Report: Solutions for Construction of a Lunar Base (Starship as base structure)

[wheedude]

I don't see a point in tipping over a starship to create a permanent habitat.  I do however see value in salvaging engines in this manner.  Could be useful if you find a recently landed Starship has an engine anomaly torn fuel line or something.

I think it would be easier to de-engine (and re-engine) a Starship the way they do it on Earth: with the Starship vertical on a stand.  For that, you ship to the moon and assemble the lunar equivalent of an LR11000 crawler crane -- which would have a lot of other uses.

Kind of what I'm saying... definitely would need some sort of crane or pad lift setup eventually either way.  While a fresh engine would be best, salvaged spares (and their plumbing/mounts/literal nuts and bolts) still have value. 

[kevindbaker2863]

Since  HLS  is going to send a test flight to the moon anyway and could use a payload? maybe these guys (ICON)https://www.iconbuild.com/technology/space would want to create an automated system to build a habitat that fits inside the HLS?  with enough resin to mix with lunar regolith to get a test of the system? then NASA would pay them to build habitats that were proven to work.  they build product get a free ride and everyone wins?

[daveklingler]

I can see the advantage of using expendable landers in this way but to do the same with a reusable lander before it is end of life seems foolish.

Just land your base in multiple 100 ton loads until the lander is worn out, then this might be a good idea.

There's a factory in Boca Chica producing lunar and orbital habs at the rate of about one a month.  Kudos to SpaceX for cleverly making sure the design doubles as a rocket.

Seriously, when it's relatively straightforward to build a big enclosed space by leaving a rocket on the lunar surface, why not?  What would you propose be done with those multiple 100t (or 200t) loads? 

Remember, if you set out to design a purpose-built hab from scratch, it will most likely not be mass-produced or optimized in any other way for cost or speed of fabrication.  How many years would it take for NASA to issue an RFP for a hab (presumably that fits aboard a Starship), then review proposals, then fund a few, then weather the ensuing protests, then finally launch the thing? 

In the mean time, Starship Canolunis (my preferred name) could be completed and functional.

Admittedly, if we find a likely-looking lava tube, we may need to have some future class do a design study on sealing it off and designing an airlock for it, as that could be even easier.

[kevindbaker2863]

I can see the advantage of using expendable landers in this way but to do the same with a reusable lander before it is end of life seems foolish.

Just land your base in multiple 100 ton loads until the lander is worn out, then this might be a good idea.

There's a factory in Boca Chica producing lunar and orbital habs at the rate of about one a month.  Kudos to SpaceX for cleverly making sure the design doubles as a rocket.

Seriously, when it's relatively straightforward to build a big enclosed space by leaving a rocket on the lunar surface, why not?  What would you propose be done with those multiple 100t (or 200t) loads? 

Remember, if you set out to design a purpose-built hab from scratch, it will most likely not be mass-produced or optimized in any other way for cost or speed of fabrication.  How many years would it take for NASA to issue an RFP for a hab (presumably that fits aboard a Starship), then review proposals, then fund a few, then weather the ensuing protests, then finally launch the thing? 

In the mean time, Starship Canolunis (my preferred name) could be completed and functional.

Admittedly, if we find a likely-looking lava tube, we may need to have some future class do a design study on sealing it off and designing an airlock for it, as that could be even easier.

looks like you could fit 2 of these in a SS and have lots of room to spare?  https://www.aispacefactory.com/marsha

[Ionmars]

Moon base 10-30—21

To see why a lunar or Mars base proposal might include Starship shells (cargo sections and propellant tanks) , it may be helpful to review the components of base construction.

1. Habitats will be pressurized enclosures, usually in round shapes that emulate pressurized containers on Earth. Globes or cylinders with rounded ends are efficient for this purpose.

2. Habitats will require protection from solar and galactic radiation and meteorites. This will usually entail ground cover or underground construction.

3. A base or colony will encompass a variety of structures used as homes and workplaces with earth-like air pressure and temperature control.

4. Habs will include airlocks for access to and from the exterior surface.

5. For efficient operation, habs should be interconnected with hallways that contain the same air environment as habs. This avoids frequent use of airlocks where much time would be consumed donning and un-donning spacesuits.

