Humans Settling on the Moon: What Do You Think?

[phinds]

We went to the moon the first place for the sole purpose of getting there before the Soviet Union

I agree

, we will do the same thing with China

I disagree. I don't think the American people are up for another one of those pissing contests. The cold war was one thing but I don't think it translates well to today's global economy.

 

[newjerseyrunner]

I don't think most people care about economy as much as they first appear to. We don't have enough money to take care of our own sick people, but we have enough to fight wars in the middle east. We don't have enough money to build new schools, but we want to build a giant wall on the Mexican border. If you call anything a threat to the United States, the ignorant masses will vote in hardliners. The SuperPACs and media will very much support it, the SuperPACs want people distracted from real issues and a Chinese moon base is even easier to sell as a threat than gays getting married. I think it'd actually be very simple to convince a large portion of the american populous to build a base on the moon. "If we don't do it, the Chinese will. Let's make american great again and beat the Chinese threat. God wants us too." I think that campaign would grow enough of a movement. Fear, Patriotism, and Religion. Three keys to controlling masses. It may not be right away, but I don't think the american people would be comfortable with a foreign moon base without our own. We can't build a wall between us and the moon.

 

[DaveC426913]

"If we don't do it, the Chinese will. Let's make american great again and beat the Chinese threat. God wants us too."

More succinctly: He who controls the High Ground controls the battlefield. We'll see propaganda of missiles raining down on Americans.

 

[Garth]

More succinctly: He who controls the High Ground controls the battlefield. We'll see propaganda of missiles raining down on Americans.

Much easier to launch them from the Earth's surface - with a shorter flight time and harder to detect.

Garth

 

[DaveC426913]

Much easier to launch them from the Earth's surface - with a shorter flight time and harder to detect.

Agreed. But we are talking about what will motivate Westerners to join the race. And no mere facts are going to do what the image of raining missiles will do.

 

[Monsterboy]

Whatever ! A space race is better and mindless military expenditure , I am looking forward for Space race 2 , although with wrong motivations it will still turn out to be useful in the future, I want to see people on Mars and a functional ILS. There is no gold mine on the moon, so very little possibility of a direct conflict. We will also see some private players like SpaceX etc. Believe it or not this is the only way major technological breakthroughs happen , through national pride and jingoism , arms race and space race.

 

[marcus]

Whatever ! A space race is better and mindless military expenditure , I am looking forward for Space race 2 , although with wrong motivations it will still turn out to be useful in the future, I want to see people on Mars and a functional ILS. There is no gold mine on the moon, so very little possibility of a direct conflict. We will also see some private players like SpaceX etc. Believe it or not this is the only way major technological breakthroughs happen , through national pride and jingoism , arms race and space race.

Why can't national pride and jingoism motivate something more intelligent than a camp on Mars? A settlement on Ceres, with its thick ice layer, could be productive (in low gravity) and make economic sense.

You are talking about permanent settlement, with some kind of economy---e.g. manufacturing fuel, chemicals, material, equipment needed elsewhere---and self-sustaining. Well-shielded from radiation, vacuum, meteorites, cosmic rays. Growing its own food. Plenty of water and mineral elements.

I think the best prospect is in the subsurface ice layer of Ceres.

People on Ceres would manufacture stuff that is in effect already in orbit, because of low gravity. Could trade at a premium.
So that is a good site for human habitat, permanent habitation with a growing population. Deep enough in the ice to be well shielded.
Artificial lighting and heating would be needed. Nuclear reactor fuel have to be imported from Earth probably. Still a good economic prospect.

Better than moon, I think. Moon too much dry rock. Too much gravity. Big deal to land and take off.. And Mars even worse.

 

[15characters]

This reminds me of discussions about colonising Mars. Why?

The moon is a barren desolate rock. I can't see any reason why anyone would wish to "settle" on the moon, other than if it was a prison or a monastery/nunnery etc.

It does not even have an atmosphere... and everything would have to be "shipped in" from the "Mother Planet" at great expense.

 

[DaveC426913]

It does not even have an atmosphere... and everything would have to be "shipped in" from the "Mother Planet" at great expense.

You would make your own atmosphere and contain it in domes or underground tunnels.

Not everything has to be shipped in. The idea behind settling the Moon is to mine as many essentials as possible from the Regolith.

 

[Monsterboy]

Why can't national pride and jingoism motivate something more intelligent than a camp on Mars? .

That's because national pride and jingoism is about " here is something I can do and you can't" attitude and planting your flags, collecting soil samples and not much more .After the competition is over people lose interest but the technologies developed will help the industry and future missions. Space settlements will take much longer time, money, dedication and a much better reason.

A settlement on Ceres, with its thick ice layer, could be productive (in low gravity) and make economic sense.

http://spacecolonization.wikia.com/wiki/Colonization_of_Ceres

I am no expert but the problem with Ceres seems to be is it's distance from Earth(for emergency evacuation or for supply of resources ,since we don't have any experience in building space habitats , it's better we start with something much closer to Earth )and it's very low gravity might be a problem for permanent human settlement but Ceres can be our interplanetary fuel station and a source of water and oxygen . If we can build a star tram or some other cheaper method of transportation on the moon or/and Mars Ceres can be good supplier of resources.Ceres can also be an asteroid mining station because it is relativity closer to the asteroid belt.
http://news.discovery.com/space/history-of-space/mars-prospecting-ores-gold.htm
Mars has water and possibly some ores , combined with resources coming in from Ceres will be good. I don't think the details of the feasibility will ever be worked out without a space race engaging different nations and private companies( if they can convince themselves of good returns )because right now there is no urgent need for a settlement outside earth.

http://sservi.nasa.gov/articles/nasa-looking-to-mine-water-on-the-moon-and-mars/

 

[Jess H. Brewer]

We've already BEEN to the Moon quite a few times, starting in 1969(!), but we didn't stay long because we had to carry all our food, water and air. In the ensuing 46 years we may have learned a few things, but the technology required to build a colony in space was already old back then. What we need to work on is not so much propulsion systems as management of closed ecosystems -- the Earth being a less obvious but more important example. Unfortunately the Earth is so big that we fail to notice the effects of our mismanagement until it's too late. If we want to learn to behave more responsibly, the Moon is an ideal place to start.

Any sensible plan for getting off this planet, including L5 space colonies, BEGINS with a permanent Moon colony, if only to provide raw materials (Moon dust) to be smelted by solar mirrors in space into metals, oxygen and other essentials. Solar powered electromagnetic launchers on the Moon can easily fling buckets of dust out of the Moon's gravity well to factories at the various Lagrange points, obviating the fallacious necessity of lifting them from the Earth with rockets. Then we can really get started!

But NASA is embarked on an insane dead-end politician's fantasy of going to Mars BEFORE setting up a station on the Moon. This is a scheme guaranteed to sour everyone on the idea of putting humans into space. It is a suicide mission for NASA as well as the astronauts who go to Mars. What are they THINKING?!

 

[Monsterboy]

But NASA is embarked on an insane dead-end politician's fantasy of going to Mars BEFORE setting up a station on the Moon. This is a scheme guaranteed to sour everyone on the idea of putting humans into space. It is a suicide mission for NASA as well as the astronauts who go to Mars. What are they THINKING?!

I think NASA's primary objective on Mars is to find out if life is/was present on it. Sending humans there might get the job done quickly compared to robots which are extremely slow , NASA doesn't seem to have any plans for a human colony anywhere right now.

 

[15characters]

You would make your own atmosphere and contain it in domes or underground tunnels.

Not everything has to be shipped in. The idea behind settling the Moon is to mine as many essentials as possible from the Regolith.

Yes but surely we can mine the rock here on Earth much more cheaply. Also the radiation on the moon could be a problem possibly? Finally, where would they get water and petrol from?

Also, any moon colony would spend 2 weeks in total darkness and 2 weeks in brutal solar radiation. I think the only possible use for it would be an orbiting prison colony for cimes against humanity etc.

Try this simulator - Orbiter 2010 - fly to the moon and back etc. You will find 1) it is not even slightly difficult to send a satellite to the moon; and 2) there is nothing to see there on the Moon - its just a big lump of inorganic rock.

Earth is so much better than the moon/rock. Earth has an atmosphere, magnetic shield, daily sunshine (rather than monthly on the moon), fossil fuels, carbon dioxide removal, perfect gravity for our species, oxygen and water production, stable temperature, seasonal variations, tides, the list is endless.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Earth_hypothesis

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes but surely we can mine the rock here on Earth much more cheaply.

You just finished saying that it would have to be shipped to the Moon at great expense.

Also the radiation on the moon could be a problem possibly?

That's why you build underground.

Finally, where would they get water and petrol from?

We discovered large deposits of ice in some of the polar craters. That was a big deal a few years back, because water is one of the critical resources for a colony.

Petrol, not so much.

Also, any moon colony would spend 2 weeks in total darkness and 2 weeks in brutal solar radiation.

Which is why you build underground.

there is nothing to see there on the Moon - its just a big lump of inorganic rock.

We're not going there for the view.

Well, actually, we are. Good place for telescope arrays.

Also a good place for low gravity research and manufacturing, dangerous goods, etc.

Earth is so much better than the moon/rock.

Of course it is. But this thread is about settling the Moon.

 

[15characters]

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

 

[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.