NASA's Future Inflatable Lunar Base 203
Roland Piquepaille writes "If you think that future NASA's moon camps need to have a science fiction look, you might be disappointed. Today, NASA is testing small inflatable structures. In fact, if these expandable 'tents' receive positive reviews, astronauts will 'camp' on the moon as early as 2020. These 12-foot (3.65 meter) diameter inflatable units could be used as building blocks for a future lunar base. Right now, a prototype is tested at NASA's Langley Research Center. But NASA also wants to test other inflatable structures in the not-too-friendly environment of the Antarctic next year. Still, it's too early to know if NASA's first habitable lunar base will use inflatable or rigid structures."
Inflatable (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's the same thought I had about the inflatable space hotel story a few months ago... there you have to deal with increasing space junk. Or Chinese anti-satilite weapons.
Or am I just missing something? I would hope NASA scientists are far smarter tha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Inflatable (Score:4, Informative)
Of course, two options exist that can still make inflatables work. One is to bury them after inflating them, so that the layer of soil stops the micrometeors.
The other is to inflate a structure having multi-layer walls, with gaps between the layers and the outer layer made of aluminum foil. This is a known technique used to protect satellites from micrometeors. Impacting the outer wall destroys the projectile, and the expanding vapor cannot penetrate the next wall, especially if it also is made of foil.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It would be the main problem if they were going to bury them, but burying them only makes sense to protect from meteorites AND radiation. But it doesn't protect it from the other main problem, dirt.
The biggest problem with a colony the moon is moon dust. Due to the lack of atmosphere and running water, lunar dust is extremely jagged (compared to Earth dust that is pretty well
Re: (Score:2)
Third option. (Score:2)
The other is to inflate a structure having multi-layer walls, with gaps between the layers and the outer layer made of aluminum foil.
A third is self-sealing materials, such as the coatings on the inside that get sucked into any hole as with tires.
By the way: Your second option conflates two systems (both of which should be used, of course): Ablative
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, isn't foam filled with air? (forgive me if this was a joke that WHOOSHED over my head?)
Not flimsy material. (Score:5, Informative)
These outposts, as well as Bigalow's hotels, have multiple layers, one of which is essentially kevlar, the same stuff that bullet proof vests are made out of. They actually provide much better protection from micro-meteorites and space junk then our current metal structures do.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Crews of the long term missions (15..17) reported that the foam packing material which they left around on the surface started rocketing off into space (well, a couple of hundred metres, anyway) because it outgassed and then exploded.
The problem with lightweight structures which have gas inside is that they make good rockets, not just because a rock might put a hole in it, but because a p
Re:Inflatable (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, meteor strike != tension. It's more shear than anything.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd expect that even traditional materials like aluminum would be vulnerable to micro-meteorites if made small/thin enough for transport to the moon. Also, for more perminant installations they could build what amounts to a Lunar Igloo out of Moon dust/dirt for protection and just use the inflatable as a sort of bladder to keep the air in.
Inflatable structures... Stronger than hardwall! (Score:2)
Meanwhile about the only experience your average person has with flexible wall construction are tents. It might seem wierd, but by the weight and thickness your average tent is tougher than a metal one would be.
For an experiment, take your average soda can. It's little thinner than tent fabric. No
The secret ingredient is dirt. (Score:3, Insightful)
Jon Acheson
Re: (Score:2)
Look at it this way: When a micro-meteorite hits a solid structure, it's likely to cause a lot more damage. It could dent the materials, ricochet off of them, or shatter cold metals.
With an inflatable structure, the micrometeorite is more likely to pass straight through, creating a small hole that can be easily patched.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I would think most of the space junk (especially that obliterated by Chinese anti-satellite weapons) would fall to Earth, rather than the moon. You know, more gravity and shit.
But this is all good news, because the Chinese will have men on the moon soon, too. Which is even better, because then our astronauts can go to the Chinese inf
Re: (Score:2)
No, you're not missing anything. Rigid structures, after a puncture, can provide a strong, even surface around small punctures against which a patch may be applied, and against which it may adhere, and seal. Inflated structures depend on surface-equalized pressure to keep the surface taut, and once punctured, the structure bulges outwards around the tear; the larger the tear, the less likely it is to provide a good seating surface for the sealant. I'm talking about very tiny tears here; larger tears will d
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Or it can provide a weak, folded, twisted and jagged surface that needs to be trimmed before a patch is applied and welded into place.
Inflated structures depend on surface-equalized pressure to keep the surface taut, and once punctured, the structure bulges outwards around the tear; the larger the tear, the less likely it is to provide a good seating surface for the sealant.
Have
Those "nights"? (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obligatory (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
When referring to the Moon, the "dark side" is the far side of the Moon, i.e. the face that points away from the Earth (due to its period of orbit being the same as its period of rotation (and its rotational axis being essentially perpendicular to its orbital path)). It isn't "dark" as in "no light"; it's more akin to "the dark ages" except more like "it can't be seen from here" than "there is no recorded history".
For more practical purposes, it is harder t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I think we all know where the valve is...
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
>
> I think we all know where the valve is...