Using these basic principles, it is natural to consider SS shells as base components to fill some of these requirements at low cost. A landed starship with pressurized crew space is already a habitat. A landed starship with pressurized cargo space can be unloaded and reused as habitat volume. Also, each SS provides ready-made tanks for storing cryogenic liquids.

ISTM these metal cylinders may also be as hallways.

Before you go crazy, please consider that these lightweight cylinders lying in horizontal position would not be employed as structures by themselves,  but as frameworks for constructing chambers around them. One would begin by pushing loose regolith under the bottom side of the cylinder and compressing it into place. If necessary,  a small amount of epoxy resin could be mixed with regolith to ensure hardness (or water if the site is shaded). Regolith fill consisting of sand and rock would be built up along the sides and compacted, then continued over the top of the cylinder. The object is to build a self-supporting structure with an interior steel shell to provide the pressurized volume. Additional framework inside the cylinder would provide support for floors and walls.

However, if you love Starship for its tall beautiful shape alone, then no engineering requirement will justify its placement in horizontal position.

Edit: spelling

[Ludus]

Since  HLS  is going to send a test flight to the moon anyway and could use a payload? maybe these guys (ICON)https://www.iconbuild.com/technology/space would want to create an automated system to build a habitat that fits inside the HLS?  with enough resin to mix with lunar regolith to get a test of the system? then NASA would pay them to build habitats that were proven to work.  they build product get a free ride and everyone wins?

I could be wrong, but based on commercial crew contracts I think after fulfilling the Artemis contract requirements to land on the moon once, SpaceX will own both fully reusable Artemis Starships outright and they will form part of a lunar transport infrastructure along with the Dear Moon Starship and the established refilling capacity using cargo/tanker Starships.

NASA controls whatever is on them the first time and can do as it pleases but is unlikely to further complicate the missions.

Since SpaceX plans to keep making Starships in quantity, it makes sense that a permanent base proposal like this would involve ordering several more Starship variants built to these design specs.

Systems for making structures out of regolith based concrete would likely be added in at some point since this design requires shaping regolith around airlock entrances and of course at launch and landing pads. If they worked well they’d have clear use as the base grows.

[Ludus]

When asked about laying down Starship on its side on the Moon, Elon tweeted "no". Why do people keep going back to this harebrained idea?

The question was answered in regard to the normal landing of Starship on the moon, and as Elon tweeted it does not make any sense.
This proposal is about the cheapest way, to build a large moon station with enough radiation shielding by digging it in.
I would judge not exactly the same use case.

No, it was not.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1298452372704894979

That’s a pretty unambiguous answer, but it’s still not obvious what the reasons are. Elon’s thinking on a lot of things has evolved over time.

Do you think the basis is structural, that Starship is just not designed to handle loads horizontally for use like this, even in Lunar gravity? That tinkering with this is not worth the effort required?

[punder]

Older renderings of Starship on its way to Mars showed a fan-shaped solar array near the base. I’ve wondered where this array is stowed; I think it will require a long, narrow aerocover along the leeward side.

Anyways. Lunar Starships could deploy this array for the cruise to the Moon, stow it for landing, then deploy it again—permanently—after landing.

So each permanent “hab” Starship brings its own power as a matter of course, eliminating or at least decreasing the need for arrays carried as cargo that must be unshipped, transported, erected and cabled.

Just a thought.

Edit, heh. Completely forgot the wraparound array on the LS nose. NEVERMIND!

[AC in NC]

That’s a pretty unambiguous answer, but it’s still not obvious what the reasons are. Elon’s thinking on a lot of things has evolved over time.

Do you think the basis is structural, that Starship is just not designed to handle loads horizontally for use like this, even in Lunar gravity? That tinkering with this is not worth the effort required?

Basically "Yes" to the bolded question.  The question posed to Elon cannot be answered as unequivocally as he did because SS clearly "would" be able to lay down given sufficient effort and adaptation. 

Truthful interpretations of what he meant by "No" are:

1)  "No, Not AS-IS. It would require adaptation" 
2)  "No, are you insane?  The notion is specious.  The amount of work would be off-the-charts not worth it"

Assuming the Questioner meant (1) seems sort of Strawman-ish, so I think (2) is what he meant.

