Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

RobertDyck · 2016-12-24 14:58:54

Tom, it isn't practical to build a large rotating colony. The Moon is the Moon. Radiation and micrometeoroids mean the colony will have to be buried. But live in the environment you're in. On the Moon that means lunar gravity.

I would argue for planetary settlements. Mars has more gravity, atmosphere, 24 hour and a bit day, water ice, CO2, nitrogen, argon. The Moon is missing all that. Yes, the Moon has volatiles at the bottom of polar craters, but that's not much.

I would still argue Venus is a great opportunity: 90% surface area of Earth, 90% gravity, but also has 90 times atmospheric pressure. Venus has to be terraformed first, settled later. Mars can be settled now, terraformed later. And I still argue to refine/update Carl Segan's idea of terraforming Venus. He said to seed the clouds with algae. That would have worked when science thought Venus had 6 bar atmosphere. It won't work with 92 bar. My idea is genetically engineered microorganisms that convert CO2 into polyanhydride.

Did you want to get back to settling the Moon in lava tubes?

Terraformer · 2016-12-24 16:21:21

Are the lava tubes located in the right (i.e. polar) locations? It's going to be a very long while before people move away from the areas with the volatiles and power...

What advantages do lava tubes have over digging a trench and building a regolith covered hab? Unless they're already structurally sound enough to take the pressure, and so only require some walls to be built, I'm not sure there's anything to gain vs. building on the surface. They also don't seem to allow for expanding the city a block or a building at a time.

Antius · 2016-12-24 20:27:30

Tom,
Maybe we should focus our efforts on realistically achievable short and medium term goals. When men return to the moon, they will do so with modest payload budgets. It will be a very long time before the industrial capability exists to manufacture giant spinning colonies on the moon. Just the bearings required to support them will weigh kilotonnes.

Each tonne of payload sent to the moon will cost millions of dollars to put there. If a lava tube provides a spacious pressurised environment then they are valuable to us, as they avoid the need to import a pressure vessel of the same size from Earth. We can concentrate our payload budget on actual manufacturing equipment that allows us to extend our ability to manufacture needed goods from lunar materials.

Something the size of a Bernal sphere, is a long way off into the future. It will not be built in the short term just because it is aesthetically pleasing to have an Earth analogue environment.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-24 20:38:32)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-24 20:35:39

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom, it isn't practical to build a large rotating colony. The Moon is the Moon. Radiation and micrometeoroids mean the colony will have to be buried. But live in the environment you're in. On the Moon that means lunar gravity.
I would argue for planetary settlements. Mars has more gravity, atmosphere, 24 hour and a bit day, water ice, CO2, nitrogen, argon. The Moon is missing all that. Yes, the Moon has volatiles at the bottom of polar craters, but that's not much.
I would still argue Venus is a great opportunity: 90% surface area of Earth, 90% gravity, but also has 90 times atmospheric pressure. Venus has to be terraformed first, settled later. Mars can be settled now, terraformed later. And I still argue to refine/update Carl Segan's idea of terraforming Venus. He said to seed the clouds with algae. That would have worked when science thought Venus had 6 bar atmosphere. It won't work with 92 bar. My idea is genetically engineered microorganisms that convert CO2 into polyanhydride.
Did you want to get back to settling the Moon in lava tubes?

The advantage for the Moon is that it is closer and not as isolated, it has the surface area of Africa, so therefore it is like an 8th continent
This is what a bernal in a socket would look like:

It is 250 meters in radius
Rotates 1.8913056305203754 times a minute
Tangential velocity is 49.514265621131855 meters per second or 110.76025774233146 miles per hour.
You start with a crater that is 500 meters deep and you shovel the rim back around the sphere after building the socket in which the bernal spins. You can have multiple circular tracks at various points around the sphere to evenly distribute the weight. this would be much like a train except there is only one car. The bernal spins for gravity.

