inflatable Mars habitat and Lunar base

This is a new concept of a habitat for Mars for a self sustainable Mars colony.
It is based on an inflatable structure shielded by a deposit of regolith. It also reflects natural sunlight into the habitat. So there is plenty of sunlight to grow plants for self sufficient production of food and oxygen, and to heat the habitat. This concept provides in a small scale a complete ecological cycle, where humans , plants, insects and microorganisms live together in symbiosis.
High energy consuming 3D print technology is not needed for that structure.
More information on: www.marshabitat.space
Update 26th April 2022: we just published a new video about a Moon habitat design, which is based on that Mars habitat design, and further developed: • PNEUMO PLANET Inflatab...
also watch the new video about the inflatable Earth.-greenhouse derived from that Mars habitat design: • inflatable greenhouse ...
#marshabitat
#spacehabitat
#space architecture
#marscolony
#marsmission
#esa
#inflatablearchitecture
#inflatable
#pneumocell
#thomasherzig

[@josephcler3299]

This is a really well-thought-out concept for the first colonists on Mars. Once the proper industry is established people will switch over to more durable building material.

[@olawlor]

Wow! There are many great ideas here--I love that vacuum-packed solid regolith appliance!

[@D_Rogers]

Nice! I like how well shielded everything is from above, if they want to land rockets near to the base, the base needs to debris proof! :)

[@joeteichert6821]

It seems to me that the main, huge advantage this solution has is how light and fast it is. You could get a whole lot of living space quickly. I love the music, by the way!

[@KEB129]

If these structures can hold the pressure your ideas are very cool! It could work, especially if you remember that plants need water!

[@jq4700]

Great job! You have great ideas!! I have a simpler solution based in the use of water instead regolite. Pure ice is transparent but shield radiation, in addition is an excellent termic isolation and you can equilibrate the habitat internal pressure with the weight of the ice. As you can calculate 0.5 atm is equivalent to 15 meter of ice on mars. Even you can use it to concentrate light as a lens. I also know how to make cheap foundations by using cables although doing things well you don't even need them. I think I know how to do it. I would like to work with people like you some day.

[@thomasherzig174]

There has been this mars ice house project awarded in the 1st stage of the NASA design competition. A smart concept. But I see 4 problems : 1; Water/ice is difficult to mine on Mars. It is expected to be on the poles, 9000km away from the equator where the habitat should be for climate reasons,. Or there hopefully is some underground which needs to be. processed to be extracted. 2; the inner temperature should be around 20°c and even outdoor the temperature can raise up to 30° sometimes. This means the ice would constantly melt on the inner side. To avoid the ice vaporizing in the low pressure on Mars, when temperature raises above 3°c. you need a transparent membrane layer outside to hold the steam and steam pressure until it freezes again, this are high pressure forces on the membrane and the membrane is fully exposed to radiation, dust storms and micrometeorites 3; it will be difficult to produce a 3 meter thick ice wall so clear that not much of the light is absorbed 4; Ice is very brittle. in case of a Marsquake it might crack

[@thomasherzig174]

if you are interested go on my website and contact me. When I get enough budget to continue quicker, I might need more brains in the team

[@gregcaspn]

This could work... you go first !!

[@toddkorson6390]

Greg Cason it’s about priorities....

[@cyberdinedog2097]

Ok

[@jeffharmed1616]

Amazing design with surprising detail thanks. I love the prospect of this habitat being set up and put into operation by drones before the first settlers arrive. It’s my first choice for piloting on the moon.

[@domtassone]

Very inventive method - never saw anything like this! 1 - Rockwool is also commonly used in hydroponics/aquaponics/aeroponics applications 2 - You might need LED to supplement natural light and then mainly for fruiting plants vs. leafy greens 3 - There are new solar films that can pass light through and also generate electricity (they look pink) so in theory the incremental electricity could help offset demands of #2 4 - The Martian geothermal possibilities for power or HVAC are definitely food for thought The lunar lens and mirror concept is also novel - well done!

[@thomasherzig174]

thanks for your input of ideas! On Mars, according to the available data and my calculations the natural sunlight is sufficient even during dust storms. specially since sunlight from a larger area can be focused by the curved mirrors. for LED light the problem is where to get the electricity and how to store electricity. electricity only can come from pv panels , where the efficiency only can be a lot worse than from the original source, or from nuclear reactors which have a high payload as do batteries. the sun still ist the easiest, most efficient and most reliable source for light and heat

[@thomasherzig174]

the sunlight in he Mars orbit is nearly half as much as on Earth orbit. On the surface during a dust storm still 30% of the global radiation is available mostly as diffuse radiation . A cloudy sky on Earth darkens a lot more. the light intensity on a bright summer day is abut 100.000 lux. on a bright day in winter ts is15.000-20.000 lux which also ist the maximum that most plants can use for photosynthesis. on a cloudy day it goes down to 1000lux. indoor a room with 500lux seems to be perfectly bright. because the human eye can adapt to different light conditions in a ways that we don't notice these great differences

[@brookestephen]

You could cover inflatable habitats such as these, in lunar or mars regolith, build structures of dirt around them in the same way as humans build Pyramids. They are the most economical use of 3d printing, inflatable habitats, and multiple story building. They also provide the most economical and quickest way to guard against micro-meteorites and radiation. You must ensure that you can move machinery, equipment & stores to the appropriate level within the habitat, and pyramids provide a smooth ramp to every level. This approach basically involves blocks of polymer-infused regolith, surrounding a space filled with tamped loose regolith, containing walled empty space for habitation, or even just stacked inflatable modules, and a helical ramp just inside the blocks, with access to each level, to move things around. Robots could collect and distribute regolith, make blocks of amalgum, tamp regolith, move equipment critical stores and habitat structural elements into place. And just why would you need windows, if you have cameras outside and video projectors inside the habitat? kzbin.info/www/bejne/oGXGlXeKZr-pd6M

[@doppelrutsch9540]

I like it! Lots of interesting ideas.

[@harrywhite7287]

I'm thinking we combine your plastic structures with Elon's tunnels and we have a winner. Build your plastic structure so that it just fits inside a tunnel and maybe some outside areas that just use your structure as a plug to block off the tunnel. You could build all sorts of structures with intersecting tunnels.

[@D_Rogers]

Plenty of unoccupied caves on Mars too, if you don't feel like digging... :)

[@jtasakorn]

A fascinating concept, case, and approach! I'm sure adequate redundancies are designed, but some would feel the need for rigid supporting structures such as pillars and roof as well.Cementing the regolith on top and into pillar pockets, with steel wires, could also be readily facilitated as well; but that likely needs water, which evaporate easily on Mars, so super glue? :D

[@jeffharmed1616]

During the CO2 liquefaction process and regolith excavation, the water extracted could be used for the plants and any excess pumped into the surrounding regolith to solidify and form rigid protection. Then the overhead PV cells would minimise evaporation

[@MarsMatters]

@@jeffharmed1616 If we are going to go to all the effort of sending solar cells to Mars, they should at least be Sun-tracking! Unless this design features in-situ solar cells on the roof, but that would defeat the purpose of being able to set up quickly and purely with materials shipped from Earth.

[@quantumkip7081]

I think this idea has potential. I'd focus solely on the lunar torus design. It would work just as well on Mars and you simplify your design/testing/construction chain. Bigger bases just means more modules. Not to mention long tunnels of just hallway is a waste of mass. They are dead weight for the structure and all the pipes and wiring that go through them, so reducing connecting hallways is essential. My main concern is that air pressure is keeping up the tons of regolith above your head. What happens if/when an explosive decompression event occurs? All that regolith will come crashing down like a mine cave-in. Considering your bases have no internal pressure doors, any kind of air leak would lead to the entire facility decompressing. Some sort of back up structural support would be needed to keep the entire place from caving in. I love the V-Doors (i'll let you figure out what the V stands for :)). I've been trying to think of some sort of simple airlock door for a while and I think this has potential to be a potential pressure door. Maybe add a zipper seal on each side and bam, pressure door. The torus base is good but I think you should put the walkway on the outer wall instead of in the middle. While this will reduce overall useable space somewhat, it would be a MUCH safer design as each living/working area would have two exits. One into the hall and one into the farm/garden area. So if, say, a fire breaks out right outside your door, you still have an alternate means of escape. Also the outer walkway wall can be used to run piping, cabling and vents easily. The material used would have to be very resistant to punctures and constant rubbing against sharp regolith. On Mars, the temperature can very greatly and as the air inside heats and cools, the entire facility will expand and contract. Or, at least, move around a bit and rub against the regolith below and above it. I don't see a purely inflatable habitat being more than a semi-permanent structure (with maybe a 5-10 year life max). I think it would be really great as a temporary base plus a form for casting say martian concrete around it (martian regolith mixed with a binder to make a concrete like substance that can be poured around the habitat to make a solid structure). Great ideas though! I love it!

