Architecture Firm and ESA To 3D Print Building On the Moon

PC Load letter by AshtangiMan · 2013-01-31 17:32 · Score: 1

Getting the printer up there is the trick. But perhaps I'll go rtfa ....

Re:PC Load letter by AshtangiMan · 2013-01-31 17:39 · Score: 1

Unsatisfying blurb on fosters site. A regolith dome over a inflatable original structure. It makes good sense, but the hype should be more about the fact that its a manned moon base. For some reason it reminds me of all the press gherry got for using "aerospace manufacturing techniques" for the skin on the Bilbao Guggenheim and then again for the Disney center. Architecture sucks.
Re:PC Load letter by trdtaylor · 2013-01-31 17:50 · Score: 2

Inflatable/expandable structures are weaker, leak more, and have more points of failure than a rigid pre-defined structure. It's one of the reasons why the ISS is the shape it is.
Re:PC Load letter by Namarrgon · 2013-01-31 18:01 · Score: 3, Informative

NASA isn't so convinced; that's why they're testing an inflatable module for the ISS.
You don't need structural strength in microgravity, and Bigelow claim their inflatable modules offer more radiation and ballistic protection than rigid cans. No idea about the "more points of failure" part - I'd have thought an inflatable structure would be simpler though. Do you have citations?

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:PC Load letter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 18:11 · Score: 1

There is a large difference between an inflatable in orbit and an inflatable underground.
The bigelow module is more radiation resistant because its inflated with water. I don't know about ballistic protection, would need to see some reports. The ISS uses a combination of kevlar and whipple shields for micrometeorite protection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield
Re:PC Load letter by Namarrgon · 2013-01-31 18:33 · Score: 2

Inflated with water? Are you sure about that? I can't see any mention of any Bigelow design being inflated with anything except air.
Current designs like the BA-330 use multiple Whipple-style layers of shielding fabric, including layers of Kevlar and Vectran, akin to the TransHab design they're based on.
I would imagine an inflatable module could be perfectly adequate as a construction support, especially in lunar gravity.

--
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Re:PC Load letter by Rockoon · 2013-01-31 18:37 · Score: 2

..but the hype should be more about the fact that its a manned moon base.

..and the criticism too. Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?

Sure, we can climb a mountain 'because its there' but whats the price tag? Its one thing when its someones personal wealth injected into their personal endeavor, but its another when its public money spent with little benefit to the public.

I've heard it suggested that rocket fuel could be made on the moon, making it possible to fuel up ships exploring the solar system more efficiently, but I havent actually seen any credible plans to do something like that.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:PC Load letter by lxs · 2013-01-31 19:33 · Score: 4, Funny

Even worse, when you run out of photo cyan the shipping rates for a replacement cartridge make it almost not worth it.
Re:PC Load letter by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 19:41 · Score: 2, Insightful

They aren't. This is just one of a million different studies to test the feasibility of a technology that the agency has no intention of funding on its limited budget. The ESA, like NASA, has no focus. If the ESA or NASA were building an vessel to sail across the Atlantic Ocean they would first spend billions to determine if it should be done with sailboats, speed boats, or submarines. 15 years later, a 15 kg unmanned hybrid speed boat sailboat submarine powered by an RTG with radiation shielded computers and the most advanced and lightweight scientific instruments ever invented would depart from London on its mission to the Azores. Once the technology was demonstrated, they would cancel further missions since their research on how to avoid icebergs ate all of the budget (the laser to bore a hole through the iceberg had significant cost overruns).
Re:PC Load letter by Prof.Phreak · 2013-02-01 02:13 · Score: 1

``inflate'' things with concrete or local equivalent, and you gots a very sturdy and structurally sound structure.

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:PC Load letter by hinckeljn · 2013-02-01 04:10 · Score: 1

Inflatable is inherently leak proof. As for structurally resistant you have to consider that on the vacuum of the moon surface it will be pressurized (for human inhabitants); that makes it very stable. Maybe a better way would be to excavate a an underground cave and seal proof it with an inflatable liner.It should be much easier to excavate than 3D print it. You could use robots to do the excavation. Or look for some natural lunar cave. There are evidences that they do exist on the lunar surface
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:17 · Score: 1

I think the water is an internal area for super shielding in the event of a radiation event. The 'core' area astronauts can retreat to for short term (a week or two) safety. Though I think that's more on the trip to Mars rather than ISS. Same concept I think though.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:PC Load letter by hinckeljn · 2013-02-01 04:18 · Score: 1

The lunar gravity is approximately 1/6 of the Earth surface gravity, it is no micro gravity..
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:19 · Score: 1

Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?
Practice in an environment that is reachable by a rescue team? The moon is the perfect place for us to work out the problems with starting to colonize other planets/asteroids.

