Why would glass be stronger on the Moon?

Here's something I've been wondering about:

In Richard C. Hoagland's essays about ancient, ruined, glass arkologies on the Moon, he asserts that glass would make sense as a building material, because it would be as strong as steel in that environment.

Why is that?

If Hoagland explained it, I don't recall. Is there something about a vacuum that would strengthen glass? Is it the reduced gravity? Something about the raw materials from which you'd make glass if you were on the Moon?

Just one of those things I've long pondered, and am just now getting around to asking about....

I'd imagine that it would be within a micro meteorite's ability to pop a decent hole in one of Hoagland's 'domes'. IMHO it would be as prone to damage as anything else.

From memory, these so called domes aren't intact which would suggest that whatever they were made out of was the wrong stuff... hmmm

IRM

reply to post by flightsuit

I believe the reason is there are no imperfections in the glass resulting from an atmosphere.

I had always assumed that the reason any material would be stronger made in space (or on the moon) would be the lack of impurities. Something that lacks impurities is markedly stronger than something that does.

reply to post by flightsuit


Maybe because of cosmic radiation, or stronger UV altering the physical properties of the glass. More unlikely though because we can reproduce cosmic rays here on Earth, if they want to make glass stronger...

Just exactly what is being compared here? Just what is the composition of this glass on the moon? What is the glass here on Earth that we're using for comparison? Glass comes all kinds of strengths with various kinds of properties. What the likes of Pilkington create now is nothing like, for example, 18th C glass in terms of durability and strength. Who knows what Hoagland's glass is like? What will glass manufacturing be like in 100, 500 years time here on Earth. Of course that's if it's there anyway!

I'm always dubious about arguments about technology for a couple of reasons. Firstly, even here on Earth, there is massive disparity between different communities in terms of technological achievement and ability. Perhaps even our developed world is merely 'a rainforest tribe' to others technological cultures. Secondly, the technological culture we do have is constantly driven by surprise discoveries, sudden innovations and 'eureka!' moments. I'm not comfortable with the idea that science won't provide unforeseen breakthroughs and shortcuts in the future.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I'd imagine that it would be within a micro meteorite's ability to pop a decent hole in one of Hoagland's 'domes'. IMHO it would be as prone to damage as anything else.

From memory, these so called domes aren't intact which would suggest that whatever they were made out of was the wrong stuff... hmmm

IRM

Keep in mind that Hoagland's hypothesis has these structures undergoing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years of bombardment before we ever laid eyes on 'em.

Such a structure being actively maintained and repaired by people who'd die without it would probably appear to hold up pretty well as long as the occupants were alive and keeping it up.

Originally posted by GuyverUnit I
reply to post by flightsuit

 

I believe the reason is there are no imperfections in the glass resulting from an atmosphere.

I don't know if this would matter or not, but it's my understanding that the Moon does, in fact, have a thin atmosphere of sodium gas.

So it's a vacuum, but not a completely empty void, I guess.

reply to post by flightsuit

The density of whatever is determined by the atmospheric PRESSURE: now tell me : is there any pressure on the Moon? And if yes, how much (1.10 mbar approx if memory serves)? That's the answer to your question. Basically, the more weight you put onto somethening, the more it becomes hard. There are also more variables but no one of them adds a cent to his theory so i would say that you are right and he is (as always) wrong.



[edit on 12/3/2009 by internos]

Umm. I figured glass would be the same as it is here. Unless being in space allows you to make a special type of glass that's as strong as steel, but if so would we still call it glass? It'd be like a special type of super strong glass maybe? Or maybe it has something to do with the materials used?

One thing to consider though is gravity. When you build a structure you have to build the structure in such a way that it can support its own weight and hold itself up. If you don't, it'll crumble. On earth glass isn't strong enough for many of the designs we use in buildings. It can't hold enough of its own weight up like steal can.

But on the moon you might be able to build the structure much taller out of glass than you can here. Everything weighs less there. So, even though it's not any stronger, it can hold up a lot more material because what you build on top of it will be lighter.

It might hold up better to other things too. Like, if I fell on it because I weigh less on the moon too. The moon's gravity doesn't pull me down onto the glass as much as earth's gravity would. So there's not as much force being applied. But I don't really know.

My question is, if glass is as strong as steel on the moon, then how strong would steel be?

