Moon Base Idea

[WH40krules]

I just had a idea for getting a simple base down to the surface of the moon.

Assuming there is already a simple space station with a Orion spacecraft docked to it. A Altair, or it's equivalent, would be launched on a Ares V, or it's equivalent. The Altair would keep and use the transfer stage for the retro burn at the moon. The transfer stage is the base: it would then ditch the engine, and split in 2. Each have would have landing engines, and enough fuel to get them down. It would also have a interior for living. There would be beds and stuff in a compartment in one half, to be the crew compartment area. This is all in on of the sections of the fuel tank, either the liquid fuel tank or the oxidizer tank. The other would house greenhouse compartments for growing food and producing oxygen. The two compartments could be linked together, and could share oxygen. The Altair lander would land at the site, and the crew could set up the base. Once they were ready to leave, they would take the Altair up to the space station, get in the Orion spacecraft, and return to earth.

If anyone could offer sugestions, or critisism, that would be great.

[Red Iron Crown]

Are you describing a wet workshop?

[xenomorph555]

There is altair or anything else in development for a manned lander.

There is no ares v although a counterpart the slsb2 could lift it but not earlier than 2025.

[WH40krules]

Red Iron Crown: Yeah, I guess it would be a wet workshop, but a ground base.

xenomorph555: I know, but I just had a idea, and felt like sharing. Still, this idea could work in the future.

Anything I could improve on or fix with my idea?

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm thinking it would be better not to split the tank into two halves, you have to add 2*d*H of airtight bulkhead material for zero gain in interior volume. Better to mount the cylinder on legs or just set it down directly on the surface. You'll probably want to bury the whole thing for protection from radiation, just leaving the airlock entrance(s) exposed. Maybe also consider provisions for connecting to further modules as the base expands.

[xenomorph555]

I guess the idea could work, however a possibly cheaper idea is to follow the soviet space station path.

The first base would be one basic module (most likely cylinder) pre filled with supplies, there would be two sections, living section with super simple kitchen (electric oven?) and sleeping bunks. The other section would be for experiments, and of coarse an airlock.

This module would have fuel tanks and engines underneath to land it.

It could probably allow a stay of 20-30 days, for the first one anyway. I do have an idea for were this would develop, but it would be a long post.

Edited May 26, 2014 by xenomorph555

[WH40krules]

Red: Hmm, good idea. How would you propose do dig the hole for the base? Would the crew members dig it, or would something else?

Xeno: How would the Soviets transport their cosmonauts to and from the base? Would there be a lander to transport them?

Thanks you guys for the ideas!

[xenomorph555]

Yes although the soviets never planned a moon base, I was referring to their strategic earth station plans of starting small and getting more advanced over time, any country could do this. Landers would be launched on 20-50 ton launchers and would be stored at a space station in LEO (size doesn't matter, could be a salyut). Then a manned lunar ship would be launched and would meet with the station and lander. It would leave and take the lander to the moon where they would land, do their thing and return to moon orbit to get home on the lunar ship.

[Red Iron Crown]

For preparing the site I think an unmanned construction vehicle, like a backhoe or loader, would do nicely (though it would likely be much smaller and lighter than its Earth bound cousins). Once the module is in place, it would go to work covering it with regolith.

[xenomorph555]

For preparing the site I think an unmanned construction vehicle, like a backhoe or loader, would do nicely (though it would likely be much smaller and lighter than its Earth bound cousins). Once the module is in place, it would go to work covering it with regolith.

Might be easier to break out the shovels.

[Red Iron Crown]

It certainly might, depending on how flexible the spacesuits are. I specified an unmanned construction vehicle so it could be sent ahead to prep the site before the manned module landing mission, but it might be better to do it all in one go.

[WH40krules]

Red, would you cover the base in the regolith, or actually dig a hole to put the base in, then cover it in regolith? Anyway, isn't the regolith only a few inches down, then rock?