Everything else is a one way trip if you run into trouble.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:27 · Score: 1

And a whole lot fewer people would die than did trying to cross the atlantic by just 'going'.

And of course it being inherently harder than just 'sailing'...

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:PC Load letter by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:00 · Score: 1

..and the criticism too. Unless we plan to do something on the moon that cannot be done in earths orbit or even on the earths surface, then whats the point?
The techniques developed, and experience gained in doing something like this would be excellent, and applicable, for doing similar on Mars.
Sure, we can climb a mountain 'because its there' but whats the price tag?
What is the appropriate cost for mitigating against planetary-scale extinction events like the impact that killed the dinosaurs? Colonizing other planets is exactly a sensible and intelligent thing to do if you want to enhance your survival rate as a species .. if the Dinosaurs had Martian colonies, they'd still be alive today.
In any case, the costs we're talking about are comparatively incredibly miniscule. Consider that the War in Iraq ALONE cost an estimated $3.4 TRILLION. And yet a few tens of billions to potentially ensure the survival of our species in the longer term, and not have all our eggs in one basket, is "too costly"? Come on.

--
My other UID is three digits.
Re:PC Load letter by LifesABeach · 2013-02-01 05:03 · Score: 1

I really question the craftsmenship wisdom of using non union robotics.
Re:PC Load letter by Rockoon · 2013-02-01 05:57 · Score: 1

The moon is the perfect place for us to work out the problems with starting to colonize other planets/asteroids
You are presuming that its desirable to colonize significant gravity wells as a public works project..

Convince me that your presumption has something compelling behind it, because the way I see it space stations are the future.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:PC Load letter by Rockoon · 2013-02-01 06:12 · Score: 1

Colonizing other planets is exactly a sensible and intelligent thing to do if you want to enhance your survival rate as a species ..
Colonizing space itself is far more sensible and intelligent than this planet colonization hollywood dream. It would take hundreds, if not thousands of years to make Mars a second chance for humanity. Colonization isnt enough if we cannot thrive there, because Mars gets hit by big things from space too.

--
"His name was James Damore."
Re:PC Load letter by sjwaste · 2013-02-01 06:38 · Score: 1

Might run into Daneel down there.
Re:PC Load letter by sjwaste · 2013-02-01 06:39 · Score: 1

I'm no lunar expert, and to the best of my knowledge concrete comes in bags. That said, how prevalent are the right materials to mix concrete right on the lunar surface? I mean, besides the water.
Re:PC Load letter by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-01 06:46 · Score: 1

Inflatable/expandable structures are weaker, leak more, and have more points of failure than a rigid pre-defined structure.
Build it out of sintered/vitrified regolith. Plenty of material around, and a solar dish provides all the thermal energy you'll ever need.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 06:55 · Score: 1

Gravity wells are were the 'stuff' is. If you want any resources you have go to down to the surfaces, whether planet, moon or asteroid. Perhaps you can ferry yourself up and down every day cheaply, but living on the surface is the cheapest way to go.

But space stations in orbit provide usefulness as well. Both will be necessary.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 06:58 · Score: 2

As a perfect example. Oil platforms. People have 'colonized' the open ocean to live in small restricted habitats. Boats are harder to handle long term in the ocean since they are by definition more fragile than a solid grounded platform.

Space stations will require all the shielding the ground colonies will require, but you have to lift all that shielding out of your original gravity well. Better to use what you have available at the bottom of your destination well. No lifting of any shielding is necessary and thus it's much cheaper.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:PC Load letter by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2013-02-01 08:58 · Score: 1

Why water?