Antius · 2016-12-24 20:47:57

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom, it isn't practical to build a large rotating colony. The Moon is the Moon. Radiation and micrometeoroids mean the colony will have to be buried. But live in the environment you're in. On the Moon that means lunar gravity.
I would argue for planetary settlements. Mars has more gravity, atmosphere, 24 hour and a bit day, water ice, CO2, nitrogen, argon. The Moon is missing all that. Yes, the Moon has volatiles at the bottom of polar craters, but that's not much.
I would still argue Venus is a great opportunity: 90% surface area of Earth, 90% gravity, but also has 90 times atmospheric pressure. Venus has to be terraformed first, settled later. Mars can be settled now, terraformed later. And I still argue to refine/update Carl Segan's idea of terraforming Venus. He said to seed the clouds with algae. That would have worked when science thought Venus had 6 bar atmosphere. It won't work with 92 bar. My idea is genetically engineered microorganisms that convert CO2 into polyanhydride.
Did you want to get back to settling the Moon in lava tubes?
The advantage for the Moon is that it is closer and not as isolated, it has the surface area of Africa, so therefore it is like an 8th continent
This is what a bernal in a socket would look like:
http://orig08.deviantart.net/d087/f/201 … asw1ty.png
It is 250 meters in radius
Rotates 1.8913056305203754 times a minute
Tangential velocity is 49.514265621131855 meters per second or 110.76025774233146 miles per hour.
You start with a crater that is 500 meters deep and you shovel the rim back around the sphere after building the socket in which the bernal spins. You can have multiple circular tracks at various points around the sphere to evenly distribute the weight. this would be much like a train except there is only one car. The bernal spins for gravity.

Tom, its a daft idea. For one thing it's the wrong shape for a moon based colony. If you intend to augment lunar gravity, then why not a carousel type shape? Another thing: why 500m in diameter? Is that an arbitrary figure? If the colony is to be spinning, you want it as compact as possible. The bigger it is, the more massive and expensive and the bigger the bearings. Thirdly, how did we get from Lunar lava tubes to giant, buried rotating colonies? Why do you think we would be interested in lava tubes in the first place?

Think through what your base-builders actually need and what they will realistically will have available. If lava tubes are the answer it will be because they give us something for free, something we don't have to manufacture.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-24 20:55:41)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-24 22:26:48

Antius wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
Tom, it isn't practical to build a large rotating colony. The Moon is the Moon. Radiation and micrometeoroids mean the colony will have to be buried. But live in the environment you're in. On the Moon that means lunar gravity.
I would argue for planetary settlements. Mars has more gravity, atmosphere, 24 hour and a bit day, water ice, CO2, nitrogen, argon. The Moon is missing all that. Yes, the Moon has volatiles at the bottom of polar craters, but that's not much.
I would still argue Venus is a great opportunity: 90% surface area of Earth, 90% gravity, but also has 90 times atmospheric pressure. Venus has to be terraformed first, settled later. Mars can be settled now, terraformed later. And I still argue to refine/update Carl Segan's idea of terraforming Venus. He said to seed the clouds with algae. That would have worked when science thought Venus had 6 bar atmosphere. It won't work with 92 bar. My idea is genetically engineered microorganisms that convert CO2 into polyanhydride.
Did you want to get back to settling the Moon in lava tubes?
The advantage for the Moon is that it is closer and not as isolated, it has the surface area of Africa, so therefore it is like an 8th continent
This is what a bernal in a socket would look like:
http://orig08.deviantart.net/d087/f/201 … asw1ty.png
It is 250 meters in radius
Rotates 1.8913056305203754 times a minute
Tangential velocity is 49.514265621131855 meters per second or 110.76025774233146 miles per hour.
You start with a crater that is 500 meters deep and you shovel the rim back around the sphere after building the socket in which the bernal spins. You can have multiple circular tracks at various points around the sphere to evenly distribute the weight. this would be much like a train except there is only one car. The bernal spins for gravity.
Tom, its a daft idea. For one thing it's the wrong shape for a moon based colony. If you intend to augment lunar gravity, then why not a carousel type shape? Another thing: why 500m in diameter? Is that an arbitrary figure? If the colony is to be spinning, you want it as compact as possible. The bigger it is, the more massive and expensive and the bigger the bearings. Thirdly, how did we get from Lunar lava tubes to giant, buried rotating colonies? Why do you think we would be interested in lava tubes in the first place?
Think through what your base-builders actually need and what they will realistically will have available. If lava tubes are the answer it will be because they give us something for free, something we don't have to manufacture.

Rotating space habitats are basically the same whether in free space or in the Moon, the vacuum environment is the same. A rotating space habitat in the Moon is about the same as a rotating space habitat undergoing acceleration in space. You can simulate any gravity that is above the local surface gravity. the reason why you have a 500 meter diameter is because you want low RPM for the inhabitants, you don't want them to feel a noticeable difference in g forces between the feet and the head, and you also don't want to induce nausea by rotating the habitat too rapidly, so you need a large diameter in order to rotate slowly and yet still produce 1-g of centrifugal force, and you want the 1-g so the Lunar inhabitants can go back to Earth, and so their children can develop normally so they can visit Earth, that would be the reason for doing this. A sphere is an accommodating shape, as there will be a region on the sphere where the gravitational vector and the centrifugal force vector will combine to produce a direction of down that is perpendicular to the surface of the ground. As you walk towards the South pole of the spinning habitat, you will notice the apparent force of gravity lessen till it approached Lunar gravity at the center. the greenhouses are below this under lunar gravity and artificial light.

