Building a Moon Base: Part 4 – Infrastructure and Transportation

by Ian O'Neill on March 22, 2008

Apollo 17 Station 5 panorama image made by Hans Nyberg; original images from Eugene Cernan.

In this exciting but challenging period of space exploration, the time is fast approaching for serious design concepts for the first habitats that will be built on the lunar landscape. In previous articles, we have examined the hazards associated with such an endeavour, we have looked at the structures available to us, we have even detailed a particular hangar-like structure that might use locally mined materials. Now, we look into the possible infrastructure elements that will be needed to support a viable colony on the Moon. Florian Ruess, a structural engineer who is working on the future of habitats in extreme environments, also took some time with the Universe Today to give his opinions on mankind’s future on lunar soil…

Imagine trying to build a structure on the surface of the Moon. Two of the biggest obstacles the first lunar settlers will come across are the very low gravity and the fine dust causing all sorts of construction issues. Although it seems likely that the first habitats will be built by automated processes before mankind even sets foot on the moon, fabrication of a settlement infrastructure will be of a primary concern to engineers so construction can be made as efficient as possible.

The basic, but optimal shape for a lunar habitat module linked with other modules (image courtesy of Florian Ruess)

Infrastructure will be one of the most important factors concerning mission planners. How will building materials be fabricated? How will material be supplied to construction workers? How will precious water and food be supplied to the fledgling lunar colony? Can supply vehicles go from A to B with little effort?

Historic examples of the effectiveness of an efficient transportation infrastructure can be seen in the coalescence of cities around rivers (traditionally the quickest way to transport people and material around a country). Canals were instrumental in bringing cities to life during the Industrial Revolution in the UK in the late 18th century. As railway lines linked the East and West of North America in the last half of the 19th century, acceleration in population growth was experienced by people uprooting and “homesteading” the new, accessible farm lands. Over the last 50 years, the “Southern California freeway effect” is responsible for the proliferation of gas stations, restaurants, shops, followed by residential areas for workers – eventually whole towns and cities are based around the ease of access for transportation.

Concepts of a lunar infrastructure (credit: NASA)

Future manned colonization of the Moon and Mars will most likely be based on a similar principal; the success of a lunar settlement will heavily depend on the efficiency of the transport structure.

It seems likely that most transportation around the Moon will depend on wheeled methods, following from terrestrial vehicles and tried and tested “Moon buggies” from the Apollo missions in the 1960′s and 70′s. There are some significant drawbacks however. Addressing this issue, Florian Ruess, structural engineer and collaborator with Haym Benaroya (whose publication this article is based) points out some problems with this mode of transport:

For any mission there will always be the need for individual transportation and the obvious solution is some wheeled vehicle. But there are a couple of serious issues with this solution:

  • Reduced traction. 1/6 gravity and the lunar soil make traction a problem just like [the Mars Exploration Rovers] Spirit and Opportunity on Mars one can get stuck easily or need to much power to get around.
  • Dust. Apollo experience shows that a lot of dust is levitated by wheeled vehicles. This dust is hazardous to machines and humans when breathed in.”

- Florian Ruess (private communication)

So travelling around in a modified “dune buggy” might not be the answer for an established Moon base, some form of road infrastructure would be needed if wheeled transportation is used.

Neil Armstrong's footprint in the lunar regolith (credit: NASA)

Disturbing dust on the lunar surface is far from being a minor problem. From NASA’s experience with the Apollo missions, by far the biggest contributor to dust generation was the take off and landing of lunar modules. 50% of the regolith is smaller than fine sand and approximately 20% is smaller than the “dusty” 0.02mm that preserved the Neil Armstrong’s first boot prints. It is this very fine component of the regolith that can cause a host of mechanical and health problems:

  1. Vision impairment
  2. Incorrect instrument readings
  3. Dust coating
  4. Loss of traction
  5. Clogging of mechanisms
  6. Abrasion
  7. Thermal control problems
  8. Seal failures
  9. Inhalation

It therefore seems obvious that dust creation should be kept to the bare minimum as this factor could be a severe hindrance to the infrastructure of the settlement.

