Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Moon Base

  1. #1 Moon Base 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    There's talks of a moon base in the news.

    One of the major obstacles (besides the basics of putting cargo in earth orbit in a more economical way) appears to be the massive radiation a lunar base will be exposed to, a problem any mission outside the earths magnetosphere faces...

    ...Does anyone have a link to an article on the subject of radiation on the moon, and does anyone have information on whether building a mostly subterrenean base would protect personel living in an underground lunar base?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    id
    id is offline
    Forum Freshman id's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    18
    Maybe these might help a little:

    http://www.space.com/businesstechnol...ed_050112.html
    http://www.universetoday.com/am/publ...tive_moon.html
    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2...activemoon.htm

    I imagine that building a subterranean base would reduce (but doubtfully eliminate) the radiation risks.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3 Re: Moon Base 
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    There's talks of a moon base in the news.

    One of the major obstacles (besides the basics of putting cargo in earth orbit in a more economical way) appears to be the massive radiation a lunar base will be exposed to, a problem any mission outside the earths magnetosphere faces...

    ...Does anyone have a link to an article on the subject of radiation on the moon, and does anyone have information on whether building a mostly subterrenean base would protect personel living in an underground lunar base?
    WIthout going to any links..

    moonbase - Location North or South Pole - Reasons (as I see it) :-

    1 possible water.
    2 permanent sunshine [elswhere 14 day dark 14 day night...]
    3 since much [but by no means all] space junk orbits in or near the ecliptic plane, building the base in the bottom of a large crater [at the pole] will reduce impact hazard - as well as solar radiation.

    From this you will see the search is on for a high point on a crater rim always bathed in sunlight where the base is always 'sunless'- there are several places I understand.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by id
    I imagine that building a subterranean base would reduce (but doubtfully eliminate) the radiation risks.
    I am puzzled as to why you think a subterranean base could not eliminate (for all practical purposes) the radiation level. I have no doubts that I would be exposed to less radiation in a properly designed moon base than I currently enjoy in my 35cm thick, granite walled house.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    materials are available to construct safe domes. from cold heat or radiation. the advantage of above or below ground would seem to fall under cost.

    its my understanding there are no radio waves on the side of the moon away from earth and conducive for telescope efficiency. i also wonder if night or no direct sunlight is the same there as on earth? i know its cold, but protective gear outside a work station would be required under any condition.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    materials are available to construct safe domes.
    I hope you are right but it appears NASA is not aware of such materials. Cosmic radiation are very penetrating and you need a material that is either very light or that can be produced from common soil already on the moon.

    If you come about a link that describes these materials I would be happy to read more about them. :wink:
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by icewendigo
    materials are available to construct safe domes.
    I hope you are right but it appears NASA is not aware of such materials. Cosmic radiation are very penetrating and you need a material that is either very light or that can be produced from common soil already on the moon.

    If you come about a link that describes these materials I would be happy to read more about them. :wink:
    surely you know the astronauts that were on the moon or those that do space walks are/were protected. even those in the space station or on shuttles have additional protections. no one is suggesting these station will be manned for years at a time or you may have a point. we don't know long range effects even with protective gear or craft.

    light weight to get out of earths gravity has always been a problem. once out and on the moon you talking very light weight, no matter what.

    i listened to a NASA head yesterday and sensed the program was far from finalized.

    a little thing on making things from dirt; nano tech is working very hard on just that idea both for private programs and the military. projected advances are expected with in 10 years.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard icewendigo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,151
    surely you know the astronauts that were on the moon or those that do space walks are/were protected. even those in the space station or on shuttles have additional protections.
    From what I understand, the space station and shuttle orbit within the earths magnetic protection which deflects most of the most dangerous radiation. As for the previous moon mission apparently they got lucky, which could not be counted on for stays of extented duration.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    It better be manned for years at a time!! In any case, hard radiation from space is simply another problem that has to be solved. I'm quite sure that the moonbase designers are fully aware of what needs to be done.

    My concern with this mission is that Nasa are still really stuck in the Anti-Russian Space Race mentality. They are planning a series of 4-man missions. We sent three men to the Moon because we needed to get there and back quickly. Everything was pared down to the bone, and the final design of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous requiring two men to go down in a small module so they could walk around on the surface and blast back up, was only one of several mission designs they could have used.

    If you're going to build a moon base, you need to throw out all those old pre-conceptions about just getting a small team on the surface. It is indeed just about all you could get onto the moon from a direct trip from the Earth's surface to the Moon's. But if you're not tied to going from surface to surface, then you can think about a real team, and a large effort. Arthur C. Clarke designed a moon mission (that involved international cooperation, and three ships: one American; one Russian; and one British!) Total complement, something like one hundred men. And the mission was launched from a space station that you could actually use as a spaceship factory and launch platform. Kim Stanley Robinson also thought of Mars exploration and exploitation in terms of sending a hundred people (Red Mars, etc).

    In my view we can go to the moon properly by 2030, or we can piddle around with four man teams by 2020. Even so, I don't see it happening in that short a time. On current schedules it will have taken 12 years to build the ISS, after 14 years of planning that - total 26 years, or over a quarter of a century, for what is presumably meant to be only the first permanently manned orbital space station. As far as I can work out, the only thing they will be able to do on the ISS is laboratory experimentation!
    "It is comparatively easy to make clever guesses; indeed there are theorems, like 'Goldbach's Theorem' which have never been proved and which any fool could have guessed." G.H. Hardy, Fourier Series, 1943
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •