/sci/ - Science & Math

Good point, never thought of that.

And stop with that pretentious "is humanity smart enough?" bullshit. You're not Carl Sagan.

>>5744316

The size of this moon colony would have to be astronomical. Hell, it would not even be classifiable as a colony.

Anyways, it is most likely that a lunar colony would be constructed below ground as to shield from solar radiation. Surface disturbance would be minimal except for mining activities (e.g. helium 3)

>>5744394
>And stop with that pretentious "is humanity smart enough?" bullshit. You're not Carl Sagan.

But does arrogant enough to be Newt Gingrich count?

Anyway, I just ache to think of moon hippies raising money to "restore the surface of the moon" and there being an impotent and underfunded campaign to fix problems caused by a moon colony. We already do shit like this on Earth. I would hope the planning and trillions invested in a Moon colony wouldn't be wasted on fixing the fact that there is a moon colony. Know what I mean?

>>5744405
>Surface disturbance would be minimal except for mining activities (e.g. helium 3)

That's what I'm talking about. Mining and moving shit on the surface of the moon will change it. Add several "highways" for equipment and trucks going to-and-fro and boom, no more "man in the moon". Also, the damage will be there for billions of years.

>>5744405

This guy is right.

Also, the moon rotates. All sides will be visible at one time or another. Have you forgotten basic celestial body functions?

>>5744414

>Know what I mean?

Stop with that ignorant "knowattaymeen?" bullshit. This isn't the NBA.

>>5744425
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking

>>5744425
The moon is tidally locked to the earth. The face it shows to the earth swings back and forth a little, but most of the far side is never visible from earth.

>>5744316
>>>possible destruction of the known features of the moon, features with cultural significance like "the man in the moon".
Imagine dying a one-planet species. Losing cultural significance of some face on the moon is a small loss in the grand scheme of things.

Also, being stuck on some lifeless rock without a view of the Earthrise would be sucky to a large degree.

Really helps you appreciate life on Earth.

But far side colonies do need to be built for radioastronomy purposes

>>5744425
I'll take "tidally locked heavenly bodies for dumbasses", Alex.

>>5744438
>But far side colonies do need to be built for radioastronomy purposes

then you just thought of a good reason for not building on the visible side. "light pollution".

>>5744443
>>then you just thought of a good reason for not building on the visible side. "light pollution".

That just disturbs the view of your precious moon? Your worse than those rich people who don't want wind turbines built offshore, because "it'll ruin the view."

>>5744316
But what's with all the cheese?
I think the question boils down to what we want or need, both moon sides are geologically different from each other.

>>5744446
It's not a view. It's the face of the moon for the last several hundred million, if not 3ish billion years. It takes some balls to deface that and there will be much pissing and moaning and attempts at "restoration".

Better to avoid the bullshit.

>>5744458
What will the hippies do besides bitching and moaning in your opinion?
Fuck the moon, carve a huge cock in it's face.

>>5744316

The first colony would probably be on the visible side of the moon. For practical reasons of course. It makes telecommunication and transport much easier after all the moon is more or less devoid of resources so everything the colony needs to start up will have to come from Earth.

I cant imagine what cell phone reception or internet connectivity must be like on the "dark side" of the moon.

>>5744492
Nothing you can't fix with a few satellites.

>>5744497

Well, you cant fix travel and transport to say the least.

There are so many more possibilities for cost efficient transport on the visible side. Im sure we all know about the cost efficiency of space elevators and such. Furthermore we could always just design a canon-like electomagnetic rail-gun-like tool to launch non-fragile stuff like raw building material onto the visible side of the moon.

>>5744482
carving cocks you say?

>>5744505
>implying it matters what side you land on when you orbit the fucking moon.

>>5744505
I think you could use a mag-lev track with a slope on it's end to get people and material into orbit or even back to earth.

>>5744541
cool.

>>5744547
I know, i just wanted to point out that the cannon idea is retarded.

>>5744563
I wasn't the same guy, but yeah.

>possible destruction of the known features of the moon, features with cultural significance like "the man in the moon". Imagine generations who don't understand what that is because the moon has been changed and defaced.

Wtf does this even mean? I wasn't aware we had plans to take up every single square foot on the moons thus leading to the destruction of the landing sites. If we ever run into them again they'll probably be preserved for historic reasons

>possible dimming of the moon by pollution and activity so that an actual "full moon" isn't possible.

This is something to consider until you realize the moon doesn't even have an atmosphere to pollute. We could purposely dump massive amounts of pollutants and we would still be nowhere near anything remotely resembling an atmosphere

>harm to biological systems, such as coral spawning and animal migrations/cycles that are based on moons.

How would human activity change this? It's not like human structures will literally black out the moon. The most I can see happening is we might be able to make out the faintest specks of manmade light when not at a full moon. Similar like on earth you can see from orbit, but considering how much farther the moon is, this will hardly matter

>Anyway, I just ache to think of moon hippies raising money to "restore the surface of the moon" and there being an impotent and underfunded campaign to fix problems caused by a moon colony. We already do shit like this on Earth. I would hope the planning and trillions invested in a Moon colony wouldn't be wasted on fixing the fact that there is a moon colony. Know what I mean?
>I just ache

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling or high at this point. There will be no "surface" to restore. It's fucking rocks and dust. What impact could we possibly have on it? And even if we somehow disturb the rocks there why would we waste time fixing it? The moon is an inhospitable rock. Any serious human activity is most likely going to be mining.

>>5744581
You're a complete asshole.

>>5744458
Ok, what environmental impact does that have? Does it disrupt Earth's ecosystems?

It's a fracking airless rock, it's looks a lot like like every other airless rock in the solar system. I'd much rather see lights up there than black airless rock.

