SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a move intended to align with the National Space Council's call for NASA to return to the Moon, the United Launch Alliance intends to launch a Bigelow Aerospace B330 inflatable module into low Earth orbit, and later boost it into lunar orbit using a rocket which can have propellant transferred to it from another rocket:
Bigelow Aerospace, a company devoted to manufacturing inflatable space habitats, says it's planning to put one of its modules into orbit around the Moon within the next five years. The module going to lunar space will be the B330, Bigelow's design concept for a standalone habitat that can function autonomously as a commercial space station. The plan is for the B330 to serve as something of a lunar depot, where private companies can test out new technologies, or where astronauts can stay to undergo training for deep space missions.
"Our lunar depot plan is a strong complement to other plans intended to eventually put people on Mars," Robert Bigelow, president of Bigelow Aerospace, said in a statement. "It will provide NASA and America with an exciting and financially practical success opportunity that can be accomplished in the short term."
To put the habitat in lunar orbit, Bigelow is looking to get a boost from the United Launch Alliance. The B330 is slated to launch on top of ULA's future rocket, the Vulcan, which is supposed to begin missions no earlier than 2019. The plan is for the Vulcan to loft the B330 into lower Earth orbit, where it will stay for one year to demonstrate that it works properly in space. During that time, Bigelow hopes to send supplies to the station and rotate crew members in and out every few months.
After that, it'll be time to send the module to the Moon. ULA will launch two more Vulcan rockets, leaving both of the vehicles' upper stages in orbit. Called ACES, for Advanced Cryogenic Evolved Stage, these stages can remain in space, propelling other spacecraft to farther out destinations. ULA plans to transfer all of the propellant from one ACES to the other, using the fully fueled stage to propel the B330 the rest of the way to lunar orbit.
The B330 is the giant version of the Bigelow Expandable Activity Module.
Previously: Moon Base Could Cost Just $10 Billion Due to New Technologies
Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
Buzz Aldrin: Retire the ISS to Reach Mars
China to Send Potato Farming Test Probe to the Moon
Stephen Hawking Urges Nations to Pursue Lunar Base and Mars Landing
Lockheed Martin Repurposing Shuttle Cargo Module to Use for Lunar Orbiting Base (could they be joined together?)
ESA Expert Envisions "Moon Village" by 2030-2050
NASA and Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on the Development of a Lunar Space Station
Bigelow Expandable Activity Module to Continue Stay at the International Space Station
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:45AM (10 children)
The only way to have a healthy lunar base is to bury it deep underground. Either that or surround the inflatable module with six feet of lead.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday October 19 2017, @12:58AM (3 children)
(Score: 1) by anubi on Thursday October 19 2017, @09:24AM (2 children)
I speculate it would be quite easy to "dig" a good-sized hole on the moon by drilling a hole and planting an explosive.
With the moon's gravity being much less, and no air to speak of, my guess is a little explosive will move a helluva lotta "dirt".
Then the building can be constructed in the crater, then the surrounding "dirt" pushed back over it.
I do not believe explosives ( like C4, or Nitroglycerine ) require air to explode.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 2, Informative) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:29PM (1 child)
mining on the moon is actually really hard. Cooling your drills (you use these to plant the explosives) is the problem. You either have to spend consumables to cool the bit and flush chips or you have to conduct the heat through the bit and into a radiator. This is one of the things that makes Mars easier than the moon.
Both will be hard but having an atmosphere, even a thin one, helps a lot.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 19 2017, @06:43PM
Would that very thin atmosphere on Mars actually help significantly on cooling drills?
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/06/no-wind-chill-mars [sciencemag.org]
Seems like you'd probably need some other cooling.
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @01:04AM (1 child)
https://www.reddit.com/r/space/comments/76e79c/i_am_elon_musk_ask_me_anything_about_bfr/dod9v14/ [reddit.com]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_radiation_carcinogenesis [wikipedia.org]
Radiation risks are greatly exaggerated. Knowing NASA, they plan to cycle in astronauts to the Moon with nobody staying more than a few months. There are no (announced) plans to allow people to live, work, and die there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module#Radiation_shielding [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 20 2017, @01:53AM
Polyethelene has much less secondary scatter than metals, even lead.
When high energy particles pass directly through your body, they do less damage than if they strike an aluminum hull wall and scatter into dozens of lower energy but still ionizing particles which strike your body instead. It's a case where thin shielding is worse than no shielding at all.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by pdfernhout on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:27AM (2 children)
Proposed in this book: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Millennial_Project:_Colonizing_the_Galaxy_in_Eight_Easy_Steps [wikipedia.org]
The biggest challenge of the 21st century: the irony of technologies of abundance used by scarcity-minded people.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:57PM (1 child)
Yeah, but 9 feet of water shielding would be immensely expensive to ship.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:25PM
Find it on the Moon? While digging lots of rock that could also be used as shielding?
Like I said though, the radiation and cancer concerns are overblown. BEAM/B330 does shield from radiation to an extent, and other schemes are available if they land the thing instead of keep it in lunar orbit. It could be cheaper to just treat the POSSIBLE radiation-induced cancer using the medical technology available 20-30 years from now.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Friday October 20 2017, @01:50AM
Astronauts get cancer, and they suffer vision problems, and muscle and bone loss, and there are still plenty of people who know all this and want to do it.
The metric for a successful colony won't be if the colonists live longer than they do on Earth. One potential metric for a successful colony is a combination of self sufficiency and a better than replacement birth rate. The colonists only have to live to 30 or so to make this happen.
Would you rather live to 30 on the moon, or to 75 on Earth? My answer certainly would depend on where on Earth those 75 years are being spent.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1) by ElizabethGreene on Thursday October 19 2017, @03:31PM (1 child)
Given SpaceX's success in recycling rockets and dramatically cutting launch costs, I have to assume there are some scared people at ULA. Is this an attempt to stay relevant?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday October 19 2017, @04:22PM
Boeing/ULA will already be one of the commercial partners attempting to replace the Russians for rides to the ISS, alongside SpaceX. They are already relevant in the sense that they have their finger to the pulse of recent trends and the money in their pocket. What is the pulse telling? That it is embarrassing for America to be forced to rely on the Russians to get astronauts into space. SpaceX could be largely credited for changing the situation... but it has yet to happen [theverge.com].
This is an attempt to "keep the eyes on the prize" now that there has been a political shift to the "Moon, then Mars" strategy. The long list of "Previously" stories I added documents the recent re-evaluation of the Moon as a main target of exploration for space programs.
NASA Admits It Probably Can't Put a Person on Mars in the 2030s [popularmechanics.com]
There's talk of getting humans in orbit around Mars by 2035 [wikimedia.org], but no firm talk of making the landing. NASA could back off and face the potential embarrassment of losing the "first man on Mars" achievement. But SpaceX, China, Russia, et al. might all fail to get it done as well. SpaceX is hinting that NASA should pay it to develop the technology needed to reach Mars by the 2020s/2030s, and if you compare what SpaceX has done with its billions vs. the Space Launch System, it makes a lot of sense. Right off the bat, the reusable rocket boosters should allow SpaceX to get a lot of propellant into orbit or a little further out to the Moon. Then you launch your Mars mission from there with more fuel. If SpaceX does land on Mars first, even with private instead of NASA astronauts, it won't be an embarrassment to U.S. pride since it's an American company. Might just cause some NASA types to grumble, but who cares?
In my opinion, going to the Moon first and waiting until technologies are better (including propulsion methods, like VASIMR, that X3 thruster [soylentnews.org], or fusion rockets) to pursue Mars is a sound strategy, but the political reality is that the U.S. will not sit idly by and watch another country reach Mars first. SpaceX gives us a chance to accelerate the timeline since they have a proven record at achieving a lot with less, fast. Various target dates from SpaceX should be considered BS though, like Mars by 2024. No way is that not going to slip.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by MyOpinion on Friday October 20 2017, @09:50AM (1 child)
In "5 years or so":
"We will have flying cars"
"We will have achieve over-parity in fusion reactions"
"We will "go back" to the Moon"
"We will "have orbital hotels"
"We will colonize Mars"
All those are parts of headlines that have been recycled since the 80's. SpaceX et. al has put ZERO humans in space so far. And now some "private space" company nobody ever heard of, is going to inflate a space base?
I smell money scam.
Truth is like a Lion: you need not defend it; let it loose, and it defends itself. https://discord.gg/3FScNwc
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 20 2017, @11:31AM
News flash: missions are planned years in advance.
https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=17/10/05/0021234 [soylentnews.org]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Expandable_Activity_Module [wikipedia.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by linkdude64 on Saturday October 21 2017, @12:10AM
Just say it. Just say you're going to put a giant beach ball in orbit around the moon.