[HN Gopher] NASA Awards $57M Contract to Build Roads on the Moon
___________________________________________________________________
NASA Awards $57M Contract to Build Roads on the Moon
Author : DocFeind
Score : 59 points
Date : 2022-12-06 15:47 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nextgov.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nextgov.com)
| marcodiego wrote:
| What I really would like to see on the Moon: more investigation
| about peaks of eternal light[1]. These are points close to the
| poles of a body which receive sunlight (almost) continuously. On
| the Moon, if there is an area with a few peaks which are
| illuminated for long enough and with icy water close by; it is
| possible to store energy in the form hydrogen and use it for the
| periods without light.
|
| That could enable permanent settlements on the Moon.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_of_eternal_light
| shkkmo wrote:
| That headline/title "NASA Awards $57M Contract to Build Roads on
| the Moon" condenses information so much that is becomes both
| false and deliberately misleading.
|
| The actual article says:
|
| > to develop construction technologies to build infrastructure on
| the moon--including landing pads, habitats and roads.
|
| So the contract isn't to build anything but to develop
| technologies that could be used to build a wide variety of needed
| infrastructure on the moon.
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Plus, most of that money is probably intended to focus on
| building landing pads since that's still NASA's biggest
| "unknown" risk factor regarding bringing large amounts of cargo
| down to the lunar surface.
|
| It isn't really clear if a large lander like Starship would be
| at risk of digging itself into a hole (and potentially tossing
| regolith into an orbit such that it comes around and hits the
| lander or surrounding infrastructure) if it landed using its
| main thrusters. For now the HLS design includes separate
| landing thrusters higher up, but since those add more
| complexity they're probably fairly interested in exploring
| other possibilities.
| Arrath wrote:
| That does make much more sense, thank you.
| kodyo wrote:
| Nobody was going to build these roads until the government came
| along.
|
| Checkmate, Libertarians.
| HPsquared wrote:
| It's the next step beyond a "road to nowhere". These would be
| from nowhere, to nowhere.
| wmf wrote:
| The Moon has no (net) commercial value so of course the market
| is wisely not building infrastructure where it's not needed.
| pyuser583 wrote:
| In all fairness, the legal situation in outerspace is very
| anti-private business. It was based on the Antarctic Treaty
| which basically says "everything here must be done under the
| auspices of a government, and non-public activities are to be
| avoided."
|
| We should have based it on the Law of the Sea which says "As
| long as a ship is flagged by a government, it can do pretty
| much what it wants as long as it follows customary rules."
|
| You can't own territory on the open sea, but if you're using it
| for something, it's yours for as long as you're using it. That
| would be a good rule for the moon but realistically, if a
| powerful agency wants you to move, you move.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Governments can make all the pronouncements they like about
| things in space. It'll be the people living there that decide
| what they do and don't do.
| nerpderp82 wrote:
| The seafloor is being auctioned off.
| nradov wrote:
| Some countries are auctioning long-term seabed leases
| within their national waters or EEZ for purposes like
| offshore wind farms. But the seafloor under international
| waters isn't being auctioned off.
| discussDev wrote:
| Misleading title, funny enough the road outside my house is
| nothing more then compacted gravel that the intentionally leave
| the dust in... its called B2 modified I think. so as long as your
| moon buggies have reasonably wide tire to weight all you need to
| do is grind it to the right size and compact it. ... but the
| article itself is about much more then that and it will be
| interesting if 57M can actually build a solid structure from
| those materials. As others have said no water or anything so if
| it can be done without a big supply chain then I bet the "tech"
| will be to compress what's there into bricks of some sort. So
| they just reproduce the materials here and see how much they need
| to be compressed to make something usable.
| Etheryte wrote:
| Since my childhood home is next to a gravel road, I somewhat
| doubt that compacted gravel would be feasible. Gravel roads of
| all kinds spin up a lot of dust when you drive on them, and on
| the Moon it would take even longer to settle than on Earth. A
| constant cloud of floating particles can not be good for your
| gear if you want to travel through it with any reasonable
| frequency.