Anyway you can choose not to rotate the habitat, but there may be a price of Lunar gravity adaption.

Void · 2016-12-24 23:23:57

I hope all of you will have a Merry Christmas! Whatever planet or reality you are on or in!

Politically incorrect? Love it!

Be OK or something. If possible.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-24 23:24:41)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-25 08:44:31

I agree with

Antius wrote:

we should focus our efforts on realistically achievable short and medium term goals. When men return to the moon, they will do so with modest payload budgets.

Goals:
1. Stop waiting for Nasa to do the achievable of lunar mission as space x is almost there once it has a fuel stage , docking node (or ATK could send them up one) and lunar lander to go with its Truck and capsule. All that it needs is funding from someone other than government to make it happen.
2. Making the missions sustainable is the next step which does mean a degree of recycling.
3. Continued research for heat shield for mars to allow larger mass payloads to the surface of which Nasa does appear to be getting closer to with HIAD and ADEPT.
4. Build archecture to do subassembly from the size we have as sls is to expensive to use for these chunk sizes and only use it when we must to get something bigger to LEO.

Void · 2016-12-26 18:25:01

Well, I shall have to retaliate!

Or, at least speak a bit more on this.

First of all Teraformer could be correct. Is a lava tube the best deal? It has some charms, but it also carries some problems, such as access, and confirming it's existence. I believe that Louis feels that there could be rock falls in them. Still, I leave the option open for exploration.

Now before any personed mission should be sent to the Moon, a ground penetrating radar robot should be deployed to help confirm the lava tubes, and their extent. Before that, identifying what a human mission should do on the Moon will be hard to define.

People here have mentioned telepresence robots. I would like something to be developed that could enter the lava tubes and report back data.

As for synthetic gravity by spinning machines, we have a lot of questions to answer. It may indeed be that in the future that is not needed on the Moon. If the Moons gravity were sufficient to prevent blood pooling in the upper body, then perhaps no eye damage?

If that were true, is it possible that eventually humans will have the capability to intercept and modify the messages to the body, that cause it to build bone, or muscle? My thinking is someday yes.

Of the three synthetic gravity options I am aware of in this thread, I still support a modified hyperloop machine, or a floating spinner in a CO2 dominant atmospheric chamber. Toms, models are interesting but not practical to advance human purposes at this time.

I also don't throw in with the "Smother the Moon baby" mentality. That appears to be being done by some, in the hopes that Mars will be more likely.

I do have a paranoid streak, where I suspect that our leadership has been messing with us for years, just trying to appear to be space oriented, so that they can harvest the glory, but at the same time making sure that their technological servants never become a threat to their power.

So, I go all ways. Moon, Mars, even Venus or Ceres.

I want something to happen. I don't want to be told to take care of my affairs in a few months, and still see these silly bastards running us in endless circles through time.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-26 18:40:03)

GW Johnson · 2016-12-28 14:50:12

My own guess is that there really is something therapeutic about partial gee versus zero gee. Murphy's Law says the level that is therapeutic enough all by itself to support returning to Earth is above half a gee. It'll take one full gee to stay fully Earth-fit for a high gee entry, but if return entry gees are limited to about 4, then you can be about as unfit as ISS astronauts are after a 6-12 month stay.

Apollo entry gees returning from the moon peaked about 11. LEO return gees usually peak about 4, unless you come in too steep, where they can peak nearer 8. Free return-from-Mars gees are in the neighborhood of 12-15. Somebody fully Earth-1-gee fit can deal with any of those insults. Somebody weakened by microgravity diseases cannot.

The more weakened, the less insult you can withstand. None of this is very well-defined yet, because the experiments with partial gee were never run. That's what you have to deal with.

There's probably a combination of exercise and hormones that would serve on the moon and Mars without resort to a centrifuge. But if you built a centrifuge, make it a big merry-go-round in a bowl-shape so that local "down" is perpendicular to local floor, inside whatever pressurized habitat you build. 56 m radius at 4 rpm is 1 full gee, without any local gravity, and the vectors add 90 degrees away from each other. 4 rpm is tolerable even by unacclimatized civilians. Spin it up to one gee near the rim, and put your daily work stations on it. Put another one like it in the gym area, with exercise machines and weight-training items. Leave a path on that one for running.