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:PC Load letter by HornWumpus · 2013-02-01 11:56 · Score: 1

But a whole lot more people would die by being trapped in Europe during a difficult period. The difficult period would have been worse absent out immigration.
A few less native Americans would die. But despite wishful thinking, there weren't that many to begin with. Stone age technology is estimated to have supported between 50,000 and 500,000 people in Europe. Why so many more claimed in the Americas? Wishful thinking by the native American studies types?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:PC Load letter by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 18:22 · Score: 1

Perhaps they learned to live in harmony with their environment? Something western society hasn't ever been able to do?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

This isn't that far fetched by GODISNOWHERE · 2013-01-31 17:47 · Score: 1

Perhaps they can get Kim Jong-Un to show them the lay of the land. http://www.theonion.com/articles/north-korea-celebrates-as-kim-jongun-becomes-first,31085/

Of course; by jafac · 2013-01-31 17:59 · Score: 2

It's probably the only viable manufacturing strategy in that environment. And; in fact, the same strategy DSI plans on pursuing in their asteroid-mining venture.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Of course; by dywolf · 2013-02-01 01:37 · Score: 1

I dont think it's the only viable one.
But it certainly simplifies a lot of the logistics. Isntead of having to haul hundres of diferent parts and materials....you just haul the printer up along with one, perhaps two or three, material blanks for the printer to use. Bloody brilliant in terms of simplification. About the only thing simpler would be total pre-fab on earth, but its not practical doe to shipping size limits.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:Of course; by Metabolife · 2013-02-01 03:23 · Score: 1

Hmmm, that seems like a sneaky way to get some investment capital. 1. Print asteroid rich in REM and gold 2. Shoot it into outer space 3. Send ship to mine it 4. Profit

Link to ESA Site by Anonymous Coward · 2013-01-31 18:09 · Score: 4, Informative

The ESA site has a little more info that the sites linked in the summary.

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Technology/Building_a_lunar_base_with_3D_printing

For certain values of "to" by tbird81 · 2013-01-31 18:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

Summary: "Architecture Firm and ESA To 3D Print Building On the Moon"

Article: " to explore the possibilities of 3D printing to construct lunar habitations."

I'm all for cool stuff, but I prefer it when the cool stuff isn't just pie in the sky.

Re:You People Are Sick by Genda · 2013-01-31 18:15 · Score: 2

Oh, so sorry, someone should have told you... it only looks that way because we lock them in the same room as the trolls.

glad they opted for 3D... by mschaffer · 2013-01-31 18:16 · Score: 4, Funny

I am glad they opted for the 3D printer. Imagine if they opted for a 2D printer. It would have been very disappointing.

Re:glad they opted for 3D... by PeDRoRist · 2013-01-31 20:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Not at all. A papercraft Moon base would have been awesome IMO.

--

Anything you do can get you slashdotted, including nothing.
Re:glad they opted for 3D... by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:30 · Score: 1

Well they considered it...but the projected revenues were 'flat'....

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:glad they opted for 3D... by magarity · 2013-02-01 05:21 · Score: 1

I am glad they opted for the 3D printer. Imagine if they opted for a 2D printer. It would have been very disappointing.
Millions of school children disagree; the Moon is about the only place Flat Stanley hasn't visited.
Re:glad they opted for 3D... by Sigg3.net · 2013-02-03 13:03 · Score: 1

Deep Space Extra Glossy Sepia Station.
Let's just hope they include the highly distinguished inappropriately military-suited HP printer guy in the crew!

--
Defining Statistics and Social Research

This will not get 10 feet off the ground by wakeboarder · 2013-01-31 18:19 · Score: 2

Funny thing is when it costs a few billion dollars, thoughtful ideas will get you nowhere. I wish people would be more serious about proposals. Getting money to make a prototype is not the same as going to the moon and actually printing a building. They don't have "plans to produce a 3d printed building on the moon" they have plans and funding to build a prototype. If you had a dollar for every project like this you would be a millionaire.

Re:This will not get 10 feet off the ground by Spy+Handler · 2013-01-31 19:17 · Score: 1

it's good to have done projects like this and the technology tested. That way the only thing left is getting a cheap enough heavy lifter developed.
Suppose Elon or Bezos or somebody else finds a way to put a pound in orbit for a couple hundred $. You don't want them going, "Dang, now we have a good launch vehicle, but we still don't have a good spacesuit or habitation module or hyrdoponics so we gotta go start making them now."
Like if you're trying to build a supercar, and the experimental V-20 hyperturbo engine isn't ready yet, you don't just sit around doing nothing... you work on the chassis and the brakes and other stuff while waiting for the engine.
Re:This will not get 10 feet off the ground by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:32 · Score: 1

Flying was impossible for the average joe to pay for only 70 years ago....