[@erinmcdonald7781]

Concept looks great, many variables considered. For your try out on Earth, you could maybe collaborate with Cody's Lab channel. He's already done some Mars sorts of experiments, and has an eclectic range of education and skills. In addition, he has some land in the high desert. His followers add to the depth and diversity of knowledge, as well, adding input from the fields of engineering, agriculture, materials science, chemistry, and more. That would be a fascinating exchange of information and applications, which could forge a broad based community for endeavors this ambitious. Enjoyed your thorough presentation. Looking forward to seeing where your technology goes!

[@jacktownsend3170]

How about leaving spaces for pillars of regolith in the middle of the structure, moulding a medieval-style vaulted chamber. That way a depressurisation accident could convert the structure into a self-supporting cave and not immediately crush the occupants. The sort of regolith binder that the 3D printers are proposing also be used to in the first coating of regolith to improve strength and leak resistance. Also, seems like the 3D printing approach is complementary and worth having both for redundancy in the same was as with energy sources.

[@thomasherzig174]

that could be done over a long time, when the inflatable structure already is in use. But it won't help much. When you have an air leak on a Mars habitat that cannot be fixed quickly , the major problem is the lack of breathable air and low air pressure that makes eyeballs pop out and blood vessels burst, not the collapse of the structure. On an inflatable building the collapse does not destroy the structure, because there are no rigid parts that could break. After repair of the airlock it can be inflated again. Also the inflatable structure does not crush immediate but collapses slowly as the air escapes through the leak. In case of a leak not too large, slow enough for humans to escape as well. The weight on the ceiling presses on the volume so at least some of the inner pressure is upheld during the collapsing process

[@illusionKillerNL]

You should go to Elon Musk with this plan retry at first on earth then on the moon and then we go to Mars! This is the best plan I ever seen on Mars concept habitats! Go to Elon Musk and make it a reality!!

[@AshleyWrigglesworth]

You have to mine material on Mars, that material might as well be water. Fill the outer layers of the structure with water. The frozen water will give structural integrity as well as radiation protection. Alternatively print a structure with water and coat it with a thin material to prevent the water from ablating away.

[@thomasherzig174]

that kind of design already exists. The reasons why I do not opt for water as structural building material: 1; water is difficult to mine on Mars. a lot more difficult than digging loose regolith nearby with an excavator. 2; ice needs to be kept below 0°C but inside temperature needs to be at 20°c. So the ice wall will melt inside and trickle down along the necessarily transparent inner membrane 3; outside temperature near the Mars equator is often above + 3°C and sometimes even above 20°C. With the low air pressure ice would not just melt but vaporize. So you need an additional transparent membrane outside the ice to keep it in a pressurized environment and the membrane needs to be reinforced to withstand that pressure. The ice has mechanical strength ,but it is very brittle as well. in case of a Marsquake or a Minimeteorite it might crack. So the membranes need to be built that they can withstand all the inner pressure by themselves anyway

[@kennethmartin1300]

Arnie Schwarzenegger says at the end, "Get your ass to Mars", so I guess we better do it!! BTW, the music is GREAT!! Very classic and appropriate. And... the ideas here could work, the materials are light enough to transport and are only the materials hard to quickly get on Mars. Then, in-situ materials embellish and complete the habitats - perfect combination.

[@solifugus]

I see a number of good ideas here. One major mistake, however, is that argon is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen. While it works great for scuba divers with proper mixing, it will fill the lower section and asphyxiate the inhabitants of a habitat. Instead, just absorb the nitrogen and add oxygen. Also, CO buildup will be a problem at some point. My suggestion is to use hydrogen/oxygen combustion for cooking and heating. It will also destroy the buildup of trace CO. It will get very cold at night. The sunlight mirror is a good idea but remember that Mars sometimes has dust storms that can last months. Natural Spectrum LED will work fine. LED's made for DC current can last a lifetime, unlike the typical ones you buy for homes on Earth. Actually, they could be made to last a century or more.. You really don't need that much regolith on top.. One meter will block all cosmic rays, solar flare radiation, and protect against typically small meteors. Honestly, 1/3rd of a meter should be enough. Too much weight will force too much air pressure to keep it up... It's equal to crushing the inhabitants under that regolith..... Consider also rigid structural components.. As for the material, I would suggest PVC. It's highly insulative, fire resistant, and maintains pressure very well. Also, given sufficient energy, you can easily mass produce it on Mars using the high pressure steam method. That is, acquire chlorine from the plentiful salts in the regolith, as well as water, and the CO2 rich in the atmosphere. Steam that all together under high temperature and pressure and it will rain PVC resin.

[@thomasherzig174]

Thanks for your input: regarding the problem with the different specific weight of argon, you might be right. I forwarded it to my partner who is a physicist and has has elaborated that system of extracting liquified CO2 and converting CO to CO2 to get breathable air inside. I am curious about his response. Regarding the sunlight, it is not that bad during dust storms. I am referring to data collected by the Viking lander and NASA report TM 102299 by Joseph Appelbaum and Dennis Flood written in August 1989. The direct irradiation is significantly reduced during dust storms, but diffuse radiation is not much affect. So the global irradiation still is 30% of the Maximum at least . According to our calculation these 30% still are sufficient to keep the temperature at 20°c inside without any additional heating and sufficient light for the greenhouse . On the download section of our website: www.marshabitat.space/downloads.html you can find the data and calculations on page 13 -15

[@thomasherzig174]

regarding the membrane material, PVC gets very brittle below +10°c. this is why I even don't use it for outdoor structures on Earth. On Mars that temperature problem is worse of course. Second, there is no UV-resistant transparent PVC available, and 3rd the mechanical strength of PVC is poor compared to other material unless it is reinforced with fibre. I would opt for ETFE or aliphatic UV-resistant TPU. But for indoor components it might make sense to produce components of PVC, produced from salt of the regolith and Carbon from the atmosphere

[@thomasherzig174]

I now got a reply by my physicist partner to your objection about the higher weight of Argon. In fact it would only set down on the ground in a totally calm environment, like inside a sealed bottle with no temperature changes. But in real conditions air is always in movement and molecules are spreading and mix with the environment . please read blow: No, that is not right. Just think about that there is 1% argon in our atmosphere. And also there is some even heavier carbon dioxide here and if he would be right, the lower layer of the air would contain a lot of argon and maybe we were suffocated to death. But this is not the case. The fact is, that the gas particles have a very high speed - the speed of sound - so in a gas mixture, the particles are perfectly mixing with each other quickly. Perhaps there is a little difference in the argon concentration between the lower and the upper atmosphere, but this difference is unrecognizable in a few meters in height.

[@zzubra]

It is NOT true that 1 meter of regolith will "block all cosmic rays;" that would only block the more easily blocked cosmic rays. One source offers that it would take around "1000g/cm^3 of material which equates to 5 meters of lunar regolith (2g/cm^3) or the Earth’s atmosphere" to block Galactic Cosmic Rays to Earth-equivalent levels. Likely the density of Martian regolith is similar? One can use less shielding if you envision astronauts just briefly visiting, but if they are staying long-term, Earth-equivalent protection would seem desirable -- especially since they'll be getting a lot more radiation whenever they leave the habitat. (See www.rcktmom.com/njlworks/LunarRegolithPprab.pdf ) The inflatable habitat won't be able to support quite that much regolith if it's not using full atmospheric pressure. But, it will be desirable to pile as much regolith on top as one reasonably can.

[@solifugus]

@@thomasherzig174 Like in a scuba diver's breather, as long as it stays mixed then it is fine. Obviously outdoors on Earth, we have winds and if you keep the air moving then you're fine. However, I'd be concerned in a sealed environment, especially when sleeping. It's extremely rare for such cases to exist on Earth but there are known cases of deaths due to inert gases, including argon. For example, nvic.nl/sites/nvic.nl/files/pdf/case-report3_8.pdf But why use argon, in any case? Mars has nitrogen, too, that you could filter out and concentrate. Furthermore, nitrogen is vital for plant growth and the human body also makes some use of it, if not very much. I think the most common thing overlooked by most designs for martian living is the CO buildup potential. It's only a trace gas but will build up gradually when moving in/out of an airlock or on bringing martial regolith inside. I'd have to read your article again but I think you did mention it. If so, you are one among very few to consider this silent killer.... detection and destruction of CO is crucial.

