Colony on the Moon?

Question

Do you think man will ever build a perminant colony on the moon?

Answer 1

I think it will eventually be possible, as long as it's in a bubble. We couldn't live in a place with no atmosphere, and extremes of -250 degrees Fahrenheit and 250 degrees Fahrenheit.

Answer 2

Not for a very long time. The problem with colonies is that they normally loose money, lots of it. Over the long term they pay off big time, but most colonies are a money loosing venture for the folks who actually put up the money to build the thing. Look at the early history of the American colonies, like Jamestown and Plymouth. The TECHNOLOGY exists to build a Lunar colony..it has since the 1960s. The problem is, there really isn't any reason to go there. Neither the Moon, nor Mars, has anything we can't get cheaper, a LOT cheaper, here on Earth. There are some resources on the Moon, (the asteroids are better sources of resources though) but there is nothing there that we can't get cheaper, A LOT cheaper, from Canada, Africa, or the sea bottom, or even Antartica. Nobody is going to spend a half a trillion dollars to get basalt from the Moon when they can get basalt from Minnesotta for a couple of hundred dollars. The Apollo Missions were all about the politics of the Cold War, the U.S. trying to show its technological and economic superiority, in order to keep "Third World" nations on "our" side and not "loose" them to Communism. That is the same reason the USSR started the "Space Race" in the first place...they wanted Sputnik and Vostok to show that THEY were the technological and scientific leader of the world. There are only two possible reasons to go to the Moon. One is a "resource" called Helium III. Helium III is an isotope of Helium and it is deposited on the Moon by the Solar Wind. Helium III does not exist on Earth, the atmosphere blocks it. I say Helium III is a "resource" because it MIGHT be of value, someday. SOME (not all but SOME) of the research being done into hydrogen fusion energy shows that Helium III MIGHT be of value in SOME POSSIBLE fusion reactions. So IF scientists are able to make a fusion reactor, AND IF that particular reactor uses Helium III, THEN there would be a really good economic reason to go to the moon... but as you noted there are a lot of "If's" and "maybes" in there. The other reason to go to the moon is that it orbits the Earth. It would be a great place of a missile base. You could put some nuclear missiles up on the Moon, you could threaten the entire Earth with them, AND you could see anything anyone launched at you three days before it reached you. Theoretically you could even build the mother of all Laser Cannon (actually it would probably be a charged particle beam) and use that to threaten the entire Earth. The US Air Force (and no doubt the Soviet Air Force as well) were really interested in this idea in the late 50s and early 1960s. (This incidentally is an excellent reason to believe that no future lunar colony will be allowed to become independent, no matter how big they are. Just by being on the Moon, they would be able to threaten the whole Earth, and Earth won't ever allow that. ) In any case, the UN killed the idea of the great Lunar missile base race. In the 1960s the UN was busy trying to keep WW 3 from breaking out, and there were lots of places it was on the verge of breaking out...Berlin, Vietnam, Cuba, The Middle East, Korea,...the UN figured they had enough to worry about as it was, they didn't need the USA and the USSR getting into a confrontation over the Moon as well. So the UN pushed "The Moon Treaty" (it is actually called "The treaty regarding outer space and celestial bodies" IIRC). The Moon Treaty, (like the Antartic Treaty before it) more or less bans any and all governments from laying claim to any part of space. You can't plant the flag and say "I claim the Moon in the name of Queen Victoria and the British Empire" and make it stick, at least not as far as the UN and the World Court are concerned...(then again, what could they do about it? The UN doesn't have any space ships). Also the Moon treaty says that the Moon is "the common heritage of all mankind". What exactly that means isn't nailed down, but a lot of people think that it means any money anyone makes off of the Moon has to be turned over to the UN...(the UN seems to like that idea a great deal). Now NASA is gearing up for a return to the Moon...they hope to have a permanent base there by 2020...but it would just be a small scientific outpost. They would want it as self supporting as possible for reasons of economy, but it wouldn't be the "Luna City' you read about in Heinlien books. It would be a lot like the International Space Station, only on the Moon. So there may be colonies someday, but it will probably require a change in the laws (certianly a change in the UN treaty system), but mostly it will require a way for people to make money doing it. It's not politically correct to say this, but Cortez and Pizarro were more important in getting America explored than anyone else. Both Cortez and Pizarro got RICH off of coming here, and all the gold they stole from the Indians made everyone else want to do the same. Some fol

Answer 3

Most probably. Already scientists are looking at the chemical composition of the moon to see if there is anything that could help us make oxygen, which they have actually found some quantities of there. Also, NASA has been talking about this for a while, and many people reckon it is needed as a base for manned missions to Mars, where astronaughts can rest, stock up on suplies etc. I guess it's not too much of a leap from space station to a colony on the moon. Probably going to happen quite soon though.

Answer 4

It is difficult to imagine why or how such a colony might be established in view of the enormous cost of such a venture, and the fact that millions of Earth's People are starving every day. Do not forget the huge expenditures countries must fork out to participate in wars, arming themselves, and guarding their frontiers from each other. With all the dificulties we have on Earth, why, one must ask, would we set up another situation for squabling 250,000 Miles away in a completely inhospitable place devoid of air, water, and natural foodstuffs.

Answer 5

I do, but I believe it will be at least a decade before we have a permanent colony on the moon.
We will need the ISS to be finished and fully functional first, as a staging location for supplies and personnel (what the MIT scientists that have developed logistics software for space supply chain call a "node").

Answer 6

A mining colony yes.

There are materials there worth having but the cost of transport in space flight has to be cheaper than the value of the minerals before this becomes financially worthwhile.

Heres a taste of the shape of things to come.......
http://aerospacescholars.jsc.nasa.gov/HAS/cirr/em/6/6.cfm

Answer 7

A permanent base, but not a colony. I don't think families with children will live there. It will be like the bases in Antarctica are now, permanently manned but not really home to anyone.

Answer 8

Not a chance. Aside from the enormous cost, meteorite protection would be impossible. Also attempts to construct a fully sealed biosphere on Earth have so far failed. Semi-permanent bases will probably be built, and perhaps an orbital base.

Answer 9

I believe as science improves on how to harvest water and fuel from more sources than just the earth that it's more possible.

The reality is it will be a long while because even though there will be lots of land to work with it will take too much energy and effort for it to be worth it.

Eventually. I believe somewhere other than earth but not for comfort as much as survival.

Answer 10

In this century. Don't expect it to be much better than the Space Station.