PDA

View Full Version : colonization and space hotels



g99
2002-Oct-27, 06:22 PM
Which planet or moon, with our current technology is the most feasible to set up a permanent base of operations with a sustainable permanent population? I am not talking about a full city or breeding comunity. I am talking about a self sustainable sysstem with food, air, water, ect. If you were selected to go would you?

Also i have heard alot about space hotels made out of different materials. Is it feasible?


http://www.spacefuture.com/tourism/hotels.shtml
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/293366.stm
http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-tourism1.htm

g99
2002-Oct-27, 06:23 PM
perswonally i think that the moon is the most feasible base for something other than earth with todays technology. It is the closest and probobly the cheapest to resupply with technology and personell. And i would definitely go without a second thought. It would be a dream come true to go into space.

Lisa
2002-Oct-27, 07:13 PM
And the weather is a little dodgier on Mars. Kinda hard to set up a tee time when planet wide 200mph winds are predicted.

And I think we'll see orbiting before anything on the moon anyway. I take that back...replace "we'll see" with "there will be".

Superstring
2002-Oct-27, 07:43 PM
I'd say the moon...simply because it is the closest. Thus it would cost much less and IMO the moon would be a great place for our first step, followed by more extreme bodies such as Mars or even asteroids.

g99
2002-Oct-27, 08:13 PM
but is ther p[rofitable materials on either mars or the moon? Like mining.Is there a way to mine materials cheaper on mars of the moon than on earth. Would the retun on investment be better?

GrapesOfWrath
2002-Oct-27, 08:22 PM
On 2002-10-27 13:22, g99 wrote:
Which planet or moon, with our current technology is the most feasible to set up a permanent base of operations with a sustainable permanent population?
Current technology? That'd be the Earth, then, right?

Seriously, only the space station and the moon have reasonable possibilities for regular supply lines, right now. But I expect that something about Mars will soon come to light that makes it top priority, and technology will pursue it.

Atko
2002-Oct-27, 10:33 PM
On 2002-10-27 15:13, g99 wrote:
but is ther p[rofitable materials on either mars or the moon? Like mining.Is there a way to mine materials cheaper on mars of the moon than on earth. Would the retun on investment be better?


I'm gonna cheat and suggest an answer from a copy of a post I made on another board -

"I got to thinking about the current situation regarding another Moon exploration program. The big carrot at the moment is the apparent abundance of helium 3 on the Moon's surface - estimates put this currently at about a million tons (sounds like a serious guesstimate to me, but what the heck). This stuff's worth about $4 billion per ton, and is potentially one of the best fuel sources for fusion reaction currently available. I guess we have to wait for the development of viable fusion reactors before everyone starts scrabbling for a piece of the cake. I understand that we're talking decades before a city will be powered by such a device, but some impressive results have been achieved by the UKAEA (http://www.fusion.org.uk/), and we can but hope that earlier discovery of industrial applications will have the fatcats reaching for their wallets to fund new Lunar exploration programs."

gbaikie
2002-Oct-28, 12:32 AM
On 2002-10-27 15:13, g99 wrote:
but is there profitable materials on either mars or the moon? Like mining.Is there a way to mine materials cheaper on mars of the moon than on earth. Would the return on investment be better?


The Moon could a have minable water. Water can be turned into LH&LOX and used as rocket fuel or portable supply of electrical energy.
Water is relatively easy to mine and would have value. It's possible that there is trillion of dollars worth of water on the Moon. There would need to be about 100 billion worth to make mining it viable- say it cost less than 50 billion dollars to mine a 1/2 million tons of water (billion lbs at $100 per lb). This wouldn't be spend 50 billion to setup some mining operation, 50 billion would be total cost of running the operation until a billion lbs were mined, so it would be more like spending 5 billion to setup operations, and spending more on infrastruction to increase quantity of water mined. Lunar water isn't something you would export to Earth, but by having rocket fuel, you can lower the cost of operating on the Moon, and increase the value of the land on the Moon. For exports, any lunar dirt has value on Earth, it's rare so it's current value is hideously expense ($3,000 per gram- if you can actually buy it), but even if the "world market" was "flooded" with say 10 tons of lunar dirt, it would still retain value- 10 tons worldwide is still pretty rare. It might instead of 3,000 it might lower to around $100 per gram (still higher price than gold). With a bit of intelligent marketing, you could probably sell larger quantities. Add in media rights and things like this and you might narrow the amount of red ink in first couple years of operation. There is possible deposits of Platinim Group Metals which could be found on the Moon- a couple million tons of these returned to Earth could increase lunar export. But main value is the water, and the resulting desirable location on the Moon. Having costs of getting to the Moon lowered, you also have govt projects such as large telescopes being built on the Moon- this acts as a "export" of information. And even though it cost less there's the income for the water miner and/or other producers on the Moon. One way to look at this is that a country gets richer by exporting, but in dollar amount gross revenue from export is tiny in comparison to entire country's economy. Same would apply to the Moon- it would need to export to be viable, but the export wouldn't neccesarily need to be raw material or even finished durable goods. Tourism is an example of a key revenue source for many countries. But in a ultimate sense, the Moon is a great place to mine resources on a mega scale, and in the distant future (several decades) be shipping lots of durable goods to Earth.

