Slashdot Mirror
Architecture Firm and ESA To 3D Print Building On the Moon
An anonymous reader writes "Internationally acclaimed architecture firm Foster + Partners built the Hearst Tower, the Millennium Bridge, and the Gherkin here on earth — and now they're setting their sights on outer space with plans to produce a 3D printed building on the moon. Today the firm announced that it has partnered with the European Space Agency to develop a lunar base for four people that can withstand the threat of meteorites, gamma radiation and temperature fluctuations. Since transporting building materials to space is a challenge, the team is considering using on-site 3D printing as a solution."
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.
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.
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"?
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
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.
Oh, so sorry, someone should have told you... it only looks that way because we lock them in the same room as the trolls.
I am glad they opted for the 3D printer. Imagine if they opted for a 2D printer. It would have been very disappointing.
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.
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"?
..but the hype should be more about the fact that its a manned moon base.
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."
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.
Even worse, when you run out of photo cyan the shipping rates for a replacement cartridge make it almost not worth it.
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).
Purple wigs and silver miniskirts? Will they have coffee ready for when Cmdr. Straker visits? We can only hope.
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