Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

Void · 2021-11-13 09:54:15

I very much understand why Dr. Robert Zubrin wanted "Mars Direct". It was logical, as the SLS would have only limited potential, and if that was to be the only thing, then you had to choose what might have best chances.

However, it is quite evident, that SLS is simply a thing to occupy and waste time, (So far), and we are now outside of that box, and yet the enemy should be expected to try to get all things inside of a box that they can control.

It is quite apparent to me that we are being molested by the unholy in spirit.

-----
By the way, I searched for Moon and Lunar, and did not turn up a topic for them that made any sense. So, here is this, which I intend to work in parallel with topics about the Earth and Mars and Plutoids.
------
I do expect that there will be those who will search desperately for hooks in the topic...."Index» Science, Technology, and Astronomy» Ancient Human Genomes -> Present-Day Europeans - Johannes Krause". But I will supply none, as it is simply seeming to be honest information.

-----

Anyway I do not intend this to be about that..,,,

I am quite content at the completion of that. I don't see that useful hooks were established for the enemy to use.

------

https://theconversation.com/the-moons-t … on%20Earth.
Quote:

The Moon’s top layer alone has enough oxygen to sustain 8 billion people for 100,000 years

That is certainly a strange calculation but perhaps useful. Sort of a eyeball measure of reality.

In reality, I expect that produced would be quite a lot of Oxygen, and some metals, and some slag leftovers, that could be made into brick like building blocks.

Taking a Q from Issac Arthur, I anticipate making "Roman Arches" on the Moon.

This could be a good place to store thermal energy. On one or two of the under arch "Walls", either curtains or windows, or both can allow heliostats, to input energy as various spectrum, and to then inhibit the departure of Infrared, except as in a planned manner. Anti-Solar cells might be included. And of course other notions of methods.

And if nothing else, we may have the European/British invention of a method to extract Oxygen from regolith.

https://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration … nto_oxygen

https://www.space.com/esa-oxygen-from-l … ation.html

I believe that the Earlier version that the British had created CO2. The problem was that it was supposed that the Moon has no Carbon. I believe that it does, and also Carbon could be imported. But it does not matter. Some version of the machine would do.

For the Moon on ground Centrifuges may not be out of the question. Human health may be the need of that. But we might expect a low population for the Moon, and much remote control from Earth for manipulation of objects.

So, the ability to produce Oxygen in quantity, if for a good price, may have importance for reaching out to other places in the solar system.

Obviously chemical propulsions, but of course I have tried on occasion to promote some type of monopropellant method for simply expelling Oxygen in some form.
A mass driver, or other.

I have set this up because I want to imagine such related methods being in place for the moons of Mars.

There will be much to learn to accomplish that. Extraction into a centrifuge, and solar power collection or nuclear, and then production of Oxygen, Metals, and Slag tiles/blocks.

It is my feeling that we have been being misdirected to failure for a long time, and I intend to fight against such enemy activities.

Good enough for now,

Done

Last edited by Void (2021-11-13 10:22:13)

Void · 2021-11-13 10:58:59

Isaac Arthur Stuff:, you might search for that and the Moon.

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Is … &FORM=VIRE

https://www.bing.com/search?q=Isaac+Art … 4c&pc=U531

------

What we need to watch out for are people who want to own people.

We can anticipate proto-human behaviors still inside of the existing human population.

First as someone we know of said, they will start ranting that there is not enough.
They will try to make sure that there is not enough. They want to own the people, and to ration what the people might have.

Then they will try to extract "Tribute". Of course breaking the weak is fun. But to take from the accomplished is even better. As they desire to engage in proto-human tribute extractions, they are not at all fond of social structures that do not fit into that ancient human behavior pattern. So, you may expect tendencies to draw human social structure downward toward the archaic.

It is easy to access the embedded archaic instincts of humans to interpret reality as being the stone age, even though we do not live in the stone age. This unfortunately is easy meat for them to try to take.