Roads are would be the perfect answer to the new lunar colony. They would provide wheeled vehicles with the much needed traction (thus having a knock-on effect with the fuel efficiency of the vehicle) and may significantly reduce the amount of dust suspension, especially if the road surface is raised above the surrounding regolith. Roads, however, have their drawbacks. They are enormously costly and may be very difficult to build. Fusing regolith to form a tough surface may be an answer, but as pointed out by Ruess, “…this requires enormous energies, which cannot be provided by solar power alone.” So an alternate form of energy would be required to perform such a construction.

(a) Basic Roman road design features, (b) 2000 road design, (c) model of force distribution (credit: Haym Benaroya, Leonhard Bernold)

Although road construction would be highly desirable, it may not be possible, at least in the early stages of lunar settlement development. One emerging development in alternative space transportation is the vertical take-off and landing method, but as previously stated, rocket-powered take-off and landing produces vast amounts of dust. But should there be multiple bases on the Moon, this might be a possibility, “…a lot of people recommend different solutions for routes that will be used frequently like getting from the landing pad to the settlement or from one settlement to the next,” Ruess adds.

Lunar habitat with a cable-based transportation infrastructure (credit: H. Benaroya, L. Bernold)

Another solution is an established form of transportation. Totally avoiding contact with the surface, thus cutting down on dust and avoiding obstacles, a lunar cable car might be a viable possibility. It seems likely that such a cable car transportation network would be highly effective. “Very large spans will be possible on the Moon and therefore infrastructure cost not exorbitant,” Ruess points out. This possibility is being seriously considered by lunar settlement planners.

Looking back on the previous articles in the series, Florian Ruess comments on whether lunar bases can be mobile and points out some of the severe difficulties facing settlement planners if locally mined materials are to be used:

I am not a big fan of mobile bases. Such a system that includes power generation, communications and especially long-term meteoroid and radiation protection does not seem feasible to me. But the wheeled vehicles could be pressurized designs capable of serving several-day-long science missions. This would be a good solution to expand the capabilities of a permanent base.

Local materials are a crucial yet difficult issue. My research so far has shown that only after a certain presence has been established and experience with lunar issues and materials has been gained we would be in a position to dare and build habitats from local materials. Certainly not before man sets foot on the Moon. And please forget about the much-cited lunar concrete! There are so many showstoppers for this imaginary material that I don’t even want to start mentioning them. The only early local material application I see is meteoroid and radiation protection using regolith as shielding material.

“Building a Moon Base” is based on research by Haym Benaroya and Leonhard Bernold (“Engineering of lunar bases“)

Plus an exclusive interview with Florian Ruess, extreme habitat structural engineer and founder of Habitats for Extreme Environments – HE2

-Florian Ruess, private communication.

Many thanks to Florian Ruess for his time in contributing to this article. For further information about his work and extreme environment habitat designs, visit his website at: HE-squared.com.

For more information about the future of lunar settlement, check out the Moon Society and the collaborative resource, Lunarpedia.

  • Andrew

    i think that it is the lack of gravity that allows the dust to stay suspended longer.
    I agree that the base should be uilt underground, and i understant that it will be expensive, time consuming and power intensive. However, i think that we will minimize the dust problem by building underground. additionally, the layer of surface overhead would provide protection rom meteors and radiation without having to build much of anything. if we centralized the base around a vertical lava tube that could be domed over, we could drill into the sides to create ledges and tunnles for habitation and storage. even though i know we are trying to stay away from science fiction, it would be similar to the city of Zion in the movie The Matrix. subways i think would be a dust free form of transportation, or if that is too expensive, raised monorails would be cheaper and less power hungry than the magnet train and the lack of gravity would be a prolem for the suspension cable cars whereas the monorail is fixd to the track so friction wont be a problm either. we could take advantade of the lack of gravity with the landing craft. if we had ships with vertical take off it would be pretty easy to land the ship on a platform just inside the lava tube considering the tube is wide enough, which eliminated the landing strip and the dust contact. the ships probably would not be earth worthy, so a ferry system would have to be established where a ship brings people and cargo from earth to the lunar ships that take them to the moon. or istead of landing ships, cargo could pass through an air lock and lifted by the elevater concept. (personaly i think that the elevator on earth is too farfetched, but seems way more feasable on the moon). finally, solar farms are much more feasale on the moon since half is always in the sun and there is no atmosphere to dull the light. plus underground, we wont mess up the landscape…

  • Frank

    Nobody seems to get it.

