Colonizing The Moon. Shit Idea or Smart Idea?

>>8861034
Can be built underground and have the entrance look like a two by four manhole cover.

Just bury your facilities deep inside the moon and you solve both the cons you mentioned

>>8861034
Worth it if they can build it underground.

Not worth it otherwise.

Lunar drilling technology will have to be developed.

I think colonizing the asteroids belt makes even more sense.
>Abundant source of material
>0g, no escape velocity to overcome
>can hollow out some huge ass asteroids to set up base inside providing extra protection

>>8861055
>Lunar drilling
>Not just blowing up the moon with a MOAB or FOAB

>>8861076
>haul up 20,000 lb bomb one time use

vs.

>haul up 2000 lb specialized solar powered drilling equipment that can work forever

good try brainlet.

Atmosphericless worlds are the future. If we can master that we've passed the great filter.

>>8861118
You mean being in a space suit 24/7 is the future?

>>8861138
You don't like it?

I think it would be more logical to colonize the moon first and develop infrastructure there before even trying Mars. We don't even have sufficient data on what the long term (10 years+) effects of living in space are.

File: 1361834632485.png (2KB, 209x215px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 209x215px

>>8861158
no

>>8861034
It's a good idea but Mars is better. Even if you colonized the Moon first, Mars would soon follow. If you colonized Mars first then the Moon would soon follow. Either way, they're both getting it.

Whatever country gets up there first can throw rocks at it's enemy.

>>8861161
>not exchanging filters with your gf in the ultimate symbol of love - sniffing the atmosphere of a body that's not left a suit for decades
It's like you don't want to feel love man what's wrong with you?

A shame colonizing the outer world holds no short term benefits.

>>8861168
Yo that would be like good porn, especially for fart fetishes. You're a fucking genius.

>>8861034
Why bother going back to a gravity well after you finally overcome one? If you're in space already and have the technology to settle space, just build rotating stations.

>>8861180
> just build rotating stations.
Or carve your new home in some asteroids

>>8861055
One of the main reasons to go to the moon is to harvest water from the polar crater ice deposits. Water's much better shielding than moon regolith, and also much easier to work with.

Take a small nuclear reactor and an RTG into an eternally dark crater. Right away, you're protected from the worst space radiation threat: high-intensity bursts of solar protons, and you're getting a lower radiation dose than you would be in LEO. You're also in a consistent thermal environment, which greatly simplifies things. Now you can start harvesting water with the reactor and use it to to build an ice roof over your RTG-heated hab. When it's thick enough, you won't be getting any more radiation than you do on Earth.

>>8861034
It seems to me that moon base would be doable with most of our technology, it's just a matter of motivation. Once it's built, we would be much closer to space mining, have a safer nonearth station than ISS and advance a human presence to another celestial body, which eliminates some catastrophic scenarios for our species.

Damn I wish we talked about it more, imo it's one the few doable sci-fi ideas we could have in our lifetime. The possibilities outweight the cons.

>spend billions over time creating and maintaining artificial sattelites in Earths orbit
>have a natural sattelite that doesn't have to constantly readjust trajectory

Seriously, why hasn't anybody tried to establish a base on the moon, even if it is not manned? Wouldn't it offer a very good base for remote sensing experiments that are already being done with artificial sats? I get that the moons orbit is fixed, but surely the orbit is useful in certain places.

>>8861034
The costs of doing that are on a spectrum so we don't know if it'll ever be done.

File: 1492244823511.png (300KB, 600x476px) Image search: [Google]

300KB, 600x476px

we don't own the moon.
all rental space there is taken .
it is populated , not by humans, was built by the pharos for earth defense.
was taken in the first intergalactic war when our gods fell at the hands of yahwh after they were betrayed by abraham.

>>8861162
Yes but I think it makes a lot more sense to master your technology on the easier target first, which also gives you a far superior launching point to actually get to the rest of the solar system later.

>>8861034
We would probably try colonizing Antarctica before colonizing somewhere off of Earth...

>>8861322
the lag between satellites in earth orbit and ground stations is huge...the lag between the moon and the earth would put you out of business

File: Advanced_Automation_for_Space_Missions_figure_5-19.jpg (127KB, 800x535px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 800x535px

>>8861034
Yes, and with robots not humans

File: 1200px-Antarctic_Region.png (1MB, 1200x1480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1480px

>>8862456
Antarctic claims are frozen by the Antarctic Treaty. It should be a natural preserve anyway. Let's leave it like that.

Do you want fucking WW3?

>>8861034
We can mine Helium 3 and use it for fusion power, so why not?

>>8861364
>low_quality_bait.jpg

File: growing-underground-london-bomb-shelter-hydroponic-farm-6.jpg.650x0_q70_crop-smart.jpg (57KB, 650x431px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 650x431px

>>8861034
I agree, it's a sound idea...

1. Practice for colonizing Mars
2. Close to Earth, ideal for mining and trying to make it economically-viable in the long term.
3. Ideal to study human life in a low gravity environment. If there are health problems early colonists could theoretically return.
4. Farming could be conducted in hydroponic farms. Early colonies would have to be underground, a network of tunnels with underground gardens and dome structures closer to the surface, it could become a pretty comfy colony in time.

>>8861034
Will probably happen once everyone gets over their boner for putting a human on Mars.

Building colonies on the Moon would be the best way to test the waters for the eventual Mars and asteroid belt colonies.

File: Spockonsci.png (134KB, 450x312px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 450x312px

>>8861034
Brainlets... thinking there isn't already a human colony there.

File: Rodney has cracked a smile.jpg (5KB, 297x170px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 297x170px

>>8861168
I imagine how this must feel to fuck Tali from Mass Effect.

>>8861052
but the costs ?>>8861055

File: 134674641674.jpg (230KB, 1300x1390px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 1300x1390px

>>8861034
>landing stroke
>no gravity

>>8863753
This would be 1000x times more efficient than sending humans to harvest planets,moons or asteroids.
With humans come the added requirement for water/food/waste production, and any entertainment required to keep a well mental state. Robots dont have this bs, just let them run on solar or w/e

>>8861034
We don't need the resources for now, we should be focusing on mastering getting out and back into our atmosphere and gravity, seamlessly and cheaply.

>>8864006
Also space, you can be incredibly utiliarian, don't really need any rooms or anything, just storage places. Certainly not rooms with an atmosphere maintained. Actually the only reason for a human to ever leave Earth is for studying our bodies in other environments and to safeguard our existence, spreading ourselves across multiple bodies. Anything and everything else is far more efficient and technologically easier.