It is up to us to outsmart them somehow.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-13 11:06:10)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-13 13:10:20

For Void ... best wishes for success with this interesting new topic.

There are surely existing NewMars members who will be following your development of this topic, and it is possible there are forum readers who are not members who will be interested in your thinking as you go along.

(th)

louis · 2021-11-13 16:02:00

There are, in my view a number of reasons why the Moon should be viewed more as a diversion and not a path to anything substantial:

1. Establishing humanity on the Moon does not guarantee its survival even if the Moon could (much much greater difficulty than Mars) be made self-sufficient. A major asteroid impact on Earth could easily destroy civilisaton on the Moon as well as huge fragments are thrown up into space.

2. As mentioned, the Moon has a far more limited range of resources. Mars could easily support several hundred million people in a self-sufficient manner. It's difficult to see this being achieved on the Moon.

3. The Moon cannot be used as a base for a Mars mission - or, rather, it could but it doesn't afford any advantages.

4. The Moon has huge symbolic importance on Earth. It is difficult to see that the people of Earth would want their silvery moon to be turned into one that is green or peppered with lights at night. Thus any bases on the Moon would likely have to remain small.

5. The 14 day lunar night does not deliver the Earth-like experience of Mars with its close to 24 hours sol. Likewise, with there being no wind, no seasons.

I see some roles for the Moon:

(a) Lunar tourism I believe will be hugely popular. A two week stay or a honeymoon would attract lots of people with money to spare. Imagine, the lunar tourism attractions: visits to the Apollo 11 landing site where you can see the flag and lander perfectly preserved; visitng other Apollo landing sites; moon buggy rides; a lunar golf course; a visit to the dark side of the moon; talking to your friends from the moon via the internet connection; engraving your name on lunar rock; returning with some moon rock etc etc. It would have more going for it than many cruise excursions.

(b) Using the Moon as a test ground for Mars flights.

(c) Using the Moon as an observatory. Presumably these days you don't even need to staff your observatory, it could be operated remotely from Earth. But an observatory could also be built into the lunar tourism offer.

SpaceNut · 2021-11-13 17:52:37

I am reminded of the older topics where we looked first at a Moon Direct program where we would get enough interest by building places for man to go.

The need for a Moon direct *2* - ...continue here.

The need for a Moon direct *3* - ...continue here.

NASA's Moon Mission

To the moon first... - then to Mars and asteroids...

The Case for the Moon

A Return to the Moon by the Apollo 11 50th Anniversary.

Zubrin on Moon, then Mars - Three essays, one link

Dr. Robert Zubrin Moon Direct: How to build a moonbase in four years

Manned mission to Luna in 2018

To go with the FLO - Lunar Oxygen is key

50th Anniversary Moon Mission

Lots of topics for sure....

Void · 2021-11-14 09:28:24

(th), thanks.

Louis, we disagree on many points. I will pick a best case to start with.

Spacenut, thanks for the supporting links. I will enjoy reading the heritage posts from previous but not active now, members.

---------

Well, Louis, I am guessing that if we look harder, you and I are not that much in disagreement.

In my opinion, a useful place to look is at the hardware, economics, and politics now and when Dr. Zubrin correctly understood that the abilities then were so anemic that a diversion to the Moon, could result in a cancellation by government, before we ever reached Mars.

If you had to make a choice, I can see the draw that Mars had.

Our "For Pork" space program still exists, and I don't think that it can be done away with very soon.

It is quite possible that we have a hostage taking activity going on involving the Starship/Super Heavy. Yes the authorities need to ensure safety, but it is quite possible that politics are being played, so that some of the players can see if they can pull pork out of SpaceX. It remains to be seen, the level of their success in this.

In any case I have been reconsidering the notion of Mini-Starship, and the said
eventual retirement of Falcon 9. Today, I believe that I realized something that has potential.

First of all, SpaceX has a producer. Falcon 9. It seems that the FAA and other entities will have much less ability at this point to limit/prohibit it's further use.

