Author Topic: Lunar Development Architecture  (Read 1462 times)

Offline DougSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Lunar Development Architecture
« on: 11/16/2017 09:00 PM »
A new website: SpaceDevelopment.org describes a proposed architecture for the development of a cost-effective transportation system to the Moon.  It proposes the use of public-private programs, the use of near-term vehicles such as the Falcon Hravy and Xeus lander, and the telerobotic harvesting of lunar polar ice for propellant.  It also describes a unique approach to habitation with a large, flat-roofed inflatable UniHab that telerobots could cover with regolith prior to crew arrival.  It goes on to describe a scenario for the initial crew with emphasis on remarkable public engagement such as the crew of eight being able to speak to 70% of the world in their languages and even what dance in 1/6th gravity might be like.  It also describes the three phases for how the development would be paid for ending up with a transition to pure market-based support.

So, what do y'all think of the SpaceDevelopment.org architecture?

Online lamontagne

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Liked: 1473
  • Likes Given: 236
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #1 on: 11/19/2017 09:37 PM »
Seems a bit speculative, and perhaps not all that new?

I Like the hab.  Centrifuge seems a little small?  As long as using it for sedentary activities, why not use it for sleeping, in a single 8 hour shift?

Have they calculated spinning up and spinning down the hab?  And figured out a way of supporting and extending it?  It might be a fairly energy expensive proposition.  But I agree its perhaps essential for long term stay.

There should be a precursor installation for the centrifuge at the ISS or simply in some accessible orbit.  Its scandalous that we don't have this data yet.

Rather than power transmission, I would go for batteries and charging stations from the sunlit peaks to the fields of ice.  As long as a few useful hours of work are possible for each charge, this would probably be the simplest solution.  Might have a truck with extra batteries carrying a number of worker telerobots.

Are there small hydrogen oxygen thrusters that have been developed for the lander?

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #2 on: 11/20/2017 02:34 PM »
I would like to point out that sleeping in gravity is not the best use. Staying in bed is a convenient way to simulate effects of microgravity on the body here on earth. Other uses like taking a shower, exercising, using the toilet would be more helpful.

Offline DreamyPickle

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 148
  • Home
  • Liked: 62
  • Likes Given: 15
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #3 on: 11/20/2017 02:58 PM »
I don't see many numbers on that website so it doesn't seem very credible.

The unihab apparently has a 36 meter diameter but is delivered "as a singular cargo module by a Xeus lander", which has a 10 ton maximum payload. With a ceiling height of only 2 meters it would be similar in volume to the BA2100, a habitat with a more mass-optimized shaped which is estimated at 70 tons.

There are no mass and power estimates for the 15 meter centrifuge, this element would be extremely difficult to fit and mostly useless. For the first missions you could just use crew rotations similar to Mir and ISS, there is no good reason to believe that 1/6g would be worse than 0g.

Online the_other_Doug

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2503
  • Minneapolis, MN
  • Liked: 1532
  • Likes Given: 2718
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #4 on: 11/20/2017 06:44 PM »
I don't see many numbers on that website so it doesn't seem very credible.

The unihab apparently has a 36 meter diameter but is delivered "as a singular cargo module by a Xeus lander", which has a 10 ton maximum payload. With a ceiling height of only 2 meters it would be similar in volume to the BA2100, a habitat with a more mass-optimized shaped which is estimated at 70 tons.

There are no mass and power estimates for the 15 meter centrifuge, this element would be extremely difficult to fit and mostly useless. For the first missions you could just use crew rotations similar to Mir and ISS, there is no good reason to believe that 1/6g would be worse than 0g.

In fact, there is some small evidence that 1/6 G is much better than zero G.  While the timeframes and sample sizes are so small as to make Apollo experience hard to interpret, there were several of the 12 moonwalkers who experienced varying degrees of SAS while outbound to the Moon, and whose symptoms disappeared once they were on the lunar surface, and standing around in a G-field.  Some Apollo crewmen reported everything from "stomach awareness" to outright nausea for the entire time they were in zero G, as well as sinus complaints, which went away completely while they were on the surface.

A much larger sample size, and much longer exposure time, are needed to make any definite statements.  But there is at least a small amount of hope that the human organism will respond to low-G environments exactly as it does to one-G, and only the zero-G environment has any significant amount of physiological impact...
-Doug  (With my shield, not yet upon it)

Offline DougSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #5 on: 11/22/2017 09:42 PM »
lamontagne,

> why not use it for sleeping, in a single 8 hour shift?

With the centrifuge turning at 11 RPMs, and unconscious turning of the head would induce nausea and disorientation possibly awakening the crew member.  So, the head would need to be strapped down but that could be uncomfortable and itself interfere with sleep.  Also, the distribution of hydrostatic pressure distribution wouldn't be much different between laying down in 1/6th gee and full gee because the column of body fluid isn't that tall.

> spinning up and spinning down the hab?

This would be way more complicated than a centrifuge within the hab.

> precursor installation for the centrifuge at the ISS

Artificial gravity data isn't needed until it's needed.  With the Moon only three days away, crew can return essentially at any time.  So the data probably isn't needed until we get around to having a human pregnancy.  So, an initial crew would have plenty of time to conduct animal studies using the indoor centrifuge that they already have for their own health.

> small hydrogen oxygen thrusters

XCOR has developed such thrusters and that technology might now be purchased for pennies on the dollar:

http://bit.ly/2A0vm3s

Offline DougSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #6 on: 11/22/2017 09:58 PM »
DreamyPickle,

> it would be similar in volume to the BA2100

The huge difference is that the BA2100 needs a micrometeorite orbital debris (MMOD) layer whereas the UniHab, covered by regolith would not.  The MMOD is easily the most massive layer.  Also, much of the internal equipment could be shipped separately and then installed.  It is harder to place & keep regolith on a cylindrical shape and how does one put floors in a cylinder while keeping the mass to a minimum?

> this element would be extremely difficult to fit

The centrifuge could be shipped in parts and designed to be easily assembled within the hab.

https://dragonplate.com/images/photos/truss/TrussTest-web.jpg

> For the first missions you could just use crew rotations

Crew rotations cost a lot and they subject crew (and program) to substantial risk.  Also, crew going for a visit is significantly less historic than couples moving off-Earth for an extended period if not indefinitely.  This approach gives a decision-maker such as VP Pence a historically-significant reason to support lunar development.

Offline DougSpace

  • Member
  • Posts: 32
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #7 on: 11/22/2017 10:03 PM »
the_other_Doug,

> the human organism will respond to low-G environments exactly as it does to one-G

Unfortunately, there's other evidence to suggest that, at least for osteoporosis, partial gravity is insufficient:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774184/

Offline guckyfan

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6419
  • Germany
  • Liked: 1612
  • Likes Given: 1433
Re: Lunar Development Architecture
« Reply #8 on: 11/25/2017 02:00 PM »
There are a number of different aspects  to the data discussed.

Low gravity unsurprisingly leads to reduced muscle build and bone development. That can be counteracted by specific training, we know from the experience in the ISS.

The moon experience by Astronauts points to blood circulation related problems being much reduced or eliminated even by very low gravity, which is very encouraging, given they can not be counteracted as efficiently by training.

Tags: