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."
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.
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.
IANAE, but I would imagine they would use some type of resealing technology that we already have (should protect agains small punctures). Plus if the bags are in sections, then you could lose one section but not the entire structure.
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?
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.
Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
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.
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.
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.
As a matter of fact, it's all dark.
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.
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.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
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 pressure regulator might open one day and create thrust. Pete Conrad joked about it happening to Al Bean and I have this (slightly funny) vision of a lunar surface crew watching their hab rocketing up into space because they used the wrong valve to vent an airlock.
http://michaelsmith.id.au