I believe that Starship will eventually fly, but they may put a lot of impediments in it's way. I anticipate that orbital refueling will be the most important factor, particularly if SpaceX or it's potential future associates do what I think they can do.

One has to adapt to reality. If that reality includes political tribute takers who like to try to pull pork, then that is an environmental reality. Adaptation is then required.

The thing that attracts me is Terran-R, and perhaps Neutron. I think that either of
these could work with SpaceX. And I do understand that it may be possible as well that Dream Chaser could also be launched with Falcon 9.

And so, what I am looking at is for a 1st stage, Stainless Steel may not be the best option. For the 2nd Stage, it is probably a very good option. The 2nd stage, faces ~3X the stress as the 1st stage.

The Starship/Super Heavy will use Stainless in both cases, and that makes sense, to the degree, that it is fast to build, and what you do with the 2nd Stage, will also work for the 1st stage.

But Blue Origin, is using lightweight build structure for the New Glen, 1st Stage.
However, they are going to try Stainless Steel for the 2nd Stage, (Jarvis).

I included mention of the Neutron, but I do not know much about it, except that it may be able to carry a small crew eventually. Perhaps 2 people???

So, I am more interested in the Terran-R at this time. It is to be 3D printed, so that even if it is made of metal, it will have only the structure that is needed, to survive it's stresses.

If I thought it were possible to get them to do it, I would keep the Falcon 9 1st Stage, and.....ask Relativity Space to build a 2nd Stage.

https://www.relativityspace.com/rockets

Of course, perhaps BO would also be able to ask them to do that.

However, SpaceX already has quite a lot of testing for 2nd Stages.

So, for a time, this could be competitive, as the 1st stage would be of light weight materials, of a device well tested and proven. The 2nd stage would be built light weight, but of strong structure.

At the time when Starship tanker is eventually active, then the upper stage could load more propellants, in LEO or so, and then be able perhaps to participate in missions the the Moon, and perhaps Mars, and other.

So, this loophole may provide a system that is more immune to hostage taking, tribute demanding and general pork pulling politics.

Terran-R could also have a tanker version as well, although of course that would be small, and probably require multiple flights. But it would be important to do so, as it can be anticipated, that the worst of the pork pullers, otherwise would be tempted to do wicked deeds to create a RUD event, so that Starship/Super Heavy could be grounded. Having a tanker Terran-R would still allow activity while the terrorist hostage takers, tribute taking pork pullers held things up.

-------

I wanted to go into details about a possible hardware/business path, the one above. But in reality, it is apparent that SLS will eventually be at least partially bypassed, however the pork pullers may continue to draw life force out of the space communities efforts.

So, to shorten it up a bit finally, the hardware environment that Dr. Zubrin faced in the past will likely not exist. And it can be understood that there will be many entities interested in the Moon. The more use of Space Hardware by paying customers, then, we think, that the price per unit of Mass will go down, which of course may favor efforts to Mars. So, efforts to the Moon can be helpful, and we can't stop people/entities from doing it anyway.

Adaptation to new hardware realities, and strategies that inhibit the parasitic activities of the "Pork Pullers", are a thing I recommend.

Also, if we can work with the regolith of the Moon, then it may show how to work with the regolith of the Martian moons, where also materials from Mars itself may be also utilized.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-14 10:09:20)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-14 11:23:54

For Void ...

Your observations about pork in Post #6 led me to think of an appropriate use for the SLS vehicle ...

It should NOT be launched at all, but instead made into a permanent memorial at some appropriate location.

Washington Monument/Height 555′
Height: 555 ft (169 m)

About 3,580,000 results (0.50 seconds)
322 feet
NASA has finally finished building its next moon rocket, and it's a behemoth. Towering at 322 feet, the Space Launch System (SLS) is taller than the Statue of Liberty, which is 305 feet high.Oct 23, 2021
NASA Stacks New SLS Moon Rocket Taller Than Statue of ...
https://www.businessinsider.com › Science › News

Surely a monument to Congressional Support of the Space Shuttle work force would be appropriate.

It could be installed somewhere suitable and run by the Smithsonian Institution.

