Space Colonization Options (Orbiting Stations, planets/moons)

From what I read, it seems the lava tubes run out from a crater or some other depresion, so one could conceivably cap/dome the crater ceiling and pressurized a large living space that could have water at the bottom.
Might have to seal off the other ends of the tubes as well as they might branch off to the surface.
Then youd just have to build ur base inside or lunarcrete the walls.
Sane could probably be done on Mars.

 

Building the base inside of a lava tube in the Moon is the best way to defend against errant meteorites striking a surface base.

 

Building the base inside of a lava tube in the Moon is the best way to defend against errant meteorites striking a surface base.


https://archive.org/details/HeikeKamerlinghOnnesWaltherMeissnerSuperconductor

The SCM gave me an idea. Being an amateur astronomer who owns a 127mm Star Max with EQ mount, a SCM mount could work for any telescope of low weight.

The bottom ring would be the super conductor that the telescope shuttle glides across. The magnet would be placed under the telescope mount on the dove tail rail. Because the magnet and super conductor would never touch, there should be a lot less gravitational interference when taking photos. Basically the telescope would become a lot more stable, able to be turned and positioned at any angle by hand where the telescope wouldn't fall to the ground due to how the atoms lock together.

 

Wouldn't it be easier to just sent automation to the moon to construct everything what's needed there using the raw materials of the moon itself?
We had AI controlled atomic scale manufacturing since 2018... 3d printers for much longer, so, I don't think it would be that big of a challenge to send automated construction bots to even Earth's orbit to harvest the space trash and convert it into orbital habitats, construction facilities, research facilities, etc.

Heck they could be used to create the Dyson Swarm itself... just send a small number of self-replicating bots up there to harvest the trash in orbit first, then move onto Mercury and finally the asteroid field.

 

A lot of folks in the press think near-space IS space...rather how programs called Star-systems “galaxies”

Now Powell at airship to orbit thinks ion engines can get his ascender to speed...and inflates might be used for Myrabo light raft with a rigid airship being a rectenna for ion wind lifter tech. But, as you say, a balloon can’t float in something that isn’t there. Boats need water, balloons need air.

The idea of vacuum filled balloons is interesting:


Large stations
https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-offer-funding-for-initial-studies-of-commercial-space-stations/


Upper stages
https://spacenews.com/bruno-the-next-big-thing-for-ula-is-a-long-endurance-upper-stage/

 

Yup, there is nothing intrinsically wrong about inflated objects existing in a vacuum. A helium-filled aerostat will rise in the Earth's atmosphere until it achieves neutral buoyancy or bursts when its envelope can no longer resist the internal pressure following expansion. However, to get it into orbit requires thrust and once in orbit in a near vacuum, it's just dead mass. It has a high cross-sectional area for its mass so it will experience more drag from what precious little atmosphere there is than a denser object of equal mas with a smaller cross-sectional area.

A vacuum-filled balloon is a engineering challenge that would require materials that are strong enough under compression to withstand at least 1 atmosphere, 101.325 kPa at sea level - equivalent to just over 10 metric tonnes per square metre - plus the more significant buckling forces. There is already a US patent for a vehicle with a honeycomb structure to withstand buckling forces that would otherwise require a material stronger than diamond.
Vacuum airship - Wikipedia
Media reports on our vacuum balloon work – Web vibrations (akhmeteli.org)
vacuum_balloons_cip.pdf (akhmeteli.org)

It it were economically viable and we had suitable materials, we would already have engineered such craft.

 

This might be where A.I. can give us pointers. Venus airships and lunar elevators can get by with existing tech

 

The engineering principles are well understood. Computer simulation using evolutionary algorithms could probably yield a workable design for suitably strong materials. However, it wouldn't tell us how to construct the design. The construction method and cost of materials might turn out to be prohibitively expensive. Current AI wouldn't help much as it's actually pretty dumb even if it can beat us at some well-constrained tasks - just my opinion. If it can come up with new materials, fabrication and construction technologies I'm ready to be proved wrong.

 

One of the biggest cost factors of Lunar colonization is getting the modules to Lunar surface. Sure Falcon and Blue Origin will be able to land cargo modules, one at a time on the Moon. But that would create a lot of junk. Instead I suggest using Mobius Strips to send cargo to Moon.



