Giant Steps II: We Built this City.

In the previous posting, we looked at the basic aspects of constructing a permanent sustainable moonbase, and the reasons for such a base.  Now let's give some thought to how such a base would be designed, and the question of how we would go about actually building it.

Over the years, science fiction illustrators have happily drawn countless variations on the concept of a domed Moon city and there's a certain logic to the idea:  the idea scales well, from small to large, air pressure holds the dome up, it would be relatively easy to transport, and relatively easy to erect.  However, the down side of the dome is its relative fragility - on Earth, having a 20 pound chunk of metallic meteor punch through the roof is newsworthy.  On the Moon, it would be fatal.

It makes more sense to create a modular system, something that will require more time to put together, but which will be safer and more practical in the long run.  Modularity is a good thing - if there's a blowout in one module for whatever reason, you can hopefully seal off that module and maintain the integrity of the remainder of your habitat.

One option is to design some kind of standardized unit, a combination of cargo container and pre-fab housing, so that once they were landed on the Moon and emptied of supplies, they could be daisy-chained together with access corridors or air locks to create a sort of temporary trailer park.  As work went on, the modules could disconnected one at a time and buried or covered to provide protection from solar radiation.

NASA seems to be thinking more in terms of on-site construction, based on the concept of In Situ Resource Utilization, or ISRU, for short.  Research has been done into using lunar dust as a building material, a sort of moon concrete, possibly using sulphur* rather than water as a binding agent.  The resulting material would be used to build walls and foundations using a process like 3-D printing.

However, there are two very practical aspects of this process that have nothing to do with the design of the base, and everything to do with the actual process of building it:  personnel and resources.

Until now, space travel has been a game of elites, with two or three astronauts at a time being trained and then dispatched into space.  But the practicalities of building a Moon base would require dozens if not hundreds of people, people who will need to be transported to the lunar surface, where they will require spacesuits suited for the rigors of construction. They will need a place to live while they build a place to live. They will need food, water and oxygen, not to mention tools and materials.  They will need training so that they can perform their duties in an environment that will punish mistakes with death, and they will need to create an entirely new building process as they go.

Is this excessive?  Do we really need more people than the standard three-person NASA crew to build our base on the Moon?  That depends - what's our timeline for completion?  For that matter, what's our baseline?  How long does it take to build things on Earth?

In 1930, it took 3,400 people 410 days to build the Empire State Building, which is apparently very fast for a structure of that magnitude.  However, we're probably a long way away from skyscrapers on the Moon.  At the other end of the spectrum, it takes between three and six months to build a standard home, although the internet suggests timelines as long as 16 months for a custom structure - in other words, longer than the Empire State Building, but let's be fair, you're looking at a lot less than 3,400 workers.

Regardless, both of those examples are being built in an oxygen atmosphere, with standard gravity, and everything you could possibly need no further away than the closest Home Depot.  It also involves cranes, fork lifts, excavators, and bulldozers, and a specialized labour force of welders, masons, framers, dry wallers, roofers, plumbers and electricians working on it - not to mention painters, tile setters and cabinet makers.

The International Space Station is probably a better example. The ISS is made up of 16 modules:  nine American, four Russian, two Japanese, and one European, with a Soyuz attached for use as a lifeboat.  Construction on the ISS started in 1998, with the launch of the American Zarya module. Forty missions, 36 of which were Space Shuttle launches, were required to put all of the station's elements into orbit, with a two and a half year hiatus after the Columbia disaster in 2003. The final element was added in 2016, adding up to an 18-year construction program.**

What's the equivalent timeline for a base on the moon?  It only takes eight or nine minutes to get into orbit, as opposed to the three-day trip to the Moon, and I haven't seen any evidence of a planned equivalent to the Space Shuttle that will be able to act as a heavy lift cargo transporter. (The cancelled Obama-era Constellation program included plans for a heavy-lift cargo module, the Altair, which would have been capable of transporting six tons of cargo and four astronauts to the Moon's surface - NASA might want to look at pulling those specifications out of storage.)

The astronauts assembling the ISS also had the advantage of zero gravity, and tools like the Canadarm that streamlined the process.

Logic says that in the case of a lunar base, it will have to rely on prefabricated building elements of some sort, but even then, it will require some kind of heavy equipment on the Moon in order to create foundations, dig holes, and move the pieces into place.  The alternative is, of course, smaller pieces, but the smaller the pieces the more assembly and connection is required, and we're back to our crew of specialists.

The bottom line is that NASA actually has complete control over the timeline.  If the US government supports it, they have the expertise to create the necessary tools and processes, and there will be a significant base on the Moon by the planned date of 2028.  But really, NASA doesn't need to do any of this to meet that target.  They could just drop the equivalent of a Airstream trailer onto the Moon's surface, and voilà, we have a permanent Moon base, done. But is that really enough?  Could this be the moment that history will look back upon as the real beginning of our expansion from Earth into the solar system?

