Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Moon Space Science

What Shall We Do With the Moon Once We Get There? 524

MarkWhittington writes "For the first time in over thirty five years, the Moon has become the next frontier. The United States has committed to returning human astronauts to the Moon by the end of the next decade. China has hinted that it intends to do this also. A variety of countries, including the United States and China, but also India, Europe, and Japan, have either sent robotic probes into lunar orbit or are on the verge of doing so." Contribute your favorite moon ideas below; I'd like to see it used as the set to film The Moon is a Harsh Mistress .
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

What Shall We Do With the Moon Once We Get There?

Comments Filter:
  • by szyzyg ( 7313 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:11PM (#23703307)
    The raw materials are mostly there (silica, aluminium) and the energy requirements to get smething to geostationary orbit around the earth are about 3% of a launch from earth. Sure, there's not enough volatiles to launch economicly using conventional rockets, but not having an atmosphere means most of your launch velocity can come from a linear acelerator.

    Of course, this kind of thing would need serious investment, but you could use such a network to reder most earth based power generation obsolete, and you'd get a nice global death ray system thrown in for free.

  • by maynard ( 3337 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:17PM (#23703359) Journal
    OK, if a He3 reactor comes online - fine, let's mine the moon. But we sure as hell can't live there, it has 1/6th the gravity of earth. Human beings are not adapted to 1/6G, we are adapted to 1G. If there is material on the moon worth mining, then people won't do it - machines will. We can make machines that would work in 1/6G far easier than we could adapt ourselves to live in 1/6G.

    The moon is a canard. As is living on Mars.

    I predict that within 500 years humanity will have spread throughout the solar system. But we won't live on a single planet or planetoid. Nor will we "teraform" any planets or moons in our solar system. We will instead *build* our habitats and live within them in orbit around various planets and moons which have materials we happen to need.

    I could imagine a large rotating space station in orbit around Titan, dropping a nanotube straw to the methane atmosphere and/or oceans for energy. Or we might live in orbit around Earth, Venus, or Mercury in order to extract abundant sunlight for energy conversion.

    Once we get off of Earth's gravity well, why in God's name would we build another society within another gravity well? Space is where we should live. And in space, we should build habitats suitable to our evolutionary history. And once we can do that, the notion that we waste our time looking for "habitable planets" becomes a canard. Our only interest is to look for stars and planets with enough energy to support our biological needs.
  • by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:18PM (#23703375)
    The far side of the moon could be the perfect place to build an array of radio telescopes. With the whole mass of the moon between the telescopes and the Earth, it would be well shielded from all the RF interference that our modern civilization sprays in all directions.
  • Live there (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Crookdotter ( 1297179 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:20PM (#23703397)
    I want us to set up a large colony, or as large as we can at the current time. Get a biosphere or two setup. I'm sure I read that there are machines that can convert moon rock into a variety of materials, not the least is oxygen and concrete. Large habitats chock full of people would suit me fine. Moon City One sounds pretty cool to me. I doubt I'll see it in my lifetime, but I hope I'm wrong.
  • by mikelieman ( 35628 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:26PM (#23703441) Homepage
    We should commit to actually developing a colony, rather than these expensive tech demonstrations. Treat it like the south pole stations. Send 50 people and a shitload of supplies and raw materials, and Good Luck.

  • by moderatorrater ( 1095745 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:32PM (#23703487)
    There are a lot of uses for a low gravity, low temperature* (half the time, anyway), high sunlight satellite. Power generation would be easy if we could solve the transportation issue. Retirement village for those who are extremely wealthy, taking a lot of pressure off of their joints. Tourism, of course. Data processing centers for those applications where scientists wait months before being able to use the computing power anyway. Eventually, assuming that colonization ended up being practical, it could be used as a refueling station/rest stop for space craft, giving them a place to land which doesn't require as much power to take off from.

    Most importantly, I'm reminded of Amara's law: we're going to overestimate its usefulness in the short term, and underestimate it for the long term.

    *The lack of an atmosphere will make it so that heat doesn't dissipate in that direction very quickly, but I'm thinking that the dark side of the moon itself would be a kickass heat sink.
  • Rape it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:32PM (#23703503) Homepage Journal
    This is a serious suggestion, not a troll. There is no life on the moon, nothing much worth preserving (aside from the odd monolith) so it would hardly be much of a "loss". Might as well extract as much benefit as we can from it.

