Gen 1 moon base/lab idea

[xenomorph555]

When people talk about moon bases they always make it seem like you go from small scout landings -> massive base structure. To me this is not only really stupid but also really expensive, I have therefore thought about an intermediate stage between the 2.

My idea would to have a single module lab instead of a large multi building base that crews could land beside separately. The lab would be similar to Tiangong-1 a small 8 tonne module capable of supporting a crew of 3 for a month or 2 crews half a month each (with a 1-2 year wait in-between the two crews). In fact the module could just be a slightly modified Tiangong or Tianzhou, the bottom of the structure would of course have a large landing system weighing perhaps 16 tonnes. The thing would be about 25 tonnes and would be launched on a 100 tonnes to leo rocket, it would land on the moon and wait until a 2nd launch would take the crew to the moon where they would land besides the lab and work.

Idea's for what the crews would do includes:

Extra long exploration expeditions

Research into using lunar resources

Research into building on the moon

Overall experimenting/preparing for the large base

Other science requiring micro gravity

If you have any other ideas I would like to hear them

Edited December 13, 2014 by xenomorph555

[Tommygun]

I think changing the crew out every two to four weeks would make it more expensive to run.

Well, at least if you plan on it being continuously crewed.

It might be cheaper in the long run to have enough modules on the surface to keep the crews there for six months at a time.

[xenomorph555]

I think changing the crew out every two to four weeks would make it more expensive to run.

Well, at least if you plan on it being continuously crewed.

It might be cheaper in the long run to have enough modules on the surface to keep the crews there for six months at a time.

Sorry I didn't mean it like that, I meant a new crew would return to the lab 1-2 years later, not a direct swap.

[trekkie_]

The main idea for a starter moon base is a large moving vehicle capable of housing several people. This way, you don't have to land a base and a rover to get around, since your base is your rover. This also cuts time by not having to drive back and forth between bases. That base, could even be utilized to help build other permanent bases out of moon materials, gather resources, etc. A moving base would also have the benefit of being able to avoid some incoming threats, and any re-supply landings won't have to be so precise since the base could move to the landing site. The only drawback is you would need some decent radiation shielding, but if it is only a precursor to a main larger base, it wouldn't be as much of an issue for the short term.

the perfect permanent starter moon base would be a tall underground cylinder with just a hatch opening at the surface. the deeper it goes, the safer you are. from there you may even be able to excavate caverns under the surface and expand the base. that also has the added benefit of being able to gather deeper samples.

as for powering a moon base, I think nuclear power would be the best option. would last for years without much issue. solar panels are ok, but they might be prone to erosion and getting dusty and they will need to be replaced periodically. we could possibly extract energy from the moon too, but we'd need a power source we could rely on 100%, so nuclear is the best bet. Solar panels could be used as supplemental energy or had on hand for emergencies.

Edited December 13, 2014 by trekkie_

[xenomorph555]

The main idea for a starter moon base is a large moving vehicle capable of housing several people. This way, you don't have to land a base and a rover to get around, since your base is your rover. This also cuts time by not having to drive back and forth between bases. That base, could even be utilized to help build other permanent bases out of moon materials, gather resources, etc. A moving base would also have the benefit of being able to avoid some incoming threats, and any re-supply landings won't have to be so precise since the base could move to the landing site. The only drawback is you would need some decent radiation shielding, but if it is only a precursor to a main larger base, it wouldn't be as much of an issue for the short term.

the perfect permanent starter moon base would be a tall underground cylinder with just a hatch opening at the surface. the deeper it goes, the safer you are. from there you may even be able to excavate caverns under the surface and expand the base. that also has the added benefit of being able to gather deeper samples.

as for powering a moon base, I think nuclear power would be the best option. would last for years without much issue. solar panels are ok, but they might be prone to erosion and getting dusty and they will need to be replaced periodically. we could possibly extract energy from the moon too, but we'd need a power source we could rely on 100%, so nuclear is the best bet. Solar panels could be used as supplemental energy or had on hand for emergencies.

While the moving base does sound like a good idea, I imagine it being much more heavy and complex then the static lab plus many other issues. I do understand the pros to it though.

The underground cylinder is also a good idea but that would be going more into further generations of labs/bases. It would require a large mining operation (moon standards anyway) with either a precursor manned or highly complex robots with mining tools and possibly machinery. Again though lots of pros.

Nuclear may be unnecessary for gen 1, it would likely bring un-needed complexity to the lab which would be highly complex to start with. It will definitely be a needed for the further generations though.

