The judges awarded first prize to Bryna Andersen, a graduate architecture student at Columbia University, for her vision of a solar energy collector on the moon....[More]
A Beam of Power, First Place Winner
The judges awarded first prize to Bryna Andersen, a graduate architecture student at Columbia University, for her vision of a solar energy collector on the moon. She capitalized on ideas put forth by astrophysicist David Criswell of the University of Houston, who advocates building lunar-based solar-power collectors and sending the energy to Earth via radar beams. Andersen designed a power tower composed of thousands of fiber-optic cables, built from the moon's powdery soil, or regolith. Her vertical station would also provide energy for a horizontal moon base below, which she envisioned as serving employees and tourists or acting as a research base for future space travel and exploration.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
A Gradual Sprawl, Finalist
Recent Cornell University graduate Mengni Zhang created a vision of a moon outpost that grows over time, slowly colonizing the surface with a variety of interlocking modules grouped together in various densities....[More]
A Gradual Sprawl, Finalist
Recent Cornell University graduate Mengni Zhang created a vision of a moon outpost that grows over time, slowly colonizing the surface with a variety of interlocking modules grouped together in various densities. The base of his plan comprises units that link together in a web, together providing a wide variety of human needs on the lunar surface, including water and air circulation, energy and sewage. Each module would contain space for recreation, scientific research and industrial activities such as mining.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
Home, Safe Home, Finalist
The crater chosen for a moon colony by Gareth Leech, an architecture student at Oxford Brookes University in England, is, he says, protected against meteor strikes by the crater's walls....[More]
Home, Safe Home, Finalist
The crater chosen for a moon colony by Gareth Leech, an architecture student at Oxford Brookes University in England, is, he says, protected against meteor strikes by the crater's walls. Leech provided detailed descriptions of all the colony's needs, from a rover port to decontamination showers to life-support pods. Each pod fits atop the other, with legs supporting photovoltaic cells that would power the base.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
Mining for Food, Finalist
These eerie space pods are actually enclosed agricultural centers elevated above the lunar surface, designed by Anthony Di Mari and Alberto Govela, both of whom recently graduated with master's degrees in architecture from Harvard University and Rice University, respectively....[More]
Mining for Food, Finalist
These eerie space pods are actually enclosed agricultural centers elevated above the lunar surface, designed by Anthony Di Mari and Alberto Govela, both of whom recently graduated with master's degrees in architecture from Harvard University and Rice University, respectively. In researching lunar resources they discovered that the moon has an abundance of helium 3, which is rare on Earth but has potential uses in nuclear fusion. The architects envision mining helium 3, converting it into a superfluid state and using that liquid as a hydroponic medium for agriculture. The Moon Capital judges loved the visuals and the idea of combining mining with agriculture, but they pointed out that liquid helium is far too cold to serve as a growth medium for terrestrial crops.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
Interplanetary Power
The abundance of helium 3 and the need for energy also inspired students Ryan Oliason, Ana Matijevic and Nimet Anwar from the University of Texas Arlington, who created what they call "Energy without Borders"....[More]
Interplanetary Power
The abundance of helium 3 and the need for energy also inspired students Ryan Oliason, Ana Matijevic and Nimet Anwar from the University of Texas Arlington, who created what they call "Energy without Borders". Helium 3 would be mined for use in a sustained nuclear fusion reactor, shown above, and the energy would be utilized on Earth.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
A Heavenly Match
Every two years the Olympics brings together nations from around the globe for a truly world-class sporting contest. The battle to host the games, however, can be as viciously competitive as the games themselves....[More]
A Heavenly Match
Every two years the Olympics brings together nations from around the globe for a truly world-class sporting contest. The battle to host the games, however, can be as viciously competitive as the games themselves. Brian Harms and Keith Bradley, students at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, designed an Olympic stadium in an existing moon crater that would, Harms says, "be the first neutral Olympics; no competitor would have a home-team advantage." The designers imagine that a future moon-based Olympics could take advantage of microgravity to create new games that are unplayable in Earth's gravitational environment; jurors enjoyed imagining the heights achieved by lunar-based pole-vaulters or high jumpers.
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
Gliding through Space
In the future, according to a group of architects from Massachusetts-based New World Design, humans living on the moon will suffer from osteoporosis due to the bone-depleting effects of microgravity....[More]
Gliding through Space
In the future, according to a group of architects from Massachusetts-based New World Design, humans living on the moon will suffer from osteoporosis due to the bone-depleting effects of microgravity. To combat the condition, the team created structures to support a sport they call "gliding," in which moon residents would effectively swim through the air. Designers of the future, they propose, would develop interconnected, looping tracks that surround a living module in the center. In addition to providing health benefits, the tracks might double as playgrounds; the architects note that kids could "use the gliding loops for hyperfast games of tag."
[Less]
[Link to this slide]
SHIFTBoston
YES! Send me a free issue of Scientific American with no obligation to continue the subscription. If I like it, I will be billed for the one-year subscription.
Show All | Jump To:
1-10 |
11-20 |
21-30 |
31-40 |
41-50 |
51-60 |
Next
View
1. JamesDavis
10:06 AM 11/4/10
Being a retired Architectural designer, I would like to share a design I did for a future city here on Earth and I imagine it would work even better on the moon.
Because of the environment on the moon, architectural design there cannot work like architectural design here.
The design I did for a Earth city is a Beehive shape/solid re-enforced glass with heating elements throughout that works like a huge solar panel and can house about 500,000 people. It is a self-contained city that can provide its own heat, water, and even air (if it's on the moon). Since glass is made from sand, it is cheaper to produce and will not rust or rot and can provide a safe comfortable environment for centuries.
Since you will not need living quarters for 500,000 people on the moon, the city can be formed here on Earth and shipped to the moon in a very short time.
I know NASA is looking for a self-contained environment like this and my design may be worth them looking into.
And agriculture in liquid helium? Honestly, how did that even get entered? Agriculture on the moon has to survive the 14 day night. So in my view, we'd need reliable baseload power from GenIV breeder reactors, and to get maximum real estate value for our effort from lighting up those tube-caves with grow-lights. That's the food taken care of! Sewerage of course has a relationship with the food as the nutrients have to get back there somehow. So we'll be living near or in those tube-caves.
Like it or not, without an atmosphere to protect it from meteorites, our city is going to be underground.
These were obviously not designed by Science students. I didn't see a single workable design in the lot.
Solar design will need a lot of storage if it is to work. As another poster noted, nights on the Moon are 2 weeks long. so are the days.
Expect to have the cities built underground for 2 reasons.
First, radiation protection. This takes about a meter (3 feet) of soil. Soil is the cheapest form of radiation protection. So, we can expect the city to be underground.
Second, meteor protection. On earth, the atmosphere burns up anything smaller than about the size of a medicine ball. On the Moon, there is almost no atmosphere. Objects the size of a dust grain will hit the ground intact. To provide the same protection value as the Earth, we will need about 3 meters of soil.
On the surface,there will be things like heat radiators, solar collectors, any industries that need lots of heat. Power transmission and transportation. There will be some damage due to space storms.
Most of the facilities will be safely underground.
Hi Yetanotherbob, the disheartening thing is that these entries were so proudly promoted on SCIAM? I'm wondering what passes for an article here these days? Normally I love SCIAM's various emphasis, but this hardly passes the Sci-Fi category let alone real science.