[@lorenkaysing7600]

Interesting idea. What benefit do the ceiling "support wings" offer over just having another inflated tube running along the outside? Seems like tubes would be lighter and more compact, as well as less stressful on the rest of the habitat. You wouldn't want to spend a lot of time in the outermost tubes, but they could be useful for growing more radiation-hardy crops, or just filled with CO2 and only used as support structure.

[@myyklmax]

Mars' surface is often subjected to violent sandstkrms that are on a level of a Cat5 hurricane. Therefore the habitat should be placed in a shallow crater, so that the high winds can be directed over the crater and not trapped inside it. By placing tbe habitat ona crater wall, residents can dig into the strata for additional shelter area and protection from cosmic radiation.

[@thomasherzig174]

the atmosphere on mars is 1% as dense only as on Earth. Even a storm with 500kmph on Mars has the same impact as a wind with 50kmph on Earth only. Duststorms only are an issue because they block sunlight and sight. The global radiation that arrives during a dust storm is reduced to about 30%.

[@MrMadmanUSA]

Personally, I think you could get a great amount of light into an under ground base simply by using sky lights with angled mirrored panels that are I backed with special blocking materials on the back of the mirror. Or using a sort of acrylic prism centered with-in the sky light. Certain translucent materials can also stop radiation due to their composition.

[@zzubra]

For the highest energy radiation, nothing stops it but mass. So, I wouldn’t count on any transparent materials to provide full radiation protection. Schemes with mirrors and angled panels could work in principle-and that’s what the video is proposing. Yes, one could also do this with angled skylights, but the complexity of that would be a bit higher.

[@stefanr8232]

@@zzubra The mirrors in the video have moving parts which makes them more complex. Most skylights and light tubes are passive. Probably not a big deal since we are talking about a Mars colony.

[@steveanddiddy]

Sounds like what Bigelow was made for. Too bad it was shut down. I thought it was a great idea for space stations, moon stations, etc.

[@r0cketplumber]

Much more effective than a thin layer of CO2 would be to apply a thin metal film to the outer envelope, etched with pores large enough to pass visible light but too small to allow thermal IR through. With photosynthesis-useful light only going to at most 700 nm, and the thermal IR peak at about 10600 nm, such a "hot mirror" can admit sunlight well but conserve heat.

[@Mhm5213]

Yeah that door has been built and tested on my funny bone..... I’m sorry, too funny, brilliant video greatly appreciated and agree with the thoughts on building cost and cons to 3D print. Need a better chair however.

[@zzubra]

3:55 I quite enjoy the design involving making the outer pressure-containing layer out of closed, inflated cells. (I've continued to think about this.) I like that it provides both redundant pressure containment and a straightforward means of identifying and localizing the presence of leaks, even if they are very slow leaks. (It might have helped if the ISS modules were designed this way!) One issue I have been thinking about is how leaks can be detected in places where the pressure-containment layer is not easily accessible to visual inspection, e.g., at the bottom of the habitat, under the ground or flooring. It occurs to me that is should be possible to design small wireless remote sensors that could detect the loss of integrity of an inflated pressure-containment cell. There are already companies that manufacture small wireless sensors and integrated circuits that can function without batteries that need changing. One could in principle engineer a small wireless sensor module with appropriate functionality. Perhaps it would include a pressure sensor and an ultrasonic sensor for detecting changes in the volume of the cell or perhaps it would measure the strain in the membranes. Regardless, it should be possible to engineer a module to detect loss of cell integrity. One could integrate such sensors into every cell that is not accessible to visual inspection, or even into all cells. Granted, this would increase cost and manufacturing complexity. I do love how the baseline design offers so much well-thought-out functionality in ways that are ultimately quite simple, even relatively low tech. If one were really paranoid about redundancy in pressure containment, one could introduce additional layers. For example, theoretically, one could have a third membrane and the cell-boundaries between layers 1 and 2 could be located differently than the cell-boundaries between layers 2 and 3. Though, that might become prohibitively difficult to manufacture and/or install. One could also simply use two double-layer-with-cell structures, one inside the other. One would have to do a careful risk-reward study to decide if either of these more complex designs were worthwhile. Likely, they're not necessary. But, it might be nice to have these options in mind, in case the basic design is for some reason assessed as too risky. Maybe extra redundancy would be viewed as worthwhile in areas where humans spend most of their time? When a habitat gets sufficiently large, it might also be comforting to have partitions between sections of the habitat that are capable of holding pressure even in the event of catastrophic failure of one of the sections. (Of course, with all that regolith on top, pressure failure of a section would be even more catastrophic and likely unrecoverable than in would be with a rigid design. So, you really, really, don't want a blow-out to happen. Those engineering a real system will need to work through failure scenarios and ensure all significant risks are mitigated. I do think that the risks are likely manageable, and the design has enough merit that it deserves to be taken very seriously.)

[@thomasherzig174]

yes the saftety and to avoid airlocks are one off the most important challenges and therefore the most criticized point of the design Since effort and expenses are not a big deal for a Mars Habitat , sensors might make sense if they and the required cables can. be small and light enough. and they need to deal with pressure changes through temperature changes and if the celll are manually inflated their inner pressure will be different from the beginning. Regarding a 3rd layer it is almost unmanageable to weld these 3 layers together with the cells overlapping in a different position. because all 3 layers are pressed together by the welding mould and you only can weld together all three of them on the same place with one welding process then. The only solution could be to have 4 layers by producing 2 independent double layered membrane tubes where one is inside. the other one. Also in case of repair you only have access to the inner membrane. or the outer membrane ( by removing regolith) but never to the middle layer. For other safety feature, like independent modules that can be shortcut from the system by lock doors and bypassed find the pasted text below: well sorry! it seems, youtube does not allow to post copy-paste text

[@zzubra]

@@thomasherzig174 The sensors could be entirely wireless, with no need for any cables. And, there are schemes for making so-called "zero-power" wireless sensors which are powered by having them harvest ambient energy -- such as temperature variations (in locations where these are significant) or radio-frequency energy beamed in their direction from time to time. I expect that these could be at most a few square centimeters, and thin. They could be adhered to the inside surface of one of the membranes before the membranes are fused together to create cells. Yes, there will be variations in pressure and volume or strain due to temperature fluctuations, variations in initial inflation pressure, etc. I wouldn't expect fault alarms to be linked to a fixed threshold. Rather, I would expect that data would be tracked over time, and an alert would be raised in the case of a significant drift over time or a sudden major change. The "brains" that decide when to raise an alert might be in the sensors themselves, or might be in a habitat management computer that periodically polls the sensors for raw data. (Edit: I see at least one reference that talks about sensors of this general type already having been tested in the context of a prototype inflatable lunar habitat: www.highfrequencyelectronics.com/Nov12/1211_HFE_sensors.pdf) It makes sense that simple manufacturing techniques that apply to a 2-layer structure would not be adaptable to a 3-layer structure. (Edit: At least, this is an issue if one is welding layers together. I assume that makes the best, strongest and most air-tight join? A third layer could possible be added if it was attached using adhesive, instead of welding? Though, I'm having doubts about my original idea of having the cell boundaries differ for layers 1-2 vs layers 2-3; I'm realizing that might introduce additional stresses that could increase the likelihood of failures?) As for repairs... Even with a 2-layer structure, I'm guessing one usually wouldn't try to directly repair a damaged outer membrane adjacent to regolith on the top or on the bottom. I'm imagining that one would instead bond an additional segment of membrane on the inside, and inflate the pouch it creates, so as to ensure that one once again has at least two layers of membrane providing pressure containment, as well as a cell that can be used to localize leaks. Or, do you see this working differently? (In a scheme where two 2-layer structures were used, it would be considerably more challenging to attend to any loss of integrity in the outermost layer.)

[@thomasherzig174]

@@zzubra you can repair small punctures or cuts with a clue tape, but generally glueing never is as strong and reliable as welding the membranes. To glue on a hole panel for a cushion would be very hard to glue so accurate that it is airtight and the glueing connection can t take the same mechanical stress as welding. Or maybe there is a super expensive super adhaesive glue paste or glue tape for space missions that is not used on normal applications on Earth ans that I dont know yet

[@zzubra]

@@thomasherzig174 Makes sense... The patch material could be thicker than the primary membranes, so the patch could be designed to take the stress. But, one would have to be careful about the attachment to the primary pressure containment structure so as to not introduce unacceptable stresses there... I would hope that the probability of more than a tiny puncture or leak will be very small. (Working out repair strategies might be a significant research project in its own right. Here's one source on space adhesives in general: www.spacematdb.com/spacemat/m-datasearch.php?name=10:%20Adhesives,%20Coatings Nothing immediately jumps out at me about them.) Thanks for your thoughts. I wish you a lot of success in further developing the concept and getting it due consideration.