| avmich wrote:
| > A constant cloud of floating particles can not be good for
| your gear if you want to travel through it with any
| reasonable frequency.
|
| I bet on the Moon that dust behaves very different. No
| atmosphere, so no usual clouds. Static electricity, so some
| possible weird behavior. No erosion and soil, so dust is
| sharp and hard.
|
| It would be interesting to see how road construction looks
| like on the Moon.
| throwawaymaths wrote:
| Moon dust is totally weird stuff. Because there's no
| erosion, it's super shardey and pokey. This also means that
| points of contact between individual dust particles are
| minimal, so it's highly insulating and also has very poor
| thermal conductivity across the bulk.
|
| I wonder if it would be worth it to set up a mid/high
| frequency vibration device up to the moon and just run it
| for a few months? Years? To cause vibrational contact
| erosion in the immediate environs of wherever you intend to
| land to soften up the shards... Would that even work?
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| "I wonder if it would be worth it to set up a mid/high
| frequency vibration device up to the moon and just run it
| for a few months? Years? To cause vibrational contact
| erosion in the immediate environs of wherever you intend
| to land to soften up the shards..."
|
| Love this. Very creative.
| frosted-flakes wrote:
| I recall that one of the moon rovers had a broken fender,
| and the dust was kicking up was causing all sorts of
| problems. So the next day they fashioned a homemade fender
| out of duct tape and some laminated maps. On the moon.
|
| https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-
| nasa/2008/2...
|
| > One dousing with dust was enough to make a deep
| impression on Schmitt. Back on Earth he opined that "the
| dust issue is one that just has to be addressed. It's going
| to be the major environmental issue for future missions to
| the Moon."
| Etheryte wrote:
| That was a great read, plus a good highlight for just how
| much of a problem dust is for Moon (and Mars and beyond)
| missions. Thanks for linking it!
| adrian_b wrote:
| To make a solid from moon dust just by pressure would need a
| too high pressure.
|
| Nevertheless, it should be possible to sinter the dust into
| ceramic blocks, by moderate pressure and temperature, together
| with some kind of binder.
|
| As a sintering aid that works as a binder, there are various
| oxides that could be extracted from moon rocks, e.g. yttria,
| though some of the more abundant oxides, e.g. of magnesium or
| calcium, might also work.
|
| So I think that the most difficult part of making solids from
| moon dust or broken moon rocks is the extraction from the rocks
| of the oxides that can be used as binders for sintering.
|
| Sintering has the great advantage that it needs only energy and
| materials that are abundant on the Moon. Cements and adhesives,
| which are cheaper on Earth, need materials that are very scarce
| or absent on the Moon.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Landing pads are part of this deal and are critical to Artemis.
| More info here: https://www.thespaceresource.com/news/2020/6/how-
| will-we-han...
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| I think the most efficient construction on the moon would be
| inflated structures constructed underground in the mooncaves.
|
| Let the caves block the radiation and just focus on the thermal
| insulation and the air pressure integrity.
|
| This means it would be possible to build large volume spaces,
| like sporting arenas.
|
| And that's the segue I need to share a deck promoting "Moonball."
|
| "A Modest Thesis on Moonball:
|
| Billions of people will want to watch professional athletes
| playing sports on the moon. A successful event or sports
| franchise could fund economically sustainable human habitation by
| 2035."
|
| I would love any feedback on this totally modest proposal:
| https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/16QpeWjf1Hbxp_15D5Vtx...
| m3kw9 wrote:
| The contract is more likely to test road building instead
| aynyc wrote:
| Just curious, I get low gravity, extreme temperature and flying
| debris, what are the physical challenges of building
| infrastructure on the moon? For example, I assume we are probably
| use local material to build stuff. What can we get from the moon
| or do we need to ship the whole thing there?