This is silly science fiction stuff. Why on earth would you want to live on the moon? It is so much more inhospitable to life than earth. It has no atmosphere! You can't even breathe. You have to bring your own oxygen tank. Plants cannot thrive there without CO2. There's no sustainable source of food.
You have to create a self-contained environment with O2 for humans and CO2 for plants. It's like living inside a spaceship. In that case, why go to the moon? You can have a spaceship in earth's orbit like a giant ISS. If the idea is to colonize another world, Mars would be more hospitable to life but much farther than the moon.
We could learn a lot about closed ecosystems on the moon, so I'm not totally against the idea of living there. But it's the silliness of the submissions that has us baffled. Whether or not to settle the moon first, well, that's a question of economics. Would it cost less to settle the moon and use that to rail-gun satellites into space from there? Will we have a moon-base to escape the earth's gravity well for easier launch of space-based solar power? Will the moon manufacture our first ONeil colony which, in turn, could be the vehicle that moves into the orbit of Mars to settle Mars?
These are big questions requiring detailed studies into today's technology, and many technologies just around the corner.
Well i see people have the same ideas sometimes, i thought decades ago glass housing would be the best on earth and dirt cheap.
So yes its probably the best on the moon. People keep ranting on about 3 meters of protection and building underground. Clearly theyve never seen a roof before and i wonder what they do at home when it rains...very curious.
Personally id have a multilayer glass exterior providing protection for one (permanent) water storage tank that goes on top allowing people to view the stars constantly. Some areas would be arranged as magnifying glass configurations.
And in areas where its required to be dark all the time you can be under ground.
To build the building all you do is make a blow up version here on earth (all my ideas of course) then you fill the blow up with liquid glass that cools, while you peel away the blow up structure.
Voila a perfect glass structure made easily on the moon. All they need is a small furnace to melt some sand and pour it into the mould.
For light thats easy...mirrors! Just arrange mirrors around the moon to funnel light in the direction of the base. (Again blow up moulds of "mirrors" strategically placed)
Sure giant generators could be used if you were American or something...
Eventually youd form tunnels within the moon to access all external areas of it. These tunnels could be made next to the light tunnels such that light could be depleted in areas as people used them to move around. Because light can go through itself the light would travel bi-directionally.
You might be wondering why i bother to keep the light as light and not change it to electricity and then make artifical light from it. Good question. But then again all that light is funneled to one place and then it can be converted into the forms required as required. It can also be used for scientific purposes.
As a fellow entrant in this particular competition, I too am scratching my head as to why some of these submissions were selected as exemplary solutions responding to the competition requirements. The detailed competition program was very clear in stating that the majority of facilities had to be located underground beneath a 3 m protective layer of regolith, yet the majority of winning entries appear to have ignored this requirement. Additionally, the competition requirements requested level plans indicating the internal layouts and proposed adjacencies of a very detailed and complex facilities program, which again were absent in the majority of published winning entries. While there are some superb ideas presented, I suspect that abstract visually stunning images were the basis of the selection of winning entries rather than technically feasible solutions that addressed the more pragmatic issues related to the creation of a permanent lunar habitat.
I too have wondered why something that would work on the moon was not the primary concern of the judges, and I know they got a few such entries since I was part of a team that submitted one. However, there were 2 categories and one was "Let's get Serious" and the other was "Let's have fun" and presumably do something visually striking. Only one of the 4 finalists was in the serious category and even that had some problems. In any case, a serious entry to develop a base in a particular crater near the South pole was not a finalist- and I guess I held my architect back. He clearly yearned to make a tower with a view and I kept him underground and side lit through 4 meters of water for radiation protection. I thought the result was kind of cool- viewed from the interior.
However, the resulting exterior was not a striking enough image to impress the judges. Ho hum, a crater side town and they did not even dome it over. The economy is just mining oxygen out of the regolith and sending it to LEO to refueling depot? That is hardly Star Trek. What no space port? They are just going to throw the 5 ton LOX cargo containers into lunar orbit using an 8 km long lunar surface sling? That hardly seems high tech. even though they have to go 1.6km/sec to get to escape velocity. Our entry was too boring for the Architect crowd, but I think some readers of this magazine would have appreciated it and found it interesting. Our problem was how to convey the image when limited to a single 2 ft by 3 ft poster. We needed 10 pages of text to go with the images. That is not how things work in that profession.
Second, your design will not work. Did you ever see a glass block that was hit by a bullet? That is what a 1 gram meteoroid would be like. Now, imagine a 1 KG meteor. Do you begin to understand a little?
About the mirror thing, you would be much better off to place the mirror in an L4 or L5 position. Otherwise, you will need several thousand mirrors to provide continuous light, stationed every couple of Kilometer around the moon. remember, due to the smaller size, the horizon is much closer there. Sorry, but shipping a complete mid sized commercial nuclear reactor from earth would be cheaper, and would also work better.
As said by several earlier posters, these ideas are all unworkable. So is yours. It needs to be reviewed by Physicists and Engineers, not just Architects.
As a senior Architect once told me, "This years contest winner is next years eyesore." People who live in the structure just want a building that works. That's why most commercial buildings on earth are basic boxes.
Yes, I am an Engineer (PE). Function is more important than form. That is why form follows function. A shattered glass dome means a dead colony. water or no water. Function
3 Meters will stop a cannon shot. It's been demonstrated here on earth. For a really big object, nothing will stop it. On the Moon or here on earth, same difference. That's why we don't have any dinosaurs.
17. YetAnotherBob
in reply to Dr. Strangelove04:20 PM 11/8/10
In one word, MINING. Most of the industry will eventually be located in free orbit, as you infer. But, industry needs materials, metals, glass, ceramics, etc. These are cheapest to get from the Moon. it has a small gravity well, negligible atmosphere, and lots of rocks. the workers and residents on the Moon will be miners and their families. Maybe a few scientists, but mostly miners and support personnel.
Long term, they will import most food from orbit. It's a question of sunlight really. Nights on the Moon are 2 weeks long. So are days. A glass agricultural dome there would have to have a lot of insulation, or else it would boil the water by sunset. It would also need a lot of heating and lighting to allow any plants to survive the night. Very few plants will survive being in a dark cabinet for 2 weeks.
The competition specified the South Pole as a location though many entries ignored that. It matters, since at that site there is nearly continuous sunlight- not a 14 week dark period. It is coming from all different directions on different days, but a reflective tower much like a periscope can track the sun and bring light into the greenhouses more than 95% of the time. Further, the specifications assumed that one would use grow lights underground and called for massive electrical capacity for that reason. I avoided that requirement by tracking the Sun, but no, you do not have to grow food in orbit due to the long night.
What I did have to do, dug into the side of a crater was arrange to reflect light back from the other side of the crater 19 km away to keep the base lit when it would have been in the shadows, yet stay in the area that was lit at least half the time, since the base of the crater was perpetually dark, and thus a likely source of water ice.
My solution seemed to be very much along Lunatuna's line of thinking. If the lunar habitat was situated at the south pole (as the competition guidelines suggested), this polar location would presumably receive more or less continuous sunlight as the sun moves horizontally across the moon's horizon.
I too provided a periscopic rotating sun tracker that would follow the sun's path along the moon's horizon. I proposed a circular solar array mounted on a low / no-friction mag-lev ring that would rotate to follow the sun's path; part of the horizontal light energy could be reflected and focused downward onto a matrix of fixed vertical light tubes located within the diameter of the suntracker ring, which would extend down through the 3 m of protective regolith to illuminate sub-grade greenhouses with natural light (and thus greatly reducing the need for artificial illumination in these key areas).