[@ChristianCOMMARMOND]

Hi, I think, that this is globally very good concept. Probably, you would need more nuclear power that sun, because of the long dust storms on Mars, sometimes during several months, so, you have to plan a way to heat the place in this case or calculate for some heat accumulation in the soil around. Despite all the criticism of some other comments, and the reasons why printed habitat may not be possible at the beginning of human presence, I think your proposal is very good. Please continue to develop your concept. And could you give some more information about the sun reflectors, I think that the weight you give for them is a bit low. Thank you for sharing this.

[@thomasherzig174]

Thanks for sharing your considerations that concern some important points. According to the data collected by the Viking lander, dust storms reduce the available sunlight to 30%. The direct radiation suffers from the dust but not so much the diffuse radiation.According to our calculations still still is sufficient to heat the habitat to an acceptable level. for a habitat on the equator Photosynthesis slows down but still is going on. On Earth clouds in the sky or fog can swallow a much higher percentage of the sunlight . As you mentioned the thick soil around also stores a considerable amount of heat for preriodes with less sun. When you download the catalogue from our website www.marshabitat.space. , you find the information about the sun irradiation and heat transfer calculations on page 13-15 The material for the mirrors is just a thin hanging membrane. frames to hold the mirror membrane should be made of carbon fibre tubes. The tubes can be short when placed on embankments of regolith Nuclear Kilopower reactors should be taken to Mars too. But only to produce electricity or heat for industrial melting processes,. Since photovoltaic panels give less power during dust storms and the surplus of electricity on a sunny day cannot be stored easily. It is better to have several sources of energy. But natural sunlight still ist the most reliable, the cheapest and the most efficient. At the moment we are working on a prototype of the derived design for a greenhouse on Earth. But I hope to get a funding by European Space Agency this year ( we are in the closer selection process now) to continue and more focus on the Moon habitat version, because this is where the technology should be tested first, before being applied on Mars

[@ChristianCOMMARMOND]

@@thomasherzig174 Thank you for your answer. I did not know the numbers about the light absorbed by the dust storms. But still you will need to clean the mirrors (maybe some vibrators can do this for cheep if the dust is not too much glued by static electricity ???). You talk about short tubes to hold the mirrors, but on the video you talk about moving the mirrors. You would do it manually, say one time per week or months? I also did some rough calculations about ultra light movable mirrors, and I think that an average of 50g per square meter still low. Even if the strongest martian wind is equivalent to a 25km/h, the very big surface of the mirrors may make them act like wings and need some straiteners and anchors. But I might be wrong on this. Anyway, your proposal seems very interesting, solves a lot of problems.

[@thomasherzig174]

@@ChristianCOMMARMOND the top edge of the mirror membrane is not moved at all. Only the bottom edge is moved horizontally towards or away from the habitat by winches. It is like a curtain that you grab on the bottom and lift and pull it. Since the mirror membrane is suspended , the geometry of the membrane alway will be a parabolic curve, which is optimal to focus the light into the habitat. The mirror membranes need to make a full forward and backward movement in their position once every Martian year. So the movement is very slow. It could be done manually, but it would be better zu use tiny automatic remote electric engines. I would not be concerned much about possible damage through wind, but wind could disturb the curve geometry of the suspended membrane. So this is a point to be addressed later when the design goes more into detail it is 0,5kg = 500gramm per m2 not 50gramm/m2 in the video

[@ChristianCOMMARMOND]

@@thomasherzig174 Thank you for the information. Sorry, I thought that I heard 50g... 500g is maybe too much. I just thought about that: is there a way to give the shape to the mirrors and to straighten them with inflatable tubes? I think that I saw somewhere a design of inflatable structure where the inside parts of the inflatable part are filled with a polymer which hardens when put in contact with the gaz used to inflate it. So it is soft when it is stored, but when you inflate it, after a while the material becomes hard and maintain the shape even if the gaz leaks. Do you know about this? (Sorry, I'm French, and may english is not very good).

[@Nairuulagch]

Yes come to Gobi desert in Mongolia to test your cool design as we earlier talked on FB if your factors assessments meet! Good luck!

[@Nairuulagch]

Gobi desert in Mongolia is the most coldest driest desert which is ideal Mars simulation condition. Plus you can enjoy 3G, 4G connections in most locations. I wonder our local security, services might be better than Chili.

[@zzubra]

17:00 for the applications on Earth, it seems like there will need to be an over-pressure inside, and air-locks if that overpressure is at all significant (i.e., enough to contribute to bearing significant weight on top). That seems maybe ok in an application where you don’t need to enter/leave frequently (a greenhouse?), but potentially problematic in applications (eg, a hotel) where a lot of traffic is anticipated. I wonder how much overpressure would need to be present to lead to a need for slow decompression, to avoid the “bends”?

[@thomasherzig174]

yes, depending on the thickness of the deposit on top , about 50 -100 millibar of overpressure are required. Less than for the Mars habitat, but still it needs to be careful calculated for the structure. An airlock is necessary . The best solution would be these Lock doors they use on Boats. Apart from greenhouses , single home also might be an application as prefabricated "instant " houses that just need to be put into a pit and be inflated. Which keep a moderate temperature around 20°c without heating or cooling. But I don't see a use for hotels or other large highly frequented buildings.

[@thomasherzig174]

from all your comments and questions, you seem to have a lot of technical understanding. What is your profession?

[@zzubra]

@@thomasherzig174 I have a Ph.D. in Applied Physics. Though, it’s a long time since I’ve been a working physicist. (I also worked as a software architect. More recently, I focus on interpersonal communication, collaboration, and conflict resolution.) And... issues related to space exploration is an area of active interest.

[@zzubra]

Many things about this design seem very promising. I like the simplicity and efficiency of the construction techniques involved. I could easily imagine some version of this approach being deployed on the very first Mars mission, and being available for use early in the stay on the surface. For habitation modules, it seems like there will be a regrettable lack of sound insulation-it appears that the only way to get sound isolation may be to have a long tunnel between modules that aren’t otherwise connected? I’m curious about the potential for manufacturing new module components on Mars, given suitable materials? It would be nice to have this capability both for repairs and to address unforeseen needs. I’m ambivalent about the “lip” doors. I suppose they could be braced open, when one needs to move equipment in or out? I wonder what benefit they actually provide? Minimal sound insulation? Barriers to unwanted air movements? Having two layers of pressure containment seems like a good idea in general, for safety. I like that the design includes this. (Except at the ribs between air pouches; I imagine those ribs will be tough enough that punctures there are unlikely?) How do you imagine forming a flat, stable floor? Filling in the bottom with regolith? For a habitation module, I wonder if regolith would pose a health hazard, unless it has been heavily processed? Providing a good floor seems to me to be one of the more puzzling issues. Maybe the surface the habitation is on can be made very flat, so that the lower layers of the habitat are forced to conform, then you just overlay the lower membranes with hard panels of some lightweight material, to protect the pressure-containing membranes from wear? I wonder how one could detect a leak in a sub-floor membrane? Though, this may be unlikely after everything is installed? (Unless one inadvertently imports rodents, or allows one to escape from a lab? Yikes! That could be a big problem?)

[@zzubra]

I’m curious about the construction techniques. There are a lot of inflated compartments within the structure. Are there inflation valves? Or are they inflated as the membranes are joined together, then permanently sealed?

[@thomasherzig174]

@@zzubra the inner walls are just inflated once they are zipped on. with any kind of electric rubber boat airblower. Maybe after several weeks they need to be reinflated a bit. I already produce inflatable wall elements which are connected visa nylon zippers: www.pneumocell.com/pneumocell.elements.english.html www.pneumocell.com Yes the sound insulation is not very good, but still better than in the ISS station I guess. Since you need about 400-500m2 of greenhouse area to sustainably feed one person, there is enough space to keep distance between sleeping compartments. If you only grow vegetable and bring grain from Earth you need less agricultural area. But then it is not 100% self-sufficient .

