You are not logged in.
I see an oportunity to use the Moon as both a place to simulate Mars gravity issues, and to also make the Moon more suitable to support human efforts to connect with Mars.
I did notice other peoples work, and with a bit of combining, I speculate that something like this might work.
From Elon Musk:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa … -1.1466597
From the Treckies:
http://www.buildtheenterprise.org/gravity-wheel
Related to the Treckies notions, and a really neet site I think:
http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/
I made my own stab at it. Pin me down or correct me as you may wish, but:
To add 1/6 synthetic g to the existing lunar force of 1/6 g = an approximate simulation of Mars gravity.
1/6=0.167
192.65897339179904 Feet
1.5947325297807915 Rotations per minute
21.936851288475303 Miles per hour
.167 g
So could a torroidal tube burried under soil shielding traveling at 22 MPH provide 1/6 g?
I would expect it to be pressurized and to use something like the hyperloop vehicle.
Doing that would provide information on human, plant, and animal reactions to 1/3 g.
If humans did well with that then also the Moon would be made more habitible, and more suitable for industrilization.
That could make it a better support for efforts towards Mars.
Done.
Offline
Wouldn't it be easier and most likely cheaper to build that wheel in LEO, instead of transporting all that stuff to the moon?
The old wheel-shaped space station design concepts of the 1930's and 1940's make really good sense, if you want to investigate "how much gee is enough?" for humans, plants, etc.
Same structure can investigate multiple gee levels at once if you shape it like more like a Frisbee than a bicycle rim, with many decks, all at various radii.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
GW Johnson. Thanks for replying. Your always a gentileman.
Other factors would have to be considered, to make the judgement on that, and putting it on the Moon may or may not be the best payoff.
I would hope that the containing torus could be constructed from lunar materials, with a laser printing process, and then soil bearing down on it with gravity induced compression would make it capable of containing a compressed atmosphere. Additional strength could be added by wrapping the basically ceramic torus with a strong fiber material.
In other words I do not verify that a relatively convenient build process could occur on the Moon, but I do want to explore the possibility.
As for the "Train Cars" that would ride in the torus, yes, it seems likely that they might mostly have to be provided from Earth, at least until an "Industrial Civilization" was present on the Moon.
However they might be relatively light weight like aircraft, as if I calculated right going 22 mph is not an outragous thing for a machine to do.
You are correct that a torus in orbit with spokes has advantages as you mentioned them.
However if this device were done it could have pressurized spokes as well, but you would have to stop the "Train" periodically to get on and off of it, but subways are much the same in that respect.
The attraction I see, is that all of your mines, processing plants, and people would be able to interact in the moons low gravity field, Mars simulation could be tested, no rockets, mass-drivers needed, (Except to transport people and specialized machines). Radiation protection possible. Once you had a setup, it could be a source of fuel and machines to support activities in places other than the Moon.
I certainly hope that private organizations and government organizations will try to go to Mars, but if that does not happen, at least the Moon might not be dismissed with the same arguments.
The Moon is actually a very big place, having the surface area similar to North and South America combined.
Some private orgainzations already want to go there and do things, and moving people on and off of the moon by rocket to conserve their health will be expensive also, and may also promote fatalities.
Learning to stay there permanently (Maybe) is worth a look I think.
Last edited by Void (2013-09-27 11:11:15)
Done.
Offline
Hi Void:
I quite agree that the moon is a good place to learn things. In particular, the in-situ resource technologies and the "how-can-we-make-construction-materials-out-of-regolith?" problem could benefit from being done on the moon. For one thing it's not hard to reach. For another, it's close enough men can ride there in a cramped capsule. And thirdly, rescue from Earth can actually be feasible on the moon.
In the long run, I think one of the really major attractions of a base on the moon will be a safe place to test nuclear propulsion articles without having to do plume capture, or risking fallout-on-the-neighbors. Not much in the way of air or water to pollute, either.
As for artificial gravity items on the moon, why not just build a Frisbee-shaped partly-or-wholly-buried stationary pressure vessel of a building, and set spinning concentric rings within it, angled for a proper sense of down perpendicular to the floor. We already know how to build non-spinning buildings, and the rings are rather similar to escalators or moving sidewalks. Why spin the whole building if you don't have to? That's really hard to do if you are not in free-fall.
None of that is "exploration", and it shouldn't be pitched as such to get funding, whether governmental or private. It supports exploration-later-with-better-technologies. And that is actually a very valid reason to go and do it.
And, as Bob Clark has so eloquently pointed out elsewhere in the forums and on his blog site, you don't need a giant rocket program to do it. We could do this right now with the rockets and space capsules we have right now. Although, having Falcon-Heavy flying next year does make it easier. Just give up on the one-launch/one-mission preconception, and start taking advantage of what we have learned the last half-century about rendezvous and docking-as-assembly.
When you do that, the only excuse for a giant rocket is cheaper cost per unit delivered payload. The sensitivity to size is pretty low, once you get past about 5 tons to LEO, being only about a factor of 2 from there to 100 tons. And government-only designs seem to be running about factor-4 more expensive than commercial launchers, throughout the range from 5 to 100 tons. My conclusion: SLS at 100+ tons to LEO will not be cost effective. Docking assembly with the rockets we have will be cheaper.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
As for artificial gravity items on the moon, why not just build a Frisbee-shaped partly-or-wholly-buried stationary pressure vessel of a building, and set spinning concentric rings within it, angled for a proper sense of down perpendicular to the floor. We already know how to build non-spinning buildings, and the rings are rather similar to escalators or moving sidewalks. Why spin the whole building if you don't have to? That's really hard to do if you are not in free-fall.
I agree. Good plan in my opinion, makes it even better, and maybe access to non-spinning habit areas through a port at the center "Hub".
But I think a Model-T first, and then a luxury vehicle.
Should this happen, and the Moon become economically connected to general human economic and scientific interests, then the Moon might end up populated.
Each news item I see about the Moon lately improves on the previously suggested nature of the Moon "Bone Dry".
First Polar deposites of useful chemicals, and now Magmatic Water.
Last edited by Void (2013-09-30 08:08:14)
Done.
Offline
Void:
Go take a look at my Budget Moon Mission posting over at "exrocketman". Bob Clark and I both think we can put significant crew and cargo tonnage on the moon for an order of magnitude-or-two less money than NASA's old Constellation plan. But, you have to shed a lot of preconceptions to do it, including some most of us don't even know we have.
GW
GW Johnson
McGregor, Texas
"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew, especially one dead from a bad management decision"
Offline
I will work on that. Thanks.
I will be off screen for the most part for a number of days, going up towards the Canadian border, to hike, fish, and get cold and wet.
Done.
Offline