The rotating solar array could also include photovoltaics (or the 2069 equivalent) mounted on the array to provide the primary supply of electricity for the habitat. Each light tube could have a series of internal filters and adjustable apertures (or opacity settings) to control the quality of light and to adjust the intensity of natural lighting to the below grade areas in order to simulate diurnal and nocturnal Earth conditions within the habitat's public areas (since human comfort was supposedly one of the prime considerations in this competition). In select locations within the greenhouses, the light tubes serving those areas could be adjusted accordingly to optimize the level and length of lighting for a specific species of plant. My goal was to make the habitat as self-sustaining as possible and to maximize the use of the continuous solar exposure.
I also located my subgrade habitat along the inside edge of a crater to provide horizontal exterior views out from the living areas to provide inhabitants with the occasional "earth view" to avoid inhabitants going stir crazy in a windowless underground bunker for extended periods of time.
It's too bad the competition organizer's website doesn't allow for comments and this kind of discussion. I would be very interested in seeing all the great ideas that were generated from this competition.
Can we taste or eat moondust. Has anybody tried. Is it a good growing medium with appropriate fertiliser. It might have unique or unheard of properties - not being a part of natural evolution as we know it. What does it do when wet and haw do plants seeds and living organisms interact with it - do they assimilate with it or does it evolve unique ecosystems? Peter reynolds reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
What is moondust cement like? Moondust might be very reactive given the right ingredients because of its sharp edges and high surface area. Does it exhibit self assemly? In what way does it interact with magnetic and electrical fields? Can it be synethised into a magnetic fluid which can be assembled with magnetic or electric fields gathered from charge within the lunar environment. Can the temperature difference between the dark side and the sunny side be harnessed artificially by pipes made of thin films> Could one create artificial weather using this technique of transporting heat from hot to cold etc. Why not use a space mirror to light the dark side for exploration purposes and maybe warm it up a bit. peter reynolds reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
Perhaps moondust holds untold properties for the manufacture of new types of artifacts not to mention produce unique buildings in the inert microgravity of the moon. It would preumably be very easy to sinter and perhaps has low melting micro components which can be liquified using solar furnaces to produce strong and light micro and nano composite structures supportive of life. Peter Reynolds reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
And is there a large charge difference in places between substrata and surface, the surface being continually bombarded by the solar wind and UV giving rise to free radicals and charged species. Could this be tapped. Is there a surface current flow between the light and darke side. Reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk peter reynolds would there be any advantage to building extremely high towers to escape gravity - so obviating the need for fuel. reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk peter reynolds
26. reflectogenesis
in reply to Peter Roberts01:42 AM 11/10/10
Thanks - thats very interesting - however it seems a bit speculative. My interest is more to do with the fact that the moon lacks weather or physical erosion mechanisms. It is reported that native moondust has very sharp edges to individual grains. I was wondering why these haven't naturally sintered together or cold welded into a solid perhaps porous mass given the lack of contiminants. Is it because of electrostatic charges resultant from irradiation of the surface. If so it appears that there is an inbuilt energy source for the possible self-assembly of materials harnessing such charge. Also it would be very interesting if there were any low melting point components a linar material which could act as matrix for a micro or nano crystalline filler material. So the energy requirement for melting of such using the sun would be minimal and allow for rapid processing. Given the perhaps unique 4 billion year evolved environment of the moon and the lack of any weathering of lunar dust. Could one process this material in novel ways e.g. by mechanical means - such as grinding it attritionally into a composite material with carefully designed properties. There would be a lot of scope for creativity in design for materials scientists and engineers. This would I think make the moon a commercially sound investment. A unique manufacturing environment with a unique supply of raw materials. Peter Reynolds Reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk Peter Reynolds
I was thinking that if the rockets that went there were made of microfibrous materials such as carbon fiber - then these could be recycled on the moon into unique materials which might resemble bone. The fibers being reinforcement for sintered ceramic like matrices. Perhaps such might be catalytically active allowing materials to multi task or perhaps even be the basis for the evolotion of a whole ecology. Perhaps we could breath life into the moon itself. Peter Reynolds Reflectogemesis@hotmail.co.uk
One could use a carbon fibre matix and use naturally occurring charge to produce currents and fields which cause the self assembly of structures upon this carbon skeleton. One only needs to look at the the space suits of the lunar astronauts to see that moondust sticks to anything spontaneously. Once stripped of this charge which might serve to keep indidual grains separate on the moons surface - such grains would spontaneously self assemble given the appropiate nano or microscale skeleton to crystallize or instantiate such self assembly. Surely this is a profoundly exciting prospect. Let the gold rush begin!!!!!!!!! Peter reynolds reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
If one were to provide a sufficiently fine carbon fibre mesh - then perhaps any such propensity for moon dust to self assemble on it might be compounded by and utilised to focus light macro and microscopically to -self-weld structures together. And perhaps harness sunlight to generate naturally occurring fiberoptics which can be harnessed to produce self generating structures. A kind of inorganic life. So seeding life on the moon. Reflectigenesis@hotmail.co.uk peter reynolds
Moon's regolith is plentiful of helium-3. It is a promising fusion fuel to power spacecrafts and lunar cities via aneutronic reactors. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScAHXN_kAY
Being a semi-retired visionary designer, I would like to share some designs I did for future polar cities here on Earth and I imagine they would work even better on the moon. Deng Cheng-hong in Taiwan did the architectural drawings for me, based on my sketches, and they can be seen at any google search for "polar cities" -- these are safe refuges for climate refugees in the far away year of 2500 or so. Just visionary stuff. No need to take them seriously now.
33. Dr. Strangelove
in reply to YetAnotherBob01:12 AM 11/13/10
As an engineer, I appreciate both the science and economics of mining. Mining the moon is technically difficult bec. there is no atmosphere. Where do you get oxygen to breathe, CO2 for plants and without plants, food to eat? From economic viewpoint, it doesn't make sense mining the moon bec. it's very expensive to bring thousands of tons of materials back to earth. How much does it cost per kg. payload a trip to the moon?
Unless we completely deplete earth's resources. But that is the easier and more sensible solution. Conserve earth's resources by moderating consumption and recycling materials like metals, glass, etc. Btw, the world's mineral reserves are determined by economics not by technology. We have more potential reserves but they are not classified as reserves bec. they uneconomical to mine even if technically feasible.
As prices of materials increase and more cost effective technologies are developed, previously unclassified reserves will be mined. IMO, moon mining is quite farfetch.
If we will colonize another world in the far future, my bet is Mars not the moon. Mars has an atmosphere and more suitable for terraforming.
Btw, it puzzles me why this moon contest is run by architects not by scientists and engineers. It gives me the impression that this is more about aesthetics than serious science and technology.
I dis agree - I think the monn robably has unique materials and a unique manufacturing environment which can be made economic.. It was silly to give away most of the recovered surface as this could be used in prototype. The next return to moon should focus on using native materials to manufacure novel product. Even if the engineering needs to be developed. The next thing we should send to the moon is ideas.
35. Dr. Strangelove
in reply to YetAnotherBob04:42 AM 11/13/10
Btw, the potential reserves are located less than 3 kms deep in the continental crust. The crust is 30 to 50 kms thick. It does not yet include reserves deeper than 3 kms in continental crust and almost all of oceanic crust, which covers 70% of earth's surface area.