The support structure built to launch it could be reproduced as a weather protected set of steps for visitors to climb to look in the windows of the cabin at the top.

This (in my opinion) would be a ** much ** better use for all that investment by the American people, than would a ridiculous fireworks display of an up and down event, even if it ** is ** noisy.

(th)

Calliban · 2021-11-14 12:37:20

The value of the Moon is as a source of bulk metal ores in support of manufacturing carried out in high Earth orbit. It is ideally situated for that purpose. The low escape velocity and lack of atmosphere make it possible to use mass drivers to launch material packages at speeds of ~2km/s. Gérard O'Neil foresaw this almost fifty years ago.

The moon is a less promising destination for long-term colonisation, due to its lack of atmosphere and general paucity of resources other than bulk metal ores. The concentration of carbon in lunar rocks is only 50ppm. But as space manufacturing picks up, it will host a growing human presence as a mining colony. The presence of micrometeorites and heavy primary galactic cosmic rays, make it inadvisable to build permanent human settlement on the surface. Tunnels would appear to present the best habitation option.

louis · 2021-11-14 16:04:41

Isn't the Delta V requirement about the same as Mars? Pretty sure I read that once.

Calliban wrote:

The value of the Moon is as a source of bulk metal ores in support of manufacturing carried out in high Earth orbit. It is ideally situated for that purpose. The low escape velocity and lack of atmosphere make it possible to use mass drivers to launch material packages at speeds of ~2km/s. Gérard O'Neil foresaw this almost fifty years ago.
The moon is a less promising destination for long-term colonisation, due to its lack of atmosphere and general paucity of resources other than bulk metal ores. The concentration of carbon in lunar rocks is only 50ppm. But as space manufacturing picks up, it will host a growing human presence as a mining colony. The presence of micrometeorites and heavy primary galactic cosmic rays, make it inadvisable to build permanent human settlement on the surface. Tunnels would appear to present the best habitation option.

Calliban · 2021-11-15 07:25:31

The delta-V from lunar surface to L5 is going to be roughly lunar escape velocity - 2.38km/s. In kinetic energy terms, it takes only about 5% as much energy to launch something from the moon compared to Earth. But importantly, all of the requisite energy can be provided by electricity within the mass driver, which is a linear electric motor. We don't need synthetic propellant to export stuff from the moon. And payloads can be dumb projectiles, essentially fired from an electric gun. The moon is close enough to Earth that it is easy to reach and surface equipment can be tele-operated, with only short communications delay.

So the moon does offer a lot of value as a mining outpost if we intend to develop any serious space manufacturing capabilities. It doesn't have much value as anything else. It is too poor in anything other than base metals to be an attractive target for human colonisation. The absence of any hydrosphere or atmosphere, mean that few ore bodies exist and there is no possibility of finding evidence of extraterrestrial life. If we go there it will be as a stepping stone to other destinations. It is only useful in that regard if we can develop the mass driver as a practical bulk material transportation device. If not, then the asteroids and Mars are better source of bulk materials for Earth orbit. Mars is a better source of volatile components in any event. The sort of giant orbital colonies that Gérard O'Neil foresaw, would require lunar mining on a scale of millions of tonnes per year. That's a launch rate of at least 2 tonnes every minute.

An interesting variation on the O'Neil vision would be to build a mass driver on Mars and carry out space manufacturing in Mars orbit. The atmosphere is thin enough and gravity is low enough, that this is a credible plan. And Mars has more in the way of raw resources than the moon does.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 07:43:01)

Terraformer · 2021-11-15 09:08:08

Agreed that Luna's primary selling point (at the moment) is as a mining colony. Disagree with the idea that it won't have any orebodies. They won't have formed in the same way as most Terran ones, but Sudbury Basin is a major source of nickel, and that's due to a meteorite impact rather than hydrological processes. There could well be rich deposits close to the Lunar surface, as well as large amounts mixed in with the regolith. I have posted before about the possibility of nickel mining (I think semi-precious metals are a better bet for space mining than precious metals, given the industrial demand for them is high enough it's unlikely to crash the market).

