4 ms·

Why not create a colony on the Moon then? Much faster, cheaper and easier to reach, etc, etc

ben_w 7y ago
While I like the moon for those reasons, it has the downside of 14-day-long night and wild surface temperature variation. While solar + batteries will last an Earth night or a Mars night, for something with a big enough population to be called a “colony” rather than a “base”, you suddenly find you need either a nuclear reactor, or some very big orbital mirrors, or a circumlunar powergrid. None of these options are impossible, but they might make people prefer Mars.
- tartoran 7y ago
  There are places on the moon where there is quasi permanent sublight. These places also have some ice and are perfect for a moon base project. Although not “eternal” in the original sense, they are sunlit for extended periods, well beyond the typical lunar day-night cycle. What is the significance of such features? Permanently lit areas of the Moon are important for future habitation and use of the Moon for two principal reasons. First, these sunlit areas are prime locations for the establishment of solar photovoltaic arrays. The constant sunlight here means continuous generation of electrical power using solar panels. This solves one of the most difficult problems of lunar habitation, survival during the 354-hour lunar night. Prior to the discovery of the quasi-permanently lit areas, we imagined that the only feasible power source to survive this long night was nuclear reactors. Such a power system does not exist and would require several tens of billions of dollars to develop. So sunlit zones allow us to go to the Moon and stay there without this expense and technology development. The second advantage of a sunlit area is that it is thermally benign. The surface temperatures at the lunar equator and mid-latitudes depend almost entirely upon incident solar illumination and range from less than -150° to over 100° C, a 250° temperature-swing over the course of a day. In contrast, the surface temperature of these quasi-permanent lit areas is nearly constant – a nice, toasty -50° ± 10° C. This simplifies the thermal design of surface habitats and equipment and greatly relieves the energy required for thermal control at an outpost. The sunlit areas of the poles occur in close proximity to high concentrations of water ice and other volatiles at the poles of the Moon. Their presence indicates the lunar poles are the best places we have found off-planet for human habitation. Constant sunlight, benign temperatures, near the water and a great view – that’s prime real estate. []: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lu... https
fastball 7y ago
Gravity.
credit_guy 7y ago
I personally like the idea of a colony on the Moon. In my mind I even have the killer app for such a colony: an astronomical telescope. There are 5 things going for such an telescope: 1. no atmosphere (so no need to deal with atmospheric turbulences in post-processing) 2. no radio chatter 3. no seismic activity 4. 14 days out of 28 the darkest night one can have inside a solar system 5. a little bit of gravity. The last one is something that can't be said about space-based telescopes like Hubble and James Webb. Having a bit of gravity means you can have people working over there. It means you can perform maintenance and upgrades. With Hubble and especially James Webb, what you send in space is what you'll ever get. So you better send something good. Once in space, there are no iterations, except software upgrades. Nothing like "move fast and break things". This necessary perfection at iteration number 1 makes the price of a space-based telescope skyrocket. JWST is projected to cost a cool $10 BN [1]. At that price, I'm sure we can build a whole Moon base and a telescope much bigger than JWST. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cost_and_schedule_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cos...

While I like the moon for those reasons, it has the downside of 14-day-long night and wild surface temperature variation. While solar + batteries will last an Earth night or a Mars night, for something with a big enough population to be called a “colony” rather than a “base”, you suddenly find you need either a nuclear reactor, or some very big orbital mirrors, or a circumlunar powergrid. None of these options are impossible, but they might make people prefer Mars.

tartoran 7y ago
There are places on the moon where there is quasi permanent sublight. These places also have some ice and are perfect for a moon base project. Although not “eternal” in the original sense, they are sunlit for extended periods, well beyond the typical lunar day-night cycle. What is the significance of such features? Permanently lit areas of the Moon are important for future habitation and use of the Moon for two principal reasons. First, these sunlit areas are prime locations for the establishment of solar photovoltaic arrays. The constant sunlight here means continuous generation of electrical power using solar panels. This solves one of the most difficult problems of lunar habitation, survival during the 354-hour lunar night. Prior to the discovery of the quasi-permanently lit areas, we imagined that the only feasible power source to survive this long night was nuclear reactors. Such a power system does not exist and would require several tens of billions of dollars to develop. So sunlit zones allow us to go to the Moon and stay there without this expense and technology development. The second advantage of a sunlit area is that it is thermally benign. The surface temperatures at the lunar equator and mid-latitudes depend almost entirely upon incident solar illumination and range from less than -150° to over 100° C, a 250° temperature-swing over the course of a day. In contrast, the surface temperature of these quasi-permanent lit areas is nearly constant – a nice, toasty -50° ± 10° C. This simplifies the thermal design of surface habitats and equipment and greatly relieves the energy required for thermal control at an outpost. The sunlit areas of the poles occur in close proximity to high concentrations of water ice and other volatiles at the poles of the Moon. Their presence indicates the lunar poles are the best places we have found off-planet for human habitation. Constant sunlight, benign temperatures, near the water and a great view – that’s prime real estate. []: https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lunar-poles-156800678/ https://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/new-light-on-the-lu... https

fastball 7y ago

Gravity.

credit_guy 7y ago

I personally like the idea of a colony on the Moon. In my mind I even have the killer app for such a colony: an astronomical telescope. There are 5 things going for such an telescope: 1. no atmosphere (so no need to deal with atmospheric turbulences in post-processing) 2. no radio chatter 3. no seismic activity 4. 14 days out of 28 the darkest night one can have inside a solar system 5. a little bit of gravity. The last one is something that can't be said about space-based telescopes like Hubble and James Webb. Having a bit of gravity means you can have people working over there. It means you can perform maintenance and upgrades. With Hubble and especially James Webb, what you send in space is what you'll ever get. So you better send something good. Once in space, there are no iterations, except software upgrades. Nothing like "move fast and break things". This necessary perfection at iteration number 1 makes the price of a space-based telescope skyrocket. JWST is projected to cost a cool $10 BN [1]. At that price, I'm sure we can build a whole Moon base and a telescope much bigger than JWST. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cost_and_schedule_issues https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Webb_Space_Telescope#Cos...