Space Colonization Options (Orbiting Stations, planets/moons)

Dryson · Apr 15, 2021

I think Compliant Mechanisms will become a serious addition to colonizing the Moon.

Asbo Zaprudder · Apr 15, 2021

Some very cool mechanical engineering there. I expect we'll see a lot more applications for such mechanisms in everyday life as well.

Dryson · Apr 17, 2021

https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/04/16/nasa-lunar-lander-contract-spacex/

SpaceX wins contract bid to develop spacecraft for landing on the Moon.

Everyone know that the most costly aspects of colonizing the Moon with a cargo ship are :

1. Fuel, which cannot be replaced once used.
2. Spacecraft, once in space and on the Moon the spacecraft is no longer re-usable for further space based missions that would involve launching from the Lunar surface and returning to Earth.
3. Cargo Volume, unless a large volume of cargo, at least 200 tons, is able to be taken to the Moon in one mission, then missions to the Moon become exponentially expensive. Even more so for missions to Mars.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-mars-spaceship-big-falcon-rocket-diagram-2018-9

Looking at the interior design of Starship from the link above, with the human luxuries removed and replaced with cargo modules, Starship could potentially transport up to 500 tons of cargo to the surface of the Moon. Getting the cargo out as fast as possible could be achieved by using vertical vacuum tube system or a tubular designed Quantum Levitation System. The Quantum Levitation System would be designed so that the the linear motors would move cargo containers down the tube to a hatch at the base of the rocket where astronauts would then retrieve the container.

A second vertical shaft would be a mechanical elevator shaft that astronauts would use to move up and down the length of the rocket that could also be used for cargo removal as well.

valkyrie013 · Apr 17, 2021

The SpaceX Starship will be able to deliver enough tonage to the moon. but if we wanted to get stuff back a linear accelerator / catapult would probably be the easiest way in the long term. Shirt term, if there is water, a simple rocket will suffice. escape velocity is only about five thousand four hundred miles an hour. easy to do with a relatively short track.
We can get material from earth on the Falcon Heavy and the BFR/starship when ready.

publiusr · Apr 17, 2021

I do think the concept of a lander than has legs to push out propellant as exhause the harder the legs land--as a self correcting system needs looking into--but I just don't have the math chops as an outsider.

I did see something rather whimsical--perfect for the recent Yuri's night:
http://dreamsofspace.blogspot.com/

More technical fare:

Conceptual Study on Robust Rebound Suppression Mechanism for Small-Body Landing
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34817

Aerodynamics of Orion in Rarefied Flow Along a Mars Entry Path
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34825

Sloshing Behavior in Rigid and Flexible Propellant Tanks: Computations and Experimental Validation
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34540

Seeded Hydrogen in Mars Transfer Vehicles Using Nuclear Thermal Propulsion Engines
https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34722

Hydrogen seeded with argon...increased engine and vehicle performance by reducing pressure losses, decreasing reactor power, and...provided a best-case 32-day reduction in round-trip transit time to Mars versus pure hydrogen.

https://spacenews.com/general-atomi...uclear-reactor-to-power-missions-to-the-moon/
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/950459

Now that's a biggie.

From:
https://arc.aiaa.org/toc/jsr/current

Gingerbread Demon · Apr 18, 2021

Would an EM engine work on the Moon?

publiusr · Apr 18, 2021

EM drive looks kaput, sadly. Ion no good due to too little thrust. I like boron based “zip” propellants, but they are hypergolic level toxic. No cryogenics however.

Gingerbread Demon · Apr 18, 2021

publiusr said:
EM drive looks kaput, sadly. Ion no good due to too little thrust. I like boron based “zip” propellants, but they are hypergolic level toxic. No cryogenics however.

What went wrong? A year or two ago they were the rage and supposed to be the next big thing.

publiusr · Apr 18, 2021

Take a look at “New Physics” at NasaSpaceFlight

Dryson · Apr 19, 2021

publiusr said:
EM drive looks kaput, sadly. Ion no good due to too little thrust. I like boron based “zip” propellants, but they are hypergolic level toxic. No cryogenics however.

What about developing a sodium/potassium drive based on using microwaves to create plasma in a microwave oven.

If you search You Tube for Grapes and Plasma in a microwave, you can see for yourself that the plasma accelerates away fro the grapes being used.

Hypothetically, if sodium and potassium atoms are introduced into a cavity that microwaves are present in, then plasma would be created.

The next question is, which atoms should be added as an accelerant to generate more thrust as the potassium, sodium and microwaves interact?

