Archives for: August 2006
XML Feeds
Modular Construction within Shielded Megastructures
by kokhmmm 
Link: http://www.moonsociety.org/2003-pcsn/15-megamodularity.html
"Modularity Inside Megastructures" is the current "feature image" posted August 30th to the Society front page, top center.
Modular Construction within Shielded Megastructures will be quite different from building individually pressurized modules, whether they are to be each individually shielded, or housed together under a shielded but unpressurized canopy or hanger or lavatube.
This architectural option was developed for the double-vaulted rille settlements proposed by the Prinzton design study.
Prinzton: A Rille-Bottom Settlement for Three Thousand People
© Lunar Reclamation Society 1989
http://www.lunar-reclamation.org/papers/rille_paper1.htm
The same conditions would apply to a settlement built within a sealed and pressurized lavatube, an option considered physically impractical on engineering grounds by some writers.
Inside a pressurized megastructure, modules used to provide living, working, learning, and recreational space need not be cylindrical, spherical or otherwise shaped to contain pressure forces. For in a megastructure, atmospheric pressure would be the same indoors and outdoors (or middoors - the common spaces outside homes, and other activity housing structures, if you reserve outdoors for the external vacuum of the lunar surface.)
Indeed, in theory, we could import the commonplace construction methods used on Earth. However, the need to build space quickly and efficiently and inexpensively for an expanding population makes modularity very attractive.
On Earth, the nearest comparison is factory built modules, all sized to fit flatbed truck-trailer transport. Of course, the building materials would be different. Fiberglass reinforced concrete, glass glass composites, and metal alloys would prevail. Wood, plastics such as vinyl, and fiber-based composition products would be out. We need to reserve organic materials (hydrogen, carbon, nitrogen and their compounds) for biospheric purposes.
The factory producing modules could be within the structure. But if a steady market for its products is foreseen at other locations on the Moon, it is likely to be somewhere out on the surface, nearby the construction site, or within transport range.
That means the modules will have to be brought into the megastructure by a one-size-fits all snug fitting freight airlock. This will avoid excessive loss of the megastructure’s atmosphere through constant cycling. Freight elevators, flatbed trucks, cranes will all work most efficiently if the modules are the same size, have the same grappling points, and are approximately the same weight.
But that leaves architects and outfitters quite a bit of room for custom exterior and interior finishing and outfitting, placement of windows, doors, interior partitions, interior layouts, etc.
Indeed, modules might be ordered or sold unfinished, if the customer so desires. Once occupied, they can be finished inside and outside at leisure, allowing time for the customer to change initial preferences, etc. In the interests of ready occupancy, however, modules would be ordered with exterior doors, windows, and interior placement of a drop in kitchen-bathroom core complex and peripheral utility runs.
In this illustration, modules are cross stacked. Of course, they could be stacked one exactly on top of the other, just as well. Cross-stacking, however, provides pairs of built-in patios or balconies on every level, as well as rooftop garden space.
We suggested ways of stacking 2 or more tiers of four connected cross-stacked modules for office, school, and other mid-size structures.
In the light one-sixth gravity of the Moon, stacking them several stories high should not be a problem.
Our pyramidal apartment complex, with some modules containing two small apartments, others just one, others 2 or more stacked modules as one large apartment or town house, was inspired by the Habitat 67 complex, Cite du Havre on Montreal’s river front, designed by Moshe Safdie for Expo 1967, perhaps the last of the truly great World Fairs. I had the chance to tour this complex during my week at the fair. It left an indelible impression.
http://www.greatbuildings.com/buildings/Habitat_67.html
If you look at our sketch, you will see that the complex is supported underneath by an A-frame truss structure which would include stairs to the various levels.
Something like this may never be built on the Moon. But it is a possibility! One of many!
Indeed, there are so many architectural options, even within the rubric of modularity, that lunar settlements, whether modular from the gitgo, individually pressurized and shielded, or under a shielded hanger, or within a rille-bottom, crater, or lavatube megastructure, will have their own flavors and ambiance, their own styles.
No one should expect that when you have seen one lunar town, you will have seen then all. Such remarks are always a sign of a superficial minds.
08/30/06 01:40:53 pm, Of 8 Planets vs. 28 Worlds & Counting
by kokhmmm
Or on demoting the Gas Giants, reinstating Pluto, adding major moons
Okay, you can see the astronomer’s point of view.