Personally, I think people improperly handwave away and totally underestimate how difficult and time-consuming it will be to accomplish things like this off-earth for a long, long time.

[Alberto-Girardi]

When asked about laying down Starship on its side on the Moon, Elon tweeted "no". Why do people keep going back to this harebrained idea?

The question was answered in regard to the normal landing of Starship on the moon, and as Elon tweeted it does not make any sense.
This proposal is about the cheapest way, to build a large moon station with enough radiation shielding by digging it in.
I would judge not exactly the same use case.

No, it was not.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1298452372704894979

That’s a pretty unambiguous answer, but it’s still not obvious what the reasons are. Elon’s thinking on a lot of things has evolved over time.

Do you think the basis is structural, that Starship is just not designed to handle loads horizontally for use like this, even in Lunar gravity? That tinkering with this is not worth the effort required?

I would like a lot to see SS used to construc a lunar base, but I think that Elon response wasn't a joke, and knowing how Spacex is innovtive the answer makes me quite sure that they won't do that. But the final word isn't said.

[Ionmars]

When asked about laying down Starship on its side on the Moon, Elon tweeted "no". Why do people keep going back to this harebrained idea?

The question was answered in regard to the normal landing of Starship on the moon, and as Elon tweeted it does not make any sense.
This proposal is about the cheapest way, to build a large moon station with enough radiation shielding by digging it in.
I would judge not exactly the same use case.

No, it was not.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1298452372704894979

That’s a pretty unambiguous answer, but it’s still not obvious what the reasons are. Elon’s thinking on a lot of things has evolved over time.

Do you think the basis is structural, that Starship is just not designed to handle loads horizontally for use like this, even in Lunar gravity? That tinkering with this is not worth the effort required?

I believe Elon will eventually reconsider because there is a strong argument for employing SS hulls in the pioneering stages of a new base..

[AstroWare]

When asked about laying down Starship on its side on the Moon, Elon tweeted "no". Why do people keep going back to this harebrained idea?

The question was answered in regard to the normal landing of Starship on the moon, and as Elon tweeted it does not make any sense.
This proposal is about the cheapest way, to build a large moon station with enough radiation shielding by digging it in.
I would judge not exactly the same use case.

No, it was not.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1298452372704894979

That’s a pretty unambiguous answer, but it’s still not obvious what the reasons are. Elon’s thinking on a lot of things has evolved over time.

Do you think the basis is structural, that Starship is just not designed to handle loads horizontally for use like this, even in Lunar gravity? That tinkering with this is not worth the effort required?

I believe Elon will eventually reconsider because there is a strong argument for employing SS hulls in the pioneering stages of a new base..

I think most of the objections are to putting a starship HORIZONTAL. Not that suppose can't be used for long periods of time on the surface as part of a base.

From an engineering and logistics perspective, It's more than just tinkering. I think that was why Elon responded the way he did.

From a more fundamental perspective, why? I think you (and others) are trying to find reasons that bases should be made of horizontal cylinders. There are plenty of advantages to keeping the ships vertical besides structural.

Sent from my Pixel 5a using Tapatalk

[Okie_Steve]

Here is an off the wall question. If we hand wave that ballooning the tanks will prevent buckling and collapse, how much oomph would the RCS need to:

1) Tip Starship over

2) Limit the angular momentum to something "safe"

 

Edit - Tongue well out in cheek since I actually agree with the previous post. Why mess with curved floors etc in a gravity well?

[AC in NC]

Just tip the Starship over, then have the astronauts from the Blue Origin Lander transit over to a Starship horizontally. 

This solves a lot of issues for both HLS concepts.  Especially the ladder issue with the Blue Origin HLS Lander as well as the tip over/vertical stability issue with the Starship.

Centuries from now, this will be another site as marvelous as the ancient pyramids.

"Just [fill in the blank]" is almost always a major, major red flag. 

I can't help but think you are joking with this nonsense.  Look at what you did:  You "solved" arguably non-existent (or easily solvable) issues with something super challenging with extraordinarily limited benefit.