    Everybody has these “wonderful” ideas because, however inspirational Star Trek may have been, you think that Star Trek is the way science ought to be. I’m sorry to rain on your parade, children, but science defines what’s really out there in the very real world, no matter what you think to the contrary. Dreamers sitting in their bedrooms playing video games do not design spacecraft and the related support systems. Real people with a real grasp of the technological hurdles (Engineers … there’s that word again) would be shaking their collective heads in disbelief at the utter nonsense (yes, you should feel insulted) posted to this page.

    Just for starters, if lava tubes (assuming they exist) turn out to be a viable option for a moon base, how many flights to the moon do you think it will take to find a lava tube? How do you survey it? What equipment will you need to do the survey and how many flights to deliver that equipment? Is anybody prepared to enter a totally unknown environment like a lava tube (is that “floor” you’re standing on solid enough to support you 1/6 weight?)? And in a vertical tube how do you suspend the people and equipment to do the survey much less the construction? And we haven’t even gotten to the construction portion of these silly dreams (yes, feel insulted again). How many flights have we “made” thus far? How much money do you think your ideas have spent so far?

    None of you sound like you’ve done any construction work on Earth. I’ve been an engineer at the construction of two nuclear plants that took 15 years to complete. And that’s with resources readily available and no space suit to deal with!

    Think about this: How many flights to get just one crane to the moon outfitted for life support and the dusty conditions. And it has to be all electric because there’s no atmosphere to run a diesel engine, but you knew that, didn’t you, kiddies. How do you harvest the megawatts for that one crane? How many flights will it take to deliver the solar cells that will cover hundreds of acres for that one crane? What equipment will you have to get to the moon to build the solar farm? How many flights to deliver the relay and power conversion stations for that one crane? How many flights for the tonnage of the electric cabling? Do you bury the cable? Now you need extensive underground work to protect and insulate the cables. What are you going to use to excavate? It has to be electric too. Suspend the electric lines from towers as we do on Earth and how many flights to deliver the very-awkwardly shaped, very heavy towers and the insulators. And you need an electric crane to build the tower to provide electricity for your electric crane! Circular logic, anyone?

    Oh, I forgot… we’ll microwave megawatts… something we can’t do here on Earth or anywhere else.

    Oh, yes, a nuclear plant… complete with all of it’s shielding and meticulous maintenance, plumbing and support infrastructure requiring a dedicated work force. And it would have to be a plant similar to what we have on Earth, Pressurized Water Reactors, because direct conversion, RTG, only generates low wattage. Your crane will operate in the kilowatt range. Pressurized water? My, my…now we have to get thousands of cubic feet of very precious water (at 62.5 lbs per cubic foot at launch) and the boron used to mediate the nuclear reactions to the moon. And then we have to transport it from the delivery ship to the reactor (can anyone spell “large diameter pipe construction”?… I knew you couldn’t). So, how many flights and its attendant risks and expense have we made for these silly ideas?

    And this silliness about a space elevator? Come on, children, put down the sci-fi and learn some principles of engineering. We have nothing in materials science now or in the foreseeable future that can support anything more than a mile high. We are very near the limit of what the best and hardest concrete can support. Where would you put it? At the equator? The Earth does not rotate smoothly. You’d never get it finished (assuming some miraculous discovery in material science… forget nanotubes, kiddies) before it would be whipped like a tall reed in a breeze exceeding the sheer loads and come crashing down. And when you allow the ionosphere and it’s ever-present charge to go to ground, then what? And what about the impact on the weather, and other environmental impacts? And all of the aforementioned is assuming it can be built, which it can’t.

    Go back to your video games and fry your brains some more. But content yourselves with the thought that in spite of your silly nonsense (that’s one final insult) real engineers are solving some very difficult problems and we’ll eventually get to the Moon and Mars in spite of your foolishness.

  • Mr. Sniffles

    Engineers only think “inside” the box. That’s the problem with engineers. Man’s accomplishments have been in spite of engineers, not because of them.

  • Mr. Sniffles

    Show me one new technology, Frank, where engineers weren’t dragged kicking and screaming to a successful result. That’s why engineers don’t run really successful companies, They have to be controlled and prodded every step of the way.

