Astronaut pee will be more valuable for other uses, particularly if there’s a permanent base.
Don’t eat the yellow regolith.
Zubrin points out that an innumerable number of studies could be done before going to Mars. This study seems like one of those unnecessary studies that isn’t moving things forward.
Seriously?
– Pray tell, just how much pee are they talking about?
– Imported carbon and nitrogen would be cheaper tha n in situ sulfide as a binding agent?
– There’s no better use for that nitrogen than, say, nitrates for growing food?
– 3D printing produces something of equal strength and proven safety to, say, a large, Kevlar inflatable habitat?
– Breakdowns and needed repairs of the 3D printers would be less of a problem than, say, inflating an inflatable habitat?
– Etc
–Breakdowns and needed repairs of the 3D printers would be less of a problem than, say, inflating an inflatable habitat?—
Well other using the Starship as a base, or use Bigelow base.
And/or use sintered regolith for structual stuff like foundations and/or paving.
I was also considering a inflatable “tent”.
Which which would be balloon sphere within a larger balloon sphere- and put it a small crater. Then add about 1 meter regolith to floor of each sphere. Put paving on dirt to make actual floor.
And in terms air pressure have large strong enough for 3 psi, and smaller one within strong enough for 12 psi. Fill bigger sphere to 2 psi and smaller one to 10 psig or 12 psia.
So if bigger one gets hole, one probably still have inner one holding pressure. But bigger sphere acts as mud room and storage for things not needing air pressure.
There’s no way could anyone write any snark about that great achievement, no way at all.
Darn. Starship SN3 test failure video. The tank crumpled. It looks to me like an implosion from negative pressure, given the rapidity and simultaneous appearance of the crumpling. Lightweight tanks can’t withstand negative pressure like a submarine hull can. So that wouldn’t be a structural flaw, but a pressurant control or test procedure problem.
Here’s a clip of a tanker showing the same characteristic buckling pattern. The stronger the tank, the greater the delta P before collapse and the more complete the final collapse will be before pressure is equalized. A lightweight, thin walled rocket section would likely buckle only a little, as seen, because it will buckle at such a low negative pressure differential, after which it won’t have structural integrity to resist other applied loads.
Astronaut pee will be more valuable for other uses, particularly if there’s a permanent base.
Don’t eat the yellow regolith.
Zubrin points out that an innumerable number of studies could be done before going to Mars. This study seems like one of those unnecessary studies that isn’t moving things forward.
Seriously?
– Pray tell, just how much pee are they talking about?
– Imported carbon and nitrogen would be cheaper tha n in situ sulfide as a binding agent?
– There’s no better use for that nitrogen than, say, nitrates for growing food?
– 3D printing produces something of equal strength and proven safety to, say, a large, Kevlar inflatable habitat?
– Breakdowns and needed repairs of the 3D printers would be less of a problem than, say, inflating an inflatable habitat?
– Etc
–Breakdowns and needed repairs of the 3D printers would be less of a problem than, say, inflating an inflatable habitat?—
Well other using the Starship as a base, or use Bigelow base.
And/or use sintered regolith for structual stuff like foundations and/or paving.
I was also considering a inflatable “tent”.
Which which would be balloon sphere within a larger balloon sphere- and put it a small crater. Then add about 1 meter regolith to floor of each sphere. Put paving on dirt to make actual floor.
And in terms air pressure have large strong enough for 3 psi, and smaller one within strong enough for 12 psi. Fill bigger sphere to 2 psi and smaller one to 10 psig or 12 psia.
So if bigger one gets hole, one probably still have inner one holding pressure. But bigger sphere acts as mud room and storage for things not needing air pressure.
Hey, NASA is bringing back their worm logo!
There’s no way could anyone write any snark about that great achievement, no way at all.
Darn. Starship SN3 test failure video. The tank crumpled. It looks to me like an implosion from negative pressure, given the rapidity and simultaneous appearance of the crumpling. Lightweight tanks can’t withstand negative pressure like a submarine hull can. So that wouldn’t be a structural flaw, but a pressurant control or test procedure problem.
Here’s a clip of a tanker showing the same characteristic buckling pattern. The stronger the tank, the greater the delta P before collapse and the more complete the final collapse will be before pressure is equalized. A lightweight, thin walled rocket section would likely buckle only a little, as seen, because it will buckle at such a low negative pressure differential, after which it won’t have structural integrity to resist other applied loads.