[volker2020]

There are 3 basic questions:

a) Has a horizontal cylinder advantages over a vertical one?
The answer is a clear yes. You can dig it in much easier to give radiation shielding, and you don't need lifts to enter.

b) Would it be possible, to bring a Starship into horizontal orientation?
Again, the answer is a clear yes. With a minimal adapted Starship (Having some hardpoints, worst case some structural reinforcements and suitable winches on the ground, it is clearly possible.

c) Is it easier to use a dig in horizontal Starship, than build the base using other prefabricated parts, or let is stay vertically?
Tougher question. That clearly depends on the radiation protection that you envisage. If you claim that  a standard Spaceship has enough protection for a long term stay, why spend time with it. If not I assume that it would be easier to create a base using a salvaged Starship. For sure that is no question, that you can easily solve with a No, so I doubt that this was, what Elon had in mind, when he gave that answer. But what I totally agree with, would be saying, that bringing Starship horizontally will never be standard procedure.

[tenkendojo]

There are 3 basic questions:

a) Has a horizontal cylinder advantages over a vertical one?
The answer is a clear yes. You can dig it in much easier to give radiation shielding, and you don't need lifts to enter.

Based on current scientific evidence concerning radiation risks for human missions on the lunar surface, I do not share this widespread impulse towards horizontality and "bury under rocks/regolith" approach to lunar surface base design.

We have very interesting results from the Germany's Lunar Lander Neutron and Dosimetry (LND) onboard the Chang'e 4 lander, which measures simulated equivalent of hourly radiation exposure of human in EVA suit on lunar surface. See here for the published study: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11214-020-00725-3?sharing_token=yM0G6YRGkeahID9_CL-LV_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4KW2Ew4jw801Oflt5mNq37bh9zawC-7RQo2hqPn4gELrSWmoHiMETDQYVkdzno21dJkw4BY4ZYsMtodj7Wd3bvfoTEGYVJ1wYUOP6VLT6jZcCph1NK9Dq3i8hrt8Lrcsg%3D

So based on data from the LND instruments, we have calculated the 'equivalent dose' of an astronaut working on the lunar surface to be about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. Note that this number reflects the per hour exposure approximation while working outside with protection of the EVA suit only. This number is only about 5-8 times higher than the radiation exposure we get from a transatlantic flight. At 60 microsieverts per hour, an astronaut could spend almost two years, just with EVA suit level radiation protection, on the lunar surface before violating the current lifetime exposure limit. That's why I think the actual radiation risks for lunar surface base do not warrant horizontal and buried habitat architecture.

[AC in NC]

"Just [fill in the blank]" is almost always a major, major red flag. 

I have to admit, I don't know how all of these habitats and rovers arrive in the conceptss over the ages (by November 2029).  Somehow, they just reorient from a vertical lander into the horizontal configuration.

Because they are "conceptions" which is basically synonymous with "fiction".  Go back and figure out how they reorient and you'll have the answer to why "just" is so disingenuous.

[livingjw]

If water is available on the Moon, a water wall on a vertical Lunar Starship might be easier. If there isn't any water mining going on, I doubt we will have a large permanent base.

John

[volker2020]

There are 3 basic questions:

a) Has a horizontal cylinder advantages over a vertical one?
The answer is a clear yes. You can dig it in much easier to give radiation shielding, and you don't need lifts to enter.

Based on current scientific evidence concerning radiation risks for human missions on the lunar surface, I do not share this widespread impulse towards horizontality and "bury under rocks/regolith" approach to lunar surface base design.

We have very interesting results from the Germany's Lunar Lander Neutron and Dosimetry (LND) onboard the Chang'e 4 lander, which measures simulated equivalent of hourly radiation exposure of human in EVA suit on lunar surface. See here for the published study: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11214-020-00725-3?sharing_token=yM0G6YRGkeahID9_CL-LV_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4KW2Ew4jw801Oflt5mNq37bh9zawC-7RQo2hqPn4gELrSWmoHiMETDQYVkdzno21dJkw4BY4ZYsMtodj7Wd3bvfoTEGYVJ1wYUOP6VLT6jZcCph1NK9Dq3i8hrt8Lrcsg%3D

So based on data from the LND instruments, we have calculated the 'equivalent dose' of an astronaut working on the lunar surface to be about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. Note that this number reflects the per hour exposure approximation while working outside with protection of the EVA suit only. This number is only about 5-8 times higher than the radiation exposure we get from a transatlantic flight. At 60 microsieverts per hour, an astronaut could spend almost two years, just with EVA suit level radiation protection, on the lunar surface before violating the current lifetime exposure limit. That's why I think the actual radiation risks for lunar surface base do not warrant horizontal and buried habitat architecture.