A cylinder, built exact the same as in the video linked above, would be connected to a receiving station on the Moon's surface. The ----> Moon cylinder would be large enough to allow for a Multi-Purpose Logistics Module to be sent from the Orbital Dock to the Moon. The <----Space cylinder would send the MPLM back to the Orbital Dock.

Because there is very little gravity on the Moon, a small thruster would be used to propel the MPLM to and from the surface of the Moon to the Dock and back again.

Using Mobius Strips as Lunar based launch pads might also work. Since the Mobius Strip would lock the rocket the in place, when the Mobius Strip is raised the rocket itself is also raised.

Another use for the Mobius Strip would be for mining. Instead of capturing a single rock from the belts around Jupiter, a Mobius Strip shuttle would hold many small rocks, each fit with magnets. A plunger or small rocket thruster pack then propels the rock through the Mobius Strip to the end point of the mining operation, thus saving on fuel costs and greatly increasing the haul compared to using a meteor tractor to capture a single rock.

 

What belts around Jupiter? It has a very tenuous ring system believed to be composed mainly of dust but I doubt it's a priority for mining given the hazardous radiation environment and fairly deep gravity well of Jupiter not to mention the distance from Earth. Anyway, tether and skyhook technology would seem easier and cheaper to me.

ETA: I guess the atmospheric belts of Jupiter are intended. For what reason I can't imagine. The gravity at the cloud layer is 2.4 times Earth gravity - there are easier ways of gathering what is 99.3% hydrogen and helium. Methane, water, ammonia, and other compounds comprise only 0.07%.

 

I think Jupiter would be iffy, I mean there's lightning strewn around that planet with enough power to literally vaporize a city..

 

A huge flux tube connects Io to Jupiter and carries a five million ampere current. I wouldn't want to get in the way of that sucker.
Flux tube and plasma torus

 

Oooh using Jupiter as a battery... Now there's an idea

 

Space-based power may not need a lot of surface area...just cabling. Titan is good for chemicals. The Chevron World.

I saw an article called “Background radiation impacts and cancer mortality: reconsidering the linear no-threshold paradigm” that looks good for human spaceflight.

Ceres has a “down,” and some metals and water. Make large spacecraft there with factories in them...send that to Psyche...and from there to Jupiter for nickel iron battery charging...then to Titan for fueling...by AI

Then you have a real doomsday machine to eat asteroids in hours. Brute force.

 

Thinking along the line of building a Dyson Sphere, I would want to transport my harvested resources, Jupiter rock chunks and Encedalus ice chunks, to the processing center as cheap as possible. Cheap as possible means not using a rock tractor to tow rocks back to a central processing station. A rock tractor costs, human hours + fatigue and time off as well as rock tractor maintenance and down time, etc. I could detail the entire tier of how human inefficiency in the work place slows down production that stems from human factors, getting sick, time off, etc.

My solution, create the Quantum Trapping Conduit System. The QTCS would have eight, twenty foot segments that are arranged in a circle. Each segment would quantumly trap the object riding on the segments. The object would never touch the segments and would be pushed down the tube using a plugger or momentum. Smaller objects could pass between the larger object that is being levitated and the tails to allow 1,000 times more material to be harvested then a single rock tractor.
The QTSC might be able to squeeze objects along the corridor, much like a serpent does when digesting food, by moving segments to push against the object, which would further reduce the need for chemical thrust engines.

Here is an image of a hypothetical Dyson Tube.



This section of the tube would be housed in a station orbiting the Moon, in LEO orbit close to the ISS, Mars or in an asteroid belt around Jupiter.

At the left we have an EM iron core plunger, the Travel Pod made of light weight 3D printed material that is not influenced by EM or magnetic charges. The Travel Pod has four panels that cover curved pieces of superconducting material that is cooled by liquid nitrogen. The Travel Pod also has four long strips of Aluminum positioned at four sides of the Travel Pod. The Travel Pod can carry either passengers or cargo.
The next section is the travel tube. The travel tube has numerous panels made of neodymium magnets and four panels that are linear motors. The outer shell of the travel tube would contain various monitoring systems as well as atmospheric and heat regulators.

