Will future humans mine the moon, and build a huge metropolis inside it?

File: 60 KB, 576x456, kimonos1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:25:04 2011 No.3688358 [Reply] [Original]

Will future humans mine the moon, and build a huge metropolis inside it?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:27:04 2011 No.3688363 No. We might mine the moon, but building shit on/in it is unfeasible and not worth the effort even if we could.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:31:04 2011 No.3688371 >>3688363 I disagree, if we can build the ISS today, i see no reason why it could not be feasable to build something similar in the future

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:32:04 2011 No.3688373 by the time we are prepared for such a endeavor, we will have already outsourced all our work to sentient robots, making the job incredibly easy and worthwhile, just like how humans used to make negroes do our work.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:35:04 2011 No.3688383

>>3688371
The ISS is not self sufficient.

A metropolis wold need to be.
Otherwise the sheer cost of transporting hundred onnes of supplies every goddamn day would become too much.
How will you become self sufficient on the moon?

Further, do you have any idea of the materials required to build a city? We can't just assemble it the way we did the ISS.
The economic costs would be above the GDP of every member of the UN.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:36:04 2011 No.3688384 >>3688371 Sure we could build it, but why put it on the faggot moon when it could be floating around in space?

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:39:04 2011 No.3688395

>>3688363
I think it will become very feasable once we run out of room on this planet. At the moment, humans are like an exponentially growing yeast population inside a closed jar. If they jar fills up and you don't open the lid, the yeast dies. In order to survive, we need to pop the lid off! In other words, the survival of human species will in the long room come down to a question as to whether or not we move into outer space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:42:04 2011 No.3688406 >>3688395 Yes. That was not the question however. You asked if we'd build shit on the moon. We wouldn't.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:44:04 2011 No.3688415 >>3688406 So you think we are stuck on this planet forever? If we can mine the moon, why wouldn't we eventually live there. There are a few mining companies already looking into it at the moment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:45:04 2011 No.3688419 >>3688358 You want >>>/x/ OP, they're the ones who predict the future.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:46:04 2011 No.3688422 >>3688383 This is assuming we don't find a cheaper and faster way of transporting materials into space. Why couldn't we start off a small operation on the moon, and even use some of the materials we mine to build larger infrastructure?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:46:04 2011 No.3688423 >>3688415 I already stated why. You just keep dodging the issue and spout the usual TV physicist "WE MUST GO TO SPACE" lines. It's not relevant to the question you asked.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:48:04 2011 No.3688431 >>3688423 Not OP. The moon is incredibly close to us in cosmic terms. If we ever decide to populate space, we will surely start there. Concepts such as the space elevator will make space travel far cheaper in the future.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:48:04 2011 No.3688432

>>3688395
You don't know anything about biology.
>Implying living organisms haven't existed on this planet for much longer than humans.

Species don't procreate into extinction. Equilibrium is reached wherein growth rate is equal to the death rate at the maximum number of sustainable organisms. This is simple stuff.

We just keep raising the maximum through the use of technology.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:50:04 2011 No.3688434

>>3688432
Well don't you think we are putting all our eggs in one basket by just staying on one planet when we are perfectly capable of populating others in the future? All it would take is a nuclear war, a large asteroid collision, maybe even a supervolcano eruption like Yellowstone, and boom, human race is history.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:52:04 2011 No.3688442 >>3688432 I might add that the life expectancy of humans is increasing every year. Eventually we may even find a way to life indefinitely. In which case, we will have no option but to start moving into space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:53:04 2011 No.3688446 >>3688422 Sure we could slowly build up infrastucture from moon resources, I suppose. But we'd still need to import half of the resources necessary. And supplies are still a problem.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:55:04 2011 No.3688450 File: 17 KB, 205x300, millennialproject.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3688446 >pic related Read this fucking book. It has some awesome concepts for humans colonising space.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 04:57:04 2011 No.3688455

>>3688434

STOP FUCKING DODGING ISSUES AND SPOUTING THE SAME SHIT WE'VE ALL HEARD A BILLION TIMES BEFORE.
We would all LIKE to go to space.
We all think it'll be necessary given an exponential growth of the human population.
We're just saying there's problem with your lunar metropolis.