  • Andrew

    i did not say it would be cheap and i didnt say it would be easy. but you have to at least try to think of somthing that might work. at least i sugested that we use solar collection, which improves in effectiveness every so often. obviously you wouldn’t send manned rovers to search for an adequete site, you would have to set up a system of satelites with the technology to survey the landscape (no i dont know exactly what they are, so f*** off!) as well as under the surface. i am not entirely stupid either, obviously the wall strength will have to be tested before it can be used and yes i know that will cost a TON of freaking money and time and manpower. i said that the elevater had a signifigantly better chance on the moon, which might still be really small, because the lack of atmosphere and materials needed to build it. but i can only do so much without a degree. mabye you should try and push us in the right direction, tell us what might be feasable and what might not, eliminating completely rediculous ideas instaed of acting like a total bad ass with your credentials and degree making yourself look like a total jerk.

  • Andrew

    i do plan on studying civil engineering at osu this fall to build high rises and i would like later to help with projects like this that might actually come to be and am not totaly brainwashed with videogames. so screw you and go back to your “intellectual” circle.

  • Frank

    Oh, I don’t know, Mr Sniffles, how about every single thing created by humankind, including, but not limited to, the extraordinary Apollo program. No engineer was dragged kicking and screaming there. And it was engineers who were in upper management at NASA who advised Kennedy prior to his historic “We choose to go to the Moon” speach.

    The parent-child relationship of Necessity and Invention is what drives innovation. But, that said, we can only invent and innovate from that which we understand. Sitting in a bedroom burning yourself out on video games and then “postulating” solutions to very difficult engineering problems based on your “understanding” of science as written in the pages of a sci-fi book or a TV program, well, I think my contempt for that approach should be plenty obvious.

    These juvenile musings need to be replaced with a real-world understanding of structural mechanics and dynamic processes. At that point, these bedroom trekkers will begin to see the enormous challenges their cavalier assertions dismiss. But, as we all know, that will mean leaving the bedroom, the video games and all pre-conceived notions of science behind and do some very hard work learning how the real world works. I’m not holding my breath.

    I recall a recent thread on a website based on an article about how the Mars rovers were losing power because of dust build-up on their solar panels. It was infuriating to read the responses and sense the “outrage” that these simpletons were spewing because NASA didn’t think to put — are you ready for this — a feather duster on a mechanical arm to wipe off the dust. How demeaning of that superb engineering achievement, those outstanding little rovers. One cogent reply attempted to outline the parameters of the mission and the limited weight they could carry to Mars and he was blown off as some kind of idiot.

    Conceptual engineering, particularly the kind we off-handedly call “rocket science”, is the absolute pinnacle of human intellectual achievement in the engineering disciplines, only surpassed by the engineers trying to contain the forces of the sun in their fusion reactors. And I don’t wish to slight any of the other engineering disciplines but I think, to a person, they would agree with this evaluation.

    To blather inanely about fantasy technology as though it will just happen overnight while we’re asleep is, most assuredly, an insult to the profound achievements that these extraordinary people have and are providing. People talk of stellar warp drives as if they are in the labs and just a few years away. Wishful thinking ain’t gonna do it. It takes logical, rational minds to probe nature for it’s secrets. And then, understanding that, we can proceed to real world application. To just blithely dismiss the organization, cooperation and creative efforts of the real heroes of our vaunted technological society as “just” engineers who have to be “prodded to do their job”, well, go to a desert island, Mr Sniffles, and start putting the society of your choice together. I suspect you’ll be a while. I further suspect you won’t exceed the meager managements of Robinson Crusoe.

    I will continue to take up the cudgel in the engineers’ defense against this blithering mob of dimwits.

    Get back to school and learn something worthwhile, you twits.

  • Gerald

    Frank,

    Why do you feel the need to insult people? All of the above mentioned ideas are dreams and it is the role of the engineers to determin the feasability of and possibly design projects from ideas. In the 1940′s everyone would have thought the idea of putting men into orbit was nearly impossible and that men on the moon could not happen in their life time. We all no that many of these ideas are dreams, but exploration is often fuelled by dreams. Additional while you are listing all of the real world problems associated with large construction project you repeatedly refer to the “crane” although this might be a neccesary tool it would not need the power a terrestial crane would, as the moon only has 1/6 earth gravity it will be much eawsier to move large, heavy objects. Don’t be so hard on the dreamers, they often have the ideas that engineers turn into reality.

  • http://www.popsci.com Silver Thread

    “I will continue to take up the cudgel in the engineers’ defense against this blithering mob of dimwits.”