But from “a truly human point of view”, most of us are interested in places that can be imagined as “worlds, theaters for human life”, even if the living conditions are much, much less comfortable than we are used to, even if we are talking about spartan, and possibly very temporary outposts or one time exploratory visits. Even if, we may add, we are talking about proxy human visits through the eyes of robot rovers, robot aircraft, robot balloons, etc., that can transport us to these alien landscapes, as opposed to distant views from orbit.
Worlds are places humans can conceivably experience first hand.
So let’s exclude worlds without a hard surface, or world’s on which the surface atmospheric pressure exceeds 100 times what we are used to on Earth.
That standard excludes Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune - and is craftily drafted to allow Venus to make the cut. Aerostats hovering just below the Veneran cloud deck at tolerable atmospheric pressure levels, may provide future tourists a real glimpse of Venus' overheated landscapes.
Our definition includes any world with enough mass to force itself into a spheroidal shape. Even Earth, slightly flattened at the poles, is not a true sphere!
That gives us the following list of worlds, grouped by distance from the Sun:
1 Mercury
2 Venus
3-4 Earth, Luna
5 Mars
6-8 Ceres, Pallas, Vesta
9-12 Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto
13-19 Mimas, Enceladys, Tethys, Dione, Rhea, Titan, Iapetus
20-24 Miranda, Ariel, Umbriel, Titania, Oberon
25 Triton
26-27 Pluto, Charon
28 Xena
and other “Plutonians”
“Planet” - a word that can include Jupiter and Mercury in the same category, is a bit contrived. It includes only objects which orbit the sun directly. But what difference does that make? Luna and Europa orbit the Sun just as surely, admittedly while also orbiting Earth and Jupiter respectively. Phenomenologically, there is no difference. Luna and Europa and other major satellites enjoy sunrises and sunsets just as do Earth and Jupiter.
To the public, to the imagination of the would be explorer, traveler, tourist, trader, diplomat, and on and on, Ganymede is a world, Jupiter is not. Titan is a world, Saturn is not, and so on.
So let the astronomers gloat in their victory over the public. Their victory is hollow. The emperor, empress, prince, and princess (the gas giants) have no clothes. Yet they do fill an important role; they create communal gravity wells, making it possible to collocate mulitple moon-worlds in the same solar orbit, very handy for transportation to and fro!
Let's keep the Solar System open. May the human viewpoint prevail!
Peter Kokh
The Solar System becomes a Gated Community
by kokhmmm
by Peter Kokh
Today, August 24th, will go down in astronomical history as the day little, but still fascinating, Pluto and its three moons got kicked out of a now Gated Community. The Gate & Fence is a definition chosen to exclude any world that does not fit the pre-1930 demographics of the Solar Club.
To do this, the International Astronomical Union [IAU] took the definition chosen by its committee tasked with creating a definition of a “Planet”
“a body orbiting the sun that was big enough so that gravity would overcome internal forces and squash it into a roughly spherical shape.”
and added one more qualifier:
“a planet must also be massive enough to clear other objects out of its orbital zone.”
This last phrase was designed to keep out Ceres and Pluto and Xena.
The trouble with this standard is that
a) this clearing operation is incomplete. If it were complete, we would not be threatened by near Earth objects, NEOs.
b) most of what clearing process that has occurred took the better part of a billion years.
c) Mighty Jupiter and Neptune didn’t exactly “clear” their orbits, but shepherded the stragglers into Trojan (Lagrange 4 and 5) orbital positions, 60 degrees ahead and behind them in their paths around the sun.
The winners are those who have always resented Pluto, and wanted a definition that would forever keep the Planetary Club membership fixed.
The losers are the public. Elevation of Ceres, a mini-planet in its own right, preservation of Pluto’s status, and an open door to other ice planets beyond would have much better fostered public interest in the solar system and the universe in general.
With this sad step, we took one giant leap backwards towards the days when the only worlds were Earth, Heaven, and Hell, and all the rest were just lights in the sky.
Creating gerrymandered definitions that preserve club membership to the historic planetary demographics is a big mistake.
It would have been so simple to just create classes of planets:
a) the four rocky planets: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars
b) dwarf rocky planets: Ceres, Pallas, Vesta
c) the four gas giant planets: Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune
d) the small outer icy planets: Pluto, Xena, and others yet to be discovered.
The contrived nature of the new definition is clear from the fact that the rocky planets and gas giants are two vastly different classes of worlds.
To keep club membership at eight, the definition has to be vague enough to embrace both small rocky worlds and larger gas giants, yet specific enough to exclude the dwarf rocky worlds and outer ice worlds. Gerrymandered.
If we have a definition that has the latitude to include both of these groups, then why not one a bit more general to include the other groups?
“It is a puzzlement”, said the King of Siam.
I don’t think this is the end of the story. The public repercussions of Pluto’s demotion will erode public interest in astronomy. After all, astronomers clearly do not have their act together, and are acting like an Old Boys Club.
Meanwhile, we are busy discovering more and more exoplanets - planets around other suns, and you can be sure, that the demographics of these systems will sooner or later force us to back off this “gated community” definition.
Oh yes, one more thing. The committee had proposed elevating Charon. This may seem absurd but you should not think that Pluto and Charon would have been planets separately. Indeed, I think that given that they both rotate around a common center of gravity well above Pluto’s surface, should classify them as “a binary planet system.”
So not ...... Neptune, Pluto, Charon, and Xena
but .... Neptune, Pluto-Charon, and Xena.
Now that would have been wonderful!
But I am even more disappointed that Ceres’ claim is not being honored. It is a world with enough gravity to force it into a spheroidal shape, and to stratify its material into layers, densest at the core. Clearly, Ceres and Gaspra or Eros are different types of objects. Yes, Ceres was too small to force order among the fragmentary objects in its orbital zone. But that does not change what Ceres is in itself.
Ceres is bound to play an important role if humankind ever ventures beyond Mars and into the realm of the outer gas giants. See “Ceres: largest asteroid or mini-planet” in MMM #196 June 2006, pp 4-6. It is high time that Ceres got the recognition due it both as a mini world in itself and as to its strategic potential in the saga of homo solaris.
It is a pity that the astronomers couldn’t see the wider picture. But horse blinders are an occupational hazard of any “specialized” profession. Who would have suspected that persons whose occupation is to explore the universe at large, could have such closed small minds.
No apologies. Sometimes, punches shouldn't be pulled.
Five months after our 1st Moonbase Exercise
by kokhmmm
Link: http://www.moonsociety.org/moonbasesim/
Five months after our 1st Moonbase Exercise ended in Utah, what do we do, where do we do it, and just how do we “follow suite?”
from Peter Kokh, Commander MDRS Crew #45, ”Artemis Moonbase I”
http://www.marssociety.org/mdrs/fs05/
We had a great crew for Artemis Moonbase 1, M.D.R.S. crew #45. We had an excellent first selection of projects, and while we did not have the time to do all of them justice, we left happy with what we had achieved. Indeed, for the most part, we achieved our major goals, that is, all except two.
A. We received only a fraction of the publicity we had hoped for, for our mission, and for the society and its goals. Publicity was/is essential both to attract new members and additional funding and other resources.
B. Despite some significant donations from groups and individuals to whom we are most grateful, we did not reach our funding goal and had to dig into the Moon Society pocket to pay the shortfall. Yet, when the mission announced, none of us had any brash confidence that we could put the money together. Indeed we came close, with a shortfall of only $1,200, 17%. That reality, however, has effectively discouraged us from applying for a two week slot in the upcoming 2006-07 field season. To conduct a sequel under the same circumstances, with $7,000 rent due the Mars Society for a two week “crew rotation slot” at the Mars Desert Research Station, seems out of reach. That is especially true because much of the money we did raise was from one time donations, unlikely to be repeated.
http://www.moonsociety.org/moonbasesim/moonbasesimone_donorsponsor.html
But no one should think that our two weeks in the Utah sun were a futile effort leading to a dead end. Certainly none of us who worked so hard on the first mission think that way.
We no not know how, or when, or in what form, but we remain convinced that moonbase exercises, focused on “demonstrating the technologies needed to grow an initial human presence on the Moon from outpost into true settlement” are very much a part of our master plan.
Since the end of the exercise in mid-March, a few of us, especially William Fung-Schwarz, crew Health & Safety Officer, myself, and David. A. Dunlop, the Society’s new Director of Project Management, have been discussing a wide range of options (other than a return to MDRS.) They would seem to be three.