    Don't get me wrong, I'm all for saving the rainforests, but the moon is essentially a rock.
  • by QuantumG ( 50515 ) * <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:34PM (#23703515) Homepage Journal
    But what's the time frame for this? If cheap fusion power is available then going to the Moon or elsewhere in space gets a whole lot easier. Problem is, that same technology makes motivations like solar power stations obsolete.

    I've never seen a study of SPS that includes an estimate of how long it will take to build them (that isn't just fantasia bullshit that is). If it will take 30 years before you break even then its not hard to justify just waiting around for something better to come up.

    Don't get me wrong, I think if sufficient funding was put into an Apollo style crash program you could get SPS producing net power in under 10 years, and the same simply cannot be said for fusion. We have the physics for SPS, it's just a question of engineering now.. the same cannot be said for plasma physics.

    But unless the next administration is looking for a massive public works project, that kind of funding isn't going to happen.
  • Re:Build a big (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Tubal-Cain ( 1289912 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:34PM (#23703525) Journal
    And carve the moon into the shape of a shark.
  • by amightywind ( 691887 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:35PM (#23703527) Journal

    The valuable materials are refractory metals, like Ti, Mg, Ni, Cr, Mn. The lunar surface is relatively Aluminum poor. The lunar highlands are made up of anorthosite which contains some aluminum, but it is tighly bound no more a useful ore there than it is on earth. We don't need to go to the moon to mine silica. The mare and highlands ate silica poor. The moon would yield strategic metals.

  • Simple answer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:37PM (#23703549) Homepage Journal

    ...we'll learn stuff that will turn out to be useful in really unlikely, impossible-to-predict ways.

    Pretty much the same answer as with any pure science initiative, really. Remember: economics may come and go, but knowledge is the only investment that will pay dividends for eternity.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2008 @07:56PM (#23703697)
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver
  • Re:The Obvious (Score:5, Interesting)

    by confused one ( 671304 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:28PM (#23703793)
    It is the high ground.
  • by inaneframe ( 971456 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:39PM (#23703897) Homepage
    "A variety of countries, including . . . Europe" Europe isn't yet one country. . . last time I checked, or is the EU THAT powerful already?
  • 1. No Starbucks. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:40PM (#23703915)
    2. Inspect the stuff we left there 40 years ago so we know what specs to build to for the next 40 years.

  • by BRUTICUS ( 325520 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:45PM (#23703961)
    This will give us a means of getting things to the moon. We can just keep a shuttle and park it at the elevator to travel back and forth.

    Imagine being able to siphon water out of the ocean. Have it collect into a giant ice ball and crash that ice ball into the moon. There you have a source of oxygen AND water...

    What if in the center of these ice balls you had a heating device that was solar powered. The heat was distributed JUST enough to keep the center of the ice ball liquid. Thus allowing you to have FISH inside of it. Algae and seaweed inside of it.
  • by WankersRevenge ( 452399 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:55PM (#23704037)
    i just watched the documentary "For all Mankind" which was a brief history in video of the Apollo program. At one point during a moonwalk, a mission control dude remarked that the temperature of the light on the moon's surface was around 135 degrees fahrenheit, whereas the shade of the lunar module was -150 degrees. Seems like an easy way to solve the heat problem. Just errect a simple shade, and viola, heat be gone. Kind of blew me away, though, that two extreme temperatures exist side by side.
  • Build a ... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by CouteauTM ( 985458 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @09:59PM (#23704067)
    prison?
  • Re:Rape it (Score:0, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 08, 2008 @10:30PM (#23704349)
    Yes, rape it. Forget about tides. Forget about the little we really know about the moon and its impact on our life, the earth and the solar system. Rape it.
    What could possibly go wrong?
  • by O2H2 ( 891353 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @10:46PM (#23704487)

    The only real reason for lunar operations is industry. Judging what is on the Moon from a few measly soil samples and surface imaging is a joke. We really don't know much of anything about what might be there. We do know that a lot of stuff has impacted on it though. Prospecting will be an early high priority task.

    Once people start staying there more than a few days there is going to be a significant degradation in the local vacuum and the moon will start to acquire a tenuous atmosphere. Humans are a contaminant wherever we go. The extraction of lunar O2 will be first and foremost and that is mining plain and simple. Tons of lunar material will have to be processed on a monthly basis leading into the thousands of tons per year. We will create tailiings from this process and they will have to be dealt with. If water is found the same thing will happen there.

