Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considers Mobile Lunar Base
colonist writes "During the Apollo missions, astronauts explored on foot or in rovers. The next astronauts on the moon may move the entire base instead. Marc Cohen, from NASA's Ames Research Center, proposes a lunar base on wheels or legs, such as the habot (robotic habitat) or the mobitat (mobile habitat). Cohen considers mobile bases superior to rovers: 'To avoid life-threatening or other compromising situations that might occur with only one rover traveling to a remote place, a second rover might travel with the first. But what if the second rover runs into a problem, too - the same or a different problem? Well, that means a third rover. So, why not make the entire base mobile, so that all the resources, reliability and redundancy of the lunar mission move with the excursion crew?' Of course, mobile bases are nothing new. Terran buildings have been lifting off for years."
That's just the ticket, ain't it. Winnebago finally becomes a NASA vendor. Mobile base, spare wheel on the back with a "Good Sam" wheel cover, towing a couple of electric Honda Quad-Runners as mini rovers. I can see it now. Space tourism will be huge.
Start a happiness pandemic
As long as we've discovered Doctrine:Mobility beforehand, we'll be fine.
The Blaster Master Fighting for Truth, Justice, and Evil Pie since 1979
It's been something of a dream to see us go back to the Moon. Mostly on the basis that we need to support space exploration and without people getting interested, that won't happen. However, with new and unique ideas in contrast to the moon, much like this one, it may ignite even more people to support space travel. On a different note, it would be interesting to see how a mobile base would work let alone fair in some large disaster. Instead of one or two deaths, we now have ten.
:-)
- P.S.: I know I just contradicted myself in some fashion, but so be it.
read that as mobile laser base?
Ha, Protoss will wipe you out!
Land trains without tracks, sounds like the trains in the Amtrak wars books by Patrick Tilley. As you may or may not know those books featured a mobile base/habitat on wheels that was set up like a trackless train.
99 bottles of beer in 175 characte
By making the base mobile, it would obviously need to be above ground (er, regolith, I suppose). One of the major problems with this is shielding from cosmic radiation. By placing a base a few meters under the lunar regolith, expensive (either due to manufacturability or weight) shielding need not be used... the regolith is good enough. However, with a mobile lunar base, that expensive shielding must be employed and transported along with the mobile base.
I'm sorry, but this is just one of the many reasons why a mobile lunar base is infeasible (as of now). The sheer coolness of it is astronomical (haha, get it?), but the costs are simply too high.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
If we want to go back, send a mars type rover first and put it near one of the previous landing sites. It would be nice for planning purposes to know how the lower part of a lander has held up for thirty years or more. Might help plan the construction of something permanent.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
The mobile habitat runs into the same problem that toasted the rovers. It may suck crashing your moon buggy off a crater lip, but imagine wrecking your entire mobile-Moon-house.
Mobile homes on the freaking moon. Dale Earnhardt commemorative posters and a car on cinderblocks are all that's left.
...I have a cheaper solution than NASA. It would cost 80 billion less, too.
Only for astronauts who demand better things in life.
For a truly practical design, NASA will need to add front and top mounted lasers, as well as the ability to hop over craters. If Moon Patrol taught us nothing else, it taught us that.
Needless to say my confidence in the place dropped a few points. But maybe they could get a walking moon-base up and running. :)
-Ian
But, would AAA honor my membership card off-planet for when my mobile habitat needs a tow?
What if the mobitat (or whatever) runs into the same problem the rover[s] ran into? In general what if the mobitat runs into any problems? This page shows a mobitat that also acts as a lander. I'm guessing it would also act as the return vehicle. Do you really want to put your ticket back home into more jeopardy than absolutely necessary? For example, by having it move around, possibly through difficult terrain and such. Of course one would have to weigh the benefit of not having to travel to get back to your return vehicle over the mobility of this type of habitat and the equipment-carrying capability it implies.
...the author of a post tries to pass a StarCraft strategy guide off as a legitimate news source.
Giving this some thought, I wonder if it will provide any good return of information we do not already know.
1) the the last few decades material sciences has advanced a lot, for example I believe that the amount of titatium and composite materials being used today is a lot more than the lunar lander.
