Moon Base

[Triangulum]

We don't exactly have a reason to go back at this very moment. Once fusion power becomes popular, Helium-3, which can be used in nuclear fusion, will be in demand. There is a ton of Helium-3 located on the Moon due to it's lack of an atmosphere to protect from solar radiation that helps develop Helium-3. When nuclear fusion becomes an international interest, Helium-3 will be the new natural gas, which every developed nation wants to get their hands on. A Lunar colony would be nice to have to test out effects of decreased gravity on plants, animals, humans, and other processes that are used to Earth's gravitational constant. Hopefully it would be an international effort to establish some sort of colony on the Moon to further progress humanity as a whole.

[LurkerOnly]

You know, tidal force? Do you know what would happen to our planet if the Moon suddenly wasn't there? Not a pretty sight. The Moon's tidal grasp not only affects the oceans, but the actual crust of the planet as well.

But, yeah... It's not like we'd make a huge dent on the mass of the Moon any time soon, so it's a bit of a non-issue.

Gravity between two objects at a certain distance is proportional to the combined mass of the two objects. Take a bunch of mass from one, put it on the other, same total gravity. Orbits might adjust, but shrug.

See also: total mass of the moon vs total mass of iron mined in 2013:

Mass of moon: 7.35 x 10^22 kg
Iron 2013: less than 5.00 x 10^9 kg


That's 1/10000000000000 of the mass of the moon. The combined iron mining of the entire planet of one of the heavier, more plentiful, most used, and easiest to obtain ores, is 1/10^13 the total mass of the moon.

This doesn't even take into account the fact that helium mining on the moon won't be at levels comparable to earth's iron production anytime soon, or the fact that helium masses much less than iron ore.

If we somehow managed to mine the entire mass of H3 from the moon, it would probably mass basically nothing. Estimates put total helium-3 at maybe 15 parts per billion, so 15 tonnes for every 1x10^9 tonnes of regolith. Assuming even concentrations of helium 3, total mass of helion 3 on the moon would be (napkin math) 45000 kg.

In other words, like one ten-billionth or so the mass of the moon.

It's a huge amount of helium, but a truly negligible fraction of the moon's mass.

So, like, no. Tides would be fine. A meteor impact on the earth or the moon would affect the gravity between the two more.

[brimdog]

I'm going to vote fuck yes for the fact that galactic conquest must begin somewhere.

[Deleted]

Gravity between two objects at a certain distance is proportional to the combined mass of the two objects. Take a bunch of mass from one, put it on the other, same total gravity. Orbits might adjust, but shrug.

I was talking about the Lunar tidal force, which affects the oceans and even the crust of our planet. The less mass the Moon has, the less of a tidal grasp it has on our planet. The existence of the Moon also means that we have seasons, and that this planet can sustain life. Now, I was simply taking the concept of mining the moon, and taking it to the extreme, which is completely removing it. Without the Moon we'd be in deep shit.

However, as is apparent from my earlier post, I also noted that we wouldn't have any impact on anything should we choose to mine the Moon, so you really had no need to reply to my post.

So, like, no. Tides would be fine.

Also, just to be clear since I'm not sure you got it yet, I was talking about a situation where the mass of the Moon was reduced drastically, so, like, yes, in such a case, the tides, as well as our species, would be fucked.

[Rumred]

Well we could put one up now if we so wished as it wouldnt be that much harder then maintaining a space station. Harder yes but not nearly hard enough to stop us but right now the cost is holding us back. If we had a very good reason to set up a base we would do it but right now humanity is in a transition in terms of our manned space flights. When we start to really hit up mars then we might set up a small base on the moon for research and mineing but i would say we are a few decades our from a permanent moon base. We will prob be back to the moon in the next 10 to 15 years tho either the US,Russia,China or EU.

[LurkerOnly]

I was talking about the Lunar tidal force, which affects the oceans and even the crust of our planet. The less mass the Moon has, the less of a tidal grasp it has on our planet. The existence of the Moon also means that we have seasons, and that this planet can sustain life. Now, I was simply taking the concept of mining the moon, and taking it to the extreme, which is completely removing it. Without the Moon we'd be in deep shit.

However, as is apparent from my earlier post, I also noted that we wouldn't have any impact on anything should we choose to mine the Moon, so you really had no need to reply to my post.



Also, just to be clear since I'm not sure you got it yet, I was talking about a situation where the mass of the Moon was reduced drastically, so, like, yes, in such a case, the tides, as well as our species, would be fucked.

The tidal forces between the earth and moon will never be fucked up, in any way, by humans.

I already explained how insignificant the amount of mass we're likely to ever remove from the moon is.