[@thomasherzig174]

there also is a way of forming rigid indoor components by inflatable membranes: You take the inflatable envelope outside where the airpressure is nearly zero and fill it with mars sand, then you close it again. When you take it inside the innere air pressure of the habitat will press the envelope onto the sand inside . Pressed together by this strong force it will be rigid. like these vacuumed peanut packages. So you could make hard panels or even columns and massive inner wall this way. But it is a lot of mass to carry inside which is very heavy even under mars gravity. But a toilet bowl or a sink could be quickly produced this way from a thin light envelope from earth and sand from mars

[@zzubra]

@@thomasherzig174 if interior walls may need to be re-inflated from time to time, is the leakage through the valves or the membrane? Sounds like a chore that it would be nice to be able to eliminate. Might, for example, using more expensive valves fix the problem? What about the cells of the outer pressure vessel? If those have leakage, I’d worry about that.

[@thomasherzig174]

@@zzubra in theory it should be airtight forever, but it depends on the production standards / efforts. The welding needs to be done very carefully,. after production each item needs to be checked. For cheap inflatable items they only make a 24 h air leack test, For higher standard you test longer. When when the leakage is a very little bit only after a week, it is very difficult to detect the air leack because it is so tiny. Also the membrane material could have tiny leakage when not produced carefully . it also depends on the design. With simple geometry that requires a few production steps only , it is easier o produce something 100% airtight. . For the big structural membrane a little air loss would not ne critical. You can slowly add CO2 from the atmosphere by time , which will be converted into oxygen and biomass through photosynthesis

[@RandomGamer-qy6ys]

I’m pretty sure 1 starship is a big enough habitat, the amount of pressured air in it surpasses the ISS

[@riku3716]

Habitat for limited term visit yes, large enough for food production or constant human presence on the planet no.

[@billlyell8322]

I disagree, step 1 drop an orbital satellite to send both light and electricity down 24/7. Step 2 send reactor, and robots to build sub surface hardened shelters and greenhouses. Build the infostructure before people arrive and have fresh food waiting! Step 3 send send starship supplies. Let's be kind and let them have the inflatable furniture. Step 4 people arrive to pre-built 3d printed handed structures ready to live in.

[@solifugus]

Starship is a good size but radiation shielding is limited. It is not meant for permanent habitation. On the other hand, Starship could carry some far larger inflatable habitats that could be buried for radiation and temperature and meteor protection. Back when the Mir was the big space station in orbit and they were talking about retiring it and the space shuttles, I remember thinking to myself, "geez.. just use the shuttle to tow in in orbit around Mars." Or at least the moon.. granted, that thing was falling apart.. and the shuttles was truly aging, as well.

[@Swedeflyern]

That door... who is gonna say it???

[@ltyr-mr2if]

Every time you leave your room, it's like being reborn!

[@Silberschweifer]

oh man, my mind... but this door... the shape i like it

[@r0cketplumber]

The greatest problem with closed ecologies is the inevitable amputation of the atmosphere. In the open on Earth, a square meter of good farmland extends at least 30 cm into the surface and has a mass close to a ton, with perhaps 10 to 50 kg of water available. But the air on top of it outweighs everything else at ten tons. Putting a dome generously ten meters above the soil leaves at most twelve *kilograms* of air, nowhere near enough to buffer the daily flows of water, water vapor, CO2, and oxygen that must flow in and out of the soil and plants. All the ills of ECLSS stem from this desperately limited air supply. For example, those ten cubic meters of air, at 400 ppm CO2, contain a whopping seven grams of CO2. The enclosed ecosystem is balanced on a knife edge. Any off-earth closed ecosystem will need a good buffer for oxygen, CO2, and nitrogen. All three gases must be able to be drawn from and returned to storage as the biosystems fluctuate in throughput due to seasonal and (on Mars) weather changes.

[@thomasherzig174]

in our following project for a lunar habitat which is developed more in detail ,we considered this and provided a cryogenic storage of surplus CO2. On Mars it is a bit easier, since there is abundant CO2 in the atmosphere, so we can release CO2 and get new one from the atmosphere. On the moon ( where carbon nearly denote exist , we need to preserve and recycle all carbon

[@r0cketplumber]

@@thomasherzig174 Yes, on the moon everything other than oxygen is too scarce to be wasted. But when growing and storing food, oxygen ought to be stored as well because it will be needed when the food is eaten, and building up inventories for population growth will be a continuous effort.

[@antonnym214]

Thomas, das ist wunderschön und du bist ein Genie. Wie verhält sich das Material gegen Strahlung und Kälte? Wird es spröde oder ist es in Ordnung? Alle guten wünsche!

[@thomasherzig174]

oh danke, dein Lob macht mich verlegen. Anders als beim aufblasbaren Modul von Bigellow für die ISS, ist unser Folienmaterial zum Glück weit weniger äußeren Einflüssen ausgesetzt, da es in Regolith eingegraben ist, selbst der transparente Teil ,der nicht eingegraben ist, bekommt kaum Partikelstrahlung ab und nur zu einem geringen teil normale UV Strahlung, ähnlich wie auf der Erde. Wir arbeiten gerade mit eine Förderung der ESA an einer Mondhabitat -Version und konnten nun bezüglich Material mehr erforschen, als zu dem Zeitpunkt als dieses Video erstellt wurde. Wenn die Spiegelfolie mit Silber beschichtet ist anstatt Aluminum ( das wäre in diesem Fall Kapton Folie, die sehr gut beständig ist gegen Partikelstrahlung) wird nur ein geringer Teil des UV-Lichts reflektiert. Wir haben nun zwei Materialien in der näheren Auswahl: aliphatisches TPU, das UV-beständig ist und bis minus 115°c nicht brüchig wird, oder Mylar, das sogar knapp über dem absoluten Nullpunkt noch nicht spröde wird und ebenfalls gut UV-beständig ist. Mylar ist bereits im Weltall erprobt, aber noch nicht für große begehbare aufblasbare Konstruktionen. Mit TPU habe ich schon viel auf der Erde gebaut, aber es bedarf wohl einiger Tests, um zu sehen wie es sich unter den Bedingungen am Mars oder am Mond verhält

[@MarsMatters]

This is an excellent concept and video! You have my full support :) I can appreciate the ability to detect punctures in the ceiling compartments, but I wonder what the colonists could do to repair such a leak once identified? You wouldn't be able to access the deflated compartment without taking apart the entire habitat (since you would need to access the hole to patch it, and accessing the hole would result in depressurization without some creative solution to patching it while it is still pressurized). Depressurization would be a very bad thing for many reasons, including the ceiling caving in on you. It's important that the design include, as much as possible, elements that the colonists would be able to repair or replace if necessary. I also wonder why you have combined the living space with a green space; plants presumably don't require the same kind of radiation shielding that the living quarters would, and they require less pressure as well. Unless I am missing something, it doesn't make sense to cover the greenhouse section with regolith and then reflect light; couldn't you just let the light in directly to the plants? Would this inflatable structure be able to let in natural light while partially filtering it for UV? I'm guessing that a big problem for Martian greenhouses built with this material would be temperature regulation inside, since the material probably has a low R value (poor insulative properties), so the regolith on the roof would help with that. Additionally, you would need a LOT more growing space than was shown to feed someone on Mars. The amount of land that is needed to feed one person on Earth is between 0.1 - 1 acre per person. And I am curious to know what source you are relying on in suggesting that 3d printed technology on Mars for habitat construction would use a lot of energy?

[@thomasherzig174]

Some of your question are better explained in our Moon Habitat video that shares many features with the Mars habitat design. The Mars habitat design as shown this video already had been done in 2019. Form 2021 on, with the funding by ESA the Moon habitat design followed, which was worked out more in detail. there we also explain the energy issue with 3D print. The point is that none of the published designs for a Mars habitat or lunar habitat designs that are based on 3D print, show any numbers for he energy consumption . Also by researching in the www. I could not find any data. So i took for reference what comes close physically and chemically: the production of rock wool- it is silicate molten and restructured as for 3D-print. There I easily could get the numbers. On Earth that energy requirement is easy to match , but on Mars energy is not abundant . Sunlight for PV modules is less than on Earth and Kilopower reactors cause a lot of payload . regarding the possibility of puncturing the membrane. Since there are 2 separate membrane layers it is very unlikely that both get punctured at once. When the outer membrane gets punctured ,you need to remove some of the loose regolith on top to get access to the hole and fix it with glue tape If both membrane layers get damaged , it would take some time until all air escapes ( depending on the size of the hole) and the weight of the deposit, that presses down, helps to uphold some pressure. So the crew has some time to escape. When the collapse cannot be avoided, the whole greenhouse module is sealed by closing the lock doors and disconnected from the other modules. As explained in the Moon habitat video. the mirror membrane can be coated with silver instead of aluminium. Silver reflects much less of the UV-range but a bit more of the visible range of radiation. This way the light spectrum reflected into the greenhouse comes quite close to what Earth subsurface receives. For the Mars habitat I estimated 500m2 of greenhouse area to sustainably supply one human with food and oxygen. There are 2 different types of modules. one mixed greenhouse and living, and the other type greenhouse only. For the moon habitat I calculated 120m2 of greenhouse area for one human, because we receive more constant sunlight for photosynthesis and can more easily uphold the optimal temperature . Since the radiation does on Mars is 100times more than on Earth ( 240msv vs 2,4 msv). I think, even for plants some protection is useful. Specially since animals (at least insects for pollination and composting organic waste) would live there too and humans also would spend time in there. not just for labour intensive agricultural work, but for leisure in a natural environment as well. But I considered the different requirement , by placing the greenhouse at the outer zone ,and the human compartment in the inner zones where the radiation shielding is more effective. The regolith deposit on the ceiling not only serves as a radiation protection. It also protects from micrometeorites and it is a heat insulation and thermal mass. It absorbs excessive heat in the daytime and helps to keep the temperature on an acceptable level during night. Only covered with a thin membrane or glass ceiling ,as often displayed in renderings for martian greenhouses , the greenhouse would suffer from a great heat loss during night time.