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:This will not get 10 feet off the ground by wakeboarder · 2013-02-02 19:45 · Score: 1

Err, we have this thing called 'gravity'. I hate to be such a realist, but if you don't switch to some other means than rocketry, you won't get to that price. see: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/233/1 And most of the other technologies are not 'feasible' yet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch
Re:This will not get 10 feet off the ground by wakeboarder · 2013-02-02 19:46 · Score: 1

And anyone has been able to build a plane from day one, no singular person could ever build a rocket to fly into space, and I think its safe to say no one ever will.
Re:This will not get 10 feet off the ground by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-03 05:35 · Score: 1

I think its safe to say no one ever will
Oh the irony :) They said the exact same thing about 'flying'.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D

I'd crack... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2013-01-31 18:40 · Score: 1

Anyone want to place some bets on how long four people in a tiny, bunkerlike hamster habitube surrounded by dust and hard vacuum would last before they really started head downhill psychologically?

Re:I'd crack... by jamstar7 · 2013-01-31 20:26 · Score: 1

No clue. Howbout we send up both my ex-wives as a test case?

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
Re:I'd crack... by dywolf · 2013-02-01 01:56 · Score: 1

Been worked on for over 60 years. Not a new question.
In fact the first nuclear submarine crews were studied for this very reason because once the Navy had the ability to put these guys in a steel tube underwater for 6+ months at a time (as opposed to only about 36hours max with the old subs) they became perfect test cases for NASA for long term space exploration.
Several russian cosmonauts have spent a year or more in space.
and they dont just send any Tom Dick and Henry into space. These people are screened, physically and psychologically, for just that reason.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:I'd crack... by tehcyder · 2013-02-01 03:59 · Score: 1

and they dont just send any Tom Dick and Henry into space. These people are screened, physically and psychologically, for just that reason.
Yes, but that's the whole point: OP was talking about regular Joes, not highly trained astronauts going into space.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:I'd crack... by dywolf · 2013-02-01 04:29 · Score: 1

Which is why people posted pointing out his failure to consider that regular joes dont go.

--
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Re:I'd crack... by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:34 · Score: 1

Which season of Big Brother are you talking about?

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:I'd crack... by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:36 · Score: 1

The submariners are certainly decent test cases, but a Mars mission has more implications. The Sub 'can' surface and go to port if someone gets deathly ill. Mars you don't have that option.

But as you say, it's something being researched, but we haven't fully explored it all yet.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:I'd crack... by drinkypoo · 2013-02-01 04:37 · Score: 1

What makes you think it has to be tiny? If they're building by sintering the lunar soil, they have quite a bit of material to work with.
Lots of slashdotters do their level best to never leave the basement, so I'm positive that they can find some people who would do fine in that environment.
If you want to call people who can live in that environment happily weird or sick or whatever, you can probably find lots of people to agree with you. But the fact remains that they exist.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:I'd crack... by magarity · 2013-02-01 05:23 · Score: 1

bets on how long four people
No clue. Howbout we send up both my ex-wives as a test case?
Dude, if both your ex-wives make a test case of four people, well, maybe they divorced you for a reason?
Re:I'd crack... by jamstar7 · 2013-02-02 13:30 · Score: 1

Well, both of them had some multiple personality issues. I was hoping, send 'em both up, mebbe they'd do me the favor of my life & kill each other.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

Re:WOW! by lxs · 2013-01-31 18:56 · Score: 4, Funny

Who is this "us" you are speaking about? I haven't been there and neither have you.

PS. In the unlikely event that you are Buzz Aldrin, please don't hit me.

Advantage? by symes · 2013-01-31 20:07 · Score: 1

Surely the payload of a printer and materials will be greater than the prefabricated materials alone? Isn't this more costly? And why build, why not find somewhere where there is a cave and use the moon as a natural defense?

