Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Future Inflatable Lunar Base
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."
Does it come with an inflatable Astronaut for entertainment on those long cold nights?
What we really need is facilities on the moon that allow more buildings to be built.
Boom! Self-sustaining colony!
I know, I know - it's a ways off.
There's a joke waiting to be unleashed here, it's clear as day, but I'll let you figure it out.
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson
I wonder if these structures will be anything like the ones launched by Bigelow Aerospace. Their inflatable space habitat seems to be doing well.
it'll cost 2 ride tickets instead of 1 and they'll have to take they're shoes off before they enter.
The 'tents' look pretty sci-fi to me. They look a lot like the futuristic renderings I saw in books about space exploration in the 60s
Seeing as how sharp and abrasive lunar rocks/dust are supposed to be, putting up an inflatable habitat there that potentially might be punctured sounds like a really bad idea.
Can't you just imagine the newspaper inserts?
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?
Infalatable moon bases?
That looney idea is full of hot air.
Have you read my journal today?
Are they planning to have the base on the dark side of the moon?
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"need to have a science fiction look"? I don't care if they're white warts, Art Deco or Victorian. Build them up there and let us judge whether they look right.
I think it's a cool idea. Maybe after the structures are inflated, and later when appropriate manufacturing facilities are set up, perhaps a moon-soil-based rigid "foam" or "cement" can be sprayed or otherwise applied to the outside of the structures, making them semi-permanent?
Steve
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
This thing is a basically a big paper bag, presumably to keep wight down. So why are the doors seemingly made out of 3" thick steal ?
Surely if the fabric dome can take any pressures or strains it needs to surely the door could be a thin carbon fiber construction, not something of a submarine ?
Ideally it seems like you could take an inflatable up there - deploy it and then spray it with something to harden the exterior...
Jim
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.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
So its going to be a "moonbounce" only it'll actually be on the moon?
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
with Slime
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
That's one small step for
Shplplplplplplplplpl...
ah shit!
Table-ized A.I.
Frickin campers!
http://outcampaign.org/
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Ain't 1/6th Earth Gravity great?
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Ok. Stupid question, which may have already been answered many times on Slashdot, but I'll ask anyways.
What exactly is the scientific merit of sending man to the moon/mars? Is there any useful research that can't be done at one hundredth of the cost by robots at either of these locations? Other than proving that it is possible, what is the point of sending man into space?
I'm sure he can help then...
I dunno where you guys live that those pill-shaped buildings aren't futuristic-looking. NASA should put up a huge one, and grow tons of food in it for the future colonists. Corn is probably the most pressing need, the rest of what we need could likely be engineered from corn oil, etc. First you have to have the facility to get a zillion tons of corn onto the moon... it's easier to grow it then to ship it.
stuff |
At any rate, let him link-whore like so many others. Fore-warned is fore-armed, and nothing is making you click his link.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
... in my pants
Inflatable tents on the Moon were done in the movie Moontrap in 1989. It starred Walter Koenig (Pavel Chekov, Alfred Bester) and Bruce Campbell (Ashley 'Ash' J. Williams) and was used for a sex scene between Koenig (as Col. Jason Grant) and Leigh Lombardi (Mera) on the Moon.
Virus ripped it off 10 years later, sans Moon.
It's one of many obscure movies I'm wanting to come out on DVD.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Hey, Bob, toss me that putty knife.
Oh crap...
You are attempting to read sigs. Cancel or Allow?
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.
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.
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: 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 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.
Doing work with concrete in a 1/6 g is probably not to different than working here. And the temps in the sun would not be an issue. The problem is the ingrediants; namely water. Most likely we would have to bring it from earth. Damned expensive. Instead, digging is probably what we will do. In addition, IIRC there is metal on the surface. Could use that to make iron carbonate which is liquid until heated and "degassed". That would allow us to dig a hole, and then place iron on the walls. The other choice is to simply inflate one of these units in the hole (i.e. after being under the dirt).