    You can forget about lunar surface habitats. Unless you are fond of mutation. Living will be a lot like being on a submarine for a long time. The establishment of habitation space that does not require the delivery of hardware from earth will be a prime task. You can expect lots of digging, detonations and surface fracture and pulverization activities. These are all dirty, ugly things best done by people without PhD's. Scientists will be seen as a nuisance for quite a while.

    Preparation of a large landing pad area will be also be a high priority as will the manufacture of local roads to suppress dust . The manufacture of many large cisterns for water and waste storage will be a big task too. Water paranoia will be the guiding principle on the moon. It will not be wasted. A complete system for the synthesis, liquifaction and storage of LO2 and LH2 also has to be installed using the decent stages of lunar landers for starts. The synthesis of real soils for lunar agnriculture will also be critical. In short, all the boring stuff that few people even thing about are the top priorities on the moon- not searching for He3.

    If we want to do this it will take hundreds of people on the surface at any time and they will have to be there for at least 1 year stints to make it economically digestible. The transport is what eats you alive here. You must compel a moon-centric thought process as soon as is practical. If everyone is looking to earth to bring every damn thing the colony will fail. You must be able to repair and replace everything. Most aerospace technology is not amenable to this at present. There will be an evolution of hardware that works on the moon. High performance stuff that is finicky or prone to failure will be ditched. It is this engine of innovation that will be one of the most valuable things we "discover" on the moon.

    As for the far side of the moon being radio quiet- not for long. The L2 point is a valuable location and it needs a telecom relay satellite to talk to it. One of the first things we will put up will be a telecom network in orbit and/or at L1/L2. Exploration of the far side will be a far higher priority than a radio telescope. That means comm, machines with electronics and hence noise. Not that they won't declare some small area to be "radio quiet" .

    If we discover industrial scale sources of water on the moon its value as a base will be incredible. It is a bio-safe location for people to work. By that I mean they can live and work without the fear of being irradiated to death. What an astronaut will put up with for a few days is utterly different to what a welder should have to put up with over a two year tour of duty. We need the best welders, mechanics,seamstresses, cooks, farmers, doctors, dentists etc etc to make this work. If it is perceived that working on the moon is a death sentence it will be hard to find good help. Working in high orbit like L2 and L2, while necessary, will be minimized. Those are just the equivalent of runways anyway- not much industry that cannot be automated there.

    If we go to the moon with some sort of tou

  • by r_jensen11 ( 598210 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @10:55PM (#23704557)
    Seriously, did /. need this much time for somebody to state the obvious?

    Of course, this was supposed to have begun 9 years ago, and gone into its second phase about 7 years ago. But hey, better late than never....
  • by SlowGenius ( 231663 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @11:05PM (#23704645) Homepage
    With the lack of atmosphere, the amount of solar energy that's available per square meter is incredible. Photovoltaics are one obvious option. Heat engines that would harvest the huge amounts of potential energy to be found in the vast temperature differentials available between lit and unlit lunar surfaces would be another.

    With so much cheap energy available, the obvious next thing to do is to start refining things, e.g. extracting vast amounts of oxygen from all of that silica and hurl it into orbit via a rail gun. Other raw materials and purified minerals to follow. Lots of O2 and refined materials in orbit = a good start towards constructing orbital factories. Additional ores to come both from the moon and the asteroids; hydrocarbons to come from Titan.

    Okay, so now we've got a factory system set up with effectively unlimited amounts of energy, oxygen, hydrogen, and refined ores of any sort imaginable available to us at the top of Earth's gravity well. Maybe we might get serious about building a space elevator at that point.

    What should we build next after that?

    Whatever anyone damn well pleases.

  • by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @11:23PM (#23704769) Homepage
    No, it's not good enough - because He3 fusion is LONG way off by all accounts, and you're assuming that you can't find a suitable fuel here on Earth. And it's not like He3 doesn't exist on this planet. I've got some here on my desk, for that matter - self-luminous tritium glow tubes that by my math should have decayed to about 30% He3 by now.

    And IIRC, the He3 on the moon is still pretty thin on the ground. You've got to process a lot of regolith to extract it.

    I'm all for going back to the moon and staying there, but He3 is not the reason. Learning to live there IS a good reason, IMHO. I'm just looking forward to the day when automated fabrication technology gets to the point where we can build maybe 80-90% of what we need in-situ without huge factories and manual labor. I'm not expecting magical nanotech assemblers any time soon, but you don't need to make EVERYTHING there. Just make the big, heavy stuff - and learn to design what you need using the materials you've got, even if it's sub-optimal.