Re:Advantage? by isorox · 2013-01-31 22:03 · Score: 1

Surely the payload of a printer and materials will be greater than the prefabricated materials alone? Isn't this more costly? And why build, why not find somewhere where there is a cave and use the moon as a natural defense?
Not many caves on the moon for obvious reasons
Re:Advantage? by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:38 · Score: 1

The 'materials' aren't being sent. They're using the regolith from the moon.

Even if you send some feedstock for the process, if you just build 1 building or small colony it may not make sense. But long term production on the moon's surface is going to MUCH cheaper than flying in everything.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Advantage? by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:39 · Score: 1

No but you can make your own 'caves' and get the same thing.

Dig hole. Put in habitats. Cover hole back up. Instant cave.

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Advantage? by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:23 · Score: 1

Surely the payload of a printer and materials will be greater than the prefabricated materials alone? Isn't this more costly?
Imagine for a moment that some years from now (maybe 5, 10, 15) new techniques allow for the harvesting and use of materials directly on the surface of the moon (or, imagine, another planet), perhaps even automated harvesting/mining of materials (e.g. imagine a small team of robots could scour the moon for new materials to feed into the machine). When combined with this technique, it could then become possible to far more cheaply build large numbers of such structures, with many potential applications and uses. Then the initial materials would constitute an investment of sorts.

--
My other UID is three digits.
Re:Advantage? by HornWumpus · 2013-02-01 12:15 · Score: 1

Obviously no water eroded caves.
Perhaps old lava tubes. Also perhaps weird geology (not the correct word, some pendant will be along) resulting from cooling shrink.
The gravity of the moon is highly irregular. Which makes me think the moon is not homogeneous.
We don't know.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Advantage? by Patch86 · 2013-02-01 20:29 · Score: 1

The answer is "not necessarily". Imagine you want to build a building the same size as a family home, and that it needs to be thick enough to protect against radiation; that would be many tonnes of rigid material which would still need to be assembled.
On the other hand, and inflatable is light and can fit in small spaces, and the "printer" is just a device capable of melting and squirting regolith; it need not be big at all.Not only that, but one "printer" can be used to build buildings of almost unlimited size- so the fixed investment of putting it up there pays off more and more the more you use it, in comparison with shipping the materials there from the Earth's surface.

Re:You People Are Sick by jamstar7 · 2013-01-31 20:24 · Score: 1

Oh, so sorry, someone should have told you... it only looks that way because we lock them in the same room as the trolls.

You DO understand that if you are locked in a room with nothing but an under-wire push-up bra and a pair of granny panties for 15 years, and are fed nothing but Double Cheese Whoppers and Pepsi, at the end of this you become a fat grandma, right?

Yup. Doesn't matter even if you started out as biological male. Welcome to the US, where a weird poor black boy turned into a weird rich white woman.

--
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.

I wonder what they will wear inside the moon base by jad4 · 2013-01-31 20:42 · Score: 2

Purple wigs and silver miniskirts? Will they have coffee ready for when Cmdr. Straker visits? We can only hope.

Next step by rossdee · 2013-01-31 20:51 · Score: 1

finding a company that does free shipping on printer cartridges

Re:Next step by Errol+backfiring · 2013-02-01 00:00 · Score: 1

You probably never read about 3D printing sand. For example, see http://inhabitat.com/the-solar-powered-sinter-3d-printer-turns-desert-sand-into-glass/

--
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!

They're using a consumer 3D printer by coofercat · 2013-02-01 00:40 · Score: 1

They're using a printer you can buy on Amazon: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Draper-57567-Square-Mouth-Shovel-Fibreglass/dp/B0002GUMDW/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1359722298&sr=8-1

Why the hell would you build anything for 4 people? Surely they can live in a big hole with a lid, can't they? This seems more like a job for a mining machine than a 3D printer. Then again, I'm not a rocket scientist, so I don't know what I'm talking about.

Space Colonies 101 by rmdingler · 2013-02-01 01:37 · Score: 1

The collective scientific and engineering minds behind space exploration seem clear on the order of crystal that limiting the payload weight of objects leaving Earth's gravitational field is non-negotiable. It follows that making things necessary for survival from raw materials off-planet is going to be mandatory for any successful spread of humanity off this rock. There will come a day when mankind is either thankful or filled with regret regarding our progress in these endeavors.

--
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

Ernest Hemingway

Re:WOW! by DNS-and-BIND · 2013-02-01 02:20 · Score: 1

"Us" is being used in the collective sense, as in a nation or the entire human race. I can't believe people graduate from college not knowing these things.