For a long time, NASA was as much a political tool as anything else, but over time it's evolved into the scientific enterprise that it should always have been.  Now it's time to apply the results of its research to the practical aspects of man living in space. The next step in their evolution is here: let's hope that they - and the government that supports them - are up to the task.

The first generation of astronauts was made up of risk takers: test pilots, ex-military fliers, people whose experience lay in performing in life-threatening situations.  The second generation needed scientists, people who could perform experiments and conduct research.

The third generation will need to change again.  Creating a permanent presence on the Moon will require builders: engineers, geologists, safety specialists, construction experts, people who can pave the way for the permanent residents of the fourth generation: the colonists.

- Sid

* No, seriously, this is an actual thing:  

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0950061811005903 

Now you know what they did with those samples that the Apollo astronauts collected from the surface of the Moon, although in some cases experiments have been conducted with moon soil "simulants" based on analysis of actual moon dust, rather than the real thing.

** There are still a couple of planned modules to be added, and eight other modules were cancelled, but the station is obviously in operation in its current configuration.
 

Giant Steps I: Walking on the Moon.

 

"Giant steps are what you take, walking on the Moon."

The Police, Walking on the Moon.

As part of its Artemis series of lunar missions, NASA plans to create "a sustainable human lunar presence" on the surface of the Moon.  Which sounds great, but what do we mean when we use the word "sustainable"?

Current usage would suggest that they're looking at creating an eco-friendly community with access to affordable housing and good public transit, but really, what they're talking about are the more practical aspects of sustainability - a settlement that would be able to exist independently of Earth.  It's an intelligent approach to the process, but there are a few hurdles to cross before we get there.

The first step in the process is picking the right location. The Apollo missions concentrated on the Moon's equatorial region, but NASA's plan is for the Artemis missions to land at the South Pole, thereby taking advantage of the water ice which has been observed in craters around the pole.  And that's the second step:  access to water. 

As Chris Hadfield pointed out in his Exploration show, once you have water, you have everything:  oxygen to breath, water to drink, and oxygen and hydrogen for fuel.  "Everything" is perhaps an over statement, I think you need to get some nitrogen in there for the air supply, but it's certainly the place to start.

The other thing that lunar ice gives us is a source of water for possible plant cultivation, which will be a crucial aspect of sustainability, acting as a source of both food and oxygen.

The third step is designing our base, which, given that form follows function, leads to a question which should possibly have come first:  why are we even building a base on the Moon? We've already got the planned Gateway Station, which can act as a hub for travel from Earth to Mars - why are we bothering to build anything on the surface?

I suspect that in reality, part of the answer to this question is "because the President said we were going to" - very similar to the reasons for the first Apollo landing, when you think about it.  However, there are probably better reasons than that.

One of the problems with the Gateway station will be radiation.  The Earth's magnetic field gives astronauts on the ISS some protection from solar radiation, but the Moon doesn't provide a similar barrier.  As a result, the Gateway Station will not be manned on a permanent basis.

The Moon suffers from the same problem, but constructing a base on the surface allows for a much more robust structure, possibly underground, that will act as a shelter from radiation, thereby allowing for permanent occupancy.  Not only that, but the Moon also has at least some gravity, which will hopefully help to reduce the negative long-term effects observed in the zero-gravity environment of the ISS, and the ready supply of water starts us down the path to sustainability, something that Gateway could never achieve.

It's easy to see the Moon base as the staging area for the exploration of the solar system, a kind of jumping off point for future missions.  A permanent base would be part dry dock, part storage depot, part fueling station, and, ultimately, part community - a city on the Moon, a place where people would live their lives and make their homes.

This takes us to the next question:  how do we go about building a lunar city - a colony as opposed to an outpost?  The next posting will take a look at the challenges of constructing a place to live on the Moon, a process which, if it's going to be done properly, will require a paradigm leap on the part of the international space community.

- Sid

 

Apollo 50: "Your dreams are our future."

“Make no small plans for they have no power to stir the soul.”

 - Niccolo Machiavelli

On the morning of July 20th, I attended a celebration of Canada's role in the exploration of space, presented by the Canadian Space Agency as part of the 50th anniversary celebration for the Apollo 11 moon landing.

In many ways, the celebration is well deserved. The Canadian space budget is large for a country of our population - or, as astronaut Jenni Sidey-Gibbons put it, "We punch well above our weight as a spacefaring nation."

However, that money has been well spent.  We're the 39th largest country by population, but we're in the top eight in terms of how many of our citizens have visited space, and our name has become synonymous with space robotics technology - literally, in the form of the Canadarm.  In fact, the first manmade object to touch the moon was made in Canada:  the landing feet of the Eagle lander were designed and manufactured by Héroux-Devtek, a company based in Longueuil, Quebec.

The cross-country event featured presenters scattered across Canada:  Jenni Sidey-Gibbons in Vancouver, Dave Williams in Regina, Jeremy Hanson in Ottawa, and Joshua Kutryk in St. John's.