    The day when an off-world colony can produce enough wealth to pay for what it must get from Earth is the day we stop being an Earth-bound species. We'll get there by working both ends - reducing what needs to be sent up (and reducing the cost of doing so), and increasing the economic output of an off-world colony. But we need to go there first, even though it's expensive, and start learning the lessons that need to be learned.
  • Re:Simple answer... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by coaxial ( 28297 ) on Sunday June 08, 2008 @11:33PM (#23704847) Homepage
    But what is there to learn on the moon, that can't be learned on Earth? All it is is a rock. A rock without an atmosphere and 1/6 gravity. Vacuums are easily creatable in the lab. Nothing has been found to require a lack of gravity to be made.

    Face it. The only reason /.ers want to go to the moon is romance. As Bruce Sterling [well.com] said about about space colonization:

    I'll believe in people settling Mars at about the same time I see people settling the Gobi Desert. The Gobi Desert is about a thousand times as hospitable as Mars and five hundred times cheaper and easier to reach. Nobody ever writes "Gobi Desert Opera" because, well, it's just kind of plonkingly obvious that there's no good reason to go there and live. It's ugly, it's inhospitable and there's no way to make it pay. Mars is just the same, really. We just romanticize it because it's so hard to reach.
  • Advertising (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2008 @12:11AM (#23705097)
    Can you imagine how much Pepsi would pay to turn the moon into it's logo?
  • Telescopes (Score:2, Interesting)

    by ianmh ( 818287 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @12:11AM (#23705105) Homepage
    Hilarious post, but I think there are some valid things we can do there. Massive telescopes on the dark side of the moon come to mind. They could be much larger thanHubble and there is no atmosphere to block their view like there is on earth.
  • by multicsfan ( 311891 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @12:15AM (#23705121)
    Vacuum is very useful in a variety of manufacturing processes. Gravity is also useful as you don't need expensive zero gravity toilets, etc. I remember reading that titanium is one of many elements available on the moon. With lots of solar energy and raw materials, I would think a moon base/colony could become self self sufficient.

    In the longer term be able to provide materials to nearby space for orbital constriction easier then launching the materials from earth. The choice of material may change, but the cost could be much lower.

    Going to the moon only makes sense if you look at it as a long term investment where the break even/profit is many years away. The benefits may end up being measured more from increased human knowledge then from direct financial profit.

    One of the major problems large companies have with investing in R&D is the investment is always a long term process that may take years before showing a result and even longer before showing a profit.

    The longer the payback time frame and/or more expensive the research, the harder it is for a business to justify the research. Look at the internet. The basic start was back in the 70's as Arpanet. Until the mid 90's most people had never heard of the internet. Now not only has almost everyone heard of the internet, almost everyone has some type of internet access. Communications satellites were science fiction until the 60's when the first one was launched.
  • Re:The Obvious (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Nathrael ( 1251426 ) <<nathraelthe42nd> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday June 09, 2008 @12:22AM (#23705169)
    Actually, you don't need a laser to turn the moon into a weapons platform; a mass driver (or anything other capable of shooting things down to Earth on a high velocity) would be enough, since the kinetic energy of the impact is more than sufficient to destroy a lot of things. Orbital bombardment should be pretty effective, since it's WAY harder to defend yourself against those than against ICBMs. Also, with the upcoming new forms of warfare involving satellites, the moon will possibly become pretty effective against them as well, although I don't know if it isn't more cost effective to just shoot up anti-satellite-missiles. Laser beams and sharks together are still awesome, though.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 09, 2008 @03:04AM (#23706019)
    Is it just me, but wouldn't shipping 100 tonnes of He3 off the surface cause some changes to the moon's orbit over time? Maybe over thousands of years of strip mining?? I suspect the percentage change in mass is low, but I do not relish the idea of a moon impact on Earth.
  • by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @03:55AM (#23706297) Journal
    Look, get past all the W. rhetoric. Living on the moon just became relatively cheap. For us to live there is going to sending loads O2, or providing lots of power to mine it. We are currently looking at solar power, but that really is not going to provide enough. In particular, solar will not do the job away from the poles. It would require beaming it combined with storage. That is until recently. Japan has found lots of uranium there. Not earth level, but it appears to be more than we could ship easily. Japan also has a nuclear reactor designed for the moon (the toshiba 4S). That will open up the moon to be relatively cheap.