--
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!

Go back to living in a cave, hominid by Progman3K · 2013-02-01 02:59 · Score: 1

Seems to me the easiest and safest bet is to prospect for suitable caves and then turn them into dwellings.

Any fabrication will be problematic at the beginning, we should do like our ancestors and use what's already there first.

--
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J

Re:Go back to living in a cave, hominid by jackbird · 2013-02-01 04:19 · Score: 1

No liquids of any kind plus no sedimentary rock plus no volcanism (ie lava tubes) for eons means no caves.
Re:Go back to living in a cave, hominid by pixelpusher220 · 2013-02-01 04:46 · Score: 1

Dig hole. Put in habitat. Cover hole. Instant 'cave' :)

--
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
Re:Go back to living in a cave, hominid by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:32 · Score: 1

Actually, considering the use of existing structures like caves is one of the options for consideration for missions to other bodies in the solar system, it's a worthwhile suggestion. What we should probably do is use robotic cave exploration to learn more about the nature and suitability of the caves (whether Moon or Mars). I think the point of this though is to explore the option of automated or semi-automated construction, which I suspect in the longer term may have more advantages.

--
My other UID is three digits.
Re:Go back to living in a cave, hominid by CCarrot · 2013-02-01 06:33 · Score: 1

Dig hole. Put in habitat. Cover hole. Instant 'cave' :)
That's exactly what I was thinking, along with "inflatable dome over cave entrance / airlock to facilitate surface work / vehicle storage, with emergency procedures to hightail it underground if you get warning of a potential meteor strike / radiation event / etc."
All living quarters and environmental support equipment should be underground at the bare minimum, and most of the working areas too. Spend time figuring out how to reliably seal and pressurize an excavation, folks.

--
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Re:Go back to living in a cave, hominid by HornWumpus · 2013-02-01 12:23 · Score: 1

No erosion for eons ether. So perhaps lava tubes. At lunar gravity perhaps very large lava tubes.
Highly irregular gravitational field. There is something strange going on under the moons surface.
Also note: Thermal shrinkage of moon has cracked it.
Going into the moon provides shielding. Even if you have to tunnel.
Subtractive methods. Robotic drillers/shovels and high explosives.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:WOW! by tehcyder · 2013-02-01 03:53 · Score: 1

"Us" is being used in the collective sense, as in a nation or the entire human race. I can't believe people graduate from college not knowing these things.

I can't believe people graduate from college not knowing what a joke is.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:Gravity going be a issue? by tehcyder · 2013-02-01 04:02 · Score: 1

I'd have thought that low gravity was an advantage if you want to build a huge structure, but I cheerfully admit I'm no architect, structural engineer or brickie.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Re:WOW! by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:14 · Score: 1

Actually (yes yes, I'm humorless), while it is a logical fallacy to 'anthropomorphize' society as a collective, society as a collective does actually also exist - there are some senses in which it is not a fallacy, and the GP's use of "us" is correct.

Correct: "Can't wait for us [humans] to return to the moon"
Incorrect: "We choose to go to the moon, not because .."

--
My other UID is three digits.

Re:WOW! by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:16 · Score: 1

(The latter is incorrect reasoning because "choosing" is only something individuals can do. When we say that everyone "chooses" collectively, what we really mean is that some less-than-100% percentage of individuals has chosen to do something - which reveals that some percentage of individuals have in fact not "chosen" to do so at all, but may well have objected to trying. In practice, this may either just be "linguistic shorthand" for what was really meant, or an error in reasoning.)

--
My other UID is three digits.

Re:This is the most stupid thing ever posted on / by SourceFrog · 2013-02-01 05:27 · Score: 1

What it is with the anti-space trolls on slashdot lately? I'm sure it's just 2 or 3 individuals, but every space-related article you come crawling out of the woodwork and paste the exact same crap, like calling people "space Nutters". You know what's really idiotic? Any "intelligent" species that thinks it actually makes sense to stay home and wait for the entire species to be obliterated by an impact, like the dinosaurs.

--
My other UID is three digits.

One more time? by dhomstad · 2013-02-01 06:43 · Score: 1

Since transporting building materials to space is a challenge, the team is considering using on-site 3D printing as a solution."