Consider also, that if humans do in fact, remove 10% of the moon's mass and impact tidal forces, that humans will also, in fact, have the technology to move masses of that amount between the moon and the earth. We'll just take an amount of mass from earth (sand from the ocean floor, rising sea levels BLAMMO gone, or maybe garbage, or HUMANS) and put it on the moon.

So, even in the event that humans remove a large mass from the moon (7X10^21 tonnes, which would be 1/10 of the moon's mass, which by the way the estimated total mass of all humans is 3x10^11, so this amount that's 1/10 the moon's mass is double the mass of every living human combined), which will never happen, we'd h ave the capability to put it back.

So no, we'll never cause problems with tidal forces from the moon by removing mass from it.

[nyc81991]

A Moon Base just for the sake of having one would be pretty pointless. However, a Moon Base with the purpose of being a "staging point" for deeper space exploration / Asteroid mining would be both good and somewhat necessary.

[Deleted]

So no, we'll never cause problems with tidal forces from the moon by removing mass from it.

Why keep repeating what I already said in my very first post? I've not contradicted you once.

[LurkerOnly]

Why keep repeating what I already said in my very first post? I've not contradicted you once.

You never disagreed with me, I never disagreed with you.

I quote your post, you quote my post.

The original point of quoting other people was to use what they're saying either in support, to demonstrate, or to segue into your own point which would, largely, be in agreement with the quote.

Would be a little strange to quote Genesis when you're writing a paper about evolution, wouldn't it?

Just because I'm quoting you doesn't mean I'm arguing with you (which I would have thought was obvious from the fact that I didn't in any way contradict you, but shrug). I'm expounding on your point with mathematics.

Chillax.

[Atrea]

I was talking about the Lunar tidal force, which affects the oceans and even the crust of our planet. The less mass the Moon has, the less of a tidal grasp it has on our planet. The existence of the Moon also means that we have seasons, and that this planet can sustain life. Now, I was simply taking the concept of mining the moon, and taking it to the extreme, which is completely removing it. Without the Moon we'd be in deep shit.

However, as is apparent from my earlier post, I also noted that we wouldn't have any impact on anything should we choose to mine the Moon, so you really had no need to reply to my post.



Also, just to be clear since I'm not sure you got it yet, I was talking about a situation where the mass of the Moon was reduced drastically, so, like, yes, in such a case, the tides, as well as our species, would be fucked.

Why are you suggesting ridiculous scenarios, and then getting butt-hurt when people call you out on it?

Playing the "I was talking about a hypothetical scenario" card doesn't get you out of scrutiny. If you have something meaningful to say, say it. But if you're just talking nonsense in some attempt to sound smart (you failed), then don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

[Tierbook]

A moon base, even as a base for further exploration is pointless due to the surface of the moon being covered in (I forget the scientific word, regales or something?) dirt that is so coarse it would do tons of damage to any rocket taking off or landing.

[Hyve]

Honestly, it'd be a waste of resources and time.

A Moon Base wouldn't help us at all better understand the universe at this point in time, but a Space Elevator would be far more useful. Being able to take objects into space for dirt cheap (Excluding construction costs, of course) would take us into a whole new space age.

The Moon Base as you say would have issues and problems, where as a Space Elevator with a Space Station would be far more useful.

[Deleted]

Why are you suggesting ridiculous scenarios, and then getting butt-hurt when people call you out on it?

Playing the "I was talking about a hypothetical scenario" card doesn't get you out of scrutiny. If you have something meaningful to say, say it. But if you're just talking nonsense in some attempt to sound smart (you failed), then don't be surprised when people call you out on it.

Why are you even posting? Do you honestly think what you just said has any significance whatsoever? There's definitely some butthurt in this thread, but it ain't my butt that's hurt. I'm merely confused as to why this one guy keeps quoting me and posting as if though he's somehow correcting me - which he wasn't - and as if though I've somehow contradicted him - which I haven't. You should've taken your own advice and kept quiet since you definitely had nothing meaningful to say. Still, I love adding people onto my ignore list.

Also, if we remove the Moon, we're fucked. Just in case that wasn't clear by now.

[Doomchicken]

Had to google this but the internet says it's true.

Internet also tells me Jesus plays minesweeper. Amazing invention that internet.

[Afrospinach]

I have concerns over mining the moon. For one, it doesn't seem like a good idea to reduce the mass of the moon while increasing the mass of the earth. So I don't think mining would be a good option. But maybe using it as a shipping base for metals, then shuttle them down as the moon passes close to the destination. Turn it into a space sport. I don't think there's any military reason to build a base on the moon for one country alone. It'd have to be a multi-country thing.

The cost of reducing the moon's mass by 0.0000000001% would astronomical, and that is still requiring trillions of tonnes of material. For reference we produce less than 3 million tonnes or iron ORE per year. It would take you ~2500 years to achieve that if you were carting down raw ore. Furthermore, the only thing of interest on the moon for retrieval is helium 3, which is deposited there from the sun since the moon has no atmosphere(why we find so little of it on earth) so you are not actually going to be reducing it's mass.