Deks · Apr 23, 2021

I don't know if someone already suggested this, but this dates back to the 1970-ies in terms of viable designs for orbital habitats that are self-sustaining and could have been built back then for about 3x lower annual budget of US military budget:

https://www.popularmechanics.com/sp...could-actually-build-a-space-colony-17268252/

Santaman · Apr 23, 2021

^^ Yes, we've got his strewn around this thread a few times

but it remains fascinating material. :mallory:

Deks · Apr 23, 2021

Santaman said:
^^ Yes, we've got his strewn around this thread a few times but it remains fascinating material.

To be fair, I wouldn't find it fascinating - even more so that it was doable since the 1970-ies.
What I would find fascinating is how the world still plays monopoly and wastes massive amounts of money on military (escalating global conflicts and overall problems in the process) as opposed to building massive objects in space and fixing/remaking the socio-economic system and the Earth in general..

And I also find fascinating (preposterous more like it) is how Hollywood movies always portray humanity only being able to build these kinds of things in the 'distant future' when it was already a scientific fact and doable to build for decades - in fact its one of the reasons I find most scifi movies to be... incredibly lacking.

Gingerbread Demon · Apr 24, 2021

Deks said:
To be fair, I wouldn't find it fascinating - even more so that it was doable since the 1970-ies.
What I would find fascinating is how the world still plays monopoly and wastes massive amounts of money on military (escalating global conflicts and overall problems in the process) as opposed to building massive objects in space and fixing/remaking the socio-economic system and the Earth in general..

And I also find fascinating (preposterous more like it) is how Hollywood movies always portray humanity only being able to build these kinds of things in the 'distant future' when it was already a scientific fact and doable to build for decades - in fact its one of the reasons I find most scifi movies to be... incredibly lacking.

It's not that we can't do these it's the lack of will and politics

Deks · Apr 24, 2021

Gingerbread Demon said:
It's not that we can't do these it's the lack of will and politics

Precisely my point.
Resources and technology were never an issue... existing socio-economic system and the types of behavior/priorities it creates is.

publiusr · Apr 24, 2021

I wonder if this finding may solve power generation somehow...
https://phys.org/news/2021-04-energy-unleashed-submarine-volcanoes-power.html

On the space front, I saw a huge balloon of Yuri Gagarin flailing about pitifully in a failed celebration of his flight...it went viral there. Sigh...

Dryson · Apr 26, 2021

With MOXIE, first device to produce 10 minutes of air in an hour's time and is about the size of a better, colonizing the Moon is going to take on a whole new look.

I can see a large MPLM style container with about 100 MOXIE's attached to the outside.

First MOXIE has to be successful at extracting extracting oxygen from ice in the craters that is evaporated.

The Moon has atomic oxygen, but possibly not enough to generate breathable oxygen from.

Collecting oxygen from Mars using MOXIE and then transporting the oxygen to the Moon would definitely work.

But how do you get a transport off the surface of Mars, loaded with Oxygen tanks, once the transport has landed?

Gingerbread Demon · Apr 27, 2021

The Moon has atomic oxygen, I hope you have a citation for that

Asbo Zaprudder · Apr 27, 2021

Oxygen is the third most common element by mass in the universe (1%) and the most common in the crust of the Earth (46%) and the Moon (43%). The most abundant element by mass in the human body is oxygen (65%), not carbon (18%).

In the crust of the Moon, it's primarily bound as silicon dioxide, titanium dioxide, and similar compounds. The Moon has also been getting a small amount of oxygen from the Earth for millions of years, according to one researcher:
Moon's Been Getting Oxygen from Earth's Plants for Billions of Years | Space

MOXIE extracts molecular oxygen from carbon dioxide, not water - you can use an electrolytic, photoelectrochemical, photocatalytic, or solar-thermal cell for that. Direct extraction from regolith is also possible:
ESA - Turning Moon dust into oxygen
The metal alloys extracted as a by-product can be used by specialised 3D printers.

publiusr · May 3, 2021

Space Colonization Options (Orbiting Stations, planets/moons)

Commodore

Admiral

Commodore

Rear Admiral

Admiral

Yelling at the Vorlons

Admiral

Yelling at the Vorlons

Admiral

Commodore

Vice Admiral

Vice Admiral

Vice Admiral

Yelling at the Vorlons

Vice Admiral

Admiral

Commodore

Yelling at the Vorlons

Admiral

Admiral

Similar threads

We value your privacy