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:09:04 2011 No.3688488 File: 51 KB, 480x346, regolith.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3688383 >How will you become self sufficient on the moon? Grow our own food. Everything else we need, including oxygen, is in the dirt.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:11:04 2011 No.3688493
File: 17 KB, 298x298, soilprocessing.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3688455

>We're just saying there's problem with your lunar metropolis.

"We" is plural. There only seems to be one of you. If you were unaware of the high oxygen content in lunar soil, fine, now you know. Otherwise I'd like to know why we can't use chemical processes understood centuries ago to separate the elements we need out of lunar soil.

Here's a video of NASA proving it can be done at a rate sufficient to sustain life: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_ctkYUJ7q0

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:15:04 2011 No.3688499

>>3688455
Ok I'll list out some issues, maybe people can come up with with possible solutions

1. Very expensive. At the moment, we exclusively use rockets to get into space. Most of the fuel is used up just escaping earth's gravity.

2. Large amount of space used up by carrying fuel means there is very little room for people and other resources required.

3. The moon doesn't have an atmosphere or magnetic sheild, leaving us exposed to radiation.

4. There is no water on the moon.

Solutions and other problems?

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:17:04 2011 No.3688502 >>3688499 >There is no water on the moon. This one is false. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32987896/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/prospect-moon-ice-spurs-excit ement/

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:22:04 2011 No.3688522 >>3688502 Say's 'may be water' on the moon. Not definite. Assuming that there is, I doubt it is enough to sustain a large population. We would still have to find a way to manufacture it from the lunar soil, like that other guy said.

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:24:04 2011 No.3688527 >>3688522 This link says it's confirmed. http://earthsky.org/space/anthony-colaprete-bombarding-moon-confirmed-water-ice

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:29:04 2011 No.3688540
File: 14 KB, 516x344, lunartube.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>We would still have to find a way to manufacture it from the lunar soil, like that other guy said.

Btw, that guy was me. And that isn't sustainable in the long term.

You can actually create a livable space for hundreds or even thousands on the moon without the expense and complexity of most existing plans. You seal a lunar lava tube, pressurize it with an initial atmosphere, fertilize the soil, plant crops, and install overhead lights and heaters fed from the nuclear reactor on the surface.

This eventually creates a stable atmosphere provided you quickly scale up the number of human inhabitants as the plants grow, and balance it so that there are just enough humans to consume the crops' waste oxygen and just enough plants to consume the humans' waste CO2. The system would self-correct to some degree, with plants dying off if humans are removed and new seedlings appearing as you add more humans and thus create more CO2.

Pic related, entrances to lunar lava tubes.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:29:04 2011 No.3688541 >>3688527 Ok, good. A base of water would be very useful for starting off a colony if we ever get there.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:31:04 2011 No.3688547 >>3688540 Why isn't it sustainable? In the long run, we could even mine asteroids for water if we decide to colonise further into space.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:32:04 2011 No.3688553 >>3688363 /thread What for? We might mine it but there's no point living there.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:33:04 2011 No.3688558

The moon is only going to be colonized by something other than humans, maybe machines that can happily manufacture solar panels as their source of energy and expand across the surface without asphyxiating or dying of radiation poisoning. They would probably have to have a fuckton of faraday cages though so they don't all die next time there is a solar flare.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:35:04 2011 No.3688571 No. The only places we would build another "Metropolis" is Mars and possibly Venus.. 300 years down the track

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 05:36:04 2011 No.3688576 /Sci/ is a really cool place where I can get excited about humanity expanding to space and new environments.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:38:04 2011 No.3688581 >>3688576 Just wait till the "Terra-forming is impossible" people show up

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:39:04 2011 No.3688584 >>3688581 >Just wait till people over the age of 14 show up FTFY

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:40:04 2011 No.3688588 >>3688584 They've already shown up

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:40:04 2011 No.3688592
File: 24 KB, 360x288, lunarbase.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3688553

>What for? We might mine it but there's no point living there.

As a backup population and a backup instance of modern technological civilization to restore civilization on Earth from in the event of a global catastrophe.

>>3688558

>The moon is only going to be colonized by something other than humans

No, because we'll start doing so long before the technology exists to become anything drastically different.

>>3688576

>/Sci/ is a really cool place where I can get excited about humanity expanding to space and new environments.