    But more important than that, is that from that uranium, we can breed plutonium that we can use to power ships as well a sats elsewhere and perhaps a base on mars. In addition, with that kind of power, we can build a rail launcher on the moon. Even more important than the He3, is the simple fact that it opens up the solar system for us. That uranium being there will do that for us.
  • And there is. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @04:10AM (#23706375) Journal
    In fact, at the poles, there are crater EDGES that have near constant sun, but the craters themselves, get zero. And for a solar collector, just run it up on a tower. That would enable 100% collecting.

    I had not thought about it before, but I wonder if that is not a better idea than PV?
  • by alizard ( 107678 ) <alizard&ecis,com> on Monday June 09, 2008 @05:14AM (#23706717) Homepage
    or whether it can be used in practical fusion facilities or not, we know that there's silicon there. A highly automated mining and metal refining facility designed to ship semiconductor-grade silicon (the crystallization is better done in microgravity) to Earth orbit might be a good way to provide the solar cells for a SPS (space power satellite) array to solve Earth's power needs and after or concurrent than that, it can be used to feed orbital wafer fabs. I've heard one can grow defect-free semiconductor crystals the size of basketballs in microgravity for cheaper CPUs with higher profit margins. That's a for instance.

    There are lots of things one can do if one has zero-gravity, for practical purposes, free energy, and transportation.

    Once upon a time, the American West was looked at as an unprofitable, useless wasteland.
  • Re:Simple answer... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Monday June 09, 2008 @06:04AM (#23706949) Homepage Journal

    But what is there to learn on the moon, that can't be learned on Earth? All it is is a rock. A rock without an atmosphere and 1/6 gravity.

    If we knew that, we wouldn't need to go there, would we?

    But for a start, we'd learn huge amounts about practical engineering in environments with no atmosphere and 1/6 gravity, and I'm sure there'd be all kinds of interesting knock-on effects of that. Not to mention the effects of low gravity on the human body (which has never been studied before), which could well lead to new insights in medicine. And all that's just spin-off knowledge from the primary purpose of any lunar expedition, which will most likely be scientific like astronomical or cosmological.

  • by Dr. Spork ( 142693 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @10:05AM (#23708559)
    Finally, a sensible post! But I'd like to add something.

    You said we'd be building big, heavy stuff in factories on the moon. Yes, that's the right goal to aim at. But what will that "stuff" be? Not construction beams for a new lunar suburbia. They will be parts for space stations, space telescopes, spaceships, and all kinds of other stuff that we will want in orbit. Why should that stuff be made on the moon? Well, because all the raw resources are there, because automated manufacturing there should be feasible, and because it will be very easy to launch heavy things into orbit from the moon: With such low gravity and essentially no atmosphere, things can be launched with a simple railgun.

    I don't think it will be so great to live on the moon, with all that nasty dust and weak gravity. I say we should cover the moon with solar panels and maybe some fission reactors, and use all that energy for smelting lunar ore, both precious and ordinary. There is no end to the usefulness of the satellites we can make from raw materials on the moon. One of those things: photovoltaic cells which we could railgun into geosynchronous Earth orbit to generate clean power for us. Another thing we need in orbit are big construction pieces from which we could build a large, rotating and mostly self-sufficient space station. That's where we should live - in orbit (maybe at a liberation point), not on the stupid moon.

    Also, try to imagine assembling segments of a gigantic (as in 100+ meter) metallic mirror in lunar orbit. The resulting telescope could actually resolve exoplanets!

    That's what we should be doing on the moon! Of course, before all that is possible we still need to take steps to refine our technology of automated manufacturing, and we don't need to be on the moon to do a lot of that work. But we do need to learn about the special conditions there, like issues having to do with the dust, the diversity of the geology, the feasibility of certain smelting techniques, the optimal design of nuclear powerplants for the moon, etc. (Yes, the first operations must be powered by fission, get over it. It's the fucking moon.)

    So there's my answer.

  • Crazy Research (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jamessnell ( 857336 ) on Monday June 09, 2008 @11:57AM (#23710601) Homepage
    I think the moon *may provide a fantastic environment for rather bizarre and potentially dangerous physics research projects. Maybe the moon would be a great place to conduct more extended matter/anti-matter research along with various other potentially hazardous physics research surrounding faster than light travel. And perhaps the lower gravity enviornment could have other benefits for a multitude of other applications - perhaps even general manufacturing of gigantic space vessels - which would be easier to launch from the moon than the surface of earth. I say we just make an army of robots to go do all the actual work while we sit back here controlling it all from a beach. It also is a great place to put a whole bunch of Tim Horton's stores. Mmmmm.. Ice Caps!

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Working...