2) if we are worried about the effect of radiation, vacuum, etc on space structures - we really don't need to look at the lander: an astronaunt can just walk outside of the space station (provided a functional suit or two) - or even have the spaceshuttle pick up and old satellite or two. Those are being subjected to much harsher environments than the lander moon
3) we can fairly accurately duplicate the environment on the moon, and carry out the same experiment (even, accelerated) on earth.
4) construction of a moonbase would probably take place underground to take advantage of some cheap radiation / meteorite shielding from the moon's dirt. the above ground structure does not provide readily corrolateable information in this regard.
Indeed, with unlimited resources it would be interesting to see if microfractures develop due to small meteorite impact / radiation / day/night temperature cycle and such, but it would seem that these can be learned via separate means without the need of a dedicated rover mission.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
And I mean this in all sincerity. It appears that they're not really sure what the next big thing is. Perhaps its Mars, or maybe RV moon bases. Remember the space station? I thought not. The ISS seems to have become boring background noise to the American public. Until someone gets killed in that duct-taped tin can, it won't get more than a passing mention. I suspect that the BIG problem is that we've just about hit the technical limit of what can be accomplished with big metal firecrackers blasting off from Earth every once in a while. The TRUE exploitation of space will have to wait for the next technological breakthrough. Perhaps a space elevator, or a plasma photo drive. :)
In keeping with the Bush doctrine of only
supporting applied science (as opposed to
pure science), the mobile lunar base will
be used as a replacement penal colony for
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Ashcroft has adviced
that it will be the only way to keep the
Red Cross, ACLU, and Amnesty International
away from his "boy toys" in detention there.
"Shouldn't they first set up a permanant base on the moon before worrying about a mobile one? That plus a vehicle would provide good coverage until they can learn a little more about driving on the moon."
Shouldn't they first set up a mobile base on the moon before worrying about a permenant one? That plus a vehicle would provide good coverage until they can learn a little more about establishing a base on the moon.
"Derp de derp."
The USSR landed several rovers on the moon. Big rovers. The first, Lunokhod 1 worked for eleven months, exploring far more territory than the short-duration American manned missions. This vehicle was the size of an SUV, so it is clearly the first "mobile lunar base".
I found these references at AeroSpace Architecture Publications:
Cohen, Marc M. (2003 September). Mobile Lunar and Planetary Base Architectures (AIAA 2003-6280). AIAA Space 2003 Conference & Exposition, Long Beach, California, USA, 23-25 September 2003. Reston, Virginia, USA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Link to on-line order forms
Cohen, Marc M. (2004 February). "Mobile Lunar Base Concepts." In M. S. El-Genk (Ed.), Space Technology and Applications International Forum - STAIF 2004: Conference on Thermophysics in Microgravity; Conference on Commercial/Civil Next Generation Space Transportation; 21st Symposium on Space Nuclear Power and Propulsion; Conference on Human Space Exploration; 2nd Symposium on Space Colonization; 1st Symposium on New Frontiers and Future Concepts (p. 845-853). Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA, 8-11 February 2004. College Park, Maryland, USA: American Institute of Physics. Link to on-line order forms
Now that I've established my expert credentials: If you're going to be on an energy budget there are almost certainly going to be higher priorities than the energy required to lug everything around. Orders of magnitude difference- think of all the other things you could be doing.
Pick a good place with as much water as possible and start building the telescope, is what I say.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
MOBITAT
HABOT
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Not sure why you got a redundant on this, but they say it will bring along all the redundancy of multiple rovers with one base. I fail to see how one base is as redundant as multple rovers. If your one base dies its dead. If you build a static base and let rovers out and they crash who cares, your base and people are okay and you can still send out more rovers.
Habot? Mobitat? E-gads! What horrid names!
Hell, even Lunabago would be better than those monstrosities!
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
I would certainly tend to hope that people at NASA read large amounts of sci-fi. Many of the most useful concepts in spaceflight have come from science fiction, e.g. geosynchronous satellites.
In this particular case though, I'm not so sure. It just seems that you would take too much of a hit on cost and reliability to make up for any possible benefits. For one, a mobile base can't be built into the regolith for insulation, a feature one hopes a lunar base would have.
A moonbase has a number of advantages. It's a good idea to learn how to build and maintain a base, because it's close enough to the Earth for us to send needed supplies or repair material. It might even be a better place to start a Mars expidition from, because we can get a little extra velocity from the moon's orbital velocity.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I haven't seen them linked to yet, so here's some info pages with pics of this:
"Habot" mobile lunary base
Mobitat (mobile lander?)