Oh, my God. It's Mega Maid. She's gone from suck to blow.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it come with an inflatable Astronaut for entertainment on those long cold nights?
And the diapers and pepper spray to go attack its imaginary lover?
Bigelow Aerospace (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a Moontrap! (Score:3, Interesting)
Virus [imdb.com] ripped it off 10 years later, sans Moon.
It's one of many obscure movies I'm wanting to come out on DVD.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archiv [msn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lean and mean NASA no longer is.
Got Fix-a-flat? (Score:2)
Re:Got Fix-a-flat? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Got Fix-a-flat? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looks like Moon furniture from Ikea (Score:2)
Jump into spring moon fashion!
We've got the modular living quarters you're looking for at the prices that won't make you have to skimp on your Earth communication center!
Is the US government still buying $600 hammers and $500 toilet seats? When are the Chinese producers going to start competing in the lucrative Mil Spec market?
Fashion Show (Score:2)
Neat idea - then spray on rigid cladding? (Score:5, Insightful)
Steve
Good point (Score:2)
They almost have the right idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Basically, you would inflate a mold for the structure and then pour concrete over it. I could see where working with concrete or a concrete like substance would be difficult in low G and lunar tempatures, but I believe they should be looking at doing something along those lines rather just having people live in temporary ballons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:They almost have the right idea (Score:4, Interesting)
From NASA: And somehow it feels like plaster cracking forces is a much bigger problem when you're on the moon...
See article: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/15mar_moo
Mod Up - Moonquakes! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Which brings the interesting question of what is an acceptable risklevel? I don't know but I played with some numbers in my head... let's say, for arguments sa
That is probably not going to happen (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moonbounce (Score:5, Funny)
Famous Moment (Score:4, Funny)
Shplplplplplplplplpl...
ah shit!
Re: (Score:2)
Bastards! (Score:3, Funny)
Frickin campers!
Re:Bastards! (Score:5, Funny)
> Frickin campers!
It's a legitimate strategy !
They should contact Dr. Schlock (Score:2, Funny)
looks futuristic to me... (Score:2)
What could *possibly* go wrong? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh crap...
Lunar Soil is "Sharp" (Score:2)
First, I thought "What about meteorites?!?" ... then I RTFA.
So I found out that they're planning to cover the inflatables with lunar "regolith" (sandy soil stuff). Then I remembered... that stuff is supposed to be pretty nasty. Without erosion like we have on earth, broken up rock keeps all its sharp points and edges all the way down to the microscopic scale.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone take NASA seriously any more? (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA is in the awful position of trying to pretend that Bush's lunar program is real. Congress isn't going to appropriate the money. Smart people aren't going to come to work on the program. The date is always a decade or two off. It's vaporware. So they futz around with stuff like this, lacking the money or capability to develop a new launch vehicle.
NASA barely has a manned launch capability. The Shuttles will be retired in three years, and the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" program is vaporware. The General Accounting Office was very critical of the program in 2006 [gao.gov]: NASA has attempted several expensive endeavors such as the National Aero-Space Plane, the X-33 and X-34, and the Space Launch Initiative, among others. While these endeavors have helped to advance scientific and technical knowledge, none have completed their objective of fielding a new reusable space vehicle. We estimate that these unsuccessful development efforts have cost approximately $4.8 billion since the 1980s." The original schedule called for contract award for the CEV in 2006 after the preliminary design review, but although a contract has been awarded, the PDR has been pushed back to 2008.
Originally, the CRV was supposed to fly in 2014. Unlikely at this point.
It's sad to note that the Big Gemini [astronautix.com] spacecraft, proposed in 1967 and mocked up by McDonnell Douglas, was intended to take 9 people to a space station in low orbit. If that had been built, reusing the Gemini technology (which was quite good), the US would have had a low-end crew vehicle. So NASA is now trying to replicate 1967 technology. But with the second team; who goes to work for NASA today?
Realistically, the US manned space effort ends in 2010.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Have they LOOKED at the US budget? In 2006, 406 billion went to interest payments alone for the debt. And they're griping at a price that is 1/200th of that per annum. Absolutely unfuckingbelievable.
It's this kind of funding that is the reason NASA can barely ever get anything done. We give them a pittance and then complain when they can't build freaking spaceships with it, which gives us an excuse to cut
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah? Unsuccessful nation building efforts have cost the U.S. approximately $500 billion since 2003. If congress really wants to conserve money I think they know where to look.
Does anyone take Congress seriously? (Score:2)
Look, I don't care who is the President as the result is the same. NASA gets the short end of the stick because Congress cannot buy votes with it. Making a moonbase, increasing our scientific knowledge, or working with others around the world, DOES NOT BUY VOTES.
thats the real problem. A new local library buys votes, a funding program for cow farts at your local universi
Re: (Score:2)
Still, the USA needs to balance the budget ASAP. We're currently living like a family maxing out their credit cards... It's going to suck when credit can no longer be gained, and we don't have the option of simply declaring bankruptcy.
Radiation? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why wouldn't it be? This isn't earth.
First, the gravity is one sixth that of earth. So 4 feet of soil would weigh equivalent to 8" on earth.