Kaptain K
2002-Oct-28, 06:03 AM
As for mining the Moon for export to Earth, there is nothing there (with the possible exception of He3) that would be worth the expense of going there. However, anything that can be mined on the Moon would be cheaper than importing it from Earth. Export from the Moon to the rest of the Solar System (including Earth orbit) would be cheaper from the Moon than from Earth. I think that the best that could be hoped for would be Lunar self- sufficiency, with maybe a slight surplus from tourism.

g99
2002-Oct-28, 06:38 AM
I agree with the whole he3 thing. That would definitely be worth it to go. But i disagree on the lunar rocks. Yes it would be a great short term investment, but i think in the long term it would become bland and not interesting anymore. Think Beeny Babies. For several years thew rocks will be imensely profitable, but then interest will teeter out and go to nuthting. I have seen the rocks in science centers and such, while really cool, they look just like rocks. I doubt that they will keep their profitablility for long. But the moon as a jumping off point ffor further solar system missions is where i think we will eventually go to. I'm thinking on the lines of a rest stop.

Another matter. Does anyone care? Will it really ever happen? Does todays populace and goverments really care about space anymore? Will they fund the projects.


Personally i think not. I think the way to go is private industry untill we can get space "cool" again.

Colt
2002-Oct-28, 05:14 PM
I want to go, if only to push mankind forward and into space. The spent fueltank spacestation is the most feasible for putting a cheap one in orbit.

The moon is probably the best, first, true step into the solar system.
Reposting from the TrekBBS Tech forum.

"A few possible ideas for construction of a base that I have thought up.

This is probably the most practical, using small craters as living/working space on the moon. You would clear out the crater of most of it's dust and basically put a cap on the top of it (with solar panels on that?) and pump it with atmophere. You could interconnect the craters by small underground tunnels. Of course you would need to find the right craters to do this.
(I might have sketches of this up on my website soon..)

Second, creating cement. There is water there and the proper materials for making the stuff, why not put it into use in building what would basically be concrete "bunkers" on the surface that people could live in. This would also work with covering over craters and then putting a smooth, cement floor down.

Third, fusing dust to make bricks. You could set up solar arrays to create power and use the energy to fuse the materials there into bricks and other parts that you might need.

This is theoretical of course, it would take work to figure out exactly how to make it work. I think we can do it. -Colt"

Most of that is just ideas. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif -Colt

_________________
"Munitions happy freak of nature that will be the first one against the wall when the revolution comes." -SocialMUX
http://www.geocities.com/wandererofthewastes/Main.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Colt on 2002-10-28 12:15 ]</font>

Smaug
2002-Oct-29, 12:41 AM
This reminds me of Cowboy Bebop. They had many cities on many different bodies. The coolest(I think) were the cities on asteroids. This is a great idea. I know that this is not going to happen any time soon. However it is very economical. A great use of space /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Glutomoto
2002-Oct-29, 10:01 AM
On 2002-10-27 19:32, gbaikie wrote:

The Moon could a have minable water. Water can be turned into LH&LOX and used as rocket fuel or portable supply of electrical energy.



Might be faster and cheaper to, skip the electolysis, and use the water/ice as the propellent for A steam rocket (http://www.neofuel.com/moonice1000/).
Another steam rocket (http://www.neofuel.com/moonicerocket/)
Last on the list, Steam rockets and asteroids (http://www.permanent.com/t-steam.htm)



Yet another reason that nuclear reactors will be needed in space.

daver
2002-Oct-29, 08:51 PM
> ... steam rockets ... <

Interesting idea. I didn't see any thrust:weight estimates, it looks like it might just barely be adequate for Mars. This is the first low Isp nuclear drive proposal i've seen.