[Red Iron Crown]

I think the ground conditions are different depending on where you land, some sort of scouting mission is probably in order before sending the big mission. Maybe our robot backhoe is also a geology rover.

If I were burying a cylinder on Earth, I would dig a half-cylinder shaped hole in the ground and use the fill taken from the hole to cover it. Not sure if that's the best approach on the Moon, where you might have to consider the blast from the propulsion system landing it and how thick the covering has to be to block the radiation.

[Motokid600]

Think we could develop an efficient SSTO lander? One that can land and take off on the same engine without dropping anything.. Sorry if that seems a bit off topic, but I figure if we do eventually make a moon base, what do we do in 10 or so years with the little farm of descent stages? I say make a a single stage lander that gets refuled in orbit which.. would require a station in LLO. Hm... well what would be better in the long run the farm or the station?

I cant imagine what use the stages would be good for. Break them down which requires time and labor. Reuse the fuel tanks for life support storage, the mylar would be nice to unwrap and keep around. The structure.. idk a fancy statue? Lol though im not sure at what point it'd even become a problem. Needing to land in the same place every time.. I mean take all the Apollo landings and put them in one spot.. it'd be a mess.

Edited May 27, 2014 by Motokid600

[Nibb31]

What the OP proposes is effectively a wet lab workshop. It looks like a good idea on the surface, to reuse large tankage volumes by converting them into habitations, but when you get down into the engineering details, it's not practical at all. Which is why all of those proposals were cancelled.

First of all, you need more than volume to make a decent hab module. You need shielding, life support, furniture, equipment, fixtures, airlocks, hatches, power outlets, cables, fluid pipes, air ducts... While some of these things can be submerged into LH2 or LOX, most of them can't. You would need to carry most of the equipment in a separate module. Stuff that can go inside the tank is going to use up a lot of volume and add a lot of weight to the design.

And then there is the problem of venting the tank from any residuals, the problem of how do you send the equipment that goes inside the hab module, and the problem of doing all the conversion work and outfitting all that equipment.

In the end, it is much more practical to do all that outfitting work on the ground in a module that is purpose built as a hab module and to let the crew concentrate on the actual mission.

[ThirdHorseman]

Is this a long-term habitation base, or just for a short-term mission?

If it's going to have long term habitation you're going to need to think about having some method to mitigate the health risks of low-g. Either you need to have a big ol' centrifuge or other physiological methods.

People always talk about rotating space stations to give people in space the feeling of 1g, but they never think about the same issue when it comes to bases on planets/moons.

[Nibb31]

If it's going to have long term habitation you're going to need to think about having some method to mitigate the health risks of low-g. Either you need to have a big ol' centrifuge or other physiological methods.

How do you know this? There have been zero studies on the effects of partial gravity, either long term or short term. We know that it's possible to live and in microgravity for long periods. We know that exercise and medication can prolong those periods even more. The minimum amount of gravity required for indefinite stays is unknown. For all we know, maybe the human body really only needs 0.1 g to perform normally. Maybe it needs 1g. Maybe it can do with something in between. We simply don't know.

[jwenting]

All space stations so far have used extensive exercise regimens for the crew, that seems to work. Combined with added calcium in the diet to prevent calcium loss in the bones I see no reason the musculoskeletal structure can't deal with the 1/6G on the moon for prolonged periods (and with the size of a permanent base, you'd get exercise just walking around as well).

Of course over generations the human species might well evolve to deal naturally with such an environment, given the chance. But that'd mean people living there permanently, selective breeding effectively, not something that's politically correct to mention (and I am not very comfortable with the idea myself, at least not the idea of government enforced human breeding/reproduction laws).

[WinkAllKerb'']

if "whenever" we live on celestial body with lower/higher gravity there simply no point asking that our bodies naturally evolve to fit the celestial bodies/stations.

m2c it 's just of matter of time and adaptation compensative tech

short Edit: "if there no answer that mean there no question" "the answer is noticed in the question itself" etc.

Edited May 30, 2014 by WinkAllKerb''
typo, details and tralala like usual