English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

They could build a big space station on the moon and stuff.

2007-04-20 22:17:15 · 18 answers · asked by Anonymous in Science & Mathematics Astronomy & Space

18 answers

Because of the expense. It is not self sustaining. There is no water, no air, it is really hot when lit, and really cold when not. It would require a constant stream of resources from the Earth, at about 1 billion dollars per space flight.

Figure it out.

2007-04-20 22:22:01 · answer #1 · answered by Labsci 7 · 2 0

At present, they have been unable to find any Water on the Moon, even in bound form :(

Without water, we would have to bring all the water with us. At present, there isn't enough of an incentive to go to that expense. With luck, they may find water at the poles... hidden in perpetual shadow...

The Space Shuttle was supposed to be our cheap way to get into space... didn't turn out that way. They promised to get cargo to orbit at a price of $118 per pound (in 1972 dollars... today's dollars that's about $400+) ... if it worked, it would have been good... but it currently costs about $4,000 per pound (and, in case you didn't know it, Water weighs 1 pound per Pint and each person requires about 8 pints per day... you can see how that will add up over time, even with recycling)

The only advantage to building a space station on the moon would be the gravity... but that's also a liability. The gravity of the moon would make it easy to work... but it would also cost more to operate rockets to leave that station. An orbital space station costs very little to leave... Leaving Earth, going to the Moon, leaving the Moon... lots of propellant needed for all that boosting...

A better question might be.... Why haven't we built O'Neill Habitats? Or... Why haven't we used the Space Shuttle's empty liquid fuel tanks to build a space station? (they're big, they're pressure resistant, and they're nearly into space ... just add a JATO unit to boost 'em into orbit).

Sorry, I digress...


The reason we haven't colonized the Moon is: MONEY!

Once it becomes economical, we will colonize the Moon... and not one day sooner.

2007-04-20 22:44:12 · answer #2 · answered by John T 5 · 0 0

We could, but with everything the almighty dollar wins out. If it was profitable then we would already be on the moon full time, mining ,doing research and etc.. However with an ailing space program, the cost and risk of moon colonization simply isn't worth it.

2007-04-20 22:22:42 · answer #3 · answered by jim jam 2 · 0 0

I don't know, there are probably enough rich people to set the plan into action. It would probably cause a lot of polluction by sending all of them into outerspace but I don't know how many of them would actually care. I think some of the advantages of living on Earth include going around without having to wear a full bodysuit with contained air, having day and night, not suffering the "chicken leg effect", having interaction with most people, being able to swim in a pool without the water floating away, hassle free toliet use, getting protection from the brightness of the sun and stars and being able to grow many types of food. I still think living in space would be quite exciting though!

2007-04-20 22:23:12 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because it would cost a fortune to send that much equipment that far, and because we don't have any effecient methods of creating a sustainable environment on the moon. We would need to create some kind of atmospheric dome, import a lot of materials such as oil and minerals and a lot of foodstuffs, not forgetting that if we wanted to live sustainably on there we would need to import tonnes and tonnes of soil to grow plants on.

Also, we have no way of creating artificial gravity, and most people would find the moons gravity to low to live comfortably for long periods of time.

2007-04-20 22:22:41 · answer #5 · answered by tom 5 · 0 0

Labsci hit it on the head. Without resources available on the moon, it'd be too costly.

They're trying to come up with ways to acquire those resources...oxygen from the lunar regolith, water from comets, etc, but those technologies are either undeveloped or too expensive right now.

What WOULD make it cost effective, tho, is a way to mine Helium-3 from the lunar soil. If we could ever perfect nuclear fusion power, acquiring He3 from the moon might make it cost-effective, even with having to send basic supplies from Earth.

2007-04-20 22:25:34 · answer #6 · answered by BDZot 6 · 0 0

Oh, so can spend 100's of billions of $ on a totally absurd war(YES!), but 1 billion per trip to the moon is just too much...
It would be great, man!
They should. Would change our perspective on life to actually BE up there.

2007-04-20 23:33:32 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

it doesn't bring MONEY now if it would bring them money they will do it tomorrow
and besides they are too busy killing each other now.
OMG I think 90% of the human race are dum a.s.s.es. (the ones who think space exploration is stupid, and wars actually solve anything)
unless the percentage rise a little to favor the smart people and visionaries, I'm afraid it won't happen any time soon (although I hope I'm wrong)

2007-04-21 01:11:02 · answer #8 · answered by tarek c 3 · 0 0

The moon is a satalite, not a planet. It is not very habitable. And like the others said, it would cost too much.

2007-04-20 22:30:38 · answer #9 · answered by Young Lass 2 · 0 0

Because once they got there, there wouldn't be nothing to do. Sort of like our space station.

2007-04-20 22:19:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers