Space Transportation - mmmt_transportation.pdf - Moon Society

The frog/toad/coach arriving on site could (1) be designed to hard-dock, in which case it must (a) be able to
level, orient, and align itself properly for the task, and (b) be able to either lock or deactivate its suspension, perhaps
with retractable legs. (If the suspension were allowed to continue floating, the hard-dock seal would be under
continual stress with personnel moving back and forth.) Alternately, the vehicle could (2) be designed to link-up with
the shelter via a some-what flexible and alignment-forgiving, short pressurized vestibular passageway (a) extending
from itself to the shelter, or more logically (b) tele-extended from the shelter to itself by a prompt from within the
vehicle. There would seem to be engineering, weight, and safety tradeoffs between these hard- and soft-dock options
and we do not suggest which would be the more practical in the short run..
[One criticism of our frog concept brought to my attention at the conference was that, as illustrated, it involved a
pair of widely separated engines, one to either side of the centrally suspended mobile crew pod, introducing
potential instability if either engine had to be shut down for any reason. Our response is simply that there is so
much to be gained by using frog-like vehicles - however they be configured - that it is very much worth the trouble
to find or develop engineering work-arounds of this problem feature (e.g. a single top center engine with the
exhaust split between pod-flanking exhaust bells). By hook or by crook, there has to be a way! - PK]
Outfitting constraints
To play its part, the coupling vehicle be out-fitted in a way that the capabilities it offers are complementary to
those offered by the hostel shelter. It would seem that the repertoire offered would vary according to the customary
length of trip for which the vehicle was designed. The possibilities suggest two general classes, the ‘commuter and the
traveler.
(1). Commuter class vehicles would include shuttle craft plying between the lunar surface and either an
orbiting depot or a more substantial orbiting mother craft such as an Earth to Moon (or LEO to LLO) ferry. Also fitting
the description would be suborbital hopper linking mutually remote lunar sites. In either case the commuting craft is
occupied for only a few hours at time. Thus it may not contain berth space, galley (though food stores are likely to be
a major part of the cargo), or head, though some emergency-use only arrangements would be a prudent option
should the craft go astray or be forced to land far from its destination.
Even here, we have a vehicle which could bring something to a hostel partnership. For both shuttle or hopper
will have communications, navigation, and computing equipment which do not need to be duplicated in the hostel.
And either will likely have an emergency first aid compartment complete enough to serve the crew in its hostel stay, as
well as other emergency survival provisions. Finally, its air recycling equipment (a water recycling capacity is less
likely) and ventilation fans, might easily be oversized without too much weight penalty, so as to also serve the hostel
space well enough in a close-coupled configuration.
(2). Traveler class vehicles would include such landing craft comprised of a shuttle module delivering a
“through-cabin” crew-pod transferred from an Earth-Moon (LEO-LLO) ferry. As on the coast to coast Pullman sleeper
cars passed on from one railroad to the next in an era now long gone, the crew coming to staff the hostel would ride
the same “through-cabin” all the way from LEO, or even all the way from the Earth’s surface.
Also in the cruiser category is the “overland” coach (from an established settlement or full base) designed for
trips cross-lunar excursions of a day or more in duration. In either scenario, the visiting craft will contain serviceable if
cramped “hot-rack” berth-space that can serve in the hostel-hookup as emergency infirmary beds if isolation or
quarantine is called for. And certainly the craft will have at least a minimally equipped galley and head (possibly with
shower) as well as a compact entertainment center with some recreational extras. Such more fully equipped vehicles
would serve especially well as hostel complements, leaving the hostel to provide what it can offer most economically
and efficiently: hard shelter from the cosmic elements, and plenty of elbowroom to serve the less expensive low-tech
but space-appreciative aspects of daily life -- private bedrooms and communal areas for dining, gaming, exercising,
etc. >
MMM #51 - December 1991
HYBRID RIGID-INFLATABLE STRUCTURES IN SPACE
By Peter Kokh
In last month’s MMM, we explored some possible architectures that could be useful in realizing the froghostel
concept for lower threshold, timelier, less expensive yet more extensive lunar occupancy. One of the promising
avenues looked at was the idea of rigid-inflatable hybrids in which the rigid component was packed with systems
modules and the inflatable component providing habitat and activity volume - all in one ready-to-deploy package.
There is no reason why this concept wouldn’t work for space structures just as well as for lunar surface
outposts. And indeed there have been some precursor ideas. At the 1990 Space Development Conference in Anaheim,
California, J.R. Thompson, then deputy NASA Administrator, shared with us some of his surprisingly unfettered
thoughts about real near-term possibilities. Thompson felt there was no reason why the Shuttle orbiter, refueled in
11