international design agency, Architecture Et Cetera (A-ETC), has thrown its hat into the ring with a proposal for SinterHab, a moon base consisting of bubble-like compartments coated in a protective layer of melted lunar dust."
Cart Before The Horse (Score:3, Funny)
Why worry about the moonbase construction material when you can't even land on the moon?
First things first.
Re:Cart Before The Horse (Score:5, Insightful)
Why worry about the moonbase construction material when you can't even land on the moon?
First things first.
Unless you have a plan for what you are going to do when you land, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to sink a bunch of money into developing the ability to land. Especially since the moon is so hostile, and not at the top of the list in terms of pure scientific interest, you really need a viable plan for your ground game before it becomes remotely worth the hassle.
This is 'first things first'.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we must develop a plan to build a mooonbase, in order to justify developing the ability to land on the moon?
Yes. You should have a plan before you build anything.
And what is the plan/purpose to justify building the moonbase?
1. A second home for our species
2. A science lab
3. A base for exploitation of lunar resources, including ice and metals
4. A dormitory for the miners, construction workers and robot repairmen
Re: (Score:2)
So, we must develop a plan to build a mooonbase, in order to justify developing the ability to land on the moon?
Yes. You should have a plan before you build anything.
And what is the plan/purpose to justify building the moonbase?
1. A second home for our species
2. A science lab
3. A base for exploitation of lunar resources, including ice and metals
4. A dormitory for the miners, construction workers and robot repairmen
5. A handy plot device for sci-fi novels [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget you need a base for the Interceptors and Moon Mobiles. [cloudster.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Heh, I like the part in that link where they talk about the weapons carriers having "surface-to-air missiles."
Surface-to-air missiles... on the moon...
Classic.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget you need a base for the Interceptors and Moon Mobiles. [cloudster.com]
I wonder why they didn't at least try to film the explosions in vacuum. Would have been much more believable. But the show was very cheap, as I recall. (Complete with violet hair. :-))
Re: (Score:2)
UFO creator Gerry Anderson died last December, in the comments for the story about it here a lot of people pointed out that the show actually was quite expensive for its time. Appearances to the contrary. ;) Actually, if you think about it, all those ultra-exotic costumes and sets couldn't have been dirt cheap to fashion. It's not like TOS where the crew just happens to conveniently land on a planet where the natives are all decked out in Nazi garb from the studio's wardrobes. Many are more impressed by
Re: (Score:2)
UFO creator Gerry Anderson died last December, in the comments for the story about it here a lot of people pointed out that the show actually was quite expensive for its time. Appearances to the contrary. ;)
I happen to understand that, and I know that it was the same for Star Trek. I didn't mean "cheap financially", I meant the impression that it left in me. There are different things you may attempt to do in a show's production, and all have different impression/cost ratio (quite a lot of them have something to do with the general principle that not showing something to the viewers is often more effective than the alternative, and always cheaper). What I meant is that the explosions don't fall out with the ge
Space1999 (Score:2)
Don't forget you need a base for the Interceptors and Moon Mobiles. [cloudster.com]
Screw that - I want Eagles:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAt60HrSkzI [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
So, we must develop a plan to build a mooonbase, in order to justify developing the ability to land on the moon?
Yes. You should have a plan before you build anything.
And what is the plan/purpose to justify building the moonbase?
1. A second home for our species 2. A science lab 3. A base for exploitation of lunar resources, including ice and metals 4. A dormitory for the miners, construction workers and robot repairmen
Those are nice goals and nobody's knocking those as secondary objectives. Your number one goal will never suffice unless there is an immediate threat. Though the GP is correct, there has to be a larger incentive to spend that amount of resources for this, more than 'this would be nice to do'. And in today's world that, unfortunately, means payoff. Perhaps many sci-fi movies/books had it right, space exploration will be done need to be done by corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
I like the Russian idea of building a Robot Base first. Robots are the ideal approach to pave the way for an eventual permanent manned presence. Robots don't need air, or special care, and can be made to withstand the harsh lunar environment without any adverse effects. Nobody cares whether robots "live or die".