| vkou wrote:
| > What can we get from the moon
|
| Similar to what we can get from the Earth (The mineral
| composition of the two bodies is similar), with the key
| difference being that terrestrial construction sites don't turn
| undifferentiated piles of rocks into buildings, doors, windows,
| elevators, and roadways.
|
| There's a colossal supply chain that turns those piles of rocks
| into usable building materials. We're likely to see moon roads
| sometime after we get flying cars, and economically viable
| fusion energy.
| tyingq wrote:
| Interesting paper on making concrete on the moon:
|
| https://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1985lbsa.conf..381L
| adrian_b wrote:
| That paper is not careful about the meaning of the used
| words and it does not discuss any of the difficult parts.
|
| "Concrete" normally refers to rocks that are bound with
| cement, without having to use high temperature and/or
| pressure.
|
| The paper does not explain how such a cement could be made
| from lunar rocks.
|
| The Portland cement and most other usual cements, which are
| used on Earth, require water, which is not available in
| most places on the Moon.
|
| What could be done is to extract the calcium oxide
| (quicklime), or other similar oxides, e.g. magnesia or
| yttria, from the lunar rocks.
|
| Without water, these oxides cannot be used to make cement,
| i.e. a binder that becomes solid without applying high
| temperature or pressure, but due to chemical reactions at
| low temperature.
|
| Nevertheless, these oxides can be used as binders in making
| ceramics, by sintering at a high temperature and moderate
| pressure, like making bricks on Earth.
|
| Thus one can make ceramics or glass on the Moon, which
| should be the cheapest materials, but not cement or
| concrete. There is no chance of making a building by
| pouring concrete, like on Earth. It should be possible to
| make a building from bricks, which might have shapes
| holding them together, but which must also use some metal
| parts, e.g. bolts or rivets, to ensure that they stay in
| place, in the absence of cement that could be applied like
| on Earth.
|
| It might be possible to seal the spaces between ceramic
| bricks with some kind of easily fusible glass, to make them
| airtight.
| tyingq wrote:
| There is a brief section called "Water Production".
| zardo wrote:
| Isn't the moon going to be lacking in all sorts of minerals
| and ores that form in contact with a water?
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Well, there is nothing organic on the moon, so you can't build
| with wood, don't have the oil and tar used in material like
| asphalt and roofing bases. There also isn't any oxygen for
| producing the fire that would be needed for smelting and what
| not. You need water for concrete. There is water on the moon,
| but it's not flowing or nearly as accessible as the water on
| Earth. It's largely bound up in ice at the poles. The moon is
| also lacking minerals that contain water as part of their own
| structure, like clay, which is a common construction material.
| adrian_b wrote:
| Using only materials existing on the Moon and solar energy,
| it is possible to make some kinds of ceramics (e.g. to be
| used as bricks), by sintering, it is possible to make various
| kinds of glasses, and it is also possible to extract many
| metals, some of which are much more abundant in the lunar
| rocks than at the surface of the Earth, e.g. iron, titanium,
| manganese, chromium, zirconium.
| djexjms wrote:
| It is an interesting design problem for sure. I'm not expert
| on this stuff, but the first thing that comes to mind is
| gravel roads. Plenty of moon rocks would be available to be
| crushed into gravel. You might not even have to do that.
| Robots might be able to rake up enough material of suitable
| size.
|
| Once you have your gravel, use robots to make a path and
| compact the regolith. Put down the gravel over the compacted
| regolith, and there's your road. I have no idea if that would
| actually work or not, but it's interesting to think about.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah and to compact it, you need more mass than on earth
| because gravity is lower. Or you somehow compact it between
| two pistons that can provide lots of force and not be
| limited by gravity.
| Loughla wrote:
| >Or you somehow compact it between two pistons that can
| provide lots of force and not be limited by gravity.
|
| I feel like maybe I'm missing something, but isn't this
| just a compactor? What am I missing? Does hydraulic
| pressure need gravity?