[@MarsMatters]

@@thomasherzig174 Thank you for the detailed answers. 500 square meters for growing crops is around what I calculated as a *minimal* requirement for growing food for one person as well. (If you are interested, in the description of my videos is my "research doc" where I have links to the various sources I used to arrive at that number.) Using hydroponics grown with reflected light would help to reduce the growing space needed, and would also help to conserve water. It's my understanding (from statements by Robert Zubrin) that Mars's atmosphere does help to filter UV from the Sun slightly, which would help plants a little but he claims greenhouses on Mars would still benefit from a slight amount of extra UV filtering. On the Moon there would definitely need to be UV filtering, especially since the energy from Solar flares reaches the surface of the Moon much more strongly than the surface of Mars, due to both the lack of an atmosphere and the closer proximity to the Sun. (Mars's atmosphere is decent at blocking the Sun's harmful radiation, but much less effective against higher energy cosmic rays.) From what I understand of Lunar and Martian regolith, it's a very good insulator with a high R value, but this means it wouldn't act very well as a heat sink to release heat at night (since it never really absorbs much heat during the day). When measuring the temperature at different depths of Lunar and Martian regolith, it's suspected that at something like a meter deep the temperature is pretty much constantly stable, despite the surface temperature changing quite drastically from night to day. Thankfully this means that, being mostly surrounded by regolith, the habitat would be well insulted by consistent temperature contact material, making temperature regulation easier. The sides that were exposed to the Martian atmosphere (or the lunar vacuum) would not lose much heat either, since ambient heat loss on Mars's surface at -64 degrees Celsius is equivalent to ambient heat loss on Earth at only -8 degrees Celsius. (My sources for regolith insulation and Earth Equivalent Heat Loss are also included in my research document in the description of my videos should you be interested.) I don't have data about Earth Equivalent Heat Loss on the Moon, but it would presumably be even less than on Mars since there is no atmosphere the only way to lose heat would be into the regolith (not much would be lost this way) or as radiation into the vacuum. Since only the sides on the Moon and Mars would be exposed to heat loss to the ambient environment, I suspect it wouldn't take prohibitive amounts of energy to stay warm at night in either location with your design. The main temperature concern on the Moon would be thermal expansion and contraction of parts (specifically seals) exposed to the wide temperature fluctuations between night and day, but this would be less extreme at the poles. I'll watch your other videos and see if any other questions come to mind, but in your answer I'm quite satisfied with your explanations!

[@thomasherzig174]

@@MarsMatters hello, I have read your document and I could see that you have done profound research. I just think that you still underestimate the heat loss in the greenhouse over night. In our Moon habitat study we dedicated l one chapter about heat transfers. Even in a vacuum you still have considerable heat radiation losses. For dark periods longer than 6 hours, even there we need to cover the window with a heat insulation curtain, to not lose too much heat, And on Mars there also is heat transfer and heat convection because it has an atmosphere. If you like to give me your email address, I can send you the 210 pages report of the lunar habitat study we have made for ESA

[@johnc4876]

Looks like an unmanageable contraption to me. You go first. Good luck with that!

[@chrisnewsmith9326]

This is very clever technology and the weight of it this could realy work we could build a small city with this while we work out the technology and techniques to build permanent structures on the moon and Mars. They should contract Elon musk and SpaceX I bet they would be very interested in this.

[@lacie5522]

I like it and I think we should try it. But I have major concerns about the durability.

[@thomasherzig174]

since this project is just in a preliminary design phase, the durability and safety still needs to be approved, but I should be

[@thomasherzig174]

I wrote a lot about the safety concept, here but most of the text disappeared, as it seems

[@charlesmyrick8734]

this is very interresting and it could work but how would you move and place thee dirt on top and how would you build it up around the side area for the mirrows? you can not move a crain to the moon or mars with out losing the weight

[@thomasherzig174]

a modular lightweight vehicle with plug-in modules ,that can be used as a rover but as as a crane or as an excavator would be required . The payload of the excavator still would be much less than that of a rigid building structure, and probably less than for a large 3D printer. And for the 3D.printer you need an excavator additionally that moves all the regolith to the 3D-printer anyway

[@joeygoguen1525]

Wouldn't it be easier just to dig and build a reinforced cave system or tunnels?

[@thomasherzig174]

still by far not as easy as just deposing the loose regolith on top. and we want to use natural sunlight, which is not possible inside a cave

[@nero9248]

The sound editing and music are horrendous

[@WorksopGimp]

Horrible some deaf person did the editing I'm sure

[@eugenecbell]

I can’t watch the whole thing

[@AtlantaTerry]

The music badly distracts from the video. Yes, I know it is "The Planets" by Holst. This video needs to be deleted then reloaded with no music, just the narration.

[@ltyr-mr2if]

Agree!

[@ltyr-mr2if]

@@AtlantaTerry Agree, agree!

[@simpitacademy]

Right now many people grow microgreens stacked vertically and use LED that consumes little energy for artificially light. If humans go to Mars, it'd be easier to live underground in empty larva tubes that provide protection from solar radiation and the cold, and grow vegetables with LED down there.

[@thomasherzig174]

LED consumes a lot less energy than previous "daylight" bulbs, But still efficiency ( visible light vs electric input) is 50% only. The energy that you need for 100% artificial illumination of a greenhouse still is enormous ( 200-300W/m2) . That energy is delivered by the sun for free and does not require any payload. On the Mars equator it is up to 500w/m2 at clear sky at noon and 150w/m2 during dust storms. Even on Earth, where electricity is easily available, vertical indoor faming only is profitable for growing highly priced "organic" lettuce and herbs which mostly contain water, and don't need much sunlight to grow fast. But what counts for nutrition is the output of edible organic dry mass per kWh . For corn or wheat which have a lot more of dry mass per kg but achieve a much lower price per kg it does not make sense at all. The novelty of that concept is that you are mostly buried under regolith for protection but still can make use of visible sunlight.

[@ronaldwhite1730]

Thank you . ( 2023 / Dec / 03 )

[@ltyr-mr2if]

If they play this music in this Mars base, within a few hours, the astronauts will leave the airlock open.

[@solifugus]

You need to also consider wind energy. The air is thin but the wind is constant and consistent day and night on Mars.. It will produce even during the months long dust storms.

[@Wandering_John]

are there any plans to build as a proof of concept? In the artic regions or even in a desert?

[@thomasherzig174]

we have a lot of plans for that, but not the required budget yet.

[@IvanSantanaEu]

Ok! Now make a prototype and teste it.

[@atomicmuffins1328]

I’m no rocket scientist but I have used an air mattress before and from that can conclude I wouldn’t put my life in the hands of a glorified air mattress.

[@thomasherzig174]

of course that structure an the used materials are as far away from an air mattress as a car tyre is. Bigellow has successfully installed an inflatable module in the ISS-space statin, where it is exposed to cosmic radiation , debris and micrometeorites. In the PNEMO PLANET design on Mars or on the Moon, the inflatable structure is protected by several meters of loose regolith. So when an inflatable structure can be safe enough in space , it can be even saver in the conditions on Mars

[@billlyell8322]

If your speaking of a plastic box store matress your right. However there are other vulcanized materials that are actually usable. I refer you to the 1956 Goodyear inflatable plane, white water rafting boats since the 1950s/60s and even today's select confort beds(i used one for over a decade). But while lighter than other materials, none of then are very light. You lift any of these 3 examples you know your carrying something. A chair, coach or sofa is possible but not without a padded cloth cover. I still remember the sweety blow up furniture from the 60s. Lol

[@wildbillnye]

But what about a glorified tin can? Do you know how leaky the ISS is? Buried inflatable modules on mars is an excellent idea.