Second, we're going to be inflating them to fairly heavily compared to earth structures. There might still be less air in them than an inflatable on earth, but there'll be a larger difference between internal pressure and the zero pressure outside. That means that the structure would end up being VERY stiff comparati
Unstable? (Score:3, Interesting)
I noted earlier that the wall would end up very stiff. You hitting the wall wouldn't cause much vibration outside to begin with. As for it falling off, all you need to do to prevent that is to have some structure outside to prevent it. On earth we use sandbags. On the moon a net might be suffi
Why NASA? (Score:5, Interesting)
Going to the Moon is risky and is going to require a variety of strategies to succeed and people are going to die. 150 years ago, folks who wanted to come west tried whatever way made sense to them to get out here. Lots of folks died trying to get here but more folks survived and prospered. Had NASA run the western expansion, we'd all still be in New York.
Instead, the billions of dollars NASA will waste would be better spent setting up prizes to get people to risk their necks to get to the moon. The X-Prize showed that you get more people spending more money than the prize value to win the prize. You don't even have to make it all money. Heck Pennsylvania was a land grant that paid off a royal debt. Give people who can settle and produce something on the moon property rights to the land and whatever they produce and we'll see a resurgence of pioneers willing to try it.
Since people can't walk to the moon like some walked to the West, NASA could say "we'll pay $20,000,000 for each settler you safely deliver to the Moon's surface. We'll pay $500,000 for each ton of provisions." and you'd see a wealth of companies spring up to ship people to the moon. If the prices are wrong, NASA could adjust as needed. Instead of 4 or 5 inhabitants for $100 Billion, you'd see 1000's.
You'll see lots of people die just like they have before but you'll see survivors as well. Those are the people who should populate the moon, not government employees.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually - the downside is that we don't know where any caves on the moon are, or even if they exist in the first place. NASA would be extremely foolish to base any planning on using places not known to exist, and if they do exist - w
Re: (Score:2)
A treaty which hardly anybody signed, and no space power signed, and never went into effect. In other words, it is not law and useless.
The United States can give anybody land on the Moon. The US could give me the Andromeda Galaxy. The important factor is whether those property rights can be enforced. Since the US is the only nation on Earth even close to having the techni
Hello? Earth to idiots? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Old news (Score:2)
The largely forgettable 1989 movie "Moontrap" featured an inflatable shelter, which gives astronaut Walter Koenig a chance to get the moon-babe's (Leigh Lombardi) clothes off.
Ideal shape (Score:2)
I think we all know what this means.
http://www.geocities.com/yank2010/SBCITY2.JPG [geocities.com]
Oh shit, there goes the planet.
Deuce Bigelow Male Gigelow (Score:2)
Woohoo! (Score:2, Funny)
This sounds familiar (Score:2)
Just make sure ... (Score:2)
... that you take proper care of your fingernails [sluggy.com] before handling inflatable moon bases.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Personally, looking at the maps here [hawaii.edu], I know wher I'd put the colony.
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/0204
Re: (Score:2)
having a forward moon base would be useful for launching expeditions deeper into our solar system. The reduced escape velocity of the moon's gravity should prove helpful in conserving fuel. Additionally, the reduced gravity also makes the Moon an excellent place to locate spaceship construction facilities, as there are fewer issues with the weight of a ship causing structural deformation.
Those are just a couple ideas, and I haven't even touched on mining, metallurgy and fuel production.
Re: (Score:2)
Where else would you put the whalers and the Fungineers?
Re:Moo (Score:5, Funny)
It will inflate the budget, burst public confidence, and bloat up NASA's beurocracy resulting in balooning costs creating an economic bubble until we float our currency or until an internal leak pops up that deflates the whole program. I take my mind off of such problems by listening to Led Zepplin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At any rate, let him link-whore like so many others. Fore-warned is fore-armed, and nothing is making you click his link.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends on how much air loss you can tolerate vs. material cost (including cost of transport, and not just in and out of a gravity well). Permanence of the structure is a factor too. A long term settlement may have more frequent ingress and egress than a survival tent.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
1. The doors are planar, without the benefits of the curvature to withstand pressure stresses and thus need to be thicker. Making them curved would reduce the opening angle and so on.
2. The frames need to be reinforced in both wall/door sides, because there stresses tend to concentrate. Also, sealing is important and correct sealing probably requires some thickness in contact.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Learning how to live in space. The only way to get there is to take the first steps. The first steps are always expensive.
Other than proving that it is possible, what is the point of sending man into space?
The point of sending man into space is to allow mankind to survive an Earthly catastrophe.
You're right. It WAS a stupid question (Score:5, Insightful)
What exactly was the scientific merit of man going to the New World? Life isn't all about science, you know. There are, oh, I don't know, little things like a spirit of adventure, a refusal to settle forever for what man has now. It's all about starting at the beginning and moving forward.
Re: (Score:2)
"Who cares about the moon/mars, it's just a bunch of dust with no air that costs money."
"Why bother going to other countries, they're just the same as here."
"No point going outside for a walk, cause it just makes me tired."
"Why do I bother breathing? I'm going to die eventually either way."
etc.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)