4 ms·

To me it seems like the Moon has a pretty unhelpful elemental composition. Especially, a distinct lack of carbon and nitrogen.

NortySpock 6y ago
Venus atmosphere is (roughly) habitable in terms of temperature and pressure at 55km up; seems like the elemental shortage there would be hydrogen and phosphorous; but that might be a better trade off than trying to farm the moon...
- jacquesm 6y ago
  The case for Venus colonization: https://www.youtube.com/embed/0az7DEwG68A https://www.youtube.com/embed/0az7DEwG68A
- ArtWomb 6y ago
  Venus space stations gaining traction as a "second front" in exploration and colonization is something I am really pleased to see. It opens the door of planetary formation research. Long term lower atmospheric and surface habitation is the ultimate prize and perhaps the toughest engineering challenge at this moment ;) Experimental Study of Structural Materials for Prolonged Venus Surface Exploration Missions https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34617 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34617
- kfarr 6y ago
  Imagining a venus cloud city, Lando calrisian style
idiocrat 6y ago
Moon's biggest problem is the abrasiveness of moon dust. Without oxygen and water, the dust is very spiky. It sticks to everything, instantly matting spacesuits masks, wears our door hinges. On Earth the sand can be a nasty element, but the moon's dust is really an aggressive beast.
- blueblisters 6y ago
  I imagine using some sort of electrostatic cleaning would probably be a first stab at solving this problem.
  - andromeduck 6y ago
    Wouldn't it be much easier to just drop nukes and glass a wide area? It'd probably also provide pretty decent platform to build on.
    - ben_w 6y ago
      Nukes in space don’t act the same as nukes in air. The total energy is the same, but the fireball needs an atmosphere, and you need the fireball to shift the energy from a point-like source of hard X-rays to a big ball of IR. This is also why Project Orion isn’t quite as self-destructive as it seems at first glance. I guess you could pave the Moon with a rover and some Fresnel lenses though?

NortySpock 6y ago

Venus atmosphere is (roughly) habitable in terms of temperature and pressure at 55km up; seems like the elemental shortage there would be hydrogen and phosphorous; but that might be a better trade off than trying to farm the moon...

jacquesm 6y ago
The case for Venus colonization: https://www.youtube.com/embed/0az7DEwG68A https://www.youtube.com/embed/0az7DEwG68A
ArtWomb 6y ago
Venus space stations gaining traction as a "second front" in exploration and colonization is something I am really pleased to see. It opens the door of planetary formation research. Long term lower atmospheric and surface habitation is the ultimate prize and perhaps the toughest engineering challenge at this moment ;) Experimental Study of Structural Materials for Prolonged Venus Surface Exploration Missions https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34617 https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/1.A34617
kfarr 6y ago
Imagining a venus cloud city, Lando calrisian style

idiocrat 6y ago

Moon's biggest problem is the abrasiveness of moon dust. Without oxygen and water, the dust is very spiky. It sticks to everything, instantly matting spacesuits masks, wears our door hinges. On Earth the sand can be a nasty element, but the moon's dust is really an aggressive beast.

blueblisters 6y ago
I imagine using some sort of electrostatic cleaning would probably be a first stab at solving this problem.
- andromeduck 6y ago
  Wouldn't it be much easier to just drop nukes and glass a wide area? It'd probably also provide pretty decent platform to build on.
  - ben_w 6y ago
    Nukes in space don’t act the same as nukes in air. The total energy is the same, but the fireball needs an atmosphere, and you need the fireball to shift the energy from a point-like source of hard X-rays to a big ball of IR. This is also why Project Orion isn’t quite as self-destructive as it seems at first glance. I guess you could pave the Moon with a rover and some Fresnel lenses though?