So after receiving the answers from the first survey and additional research, I decided to lean my research paper in a different direction. My question now will be "Is the Moon a worthwhile colonization candidate?".
So that means survey number two is here! I'd really appreciate it if as many people as possible participated, the more participants, the more valid my paper will seem.
Background info: The purpose for establishing a colony on the Moon or any other place will not be for a high-end, low gravity, gated community. The reason this is necessary is to function as insurance in case humanity on Earth manages to be destroyed. I don't necessarily believe the Moon to be the best choice in colonization but my research is aimed to find what is.
1. Of the categories Gravity, Water, Food, Air, Radiation, and Meteor Impact, which do you think should take first priority in being solved. In other words, which problem do you think will be the hardest to solve?
2. As a calamity event ending life on Earth could simultaneously end life on the Moon, do you think the Moon's proximity to Earth makes it dangerous as a backup to human life?
3. The fact that the Moon is very close means that it will be easier to establish colonies. Do you think this factor is more important than the large size of Mars (the Moon's largest competitor for colonization validity).
4. Which is more preferable: lunar almost zero gravity or Martian low gravity?
5. Finally, is it more important to establish a quick but more expensive colony in the long run or to establish a more efficient colony that will take longer to develop necessary technology?
1.Air and Water, you'll have to transport water in order to make air. You can't make water out of dust. Gravity can be solved mechanically, and radiation and impact could be solved by building underground.
2.As a backup, yes, as a intermediate staging port, no. If earth gets destroyed, the moon would just drift away, like in the series. It makes more sense to think of the moon as a launch port, since you would need a lot less fuel to get going from there, but the space race is shifting into building launch pads in space, which may be easier.
3. Terra-forming would be an issue in the moon, at least mars has shown it had water in the past.
4.Again, not a gravity issue, but the capacity to emulate human life on earth, we'll never get away from smelling the roses, so please give us some land that could potentially become a field.
5.Neither, if the "colony" idea becomes real, it will be a result of getting the earth to a point of being non-viable for life, and then will be too late to go anywhere. If we can't get our shit together in one planet.....
So, if we (human race, not the superpowers or the Illuminati) ever get to a point where you are offered to colonize other planets, the technology will be already at its apex, but we'll never get to that point, maybe the next civilization. We are too dumb as a species to work together for the common good.
2 and 3 tie in together. Moon is easy because it's close, but then you fear collateral damage. Mars would be a better Earth-like replacement since it is well, a planet and not a natural satellite. The planet aspect addresses the radiation aspect somewhat better.
4. People will adapt. I really don't think this is the thing to worry about. Ask how they'd feel living in a bubble for decades.
5. You'd have to mine on Mars for resources. There's no way anyone can keep sending payload after payload because FedEX ain't going to overnight anything. I covered the moon issue last time, easier because it is closer and you can see what's going on.
austen
Jun 8, 15 5:41 pm
I just finished the Space episode, it presents a good point about the Moon being susceptible to being nocked out of orbit
So after receiving the answers from the first survey and additional research, I decided to lean my research paper in a different direction. My question now will be "Is the Moon a worthwhile colonization candidate?".
So that means survey number two is here! I'd really appreciate it if as many people as possible participated, the more participants, the more valid my paper will seem.
Background info: The purpose for establishing a colony on the Moon or any other place will not be for a high-end, low gravity, gated community. The reason this is necessary is to function as insurance in case humanity on Earth manages to be destroyed. I don't necessarily believe the Moon to be the best choice in colonization but my research is aimed to find what is.
1. Of the categories Gravity, Water, Food, Air, Radiation, and Meteor Impact, which do you think should take first priority in being solved. In other words, which problem do you think will be the hardest to solve?
2. As a calamity event ending life on Earth could simultaneously end life on the Moon, do you think the Moon's proximity to Earth makes it dangerous as a backup to human life?
3. The fact that the Moon is very close means that it will be easier to establish colonies. Do you think this factor is more important than the large size of Mars (the Moon's largest competitor for colonization validity).
4. Which is more preferable: lunar almost zero gravity or Martian low gravity?
5. Finally, is it more important to establish a quick but more expensive colony in the long run or to establish a more efficient colony that will take longer to develop necessary technology?
Again thank you for your time! I appreciate it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cq7isloJj8&list=PL88g1zsvCrjfct4TWi297Mc9L0Hb9aBWL
watch this, I will answer your questions later
Will do
1.Air and Water, you'll have to transport water in order to make air. You can't make water out of dust. Gravity can be solved mechanically, and radiation and impact could be solved by building underground.
2.As a backup, yes, as a intermediate staging port, no. If earth gets destroyed, the moon would just drift away, like in the series. It makes more sense to think of the moon as a launch port, since you would need a lot less fuel to get going from there, but the space race is shifting into building launch pads in space, which may be easier.
3. Terra-forming would be an issue in the moon, at least mars has shown it had water in the past.
4.Again, not a gravity issue, but the capacity to emulate human life on earth, we'll never get away from smelling the roses, so please give us some land that could potentially become a field.
5.Neither, if the "colony" idea becomes real, it will be a result of getting the earth to a point of being non-viable for life, and then will be too late to go anywhere. If we can't get our shit together in one planet.....
So, if we (human race, not the superpowers or the Illuminati) ever get to a point where you are offered to colonize other planets, the technology will be already at its apex, but we'll never get to that point, maybe the next civilization. We are too dumb as a species to work together for the common good.
1. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2005/08sep_radioactivemoon/
2 and 3 tie in together. Moon is easy because it's close, but then you fear collateral damage. Mars would be a better Earth-like replacement since it is well, a planet and not a natural satellite. The planet aspect addresses the radiation aspect somewhat better.
http://www.mars-one.com/faq/health-and-ethics/how-much-radiation-will-the-settlers-be-exposed-to
4. People will adapt. I really don't think this is the thing to worry about. Ask how they'd feel living in a bubble for decades.
5. You'd have to mine on Mars for resources. There's no way anyone can keep sending payload after payload because FedEX ain't going to overnight anything. I covered the moon issue last time, easier because it is closer and you can see what's going on.
I just finished the Space episode, it presents a good point about the Moon being susceptible to being nocked out of orbit