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."

12 of 121 comments (clear)

  1. If anyone colonizes the Moon by PeteyG · · Score: 3, Interesting

    it will be China or India. The United States seriously lacks the resolve (or the infrastructure) to go to the Moon.

    Maybe 20 years from now, we'll be surpassed in space and get shamed into exploring again.

    --
    no thanks
    1. Re:If anyone colonizes the Moon by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      20 billions less to the military house hold is (in construction costs) 4 carriers or 4 Stealth Bombers, yes they cost the same, a carrier is about the same price as a bomber.

      While both stimulate the economy, the local economy, they basicly both have no return on investment.

      Fighting a war and destroying the competition, removes the enemies economy, but has no long time effect(benefit) on your own as your economy does not need to do the necessary adjustments, as it can continue to run like it did so far.

      However, putting money into something NEW will create a NEW ECONOMY. The question is how to put the money into space fare that a return of investment is happening some time in the future.

      For telco sattelites it seems to work well. The European Space Program is nearly self sustaining, however we only shoot sattelites into orbit.

      I'm convinced that there is enough money in certain groups available that economic space exploration makes sense.

      When you can shoot a man right now for 40 million dollars into space, like the russins did with that millionair, then you can soon shoot people for 2 million into space and host them in a space hotel for lets say 2 million a year.

      I'm aware of enough old men and women who have 20 million in the bank but will die on earth soon ... those would very likely enjoy a final trip to heaven and a rest there for aditional 20 years ... extending their livespan.

      There are lots of other examples where enough money is available and a market could easyly be created.

      angel'o'sphere

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
  2. Moon bases are dumb. by n1ywb · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why couldn't we have had humans living on the moon 20 years ago? Is there a technological reason? Afterall we could keep humans alive on the moon for a matter of days, all we'd have to do is launch frequent resupply missions and they'd be just dandy up there. Not really much different from the space station, except you get the added bonus of SOME gravity so maybe your bones won't complete decalicfy while you're up there. But there really are not pending technological obsticals to a moon base.

    Now, weather a moon base is practical, usefull, or economically feasable is a whole another ball of wax, and the answers are probably all "no". What the hell are you going to do up there? I would like to have a ham radio linear transponder up there, but other than that what is the moon really good for? It can't be a RELIABLE communications satellite because it's only in the sky half the time and is very far away with a very high latency. It's got some rocks and minerals but nothing that would be worth flying back down to earth. Scientific research I suppose, but what could you do on the moon that you can't do on the space station for a lot less money, due to it being so much closer? Yea yea, a jumping off point for a Mars mission. See above, what is really the point to going to Mars? We still don't have the propulsion technology to make frequent Mars trips a practical reality.

    One thing that could be a lucritive source of income for a moon base would be moon tourism. Perhaps the science could use it to fund itself, a la the russions and the space station.

    IMO, before we even think about a moon base, we need to think long and hard about what the fuck we're going to do with it. Send more probes, shit send a thousand probes. Don't send big dumb expensive probes, send little cheap insectiod probes. Do the same to Mars. If there's something interesting there, we'll find it that way.

    I know I know, if people said what I've said about the new world the US wouldn't be here. But the analagy with space is a little different. The "new world" was just another continent on earth. It had air, water, arible land, native people for which to enslave and abuse. Mars is a giant inhospitible desert with some frozen CO2 at the poles. Its possible we've overlooked something, but again it's a hell of a lot cheaper and easier to send probes.

    If someone wants to squander their personal fortune on manned missions to Mars/Moon, go for it, but I'd rather my tax dollars be spent more efficiently.

    --
    -73, de n1ywb
    www.n1ywb.com
    1. Re:Moon bases are dumb. by Atzanteol · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I know I know, if people said what I've said about the new world the US wouldn't be here.
      But they *did* say it about the new world. All of the first voyages were coming the the new world looking for gold, passages to the east, etc. Only later was it for settling, and then it was out of religious persecution.

      So I agree that we need a 'reason' to go to the Moon. Once we've got that, it's only a matter of time.
      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
  3. Slightly offtopic by Randolpho · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The article mentions: "The craft will make an x-ray map of the moon" in regards to the probe being sent by tht ESA. How, praytell, are they going to do that? You have to have a receptor on the other side of the x-ray beam, don't you? I mean, it's not like *radar* is it? Not the last time I looked...

    So, what are they going to do, beam x-rays through the moon down to a receptor on earth or vice-versa? Somehow I doubt they'd get very accurate pictures.

    Are they going to have the craft drop a plate off on one side of the planet, zoom across to the other side and take the picture?

    --
    "Times have not become more violent. They have just become more televised."
    -Marilyn Manson
  4. 15 month trip ? by jalet · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is the "15 months" trip due to the ionic propulsion method ?

    I believed that "traditionnal" engines could send people on the moon in two days.

    Anyone can explain ?

    --
    Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
  5. Necessity is the mother of invention... by E1v!$ · · Score: 4, Interesting

    On Earth 1 or 2 people die and we start inventing things to keep more from dying.

    The Sol system is a little less friendly. A comet or other planet wide disaster is more likely to kill a very large portion of the planet, and totally destroy it's manufacturing infrastructure.

    It would be far better to have a self sustaining economy away from Earth, one that could help rebuild our planet if BAD THINGS were to happen to it.

    Before we can have a s.s. economy in space, we need to take first steps. We need to put people up there and find out what they need based on the circumstances, then we invent it and move on to the next thing.

    The moon hopefully will provide enough resources for those living there to create what they feel they need.

    As to your tax dollars, c'mon man, wouldn't you say your grand children being able to take a shuttle trip or elevator ride to the moon would be a good thing?

    1. Re:Necessity is the mother of invention... by WTFmonkey · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What about launch bases on the moon? Escaping the moon's gravity to get to other locations has gotta be way cheaper than escaping earth's gravity. A network of these on the moon, maybe on one of mars's moons or mars iteself. I know, supplies need to come from somewhere, but shipping water from mars's icecaps to the moon might be cheaper than shipping water from earth to them moon. Yeah, I'm talking out my ass, but it sounds good to me.

  6. Re:maybe the tech is there, but show me the money by jgardn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are several reasons why someone might want to set up a base on the moon.

    Because the moon has lower gravity, it would make an ideal space station.

    The moon has a higher content of metals than the earth's crust. Plus, you can dig up entire craters and no one will notice. You can set up low-G manufacturing processes, dump all the waste chemicals into the moon, and no one will care.

    Because the moon is on top of the earth, it is really easy to launch attacks on the earth from the moon with missiles or bombs. Whoever can get the hardware on the moon first will dominate the entire earth.

    The problems outweight the costs. There's the whole problem of radiation. Solar flares release enough dangerous radiation that it would kill anyone who stayed on the moon's surface for an extended period of time. We would need a lot of shielding to protect us from it, more than is reasonable to manufacture at this time.

    Also, launching stuff into space is one thing, but it is more expensive to get it to the moon and back.

    When these two problems are solved, then you may see people beging to establish bases on the moon.

    --
    The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
  7. Practical, useful, feasible... by Strange+Ranger · · Score: 2, Interesting


    and very timely:

    Getting power from the moon.

    More details at Space.com.

    --

    Operator, give me the number for 911!
  8. Re:Deja vu by Lshmael · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Well, I think the Chinese (and maybe Indian) governments *do* have the political will to go to the moon and stay there. By going to the moon, they send the world the message that they are just as capable a superpower as the United States. By staying there, they are doing something the American government cannot - or will not - do.

  9. Re:Deja vu by adoll · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Typical BBC (and CBC, ABC, SABC, PBS) drivel that only the almighty Government can make something happen, and those mindless voters must be made to see reason.

    Want space colonization? Try a gold rush... it worked in California, Yukon/Alaska, Australia (Vic), South Africa, and is currently populating parts of Brazil. So what do we need to start this gold rush?

    First of all, higher commodity prices for things we'll find in space (metals, diamonds, power, etc). All these things are presently better provided (==cheaper) from terrestrial sources.

    Second we need a frontier mentality that ANYONE may go out there and play. If they hurt themselves or get killed adding a mod-chip to their nuclear reactor, well too bad. If somebody does something bad, organize a posse and hunt them down. Only when the population gets big enough do citizens organize permanent posses and call them "police". Then and only then will the colonists form their own government and start paying taxes.

    So we have a long way to go before real people have any need to go into space. We haven't finished mining Earth yet :-) .

    -AD