We have vast untapped mineral resources on earth to last for hundreds of years. And it is more economical and more technically feasible to mine this than to mine the moon. We may already colonize Mars before we deplete earth's resources.
36. reflectogenesis
in reply to reflectogenesis07:01 AM 11/13/10
The point of moon exploration should be to be able to react to the environment and the materials there in situe. As ideas are often found by accident. Going there with preconceived plans of what's achievable is not going to be as productive as discovery within the lunar environment itself. Although this sounds costly, it is more in keeping with the spirit of a new frontier. The moon is a unique environment with unique resources and potential. Per Ardua Ad Astra.
37. Dr. Strangelove
in reply to reflectogenesis10:31 PM 11/13/10
Perhaps Bill Gates would agree with you and donate $200 billion for a moon base. But if you go to Congress asking for $200 billion for a science project where you don't know yet what experiments to perform and what possible discoveries to make, it's moonshine.
As for moon mining, the cost of transporting a payload in the Space Shuttle is $60,000 per kg. excluding mining and refining costs. The cost of iron here on earth is 35 cents per kg. Nobody will buy products made of moon metals bec. they are too expensive.
I predict we will not mine the moon as long as we have cheap and abundant mineral resources on earth. Man has been mining earth for 40,000 yrs. Yet we have only mined and explored less than 1% of the earth's crust. There is enough resources to last over 1,000 yrs. and with recycling we can extend it indefinitely.
38. reflectogenesis
in reply to Dr. Strangelove02:20 AM 11/14/10
Its not just the material of the moon that might be useful but its atmosphere - or lack of of it. This is a unique manufacturing environment, first as a self generating colony - perhaps exporting to earth the high tech stuff such as ultra strong and light materials - perhaps to make weapons which have such a high value on earth- or export spacecraft components - ultra strong and thermally 'novel' such as porous ceramics which are highly insulating. Likewise totally novel materials made fom the unique material of the lunar surface. Perhaps bioactive or catalytic or electro and magneto active or morphing etc. etc. But you'd need to set up pilot plants to explore such possibilities first. Produce fibreoptics that could be sold to other countries wishing to imhabit the moon. The chinese will beat the US to it. And they will be selling moon toys to the US colonists if you are not careful. Where else will china go with its new found wealth?
Wouldn't surprise me if - given the moons atmosphere etc - it wouldn't be too difficult to turn it Red with the appropriate albeit simple technology. There's no treaty to stop it.
41. Dr. Strangelove
in reply to reflectogenesis09:08 PM 11/14/10
I love your imagination. You could be a science fiction writer! Engineers like me get new ideas from science fiction. I wonder what elements found on the moon that does not exist on earth. Cheers!
42. reflectogenesis
in reply to Dr. Strangelove05:56 AM 11/15/10
Not elements - dust and rock formed from none weathering action such as occurs on earth. In a inert atmosphere. For 4billion years. Why has it not cold welded into a solid mass given the lack of gaseous matter etc. What unique properties could it have for manufacture? Very high surface area - low melting point elemental constituents. We'd have trouble manufacturing it here on earth supposing even that we could. High in silicates as a low melting point coherent binding material and ripe for using in composite materials based on carbon fiber or eben glass fibre. Perhaps hyper -fine glass fibre could easily be produced and used in a composite with a matrix of sintered silica and other element to add toughness. This is extremely realistic given the 'clean' environment and abundance of extremely fine grained glassy materials.
43. reflectogenesis
in reply to reflectogenesis05:59 AM 11/15/10
It would even be very easy to produce robotically and remotely from earth using focussed sunlight or small nuclear powered plant. But humans could sort it all out more easily to begin with and experiment with the right techniques and ingredients.
There is the possibility of amazing composite materials marrying 4 billion years of earth's organic evolution with the alien material of the moon evolved through mechanical impact attrition in a low pressure gaseous environment continually bombarded by high energy plasmas and radiation. And who knows what else - until we get there and assess the situation.
I have long thought about establishing an easy, low-materials mass on the Moon. The concept is simply to provide essential immediate power set-up on arrival on the Moon in the first of a series of steps.
At either pole, set up a cylinder of solar radiation collectors that will collect radiant energy on the Sun side as the Moon rotates. And on the opposite side of the cylinder, the reverse will take place, radiating to the cold of space. The energy is derived by the differential of the collector temperatures, Sun side to the space side. This obviates the 14-day cyclical temperature variation. The mass of such a scheme is lightweight for our Earth launched vehicle to transport.
The cylinder of collectors is not smooth. It should be as if fluted. The sheeting of collectors would be mounted on a polygon frame so the “fluted” collector is in plan-view triangular supported. The weight-mass of the frame should be light but strong enough to support the collector surfaces. In that the fluted collector will be quite rigid, certainly in the vertical, parallel to the center axis, the frame mostly is to stabilize a rotational collapsing tendency. I understand there is very little atmosphere for which – no significant wind load needs to be designed.
The circumference velocity difference of the Moon, pole to equator, is very small compared to the tangential velocity of the Moon about Earth. This suggests launching the return to Earth would make little difference on the fuel needed to return if the return-launch is from the Moon’s pole.
Please consider this as a sincere and off-the-cuff proposal.
46. Dr. Strangelove
in reply to reflectogenesis11:07 PM 11/15/10
The physical condition on the moon is easy to replicate in laboratories here on earth - the vacuum, temp., pressure, plasma, radiation, etc. The chemistry in producing exotic materials is the same on the moon, on earth or in other planets.
Unlike the sun where we still cannot replicate its intense gravity and pressure, that's why we still don't have commercial nuclear fusion.
@soaralone1 A cylindrical solar thermal power generator the size of the diameter of the moon. That sounds like a device from H2G2 series.
Well, well. I had not envisioned anything like a radiation surface encompassing the Moon. I do not have the ready information on the Sun radiant energy received and that radiated energy to space. The “off-the-cuff” idea is the cylinder might be 10 to 20 meters in diameter and 10 or so meters high.
Initially the cylinder would be on scaffolding that can be later added to raise the cylinder high enough to not be in the shadow of a much larger diameter cylinder constructed farther out from the pole of the Moon. The design details of the second cylinder would incorporate any changes the first smaller cylinder found advantageous and minimizes the adverse findings.
The “off-the-cuff” idea continues with the first cylinder being covered over the top with a lightweight thermal barrier to fend off the interior radiating to cold space. I do not believe the space within the small cylinder would be heated by mechanical means. Rather, it would provide a temperature difference from the outside cold that will allow some shedding of the bulky space suits necessary to work on the Moon, much like a relaxation and restoration area.
I recognize there will be much more than these energy collection facilities. I am just not including them these off-the-cuff suggestions.
48. reflectogenesis
in reply to Dr. Strangelove05:29 PM 11/18/10
Yes but there is the small matter of 4 billion years exposure to the varying solar wind in conditions of micro and macro impact with a changing gaseous envonment. Is there anywhere on earth where uneroded silicates with sharp edges have existed in such an electro active environment for so long? Why haven't such particulates cold welded into a solid mass - given that they stick to everything that went to the moon. Presumably they have clean uncontaminated surfaces - so there is nothing to stop them adhering to each other. I think these are the unique properties we should attempt to harness in-situ on the moon. We have the technology to take advantage of these physical characteristics. They would be very expensive to replicate on earth even suppose we could do it. These materials are there to be exploited by the right technologies but we need the ideas there - in situ to take advantage of them.