[@graemesandstrom5654]

Wow how innovative! Such well though out concepts. I hope Elon is watching

[@greensky01]

Hah good one

[@brendaaadorno2963]

👏👏👏👏👍👍👍

[@leofreihofer]

Interesting they used a Star Wars X-Wing fighter for the guy in the inflatable. Are they trying to tell us something? lol

[@39Thorns]

Going completely underground and figuring out how best to pipe in sunlight seems the best way to go. Or grow lights. Hopefully there will be boring machines and a power source waiting for the first people when they arrive.

[@madmatter007]

Very efficient idea! I like it. However, how much material does a mars dust storm move? Would a storm completely remove a roof or completely fill the reflective air gap?

[@thomasherzig174]

to avoid the deposit being blown away during storms, on top of the deposit the regolith should be filled into thin bags, or you use bigger stones and boulders, that can't be blown away that easily. on the mirrors and on the photovoltaic panels you can blow away the dust with compressed air

[@danielson9579]

Did anyone find this a bit disjointed 🤔

[@wildbillnye]

Also, get a patent for this.

[@thomasherzig174]

I already patented it. patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/36/f5/52264fdac73559/AT521909A1.pdf You can't apply for a patent after the idea is already published

[@dorothiehaygood5339]

Music not needed !

[@NatureDoublethink]

Remember to bring the digger

[@racinggamevideo9279]

so the Regolith presses the membrane and produces pressure in it ?. interesting idea.

[@thomasherzig174]

the weight of , lets say, 3 meters of regolith (4500kg/m2) would press with 18KN / m2 only on Mars, and half as much on the Moon. This is only a fraction of the pressure inside that you need for breathable air. The greater part of pressure just comes from inflating it . The tensile force onto the membrane, that results from the inner pressure, is a couple of times higher than the load of the deposit

[@racinggamevideo9279]

so regolith is a radiation shield, but it helps a little bit of the pressure inside, right?

[@MrDarren5012]

Walking through that bubbles doorway kinda looks like you are being reborn.

[@solifugus]

Yeah.... It's hard not to notice that. However objectively, it's not a bad idea. I wonder if cleaning would be difficult. I do know that durable long lasting plastics that are also very inexpensive do exist. My favorite is PVC... Highly insulative, anti-microbial, flame resistant, clear (with blue hue) in pure form, and does not fatigue. Also given a lot of energy, would be easily made on Mars and is fully recycleable.

[@daniellafferety4025]

Interesting ideas. Build a prototype city on the earth to test the desine before intruesting human life to it. This might be extremely useful for areoponics gardening on the earth. Possibly floating in the swampy salt water that will occur with sea level rise. As traditionally gardening might be impossible in a salty marsh water that would occur during sea water inadating our cost lines.The people who are live on the earth. During the 22nd, to 25th century Will need living space, and food. And fresh water.

[@tantumDicoQuodCogito]

Plastic is not good for hold gas, you need full close material, molecular. Cristal, ceramic, NASA suggest send machines, robots, and take avantage of terrain and building it is great idea

[@thomasherzig174]

tell this. to Bigellow , who successfully have installed an inflatable module on the ISS

[@369mfkzt2]

Someone needs to show this video to Elon Musk!

[@foxrings]

The first, alpha base will need to ship in nitrogen. After that nitrogen can be harvested from various nitrogen salts in the soil.

[@jonathanbedsole1671]

Is that an X Wing pilot at 4:27.

[@thomasherzig174]

the uniform of an X-wing pilot with my head on top

[@informatimago]

What about this crazy music ? Drop it !

[@Astronist]

Yes, I found the music distracting. And the robotic commentator.

[@delh1415]

Strain to hear the commentary, then intermittently blasted by the crap music.

[@robvangessel3766]

With only 38% of Earth's gravity, will it be possible to create an artificial gravity system inside a Mars habitat to compensate the difference? No other way humans could stay there for more than a year without falling apart.

[@jeffreywickens3379]

I would NEVER trust my life inside a pool toy or bicycle inner tube.

[@raybilverstone2066]

So they will take a JCB to Mars😂.

[@hoodoo2001]

I wonder what they would do on Mars? Just walk around for the fun of it? What experiments would be worthwhile....send the robots solves a lot of problems. I mean if you want to build robot ships that land and actually take off of mars I think you need to do that first before you try it with humans.

[@informatimago]

The end goal is to become a sustainable independent colony. The jobs will be: - obtain energy, - obtain O₂ and H₂O, - obtain food, - obtain shelter, - obtain resources needed for maintenance and building of tools for the above. So they will be quite busy. I'm not sure 1 million people is enough. Genetically, for reproduction in a favorable environment, 30,000 seems to be largely enough, but technologically, are 1 million people enough to learn and apply the knowledge needed for a space colony? Of course, we can hope a lot of knowledge will be embodied in robots and AI, but then how many more millions programmers and engineers do you need to add to maintain the AI software and robots? Remember that each of the above points are critical; any failure will rapidly become catastrophic; you cannot wait for weeks or months for the programmers to debug the code. The technological solutions need to be simple to deploy and sturdy, but may still require a lot of knowledge to set up and maintain.

[@t-6273]

Y not make earth ships with sand bags?

[@solifugus]

In World War II, the United States made ships out of concrete to send supplies over to England. There is one docked in the Seattle area near where my younger brother's boat is, as a block again waves protecting their marina. That is, moved half way around the world and still in use, of a sort... still floating.

[@tristanwegner]

3:12 The percentage numbers add up to way more than 100.

[@thomasherzig174]

you are right. this is mathematically incorrect But in fact the amount of argon and nitrogen remains the same. By adding CO2 that is converted in to Oxygen by photosynthesis, the total number of molecules increases and so does the density and pressure of the inner air. So yes, mathematically it would be correct to show percentage number of argon and nitrogen decreasing. But I thought that would be more confusing for observing the process within a few seconds

[@WorksopGimp]

1:04 how do you get the JCB up on mars to cover it?

[@thomasherzig174]

a special Mars-customized excavator goes to Mars in the same way as the Mars Rover and all other equipment, but of course not that JBC model :-)

[@Saishokara]

Do i... Do i have to be birthed out of my own room?

[@thomasherzig174]

I am not a native englisch speaker. What does the expression "birthed out of my own room" mean?

[@Saishokara]

@@thomasherzig174 the doors look a bit... Innapropreate. Idk how to say it gently. Probably don't call them "lips" if you catch my drift. Otherwise inflatable habitats are a fantastic way to build in space and i hope the best for this concept.

[@thomasherzig174]

@@Saishokara ok, now I understand what you mean …-)). I have no problem with analogies between architecture and biology. Isn't the womb the first habitat of every human being? I respect your feelings or that you might be triggered by the "lips". But in the harsh conditions on Mars ,efficiency is most important over everything else. The success of the mission will demand from the crew give priority to what is efficient over cultural beliefs/habits. If for example insects are the best source of protein to be grown inside the Mars Habitat, because beef is impossible and chicken less efficient , they will eat insects and have to abandon their disgust.

[@billlyell8322]

@@Saishokara i thought it was the only good part. Except maybe pink would be a better color choice. Lol

[@Saishokara]

@@billlyell8322 oh god oh no.

[@baltsosser]

Counting on Solar to do anything but be a paperweight in a high wind super dusty environment like Mars is looking like a disaster.

[@andrewyork3869]

We have solar powered rovers on mars.

[@marcuscooper7550]

@@andrewyork3869 we also have nuclear powered rovers.

[@andrewyork3869]

@@marcuscooper7550 RTG's may or may not be viable hard to say with out a known power requirement.

[@17leprichaun]

great presentation, well thought through!! but the sound-design is terrible! thanks anyway

[@thomasherzig174]

this video is more than 4 years old. in the meanwhile we significantly have improved our skills for producing videos: as you can see on this most recent Mars habitat video: kzbin.info/www/bejne/nnaUc4xja9eona8

[@17leprichaun]

@@thomasherzig174 thanks for sharing - indeed what a step forward :)

[@KHURUCHANGAMING4182]

the best way is to test it on a large vacuum chamber with same pressure as mars for months or year? just opinion hehehe

[@joeteichert6821]

Agreed. There's no good reason not to test this method here on earth. It's not too difficult to simulate off-planet conditions here. And it's much easier to make changes here than off-planet.