But an solution will require a 100% lunar solution save the equipment.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I didn't see anyone mention radiation. It is estimated it would take about 4 feet of soil to give sufficient longer-term protection from space radiation. This is not practical with inflatable structures. If you are going to put 4 feet of soil on top of them, you might as well build a "solid" structure to begin with. Alternative techniques such as magnetic fields have yet to prove practical: they take way too much power.
Table-ized A.I.
NASA is going to try to make going to the moon as risk free as possible. This habitat is an example of risk aversion. Caves, though riskier, offer several advantages. They're bigger, they offer better solar storm protection. The downside is finding them and then sealing them. So instead, NASA is choosing to take a little cubicle up that has a higher probability of providing some protection for very few people. What's worse is that as soon as somebody dies there'll be tremendous pressure to shut it down which will encourage NASA to be even more risk averse.
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.
These things are going to be buried under several feet of lunar soil in order to provide radiation protection. That will certainly protect them from micro-meteorites.
Jon Acheson
All opinions expressed herein are my own, and not those of my employers, who are appalled.
Matter of fact, it's all dark.
+++ATH0
"Camping on the Moon Will Be One Far Out Experience" The phrasing of this title is reminiscent of the era of the first moon landings. Not that I'd know, considering I was born 1 day shy of the 14 year anniversary, groovy.
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.
I'm sure I'm not the only /.er who's never heard of moonquakes before. Very interesting.
I don't mind Roland as long as TFA is a real article (like this one was) and not a slashvertisement for Roland's blog.
I dunno, sounds pretty stupid to me. NASA dudes: there are tiny meteors that strike every part of the moon constantly, completely unimpeded by any trace of atmosphere. A meteor a fraction of the size of a grain of sand would puncture this thing like tissue paper. One the size of a pea would do quite a job.
But NASA also wants to test other inflatable structures in the not-too-friendly environment of the Antarctic next year.
What's the purpose in this? I understand that the antarctic is a harsh environment, but in some ways it's much harsher than the moon - for instance, on the moon, you don't have to worry about heat loss as much or winds ripping your tent to pieces. No air == no heat conduction or wind.
We wouldn't want the wind blowing them over, after all. :)
NASA has been studying inflatables for moonbases or temporary shelters since the Apollo era, although the design then had the tube horizontal rather than vertical (which seems to make more sense to me).
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.
-- Alastair
Obviously, the ideal shape for any space-bound inflatable structure is a sphere.
I think we all know what this means.
http://www.geocities.com/yank2010/SBCITY2.JPG
Oh shit, there goes the planet.
Total rip-off of Dr.Shlock in Sluggy Freelance! www.Sluggy.com
Have Tardis, will travel.
Give me a break; the US has already spent $300 billion on a war in Iraq, and nobody seems to be fretting about that money as much as they should. That $300 billion could have paid for the NASA moon program 3 times over. Hell, it could have funded the research and partial infrastructure to switch to a solar-produced, hydrogen economy so that we could leave the middle east well enough alone. Now I know I'm being overtly liberal in my statement, but how can you keep a straight face while you say that liberals won't let us go back to the moon because they'll rather spend the money protecting poor people, when a conservative administration has already spend three times the cost of the NASA moon program fighting a war in Iraq. I'd be okay with you saying congress will never fund the NASA moon program because there is no political incentive to do so, but your statement is politically polarizing just for the sake of being politically polarizing.
Nasa should do what it takes, manned and robotic, to get enough Helium 3 to see if it can be used for fusion power as many scientists suspect. If so they can make plans on how to get the stuff down here (a) contract someone to get it (b) Provide a refueling in orbit gas station (c) get it themselves, and then change the world. If the Helium 3 doesn't pan out NASA should worry about asteroid defense and helping the private sector get out of low earth orbit so the US has some say/stake in the exploration of the system.
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.
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 coatings (not necessarily airtight - just something to absorb the projectile's momentum and disperse it broadly enough that you don't get a puncture) and redundant airtight layers.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Anytime I read anything that has to do with the moon and future predictions I just yawn.
I think I need to go dig out my old popular science magazines and read about all the stores about what we were going to be doing on the moon in 2007. NOTHING!
I am going to make a prediction. We are all going to be running coal burning cars and traveling on steam powered ships in 2020.
Because that is a far better question. People here and elsewhere take it about as seriously as their voting, which means not very much.
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 university buys votes, promising medical care for all buys votes.
Science isn't dieing because of a President, its dieing because people keep putting back into power the same aristocrats they always put in power. We know why they do , these aristo-polis use their position to buy their continued existance. So keep voting based on that R or D... and you will get no R&D
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Wonder if the male gigelow, Bigelow, had anything to do with this. He claimed the inflatable material could withstand more micrometeoroid hits than space station materials but never said what impact it could withstand from inside.
I figured it out. That is, how such an uninformed post was modded Insightful.
The I scrooled back to the top and re-read the Bush bash.
Explains the moderation.
All Bush bashing is insightful.
It is the definition of insightful.
Being insightful is easy.
Bouncy Castle!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
Alright.. Which one of you assholes smuggled in the dart board??
I Like Pie...
Wait... wasn't this in Revenge of the Nerds? (Do you want to do it on the moon?)
I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
... that you take proper care of your fingernails before handling inflatable moon bases.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Exactly. Sure, conventional wisdom has metal walls being tougher than fabric, but that's because we have the luxury of using thicknesses ranging from about a quarter of an inch to yards in the case of warships.
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. Now try to poke a hole in it with a knife. Not hard, is it? Go ahead, cut the can. Now, think about how hard that would be with a piece of fabric. Kevlar is dozens of times tougher. To the point you pile 20 or so layers together it tends to stop bullets.
Another good point would be the ability of the structure to flex in an impact. This would increase it's ability to stop penetration by spreading the energy of the projectile over a larger area and period of time.
I don't read AC A human right
Don't forget the pension plans. Without pension plans, no-one would go into politics. Without people going into politics there wouldn't be enough leaders. Without leaders we would be screwed. We don't need space colonization. We need leaders.
Indeed, where do you draw the line at?
"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.
Both the hammer and the toilet seat were special limited run items that had very tight engineering requirements. You *can't* get them in a hardware store.
Inventions have long since reached their limit, and I see no hope for further development.-- Frontinus, 1st cent. AD
So far, it's been pretty painful for my sound blaster live, Nvidia 6200, and my relitivly low end comp. But so far i've been able to find leagal work arounds for all of this (Part of it was a program that actually will make my files from a previous OS...MY FILES, as vista locks them up thinking it's used by a different user. It's my machine, let me do what I want) So after finding a work around to all that, vista is actually working quite nicely for me. It should JUST WORK, but the geek in my enjoyed having to tweak with everything to make it work.
Indoctrinate : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments Educate : to develop mentally, morally, or aestheti
Going to the new world:
1. Couldn't be achieved without man. IE, the research (exploration is the better term here) could not be done without a human crew.
This is not so in the case of the moon, nor mars.
2. Settling the new world was done as a means to improve one's standard of living. The risks were outweighed by the promise of free land and escape from {religious} persecution. It was beneficial to the mother countries for new sources of resources for trade. Aside from Helium 3 on the moon, (which can again be harvested by robots) there is no benefit to anyone.
Yes, sending a person to the moon is very exciting. Perhaps that in it self is worthwhile.
Well, Columbus lucked out didn't he. He didn't get the quick spice trade route he was looking for, but he blundered into a vast treasurehouse of mineral and biological wealth.
The thing is, looked at from the point of view of space exploration, Columbus didn't go anywhere. He went from from one point on a planet our species is uniquely evolved to exploit to another point on the very same planet. It's virtually certain that if he bumped into any land, he'd wind up turning up something worthwhile.
