Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Speculations on a Moon Colony

Posted by michael on from the moonraker dept.

Buggernut writes "As reported by the BBC, humans could be living on the Moon within 20 years, according to a leading lunar scientist."

10 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. Deja vu by Spudley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fourty years ago, when the Americans were graring up for their first moon missions, the 'pundits' made exactly the same predictions.

    Today it's the Chinese, but it all seems very similar.

    Sure we've got better technology now, but will that really make the difference? Lunar colonisation will only happen when there's political will to see it happen, and frankly, I can't see the conditions being right for that for some time.

    --
    (Spudley Strikes Again!)
  2. maybe the tech is there, but show me the money by bmongar · · Score: 2, Insightful


    I think it would be technologicly feasable to have people living on the moon in 20 years, but I don't think there will be a financial inscentive for the huge cost.

    --
    As x approaches total apathy I couldn't care less.
    1. Re:maybe the tech is there, but show me the money by chia_monkey · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A 20 year span of time now seems to cover much more technology and social changes than that same time span in the past. 20 years of social, political, technological, and economic change back in the 1700s was negligible. 20 years today is like a century or so of change. Hence, who's to say what will happen in 20 years. I'm thinking of just 10 years ago and how much has changed. 20 years...I think we could have people up there. Without a doubt. Globalization is in full effect and if it's not one of the current "superpowers", then someone else will do it.

      --

      "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
  3. The story should read by hswerdfe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "...acording to a leading Lunatic Scientist"

    somehow I don't think there is going to be a colony on the moon by 2023, I say we are lucky if we get a man back to the moon by then....
    sigh....

    --
    --meh--
  4. "What makes your rockets go up?" by dpbsmith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The article just says it's technologically feasible. How boring.

    In the movie The Right Stuff, and, IIRC in the book,a congressman says to an astronaut "What makes your rockets go up?" The astronaut starts to saying something about reaction masses and exhaust velocity, and the comgressman cuts him short and says, "No. What makes your rockets go up is funding."

    Of course a Moon base is technologically feasible. Goodness, if we're just talking technological feasibility we should be able to be a lot more imaginative than that. (Project Orion, anyone?).

    But unless someone "salts" the Moon with gold nuggets (I believe it's in Carl Sandburg's The People, Yes in which someone starts a rumor that there's gold on the Moon, and so many people start heading for the Moon that the person who started the rumor figures there must be something in it after all and joins them) I don't see how it's going to happen.

    (Another nugget from The People, Yes "Another baby in Cuyahuga County, Ohio--why did she ask: 'Papa, what is the moon supposed to advertise?'" I'd give a nickel to know whether Heinlein read that before writing "The Man who Sold the Moon.")

    --

    "How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!

  5. Re:If anyone colonizes the Moon by burns210 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems odd that we can spend 400 billion dollars on defense in a year, but not have NASA be doing 10x the work they do now....

    Why can't we spend 20 billion less (what is that, a couple stealth bombers?) and get:
    *NASA sending a probe a month to mars, or the OTHER 7 PLANETS
    *build a better ISS.
    *colonize the moon
    *colonize mars
    *put a big honkin telescope(or an array of them!) on the moon/mars.
    *mine moon/mars for resources(water, building materials?, ore???)
    *have a launchpad on the moon, since it would be less fuel intensive to launch from there
    *build a space shuttle that kicks ass. that can easily takeoff/land/look cool without needs major repairs after every mission.
    *or...

    those might not seem practical, but why not? the advancement of science shouldn't be determined by profitability of a given project.

  6. Re:If anyone colonizes the Moon by PeteyG · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because that 20 billion would come straight out of certain states' economies... so there's good reason for those congresscreatures to not be enthusiastic about it.

    That, and with all the stuff the military is doing nowadays (troll about whether or not that stuff is justified and you die), Congress is likely to only increase military spending so the military doesn't get spread too thin.

    *sigh* If only there were hostile space aliens...

    --
    no thanks
  7. Re:15 month trip ? by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I meant that ionic propulsion is not a solution to send people there if the ones who got there 30 years ago had a three days trip...

    It may very well be cheaper. Lifting something to low earth orbit is hard. Lifting it to escape velocity (or nearly so, for a lunar transfer orbit) is even harder.

    You shave at least 4 km/sec off of your required delta-v if you can use ion drives and have a longer trip.

    You're going to keep these astronauts on the moon for years anyways; why not spend the first year or so en route instead of on the lunar surface? The environment isn't much more hostile.

  8. Look up your selenology and physics too by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 3, Insightful
    (that word in the subject means "study of the moon", in case you were wondering.)

    Quoth the poster:

    First off, the moon could be set up as a base to launch more investigative, futher expeditions into our solar system. (prolly for cheaper, cuz it wouldn't cost as much to blast off from the moon, due to lower gravity)
    Wrong. Getting to the moon is about as expensive as getting to Mars, more or less, largely because Mars has an atmosphere that you can use to brake against for free. Only a fool would go to the Moon, stop there, then launch off again to go to Mars; for one thing, you're much more efficient doing your boosting near the bottom of a gravity well rather than at the top of one (em vee squared, dude).
    Second of all, perhaps there will be a different set of minerals up there that we could start mining and build stronger, yet lighter materials.
    The Moon is largely made up out of minerals we are quite familiar with here on ol' Terra, and nature has done us a favor by differentiating them using water-based sorting processes which don't exist on Luna. You should do some studying of the subject; not only might you learn something, you might put yourself in a position to actually contribute something useful.
    --
    Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist
  9. Nope by Spamalamadingdong · · Score: 2, Insightful
    You shave at least 4 km/sec off of your required delta-v if you can use ion drives and have a longer trip.
    The delta-V is a function of the path; the required delta-V for a typical ion-drive trajectory is actually a bit higher than a two-impulse elliptical transfer. What's reduced by ion drives is mass ratio, which you would expect from the rocket equation.
    --
    Scientists restrict study to entire physical universe; creationist