How does using an on-site 3D printer solve this problem? Last time I checked, you need input materials. Unless you're harvesting those materials in outer space, they're going to be sourced from earth. In my opinion, you're trading manufacturing quality on earth for the cargo volume difference between a more spacious pre-asssembled part and some amorphous bag of resin

Also, if this thing is never going to be used by humans, let's just make a monument for humanity. My best suggestion is Daft Punk's set from their Alive 2007 Tour http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&safe=off&sa=G&tbo=d&biw=1364&bih=683&tbm=isch&tbnid=YQxV3ckNYEiclM:&imgrefurl=http://www.vibe.com/photo-gallery/daft-punk-signed-columbia-records-daft-punk-photographic-history&docid=ePpe3tP66xYfyM&imgurl=http://www.vibe.com/sites/vibe.com/files/photo_gallery_images/2007%252520%25252522Alive%252520Tour%25252522.jpg&w=650&h=365&ei=kQsMUf6iEJO-9QTZv4GYBg&zoom=1&ved=1t:3588,r:2,s:0,i:91&iact=rc&dur=2097&sig=112557253512712023348&page=1&tbnh=168&tbnw=300&start=0&ndsp=18&tx=117&ty=10

--
No trees were killed to send this message, but a great number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

Re:You People Are Sick by Genda · 2013-02-01 08:20 · Score: 1

Sorry, the topic is about Chinese hacking not Michael Jackson. please get with the program...

Re:The space by HornWumpus · 2013-02-01 12:27 · Score: 1

Who's flag was planted there by a human?

To quote 'Iron Sky': It's ours.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'

Re:This is the most stupid thing ever posted on / by SourceFrog · 2013-02-02 09:59 · Score: 1

The dinosaurs are a religion? WTF? Are you claiming this never happened? How do you explain the massive crater and heaps of other evidence for an impact?

--
My other UID is three digits.

Re:This is the most stupid thing ever posted on / by SourceFrog · 2013-02-02 10:06 · Score: 1

You know, even a 6-year old can figure out that if dinosaurs had colonized other planets, they'd still be alive today. By "doomsday scenario" you are referring to things that actually happen in reality - and by "salvation", you are referring to something that really actually would mitigate this risk.

You don't seem to understand what a "religion" is. Things that are real do not constitute religion. You know what constitutes "religion"? Denying that real things exist.

--
My other UID is three digits.

Re:This is the most stupid thing ever posted on / by SourceFrog · 2013-02-02 10:11 · Score: 1

I realize of course that the statistical odds of such a calamity in our lifetimes is very small, but I take a long-term view. Consider that we've been "modern humans" for perhaps 100,000 to 200,000 years, and we've been humans for approximately 2 million years. On these timescales, the odds of major catastrophic events increases and eventually approaches 1. (There are other risks too.) Just on our tiny planet, we've had not one, but several major extinction events (though it seems you adopting a Biblical "that never happened" view, in which case, well, I would first have to convince you about this thing called "science" and "evidence").

But, there are a whole host of other reasons why it makes sense to start colonizing space. Even if there were no such thing as large-scale catastrophes, I would still think it makes sense.

Plus, it's cool. Come on, you have to admit, it would be awesome for us to set foot on Mars.

--
My other UID is three digits.

Re:This is the most stupid thing ever posted on / by SourceFrog · 2013-02-02 10:19 · Score: 1

Last reply, just a quick question, if you don't like space, why not just avoid it yourself? Why try bully and harass others into avoiding space? Why not just let the people who want to go to space, go to space - how does it affect you anyway? Live and let live. Let other people go to space, and you stay on Earth, and everyone's happy.

I mean, I don't care for, say, beer, but I don't go around bashing anyone who drinks beer as being an idiotic "Beer Nutter". No, you have a deeper motive here.

If it's really impossible, as you say, then you'll be proven right. So why are you afraid that people try? Are you afraid they might succeed?

If you just have an issue relating to how space is funded, well that's something else, we can discuss that as a separate topic. I mean, projects like Mars One aim to be privately funded - they aren't even trying to take your tax money to do it.

--
My other UID is three digits.

Slashdot Mirror

Architecture Firm and ESA To 3D Print Building On the Moon

88 of 113 comments (clear)