What's more when he did, all he had to do is to load up the goods on a ship at sea level, and let the wind more or less blow him to another spot at sea level. He didn't have to load up his ship with cargo, most of which would be thrown overboard (i.e., fuel).
The thing is about space exploration is that absent some vast improvement in space launch technology, we're in the era of diminishing returns. It's not that there are no returns, or that it's not worth exploring. But sending somebody to the moon is a vastly more complicated and expensive proposition than outfitting three ships for a long sea voyage, especially in light of the probable returns. After all, Columbus only had to find funds to provision and pay about 100 highly expendable men on an seven month round trip journey. Just in terms of man hours, an extended space mission will certainly be much more expensive.
Risk depends on the spectrum of options you have under each outcome. All the experts, Portuguese and Spanish, were quite sure that Columbus had screwed up his distance calculations. That added to Columbus risk (if he knew), but detracted from the risk of Ferdinand and Isabella. If, as the most likely alternative of all, the entire expedition perished, the rather nasty Ferdinand and Isabella probably wouldn't have paid anybody. If they didn't perish, but gave up, I'd be willing to bet nobody gets paid either. But if they did discover a trade route or anything else worthwhile, then it was better that it be discovered under a Spanish flag, and then they pay Columbus and crew out of the proceeeds (after royally reneging on the more inconvenient promieses). It was classic heads I win, tails you lose.
So for the sufficiently callous ruler, the Columbus expedition was a no lose proposition.
Saying we're in an era of diminishing returns for space travel doesn't mean we're in an era of no returns. It doesn't mean you don't explore space, it means it pays to think about your choice of goals carefully. If there were any single goal with the risk/return profile of the Columbus expedition (accounting of course for the inflation in the value of human lies), we'd be nuts not to jump at it. On the other hand, sending a bunch of people who we really, really don't want to die out there on the off chance something wonderful will happen isn't such a wonderful idea when we're talking about space.
I'll make a radical proposition here. If we can't quantify the improvement that a manned mission would make over a robotic one; or if the quantified difference is less than the increase in costs, then we have no business sending a manned mission. I don't buy that you need to have some rock jawed rocket jockey galivanting around to rouse the sense of adventure. After all, for nearly all practical purposes all of humanity is only going there in their imaginations, which are quite capable of anthropomorphizing a Mars rover, or becoming deeply attached to a space telescope.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, the Democrats at this moment are trying to terminate the Iraq war budget ... and spend it on mores social services that they can't seem to manage for themselves: healthcare.
h e-military-is-the-budget-scapegoat/
"Only 20% of the increase is to fuel military spending, which at 4% of the GDP is the lowest wartime defense budget in history.
The other 80% of the increase goes to the social welfare programs that repeatedly have failed achieve the stated social goals.
he quagmire of the war on poverty has it that today, after 42 years after this war began, the nation's Official Poverty Rate has stagnated at 13% for most of the last 35 years. Either someone is lying to make sure that we keep their federal agency going, or else we are losing this war.
In fact, the military budget increase of 4.1% is smaller than the overall 4.9% growth in the federal budget. At a time of war!
So much for the lefty lie that military spending is harming the budget."
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/2007/02/05/t
Flux of not so micrometeors isn't well determined. However, CME and other radiation sources are a bit better known although not consistant in occurance. Somehow, inflatable just doesn't seem to give me any warm and fuzzies inside - maybe that's due to 15 pounds / in^2 of atmospheric insulation combined with a significant magnetic field keeping out so many of those little nasties here at the moment.
But that would be unstable. You bump the wall and half of it falls off. I see no reason not to build a more solid structure built out of plug-in modular units. Inflatable does not get you anything over solid units.
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 sufficient, though sandbags would work as well. Worst case you double-wall the shelter. Best case you simply pile up more soil along the sides to help support the soil higher up. Even if it ends up being sixteen feet along the sides instead of four, that simply gives you a more gradual slope to carry the soil to put up top.
I don't read AC A human right