But over time, I can see it developing into an ecumenopolis. It's never going to be a place for homesteads, not like a partially terraformed Mars could become. From the start it will be urbanised, with colonies beginning at the poles where there is ice and power. I don't think volatiles are going to be that big of a problem - if we're going to settle space, we need to get quite good at closed loop life support. Lakes and oceans and forests are pleasant, but they aren't essential to human survival (and in any case, if we're going to be building O'Neill cylinders with those we'll need to be able to move large quantities of water and methane and ammonia across the solar system, so Luna can just import them). I can definitely foresee populations of hundreds of millions at some point in the far future. In the mid future, hundreds of thousands, many of whom sell services and information goods to Terra to pay for their rent. Luna is the obvious first next step for human colonisation.

Calliban · 2021-11-15 10:18:12

Terraformer wrote:

Agreed that Luna's primary selling point (at the moment) is as a mining colony. Disagree with the idea that it won't have any orebodies. They won't have formed in the same way as most Terran ones, but Sudbury Basin is a major source of nickel, and that's due to a meteorite impact rather than hydrological processes. There could well be rich deposits close to the Lunar surface, as well as large amounts mixed in with the regolith. I have posted before about the possibility of nickel mining (I think semi-precious metals are a better bet for space mining than precious metals, given the industrial demand for them is high enough it's unlikely to crash the market).
But over time, I can see it developing into an ecumenopolis. It's never going to be a place for homesteads, not like a partially terraformed Mars could become. From the start it will be urbanised, with colonies beginning at the poles where there is ice and power. I don't think volatiles are going to be that big of a problem - if we're going to settle space, we need to get quite good at closed loop life support. Lakes and oceans and forests are pleasant, but they aren't essential to human survival (and in any case, if we're going to be building O'Neill cylinders with those we'll need to be able to move large quantities of water and methane and ammonia across the solar system, so Luna can just import them). I can definitely foresee populations of hundreds of millions at some point in the far future. In the mid future, hundreds of thousands, many of whom sell services and information goods to Terra to pay for their rent. Luna is the obvious first next step for human colonisation.

Good points and welcome back Terraformer! Our information about lunar resources is limited to what we could gain from Apollo missions and orbital emissions spectra. There may be surprises in store. Agreed that volatile shipments to high Earth orbit could supply the lunar surface as well. In the long run, a place doesn't need to be self-sufficient, it just needs exports that pay for its imports. If the moon eventually exports gigatonnes of common metal ores per year, then megatonnes of hydrogen and carbon could be an affordable enough import expense.

A while back, we discussed options for creating a thin lunar atmosphere that would protect the surface from micrometeorites. This would make working on the surface and deploying inflatable structures much safer and easier. We are talking about microbars of surface pressure - probably not enough to even be visible and too thin to elevate dust particles. But sufficient to burn up small particles travelling at 10's km/s before they impact the surface. This is terraforming in the most minimal sense. The option I raised was creating a magnetic field using a circumferential ring of conducting material like aluminium. Solar panels and thermoelectric devices placed along the loop could be used to maintain circumferential current flow through the loop.

This would trap solar wind gases and any ionised remnants from rocket exhaust and meteorite impacts. We would therefore switch on the magnetic field and allow solar wind, rocket exhaust and ejecta ions to accumulate. Almost any gas would do the trick. We aren't worried about toxicity or corrosion at such low surface pressures. The most abundant volatile on the moon is sulphur. So impact gardening would generate some sulphur dioxide, along with free oxygen and CO2. During solar storms, there may be some spectacular aurora as the magnetic field compresses and the solar wind impacts the atmosphere.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-15 10:31:44)

Terraformer · 2021-11-15 12:44:28

We talked about that years ago, though the idea was to use big mirrors to liberate oxygen from the rocks. There's a proposal in Terraforming (Fogg) to use nuclear explosions to do it - I think it's 10^8 tonnes that would be needed for it to stick around? Or was that kilogrammes... anyway, 16 microbars would be ~40 gigatonnes of gas

I'm not really that worried about tiny impactors and radiation. Regolith is cheap, it's not going to be difficult to put 10m of rock on top of our Lunar city. I favour a hexagonal design, since they tessellate and are efficient users of space - and circular pressure vessels fit inside them pretty well. The gaps between the inner and outer hexagons can be filled with radiation protection and/or used for storage.