Colt
2002-Oct-30, 01:20 AM
On 2002-10-28 19:41, Smaug wrote:
This reminds me of Cowboy Bebop. They had many cities on many different bodies. The coolest(I think) were the cities on asteroids. This is a great idea. I know that this is not going to happen any time soon. However it is very economical. A great use of space /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif


Sounds like the Sakharov(sp?) And Muon drive from the Odyssey series, written by Clarke. I think it is called a "plasma fusion drive", it basically heats up a liquid and shoves it out the back. Mark me if I am wrong though. -Colt

daver
2002-Oct-30, 02:11 AM
> Sounds like the Sakharov(sp?) And Muon drive from the Odyssey series, written by Clarke. I think it is called a "plasma fusion drive", it basically heats up a liquid and shoves it out the back <

I'll have to look up the stats--i only read the first book. For the second, did they move Discovery back to Jupiter or did they still need to rendezvous at Saturn? I don't think you're going to be able to do much better than Hohmann for a steam rocket, which means about 5 years to Jupiter (maybe less if you care to bounce off Venus and Earth a few times).

They're going to have to do better than this if they expect to open up the asteroid belt to them pesky belters (it's got some nice features--outside of the atomic pile, the rocket is simple enough to work on with a pipe wrench, which is compatible with the grizzled prospector type, but the travel times are just too long).

Colt
2002-Oct-30, 06:55 AM
In the second book, and the rest, everyone ignores them going to "Saturn" in the first book, after that it is all Jupiter, same with the first movie. In the third book, 2061, one of the ships can get from inside the orbits of Mercury/Venus to Jupiter in a weeks time. Of course they are going really damn fast. Here we go..

2010: Odyssey two
"By the time they had left the chamber, Floyd had learned more about the
Sakharov Drive than he really wished to know, or expected to remember. He
was well acquainted with its basic principles - the use of a pulsed
thermonuclear reaction to heat and expel virtually any propellant material.
The best results were obtained with pure hydrogen as a working fluid, but
that was excessively bulky and difficult to store over long periods of
time. Methane and ammonia were acceptable alternatives; even water could be
used, though with considerably poorer efficiency."

This sounds alot like your "steam rocket" and any liquid would work. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif The Muon drive is just a more advanced, better version of it. -Colt

Glutomoto
2002-Oct-30, 07:31 AM
On 2002-10-29 21:11, daver wrote:
> I don't think you're going to be able to do much better than Hohmann for a steam rocket, which means about 5 years to Jupiter (maybe less if you care to bounce off Venus and Earth a few times).

They're going to have to do better than this if they expect to open up the asteroid belt to them pesky belters (it's got some nice features--outside of the atomic pile, the rocket is simple enough to work on with a pipe wrench, which is compatible with the grizzled prospector type, but the travel times are just too long).


Steam Rockets slow but steady, so i guess if your solitude is more important than how fast you made your profit, this is the rocket for you. Sounds like a monastic pursuit, maybe the shaolins would be interested in a new monastary actually in heaven. This slow profit idea is not unlike many extended families, you just have to be rich to get started with this one. As someone mentioned earlier information is a product, so the time spent getting there could be used for astronomical studies. You could probably sell you story as some kind of real t.v. event.

Peter B
2002-Oct-30, 07:45 AM
On 2002-10-28 12:14, Colt wrote:
The spent fueltank spacestation is the most feasible for putting a cheap one in orbit.


How does this idea work. I'd've thought that a spent fuel tank would be a pretty yucky sort of place to spend your time in space. And how do connect fuel tanks together so that you can go from one to the next, without compromising the original design of the tank?

Glutomoto
2002-Oct-30, 07:54 AM
On 2002-10-27 13:22, g99 wrote:
Which planet or moon.


I think our own familiar moon, and h3ll yes I would go, even if all they needed was a bartender at the Luxor Luna.



On 2002-10-28 12:14, Colt wrote:
about few possible ideas for construction of a base,


I like the covered and connected craters. I guess that concrete (lunacrete regocrete) and glass would be the lunar building materials to perfect. Imagine glass panels as think as armour plating to make dome structures, the thickness would help to cut solar UVa radiation.

g99
2002-Oct-30, 03:28 PM
On 2002-10-30 02:45, Peter B wrote:


On 2002-10-28 12:14, Colt wrote:
The spent fueltank spacestation is the most feasible for putting a cheap one in orbit.


How does this idea work. I'd've thought that a spent fuel tank would be a pretty yucky sort of place to spend your time in space. And how do connect fuel tanks together so that you can go from one to the next, without compromising the original design of the tank?