49. M0JL1F7ZV0
in reply to YetAnotherBob05:41 PM 11/22/10
I do agree with you that most of the city will have to be built underground, however some parts will have to be built above ground. The asteroids could be destroyed by advanced targeting systems run by a "super-computer" or perhaps an AI if they are perfected by then. Anyway, good job pointing out those flaws...
I might remind readers that one purpose of the space shuttles and space station were to lift parts to be assembled in orbit. We never built a vehicle there, have no intentions of doing so, and now we have lost the shuttles, and have no heavy launch capabilities. We have lost the knowledge to build HL motors and have attempted to reverse engineer parts from NASA junk yards. No nation on Earth has sent humans through the radiation belt, with the exception of the US lunar missions, which some individuals doubt, because it has not been duplicated, even with far superior technology compared to the 1960's. I wonder how we could build a base camp on the moon to travel to Mars, when we can't get from the ISS to the moon with humans on board.
Having said that, it is great to imagine a lunar colony and building it. I wonder if lunar dust or rock has any binders like cement, or limestone, or sand. If so, concrete would be far less energy intensive than melting sand for glass.
And I wonder, if classified nuclear reactors have a good record on submarines then would it translate into a space based application? I am wholly against nuclear reactor proliferation here in the US, but this may qualify as a reasonable exception, if weight issues could be worked out.
I would locate a reasonably sized creator near one of the two points of lunar axis. Build a pumped in concrete-like lining for the floor, and supports of lunar concrete for a roof of glass from melted sand, which BTW, is very heavy. Or alternatively, a roof of concrete that would be then covered with three feet of lunar soil.Old ships had deck prisms that could be built into the roof.
All and all, aside from the feat of getting humans there, you would need water for the concrete, oxygen for the construction, and have to minimize the energy requirements both for construction and the energy per person during and after construction.
Glass and concrete are too heavy to carry to the moon, and energy from solar cells would be insufficient to do any real construction. Most every little bobcat-like machine runs on gas/diesel and requires air for combustion. We would need one to work on electric. We would need lighter, more powerful batteries. So this lunar dream may depend on electric automobiles becoming both popular and effective. Cheers!
Orient, There is a group of WPI students going over the entries to this ShiftBoston lunar base contest and from the way that you describe your entry I think that they identified yours as of the the 3 most interesting ones and suitable for a technical feasibility and elegance award. I would like to put you in touch with them. Contact me at jmwilkes@wpi.edu
A Brief History of Plastic's Conquest of the World
The Medicated Americans: Antidepressant Prescriptions on the Rise
Good Riddance: Human Creations the World Would Be Better Off Without
Rethinking the Dream of Human Spaceflight
Greater Glory: Why Scott Let Amundsen Win the Race to the South Pole
Moonset: NASA Top Brass Outline Agency's Plans under Obama's Controversial Budget
52 Comments
Add CommentBeing a retired Architectural designer, I would like to share a design I did for a future city here on Earth and I imagine it would work even better on the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBecause of the environment on the moon, architectural design there cannot work like architectural design here.
The design I did for a Earth city is a Beehive shape/solid re-enforced glass with heating elements throughout that works like a huge solar panel and can house about 500,000 people. It is a self-contained city that can provide its own heat, water, and even air (if it's on the moon). Since glass is made from sand, it is cheaper to produce and will not rust or rot and can provide a safe comfortable environment for centuries.
Since you will not need living quarters for 500,000 people on the moon, the city can be formed here on Earth and shipped to the moon in a very short time.
I know NASA is looking for a self-contained environment like this and my design may be worth them looking into.
Solar power on the moon? Umm, what about 2 weeks of night?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd agriculture in liquid helium? Honestly, how did that even get entered? Agriculture on the moon has to survive the 14 day night. So in my view, we'd need reliable baseload power from GenIV breeder reactors, and to get maximum real estate value for our effort from lighting up those tube-caves with grow-lights. That's the food taken care of! Sewerage of course has a relationship with the food as the nutrients have to get back there somehow. So we'll be living near or in those tube-caves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike it or not, without an atmosphere to protect it from meteorites, our city is going to be underground.
These were obviously not designed by Science students. I didn't see a single workable design in the lot.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSolar design will need a lot of storage if it is to work. As another poster noted, nights on the Moon are 2 weeks long. so are the days.
Expect to have the cities built underground for 2 reasons.
First, radiation protection. This takes about a meter (3 feet) of soil. Soil is the cheapest form of radiation protection. So, we can expect the city to be underground.
Second, meteor protection. On earth, the atmosphere burns up anything smaller than about the size of a medicine ball. On the Moon, there is almost no atmosphere. Objects the size of a dust grain will hit the ground intact. To provide the same protection value as the Earth, we will need about 3 meters of soil.
On the surface,there will be things like heat radiators, solar collectors, any industries that need lots of heat. Power transmission and transportation. There will be some damage due to space storms.
Most of the facilities will be safely underground.
Hi Yetanotherbob,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe disheartening thing is that these entries were so proudly promoted on SCIAM? I'm wondering what passes for an article here these days? Normally I love SCIAM's various emphasis, but this hardly passes the Sci-Fi category let alone real science.
I'm not even a scientist and even I can see this!
This is silly science fiction stuff. Why on earth would you want to live on the moon? It is so much more inhospitable to life than earth. It has no atmosphere! You can't even breathe. You have to bring your own oxygen tank. Plants cannot thrive there without CO2. There's no sustainable source of food.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou have to create a self-contained environment with O2 for humans and CO2 for plants. It's like living inside a spaceship. In that case, why go to the moon? You can have a spaceship in earth's orbit like a giant ISS. If the idea is to colonize another world, Mars would be more hospitable to life but much farther than the moon.
We could learn a lot about closed ecosystems on the moon, so I'm not totally against the idea of living there. But it's the silliness of the submissions that has us baffled. Whether or not to settle the moon first, well, that's a question of economics. Would it cost less to settle the moon and use that to rail-gun satellites into space from there? Will we have a moon-base to escape the earth's gravity well for easier launch of space-based solar power? Will the moon manufacture our first ONeil colony which, in turn, could be the vehicle that moves into the orbit of Mars to settle Mars?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese are big questions requiring detailed studies into today's technology, and many technologies just around the corner.
Thanks, fellows, for your commentaries which helped me understand what human beings need to live on our moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell i see people have the same ideas sometimes, i thought decades ago glass housing would be the best on earth and dirt cheap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo yes its probably the best on the moon. People keep ranting on about 3 meters of protection and building underground. Clearly theyve never seen a roof before and i wonder what they do at home when it rains...very curious.
Personally id have a multilayer glass exterior providing protection for one (permanent) water storage tank that goes on top allowing people to view the stars constantly. Some areas would be arranged as magnifying glass configurations.
And in areas where its required to be dark all the time you can be under ground.
To build the building all you do is make a blow up version here on earth (all my ideas of course) then you fill the blow up with liquid glass that cools, while you peel away the blow up structure.
Voila a perfect glass structure made easily on the moon. All they need is a small furnace to melt some sand and pour it into the mould.
For light thats easy...mirrors! Just arrange mirrors around the moon to funnel light in the direction of the base. (Again blow up moulds of "mirrors" strategically placed)
Sure giant generators could be used if you were American or something...