Calliban · 2021-11-15 16:42:57

Most meteors burn up above a height of 80km, at which point pressure is around 1 microbar. That is a column density of about 0.01kg/m2. For the whole moon, with a diameter of 3480km, an atmosphere of that column density would mass around 380 million tonnes. That is an achievable amount if large scale human presence comes to fruition on the moon. If a lunar magnetic field were put in place, then eventually a combination of human and natural inputs would provide sufficient gas through rocket exhaust and ore processing.

There is the question as to whether it is worth the effort. I suppose that it is a risk management question. Most of what we build on the moon will indeed be under at least 2m of regolith for radiation protection. I believe that food will probably be grown under LEDs in subsurface chambers. Waste heat will need to be rejected. This requires that heat rejection radiators be placed above the surface. Rockets and surface vehicles will be above ground.

Some meteorites consist of dust from short period comets. These can have relative velocity up to 66km/s when entering Earth atmosphere. A meteorite the size of a sand grain would carry the energy of a rifle bullet. A pea sized body would equal a hand grenade. The risk to the average person is a function of the amount of time they must spend above surface. Clearly, it should be minimised.

I like your idea of a hexagrid. We could in fact produce hexagonal steel frames with a steel dome lid. We would couple these together and heap around 6m of lunar rock and regolith over the top, with thick berms of regolith around the edges. The structure could then be pressurised and the weight of regolith over the roof sheets would balance the internal pressure within. A pure oxygen atmosphere with 200mbar pressure, would require a regolith covering of some 6m on the moon. A crater or other natural depression would be a good head start.

Waste heat would be a problem, as lunar regolith under vacuum is a superb insulator, better than rockwool. We could cover radiators with a thin layer of regolith and an upper layer of solid rock or fused regolith to protect them from small impactors. The lunar night is so cold (-170C) that good heat transfer rates can be achieved through a thin layer of regolith, with rock seated above it. Steel panels could be protected from damage in this way.

As an aside, this caught my eye:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti … oon-water/

It does suggest that the moon is far from being a dry body. Its outer crust has dehydrated and shock heated over aeons. But the deeper crust may well contain hydrated minerals in sufficient abundance to support planetary scale human presence. This is a surprise to me. I knew that bulk surface rock contained around 100ppm hydrogen. This may be a low estimate for deep rock. As the lunar mantle solidified, it may have precipitated water molecules at grain boundaries. These may fill deep voids that would have formed as the rock cooled and contracted. Maybe we will find water on the moon by drilling, much as oil is found on Earth.

It occurs to me that if there is development of large scale manufacturing capabilities in high Earth orbit, oxygen will be a waste product of metal refining that may end up being used as propellant in mass driver tugs. A thin oxygen atmosphere will probably accumulate around the moon whether we want it or not. Any payload that lands on the moon will expend a mass of propellant roughly equal to its weight. This rocket exhaust will form a thin atmosphere of water vapour and CO2 that will gradually deplete via Jean's escape and ion sputtering from solar wind.

Last edited by Calliban (2021-11-16 05:01:36)

Void · 2021-11-16 13:43:53

I have enjoyed your posts.

I am coming to the notion that we do not really know the Moon all that well.

Russian probes suggested also that there was water in the Lunar rocks, and the deeper they drilled, the more of it.
https://www.technologyreview.com/2012/0 … to%20Earth.
Quote:

Soviet Moon Lander Discovered Water on the Moon in 1976

This may not be universal for all places on the Moon.

However, it seems to me that even if the Moon was covered in a magma ocean, Henry's Laws would apply.