[edit on 12-3-2009 by tinfoilman]

I think his theory is true and this is why...
There is a reduced amount of gravity on the moon compared with that here on the Earth.
Pressure is a function of Density and Gravity, so if a material can withstand a certain amount of pressure here on earth, it would be able to withstand approximately 6 times that pressure on the surface of the Moon because only one sixth of the gravity is acting down on it.
I never really thought of it like that before,
Interesting post,
PEACE,
RK

Well if that's true why don't they make some super sweet special glass up in the space station and bring it on back down? They could use it for submersable vehicles and airplanes and future NASA vehicles.

Tinfoilman, I should clarify that Hoagland isn't claiming these structures are necessarily using glass parts as stress-bearing members. The photographs and other data seem to suggest that we're looking at a staggering amount of glass fragments clinging to some sort of darker, less reflective underlying support structures.

Originally posted by internos
...so i would say that you are right and he is (as always) wrong.

Wait, what am I right about? I only asked questions, and did not make any assertion that contradicted Dr. Hoagland.

Did I?

I certainly hope I didn't, as I would surely be wrong.

Why would a dome, if it existed, on the Moon, be made of glass? Or any other transparent medium?

Why not, instead...if you want a permanent 'base' on the Moon, burrow?

Second point....burrow near, or AT a pole....A): more likely to find any water, if available and B): not a likely point of impact, should a stray meteor miss NORAD'S attention......

Just some thoughts....

BTW, I am available, willing to re-locate to Florida, if NASA will have me....



[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]


EDIT...al three edits were for typing mistakes.....
[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]


EDIT....and thia is forth edit, but not for typos....the best reason for a base on the Moon near the poles is.....safety from the Sun, if she lets out a 'burb'...the Earth's magnetosphere protects us....on the Moon, since she only rotates once every 28 days....a Polar site makes more sense.

Unless, of course, there is tech that can dig deep enough....even equitorially.....if deep enough, Humans could survive. Long term...the gravity, well....that's a whole other discussion.....
[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

[edit on 3/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

I wonder whether the extreme cold would make the glass denser somehow.

I remember reading Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars'. I that book colonists from Earth build huge domed cities on Mars. Kim-Stanley makes a damn good argument for this design. The lower gravity allows you to make these domes bigger, but even better the air pressure under the dome takes most of the weight of the dome itself. I would imagine that both of these advantages would be hugely amplified on the moon, with it's much lower gravity and zero atmospheric pressure.

Hoagland has never been on the Moon. He has no idea how any processed earth material would behave on a non-Earth environment. You cannot take anything he says on the subject at face value, he is just a fantasist.

Originally posted by flightsuit
Here's something I've been wondering about:

In Richard C. Hoagland's essays about ancient, ruined, glass arkologies on the Moon, he asserts that glass would make sense as a building material, because it would be as strong as steel in that environment.

Why is that?

If Hoagland explained it, I don't recall. Is there something about a vacuum that would strengthen glass? Is it the reduced gravity? Something about the raw materials from which you'd make glass if you were on the Moon?

Just one of those things I've long pondered, and am just now getting around to asking about....

Why would you believe Hoagland? He has no concept of what he proposes.

Trust our astronauts that they didn't see anything like Hoagland claims.

Originally posted by InfaRedMan
I'd imagine that it would be within a micro meteorite's ability to pop a decent hole in one of Hoagland's 'domes'. IMHO it would be as prone to damage as anything else.

From memory, these so called domes aren't intact which would suggest that whatever they were made out of was the wrong stuff... hmmm

IRM

The photographs only "suggest" what the viewer wants to believe is being told to him. Hoagland? ©Cosmic Hypnotist!

Originally posted by flightsuit
Tinfoilman, I should clarify that Hoagland isn't claiming these structures are necessarily using glass parts as stress-bearing members. The photographs and other data seem to suggest that we're looking at a staggering amount of glass fragments clinging to some sort of darker, less reflective underlying support structures.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Learhoag]

[edit on 13-3-2009 by Learhoag]

Dr. Hoagland? Since when? What's the Doctorate? Who and where?

"Dr" Hoagland said, in so many words: "...have had their memories selectively edited so that they no longer remember seeing evidence of a lunar civilization."

Oh, you mean Dr Nutsoid Hoagland.

Originally posted by flightsuit

Originally posted by internos
...so i would say that you are right and he is (as always) wrong.

Wait, what am I right about? I only asked questions, and did not make any assertion that contradicted Dr. Hoagland.

Did I?

I certainly hope I didn't, as I would surely be wrong.