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?
I wonder if these structures will be anything like the ones launched by Bigelow Aerospace. Their inflatable space habitat seems to be doing well.
They need to get people there first.
Personally, looking at the maps here, I know wher I'd put the colony.
34486853790
Connection too slow for X forwarding? Try "ssh -CX user@host"
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.
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.
Good thinking, you should call NASA. They probably haven't thought about that yet.
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.
I don't know exactly what NASA's design is, but the habitats created by Bigelow use a very strong material for the walls, and they create a thick multi-layered system to mitigate the effects of punctures.
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.
That's one small step for
Shplplplplplplplplpl...
ah shit!
Table-ized A.I.
That looney idea is full of hot air.
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.
Table-ized A.I.
Frickin campers!
http://outcampaign.org/
I'm sure he can help then...
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.
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?
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.
Don't really know, but let me point a couple of things:
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.
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
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.
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.
Bouncy Castle!
I'm a rabbit startled by the headlights of life
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