That is, it seems that in places, CO drove fire fountains, I don't see why liquid rock under fluid compression would leak all the water and perhaps Carbon, out of all of the rock.

I would anticipate that even with lava under it the surface layers would solidify into a shell material rather quickly, just like for lava tubes on Earth, and the shell of rock would tend to compress the liquid below, making it more likely that dissolved materials in the liquid rock would not come out of solution.

So, about the Fire Fountains:
https://earthsky.org/space/fire-fountai … %20example.

I cannot imagine that this expulsion of CO would have been 100% efficient. So, it may be possible that some places retained Carbon compounds in the deeper rocks. 100% effective seems unlikely to me.

And I consider this to be more logic. If the liquid ocean of rock had enough CO to run fire fountains, then why would the lower rock which was not melted have lost it's CO? It also should have had CO.

What are the chanced that all CO all the way to the Core were emitted to the vacuum of space with 100% efficiency. That also applies to H20.

And then after the liquid ocean solidified, it seems to me that there could be craters that blasted holes deep enough, to reach what was deeper down, and may have retained Carbon and H20.

I also note that it has been reported that the polar deposits on the Moon, contain some CO and CO2, so the Moon looks somewhat better than before.

--------

So, I am guessing that it may be true that if humans tunnel down in the Moon they might find enough of what they need to make the place more suitable.

And then as for intermittent energy on the Moon, we can make stone shells of bricks, arches, and cover them with regolith. During sunshine times, use heliostats to charge them up with heat through port holes.

And so to have 24/7 energy. Of course you would use some sort of heat engine(s), or Anti-Solar cells.

That is better than the Earth, where you have to use various other less easy methods or more polluting methods, to have continuous energy. So, actually, it may be that the Moon itself might be an ideal place to do industrial processes.

And I fear I must say, a better more reliable energy from solar than what Mars could have, due to dust storms, and the tilt of axis.

So, the Moon is sort of a "Sunbelt", in actuality.

As for farming, that could be done in orbit in some cases, but the polar areas may make simulation of Earth days, easier as it has a more uniform obtainable amount of sunlight much of the time.

A method would be to have brick/regolith shells, that keep the thermal conditions relatively continuous over time periods, and to have greenhouses inside of the shell. The greenhouses may or may not in part use delivered light from heliostats, and perhaps to a degree LED lighting.

The brick/regolith shell(s) would protect from impactors and radiation to some degree.

I do not intend that the brick/regolith shells would be pressurized, only the greenhouses inside of those shells.

So, I think that it may be possible that the Moon can be quite an asset for humans.

But as someone I am familiar with here might say? "Need more ground truth".

In my opinion the stronger the Moon gets the better for the Moon effort And The Mars Effort.

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-16 14:17:23)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-16 18:03:07

Well if the base is at a pole that makes them stay in permanent light for the helistats to send molten sodium to a heat exchanger for making plenty of power. So what is that magical height that the tower would need to be Since it would mean less reflective panels to make the energy.

Void · 2021-11-17 11:59:48

Yes, Louis, if those work out they may be excellent for the Moon, as they may be able to use most of the spectrum of light.

Spacenut,

Not quite what I had in mind. Lunar regolith and energy and manipulation to Yield many products. Oxygen, Regolith blocks, Metals, Regolith foam.

To export some, and yet to build "Unpressurized Domes or enclosures, to hold heat during the Lunar day/night cycle. The heat directed into the domes by various methods possible, Heliostats being one possible.

Port Holes can be windows of Alon, open, maybe with closable doors, ect.

Heat engines, possibly including Anti-Solar Cells.

We have Aerogel, but has anyone done a 3D printed Aerogel type thing yet????

I had started with the concept of a arch of bricks on the Moon, where windows would be on each end of the arch. Heliostats would direct multi-spectrum light into the enclosure. The arch bricks would store heat, and the windows would help to keep the infrared result from leaking out, unless that was planned for through a heat engine.

