Surface Habitats on the Moon

[Kiwi53]

See below:

Jared Isaacman clarifies "establish an enduring presence" aka the "permanent lunar outpost" in the EO means a lunar base:

Elon Musk replied "awesome":

The cynic in me thinks that Elon Musk would be entirely happy for NASA to be fully busy developing a Moon base, leaving him to go about his Mars colonisation business without the distractions of US Government / NASA involvement.

[Paul451]

establishing initial elements of

Weasel words are weaselling, weaselly.

[yg1968]

establishing initial elements of

Weasel words are weaselling, weaselly.

True but at the same time, the lunar surface habitat isn't planned until Artemis VIII, so starting the funding for the lunar surface habitat within the next few years would be a win. As of now, there is only plans for a lunar surface habitat provided by the Italian Space Agency but no funding for a U.S. habitat within NASA's budget. I don't think that the Italian Space Agency is very far along in funding their habitat either. Hopefully, the announcement in the executive order means that there will be funding for a lunar surface habitat in NASA's FY27 Budget.

[DanClemmensen]

establishing initial elements of

Weasel words are weaselling, weaselly.

True but at the same time, the lunar surface habitat isn't planned until Artemis VIII, so starting the funding for the lunar surface habitat within the next few years would be a win. As of now, there is only plans for a lunar surface habitat provided by the Italian Space Agency but no funding for them within NASA's budget. I don't think that the Italian Space Agency is very far along in funding their habitat either. Hopefully, the announcement in the executive order means that there will be funding for a lunar surface habitat in NASA's FY27 Budget.

I like the idea you had earlier of landing the uncrewed HLS Demo back on the surface and declaring that it is the initial elements of the habitat. This can be made more credible by adding a few things to the cargo.

The main problem with using an HLS as a habitat is that the living area is so far above the surface. We have seen several proposals to tilt the Ship but this is actually quite complicated. I now think that it would be easier to remove rings starting from below the garage and lower the top one ring section at a time, sort of like a tower crane lowers itself. One Optimus can do all the cutting and rigging and can take as long as needed: months or even years. To remove a segment, first add four or maybe six strong vertical stringers to the outside of the Ship, permanently welded to the garage and protruding downward to below the segment to be removed. weld ratchets to the top of the segment below the one to be removes and connect these via cables to the bottom the the stringers. and put the cables under tension. Now cut out the segment to be removed, and then use the ratchets to lower the payload by one segment. now move the ratchets down by one segment and repeat. Eventually, you have the garage on the surface with the habitat on top of it and a large pile of steel to use as building materials.

[rsdavis9]

establishing initial elements of

Weasel words are weaselling, weaselly.

True but at the same time, the lunar surface habitat isn't planned until Artemis VIII, so starting the funding for the lunar surface habitat within the next few years would be a win. As of now, there is only plans for a lunar surface habitat provided by the Italian Space Agency but no funding for them within NASA's budget. I don't think that the Italian Space Agency is very far along in funding their habitat either. Hopefully, the announcement in the executive order means that there will be funding for a lunar surface habitat in NASA's FY27 Budget.

I like the idea you had earlier of landing the uncrewed HLS Demo back on the surface and declaring that it is the initial elements of the habitat. This can be made more credible by adding a few things to the cargo.

The main problem with using an HLS as a habitat is that the living area is so far above the surface. We have seen several proposals to tilt the Ship but this is actually quite complicated. I now think that it would be easier to remove rings starting from below the garage and lower the top one ring section at a time, sort of like a tower crane lowers itself. One Optimus can do all the cutting and rigging and can take as long as needed: months or even years. To remove a segment, first add four or maybe six strong vertical stringers to the outside of the Ship, permanently welded to the garage and protruding downward to below the segment to be removed. weld ratchets to the top of the segment below the one to be removes and connect these via cables to the bottom the the stringers. and put the cables under tension. Now cut out the segment to be removed, and then use the ratchets to lower the payload by one segment. now move the ratchets down by one segment and repeat. Eventually, you have the garage on the surface with the habitat on top of it and a large pile of steel to use as building materials.

Sounds like the self raising tower cranes in reverse. Basically a cage around the thing and hydraulic cylinders.

[DanClemmensen]

establishing initial elements of

Weasel words are weaselling, weaselly.