[Tommygun]

Using a solar only base may limit the base's location to a few mountainous areas around the poles though.

You have to deal with about 15 days of light/darkness cycle.

[xenomorph555]

Using a solar only base may limit the base's location to a few mountainous areas around the poles though.

You have to deal with about 15 days of light/darkness cycle.

Hmmm, a difficult problem, first lets analyse how much power we would need for a small single module.

[xenomorph555]

Tiangong 1 apparently operates on 3500 watts.

[xenomorph555]

Soviet TOPAZ-1 space nuclear reactor created a total 5kw for 5 years, it weighed about 320kg (in perspective the Yutu rover weighed 170kg). Now that I have looked at this data again the prospect of the gen 1 static (or moving) lab having a reactor is much more possible the I thought. However it still has to be developed, tested and then not get harassed by hippies.

[Reddragon]

Just for fun, I quote a random Youtube comment i remember from years ago:

'Why don't we just land the ISS on the Moon????!!!!!! Easiest way to have a moonbase!!!!!'

[Tommygun]

You might need a second module or more for a rechargeable fuel cell or lithium battery setup.

If you find water which would probably be at the poles, you could separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day as fuel to generate electricity at night, but then you could just put your solar panels up onto the polar mountains and get almost continuous light all month long.

[xenomorph555]

You might need a second module or more for a rechargeable fuel cell or lithium battery setup.

If you find water which would probably be at the poles, you could separate the water into hydrogen and oxygen during the day as fuel to generate electricity at night, but then you could just put your solar panels up onto the polar mountains and get almost continuous light all month long.

That is a great idea, however it's complexity makes the reactor look easy.

[NERVAfan]

Using a solar only base may limit the base's location to a few mountainous areas around the poles though.

You have to deal with about 15 days of light/darkness cycle.

True... but the poles are probably where you want your moon base to be anyway due to the perpetually dark craters having the good resources.

IIRC Whipple Crater is probably the best place, a perpetually dark crater with a plateau that gets light most of the time right next to it.

[xenomorph555]

True... but the poles are probably where you want your moon base to be anyway due to the perpetually dark craters having the good resources.

IIRC Whipple Crater is probably the best place, a perpetually dark crater with a plateau that gets light most of the time right next to it.

Very interesting, although it would take a direct lander to land there due to the LOR equator problem.

[Tommygun]

Very interesting, although it would take a direct lander to land there due to the LOR equator problem.

Because it is harder to rendezvous in a polar orbit coming from the ground?

[xenomorph555]

Because it is harder to rendezvous in a polar orbit coming from the ground?

I think it has something to do with the ships not having enough fuel and DV to change the orbits from an equator orbit to polar orbit. When we change orbits with current ships it's only by a few degrees at most. I believe the direct landers skip orbiting and fly to/directly land at the target.

[Tommygun]

I wonder if it is possible to launch to an Earth polar orbit then transfer directly to a Moon polar orbit?

[xenomorph555]

There has never even been a manned mission to Earth polar orbit ... and it's been about 50 years since the first manned spaceflight ...

[MockKnizzle]

That's not really how orbits work... It's simple enough to transfer to whatever Moon orbit you want out of a standard near-equatorial Earth orbit, you just add a little plane change.

[Rakaydos]

If the Lunar Lagrange elevator goes up as planned (It's planned for 2020, so call it 2030) a lunar base will develop organically around the base station, supplied from orbit.

[xenomorph555]

If the Lunar Lagrange elevator goes up as planned (It's planned for 2020, so call it 2030) a lunar base will develop organically around the base station, supplied from orbit.

Uh, the what?

[Tommygun]

That's not really how orbits work... It's simple enough to transfer to whatever Moon orbit you want out of a standard near-equatorial Earth orbit, you just add a little plane change.

That's what I thought, but I was just wondering if there would be any differences in delta V if you started in an Earth polar orbit first.

The timing sure would be a lot harder.

[MockKnizzle]

A polar-polar transfer probably end up being more dV because you'd be arriving at the moon from above or below its orbital plane and thus you'd be adding a lot of the Moon's orbital velocity to your relative velocity. In an equatorial transfer, you're catching up to the Moon as it orbits and you're going generally in the same direction when you meet up.

[Rakaydos]

Uh, the what?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiftPort_Group#Lunar_space_elevator

[xenomorph555]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_space_elevator

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LiftPort_Group#Lunar_space_elevator

There are so many things wrong with Liftport idea, it's not coming 2020 that's a definite.