But it would make a great deisgn. It is already air tight, and all you have to do is send someone up there to bleed out the rest of the fuel, cut a hole and attach a tube, and there you go!!! Simple, (well a little more complicated than that, but i can get some artistic licencing with this.) cheap, and we already have the part.
I mean don't we just throw them away after each mission anyways? That is why they are orange, we don't bother to paint them right? So why not use them for a real purpose.

Colt
2002-Oct-30, 04:50 PM
^ What he said, and I think the orange color has something to do with an anti-oxidizer. The original tanks were painted white, to match the shuttle.

As for fuel left in the tank, it would have boiled away into space by the time you retreived the tank. There would need to be some custom sections of the station for life support or you could convert some of them to hold the equipment. All of these ideas show one that is in a ring, rotating. You would not need to do this, you could simply hook them together and put in a few support girders and let them just float in orbit, like the ISS does.

I have always thought the covered-crater idea was interesting since you would only need to bring the roofing and perhaps some excavation equipment for leveling out the base of the crater, etc. I will get around to sketching my idea of it out but I am lazy, sick today so might be there soon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif *coughs pitifully into his hand* See? I am sick. -Colt

Colt
2002-Oct-30, 04:52 PM
Oh yeah, where would I create a thread to discuss the design of a spaceship on here, a fairly realistic one? General Astronomy? -Colt

daver
2002-Oct-30, 07:34 PM
> I have always thought the covered-crater idea was interesting since you would only need to bring the roofing and perhaps some excavation equipment for leveling out the base of the crater, etc. <

I assume you're going to pump the inside up to at least 10 psi, probably 15 psi. If i haven't slipped up (pretty likely, considering) your roof is going to have to be about 25 meters thick to hold down the atmosphere. That ought to be fairly good radiation and meteorite protection, although you might want to go for a bit thicker roof for an added safety factor.

Obviously this isn't the only way to do things--the glass could be quite a bit thinner and under tension. Under this scenario a puncture might cause the dome to pop like a balloon (i don't know. I imagine you could put a stiffening web inside the glass to give it better tensile strength, and a steel grid under it for support during construction or if it did evacuate).

Regardless, that's a lot of glass. Multiply it by ten thousand square meters or however big your crater is. Worry about thermal stress from day-night cycles. Worry about big punctures letting the air out and having your roof collapse from lack of support (the air inside was providing most of the support). Worry about lack of air-tight compartments. Worry about hermetic seals around the edges. Oh. And worry about where you're going to get all the nitrogen to fill the unused volume inside your crater.

I think it might end up quite a bit cheaper to form large tubes in the bottom of a crater, cover them with twenty meters or so of regolith rubble, and then pump air into the tubes. Not nearly so picturesque, though.

Peter B
2002-Oct-30, 11:01 PM
On 2002-10-30 10:28, g99 wrote:
But it would make a great deisgn. It is already air tight, and all you have to do is send someone up there to bleed out the rest of the fuel, cut a hole and attach a tube, and there you go!!! Simple, (well a little more complicated than that, but i can get some artistic licencing with this.) cheap, and we already have the part.
I mean don't we just throw them away after each mission anyways? That is why they are orange, we don't bother to paint them right? So why not use them for a real purpose.

My problem is this.

We're in the process of building the ISS. The separate parts of the ISS are constructed with incredible precision to ensure they stay together without any leakage of air.

Yet now we're going to cut holes in used fuel tanks and slot some sort of adapter into the holes, and the joins are going to be as secure as they are on the ISS?

Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds like the difference between a car built on a production line and one modified in the backyard by an amateur.

g99
2002-Oct-30, 11:46 PM
On 2002-10-30 18:01, Peter B wrote:
My problem is this.

We're in the process of building the ISS. The separate parts of the ISS are constructed with incredible precision to ensure they stay together without any leakage of air.

Yet now we're going to cut holes in used fuel tanks and slot some sort of adapter into the holes, and the joins are going to be as secure as they are on the ISS?

Forgive my skepticism, but it sounds like the difference between a car built on a production line and one modified in the backyard by an amateur.