True but at the same time, the lunar surface habitat isn't planned until Artemis VIII, so starting the funding for the lunar surface habitat within the next few years would be a win. As of now, there is only plans for a lunar surface habitat provided by the Italian Space Agency but no funding for them within NASA's budget. I don't think that the Italian Space Agency is very far along in funding their habitat either. Hopefully, the announcement in the executive order means that there will be funding for a lunar surface habitat in NASA's FY27 Budget.

I like the idea you had earlier of landing the uncrewed HLS Demo back on the surface and declaring that it is the initial elements of the habitat. This can be made more credible by adding a few things to the cargo.

The main problem with using an HLS as a habitat is that the living area is so far above the surface. We have seen several proposals to tilt the Ship but this is actually quite complicated. I now think that it would be easier to remove rings starting from below the garage and lower the top one ring section at a time, sort of like a tower crane lowers itself. One Optimus can do all the cutting and rigging and can take as long as needed: months or even years. To remove a segment, first add four or maybe six strong vertical stringers to the outside of the Ship, permanently welded to the garage and protruding downward to below the segment to be removed. weld ratchets to the top of the segment below the one to be removes and connect these via cables to the bottom the the stringers. and put the cables under tension. Now cut out the segment to be removed, and then use the ratchets to lower the payload by one segment. now move the ratchets down by one segment and repeat. Eventually, you have the garage on the surface with the habitat on top of it and a large pile of steel to use as building materials.

Sounds like the self raising tower cranes in reverse. Basically a cage around the thing and hydraulic cylinders.

Sort of a minimal version of that. The cage is just tall enough to enclose the section to be removed, and it uses cables and ratchets to lower the payload. It's a whole lot simpler and uses less mass than using cables to tilt the Ship.

[Paul451]

To remove a segment, first add four or maybe six strong vertical stringers to the outside of the Ship, permanently welded to the garage and protruding downward to below the segment to be removed. weld ratchets to the top of the segment below the one to be remove[d] [...]

Don't forget that HLS is already intended to have two rails permanently attached to its sides, running down the full length of the ship, for the two elevators. So SpaceX knows (or is assuming) that such external rails don't interfere with launch/landing.

[StraumliBlight]

Maybe it just should be landing on the side?

There's been numerous threads discussing landing horizontally, or rotating once landed:

The fascinating problem of starship landing -- No legs
Starship Moon Lander transition to horizontal
Report: Solutions for Construction of a Lunar Base (Starship as base structure)

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

Q: Would starship be able to lay down on the surface of moon / mars to make a permanent habitat if needed? Linear seems better than vertical for long term use.

A: No

[DanClemmensen]

To remove a segment, first add four or maybe six strong vertical stringers to the outside of the Ship, permanently welded to the garage and protruding downward to below the segment to be removed. weld ratchets to the top of the segment below the one to be remove[d] [...]

Don't forget that HLS is already intended to have two rails permanently attached to its sides, running down the full length of the ship, for the two elevators. So SpaceX knows (or is assuming) that such external rails don't interfere with launch/landing.

There is just the one elevator. Not needed, but maybe useful if rails are already there. I assumed the elevator crane could be used to lower pieces of stainless steel after they are cut up.

My concept is to have the Optimus cut the pieces it needs from the scrap it is salvaging, all carefully planned in advance, so no autonomy is needed. If the operation is done on 2-meter rings, then the lowering strakes do not need to be more than about four meters long, with the top meter welded to the big section being lowered and the bottom meter extending about a meter below the section being removed. The only pre-made pieces of the system that must be sent as cargo are the cables and ratchets, and the cables are only 3 meters long.

The big section to be lowered is probably less than 20 tons and it will be lowered very slowly using four (or six?) cables, in lunar gravity, so this is not a big mechanical challenge.

[dchenevert]

Q: Would starship be able to lay down on the surface of moon / mars to make a permanent habitat if needed? Linear seems better than vertical for long term use.

A: No

There is a long standing tradition of "hey let's build habitats out of empty fuel tanks". Shuttle external tanks are the OG for this.

IMO this approach fails the test of: "if the ships are so cheap, just send i-beams and plywood and build the d*#m building"
Not literally plywood, but, (a) a few shiploads of prefab beams and panels, (b) tools for welding etc.

The thing is, any work to turn a tank into a habitat will need a lot of (b), regardless.

How about: park the ship in LLO, and then salvage the heck out of it? scrape out the insides, add ports, add landing legs and a rocket system.
But, is this really cheaper than sending rolls of 4mm steel from starbase directly to the lunar surface?

Alternately, have Starbase build a hab using their starship factory, and launch it with a special-use launch system (Booster on the bottom, you-tell-me what 2nd and maybe 3rd stage makes sense).

[thespacecow]

Q: Would starship be able to lay down on the surface of moon / mars to make a permanent habitat if needed? Linear seems better than vertical for long term use.

A: No

Note this is from 5 years ago and he may have changed his mind since then.

The Mars plan has changed in the intervening years, previously they wanted to get ships back from Mars, but now planning to leave most of the ships at Mars to be used locally. If you look at the 2024 presentation, there's a slide showing rows of horizontal cylindrical habitats looking suspiciously like laid down Starship tank sections.

[MickQ]

As I understand it, the latest plan is to transport boosters and ships horizontally from BC to the Cape so one has to think that the vehicles are strong enough.  If they can handle Earth gravity lying down then 1/6G should not be a problem, especially when pressurised.

[Tywin]

module like LIFE from Sierra Space, and MaxSpace, are the future for Moon Base...

[Paul451]

As I understand it, the latest plan is to transport boosters and ships horizontally from BC to the Cape so one has to think that the vehicles are strong enough.  If they can handle Earth gravity lying down then 1/6G should not be a problem, especially when pressurised.

Yeah, but it's getting them on their side that is a pain. (Including the whole new load-paths that only exist during the tilting.) Especially for a lunar habitat which is intended to be available before there's a bunch of other infrastructure (like giant cranes.)

I suspect it would be cheaper/easier to land the hardware for an enclosed elevator capable of being installed down the side of a habitat-Starship, with both an EVA airlock at the bottom and a docking port there for pressurised rovers.

A crane only makes more sense when you are using many Starships as habitats (as in the Mars image), so send one-thing-used-many-times instead many-things-each-used-once.


The exception would be if SpaceX developed a version of the cargo Starship that had side-mounted landing thrusters, allowing direct horizontal landing. [Which would be super cool! Space1999 Eagle!!! w00t!!!!1! ...aaaand not something they'd do.]

[Paul451]

for the two elevators.

There is just the one elevator.

Redundant airlocks, redundant elevators. From their original HLS bid. Has that changed?

[DanClemmensen]

for the two elevators.

There is just the one elevator.

Redundant airlocks, redundant elevators. From their original HLS bid. Has that changed?

Sorry, but I have never seen a render or anything else showing more than one elevator, associated with a single large hatch on the side of the garage deck. The redundant airlocks both provide access from the interior space to the garage space. We have seen a mock-up of this in the neutral-buoyancy pool.

I could be wrong.

[321]

The exception would be if SpaceX developed a version of the cargo Starship that had side-mounted landing thrusters, allowing direct horizontal landing. [Which would be super cool! Space1999 Eagle!!! w00t!!!!1! ...aaaand not something they'd do.]

Why they will not?
Vertical Starship HLS is very impractical moon lander and only exist as ofshot of old Mars Starship concept.
If Starship HLS will need new landing thrusters and legs, why not to design them for side landing? If most Mars Starships will stay on Mars, why not do the same for them?

[CaptNemo53]

I like the concept, but doubt that the Starship structure could handle the stress without substantial strengthening for loads from that direction.  Just an opinion without any engineering analysis.

[DanClemmensen]

I like the concept, but doubt that the Starship structure could handle the stress without substantial strengthening for loads from that direction.  Just an opinion without any engineering analysis.

A standard Ship re-enters Earth's atmosphere with a deceleration of over 2 g in the lateral direction, so I don't think lateral stress is a big problem. There are lots of other problems, though.

Most obvious: the whole reason for separate landing thrusters is to avoid plume impingement. Mounting landing thrusters for a horizontal landing that do not have a plume impingement problem will be "interesting".

[MickQ]

The exception would be if SpaceX developed a version of the cargo Starship that had side-mounted landing thrusters, allowing direct horizontal landing. [Which would be super cool! Space1999 Eagle!!! w00t!!!!1! ...aaaand not something they'd do.]

Why they will not?
Vertical Starship HLS is very impractical moon lander and only exist as ofshot of old Mars Starship concept.
If Starship HLS will need new landing thrusters and legs, why not to design them for side landing? If most Mars Starships will stay on Mars, why not do the same for them?

Woah, hold on.  That was not me.  I know we colonials can be confused and mistaken for one another due to our common brilliance but credit where credit is due. In this case, Paul451.