Humans Settling on the Moon: What Do You Think?

[DaveC426913]

I like the idea of telescope arrays. What about food? Would we transport soil?

No need. Hydroponic farms are more efficient.

 

[Nehmo]

... settling on the moon ?

There's no point in settling the moon. That's last-century stuff. Nowadays, we can send robots and cameras that are better than people. Come to think of it, we really don't need people on Earth either.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

Something I thought of that's relevant to this. We still lack the technology to really use the lunar water. Extracting water from the soil isn't as simple as grinding it up and heating it. The water molecules are trapped in a crystal lattices. Extracting water would require breaking these lattices efficiently.

 

[mfb]

Extracting water would require breaking these lattices efficiently.

Heating it sufficiently certainly breaks the lattice. Efficiency: well... call it "supplementary station heating".

 

[AgentSmith]

The only reasons for a moon base, not settlement, that make any sense at all, are astronomical research, and as some kind of staged launching pad for a manned Mars mission.
Perhaps a moon base would be more economical if the scientists had an inordinate taste for potatoes.

 

[15characters]

The only reasons for a moon base, not settlement, that make any sense at all, are astronomical research, and as some kind of staged launching pad for a manned Mars mission.
Perhaps a moon base would be more economical if the scientists had an inordinate taste for potatoes.

Yep I agree - Imagine cows on the moon, "mooo".

Also, all it would take is one poorly placed asteroid or meteor bouncing off of some astronaut for everyone to come running back to Earth. Except for maybe a few moon warriors who stay on to eke out a measly existence in some underground cavern - living on hydroponically produced barley grains - while hiding beneath the ground from the powerful Gamma radiation and random meteor strikes.

Eventually the last warrior was wiped out, and the moon program was closed down, unfortunately.

 

[15characters]

I would like to see some astronauts go out there with Go-Pro camera's etc and do some experiments - that shouldn't be too expensive.

But settling there or living there is a no no. It's a bit similar to proposing the construction of a city under the Sea because there's like "loads of fish down there", and we can build a dam, and using hydro-power, and use a huge boat with lights to grow food and feed cows.

Similarly, people don't do stuff in the North pole. The moon isn't anywhere far, its very very close, and very very booorinnng.

 

[mfb]

Similarly, people don't do stuff in the North pole.

Not there, but we have a permanent station at the South Pole (and they are growing some food there). We also have a space station that has been manned continuously for 15 years now.

 

[15characters]

OK but how would the cows deal with the low gravity? Or are people going to be eating muesli?

Remember, homo sapiens is a meat eating species,

There are no goats on the moon. Or other livestock - like duck and chicken.

 

[mfb]

Remember, homo sapiens is a meat eating species,

We can eat it, but we don't have to.

OK but how would the cows deal with the low gravity?

Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum... the latter is easy to access on the moon.

 

[15characters]

We can eat it, but we don't have to.
Assume a spherical cow in a vacuum... the latter is easy to access on the moon.

a spherical cow? how does that work then?

 

[mfb]

Oh, that is very simple.

;)

 

[phinds]

Remember, homo sapiens is a meat eating species,

We can eat it, but we don't have to.

Well, yeah, but only if there is pizza available (and only if you don't count pepperoni as meat)

 

[newjerseyrunner]

We can also grow meat now, it doesn't have to come from an actual animal.
http://www.fastcoexist.com/3044572/the-325000-lab-grown-hamburger-now-costs-less-than-12

 

[15characters]

"a cow on the moon"

 

[15characters]

would be very expensive and probably dangerous to convert that to this:

 

[15characters]

 

[15characters]

One meteor, a micrometeorite, or some x-ray blasts and a couple cosmic rays from the galaxy later and everyone's packing up and going back to Earth.

 

[mfb]

The ISS survived 15 years of micrometeorites already. A moon base would use shielding against cosmic rays which doubles as micrometeorite shielding. Sure, a big impact could still ruin the base, but that can happen with towns on Earth as well.

