Being far from a part of the aerospace loop, I cannot say with certainty that any of my schemes are appropriate for lunar industrialization. These are provided as mere ideas, some more researched than others, but none definitive. <\/p>\n
WHY THE MOON? <\/p>\n
I have chosen the moon, not for any reasons of feasibility, but because it is the closest world to the earth. The moon is ever present. Its size, and brightness makes it the realest of the extraterrestrial worlds in the common mind. Beyond that, manned missions to the moon are a proven fact. Having done something once makes doing it again, or at all far more attractive to politicians, who try to stick to the known possibilities. <\/p>\n
A third reason is the unknown quantity of microbes. The moon has no microbes, but a flurry of papers, and websites have claimed that Mars probably does. The public has learned to fear, and mistrust all microbes, even the ones that let cows eat hay. Until a categorical proof of the absence, presence, and dangers of Martian microbes has been achieved, return trips from Mars will equal political suicide. <\/p>\n
Granted, scientifically speaking, the fuel needed to reach the moon is little less than a trip to Mars, and Mars has far more resources, including materials capable of producing fuel for the return trip, but due to political, and emotional reasons, a trip to the moon seems more likely in the near future. <\/p>\n
Visiting the moon will not be so bad. Skylab, Mir space station, and the ISS have proven that manned missions gain at least as much attention, and more prestige than any unmanned trips to other worlds, despite the science return, or cost. <\/p>\n
Since orbiting space stations have proven viable, albeit not particularly cost efficient, a manned base on another world seems the next logical step. Missions to other worlds, in fact, are far more attractive than interstellar space. <\/p>\n
Some have argued that the moon is too poor in resources for human habitation; however, scientific endeavors have proven that man can both live, and learn in space. The moon, resource poor as it is, certainly has more resources than space. Compared with space, the moon will be a better subject for colonization and discovery. Certainly, the moon may not prove the best target, but it will prove a better target than our previous colonization efforts. <\/p>\n
RESOURCES: Low earth orbit, where our previous extraterrestrial bases have been built, is a particularly resource-poor section of space. There are only four resources in low earth orbit: Solar energy, Solar wind, a hard vacuum, and the earths magnetic field. Currently, the solar energy is used for electricity production, no efficient method of harvesting the solar wind has been designed, and the magnetic field is used only for shielding against the harshest features of the solar wind. The hard vacuum itself is not actually usable, but certain industrial techniques can be performed in hard vacuum best, and producing such a vacuum on the surface of the earth is rather expensive. <\/p>\n
Some experiments have been conducted on using the magnetic field to produce electricity, and methods for using the solar wind, and sunlight for propulsion have had limited success, but these are not yet proven technologies. While I eagerly await such technologies becoming trustworthy, their current state prevents me from discussing them in any economic considerations other than as prospects. Goods produced in the hard vacuum of low earth orbit, although of great interest, currently lack an economical means of transportation for large scale production to be worthwhile. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Link: Being far from a part of the aerospace loop, I cannot say with certainty that any of my schemes are appropriate for lunar industrialization. These are provided as mere ideas, some more researched than others, but none definitive. WHY THE MOON? Continue reading
\nWhat to Do on the Moon - Article - Red Colony<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"