The one that I found is from May 5,1988
by Professor Stan Lowy Department of Aerospace Engineering Texas A M University
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19890008382.pdf
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
2
-
1$\begingroup$ What makes you think there is one? $\endgroup$ – GdD Mar 8 '19 at 10:24
-
1$\begingroup$ Wouldnt using existing lava tubules be a more promising way for an underground lunar base to be made? $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Mar 10 '19 at 3:13
Add a comment
|
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
5
I found something more recent.
https://phys.org/news/2019-05-lunar-tunnel-moon-colonies.html
-
2$\begingroup$ It'd be great if you could expand this into a proper answer by at least citing the important bits and summarizing the rest. Link-only answers are frowned upon on SE in general. $\endgroup$ – TooTea Oct 27 '19 at 22:10
-
1$\begingroup$ "Weight is an issue. It's pretty expensive to take a kilogramme of material from the earth to the moon. Our machines are hundreds of tonnes of mass, so it's not feasible to take the machines as they are," he said. Is still the basic summary of the article, not much has changed. $\endgroup$ – Magic Octopus Urn Oct 28 '19 at 15:00
-
$\begingroup$ Here's the actual paper: ascelibrary.org/doi/10.1061/9780784481899.024 The paper is paywalled, but the abstract is viewable for free. $\endgroup$ – called2voyage♦ Feb 24 '20 at 20:13
-
$\begingroup$ @DuaneLawrence does secret clearance allow you to access paywalled papers? (humor) If you can add a few lines from the Phys.org article and cite the paper that would improve your answer. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – uhoh Feb 24 '20 at 23:23
-
$\begingroup$ In Duane’s defense, he answered the question exactly. He even went further by including the more recent paper. The question should perhaps be improved as well, but it is currently answered. $\endgroup$ – Eric G Mar 23 at 3:13