    ~Frank~
    Ironic that you’d choose something as crude as a cudgel to defend Engineers, I would think perhaps, a slide rule to be more applicable, but I doubt Engineers need your defense, most have pocket protectors. Tell me what use Knowledge is without the Imagination to apply it creatively? Look around you right now and tell me what it is that you see that wasn’t at some point first Imagined and *then* Developed? Do not dismiss the criticality of having insight that is not bound by a contemporary understanding of our world. It is an ability to think rather than to simply know that propels our species forward.

    My musings were, as were those of so many others, suggestions in the hope that someone might find inspiration. Creative Spark is one of the myriad hallmarks of our species. You have chosen to assume our thoughts were posed as an affront to Engineers, I know this is not true, because I was not affronted. The singularity within our race that truly sets us apart is our ability to imagine. What is interesting is that thus far your Imagination has yeilded unto you only the apparent misconception that everyone perusing and replying to this thread is a juvenile that fixates on video games, this at least is the perception of “us” you have Imagined for yourself.

    It’s intriguing that you seem to think all of the ideas posed were derived from Science Fiction. I have more computing power in my Cellphone that what is present on the Voyager Space Probes and those were Engineered and Launched only thirty years ago. What is Scientific Reality today is quickly being overwhelmed by a fast approaching tomorrow. You come across as stodgy and contemptuous, don’t assume you have a monopoly on knowledge.

    You earlier asked a great series of questions regarding the myriad hurdles that must be overcome to see any of these suggestions rise to fruition. In response to those questions I am compelled to say, “You’re an Engineer, figure it out”. I am not disparaging the achievements engineers have made, but you seem to believe that Engineers are the sole impetus for development. The advances we have seen and will continue to see are to be celebrated by Everyone. The Saying was “One Small Step for Man…” Not, “One Small Step for Engineers….”

    You have repeatedly called *Us* “Children”, “Kiddies”, “Twits” and “Juveniles”, I can scarcely begin to explain to you how cantankerous this makes you sound. I am almost surprised you have managed to glom onto this newfangled technology we young hooligans like to Call the “Personal Computer” and it’s child “The Internet”. Your mind shows commendable elasticity for a geezer. You use statistics the way a drunken man uses a light pole, for support rather than illumination, but I digress.

    In closing, I will share with you a rather well known quote from a man admired by Dreamers and Engineers alike,

    “Imagination is to Knowledge what three is to one.”

    ~Albert Einstein~

  • Frank

    Sorry, Silver Thread, I’ve known too many “creative” people who frittered their time away with wild and fanciful imaginings. Just being creative doesn’t do it. The real world intrudes, to paraphrase the Red Queen, no matter how many impossible things you can believe in before breakfast.

    Too many people believe that just to imagine is, as you put it, the hallmark of our species. And yet, it’s the practical engineer that has to sift through this detritus to find something that works. Indeed, that’s why all companies hire engineers and not dreamers. Engineers, my friend, are practical dreamers, for lack of a better term. They have to be to keep their jobs, Mr. Sniffles comments notwithstanding.

    When you say to an engineer, “build a bridge over this raging stream”. Be he/her an aborigine in the outback of Australia or a pocket-protected civil engineer/nerd working for “Big Construction, Inc”, they don’t take this piling and that span and slap them together, they first think of all the ways that the bridge can collapse and then NOT build it that way. That’s an engineer. They can’t dream out of context of the task before them. The results are their point and purpose and dreamers need not apply.

    Dreams are not worthless exercises in futility. But they are close to it if they can’t be translated into practical reality. From the aboriginal chief to the corporate CEO that bridge has to work and it’s real good if it works perfectly on the first try.

    Go back over all of the “dreams” in this post. I hope my comments got through to someone that practical limits to dreams are the stock-in-trade of achieving real-life space travel. Anything else posted is just tormenting electrons and a waste of HD storage. Yeah that’s hard on someone’s ego. Tough. There isn’t a moment of forgiveness in deep space or on a rickety bridge. And, believe me, NASA doesn’t have the bucks to hire anyone who isn’t a conservative, pocket-protected, work station proficient (sorry, I know how to use a slide rule but a work station is much more efficient) engineer with practical ideas that some might confuse with dreams.