[@kirtwalters]

Hmm you bring a bouncy house to save weight but you need a backhoe to make it safe?

[@andrewyork3869]

Maybe just tie add it on to the rover? Not like there won't be a rover on a manned mars mission.

[@mrzoinky5999]

And these will support all that Martian soil .... and sharp rocks? Is anybody starting to work on a Excavator that will work on Mars?

[@thomasherzig174]

there will be a thin foam protection layer over the membrane. stones will be sift out of regolith and put into thin bags that are dropped on the roof (so it can t be blown away fly the wind. bigger stones are places on the upper layers where they have no contact with the membrane. a suitable modular excavator, that has low weight , can be packed into a spaceship and can operate at the conditions on Mars ,still needs to be developed

[@stevensargent2063]

AND THE LEAST STABLE PERSON WENT NUTS WITH A RAZOR KNIFE AND KILL THE WHOLE BASE.

[@gjhghhuuy1107]

Becalful alien!

[@angelwhite376]

The fine dust will be the down fall of most on Mars.. If we go their to live it will be underground or a new clear material to stop raidsdion

[@ltyr-mr2if]

While the choice of Holt's Mars from The Planets would seem appropriate, it turns out to be annoying as a musical background for me. The music is far too busy to underlay this interesting video. The music is about the god of war, not peaceful settlement on another planet.

[@janjISMYname]

Much luck needed👀

[@solifugus]

Courage.. and a spirit of adventure...

[@arnoldchikozho6547]

🤣🤣 Don't forget the excavators and coffins. Send a text.

[@thomasherzig174]

this will be specially designed excavators, like a marsrover but with a backhoe bucket. Coffins are not need. To live sustainable and self sufficient on Mars all organic matter needs to be recycled. Even Corpses will need to be decomposed by worms , insects and bacteria and recycled into fertile soil. But let´s hope that a future Mars mission will be prepared lcarefully enough the nobody needs to die there or on the way to there.

[@I_am_Diogenes]

0:20 IF that is the only requirement . Pretty sure you might want to work in "durability" not just "light weight" . 3:25 Havent figured out just how dangerous high oxygen concentrations in space programs is yet ? Thats enough make believe for one day .

[@thomasherzig174]

In the video we suggest to keep the inner air pressure at half of sea level air pressure on Earth and raise the content of oxygen from 21% to 30%. In the carbon age 300 millions of years ago the earth atmosphere was denser and had an oxygen content of 35%. When the accident in Apollo 1 occurred , the air pressure inside the spaceship was 15% above sea level pressure and the content of oxygen was 100%.( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_1 ) It is the combination of pressure and oxygen content that makes it more or less explosive in combination with fuel So our suggested pressure and oxygen levels are not more dangerous than the normal Earth atmosphere . Beside this is not a crucial part of the concept. Changing these atmospheric values would not require to change the concept at all.

[@v_raptor2218]

The angry birds space soundtrack hits different

[@scottcampbell7944]

Still not enough gravity for long term health and the Martian soil is toxic.

[@DrToddles]

bamboo?

[@solifugus]

I have often considered bamboo as a material for spacecraft and other world habitat structures, myself... or at least the fiber from it. It could also be grown in situ.... very durable.. very good for structural integrity..

[@kirtwalters]

Can you send me one of them doors. But a lot smaller

[@thomasherzig174]

how small does it need to be to fit you? :-)

[@kirtwalters]

@@thomasherzig174 lol

[@joeygoguen1525]

What happens when there's a dust storm?

[@thomasherzig174]

even during a duststorm still 30% of sun radiation is available ( the diffuse part) .although photosynthesis is reduced, plants still can survive and grow at a slower rate

[@joeygoguen1525]

@@thomasherzig174 how do you deal with the dust coating the panels?

[@thomasherzig174]

@@joeygoguen1525 this is one of the issues we will need to go into detail. But there are 2 ideas: 1; let the membrane vibrate (with sound) so the dust is shaken off 2; there is a thin transparent outer layer that only functions as a crust. when it gets too many scratches from sand and dust blown by the wind, then it will be exchanged with a new layer

[@1bigdogthe]

wouldn't it be much simpler to inflate inside a lava tube

[@thomasherzig174]

there is no sunlight in the lavatube.

[@dwurpee4995]

early

[@dwurpee4995]

@@thomasmi8 i can truly understand you :D

[@superjeffstanton]

WHAT ABOUT STORMS?

[@thomasherzig174]

they don't matter on mars since the atmospheric pressure is so little.

[@troyevitt2437]

...and we'll be up there wearing Star Wars X-wing flight suits...because...reasons?

[@thomasherzig174]

this is just a personal decision of the guy in the rendering because he thinks he looks handsome in that suit. If you want to go there you are free to wear whatever you like

[@billlyell8322]

You are talking about using loose regolith as shielding the structure but do not mention it is a powdery toxic substance. 3d printing would allow regolith processing to remove toxic material. A 3d printed stricture is self supporting harden shelter not subject to popping like a ballon. Trench sub surface built structures could also be back filled for additional shielding. Why have a surface mirror/voltaic system when a space based system could remain active continuously? Send down both visible light and electrical energy 24/7. We have thousands of years proven experience with soil based construction. Why use a fancy ballon? Growing up in the sixties with inflatable furniture i know how sweaty it gets in minutes. It could require a padded cloth cover to be usable. It is an idea for beds chairs and couches however even interior walls would let the kids hear everything going on in mom and dads bedroom. Lol.

[@thomasherzig174]

"We have thousands of years proven experience with soil based construction. Why use a fancy ballon?" sorry the main part of the message got lost: the partly toxic regolith is outside only of a sealed structure. the regolith that is used indoor as a base to make fertile soil is cleaned an processed before taken inside

[@zzubra]

Something unique about construction on Mars or the Moon is that there must be a pressure differential between inside and outside. I see this approach as taking advantage of that inescapable difference in a clever way.

[@zzubra]

Regarding a space-based system for gathering power... that is many orders of magnitude higher complexity than the solution being proposed. That complexity is unnecessary. (And, beaming power gathered in space to the ground is an approach that Elon Musk has been a vocal opponent of, believing it to be a misguided approach for most purposes.)

[@zzubra]

Regarding the regolith being a “powdery toxic sustain environment”, the relevance of this is different inside and outside the habitat. Inside, the video talks about detoxification of regolith using bacteria. Outside, toxicity isn’t particularly relevant, so long as the regolith isn’t corrosive to membrane materials. As far as the regolith being “powdery”, that’s an interesting point, insofar as it affects the construction of both the pile of regolith on top, and the side berms. One resource suggests that in some places (it varies by location) the regolith might only be able to sustain a fairly low angle of slope, before material starts to slide off. That might mean that the regolith pile on top might need side walls, to help prevent it from sliding off? And for the side berms, perhaps some binder material might need to be added to the regolith to allow for sufficiently steep construction? Such a binder could optionally also be used in the top regolith heap. For information on regolith, see, for example, www.researchgate.net/publication/228564755_Mars_Soil_Mechanical_Properties_and_Suitability_of_Mars_Soil_Simulants Edit: looking at the proposal, I see membranes and cables being used in ways that can likely address the possibly powdery nature of regolith.

[@thomasherzig174]

@@zzubra i ve been considering the powdery loose condition of the regolith . to keep it in place it could be filled into very light in thin "sandbags" and th4se sandbag are piled on the roof. In the perspective section drawing you can see the outlines of the sandbags

[@MultiChuckleberry]

I would not want to live in this for any length of time. It might be useful for housing new arrivals until something more acceptable can be built. Initial explorers might well live in something like this - so it has a place in the greater scheme of things.

[@ianwilkinson4602]

The only way to survive on the Moon or Mars against all eventualities is to live under ground in lava tubes and the like.

[@369mfkzt2]

This is not true.

[@PipMane]

it sure is easier and cheaper, but in an environment that kills you in a millisecond I'd rather live in a concrete bunker than in a sphere that pops like a balloon.

[@thomasherzig174]

in case of an air leak the structure would not pop up or collapse immediately like a balloon , but slowly loose pressure and shrink. On Mars your first problem is not the collapse of the structure, but the lack of air pressure. which would be the same in a concrete structure

[@PipMane]

@@thomasherzig174 I agree with your work completely. Amazing job! Although some extra protection is definitely necessary and having the permanent inflatable living quarters underground or under a layer of soil is great solution!