Robots should become the "local native" staff over there, so that visiting humans can easily drop in unannounced, without a lot of extensive planning beforehand.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And no this is *nothing* like g
Re:Cart Before The Horse (Score:4, Insightful)
So *when* (not if) some extinction-level (or mass-destruction-and-suffering-level, anyway) event happens to Earth, humans don't go extinct? How's that a reason for ya?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I would consider it a pretty damn compelling reason. I'm not saying we steal from education to fund it...maybe just cut military spending by 25% or so. Without a sense of urgency, it never gets addressed. And I for one am not willing to gamble on "oh, it won't happen in my lifetime" until it finally does.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I had submitted a reply to this post [slashdot.org] but it looks like it somehow got lost in the pipes. Obviously I am not talking about relocating less than a decent-sized and reproductively self-sustaining population offplanet. Having NASA in charge of it may not be a good idea, I'll give you.
Oh, and don't use "pro tip:" in a comment unless you're sure that the person you're flaming is actually making the argument you're attacking him for. Better yet, just don't use "pro tip:" at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about you don't post replies snarkily criticizing people for pedantic and inaccurate assumptions and then it won't be a problem?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure why you think it would be the cast of Jersey Shore that would choose to go live on an extra-planetary colony, and that they'd leave all the accumulated knowledge of humanity back on Earth.
Re: (Score:2)
Boy, I'm sure glad that someone told my great-great-grandparents that when they went to homestead in the wilds of northern Michigan they'd never be able to buy a new plow harness if they broke one, since of course no one could make such a thing on their own. Oh, wait . . .
Talk about a horrible analogy.
Not sure why you think it would be the cast of Jersey Shore that would choose to go live on an extra-planetary colony, and that they'd leave all the accumulated knowledge of humanity back on Earth.
Knowledge is useless if you don't have a self-sufficient closed technological ecosystem to jump-start the production of whatever you discover that you need. A lunar base with six people on it won't cut it. A lunar base with a few hundred people *might* cut it, if you equip them with manufacturing technologies we don't happen to have yet, and with vast computers to supply them with expert knowledge that you can't expect a small group of people to have. And even if you send your
Re: (Score:2)
It will of course be very complicated and expensive, sure. But it's all the more important to get there if the first colony fails. We learn from our mistakes and do it right the second time. Why do you think it took until Apollo 11 to get to the moon? (Okay, so maybe that's not the best example.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cart Before The Horse (Score:5, Interesting)
The desert was hostile too.
So was the arctic.
And the ocean.
And beneath it.
And atmosphere above 15k feet.
Hostility to human life is simply an engineering problem, and each of these, including space, has been solved.
Moon base construction 101:
First off, large facilities on the surface are out the window, unless absolutely needed. Good for TV, bad for actual use.
Everything that can be gets built/housed under the surface. Companies and engineers with experience building pressure tight subsurface/subsea tunnels could make a killing bringing that experience to the moon. Again, it's a solved engineering problem. This solves the multiple problems of pressure vessel, habitat, dominant construction material, meteorite impact, and so on.
Main objective of the base? If it's not science, then it must be industry. Which makes perfect sense actually. There are vast resources in the solar system to be exploited, but returning them to Earth to be refined is problematic. We can't really get them down to the surface easily...and if they're destined to go back into space, thats rather hard to do on a large scale too. And refining in orbit is problematic because of multiple factors: some processes require gravity, orbital stations need to be protected from debris, large enough to do meaningful refinement, yet small enough to be launched into orbit.... But the moon simplifies a lot of these. You dont need to build the large space station or launch it (re, first apragraph stuff). Still has gravity, which keeps many existing refining processes practical (ie, no need develope new special process that may not yeild results that conform to known engineering..such as steel alloy design/use). Yet not nearly as big of a gravity well, so getting on and off the surface is much easier.
Do the refining there, and then send the finished material back to Earth (if that's its destination). Much more useful to send 6 tons (let's say) of finished steel (again, let's say) back to earth, than 6 tons of unprocessed iron ore that would only yeild say 2-3 tons of finished steel. Or if its destined to be used in space, good news, cause it's already there. Nearly. Certainly far easier than climbing back out of earth's gravity well. Long duration mission to Mars, sending more than a handful of folks on a scientific journey? Need a fairly large, comfortable, transport for them, more than a traditional capsule? Build it on the moon!
Plus doing it for the first time on the moon, getting the experience, learning the engineering lessons that ALWAYS result from these sorts of endeavors, relatively safe and near to home, instead of doing it for the first time a billion miles and 3 years away.
Re: (Score:2)
The desert was hostile too.
So was the arctic.
And the ocean.
And beneath it.
And atmosphere above 15k feet.
They are all still very hostile to humans. None of those places support permanent human life. We can survice there, but only for a little while. You always need a vast influx of energy/materials from the outside. And that is very expensive on the moon.
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside that there are much permanant human life in the desert, arctic, and mountain monestaries...humans also have a vast capability to bring supplies with them. Subs stay submerged for as many as 9 months at a time. 500 people, tiny metal tube, enough food for 9 months.
You're only helping make my point: these are solved engineering problems. and while i made no mention of cost, like it or not, the cost of not doing it on the moon (such as say, in orbit, or on earth's surface) is far greater.
Re: (Score:2)
Subs stay submerged for as many as 9 months at a time.
Since when? In normal deployment? I thought that there are 3-month cycles for SSBNs. The people would go crazy if you had them stay for nine months at a time.
Re: (Score:1)
Not true (Score:3)
NASA costs about $8 per year in taxes for most Americans. If most Americans want to do something with NASA they can afford to give up 1 pizza per year. Even doubling the funding is feasible. The debt and deficit matters amount to larger problems that actually have little to do with spending and more to do with the broken political system, ignorant public, and incompetent/corrupt media. If we spent $10 per year we could properly fund PBS and somewhat restore the press to what the founders had; (Yes, the f
WTF? 100m Americans pay taxes (Score:2)
100m actual tax payers x $8 = $800,000,000 for NASA. It is not a flat tax and I left out all the people who file taxes and don't pay in. It is a low price to raise a lot of money for something more worthwhile than ...wars.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well obviously, it's a 100 hour trip after all (assuming you use the Apollo 11 mission profile) :)
Re: (Score:2)
In layman's, why would anybody want to live on the moon? what possible advantage is there?
Re: (Score:2)
The moon offers the ultimate high ground. All it would take for the US to go back to the moon will be China or any other country trying to do the same. In that case the project money can be siphoned out of the defense budget. Building a base would require multiple trips to deliver the equipment and supplies needed. Temporary habs can be put up while a more permanent base can be built underground.
Re: (Score:3)
. . . build the moonbase first . . . and they will come . . .
Re: (Score:1)
I would imagine that the human trip to the moon would be *after* all the robotic colony printers have done their work in building the external structures.
If the structures that are built are robust (especially in regard to flaking away when rubbed/hit/etc) enough, then even furniture could be printed using this mechanism.
And these robots can keep on building stuff, as long as they are powered. As soon as the first module is built, it can build another module, and structures between modules. All we need to d
Re:Cart Before The Horse (Score:4, Funny)
All we need to do is get the inflatable protective air-tight internal structures on the moon
Would give a whole new meaning to not running with scissors.
Re: (Score:2)
The moon. For several years, she has fascinated many. But
will man ever walk on her fertile surface?
Democratic hopeful Adlai Stevenson says so.
I have no objection to man walking on the moon.
By 1964, experts say man will have established twelve
colonies on the moon, ideal for family vacations.
Once there, you'll weigh only a small percentage of what
you weigh on Earth.
Slow down, tubby! You're not on the moon yet!
The moon belongs to America, and anxiously awaits the
arrival of our astro-men. Will you be among them
Pay attention! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sintered != melted.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Mod parent up. Sintering is closer to baking. But solar heat is cheap and plentiful on the moon, with periodic availability. Use it to make lego bricks and automate the process of lego assembly. No need for rebar, as moonquakes are not severe. After the structure is up, all the bricks are compressed and strong. Spray the interior to seal pores. Add air.
The lego moonbase set was my favorite as a kid.
Re: (Score:3)
The lego moonbase set was my favorite as a kid.
Wait, who am I kidding? It's still my favorite!
Re: (Score:2)
The lego moonbase set was my favorite as a kid.
Wait, who am I kidding? It's still my favorite!