Honestly, it'd be a waste of resources and time.

A Moon Base wouldn't help us at all better understand the universe at this point in time, but a Space Elevator would be far more useful. Being able to take objects into space for dirt cheap (Excluding construction costs, of course) would take us into a whole new space age.

The Moon Base as you say would have issues and problems, where as a Space Elevator with a Space Station would be far more useful.

It would probably be useful in determining the viability of surviving in such a hostile environment. You can theorise with moon rocks all day but at some point you need to do it to find out that thing you didn't think of. Quite critical in the grand scheme of things I would say.

edit: 3 thousand million, which makes it 2.5 years for every 1^-10 % of the moons mass.

[Graeham]

You'd have to mine the moon quite extensively to have any sort of appreciable effect... especially when you're extracting... helium.

Yeah, but let's be honest - the sort of big businesses and organisations that stand to benefit from that sort of thing typically don't care for the long term consequences of what they're doing. If something goes wrong then everybody will suffer as a result.

[Hyve]

It would probably be useful in determining the viability of surviving in such a hostile environment. You can theorise with moon rocks all day but at some point you need to do it to find out that thing you didn't think of. Quite critical in the grand scheme of things I would say.

Why? I've never understood the desire to go and live on another rock. Sure, I love the idea of space travel, Firefly style, but it's stupid.

Why would you want to go live on a grey, horrible rock with the constant fear of death or issues, without real food, scenery and life? This planet has everything we want, and I'd much rather we spent that money, time and effort into solving our own issues here on Earth first.

[Yvaelle]

So, a moonbase isn't something we should throw a ton of money at in the next few decades - but it's also something that might not take a ton of money

It could be possible in the near future to send rovers and drones that are more than just exploration-bots - we could build mining drones (SCV's, anyone?) that disassemble their own ship of course, and then begin extracting and refining metals to create a moonbase for us. The first step would involve digging - as you would want to put much of your moonbase underground - with no tectonic activity you would never need to worry about seismic activity (apart from potentially asteroids), so you could build a pretty solid structure just out of rock.

There would also be a plentiful supply of glass, potentially - as the soil on the moon contains large supplies of both silica and oxygen - and sifting the soil is a necessary step in separating out the Helium 3 (which collects on the top layer of soil on the moon due to exposure to sunlight) - so we need to do it anyways. Which means we need a sand-pushing drone that scoops up a bunch, sorts it into Helium 3 - sets that aside, and then hands the silica and oxygen to the refinery bot - who molds glass.

With only a handful of drones onboard a single payload (no humans and all their nonsense this time around) - we could have a Moonbase build itself relatively easily - and we would learn a lot about automation in the process. Potentially, when Fusion is ready - another mission could be launched - to drop off more supplies of whatever it turns out we forgot / didn't know we needed - and pick up the collected Helium-3 to bring back to Earth.

So we don't really need a human moonbase, but by automating Helium-3 collection, turning the moon into a massive 'underground' space bunker would be entirely possible within our existing technology

At the same time, processing the soil for oxygen would also allow us to build up a sizeable supply up there - which means if we did ever want to send humans to the moonbase - they would already have plentiful oxygen - and if they were to bring with them some Hydrogen, they could make water and air (and of course, they would need to bring plants). The only issue is that processing the soil would take a lot of time - but drones are fantastic for that!

By sending up 3D printers too, we could potentially also gather up other materials collected on the moon to be processed into necessities as well.

The Lunar low gravity is also beneficial, since things won't just randomly fly away etc - but the energy cost to exit Lunar gravity is also trivial - so it makes construction easier (closer corollary to Earth's) - without really adding cost.

Essentially the moon will be Earth's first automated foundry-planet Phase Two for the moon would be to expand asteroid refineries, Phase Three would be to turn the moon into an automated satellite / spaceship construction station. It would process asteroids and lunar material to create new rockets, to collect more asteroids, and so forth - and then would just randomly spam Earth with care packages full of super-rare materials It could also build us some 'free' spaceships


Now, what's really cool about this isn't that it builds us a base though, or that it collects Helium-3, or that it builds us an automated refinery for asteroid materials processing - but that it allows us to perfect these automated construction techniques. Which means we could then send the same setup to Mars, and have it do the same for us again - and then on to every other planet / moon in our solar system.

That is how galactic empires begin

[apepi]

We must beat Russia at having a moon base!

[Deleted]

There is only one problem: the cost.

The costs of building one and keeping it supplied would be outlandish (pun intended). And what important purpose would it serve? Space research can be done on the ISS, it doesn't need to be on the Moon. The Moon also has no materials that can't be found on Earth and that would be of extreme importance.

So, why?