1. An “analog site” in which the geology and morphology of the terrain is a good match for a true moonscape
2. A high volume “tourist traffic” center such as Las Vegas, Orlando, or now, with Spaceport America under construction, the area north of Las Cruces, NM which itself is just north of El Paso, TX. This is the original goal of Project Leto
http://www.moonsociety.org/projects/leto/
3. A scattered site approach. For geological work, we’d choose an analog site. But modeling the 29.5 day long dayspan/nightspan cycle would be easier, anywhere, in a large volume where light could be totally controlled: a large aircraft hanger, a roofed sports arena (during the off season) or even a high-ceiling wide-span warehouse. And to make progress on air/water/waste recycling and/or agriculture, it would make sense to work where the people are, all the time, such as a university.
I see at least three alternative options that dovetail with each of the three above, in turn.
1b. An artificial analog site. We really do not need to demonstrate geological techniques (though we may at some time want to demonstrate teleoperated prospecting equipment.) On the other hand, we do want to demonstrate teleoperated site preparation, regolith shielding emplacement, road construction, and other remotely operated equipment. For this, a chemical analog of regolith is not essential. Any chemical or mineralogical mix would do, so long as it has been pre-pulverized into the right mix of particle sizes, and behaves like regolith in handling. I’ll talk about this option in greater detail in an upcoming post.
2b. Despite strong support from several persons for option #2, after having served on two crews (#34 and #45) at MDRS, and having become familiar with how the Mars Society Analog Research Station program operates so successfully to keep churning out quality research in many areas, I would be adamantly opposed to physically combining a research station with a tourist facility, however admittedly valuable and important a tourist visitor center publicity and income could be. Rather, I suggest two identical stations: twins would be cheaper to build than two non-identical stations, as they would share the design and development costs as well as materials sourcing. But I would locate one dedicated to research in a site remote from distracting visitors, and the other at the tourist center. Web cams showing live exterior and interior views of the actual research station would let tourist center visitors see what is going on as they watch. A one way mirror glass wall would suffice only if we were doing indoor projects only!
3b. A modular analog station on wheels would be able to serve several locations in sequence. One season it could be parked at a geological analog site to do lavatube-related projects, and the next season at a physical analog site for demonstration of teleoperation equipment and procedures, and the season after that at a university for biosphere related projects, or inside a hanger for projects related to the dayspan/nightspan cycle. And in between, this mobile modular outpost (MMO) could visit high tourist traffic destinations, major space conferences, theme parks, state fairs, etc.
We noted that the principal obstacle to doing a sequel mission(s) at the Mars Desert station in Utah is a grounded lack of confidence that we can raise the needed money in time. But in all honesty, all the options above would cost much more money. (1) Before we could do a first mission at a new geological lunar analog location, scout teams would have to visit each proposed general area and hunt for the best specific site in each, secure a lease (public BLM, Bureau of Land Management, lands) or limited access to private land. Next, we’d have to deploy (a) structure(s) not just rent them. (2) Before we could locate in a high tourist traffic location, with proportionately much higher real estate prices, we’d have to raise mucho bucks for the extra much higher cost of putting up a really good visitor center. (3) Some of the scattered suite options, such as a university biospheric research center, would require many sponsors and sources of funds
As for our three counter suggestions, (1b) For a physical not geological lunar analog site, we’d have to find an area where the native material could be prepared as good physical analog of regolith at modest expense, then deploy (a) station module(s) . (2b) For a tourist center station plus a remote research station, we would have to meet the expenses of both. (3b) A Mobile Modular Outpost able to visit many working locations as well as many tourist locations would add the expenses of providing built-in mobility.
At this point in our brainstorming, a Mobile Modular Outpost mated with a twin stationary one at a tourist visitors center would seem to make “the ultimate daydream.” But any decision comes down to one brutal fact. We cannot do anything without securing outside funds and donations. We desperately need the help of a Fundraising Team!
http://www.moonsociety.org/volunteer-descriptions.html#Fundraising
Meanwhile, we will keep fine tuning the above, very general suggestions: So look for more, in future posts to the Post-Mission area of this Blog site, on geological analog locations on our short list; the question of a physical analog location; modular outpost/station architecture, permanent or mobile.
Meanwhile, despite the many ways in which the Mars Desert Station is a less than desirable place to operate, a 2-week sequel stint there continues to be the most realistic first sequel, at least for the 2008 season - it is almost too late to apply for a slot in the 2007 season, unless we received an unexpected large windfall in the next month or so. The Field Season calendar slots are being filled up fast!
But cheer up! Since when do obstacles predict failure? - PK