Don't worry too much about it otherwise, because there's just not a whole hell of a lot we can do about it, until we have the necessary experiences to know what the real limitations and interventions are.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-12-28 15:02:18)

Void · 2016-12-28 18:48:04

I pretty much agree with you. However it does not hurt to have a "Plan B of centrifuged synthetic gravity", in case it is needed later. But I agree I would not try to design such a thing in detail, until it is needed. Just knowing that there should be a way to do it is enough.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-12 00:33:55

Void wrote:

I pretty much agree with you. However it does not hurt to have a "Plan B of centrifuged synthetic gravity", in case it is needed later. But I agree I would not try to design such a thing in detail, until it is needed. Just knowing that there should be a way to do it is enough.

The Moon has plenty of craters, just design a pressurized bowl that spins around inside of one. The best shape for this is the parabola. with that shape, lunar gravity and centrifugal force add up to push toward the inner surface of a parabola. As you walk away from the center the g-forces increase. A 100 meter wide parabola in a crater spins 3 times a minute, access is through the center.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-12 09:23:15

Elements of a rotating habitat on the Moon
1. crater a little over 100 meters in radius
2. a dome to retain atmosphere
3. A tub to hold water
4. water jets to spin the water within the tub on the inside of the crater up to 70 miles per hour.
5. a parabola shaped bowl which floats on top of the surface of the spinning water.

The water provides the lubrication allowing the bowl to spin on top of its surface. the bowl rotates 3 times per minute creating 1-g of combined centrifugal force and lunar gravity at a certain radius.

This approximates the curve of the spinning bowl. rotating 3 times per minute, one would enter through an airlock at the bottom. This bowl is floating in a pool of water that is jetted around at a maximum velocity of 70 miles per hour at the ege of the parabola. the water supports the weight of the habitat, or alternately some other fluid may be used, such as mercury. Mercury could exist in a vacuum, so there would be no need to pressurize that.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-01-12 09:28:17)

GW Johnson · 2017-01-13 11:57:06

Why bother attempting to build huge artificial gravity structures when you do not really need them? The moon is close enough to come home fairly easily, if 1/6 gee, exercise, and drugs prove ineffective against unacceptable levels of microgravity disease.

Spend your efforts more wisely building stuff that you really do need at the outset, like places to grow things, and facilities to recover resources.

The only "trick" to microgravity diseases on the moon is not waiting too late. You need to be fit enough to survive about 11 peak gees returning from the moon via direct entry.

Once the space infrastructure exists to support returning to LEO before entry to Earth, then the peak gee is around 4, and you can delay the return a little longer.

Mars is different. It's way too far to come home easily, and the free return peak gees is worse at 12-15. 38% gee plus exercise and drugs may prove more effective against unacceptable levels of microgravity disease, we'll see. The best preventative, given the rigors of return, are twofold: (1) rotate crews every opposition, and (2) do the trips in a spacecraft with 1 full gee of artificial gravity.

That second item allows whatever level of recovery that can be achieved, to be achieved during the months of voyaging home.

Later, after we've been there a while, we'll know more.

We should have built a spinning space station long ago to experiment with this before going to Mars, but we didn't. So, we must learn on-the-job, as it were. Pay attention to the two items I listed above, and this lack is not an excuse not to go.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-01-13 11:59:22)

Void · 2017-01-13 14:29:42

I might be close to your thinking GW Johnson.

My feeling is that the Moon should be handled like an "Antarctica +++".

In other words, owned by the Earth in general, and specific activities contracted out, allowing for activities and profit. I do not think it is a place where children should be born or raised. We should not want to see an "Ethnic Group" evolve there.

I do believe that experiments in teleoperation from Earth should be worked on. For it to make sense, however the directed "Robot" will have to have a lot of short term smarts.

Beyond that I would like to think about orbiting rehab centers with synthetic gravity where a more local team of Teleoperator could be housed. Yes, I understand that Moon orbits generally deteriorate. I am thinking that it will trim its orbit with a solid electric propulsion. The solid propellant from the Moon. Yes, if that does not work out then an "L" location. However, in some cases it might be better to be closer.

Anyway, an alternative is of course to have the teleoperators be on the Moon, and periodically go to an "L" location synthetic gravity.

I think it would be dangerous to build a "Nation" on the Moon, and that rather, older people who tend to not be as driven by the evolution mandated compulsions of youth, carefully selected for wisdom. Having employment in the field, and being constantly rotated in and out of the Moon service, so having their base loyalties tied to their children and grandchildren on Earth primarily, but possibly Mars as well.

This to prevent the eventuality of a Earth-Moon war, and to try to eliminate the chances that some national or supernational entity on the Earth would try to do an Earth war but involve the Moon.

At least that is as far as I have gotten with it so far.

I am not thinking "National Park Fetishism", although some places could be protected as monuments, or science relics.