But now, I am sort of thinking like something like monoliths embedded in the lunar soil, with a dome of Metals and Foam Regolith created by 3D printing. That way the dome weight would be minimized. The Foam Bricks would stop many impactors rather effectively, but not be so good for radiation protection. Never mind, make Stonehenge under the Foam Dome. A heat sink.

It still can use some work. I don't want to get too specific yet, as that could put us into a mental Cul-Du-Sac.

A fine play ground!

Rather pleased!

And we don't know but the notion of a "Bone Dry" Moon is almost certainly false.

I am eager to hear tell of "3D printed rock and glass foam".

Done.

Last edited by Void (2021-11-17 12:06:18)

Terraformer · 2021-11-18 11:40:47

Most meteors burn up above a height of 80km, at which point pressure is around 1 microbar. That is a column density of about 0.01kg/m2. For the whole moon, with a diameter of 3480km, an atmosphere of that column density would mass around 380 million tonnes. That is an achievable amount if large scale human presence comes to fruition on the moon. If a lunar magnetic field were put in place, then eventually a combination of human and natural inputs would provide sufficient gas through rocket exhaust and ore processing.

Hmm. Mirrors, solar panels, and other collectors are going to have to be out in the open to do their job. If this can stop them from being scratched up by micrometeroids, it may well be worth doing...

(Making another thread on this.)

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-18 13:21:44

For Terraformer ... a discussion of how to protect equipment from meteors and micro-meteors seems (to me at least) quite timely.

The Russians are reported to have set off an explosion that created thousands of fragments of an old Soviet satellite.

Why they chose to do this at this time is open to conjecture, but the result is that the ISS (and other satellites) are now in increased danger.

If you decide to take on the challenge of designing a shield for the ISS (and future space stations where humans might take up residence) the work will certainly have potential application in the real world.

A great marshmellow ahead of the ISS might be able to stop the smaller objects.

(th)

SpaceNut · 2021-11-18 14:50:33

This is the same dynamics as the ballistics landing topic as the mass and speed are the issues for how dense the stopping system needs to be. Of course its going to be Swiss cheese in no time with the numerous objects hitting it. That will lessen the effectiveness of the system to stop much of anything after a period of time.

tahanson43206 · 2021-11-18 16:26:41

For SpaceNut re #20

I think a discussion of a means of stopping meteors (and micrometeors) at the Moon is compatible with extension of the discussion to stopping orbital debris from impacting the space station(s) in LEO....

Your word picture of Swiss cheese is thought provoking ... Swiss cheese is a structure of carbohydrates arranged in a lattice structure.

I ** think ** I recall reading somewhere that a Swiss Cheese lattice structure is in fact ideal for this purpose.

However, the idea can be extended to imagine self-repairing Swiss Cheese in a large volume ahead of the ISS.

The mass could be (relatively) small, if "whatever-it-is" is expanded with gas bubbles like foam we use to fill cracks in home repairs.

What I'm interested in is the "self-repairing" nature of such a lattice.

Merely pouring foam from a canister does ** not ** yield a self-repairing structure.

(th)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2021-11-13 09:54:15

Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#2 2021-11-13 10:58:59

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#3 2021-11-13 13:10:20

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#4 2021-11-13 16:02:00

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#5 2021-11-13 17:52:37

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#6 2021-11-14 09:28:24

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#7 2021-11-14 11:23:54

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#8 2021-11-14 12:37:20

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#9 2021-11-14 16:04:41

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#10 2021-11-15 07:25:31

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#11 2021-11-15 09:08:08

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#12 2021-11-15 10:18:12

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#13 2021-11-15 12:44:28

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#14 2021-11-15 16:42:57

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#15 2021-11-16 13:43:53

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#16 2021-11-16 18:03:07

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#17 2021-11-17 11:59:48

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#18 2021-11-18 11:40:47

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#19 2021-11-18 13:21:44

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#20 2021-11-18 14:50:33

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

#21 2021-11-18 16:26:41

Re: Moon as a path, and as it's own thing.

Board footer