Chill out bro, I go this.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 05:43:11 2011 No.3688598 I know realize my comment could have been interpreted as sarcasm. It wasnt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:44:04 2011 No.3688602 >>3688592 NASA Logo? Should it be BP or Rio Tinto

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 05:44:04 2011 No.3688603 >>3688592 >>3688581 I now realizde my statement could have been interpreted as sarcasm, or meant to high light all the critics in this thread. It wasnt.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:45:04 2011 No.3688608 >>3688602 Shouldn't*

>>	Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 05:45:04 2011 No.3688609 >>3688603 Oh. Well, good I guess. BUT I STILL GOT THIS. >:O

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:49:04 2011 No.3688625 >that feel when there will never be a better tripfriend than MadScientist I love you, man ;_;

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:52:04 2011 No.3688637 >>3688625 Nice try, MadScientist

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 05:52:04 2011 No.3688639 >>3688625 >That feel when MadScientist isn't actually that great. He's just... okay. It's sad, because he's the best I've seen on /sci/.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 05:55:04 2011 No.3688648

The pesssimism and bitterness is so strong. I feel like Ive become sensitive to it since that thread Mad made about cynics.

Its really true. I think 4chan is the best internet community there is, and Ive certainly seen my share of message boards. 4chan is the bitterest. Its the hardest to read.

I feel like, for me at least, its a real love/hate relationship.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:04:04 2011 No.3688684

>>3688648

>I think 4chan is the best internet community there is

Strangely enough, I think so, too. Sure, there are a lot of retarded people here - just like everywhere else - but past all the trolls and the hate is a really interesting place to discuss ideas.

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 06:06:04 2011 No.3688695

>>3688684

Yeah, and to elaborate. Even if we have a lot of retards (and thats hypothetical, I dont want to say there are retards), the fact that they can express themselves represents the honest that exists on 4chan.

Ive spent time on reddit where popularity, and appealing to the majority are more important than honesty, and the result is a bunch of faggots.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:15:04 2011 No.3688723 Why did this thread die? it was just getting good

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:19:04 2011 No.3688737 >>3688723 I guess because everyone either got told by Madscientist and stopped asking questions or discussing or they all started reading that 9/11 truth thread.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 06:19:04 2011 No.3688741 >>3688723 I was thinking the same thing. Here maybe this will restart the thread: Moon is really cool. Y/N?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:22:04 2011 No.3688748 >>3688741 The obvious answer is no. Phobos and Deimos on the other hand

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:22:04 2011 No.3688750 >>3688741 Yeah it's like close and junk!

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:24:04 2011 No.3688756 Why would we want to colonize the moon? It's a piece of shit without any benefits. Colonize mars. At least that shit has ice which we could use to substantiate some type of teraforming if an when we develop a technique that works.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:26:04 2011 No.3688763

>>3688592
>because we'll start doing so long before the technology exists
And so we'll be limited to mining it, not living there.

There is only a very narrow set of possibilities that could arise to create the conditions where we would start building a civilization on the moon that is composed of feeble fleshbags, being that we develop all the technology that allows us to not only survive but prosper on the moon like effective solar power and cheap manufacturing of hydroponic farms or some other food source while robotic and other technologies lag behind meaning it's more economical to put millions humans up there to operate everything. We would also have to wait until after the entire earth is covered with these new industries before the moon becomes worth investing in, during which time we may advance other technologies making sending fleshbags to the moon pointless.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:30:04 2011 No.3688782

>>3688741

It's very cool and I'd like to work there if it'll ever be colonised.

>>3688756

Sure is you not reading the fucking thread and blabbering on about Mars. If colonisation of the solar system becomes a viable option, there shouldn't a reason not to go anywhere and colonise. So fuck the Mars vs. Moon debate and test colonisation techniques on the Moon. After that, we can decide where to go. I'm open to other ways of doing things but that's what I think at this moment.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:41:04 2011 No.3688820

>>3688763
I don't think you're familiar with how mining works.
Much of the cities we know in the west of america started because 'ders gold up in dem hills.' the miners make permanent camps, with shops and merchants first riding in to set up wagons, then setting up permanent establishments. with a trade comes tools, so manufacturers like blacksmiths and carpenters, ect. people need medicine and haircuts, food ect. this is how a town is born. How would the moon be much different, a small city sprouted up to fill the miners needs initially, then services ect. ?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:44:04 2011 No.3688821 >>3688820 Are you implying that in the future we will have rocket wagons

resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 06:45:04 2011 No.3688824

>>3688820

I think, one argument might be, that, trading between the moon and Earth will be immensely difficult. At least, in the forseeable future.