 

[Elite Jacob]

Helium is one pretty major resource that's running out on Earth but pretty abundant on the moon. There are lots of others:
http://www.cnbc.com/2014/04/02/the-global-race-to-harness-the-moons-resources.html

But I'm pretty sure we need an alternative to rockets for this to become economical.

Also, let me just say that I fully support a vanity project like building a base on the moon. There are far worse things we are spending that kind of money on (such as war). If we could divert some money to do something like that, it'd be pretty amazing.

What's wrong with the old H.G. Wells idea of shooting things for a cannon? If the cannon is a magnetic rail cannon.

 

[Elite Jacob]

Running out of room or resources will never be a reason to settle on the moon or anywhere else outside of the earth. There just won't be any way to transport enough people to make any difference. The only reason that will ever make sense is adventure.

It's already been said that space exploration should be our ultimate goal because we understand how limited the life of our home planet is.

 

[Elite Jacob]

Colonizing a celestial body, like exploring space, is an aspect of our survival as a living organism. We understand the life cycle of stars, and we know that our star will eventually die. Our common goal must be to gain the ability to at some point leave and colonize other star systems with lifespans that will out live our current one. It is my belief that projects that are aimed at making structures that will allow human life to survive in extreme conditions will lead to more understanding of what will be required for other planets. For example a sustainable living structure at the deepest point of Earth's oceans could be a precursor to colonization of a planet with subsurface oceans. If we could make a place that could allow life to survive on the other side of the Earth's crust we would have no trouble colonizing other planets. The required adaptations to the environment would no doubt be extreme, considering with current knowledge and technology oxygen needs to be mixed with helium to be breathable during deep sea expeditions. There may also be the sad but simple truth; that we as terrestrial life forms lack the ability to live anywhere but our place of birth. I'm usually wrong though, just ask Evo.

 

[phinds]

What's wrong with the old H.G. Wells idea of shooting things for a cannon? If the cannon is a magnetic rail cannon.

The problems with this approach are legion and have been discussed here several times. I suggest a forum search.

 

[jtcapa]

Man does enjoy exploring, as we did with this planet, but I really don't believe that man will ever colonize other planets in the time our species has left on this one. I think it wise to embrace all the lore and religions which place the heavens above us as out of our reach and not our realm. Better to stay mindful of our own place on Earth, lest we lose that. The young man's desire to seek and explore the cosmos is very natural and yields many interesting results, but beyond discussing colonization as a mental exercise, it simply will never happen.

 

[B Levenson]

The main problem will be the low gravity. Astronauts/cosmonauts in 0 g for long periods experience bone mass loss, blood loss, and muscle atrophy. A permanent colony would either have to be centrifuged or force everyone to work out in a centrifuge fairly often.

 

[Drakkith]

The main problem will be the low gravity. Astronauts/cosmonauts in 0 g for long periods experience bone mass loss, blood loss, and muscle atrophy. A permanent colony would either have to be centrifuged or force everyone to work out in a centrifuge fairly often.

But how bad are those health problems in 1/6th G and not zero G?

 

[rootone]

I would imagine that loss of bone and similar would still be a problem, just that it would be somewhat less aggressive and so would take longer for it to get to the point of becoming disabling.

 

[mfb]

Testing that would be one of the scientific goals of a manned base on moon. It is probably a reasonable guess that 1/6 g is better than zero g, so one year should be possible, maybe more. 437 days is the record in zero-g, and we'll have 6 spaceflights of at least one year duration next March.

 

[AgentSmith]

A staged approach to a Mars landing and then base, with an ion drive to reduce transit time, would make more sense than a lunar settlement. Send an unmanned ascent vehicle so Mars-nauts can get from Mars to orbit, and a habitat with laboratory. Both would start processing Martian atmosphere to make oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, water, single-malt Scotch, all ready for the new Martians. The habitat would stay, even if the first Mars-nauts returned to earth. Oh, take some 3D printers, along with a world library of literature, music, science. Buzz Aldrin outlined a staged approach a few years ago, except he's a whiskey man.