Very good point. but untill more advance equipment can be brought up to seal it permanenetly after we have the final station put together all you need is positive pressure and a zero leak seal. We have lost of compounds that can seal with no leaks and creating a positive seal is easy. The the internal pressure will keep the ship together. all you have to do is, stop up leaks really quickly untill you get a better fit.

or maybe do it a better way. work from the other way around. Fit the segment on there and attach it firmly. Then cut a hole inside the segment. That way you don't have to worry about presure loss.

g99
2002-Oct-30, 11:49 PM
How about somnething very simple. A giant bubble. Make a giant sphere out of plastic and fill it with the equipment neede. It is inherantly stable and airtight since it is one piece. It can be brought up in segemnts or made in space in special ships. You can make them as big as you want (as long as you have the material.) Also you can build in a inherant flexability into the skin to absorb the impact of a low relative velocity object (like a satelite or another ship).

Zathras
2002-Oct-30, 11:53 PM
On 2002-10-30 18:49, g99 wrote:
How about somnething very simple. A giant bubble. Make a giant sphere out of plastic and fill it with the equipment neede. It is inherantly stable and airtight since it is one piece. It can be brought up in segemnts or made in space in special ships. You can make them as big as you want (as long as you have the material.) Also you can build in a inherant flexability into the skin to absorb the impact of a low relative velocity object (like a satelite or another ship).



I don't think this would work. The problem is that the atmospheric pressure outside the bubble would be almost zero, while the pressure inside would be about 1 atmosphere. That's way too much of a pressure gradient for the plastic to withstand, unless you made the plastic so thick that it wouldn't really be a bubble anymore. It would just pop open.

overrated
2002-Oct-31, 12:15 AM
First of all, let me say I would be first in line to do something like this. It's just too much of an adventure--a unique, groundbreaking experience--to pass up.

And the moon. It's close. Could we manufacture some sort of automated factory that would soft-land on the moon and build a small habitat from lunar material? Subsequent missions could bring human workers and devices for, say, efficient extraction of water (or recycling of water).

Hotel Luna, here we come.

g99
2002-Oct-31, 01:12 AM
about the whole land in a crater and dome it up tye colony. How porous is lunar rock? i know on the surface it is sometimes a find powder and inside a crater it should be very smooth and melted. But over time dust must have traveled in there due to gravity changes from earth, the sun, ect.

I am jut wondering because that would pose a serious leak problem if we did build this dome if all the air leaked out from the rock. Most rock on earth are relatively porus. So unless we bring a hek of alot of clay or some liner how are going to keep it from leaking?

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 02:04 AM
This is where the concrete would come in, you would coat the sides of it in dense concrete to help stop the leakage. Or use the process of melting the lunar material into glass to coat the sides might work..

About the crater radiation. I have two ideas for what could co on top of the roof of the crater.
One is that you could cover it with a layer of regolith to give it added protection and help stop the heat from penetrating into the habitat.
Second, You could cover the top of it in solar panels to help power it, or as an emergency power source. I am about go put my sketch of it up on my website so I will post when it is. -Colt

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 05:33 AM
Here it is, http://www.geocities.com/wandererofthewastes/lunarsketch.jpg sketch of the lunar crater base. If you plan on looking at it many times, please save it to your computer and do it there; GeoCities does not take kindly to use of bandwidth. Thanks.

BTW, if any of you want a more drawn out version with straight lines, readable labels, etc. Just post, I am probably going to do one anyway. -Colt

Glutomoto
2002-Oct-31, 06:13 AM
On 2002-10-30 14:34, daver wrote:
> I have always thought the covered-crater idea was interesting since you would only need to bring the roofing and perhaps some excavation equipment for leveling out the base of the crater, etc. <

I assume you're going to pump the inside up to at least 10 psi, probably 15 psi. If i haven't slipped up (pretty likely, considering) your roof is going to have to be about 25 meters thick to hold down the atmosphere. That ought to be fairly good radiation and meteorite protection, although you might want to go for a bit thicker roof for an added safety factor.

Obviously this isn't the only way to do things--the glass could be quite a bit thinner and under tension. Under this scenario a puncture might cause the dome to pop like a balloon (i don't know. I imagine you could put a stiffening web inside the glass to give it better tensile strength, and a steel grid under it for support during construction or if it did evacuate).

Regardless, that's a lot of glass. Multiply it by ten thousand square meters or however big your crater is. Worry about thermal stress from day-night cycles. Worry about big punctures letting the air out and having your roof collapse from lack of support (the air inside was providing most of the support). Worry about lack of air-tight compartments. Worry about hermetic seals around the edges. Oh. And worry about where you're going to get all the nitrogen to fill the unused volume inside your crater.

I think it might end up quite a bit cheaper to form large tubes in the bottom of a crater, cover them with twenty meters or so of regolith rubble, and then pump air into the tubes. Not nearly so picturesque, though.



ok ok, so we will just have to live like moles, forget the skylight.