Eventually youd form tunnels within the moon to access all external areas of it. These tunnels could be made next to the light tunnels such that light could be depleted in areas as people used them to move around. Because light can go through itself the light would travel bi-directionally.
You might be wondering why i bother to keep the light as light and not change it to electricity and then make artifical light from it. Good question. But then again all that light is funneled to one place and then it can be converted into the forms required as required. It can also be used for scientific purposes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso you can make glass shell which is inches thick that has the same protection as several meters of dirt.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this全室内活动，憋死
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a fellow entrant in this particular competition, I too am scratching my head as to why some of these submissions were selected as exemplary solutions responding to the competition requirements. The detailed competition program was very clear in stating that the majority of facilities had to be located underground beneath a 3 m protective layer of regolith, yet the majority of winning entries appear to have ignored this requirement. Additionally, the competition requirements requested level plans indicating the internal layouts and proposed adjacencies of a very detailed and complex facilities program, which again were absent in the majority of published winning entries. While there are some superb ideas presented, I suspect that abstract visually stunning images were the basis of the selection of winning entries rather than technically feasible solutions that addressed the more pragmatic issues related to the creation of a permanent lunar habitat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too have wondered why something that would work on the moon was not the primary concern of the judges, and I know they got a few such entries since I was part of a team that submitted one. However, there were 2 categories and one was "Let's get Serious" and the other was "Let's have fun" and presumably do something visually striking. Only one of the 4 finalists was in the serious category and even that had some problems. In any case, a serious entry to develop a base in a particular crater near the South pole was not a finalist- and I guess I held my architect back. He clearly yearned to make a tower with a view and I kept him underground and side lit through 4 meters of water for radiation protection. I thought the result was kind of cool- viewed from the interior.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, the resulting exterior was not a striking enough image to impress the judges. Ho hum, a crater side town and they did not even dome it over. The economy is just mining oxygen out of the regolith and sending it to LEO to refueling depot? That is hardly Star Trek. What no space port? They are just going to throw the 5 ton LOX cargo containers into lunar orbit using an 8 km long lunar surface sling? That hardly seems high tech. even though they have to go 1.6km/sec to get to escape velocity.
Our entry was too boring for the Architect crowd, but I think some readers of this magazine would have appreciated it and found it interesting. Our problem was how to convey the image when limited to a single 2 ft by 3 ft poster. We needed 10 pages of text to go with the images. That is not how things work in that profession.
everyone just needz to caaaaaaaalm down.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear M, First, How is James Bond doing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, your design will not work. Did you ever see a glass block that was hit by a bullet? That is what a 1 gram meteoroid would be like. Now, imagine a 1 KG meteor. Do you begin to understand a little?
About the mirror thing, you would be much better off to place the mirror in an L4 or L5 position. Otherwise, you will need several thousand mirrors to provide continuous light, stationed every couple of Kilometer around the moon. remember, due to the smaller size, the horizon is much closer there. Sorry, but shipping a complete mid sized commercial nuclear reactor from earth would be cheaper, and would also work better.
As said by several earlier posters, these ideas are all unworkable. So is yours. It needs to be reviewed by Physicists and Engineers, not just Architects.
As a senior Architect once told me, "This years contest winner is next years eyesore." People who live in the structure just want a building that works. That's why most commercial buildings on earth are basic boxes.
Yes, I am an Engineer (PE). Function is more important than form. That is why form follows function. A shattered glass dome means a dead colony. water or no water. Function
3 Meters will stop a cannon shot. It's been demonstrated here on earth. For a really big object, nothing will stop it. On the Moon or here on earth, same difference. That's why we don't have any dinosaurs.
In one word, MINING. Most of the industry will eventually be located in free orbit, as you infer. But, industry needs materials, metals, glass, ceramics, etc. These are cheapest to get from the Moon. it has a small gravity well, negligible atmosphere, and lots of rocks. the workers and residents on the Moon will be miners and their families. Maybe a few scientists, but mostly miners and support personnel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLong term, they will import most food from orbit. It's a question of sunlight really. Nights on the Moon are 2 weeks long. So are days. A glass agricultural dome there would have to have a lot of insulation, or else it would boil the water by sunset. It would also need a lot of heating and lighting to allow any plants to survive the night. Very few plants will survive being in a dark cabinet for 2 weeks.
The competition specified the South Pole as a location though many entries ignored that. It matters, since at that site there is nearly continuous sunlight- not a 14 week dark period. It is coming from all different directions on different days, but a reflective tower much like a periscope can track the sun and bring light into the greenhouses more than 95% of the time. Further, the specifications assumed that one would use grow lights underground and called for massive electrical capacity for that reason. I avoided that requirement by tracking the Sun, but no, you do not have to grow food in orbit due to the long night.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I did have to do, dug into the side of a crater was arrange to reflect light back from the other side of the crater 19 km away to keep the base lit when it would have been in the shadows, yet stay in the area that was lit at least half the time, since the base of the crater was perpetually dark, and thus a likely source of water ice.
Opps- that is 14 day- not 14 week- dark period. Sorry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy solution seemed to be very much along Lunatuna's line of thinking. If the lunar habitat was situated at the south pole (as the competition guidelines suggested), this polar location would presumably receive more or less continuous sunlight as the sun moves horizontally across the moon's horizon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too provided a periscopic rotating sun tracker that would follow the sun's path along the moon's horizon. I proposed a circular solar array mounted on a low / no-friction mag-lev ring that would rotate to follow the sun's path; part of the horizontal light energy could be reflected and focused downward onto a matrix of fixed vertical light tubes located within the diameter of the suntracker ring, which would extend down through the 3 m of protective regolith to illuminate sub-grade greenhouses with natural light (and thus greatly reducing the need for artificial illumination in these key areas).
The rotating solar array could also include photovoltaics (or the 2069 equivalent) mounted on the array to provide the primary supply of electricity for the habitat. Each light tube could have a series of internal filters and adjustable apertures (or opacity settings) to control the quality of light and to adjust the intensity of natural lighting to the below grade areas in order to simulate diurnal and nocturnal Earth conditions within the habitat's public areas (since human comfort was supposedly one of the prime considerations in this competition). In select locations within the greenhouses, the light tubes serving those areas could be adjusted accordingly to optimize the level and length of lighting for a specific species of plant. My goal was to make the habitat as self-sustaining as possible and to maximize the use of the continuous solar exposure.
I also located my subgrade habitat along the inside edge of a crater to provide horizontal exterior views out from the living areas to provide inhabitants with the occasional "earth view" to avoid inhabitants going stir crazy in a windowless underground bunker for extended periods of time.
It's too bad the competition organizer's website doesn't allow for comments and this kind of discussion. I would be very interested in seeing all the great ideas that were generated from this competition.
Can we taste or eat moondust. Has anybody tried. Is it a good growing medium with appropriate fertiliser.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt might have unique or unheard of properties - not being a part of natural evolution as we know it.
What does it do when wet and haw do plants seeds and living organisms interact with it - do they assimilate with it or does it evolve unique ecosystems?
Peter reynolds
reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
What is moondust cement like?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMoondust might be very reactive given the right ingredients because of its sharp edges and high surface area.
Does it exhibit self assemly?
In what way does it interact with magnetic and electrical fields?
Can it be synethised into a magnetic fluid which can be assembled with magnetic or electric fields gathered from charge within the lunar environment. Can the temperature difference between the dark side and the sunny side be harnessed artificially by pipes made of thin films>
Could one create artificial weather using this technique of transporting heat from hot to cold etc.