Does anybody know if scientists in Antartica use mobile habitats? If they do, then this would seem much more plausible.
Oh My God!
Don't you see the real point of this.
The US creates a trailer park on the moon and ships up all their trailer trash.
Leave 'em for a few years and let natural selection work things out. Pretty soon the moon will be overrun with mutants that can shoot a stop sign with deadly accuracy from a mile away.
It Science gone mad I tell you.
No matter how you try to arrange things to be perfectly safe, there's going to be risk, and the explorers will be the type of people willing to take them. NASA has long viewed its mission to be "the exploration of space with zero risk." Everything they design is over-engeneered to make it as close to 100% safe as possible, with the result that everything takes longer to build, is exorbitantly expensive and far more massive than it needs to be. I'm beginning to believe that NASA is more interested in keeping its workforce busy and getting bigger budgets with which to do less. Maybe we need to tell them that enough is enough already, and that they need to get off the stick and get us back to the Moon.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
I think they write too much sci-fi...
Seriously, I feel a bit sorry for the folks there. The interesting science that they do is not really interesting enough to warrant the billions invested unless they can come up with military applications or appeal to the Trekker in the public. Hence have the nanobe "discovery" while shilling for money to send men to Mars or school teachers on missions to generate excitement for the space shuttle. Meanwhile, planetary probe missions get cancelled.
Maybe it is time to retire this relic of the cold war or just admit that it is primarily for military purposes and re-allocate the funds for science elsewhere. Give the money to someone who understands O-rings and knows what units to use..
I've thought for years that companies that make 'habitats' all need to tie up with NASA.
...
I think it'd be great if boat mfr's, RV mfr's, and cheap house mfr's, all got together and developed a common, open, standardized framework for habitat design and construction, with NASA involved.
Every time I look at a UFO, I think to myself 'well-designed Winnebago', and if I could, I'd buy one of those instead of ___insert_favorite_waste_of_realty_here___ any time
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
But what if the second rover runs into a problem, too - the same or a different problem? Well, that means a third rover. So, why not make the entire base mobile...
What if the base has a problem? that means a second base...
Your head a splode
Now if you are moving your whole base around, if an axle breaks, you are now stuck in that spot until/if repairs are made, but you still have your food, water and air generating/recycling equipment with you. everyone lives. Big plus.
And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
Sheilding!
You don't have the earth to protect from all those evil sunspots, misc radiation sources, and micrometorites. A mobile base would have to manufacture it's sheilding on earth and ship it (at extrodinary cost) to the moon.
A static base can just pile up moon dirt on it's self. (or just give the astronots a shovel!)
I always loved the reason that Joss Weadon gave in fire fly for why the future looked more like a western. It's the frontier stoopid. Resources are rare, machines break down, and simple works just fine. If you ship 2 motor bikes to a remote planet you will only have 2 motor bikes, but if you ship two horses... Of course this is the moon, not the wild wild planet, however the basic idea aplies. KISS
I would rather be ashes than dust!
This is the height of foolishness. For the mass of the drive system for the entire base, you could fly ten rovers to the moon. This would give much better redundancy than a single base-like vehicle. About the only advantage I see is using the same base to explore physically disparate locations.
Makes for some interesting postulations, though. Who'll have the first spinners in outer space? If you're building a Lunar Conversion Van, do you go with the teardrop or diamond back side windows? Shag carpeting or faux-wood paneling on the walls? Hide-a-bed to be stealthy or just put in the queen-sized waterbed and be obvious about it?
Is it just me, or does this guy seem a little low on the common-sense scale? I mean, his logic is this:
.5%; it's .01%. And as I said above, at some point you just need to accept that being an explorer on this level is dangerous stuff, and shit will happen. Also, any event big enough to nail both rovers at the same time (meteor strike, or solar radiation enough to overwhelm any protection the rovers have?) would nail three as well, so that kind fo risk isn't limited by this approach at all.
1. Unpressurized rovers can't go too far because the astronauts will be limited by the air supply in their suits, so pressurized rovers that can go further are better.
Okay, good so far. On to the next part of the idea.