    Werner Von Braun was a practical dreamer and he educated himself in the thoroughly impractical profession of rocket engineering in the 20′s and 30′s. He pored over every treatise written by Robert Goddard. As he built on Goddards foundation he got somewhere because he could articulate an arcane discipline to people who knew nothing of it and convey it’s utility. It is indeed sad that that utilty was for war and death. But his secret, practical dream was for human space flight. And look at what he did in 8 1/2 years after Kennedy committed the US to landing a man on the moon. Now that is what I’m talking about… the innovative engineers who meld their practical ideas … dare I call them dreams? … with the technology available, pushing the envelope where necessary and possible and “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth”.

    These “kids” need to get off their duffs and learn the hard sciences. Throw the TV, videogames, iPods and all the other flotsam and jetsam of this distorted consumer society away and get to work. The final frontier is theirs for the understanding and their practical solutions to these enormously difficult challenges but ONLY if they learn how to think within the framework of reality.

    There is only so much money and only so much resources that will be committed to the endeavor of colonizing the moon. One failure or even a marginal success could doom any future attempts for decades to come. You can’t just dream willy-nilly. You have to be disciplined and, yes, knowledgable before you can dream or you’re just wasting calories.

    As to suggestions for the engineers at NASA? Fine. Make them. Just give them a little thought about implementation and application and ask yourself can this really work? How could it fail and how could that failure jeopardize the mission. If you’re honest about your answer to those questions you’ll do like a lot of engineers and realize that they weren’t such a good idea and quietly put it to bed. That will free up your mind to think of something maybe a little more practical, with a little bit better chance of success. I can’t put a number on this but I’ll bet there were ideas too numerous to count during the Apollo program that were considered, evaluated and discarded as impractical only to move on to the very few good ideas that did work so superbly.

    As for the “children, kiddies, juveniles and twits”? We are all children, kiddies, juveniles and twits until we’re not. You hold the key within that esoteric presence in the organic mass in your skull… your mind. Train it. Use it. Challenge it. Change the human condition. Explore the stars, from a practical point of reference not the silliness of Star Trek

    That, Silver Thread, is your challenge. Are you and the other posters up to it?

  • Chuck Lam

    Hey! All of you guys. Stop and think. Man most likely will never establish a permanent self-sustaining base on the moon. There is no sensible return on investment. Not even for military advantage. Scientific curosity isn’t enough to justify the mind-bending expense and technological challenges involved. Who, in any government is going to lay his or her credibility on line proposing something as useless to the common man as a moon base? So, all you dreamers keep on dreaming, it’s good mental excercise. If you make it to Washington, save face, stay reposed.

  • Al Hall

    Frank,

    1. Every single thing that our species has ever accomplished or created was a result of somebody dreaming something up. Intentional or accidental. Yes, even fantastical dreams. Of course most of us are aware of our current limitations in resources in materials and knowledge. This is why we educate engineers. To make our dreams come true. The “dream” comes before implementation.

    2. Is this the wrong forum for people to express their opinions to an article and offer suggestions – however impractical they may be at this moment in time – or is this just for “Bachelor of Science degree” and above? I hope not, because I always like to hear ideas when it comes to all fields of science. Regardless of where the ideas come from and sometimes it only takes that one little “piece” to put it all together. Even if it comes from a “twit wasting his time watching Star Trek”. Oh, by the way… A lot of things that we take for granted today could be credited – to an extent – to Gene Roddenberry and his guys. They thought it up and the engineers made it work.

    3. I’ll bet you five bucks that 99% of the engineers today did play video games and watched or read science fiction when they were kids. At least I hope so. If they didn’t, then I will strongly suspect that they won’t contribute much to our society (off World that is).

    4. Lighten up. Give these people a break. Let them voice their ideas. There is nothing wrong with it. It is okay to correct, but there really isn’t much point to criticize. It’s also not productive.
    Go find yourself a girl (or get rid of the one you have) … :-)
    Cheers//
    —–
    Others,

    More ideas, suggestions and comments, please!

  • http://www.colonyworlds.com/ Darnell Clayton

    From Andrew:

    subways i think would be a dust free form of transportation, or if that is too expensive, raised monorails would be cheaper and less power hungry than the magnet train and the lack of gravity would be a prolem for the suspension cable cars whereas the monorail is fixd to the track so friction wont be a problm either.