Retired astronaut Robert Thirsk acted as MC for the morning from the Ontario Science Centre*, and David Saint-Jacques, recently returned to Earth after 204 days in space, was the main speaker for the event at the Montreal Science Centre in Quebec.

Speaking in a mix of English and French**, Saint-Jacques painted a fascinating and evocative picture of the current state of the art in space exploration, starting with the way in which the dream of being an astronaut had molded his life, and then looking at the actuality of that dream, finally boarding the Soyuz rocket, entering space, and gaining a whole new viewpoint on planet Earth.

"You know, you grow up as a child, and all you know is your family, and then you get a bit older and you realize there is a city outside. There’s a country. There’s a planet.  And there’s another step that we take back in our perspective of the whole universe."

He then went on to discuss the International Space Station, describing it as "The most complex machine ever built by mankind", but also commenting on the collaborative nature of the ISS, a project shared between countries that were at war for much of the 20th century: "But in space, we work together. And that’s perhaps the strongest thing for me about space exploration. "

For David, one of the most noteworthy things about the ISS is the manner in which it has allowed us to become permanent inhabitants of space, pointing out that, "Rather than go there for a few days and come back a bit dazed, now we live in space - for months!" He noted that there has been a constant human presence away from Earth for 15 years on the ISS:  "That's not science fiction, that's reality!"

He then discussed the degree to which the impossible environment of outer space is hard on the human body, and the manner in which research on the ISS examines the challenges of life in zero gravity, information which will be vital as we move forward in exploring the solar system, and undertake longer missions in space.

"It’s a bit like testing our camping equipment in the backyard before we say, okay, it’s ready.  I know how it works. Now I can go for real and do future exploration, and that is our future. "

One of the highlights of David's extended stay on the ISS was a spacewalk, "A highlight for any astronaut."

"I assumed I would feel very small.  But actually, it’s very strange – not at all. The feeling it gave me… I was in my suit alone  floating around Earth and I thought, wow, it’s amazing how big it is, the reach of the human mind.  When you look at Earth, you try to imagine the size of a human being on Earth. It’s very small. But the human mind is able to go into space. The human mind invents machines that keep us alive in that environment.  So I was a bit of a representative, a small piece of the human mind that is a huge, endless thing. And that really touched me."

He emphasized the degree to which future exploration will be performed in collaboration with robotic aids, an area where Canada has established itself as a world leader with the Canadarm, Canadarm2, and DEXTRE.

One of those areas of future exploration is the upcoming Gateway project. Canada's contribution to the new orbital lunar station will be the Canadarm3, the next generation of remote robotic manipulators.

"I think it’s a good example of the diversity of talent we have in this country.  And Canadians are known for our creativity, our sense of innovation, our spirit of adventure and discovery. So I’m proud to be part of that team."

In answering questions from the audience, David spoke to the near future of space exploration, commenting that, "Space will surprise all of us in the next five years.  The first people who will go to Mars have been born, but are still children."

In his opinion, as time moves forward, we will use space more and more to monitor and protect our planet.

"That will keep getting more and more important, our space infrastructure and the fact that we use space in our daily lives. So space is here to stay, and I’m glad that Canada is keeping in the leading group of nations in space exploration."

Following the national videoconferencing segment, Jenni Sidey-Gibbons chatted with the Vancouver crowd and took questions from the audience.  When asked about whether she would prefer to pick a particular mission, her response was that "...there are so many opportunities, I'm just looking forward to it, I just want to go. I'm looking to the Moon, to Gateway, or to Mars."  In particular, she looks forward to that first moment of feeling zero gravity and seeing the earth from space.

Regarding Gateway, she explained that the Gateway station will not be manned all the time, and will be designed to be more autonomous than the ISS due to the higher radiation hazards of lunar orbit, wryly commenting that, "people are pretty fragile".

She also spoke to the astounding challenges that she's faced over the last two years of training, such as the rigorous physical testing:  "It's not 'can you do a pull up', it's 'can you get our of a crashed helicopter upside down underwater in the dark"?

She sees no reason for Canada to develop its own launch capability:  "We rely upon our international partners for launching, as they rely on us for robotics."

In her opinion, the international nature of the current exploratory environment is one of its greatest strengths.  The first moon landing was accomplished in a spirit of competition, "redefining what we thought of as possible".  She looks forward to seeing what comes as a result of cooperation instead of competition.

Her enthusiasm and commitment are inspiring.  Jenni, here's hoping you're the first Canadian to set foot on the Moon - or maybe the first person on Mars.

That's one small step for a woman...

- Sid

A full version of the video conferencing portion of the event can be viewed on YouTube:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Eehnnn3uWg&amp

* It seemed ironic that we had a breakdown in the video streaming almost immediately after Bob Thirsk spoke to Canada's premier role in telecommunications.   As my mother would have commented, "...and yet we can put a man on the Moon...".

** I think that closed captioned translation for both English and French would have been a useful addition to the process - I was quite pleased by how much of David's francophone commentary I was able to understand (it's been a LONG time since high school French), but I bet there were a lot of people in the Vancouver audience who didn't follow a word of it.