The Travel Pod is positioned inside of the travel tube. The EM iron core is inserted to the base of the Travel Pod. The switch is thrown and the Travel Pod is sent down the travel tube. The strips of Aluminum help accelerate and keep the travel pod traveling at a constant momentum through the travel tube. To slow the Travel Pod down, the linear motors are turned off and due to Quantum Locking between the superconductor neodymium magnets, the Travel Pod will remain frictionless and eventually slow down. The linear motors can also be switch in the opposite direction to help slow the Travel Pod down as well. Small positioning thrusters on the Travel Pod could also increase or decrease the velocity of the Travel Pod very efficiently due to the frictionless nature of the thing.

A Dyson Tube could be used to send cargo from the Moon to the ISS or reluctant children from the ISS to a station in Lunar orbit without having to build a large rocket to get to the Moon from the Earth. The Travel Pod would have to have a guidance system and thrusters along with fuel to make the journey to the Moon in the same time as an Apollo Command Module.

The only question is, how much rocket fuel and thrust would be needed after the Travel Pod was launched from the Dyson Tube and how much Plunger EM force would be needed to send the Travel Pod out of LEO?A

Instead of a long cylinder, perhaps a ring, such as the Aluminum ring in the video would be best used for sending cargo to the Moon. Storage racks in the ring would allow for up to 1 ton of cargo to be sent.





And that is the basics of a Dyson Tube...PING!


Artificial Gravity would need to be created as well.

Could a Quantum Levitation track be used to generate artificial gravity?

Since the flux lines would flow through the magnet, perhaps the weight of the person wearing the nitrogen cooled thin layer magnetic shoes would slightly suspend the person above the track, just enough for the person to walk but also to be quantumly locked to the track instead of floating.

 

Some things I want to run past the folks here:

Let’s say I fill a craft full of nickel iron batteries. An artificial asteroid and back spin a tether to make it a skyhook—how much could I hurl up there?

If a human-rated Starship were simply coated with intumescent paint and filled with propellant to burn all the way down...maybe some water injection..could it avoid the cost of a true TPS? The tanker starships would remain as a wet workshop in orbit...engines retrieved later... Could there be a low generated in the empty Starship skirt such that atmospheric pressure pushes down violently upon Starship below a certain altitude?

Lastly...

Lander tech keeps legs and tankage separate. To help something like starship, perhaps there can be a link. Separate, always full sections of tankage are used for landings only, with the Venturi effect drawing from the main tanks.

As for the legs. I saw a post about origami bladders that could handle cryogenics, and another used as a shock absorbers. Imagine these inserts inside a hollow landing leg—were filled with hypergolics, with a tube at the top of them hooked to small exhaust ports facing downwards...maybe out the Raptor vac extended bells.

The harder the rocket comes down on its legs, the harder the discharge and the greater the thrust the collapsing legs generate to cushion said landing.

No throttle needed! (Not Raptor related directly)

It is like using an electromagnet to keep a door lock shut until a power loss—or a Triga reactor in being foolproof.

The best part is no part.

Now...will this scale?

What I am trying to do here is use the problems rockets face against themselves...fluid dynamic judo.

 

Why do you assume that anyone else is interested in using their valuable time to do these calculations for you? Why don't you learn some mathematics and try to answer your questions for yourself?

ETA: Sorry that my response seems quite rude but your questions are so unspecific and open ended that they irritated me untowardly. If you could focus on just one or two ideas and provide more context and parameters within which to work that would probably help us all. Otherwise it's like asking how long is a piece of string.

 

I’ve been up for three days straight (two jobs—a call off) So I’m a bit loopy here at work. If I had the math chops, I wouldn’t be here

 

I was being unreasonably tetchy. The tether/skyhook suggestion sounds reasonable for a body such as the Moon but we don't yet have materials with sufficient tensile strength to make it work for Earth - there's also the problem of the atmosphere. Using intumescent paint to contain fuel sounds wacky - using bladders or similar less so.

The main considerations include mission requirements, operational environment(s), vehicle mass, fuel mass, engine choice, vehicle materials, construction techniques, and budget. An engineering solution only becomes a viable proposition if one runs the numbers and provides a costed, workable design. While flights of fancy exist, fancies do not readily fly.

 

ars technica is highlighting a documentary on O'Neill that is coming out soon.
link to the article: https://arstechnica.com/science/202...lights-the-visionary-behind-space-settlement/
And a preview is happening on the 17th
link to that: https://thehighfrontiermovie.com/