And by the time we have enough of a colony up there to visible from earth I don't think we'll be wasting energy uselessly illuminating stuff when humans aren't around.

If you have a lunar colony that is emitting enough light to turn a half-moon into a full moon, you are doing it wrong.

Lunar colonies almost certainly will be built underground because of radiation and meteorite threats. Sure, they'll be some observation platforms topside, but mostly people will live underground.

So why do you need to illuminate the lunar surface in the first place?

>>5744591
>It's a fracking airless rock
>fracking

And you're done. Get the fuck out.

>>5744589
But he is right, also imagine how cool it would be if you could see lights from colonies on the moon.

>That's what I'm talking about. Mining and moving shit on the surface of the moon will change it. Add several "highways" for equipment and trucks going to-and-fro and boom, no more "man in the moon". Also, the damage will be there for billions of years.

Who fucking cares, we've been changing earth for the past how many years? Will we come back in 10,000 years to see the sights of the moon, only to be disappointed when it's not "al natural?" Mining and changing the landscape doesn't "ruin" or "damage" it, we're simply moving matter around.

>It's not a view. It's the face of the moon for the last several hundred million, if not 3ish billion years. It takes some balls to deface that and there will be much pissing and moaning and attempts at "restoration".

See above. "Takes balls to deface it?" How is the earth any different? In fact you could argue changing earth is more detrimental because other life exists here. Who cares if we carve up a useless rock in earth's orbit? Nobody is going to throw money or effort at restoring wastelands of rock and dust to it's original state.
Seriously, the moon is a lifeless, inhospitable rock and nobody (who matters anyway) is going to care what we do to it. Lay off the acid hippy.

Grays please.

>>5744598
It is.

Seriously, this thread is worse than the fluoride poisoning bullshit on here a couple nights ago.

You have no conception of how expensive it would be to change features in the moon to such an extent that it is visible from Earth. Nothing humans have done in the millennia they have been around is even remotely close to visible from the Moon, and that's just what we've built in our own house. We could build one hundred Mt. Everests on the Moon and still not be able to see anything.

Seriously, get the fuck out of here.

>>5744605
i c wut u did thar

...and I like it, Robinson right?

>>5744458
I imagine it would be far more like the Pluto "controversy," where people get pissy about it, but then forget all about it half a year later.

>>5744603
>Mining and changing the landscape doesn't "ruin" or "damage" it, we're simply moving matter around.

LOL. pic related. I'll wait until you get that mine lobby cock out of your ass.

>>5744615
That strip mine looks kind of like the Moon.

>>5744581
>>We could purposely dump massive amounts of pollutants and we would still be nowhere near anything remotely resembling an atmosphere
And pollute the lunar vacuum so we can't carry out industrial processes up there?

http://www.islandone.org/Settlements/DegradeLunarVacuum.html

You wouldn't want to vent pollutants, you'd want to recycle them. If you are venting anything containing carbon, nitrogen, or other volatile elements, you are throwing money down the drain.

>>preserved for historic reasons
we need to start the preservation as soon as possible, micrometeoroids, Moonquakes, and electrostatic effects must have done quite a number on all those astronaut footprints by now

>>5744615
Strip mining is harmful on earth because of it's environmental impact.

Oh no! There will be mines in the endless wastelands on the moon where nobody will ever go afterwards. The horror! Again, all we're doing is moving dirt around. The idea that we can damage or ruin the moon is laughable.

pic related

>>5744316

>look at far side of moon
>absolutely pock-marked, full of craters and scars
>look at near side
>less craters, more smooth planes
>let's live on the far side

I don't feel like getting an asteroid up my ass, thanks.

>>5744638
fine. then do it on the far side of the moon.

>>5744622
>And pollute the lunar vacuum so we can't carry out industrial processes up there?

I was just arguing against the point that any pollution would be negligible and would have virtually no impact on moonlight reflected to earth he was claiming. Yes you would want to conserve any and all materials you could, since you certainly aren't about to get much of anything useful locally.

>we need to start the preservation as soon as possible, micrometeoroids, Moonquakes, and electrostatic effects must have done quite a number on all those astronaut footprints by now

Sorry but I don't even think this is worth the effort of specifically going back for. Yes when we get there we do what we can, but we shouldn't dedicate a mission solely for this purpose.

>>5744653
How about we do it wherever it's most convenient/practical.

You go live alone on the far side of the moon and enjoy your virgin rocks.

>>5744615
I can't wait until we get to start killing Moon trees to extract resources

>>Add several "highways" for equipment and trucks going to-and-fro
find the highways in this post here:
>>5744438

Lunar travel probably won't be by road. With all that nice insulating frictionless vacuum and superconductors that can be made from lunar resources to work at lunar ambient temperatures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnesium_diboride

You could make one hell of a vactrain.

Or you could avoid making a road entirely and just rocket from place to place

>>5744622

The problem with tryign to create an atmosphere is that the moon doesnt have the gravity to keep it there.

Itd all just float off into space. We need a dome.

>>5744615
The only resources worth extracting from the moon we know of lie at about 0- 1 meter deep.

And most large mining operations will throw most of the dirt back just to get the volatiles out.

>>5744697
did you even read the article I linked? A large scale deoxygenation operation can effectively degrade the local lunar vacuum, making a variety of industrial processes impractical.

Now if start to deoxygenate enough rock you get an atmosphere that thick enough its hard for the solar wind to blow away easily and you end up with a 'transient atmosphere' that last thousands of years.

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/12/friedlander-cold-crown-cold-trap-for.html

>we shouldn't mine on the face of the moon because it may disturb the random shapes of piles of dirt and rock we've come accustomed to seeing

You're the same faggot who thinks Pluto should be a planet because you learned about it in 3rd grade.