Lego: because none of us really wanted to grow up. (I preferred building factories though, with conveyors, sorters, hoppers, etc. Lots of repurposed bricks, and a thing of wonder when it worked, sorting bricks by size automatically...)
Re: (Score:2)
That's cool. Best I ever did was a three speed transmission.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Pay attention! (Score:4, Interesting)
The classic cathedrals of Europe were all built using the compressive strength of stone, without any significant tensile elements. So it is possible to build domes and vaults of essentially arbitrary size without rebar. And the moon does not have significant issues with the ground shifting under the structures. Having said that, I won't argue that's the right way to do things! :D But it certainly might be for the early structures. I don't recall who, but some university is already experimenting with a '3D printer' that builds room-sized structures out of something similar to moon dust.
My own group, Space Finance Group, is considering putting together funding for some experiments related to this.
Re: (Score:1)
For a one or two story arched roof that is printed (sintered) in place as one solid construction? In 1/6th the Earth's gravity? I'm sure the lack of rebar will not be a problem.
Now when they're printing domes to cover entire craters, then they might need a means to strengthen the structure. And much as I would like that to happen within twenty years, I suspect it will be more like two hundred years before this happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
buzzword bingo /. edition: (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine a cloud of Beowulf clusters!
Re: (Score:3)
A Beowulf cluster of Arduinos emulated in Minecraft running on a Raspberry Pi.
Which I won't believe unless it's announced at SXSW.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The only plan that makes sense... (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, that's not to say this method would be cheap, but it would certainly be cheaper than building a base from materials brought entirely from Earth.
Re: (Score:3)
This is what is wrong with people today..... Everything has to be as easy and must in no way involve manual labor.... Mining equipment.... BAH
Just few hundred years ago we were digging tunnels with showels!
Do you know how expensive it would be to ship enough Irish or Chinamen to the moon to dig the tunnels? Even if we packed them like sardines in the steerage section, and limited their whiskey and tea rations, that's still a lot to carry out of the gravity well...
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean, "it's heavy?" You just want the job to go fast.
NASA should just be like this guy:
http://boingboing.net/2012/02/14/man-digs-out-basement-with-rc.html [boingboing.net]
Re: (Score:2)
keep in mind, digging equipment is big and heavy on earth because it has to be; it has to support its weight and the weight of material. but on the moon, that weight is much less. an earth mover that could support a 40ton load on earth could support ~240tons on the moon.
And a 15ft tunnel borer could fit in the shuttle bay. For simplicity though, probably just put it on a heavy lifter and inside an aero shell. Once boosted to orbit, fit it with robotic guidance and rocket package to get it to the moon. Once
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but how many of them are willing to leave the casinos and risk their life and native materials in space?
It would be more productive to use materials from the moon.
Not a bad idea (Score:5, Funny)
The last thing you want is a popup saying "HP LunarJet 1050P has detected a nonstandard or refilled cartridge. Printing suspended."
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC one of the first things NASA did with moon dust was 'knock it off',
It's just minerals. Micro structure is no-doubt different, but people have been thinking about using it sense the 60s. Granting then they were planning on making 'crete out of it.
Re: (Score:3)
I am sure there are artificial substances that can be tested, but there's nothing like the real thing baby!
More Info [wikipedia.org]
Re:Not a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Even better, it apparently manages some wonderful static cling in the nonconductive lunar vacuum. Razor sharp, unweathered dust, peppered with glassy melt products from micrometeorite impacts, that static-clings like mad to anything it gets on. Probably eats any machinery whose lubricants it contaminates for breakfast, and I wouldn't be too optimistic about breathing the stuff that will end up getting tracked into the habitubes. Silicosis is a bitch of a way to die.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Hmm, a joke about HP printers gets modded flamebait. I didn't know HP could afford /. shills.
The problem was that you made a joke that implied that an HP printer would last long enough to empty its starter cartridge...
Back in the heroic age, toner was cheap and the printer was built such that anything short of small arms fire wouldn't perturb it(though the firmware on the jetdirects was always total shit, even then).
During the silver age, the printers were still pretty decent; but they bled you dry on the ink.
Now, the printers are so ghastly that you'll be lucky to have yours live long enough to ac
Moon dust base (Score:1)
BEWARE, COWARD! (Score:2)
Moon-brick machine (Score:5, Interesting)
A while back one of the universities (I want to say in the Southwest US, AZ maybe) had a project to build a machine to make bricks out of moon dust; their process also liberated oxygen and hydrogen from the dust, which could be bottled for human use. As I understood it they had a fully-working prototype.
Anybody know what happened to this?
Just send up a large 3D Printing robot (Score:1)
Cause according to /., 3D printing is the solution for everything these days.
So, have all the Sci Fi fans dies=d? (Score:3)
Holy crap. There have been dozens of moon/asteroid/airless-planet habitat ideas published since the 40's. While not all of them were well reasoned and possible, a huge number of them were. All that was lacking when the stories were written was a way to get there and the material technology to build the damned things. Most of those issues were resolved decades back.
Don't hail the sintered dome idea a new, unless you want to be in the same category as people raving about "new and improved" dish detergent. The idea's already been written about. But then, so have most of the habitat ideas.
Melting Sand with fresnel lense (Score:4, Funny)
I once watched a video from an "artist" who has built a kind of 3D plotter using a fresnel lense to melt sand. When I saw that I immediately thought: that is how you built on the moon.
Perhaps someone knows that video and can link it?
A lot of these ideas are overlooking one thing (Score:3)
Lunar dust is a recipe for Silicosis. It looks like broken shards of glass under a microscope and that's because there's no weathering, nothing to smooth the edges, and breathing in this stuff for any length of time will make short work of your lungs. If they're gonna build it with melted lunar dust, it would have to be bloody well melted and that's including the floor. If bits and pieces chip off as you're walking or bringing in machinery from the outside, it's still no good.
The moon ain't Tatooine. You can't just slap together some domes, filter the air and make it habitable. If the astronauts are still confined to suites, that would get old pretty quick.
The astronauts will still have to wear filtering masks even if they manage to maintain a normal atmosphere inside. Living/sleeping quarters will effectively have to be clean rooms. Can their "bio-regenerative life support system" take care of the airborne stray particles of lunar dust? If HEPA type filtering is involved, they'll become useless pretty quick. Talk about swimming up a waterfall.
Re: (Score:3)
It should be possible to remove the dust using static electricity. Back in the vinyl LP days, there were a couple of systems that used static electricty to make dust "jump" off an LP. Considering the system's cost and that it was a consumer product, there's probably "professional" version that does the job quite well.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can build a dome, just hang an airtight inner layer from the dome like a tent. If you don't need any structural strength except to avoid tears and no environmental exposure you should be able to bring something far, far lighter than you otherwise would. Yes, they would need some fancy kind of airlock to make sure it doesn't contaminate the insides but I imagine it would in practice be the opening of the space suit, you step into the space suit and is on the "outside", you back up to the same opening,
Re: (Score:2)
They would still need to implement those "air shower" type apparatus in clean rooms to dust away the spacesuites as much as possible before getting out of them. Still there would be some exposure. The the seals around the airlocks would still be roughed up by some of these particulates which will eventually require frequent maintenance and maybe even replacement.
I like TrentTheThief's static cleaner suggestion as that will have the fewest problems from blockage.
We had better work out all these issues on the
moon dust=solvable problem (Score:2)
This is a simple construction problem. I grew up in the residential construction biz and worked on commercial/industrial projects (including a NIST expansion at their Boulder facility...really!)
You can cover the entire inner structure with a plastic sheeting. Just like the roof of a greenhouse only inside....or the bed of your flower garden to keep o
Re: (Score:2)
So you're suggesting that we only send the avatars and calculate in the lag?
Combustable Lemons? (Score:2)
Apollo 18 (Score:2)
Solar Sinter (Score:3)
use the Decepticons for this. (Score:1)
lava tubes (Score:2)
Caves (Score:2)
Why not just find some caves or lava tubes to set up a base in? If caves were good enough for our early ancestors to start off in here on Earth, then why not do the same for early living on the Moon? At least caves will give you much better shielding from solar and cosmic rays as well as meteoroid strikes.
Once you're in the cave, then you can start off with whatever hab is convenient, and then gradually expand it until you've converted the entire cavern or lava tube into one giant living space. Just be sure