Colder, please: At McMurdo Station in Antarctica, NASA has teamed with the National Space Foundation to test architecture for a potential moon base.
(Courtesy of NASA)Photos (1 of 1)
Moon base: Location, location, location
NASA’s attempts to figure out how astronauts will survive the frigid, 334-hour lunar night lead it to a sunlit crater rim near the south pole.
By Peter N. Spotts | Staff Writer for The Christian Science Monitor/ March 5, 2009 edition
Reporter Peter N. Spotts discusses NASA's proposed lunar project, plus the Kepler planetary space telescope and an asteroid that cruised by Earth on Monday.
Reporter Peter N. Spotts
If, as planned, the United States eventually establishes a lunar base in 2020, one of the most tempting patches of moonscape is Shackleton Crater at the south pole.
There may be water ice for drinking or converting to rocket fuel, the nearly constant sunlight at the rim is ideal for solar power, and the temperature is relatively bearable.
But perhaps the most compelling reason is something far more primal: surviving the lunar night, which lasts 14 Earth days and can hit temperatures so cold that oxygen turns to liquid.
Amid the many challenges that face America’s bid to send four astronauts to inhabit a moon base for 180 days at a stretch, the lunar night is among the hardest to unravel – and for now, scientists think the rim of Shackleton Crater might be the best place to find solutions.
“If you want to explore the moon, you have to start with the first requirement: surviving a lunar night,” says James Head III, a planetary geologist at Brown University.
The goal to return humans to the moon by 2020, first established under President Bush, appears to have President Obama’s approval. Between his fiscal 2010 budget proposal and the stimulus package passed by Congress, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is slated to get roughly $2.4 billion more than it received in 2008. The 2010 deadline for retiring the space shuttles remains intact. So does the lunar-exploration program, with its rockets to replace the shuttles.
But for all its attractiveness as a steppingstone from Earth to Mars, the moon is one nasty place, explains Narayanan Ramachandran, an aerospace engineer who heads the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Space Colonization Technical Committee.
The allure of Shackleton Crater is that it is relatively hospitable and practical. Explorers perched on its rim would experience a night of only 2 Earth days and 4 hours. The crater’s proximity to the moon’s day-night boundary – called the terminator – also makes it an ideal place to test technologies and find out what works and what doesn’t in both environments.
The difficulties to overcome are many. Solar storms and cosmic rays bombard the daylight half of the moon with charged particles dangerous to humans. Cosmic rays continue the onslaught throughout the night. And the particles smack the lunar surface with enough energy to knock neutrons loose and send them speeding upward – another form of radiation.
Lunar dust is another serious problem. On Earth, dust gets tumbled around, rounding its edges, and moisture in the atmosphere makes it easier to clean off. On the moon, however, those processes do not exist, meaning the grains of the surface soil, or regolith, remain jagged. And with no moisture to prevent static electricity from building up on the grains, they provide the ultimate example of static cling – on everything from spacesuits to rover batteries.
Yet during a recent conference for firms interested in building the lunar outpost, a significant amount of attention turned to surviving the lunar night. Satellites in the right orbit could gather sunlight, convert it to microwaves, then beam the microwaves to a facility on the surface that would convert the beams into electricity. Other groups touted small nuclear reactors whose heat would be converted to electricity required for heating and other needs.
But the cost of getting such big-ticket items to the moon, as one expert puts it, is “one followed by too many zeros.”
This has led some engineers to explore a live-off-the-regolith approach – taking advantage of the positive side of lunar dust: It stores heat.
Specifically, the top four inches of the regolith absorbs sunlight and heats up. Lunar explorers could harvest this material and fashion it into large bricks. Using special lenses, they could intensify the sunlight striking the bricks, heating them to temperatures far higher than they could reach with sunlight alone. Then the heated bricks could be kept insulated and used for heating habitats during the long night.
But habitats aren’t the only pieces of hardware that must be warmed. Robotic rovers and their batteries also need to survive. “We have a hard time keeping … trucks working in Siberia,” Dr. Ramachandran says. “We have no experience working at minus 150 degrees.”
The solution could be a “wadi” – a patch of lunar surface somewhat larger than a rover and covered with what is in effect a reflective tent. During the day, lenses would heat these strategically spaced wadis. As night nears, hardware would extend a reflective cover over the area – like tin foil over a turkey, shiny side down.
Engineers calculate that wadis would be warm enough to prevent lubricants from freezing and batteries from dying. The concept also could be applied to habitats on wheels, which would allow astronauts to explore.
( More stories )
Comments
3. James Stepp | 03.06.09
The moon is mostly a waste of time from a practical aspect. What we need space for is access to mineral resources (iron, gold, copper, paladium etc. rare on Earth) but there are few of these economically attractive resources on the moon. Most of what we need is floating around us in space, as meteors and those are what we need to be going for instead.
We need government help getting companies up there so they can get profitable. Then they will grow on their own and we can start making money in space instead of pissing money into some really cool holes.
4. Lindsey Angell | 03.06.09
We know that welding slag makes a great insulator so why have we not used it in our outerspace programs? It can take heat and still be held by hand… Just think of the great experiments we can accomplish while on the moon. I too beleive for safety reasons that a permanant facility Underground is the near perfect solution. Getting that accomplished on the other hand may take some serious thought as to what compounds and how mcuh is required to to blast our way to underground status then to cover the station and have ports that close off for all sorts of reasons…
5. Tony Martin | 03.06.09
The true answer is use of Nuclear piles that can heat up any solid material, ionize it, and exhaust it for propellant.. whether that be rock dust or water.. there is much more dust than water. A sufficiently energetic power source can easily create functional drives in deep space. The moon is another question, as the surface gravity is sufficient that ISP matters less than total thrust and that may well mean use of Water (turned into H2 and 0) for escape. However, anywhere else in the solar system can and must use available material.. meaning rocks, dust etc. With even simple solar concentrator concepts, thrust could be developed with rock dust, must less going to nuke piles, just less ISP.
6. Ken Murdock | 03.07.09
I like the last idea mentioned of habitats on wheels. A trailer park on the moon…
7. Dan | 03.08.09
Well,my question is this, how did man do it the first time we landed on the moon? If man really started going to the moon about 40 years ago, then these problems should have been largely solved by now. And why has it been so many years since we have been there? Think of how much our technology has improved during that time. Why would it be all the way from 1975 to 2020 (45 years) with no active manned lunar missions?
8. Homunculis | 03.10.09
This is exciting stuff really. The potential to mine H3 from the regolith is truly transformational. I would second sensible’s argument that underground is the way to go but it is too labor intensive. Impossible. We need a bubble environment that is survivable, if not sustainable.
9. Harp | 03.23.09
@ Dan:
The major reasons we didn’t go to the Moon are interest and funding. After we landed on the Moon the first time, people lost interest, they figured it was easy. If people didn’t care, then the project wouldn’t get any funding. It’s pretty simple, actually.
The sad thing is that it actually was extremely difficult and still is even with our current technology.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.






1. Joel Raupe | 03.05.09
IN SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION (ISRU), that and the magnificent dynamics (sneeze) of lunar dust, are big bugaboos for NASA right now.
Better than average article on a interesting topic. (If we can’t survive Antarctica, we won’t make it on the Moon, and if we can’t make it on the Moon, Mars will stay out of reach. Maybe NSA & NASA should set these cooperative experiments up in Central Park, in New York.)
There’s not enough written on the radiation dynamics, at 1 AU distance from the Sun. It’s great to have this natural satellite at the same distance from the Sun as we are, as a time capsule, Rosetta Stone, and noise-free sensor platform for sniffing deeps space.