Why not use a space mirror to light the dark side for exploration purposes and maybe warm it up a bit.
peter reynolds
reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
Perhaps moondust holds untold properties for the manufacture of new types of artifacts not to mention produce unique buildings in the inert microgravity of the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt would preumably be very easy to sinter and perhaps has low melting micro components which can be liquified using solar furnaces to produce strong and light micro and nano composite structures supportive of life.
Peter Reynolds
reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
And is there a large charge difference in places between substrata and surface, the surface being continually bombarded by the solar wind and UV giving rise to free radicals and charged species.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould this be tapped. Is there a surface current flow between the light and darke side.
Reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
peter reynolds
would there be any advantage to building extremely high towers to escape gravity - so obviating the need for fuel.
reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
peter reynolds
Here's a link to some design which includes lunar material. Walls can be 3 meters thick.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://masonrydesign.blogspot.com/2010/05/et-dome-home.html
Thanks - thats very interesting - however it seems a bit speculative. My interest is more to do with the fact that the moon lacks weather or physical erosion mechanisms. It is reported that native moondust has very sharp edges to individual grains. I was wondering why these haven't naturally sintered together or cold welded into a solid perhaps porous mass given the lack of contiminants. Is it because of electrostatic charges resultant from irradiation of the surface.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf so it appears that there is an inbuilt energy source for the possible self-assembly of materials harnessing such charge.
Also it would be very interesting if there were any low melting point components a linar material which could act as matrix for a micro or nano crystalline filler material.
So the energy requirement for melting of such using the sun would be minimal and allow for rapid processing.
Given the perhaps unique 4 billion year evolved environment of the moon and the lack of any weathering of lunar dust. Could one process this material in novel ways e.g. by mechanical means - such as grinding it attritionally into a composite material with carefully designed properties.
There would be a lot of scope for creativity in design for materials scientists and engineers. This would I think make the moon a commercially sound investment. A unique manufacturing environment with a unique supply of raw materials.
Peter Reynolds
Reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
Peter Reynolds
I was thinking that if the rockets that went there were made of microfibrous materials such as carbon fiber - then these could be recycled on the moon into unique materials which might resemble bone. The fibers being reinforcement for sintered ceramic like matrices. Perhaps such might be catalytically active allowing materials to multi task or perhaps even be the basis for the evolotion of a whole ecology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps we could breath life into the moon itself.
Peter Reynolds
Reflectogemesis@hotmail.co.uk
One could use a carbon fibre matix and use naturally occurring charge to produce currents and fields which cause the self assembly of structures upon this carbon skeleton. One only needs to look at the the space suits of the lunar astronauts to see that moondust sticks to anything spontaneously. Once stripped of this charge which might serve to keep indidual grains separate on the moons surface - such grains would spontaneously self assemble given the appropiate nano or microscale skeleton to crystallize or instantiate such self assembly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSurely this is a profoundly exciting prospect.
Let the gold rush begin!!!!!!!!!
Peter reynolds
reflectogenesis@hotmail.co.uk
If one were to provide a sufficiently fine carbon fibre mesh - then perhaps any such propensity for moon dust to self assemble on it might be compounded by and utilised to focus light macro and microscopically to -self-weld structures together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd perhaps harness sunlight to generate naturally occurring fiberoptics which can be harnessed to produce self generating structures.
A kind of inorganic life. So seeding life on the moon.
Reflectigenesis@hotmail.co.uk
peter reynolds
Make self evolving lasers and tap the energy fromthe sun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA workshop for the earth.
Moon's regolith is plentiful of helium-3. It is a promising fusion fuel to power spacecrafts and lunar cities via aneutronic reactors.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ScAHXN_kAY
Being a semi-retired visionary designer, I would like to share some designs I did for future polar cities here on Earth and I imagine they would work even better on the moon. Deng Cheng-hong in Taiwan did the architectural drawings for me, based on my sketches, and they can be seen at any google search for "polar cities" -- these are safe refuges for climate refugees in the far away year of 2500 or so. Just visionary stuff. No need to take them seriously now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs an engineer, I appreciate both the science and economics of mining. Mining the moon is technically difficult bec. there is no atmosphere. Where do you get oxygen to breathe, CO2 for plants and without plants, food to eat? From economic viewpoint, it doesn't make sense mining the moon bec. it's very expensive to bring thousands of tons of materials back to earth. How much does it cost per kg. payload a trip to the moon?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnless we completely deplete earth's resources. But that is the easier and more sensible solution. Conserve earth's resources by moderating consumption and recycling materials like metals, glass, etc. Btw, the world's mineral reserves are determined by economics not by technology. We have more potential reserves but they are not classified as reserves bec. they uneconomical to mine even if technically feasible.
As prices of materials increase and more cost effective technologies are developed, previously unclassified reserves will be mined. IMO, moon mining is quite farfetch.
If we will colonize another world in the far future, my bet is Mars not the moon. Mars has an atmosphere and more suitable for terraforming.
Btw, it puzzles me why this moon contest is run by architects not by scientists and engineers. It gives me the impression that this is more about aesthetics than serious science and technology.
I dis agree - I think the monn robably has unique materials and a unique manufacturing environment which can be made economic.. It was silly to give away most of the recovered surface as this could be used in prototype.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe next return to moon should focus on using native materials to manufacure novel product. Even if the engineering needs to be developed. The next thing we should send to the moon is ideas.
Btw, the potential reserves are located less than 3 kms deep in the continental crust. The crust is 30 to 50 kms thick. It does not yet include reserves deeper than 3 kms in continental crust and almost all of oceanic crust, which covers 70% of earth's surface area.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe have vast untapped mineral resources on earth to last for hundreds of years. And it is more economical and more technically feasible to mine this than to mine the moon. We may already colonize Mars before we deplete earth's resources.
The point of moon exploration should be to be able to react to the environment and the materials there in situe. As ideas are often found by accident. Going there with preconceived plans of what's achievable is not going to be as productive as discovery within the lunar environment itself.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlthough this sounds costly, it is more in keeping with the spirit of a new frontier.
The moon is a unique environment with unique resources and potential.
Per Ardua Ad Astra.
Perhaps Bill Gates would agree with you and donate $200 billion for a moon base. But if you go to Congress asking for $200 billion for a science project where you don't know yet what experiments to perform and what possible discoveries to make, it's moonshine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for moon mining, the cost of transporting a payload in the Space Shuttle is $60,000 per kg. excluding mining and refining costs. The cost of iron here on earth is 35 cents per kg. Nobody will buy products made of moon metals bec. they are too expensive.
I predict we will not mine the moon as long as we have cheap and abundant mineral resources on earth. Man has been mining earth for 40,000 yrs. Yet we have only mined and explored less than 1% of the earth's crust. There is enough resources to last over 1,000 yrs. and with recycling we can extend it indefinitely.
Its not just the material of the moon that might be useful but its atmosphere - or lack of of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a unique manufacturing environment, first as a self generating colony - perhaps exporting to earth the high tech stuff such as ultra strong and light materials - perhaps to make weapons which have such a high value on earth- or export spacecraft components - ultra strong and thermally 'novel' such as porous ceramics which are highly insulating. Likewise totally novel materials made fom the unique material of the lunar surface. Perhaps bioactive or catalytic or electro and magneto active or morphing etc. etc.
But you'd need to set up pilot plants to explore such possibilities first.