2. If something goes wrong with the rover, the guys inside are screwed. Being stranded on the moon with no AAA roadside assistance really sucks, so there should be two rovers.
Hm. Maybe, but you've just doubled the resources needed to go look into something. If this logic had been followed before, we'd never have made it to the moon in the first place. At some point you need to just accept that setting up a base of operations on the moon HAS to involve risk. Why not have redundant systems on the rover instead of two rovers? But it really goes off the tracks here...
3. But what if something happens to both rovers? You really need three!
Wait, now...someone didn't pay attention in statistics class. If there's a 1% chance of the first rover failing, then the chance of two rovers failing isn't
4. So just get rid of the rovers, and stick with one big mobile moonbase!
Okay, so now what you've done is gotten rid of the rovers, only to make the whole base just one big rover itself, or a whole group of interdependent rovers? And this is more reliable HOW? It seems to me that it takes the challenge of a moonbase and adds complexity to it. Not only do the pieces have to fit together to form a secure and reliable habitat, now they have to withstand coupling and uncoupling, as well as the challenge of mating when the respective pieces might not be exactly aligned due to terrain. So I'm thinking this guy is a little more into astrophysics and a little less into simple common-sense engineering than he should be. Thoughts, anyone?
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
What happens when the mobile base runs into a problem? Will they send a second? Why mess with the moon anyway? We know we could sustain life on another heavenly body, so why go to the expense to do it? I think the money would be better spent developing other technologies for space exploration. Maybe better radiation shielding, or better engines. The current state of the space program is stagnant at best, hopefully with the door opening to private corporations to explore space we will see more innovation in ships, rocketry, and shielding technologies.
Instead of a shuttle that should be collecting social security.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
What would be sweet is if it had chicken legs.
||:|::
I don't care how NASA is pitching it - one of those designs is a burly rover and the other is an unstable tinkertoy. Neither design is a "mobile base" - they are both large rovers.
A base should, by any reasonable designation hold at least a dozen people, these units look like they each hold 1-3 people, max. So they have a docking tunnel, big deal. They are still rovers, not mobile bases. A fleet of mobile bases (like in the Habot pic) will need a shirt-sleeve environment for maintenance, guaranteed. Hence, any schema like this will end up basing from a buried garage/base of some kind. The units might make sense for exploration, especially if the units can lift, fly to a new area to explore, then fly back to a main base.
Others have already mentioned it, but shielding on the moon is a critical issue. Even with the tanks mounted above, a user of one of these steroid-Rovers is going to get an unhealthy dose of radiation. This kind of setup would probably require a buried, rad-safe base to retreat to.
The Mobitat uses a modified version of the Mars rover "rocker-bogey" suspension - it's good to see that NASA will keep using what has turned into a very successful design.
The Habot is, IMHO, totally impractical. The "walker" legs would be a maintenance nightmare in the lunar environment. The fines (very small particles) on the moon are abrasive and static-charged. The particles find their way into anything - the Apollo suits were breaking down after a few days exposure. Sealing the joints on those legs is going to prove futile - wheels have similar problems but not nearly as complex.
Cute viewgraphs, I'm waiting for a private base.
Build lunar base.
do something.
profit!
Josh
gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
Is it just me or is NASA barking up the wrong tree on this one? I would think that the challenge of a Moon Base would be building a sustainable (human) operating environment on the moon. This base would allow humans to exist/live on the moon allowing for human exploration of the solar system and potential commercialization of the resources present outside of our planet. These are significant challenges. Lets focus on these instead of focusing on exploration of the Moon. Is there anything a huge mobile laboratory could tell us that a small inexpensive rover could not?
Laboratree - Scientific collaboration based on OpenSocial.
So imagine a large cylinder about 30-40 feet in diameter, and about 100ft long. Then put the exercise tracks inside at each end. Whenever the moon folks want to move the mobitat they just 'RUN' in circles. Same direction to go straight, opposite to turn. Brilliant I say!
Maybe I should go patent that right now!
They Live, We Sleep
Let's replace a relatively simple lunar rover that just might break with a super complex movable base! Nothing disaterous could ever happen to something like that.
Here's an idea, lets take the big mobile base design and scale it down. Then it could leave the base with say, one or two people in it and cruise around. Surely these little bases would be less prone to failure than the big base. We could call them Rovers!