I dont think this is a big deal. At least it doesnt dampen my enthusiasm. An economy can still form on the moon, albeit isolated by the immense costs associated with trading back onto the earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:48:04 2011 No.3688830 >>3688824 Once they setup a maglev catapult on the surface of the moon is will be incredibly cheap to transport thing fs from the Moon to the Earth. And a space elevator will fill in the rest

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 06:52:04 2011 No.3688837

>>3688821
that would be awesome, but no that wasnt my implication. it was more that those miners may not know how to grow food, or cook said food well, and where there is money to be made there will those that service their need for a slice of the pie. consider the following: why be a miner on the moon? You're whole career spent quite a bit of a distance from a place to spend said salary.

>>	resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e Mon Sep 5 06:56:04 2011 No.3688848 >>3688830 Speaking of the space elavator. You mean a space elevator on Earth right? How feasible is it to build a space elevator to begin with?

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 07:04:04 2011 No.3688859 >>3688848 Just need some carbon Nanotubes

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 07:24:04 2011 No.3688884 File: 42 KB, 420x280, 1_towerterror_article-420x0[1].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3688830 Imagine this thing on the moon

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 07:30:04 2011 No.3688906 >>3688859 >just If all we need is just some carbon nanotubes why don't we have one built already

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 07:34:04 2011 No.3688917 >>3688906 It will be "Just" when we are able to produce nanotubes on the scale needed for a space elevator

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Mon Sep 5 08:21:04 2011 No.3689007
File: 34 KB, 471x376, moonsurface.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>3688756

>Colonize mars. At least that shit has ice which we could use to substantiate some type of teraforming if an when we develop a technique that works.

The moon also has ice, and the same concentration of oxygen in the soil. What Mars has that is attractive is an atmosphere of CO2, which can be used in a number of chemical reactions to make rocket fuel, and to feed plants.

Why we may colonize the moon first is that the major argument for any sort of offworld colonization is to preserve the human species in the event of a global catastrophe, and plugging a lava tube on the moon and cultivating a biome inside gives you more bang for your buck than trying to do the same thing on Mars.

Better to get a small backup colony established on the Moon and then attempt one on Mars than to try to go straight to Mars and have an asteroid hit Earth while we're waiting on funding or something.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 08:48:04 2011 No.3689076 The moon will be like an oil rig in the ocean.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 08:54:04 2011 No.3689090

Are you guys fucking kidding me? You actually like being confined to this shithole planet? The moon would be a chance to start fresh. Think about it, the people who would move there would be educated scientists, engineers and other rational thinking useful professions. Think of it, once a society is established, it would be virtually free of religion, would have excellent morals, and it would be self sustaining so every need would be catered for. Not to mention the awesomeness of low gravity, imagine being able to fly inside your bio-sphere (or whatever you live in) using just a pair of strap on wings and your arms, being able to leap 10m into the air without trying, and being able to run faster than Usain Bolt on Earth.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 09:07:04 2011 No.3689130 >>3689090 20,000 of the worlds brightest men and women starting a colony on another planet, fuck yes. I could imagine them setting up and then cutting all ties and communication with Earth and going it alone

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 09:19:04 2011 No.3689175 >>3689090 >being able to run faster than Usain Bolt on Earth. You can't run faster on the moon than on earth. Please use your brain.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Mon Sep 5 16:25:04 2011 No.3691006
File: 33 KB, 342x502, 1313630988781.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Personally I think not only with the moon have dozens of large cities, but eventually it will be terraformed. Perhaps not to the extent Mars and perhaps Venus, but enough so there's a relatively thin atmosphere that you can breathe, and some small seas.

>>	Anonymous Mon Sep 5 16:32:04 2011 No.3691050 >>3691006 You must be new to thinking.

Anonymous Mon Sep 5 16:37:04 2011 No.3691080

>self sustaining
>the moon
It's a fucking rock in space, there is no reason why you would make a colony on the moon unless you found some sort of valuable minerals, in which case you would just have mines. Why do you think that a moon colony would be a paradise? Why would only educated people be allowed to live there? I'm all for exploring other planets but there is really 0 reason to have a colony on the moon.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math