Produce fibreoptics that could be sold to other countries wishing to imhabit the moon. The chinese will beat the US to it.
And they will be selling moon toys to the US colonists if you are not careful.
Where else will china go with its new found wealth?
If its the one thing China undoubtedly has in abundance - its ideas. And they'll put them on the moon pretty soon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWouldn't surprise me if - given the moons atmosphere etc - it wouldn't be too difficult to turn it Red with the appropriate albeit simple technology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's no treaty to stop it.
I love your imagination. You could be a science fiction writer! Engineers like me get new ideas from science fiction. I wonder what elements found on the moon that does not exist on earth. Cheers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot elements - dust and rock formed from none weathering action such as occurs on earth. In a inert atmosphere. For 4billion years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy has it not cold welded into a solid mass given the lack of gaseous matter etc. What unique properties could it have for manufacture?
Very high surface area - low melting point elemental constituents.
We'd have trouble manufacturing it here on earth supposing even that we could.
High in silicates as a low melting point coherent binding material and ripe for using in composite materials based on carbon fiber or eben glass fibre. Perhaps hyper -fine glass fibre could easily be produced and used in a composite with a matrix of sintered silica and other element to add toughness. This is extremely realistic given the 'clean' environment and abundance of extremely fine grained glassy materials.
It would even be very easy to produce robotically and remotely from earth using focussed sunlight or small nuclear powered plant. But humans could sort it all out more easily to begin with and experiment with the right techniques and ingredients.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is the possibility of amazing composite materials marrying 4 billion years of earth's organic evolution with the alien material of the moon evolved through mechanical impact attrition in a low pressure gaseous environment continually bombarded by high energy plasmas and radiation. And who knows what else - until we get there and assess the situation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have long thought about establishing an easy, low-materials mass on the Moon. The concept is simply to provide essential immediate power set-up on arrival on the Moon in the first of a series of steps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt either pole, set up a cylinder of solar radiation collectors that will collect radiant energy on the Sun side as the Moon rotates. And on the opposite side of the cylinder, the reverse will take place, radiating to the cold of space. The energy is derived by the differential of the collector temperatures, Sun side to the space side. This obviates the 14-day cyclical temperature variation. The mass of such a scheme is lightweight for our Earth launched vehicle to transport.
The cylinder of collectors is not smooth. It should be as if fluted. The sheeting of collectors would be mounted on a polygon frame so the “fluted” collector is in plan-view triangular supported. The weight-mass of the frame should be light but strong enough to support the collector surfaces. In that the fluted collector will be quite rigid, certainly in the vertical, parallel to the center axis, the frame mostly is to stabilize a rotational collapsing tendency. I understand there is very little atmosphere for which – no significant wind load needs to be designed.
The circumference velocity difference of the Moon, pole to equator, is very small compared to the tangential velocity of the Moon about Earth. This suggests launching the return to Earth would make little difference on the fuel needed to return if the return-launch is from the Moon’s pole.
Please consider this as a sincere and off-the-cuff proposal.
The physical condition on the moon is easy to replicate in laboratories here on earth - the vacuum, temp., pressure, plasma, radiation, etc. The chemistry in producing exotic materials is the same on the moon, on earth or in other planets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnlike the sun where we still cannot replicate its intense gravity and pressure, that's why we still don't have commercial nuclear fusion.
@soaralone1
A cylindrical solar thermal power generator the size of the diameter of the moon. That sounds like a device from H2G2 series.
Well, well. I had not envisioned anything like a radiation surface encompassing the Moon. I do not have the ready information on the Sun radiant energy received and that radiated energy to space. The “off-the-cuff” idea is the cylinder might be 10 to 20 meters in diameter and 10 or so meters high.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInitially the cylinder would be on scaffolding that can be later added to raise the cylinder high enough to not be in the shadow of a much larger diameter cylinder constructed farther out from the pole of the Moon. The design details of the second cylinder would incorporate any changes the first smaller cylinder found advantageous and minimizes the adverse findings.
The “off-the-cuff” idea continues with the first cylinder being covered over the top with a lightweight thermal barrier to fend off the interior radiating to cold space. I do not believe the space within the small cylinder would be heated by mechanical means. Rather, it would provide a temperature difference from the outside cold that will allow some shedding of the bulky space suits necessary to work on the Moon, much like a relaxation and restoration area.
I recognize there will be much more than these energy collection facilities. I am just not including them these off-the-cuff suggestions.
Yes but there is the small matter of 4 billion years exposure to the varying solar wind in conditions of micro and macro impact with a changing gaseous envonment. Is there anywhere on earth where uneroded silicates with sharp edges have existed in such an electro active environment for so long?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy haven't such particulates cold welded into a solid mass - given that they stick to everything that went to the moon. Presumably they have clean uncontaminated surfaces - so there is nothing to stop them adhering to each other.
I think these are the unique properties we should attempt to harness in-situ on the moon.
We have the technology to take advantage of these physical characteristics. They would be very expensive to replicate on earth even suppose we could do it. These materials are there to be exploited by the right technologies but we need the ideas there - in situ to take advantage of them.
I do agree with you that most of the city will have to be built underground, however some parts will have to be built above ground. The asteroids could be destroyed by advanced targeting systems run by a "super-computer" or perhaps an AI if they are perfected by then. Anyway, good job pointing out those flaws...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishow about testing nuclear bombs on the moon?! lol
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI might remind readers that one purpose of the space shuttles and space station were to lift parts to be assembled in orbit. We never built a vehicle there, have no intentions of doing so, and now we have lost the shuttles, and have no heavy launch capabilities. We have lost the knowledge to build HL motors and have attempted to reverse engineer parts from NASA junk yards. No nation on Earth has sent humans through the radiation belt, with the exception of the US lunar missions, which some individuals doubt, because it has not been duplicated, even with far superior technology compared to the 1960's. I wonder how we could build a base camp on the moon to travel to Mars, when we can't get from the ISS to the moon with humans on board.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving said that, it is great to imagine a lunar colony and building it. I wonder if lunar dust or rock has any binders like cement, or limestone, or sand. If so, concrete would be far less energy intensive than melting sand for glass.
And I wonder, if classified nuclear reactors have a good record on submarines then would it translate into a space based application? I am wholly against nuclear reactor proliferation here in the US, but this may qualify as a reasonable exception, if weight issues could be worked out.
I would locate a reasonably sized creator near one of the two points of lunar axis. Build a pumped in concrete-like lining for the floor, and supports of lunar concrete for a roof of glass from melted sand, which BTW, is very heavy. Or alternatively, a roof of concrete that would be then covered with three feet of lunar soil.Old ships had deck prisms that could be built into the roof.
All and all, aside from the feat of getting humans there, you would need water for the concrete, oxygen for the construction, and have to minimize the energy requirements both for construction and the energy per person during and after construction.
Glass and concrete are too heavy to carry to the moon, and energy from solar cells would be insufficient to do any real construction. Most every little bobcat-like machine runs on gas/diesel and requires air for combustion. We would need one to work on electric. We would need lighter, more powerful batteries. So this lunar dream may depend on electric automobiles becoming both popular and effective.
Cheers!
Orient,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is a group of WPI students going over the entries to this ShiftBoston lunar base contest and from the way that you describe your entry I think that they identified yours as of the the 3 most interesting ones and suitable for a technical feasibility and elegance award. I would like to put you in touch with them. Contact me at jmwilkes@wpi.edu