| avmich wrote:
| > Does hydraulic pressure need gravity?
|
| If your compaction includes application of force
| vertically, top down, you need something opposing that
| force. On the Earth it's usually gravity, and on the Moon
| it could be the same, just the gravity on the Moon is
| ~1/6 the Earth one.
| Loughla wrote:
| Again, I think I'm lost with this. A hydraulic press
| needs gravity to oppose it? Like, the hydraulic cardboard
| compactor that pushes down on a bale of cardboard somehow
| uses gravity?
|
| I am legitimately confused by what you're getting at. I
| feel like maybe we're not even talking about the same
| thing.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| No you're not missing anything. You're right. I'm saying
| that you'd need such a device on the moon because of the
| limited gravity. A compactor doesn't care about gravity.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| djexjms wrote:
| You just need one piston. Load the robot up with some
| rock ballast if you want, but even without, a thumper
| style compacter would still work in 1/6 g.
| JoeAltmaier wrote:
| Ice and dust/gravel become the cheapest I imagine.
|
| Followed by aluminum! You could sinter (?) Al out of bauxite.
| Imagine a metal road!
| balaji1 wrote:
| IIUC you refer to "flying debris" from outer space hitting the
| surface of the moon. But the local lunar dust itself is a big
| challenge to be addressed for future moon mission EVAs:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k9wIsKKgqo
|
| This dust would probably be a physical challenge to equipment
| used to build infra.
| Kukumber wrote:
| Who owns the moon? shouldn't there be an international
| concertation to grant such infrastructure contracts?
|
| The question will arise when China will want its roads too
|
| Who will be there first?
|
| First to land, first to build, rights to own?
| twawaaay wrote:
| Good question. Technically, nobody, due to Outer Space Treaty
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty).
|
| In practice, the only reason the treaty is still up is because
| it is not very practical to go to terrestrial wars over
| possession of a piece of Moon surface or an asteroid while you
| have no realistic method of making any use of it.
|
| It is likely one of the powers will withdraw from the treaty
| when they are finally ready to take possession of a significant
| asset in space and the benefits outweigh the risk of
| terrestrial war. And then other countries will do pretty much
| the same not to get behind.
| Kukumber wrote:
| NASA puts the west in a very bad position, India will want
| its roads too unless they'll be forced to do like
| ESA/CSA/JAXA and become just an equipment supplier for NASA
|
| How can you negotiate to prevent other organization to go
| solo and claim ownership, if you yourself go solo?
|
| We are headed for a big mess, thanks to Greed, that guy is
| omnipresent nowadays
|
| China is prepared, they know how to build autonomous space
| stations, they replaced the ISS
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong_space_station
| dotnet00 wrote:
| Describing ESA/CSA/JAXA as 'just an equipment supplier for
| NASA' is exactly the issue you're attributing to the West.
| They aren't prevented from developing their own crewed
| spaceflight capability. They aren't even prevented from
| working with China (ESA has experiments on Tiangong for
| instance). They just find it more effective to put aside
| greed to work closely with NASA.
|
| It is well understood that the only reasons ESA and JAXA in
| particular don't have crewed spacecraft is a lack of need,
| as both are clearly capable of developing reliable rockets
| and having supplied modules for the ISS are also clearly
| capable of designing spacecraft that can keep humans alive.
|
| If India wants its Lunar infrastructure in the hypothetical
| case where the West somehow has already fully colonized it
| before India has had a chance to establish and maintain its
| own colony, perhaps India too should put aside its greed
| and seek to work through things via mutual cooperation?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The Outer Space Treaty has provisions for non-interference of
| science. So if you set up a lab on the surface of the moon,
| nobody is allowed to interfere with it. Non-interference
| implies a keep-out zone around the lab.
|
| So while it's not ownership, it has many of the same benefits
| and properties.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-06 23:02 UTC)