    That’s actually a great idea Andrew! I was thinking about something similar. Why deal with the dust problem when it may be easier to simply create pressurized, underground subways instead?

    Oh yeah, don’t mind the angry people. They are just here to remind us all on how superior they are than us. ;-)

  • Andrew

    the problem with the subways is that is is signifigantly more expensive and time consuming to build that the monorail because you have to drill through the rock and the less gravity you have the harder it is to do because you need large amounts of friction with the tunnel walls to drill. pressurizing the entire tunnel seems kind of a waste of precious gasses (no offence), seeing as we could just pressurize the cars and/ or have the train pass through an air lock. i still think that avertical takeoff craft is an even better idea to deal with the dust than a runway, and plus with the lack of gravity, a runway will be harder to land on because you would need more distance to stop… mabye, right?

  • Andrew

    just out of curiosity, how long would the lag be if there was a moon-to-satelite-to-satelite-to-earth internet connection?

  • Silver Thread

    Frank, my hat is off to you. Despite my sarcastic rejoinders you provided a respectable and level headed riposte. You have my respect.

    I agree that to spend your life fantasizing without ever making an effort to apply your ideas in some useful way is an exercise in futility. I maintain that science fiction is not without some redemptive merits but I also agree that to waste hours fixating on Video Games and Television does absolutely nothing for society. Take that inspiration and put it to use.

    In any case I enjoyed the discussion, I apologize to the audience, whom I can only assume has read my tirades with a few long suffering shakes of the head and as for the Challenge Extended, I suppose at some point I may indeed need to attend College, for now I will continue earning a living doing what I enjoy.

  • Frank

    Al Hall,

    Your first point couldn’t be more wrong. Humanity did things because there was a need, not because some ancient forebear sat down one day and dreamed of something. No one dreamed up fire. An ancient hominid was near freezing to death or perhaps having his or her clan members dragged off by a predator in the middle of the night that focused his or her mind on a solution. Constant observation and the ability to draw relationships between disparate occurences led to the control of fire and changed our species as it conferred a survival advantage no other creature could comprehend, much less utilize.

    Humanity from its outset was beset by the scourge of survival. Not a single mastadon walked into their camp and obligingly dropped dead so they could eat for the winter. All it took was a belly-wrenching hunger and a few near-death experiences and the mind of our ancestors was focused on the need to survive. From that need, not dreams, came the spears to bring down prey and, over time and continual observation, the spear throwers, that multiplied the distance and striking power of the spear, became another of the contrivances of our survival.

    Natural selection weeded out the dimwitted as those with organized minds were able to develop successful tactics in the hunt. If your tribe had smart people who were more clever in the hunt than the tribe over the hill then you survived and the other guys didn’t. Life back then, as it has been observed, was nasty, brutish and short with not a dream among them.

    But here we are, so they did something right. And that “right” thing was focusing all of their early brain power on the pressing and incontrovertible needs of survival. This is what spurred the innovation and the engineering, primitive as it was, and added, bit by bit, to the survival base of our species. This will to survive that is imbued in our DNA is the driving force of our innovative nature giving rise to such ancestors as the tool maker, homo habilus, the handy man. Not a dream coursed through his brain that woke him up at night with an idea he had no use for and wouldn’t contribute to his survival.

    Dreams, my friend, confer nothing to the grand scheme of things. Cold, unforgiving experience is our guide. We ignore it at our very great peril. As I noted in a previous post, we, as a species, can’t know what we don’t experience. That said, even the “dreams” you hold in such high acclaim are rooted in reality we’ve experienced. Distort that reality with nonsense and we get the vapid traipse of the undisciplined mind as evidenced here in these posts.

    When our species went from a hunter-gatherer society to an agricultural one we were transformed again as a species. Never again would we be able to go back to our hunter-gatherer ways because agriculture conferred a survival advantage so great that it would be like giving up our ocean-going ships so we could return to swimming to cross the ocean. Agriculture was not dreamed up. It was the constant observation of the environment, the seasons and our unique ability to see cause and effect that brought crops to harvest and ensured our survival as a species.

    And we don’t educate engineers to make our dreams come true. The marketplace dictates what an engineer will design and build, not your dreams. Some entrepreneur has an idea, perhaps based on a suggestion by someone, which he or she thinks will make them very rich, conferring a decided survival advantage to the entrepreneur and his or her children. At that point they hire an engineer to build their idea. Is that a dream? Nope. A need was identified and exploited for profit. At its root it’s the need to survive.