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 07:37 AM
"25 meters thick "... Did you mean to say "meters" or millimeters? -Colt

g99
2002-Oct-31, 01:22 PM
it does not take a whole lot to keep in 1 atm of pressure. Just look at scuba tanks, they are not 25 m thick and they keep air under alot hight pressure than 1 atm (atmosphere). I doubt that it would take that much energy. Just look at our buildings, you have one atm of pressure p;pushing down on most of our sea level buildings and they seem to do fine, so i think the reverse won't really be a problem.

Colt
2002-Oct-31, 08:42 PM
Glad to know I wouldn't have to ship 25x100M pieces of steel to the moon. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif I am just now (at school, where I am now, not doing work..) drawing a more "polished" version of that sketch. I will scan it in when I get home. -Colt

Zathras
2002-Oct-31, 08:49 PM
On 2002-10-31 08:22, g99 wrote:
it does not take a whole lot to keep in 1 atm of pressure. Just look at scuba tanks, they are not 25 m thick and they keep air under alot hight pressure than 1 atm (atmosphere). I doubt that it would take that much energy. Just look at our buildings, you have one atm of pressure p;pushing down on most of our sea level buildings and they seem to do fine, so i think the reverse won't really be a problem.



The difference for the scuba tanks is that they are made of steel, which a lot stronger than the plastic that could be used for a bubble format. If they were made of such a plastic, they would just crumple up. Also, the air tanks are pressurized to much greater than 1 atm. It is not the value of the pressure that matters--it is the difference between the inside and outside pressure.

Similarly the reason why it is not a problem for buildings is that the difference between indoor and outdoor pressure is fairly small. On the moon, however, you will have the difference between 1 atm and 0 atm, which is a lot less negligble.

g99
2002-Oct-31, 11:24 PM
On 2002-10-31 15:49, Zathras wrote:
The difference for the scuba tanks is that they are made of steel, which a lot stronger than the plastic that could be used for a bubble format. If they were made of such a plastic, they would just crumple up. Also, the air tanks are pressurized to much greater than 1 atm. It is not the value of the pressure that matters--it is the difference between the inside and outside pressure.

Similarly the reason why it is not a problem for buildings is that the difference between indoor and outdoor pressure is fairly small. On the moon, however, you will have the difference between 1 atm and 0 atm, which is a lot less negligble.


Very true on all points. Also one thing that i did not think about which would really kill my craft is long term exposure to radiation. I don't know about the properties of plastic, but i highly doubt that it will reduce incoming radiation. I konw that it is not significant, but it would build up over a long time. What does iss do to stop this? or are they close enought to earth so that the trailing edges of the atmosphere protects them?

daver
2002-Nov-01, 12:11 AM
> "25 meters thick "... Did you mean to say "meters" or millimeters? -Colt <

I meant meters--not for the tensile strength, but for the sheer weight. There's a lot of atmospheric pressure from underneath pushing up on the glass. You'll need to counteract that somehow. You could obviously blow a big glass bubble (half a km in diameter, or however big you want your base) and bury it in your crater. But all of a sudden you've lost the advantage of building in a crater--you have to do a lot of excavating. You can build a big steel buckydome and attach it to the ground at several points with cables and fit in the glass panes and fill it up with air. But nothing about this is quick or cheap. But it's kind of amusing--pillars to hold the roof down, not hold it up.

You might eventually get domed cities on the moon, but i think it'll have to wait until lunar civilization is pretty far advanced.

Colt
2002-Nov-01, 06:36 AM
g99, you seem to have lost me somewhere along the way. What ship are you talking about? -Colt

Colt
2002-Nov-01, 06:53 AM
I finally remembered where I saw the original picture for the crater base. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/lunar_base.html On the right, third one down. Looks more like a tent stuck over a ditch though. I am not sure if it isn't supposed to be just a dug out spot with fabric over it to protect it from direct sunlight.. -Colt

g99
2002-Nov-03, 02:26 AM
On 2002-11-01 01:36, Colt wrote:
g99, you seem to have lost me somewhere along the way. What ship are you talking about? -Colt



Sorry, i'm talking about the plastic bubble idea. My mind is very spradic. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif

Colt
2002-Nov-03, 10:59 PM
Ah, don't worry about it. /phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif As for radiation interacting with plastic.. It might start to melt over time, or it could just become more brittle. There are many different types of plastic. -Colt