/sci/ - Science & Math

>>12085864
There are a lot of variables you're not even cognizant of.
You are sitting on a shitload of money, you're lucky because this is a day and age where commercial space flight means you don't have to spend the money developing a way to get to space like >>12087914 mentions. You're not reinventing the wheel, you're hiring a freight company.
But, now you are going to hit a wall, because sure we've got a self sufficient city for 2k people, thats a plan. But who is going to build it? There's not a lot of people with experience building structures in low gravity and hard vacuum. Also lunar dust is going to be nasty stuff for any kind of mechanical linkages you have, so you'll need to redesign every piece of heavy equipment that's on the surface. Research and design is expensive as hell, and its an easy place to get strung along down dead end paths by lazy greedy contractors.
Also the problem with "self sufficient habitats" is that we can't even do those on earth. The one large experiment I know of was biosphere 2 out in arizona (?) and it didn't fly so good. So again, more expensive R&D.
So yes. You can build a city on the moon by pouring money into it. And honesty if you had "a trillion dollars" it would make money all on its own, and create industries around building Lunar City One, which would drastically reduce costs and labor for building Tycho-Town, and so on.

>>10259793
>Please don't call the moon "Luna".
Negative ghost-rider.