Directing Space Junk to the Moon: Feasibility & Benefits

  • Thread starter Thread starter salb4
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The feasibility of directing space junk to the Moon for future use has been questioned due to the significant energy required for such a mission, which may not be cost-effective compared to launching from Earth. Concerns include the need for energy to slow down and safely land the debris, as well as the challenges of establishing a sustainable human presence on the Moon, such as sourcing oxygen, water, and protection from environmental hazards. Additionally, disassembling and transporting large structures like the Space Station may require more resources than simply launching new missions. There are also legal and ethical considerations regarding territorial claims and military installations on the Moon. Overall, while the idea presents intriguing possibilities, the practical challenges and costs may outweigh the benefits.
salb4
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I have a question:
What would be the feasability of directing our old space junk towards the moon?
Have it all deposited in a certain area.(junkyard) future astronauts living there could build and repair there.
Spacestation and hubble, put rockets on it and guide to soft landing?
Would this not be cheaper than launching completely from earth.
Spacestation too large. disassemble and land it in smaller sections, reassemble it there?

Just a question: Thoughts anybody?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
salb4 said:
I have a question:
What would be the feasability of directing our old space junk towards the moon?

Which space junk are you referring to? And a better question (since you clearly don't care about the amount of energy it will require to deliver that junk 380,000+ km away) - why not send it to the Sun so it burns up clean?

Have it all deposited in a certain area.(junkyard) future astronauts living there could build and repair there.
What is the logic of sending junk to be reused later? In addition, you now need more energy just to slow down this junk so it doesn't crash into the Moon but rather lands gently

Spacestation and hubble, put rockets on it and guide to soft landing?
Would this not be cheaper than launching completely from earth.

Would take same amount of energy (if not more) to launch from Earth to Moon, slow down, land and then launch personnel there to assemble there. Then you have to build a moon station in 1/6 the gravity of Earth, find oxygen source (sure Moon is 42% oxygen but how are you going to harness that?), plus water, food, and shield them from micrometeorites and radiation, not to mention insane temperature fluctuations.

Spacestation too large. disassemble and land it in smaller sections, reassemble it there?
Why? It will take more energy and reverse a progress that was already done. Not to mention money that we don't have. Not to mention we have several treaties about other planets and the moon - we can't build any military installations on the Moon, and we can't "claim" any territory of the Moon for our own


Just a question: Thoughts anybody?

I think its dangerous to be on a planet or moon that does not have an atmosphere. For that reason the Moon is just not sustainable for humans. Planet Mars could be a great remote outpost

Mars atmosphere:
95.32% carbon dioxide
2.7% nitrogen
1.6% argon
0.13% oxygen
0.07% carbon monoxide
0.03% water vapor
trace amounts of neon, krypton, xenon, ozone, methane


I don't know but that looks almost perfect for plants, with only exception that you also need water. If you can find water or master process of making water, this is the next best place for humans
 
Last edited:
Publication: Redox-driven mineral and organic associations in Jezero Crater, Mars Article: NASA Says Mars Rover Discovered Potential Biosignature Last Year Press conference The ~100 authors don't find a good way this could have formed without life, but also can't rule it out. Now that they have shared their findings with the larger community someone else might find an explanation - or maybe it was actually made by life.
TL;DR Summary: In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect alien signals, it will further expand the radius of the so-called silence (or rather, radio silence) of the Universe. Is there any sense in this or is blissful ignorance better? In 3 years, the Square Kilometre Array (SKA) telescope (or rather, a system of telescopes) should be put into operation. In case of failure to detect...
This thread is dedicated to the beauty and awesomeness of our Universe. If you feel like it, please share video clips and photos (or nice animations) of space and objects in space in this thread. Your posts, clips and photos may by all means include scientific information; that does not make it less beautiful to me (n.b. the posts must of course comply with the PF guidelines, i.e. regarding science, only mainstream science is allowed, fringe/pseudoscience is not allowed). n.b. I start this...

Similar threads

Back
Top