Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?
From: Joann Evans (bondage_at_frontiernet.net)
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: John Charles: "Re: 1965 Apollo plans"
- Previous message: Pete Lynn: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- In reply to: AA Institute: "What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Next in thread: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 00:28:54 GMT
AA Institute wrote:
>
> This is another 'space adventure' sort of fun question, but its fairly
> *real* as its coming next, after the International Space Station is
> finished in a few years from now.
> So... what would make a good lunar base? I am sure this topic has been
> discussed in great detail before, but I never pondered much about the
> idea personally. Is there a favourite design or concept which is a
> clear *winner* above all others? Where should such base be located?
> How will its occupants cope with 2 weeks of day vs 2 weeks of lunar
> night, with surface temperatures going from +200 C to -200 C (approx)?
> I expect solar power could be used for the 'day' cycle and storage
> heaters could warm the base during the 'night' cycle.
Indeed.But some form of nuclear power will have to be brought in
eventually, for many major activities.
> Is there any
> advantage in locating such a base on the edge of the visible
> hemisphere (where 'libration' would be significant)? What about
> utilising possible caves and lava tubes in the Apennine Mountain
> range, where the entrance could be sealed and the interior pressurised
> to 1 atmosphere?
You don't have to go to the trouble of trying to pressurize a cave of
unknown (and possibly impractical) porosity. If suitable ones can be
found, set up pressurized habitats within them. You still have the
advantages of meteorite/thermal extreme/solar and cosmic radiation
protection. Inflatables derived from Transhab could easily be used here.
We already have the comparable example of some Antarctic research
facilities where multiple small (some, but not all, interconnected)
enclosures are protected from wind and snow beneath an all-encompassing
geodesic dome. The entire dome interior is not actively heated, but is
much easier to work in, than the open.
>
> Should such a base be excavated underground, and if so, can this be
> done by detonating nuclear missiles in advance of the crews arriving
> to start the 'building works'?
Test Ban Treaty? Opposition to launching outright nuclear explosives,
from a public that can barely tolerate RTGs and reactors? Current
'bunker buster' research is telling us much about warhead penetrating
capability, but can they also give you a *stable* cave? I've seen pix
inside the 'cave' created by an underground detonation, but the luxury
existed of easily determining the nature of the rock layers first, then
*drilling* deep into it, not firing a penetrator at it.
And human inspectors had to wait for radiation levels to subside. This
will be at least as true on Luna, too.
> What about the logistics of servicing
> such a base with water and life support from Earth?
What's the expected cost of access to LEO at the time?
> Or would it be
> more feasible to start a self sufficient biosphere there (coping with
> 1/6th Earth gravity may be an issue for plant growth). How feasible is
> it to 'mine' the local regolith for water, air and rocket
> fuel?....etc. etc.
Oxygen, with some infrastructure creation first, yes. But water means
access to, or a presence at the poles.
> I've also heard about this idea of a 'Transhab' inflateable ready made
> base that you could launch from Earth, but I think that will be too
> limited in its capacity and scope... may be okay for an initial foot
> hold, I suppose.
You can (and should) send more than one. But they'll have to be in
caves as above, and/or covered with regolith. (If you can find a natural
location between some hills, preferably on an east-west line, so much
the better.)
If you can be at the poles, that can always keep you outof sunlight,
and presumably solar (but not cosmic) radiation, as well as near ice.
> Does any one have any favoured views as to what an 'ideal' Moon base
> they'd like to see built there in the next 30 years? Are there any
> moon base "plans" and blueprints already documented on the net
> somewhere?
It also depends on what you mostly want to do with this facility.
Like spaceships, no one base design will fit all users.
-- You know what to remove, to reply....
- Next message: John Charles: "Re: 1965 Apollo plans"
- Previous message: Pete Lynn: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- In reply to: AA Institute: "What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Next in thread: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Reply: AA Institute: "Re: What makes an ideal Moon base?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
