3 ms·
> Why? Because you'd grow things underground. There's absolutely no reason to do anything above ground on the Moon If you grow stuff on the surface and in the
by diggan 2y ago
> Why? Because you'd grow things underground. There's absolutely no reason to do anything above ground on the Moon
If you grow stuff on the surface and in the sun (with some imaginary window that let the good parts of the sun rays go through, without any of the bad stuff through), wouldn't that be at least slightly more energy efficient, compared to growing stuff underground with lots of strong lights?
- thaumasiotes 2y ago> There's absolutely no reason to do anything above ground on the Moon Is there a reason to do anything below ground? We already aren't doing anything above ground.
- bdamm 2y agoRadiation is a serious problem. It tears apart DNA & RNA. Blocking radiation takes lots of material, hence, underground.
- thaumasiotes 2y agoThat's not a reason to do something below ground on the moon. It would be a reason not to do something above ground, which, as I noted, we already don't do.
- seanhunter 2y agoI've moved beyond not doing things on the moon. That's so passé. I'm already not doing things above ground (or below ground on Mars) and have no plans for the moons of Venus after that.
- _yb2s 2y agoMany of us aren't even doing things above (or below) ground on Earth.
- bdamm 2y agoYou may prefer to do the other thing but I think as a species it's ok to have some off planet outposts. Feel free to not go there, and also don't go to antarctica or anywhere else particularly challenging.
- ceejayoz 2y agoYes, but it requires said imaginary window. Underground just requires LEDs and solar panels. Both of which we can make quite cheaply.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoLeds, solar panels, and distribution is not cheaper than glass or plastic sheeting.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- ralfd 2y agoCould be cheaper on the Moon. The plastic/glass sheeting needs to be vacuum safe and hold pressure in. Plus you need energy anyway for heating (and cooling!), especially for the 2 week long moon nights. Being underground is not only better as radiation shield but also a better/safer controlled environment.
- jmyeet 2y agoThe problem with the Moon is the 28 Earth day day/night cycle. It takes the Moon from blistering heat (~250F) to bone-chilling cold (-200F) so anything on the surface has both a cooling problem and a heating problem. There's no atmosphere so the only way to get rid of heat is to irradiate it away into space or pump it away and do the same thing. Likewise, heating is a big problem and an energy waster as you're irradiating away heat. Going underground just avoids the heating problem, the cooling problem and the radiation problem. It also avoids the issue of meteor impacts on the surface. Those craters came from somewhere. Excavation is expensive but it depends on what you're working with. Is it loose? is it hard rock? I don't think we have good knowledge of the geology of the Moon because we'd have to go there and start drilling cores to find out. The presence of ancient lava probably means we'd be dealing with some hard stones too like basalt or granite. But that's just a guess. Lava tubes, if sufficiently large, just solve so many of these problems. It's just easier to collect power and produce the light you want to grow somethin gunderground.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 2y agoI thought there are some regions in the North Pole that are constantly illuminated. Presumably the temperature is significantly more stable in those regions.
- s1artibartfast 2y agoI don't think that is possible. You may be thinking of the bottoms of some craters, which are always in shadow.
- dredmorbius 2y agoSome craters have central peaks, and polar peaks might also be possible. Those should be in (near) constant solar exposure. The Astronomy Stack Exchange suggests both north- and south-polar locations, near Peary Crater (north) and Shackleton Crater (south): <https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/26110 https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/a/26110>
- 2y ago