I do intend the building of wealth, and the facilitation of humans traveling further, including Mars.

Centrifuges on the Moons surface would almost certainly not be needed for this method.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-14 07:12:05

I figure it is a giant space station made out of stone.

Actually the Moon is a nice stable platform for rotating a habitat on. You don't have to worry about it wobbling if it is properly braced.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2017-01-14 07:34:29)

elderflower · 2017-01-14 09:21:08

Of course, Tom Kalbfus, if you had a deep hole you could have nested parabolic habitats. Top one for agriculture and radiation protection, lower one for accommodation, laboratories etc. You might want to put potentially dangerous activities outside on the surface, or underground, to avoid possible damage to the parabolic unit, or its bearings.

Tom Kalbfus · 2017-01-14 10:48:19

Agriculture don't need a full Earth gravity, humans might if they want to return to Earth someday. The best analog would be a top loader washing machine. I think one would enter it through a tower in the center, A dome would cover the whole thing and keep the air inside. An airlock on top of the dome would lead to an elevator tower or a staircase which would go down to the center of the bowl. If the tower is 5 meters wide the relative velocity of the bowl would be 3.5 miles per hour, it should be possible to step on such a moving plat form. Moving outwards from that increases the centrifugal force, and one would just walk up the inside of the bowl until you entered thr 1 Earth gravity region. There would be multiple wheels and rails for this contraption, at its fastest edge, it is only going 70 miles per hour, no need for maglevs or anything like that.

Void · 2017-01-15 11:09:09

A full habitat centrifuge would likely be impractical, and not needed.

You can have your flavor, but I think that if you had a centrifuge at all on the Moon, it would be to keep adult persons fit, and would primarily be a gym. Would not have to be that big.

I don't think that families or children should be hosted on the Moon any time soon.

SpaceX is showing that they can land boosters. In time, a travel system to and from the Moon will likely become reliable. For humans it might include 2 or 3 redundant propulsion systems, with one or two in reserve. (Because the gravity is so low).

Therefore if you are going to have children and families, it would make sense to have orbital habitats for that, and for the Moon to be a place with adults with good mental process to go and work on assigned shifts of weeks or months.

And then of course only if teleoperated robots are not sufficient to the needed task.

Here is an example. The research and development for some of it is already in place here on Earth.

http://www.public.navy.mil/spawar/Pacif … Buggy.aspx

Last edited by Void (2017-01-15 11:14:30)

SpaceNut · 2017-01-15 14:53:47

Darpa sponsored projects to keep men from harm in war conditions are on the cutting edge so to speak but there are others for tele robotic already in use it just that mars has the propagation time to make due with that makes it not as practical for use.
A gym in a round up (gravatron) ride would be about the extend of what is needed to stay fit in once entered just do your work out as it spins.....

Mars_B4_Moon · 2022-01-08 18:45:05

Chinese show more evidence that Ice Tubes could exist?

The spectral features of CE5-Rock suggest that it may be transported from a different geologic unit to the Chang’E-5 landing site.

A light-colored and surface-pitted rock (named as CE5-Rock) is evident near the lander. The reflectance spectra suggest that CE5-Rock could be transported from an older basalt unit. CE5-Rock exhibits a stronger absorption, near 2.85 μm, than the surrounding regolith, with estimation of ~180 ppm of water if the model for estimating water content of regolith is applicable to rock samples, which may suggest an additional source from the lunar interior. The low water content of the regolith may suggest the degassing of mantle reservoir beneath the Chang’E-5 landing site.

120 ppm in the regolith but a nearby rock had 180 ppm. Lunar interior may have more water.

In situ detection of water on the Moon by the Chang’E-5 lander
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abl9174

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2016-12-24 14:58:54

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#27 2016-12-24 16:21:21

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#28 2016-12-24 20:27:30

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#29 2016-12-24 20:35:39

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#30 2016-12-24 20:47:57

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#31 2016-12-24 22:26:48

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#32 2016-12-24 23:23:57

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#33 2016-12-25 08:44:31

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#34 2016-12-26 18:25:01

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#35 2016-12-28 14:50:12

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#36 2016-12-28 18:48:04

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#37 2017-01-12 00:33:55

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#38 2017-01-12 09:23:15

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#39 2017-01-13 11:57:06

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#40 2017-01-13 14:29:42

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#41 2017-01-14 07:12:05

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#42 2017-01-14 09:21:08

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#43 2017-01-14 10:48:19

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#44 2017-01-15 11:09:09

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#45 2017-01-15 14:53:47

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

#46 2022-01-08 18:45:05

Re: Possible Lunar Lava Tubes per Grail probe.

Board footer