One of the authors did come to another conclusion:
from https://phys.org/news/2020-09-moon.html:

Astronauts would get 200 to 1,000 times more radiation on the moon than what we experience on Earth—or five to 10 times more than passengers on a trans-Atlantic airline flight, noted Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber of Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany.

"The difference is, however, that we're not on such a flight for as long as astronauts would be when they're exploring the moon," Wimmer-Schweingruber said in an email.

Cancer is the primary risk.

"Humans are not really made for these radiation levels and should protect themselves when on the moon," he added.

[tenkendojo]

There are 3 basic questions:

a) Has a horizontal cylinder advantages over a vertical one?
The answer is a clear yes. You can dig it in much easier to give radiation shielding, and you don't need lifts to enter.

Based on current scientific evidence concerning radiation risks for human missions on the lunar surface, I do not share this widespread impulse towards horizontality and "bury under rocks/regolith" approach to lunar surface base design.

We have very interesting results from the Germany's Lunar Lander Neutron and Dosimetry (LND) onboard the Chang'e 4 lander, which measures simulated equivalent of hourly radiation exposure of human in EVA suit on lunar surface. See here for the published study: https://link.springer.com/epdf/10.1007/s11214-020-00725-3?sharing_token=yM0G6YRGkeahID9_CL-LV_e4RwlQNchNByi7wbcMAY4KW2Ew4jw801Oflt5mNq37bh9zawC-7RQo2hqPn4gELrSWmoHiMETDQYVkdzno21dJkw4BY4ZYsMtodj7Wd3bvfoTEGYVJ1wYUOP6VLT6jZcCph1NK9Dq3i8hrt8Lrcsg%3D

So based on data from the LND instruments, we have calculated the 'equivalent dose' of an astronaut working on the lunar surface to be about 60 microsieverts of radiation per hour. Note that this number reflects the per hour exposure approximation while working outside with protection of the EVA suit only. This number is only about 5-8 times higher than the radiation exposure we get from a transatlantic flight. At 60 microsieverts per hour, an astronaut could spend almost two years, just with EVA suit level radiation protection, on the lunar surface before violating the current lifetime exposure limit. That's why I think the actual radiation risks for lunar surface base do not warrant horizontal and buried habitat architecture.

One of the authors did come to another conclusion:
from https://phys.org/news/2020-09-moon.html:

Astronauts would get 200 to 1,000 times more radiation on the moon than what we experience on Earth—or five to 10 times more than passengers on a trans-Atlantic airline flight, noted Robert Wimmer-Schweingruber of Christian-Albrechts University in Kiel, Germany.

"The difference is, however, that we're not on such a flight for as long as astronauts would be when they're exploring the moon," Wimmer-Schweingruber said in an email.

Cancer is the primary risk.

"Humans are not really made for these radiation levels and should protect themselves when on the moon," he added.

I am not suggesting radiation isn't considered a risk, but our unserstanding of radiation risk must placed in a proper context: what is the nature and function of lunar base? How long should an astronaut expect to stay on the moon for a typical mission to the lunar base? Would the base be more similar to a scientific outpost with a small rotating crew or are we talking about a lunar colony with permanent inhabitants? I agree for permanent lunar colony we absolutely need buried/underground habitats for long term radiation shielding. But we have a long way to go, if ever, to build any permanently inhabitanted lunar colony.

 So for a more realistic lunar base, how long should we expect a typical stay be? Probably from a few months to up to a year maybe, possibly a little longer for exceptional cases. Like I said before, the radiation level would allow most astronauts to work on lunar surface for up to two years without significant health risks. That is more than sufficient in this realistic mission context. If we are letting astronauts to remain on the lunar base for longer than two years, I would be more worried about serious health risks from long exposure to low gravity environment than radiation. Again context matters.