    No matter what you think of space travel and the reasons we, as a species choose to take the enormous risk and expense involved, it’s ultimately about finding something that makes us fabulously rich or confers in some other way a profound advantage in survival. How many times has it been written that we must go into space to colonize another world for the eventual time when we finally wear this tired orb out and we can’t live here anymore. A bit farfetched at this point in time, but not wrong in its overall conclusion.

    On your second point: Yes, it is wrong to express silly “dreams” when the original article tries to convey just how difficult colonizing the moon will be from the infrastructure and transportation angle. Read the article again. Florian Ruess, a contributor, was dismissive on this particular point “…And please forget about the much-cited lunar concrete! There are so many showstoppers for this imaginary material that I don’t even want to start mentioning them.” This man, without saying it, doesn’t want to be bothered with “dreams”. And “lunar concrete” is a far cry from the silly sci-fi Star Trek “dreams” put forth in the subsequent comments. I’m not the only one who thinks that these challenges require rational, logical minds to innovate for the needs of a real, practical moon base. Dreamers need not apply.

    You’re right that it shouldn’t be ‘just for “Bachelor of Science degree” and above’. I’m a firm believer that sometimes the best solutions to some intractable problems come from those that aren’t inculcated with the “company philosophy”. But even an outsiders contribution, someone thinking outside the box, so to speak, still needs to be in the same room that the box is located in!

    And concerning your “Oh, by the way…”, there isn’t a single thing on Star Trek that can be found in our technology today. No warp drives. No transporters. No replicators. No tricorders. No phasers. No photon torpedoes. This fantasy entertainment, and that’s all that it is, has done nothing for the advancement of society except entertain the rational among us and fill the foolish heads of the rest with nonsense and contempt for real science. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a template for our future or a standard by which to organize society. It is entertainment and nothing more.

    Point 3: Video games and sci-fi as entertainment is fine. It’s the descent into an all-consuming abuse that’s the issue. I prefer chess as entertainment. But, be assured, that my wife would be making appointments with a therapist if I locked myself in the bedroom for hours on end playing chess on line. It’s the waste of time that I take issue with. And all indications are that there are way too many people — young and old, sad to say — that fry their brains on this crap and then can’t navigate a logical thought process much less achieve anything of note in school or life. Then they show up in forums such as this with their addlepated notions of science and engineering taking great umbrage at any criticism of their silliness.

    Point 4: Lighten up? Sorry, their prating foolishness needs to be called to task. Again, I point to the serious nature of the original article above and the need for rational thought and not the fatuous yammering put forth here.

    Which brings me to my original point that the puerile posts on this thread are insulting to the real engineers who labor to bring a real and functioning moon base to the benefit of all humanity. As I’ve said before, without a strong foundation in math and science, nobody goes anywhere in this world.

    Are these posters stupid? No, I’ve seen no indication that they lack the ability to understand the difficult lessons of science or math. It’s obvoius, though, that no one has called them on their nonsense or held their feet to the fire to understand the real world as it really is. That is the underpinning of my trenchant criticism.

    Oh, and a final note, I don’t need to find myself a girl or get rid of the one I have. My beautiful wife loves me just as I am and for all the “geezer” that I am.

    Respectfully,

    Frank

  • Al Hall

    Frank,

    That’s quite a thorough response. Although I don’t agree with everything you wrote, you do make some valid points.
    I won’t dwell further into this because I don’t see that much would come from it. There are also many more articles that I would like to read and possibly respond to with my own suggestions/opinions. :-)
    See you out there………………
    Cheers//

  • Andrew

    haha. dont we essentially have “photon torpedoes”? the best example i can think of besides fireworks are flares and flashbangs. they dont destroy anything and wern’t inspired by star trek, but i thought the connection was amusing. : )

  • Sami

    I am a studant o correct me if i’m wrong but I se a way to create electricity. Glare from the sun can be reflected onto a metal (or other fast heating material) pipe filled with water or oil. Once the substanc is boiling it can be mixed with a colder substance to create steam. The steam would turn a turbine wich would create electricity. Problems would be supplying the substances needed and low gravity. I read an article on yahoo about this being done on an earth powerplant. Once more I am a student and this might not be ale to work or be produced in space.

Previous post:

Next post: