Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday September 26 2017, @06:16AM   Printer-friendly
from the Mike-and-Manny-and-Wyo-say-"Hi!" dept.

https://phys.org/news/2017-09-moon-lunar-village.html (AFP)

By 2040, a hundred people will live on the Moon, melting ice for water, 3D-printing homes and tools, eating plants grown in lunar soil, and competing in low-gravity, "flying" sports.

To those who mock such talk as science fiction, experts such as Bernard Foing, ambassador of the European Space Agency-driven "Moon Village" scheme, reply the goal is not only reasonable but feasible too.

At a European Planetary Science Congress in Riga this week, Foing spelt out how humanity could gain a permanent foothold on Earth's satellite, and then expand.

He likened it to the growth of the railways, when villages grew around train stations, followed by businesses.

By 2030, there could be an initial lunar settlement of six to 10 pioneers—scientists, technicians and engineers—which could grow to 100 by 2040, he predicted.

"In 2050, you could have a thousand and then... naturally you could envisage to have family" joining crews there, Foing told AFP .


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:16AM (6 children)

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:16AM (#572975) Homepage
    Soon enough for me to be able to collect on the bet that I'm prepared to make that says it won't happen in that time frame.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:26AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:26AM (#572979)

    We'll almost certainly have people on established bases on the moon by 2030. I'd expect the Chinese will be the first to do it. As the article mentions, SpaceX has already publicly announced they plan to take a manned crew on a moon flyby next year. There's a big difference between a flyby and residence, but when you have private organizations capable independently executing it (and private adventurers willing to fund it) then it's an inevitability. The technology isn't really the issue. It's just funding, which is becoming much more reliable as whimsical governments like the US are replaced by private ideologically driven interests (such as SpaceX) and technologically driven governments like China.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:57AM (4 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:57AM (#573048) Journal

      We'll almost certainly have people on established bases on the moon by 2030.

      Sounds like FatPhil will be able to make some money off of you. I'd take him up on that bet.

      I'd expect the Chinese will be the first to do it.

      Sorry, they need to be moving a lot faster, if they want to get there at all, much less be first. I agree that China can do it by 2030. I don't agree that they will, because I don't think they are trying.0

      The technology isn't really the issue. It's just funding, which is becoming much more reliable as whimsical governments like the US are replaced by private ideologically driven interests (such as SpaceX) and technologically driven governments like China.

      China is just another whimsical government though one that will have a lot of resources in the next two decades as it achieves developed world status. And funding for NASA and other space projects has been quite reliable (look at their budget, adjusted for inflation sometime - it's been quite stable since the mid 1970s). It just hasn't done very much that is useful.

      As to private sector, there needs to be a lot of development before I'd consider them serious competitors.

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:22PM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @07:22PM (#573412)

        And your information is, typically, unsubstantiated.

        China is already [independent.co.uk] actively pursuing a moon base with the ESA. I imagine you likely did not know they've also already soft landed a probe on the moon as well - becoming only the third nation to do so. China is a nation is incredibly technologically driven. They've already become the world leader in solar technology, are currently building a particle accelerator approximately 2x the scale of CERN, recently finished building the world's largest radio telescope, and much much more. Many of these projects have no immediate economic value - they are driven by knowledge and technology.

        NASA's budget has declined in real dollars. The real story is in where that budget goes. During its peak some 50+ years ago, it not only had a greater budget but it was directed almost exclusively to a single task. Today they receive less money and more importantly that money is earmarked for a variety of pointless go nowhere programs. The SLS, as an example, is the most prototypical example of government pork you can find - and it consumes a massive amount of NASA's resources each and every year. Their actual usable funding, once the mandatory pork spending is removed, is a small fraction of what it once was. This is why their "big" projects now a days are launching [relatively] cheap probes on a very irregular schedule.

        SpaceX is already sending things to orbit, recovering, and relaunching vessels for a fraction of the cost of government cost+ contracts (which are also more pork). Next year SpaceX will be sending a couple around the moon. And they're doing all of this on a shoestring budget while NASA's desired unmanned lunar flyby that they've dumped tens of billions of dollars into, and going on a decade of work, continues to go nowhere fast. They aren't competitors - they've already taken over the market. I'm hoping that companies like Blue Origin can become serious competitors. They've yet to do anything, but their pace of putting their first rocket into orbit to being a serious competitor could be very swift. Bezos' deep pockets could be a game changer in the deep space race.

        But yeah, read more. You continue to repeat unsubstantiated comments. I am completely happy with disagreement. I'm not happy with people stating things that seem to be sourced primarily from their own arse.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:16PM (2 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:16PM (#573466) Journal

          China is already actively pursuing a moon base with the ESA.

          No actual work, of course. And you're forecasting a lunar colony in 13 years from a single mission four years ago?

          NASA's budget has declined in real dollars.

          No, it hasn't. For example, in real dollars the NASA budget is higher now than it was in the late 1970s. It has been higher, but it also has been lower.

          Next year SpaceX will be sending a couple around the moon.

          Unless, of course, they don't do that. Schedule slippage is a common thing and there have been projects such as propellant cross-feed on the Falcon Heavy that haven't come about.

          I'm not happy with people stating things that seem to be sourced primarily from their own arse.

          Me too.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:41AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 27 2017, @09:41AM (#573716)

            And again you resort to Reddit like behavior. Changing your own goal posts, habitually taking things out of context, and generally showing an inability to provide any valuable content whatsoever. Excuse the ad hominem but this is a recurring pattern from you, and seemingly only you. Okay, we can all forgive Aristarchus. He's clearly touched. I do not believe you are. Act like an adult.

            This [wikipedia.org] is the udget of NASA. Their peak in 1966 was about 43.6 billion dollars - almost all dedicated to a single project. Following our victory that precipitously declined to where it finally bottomed out in the late 70s, which is where you had to go to find a point lower than today. The lowest level it reached was about 14.3 billion dollars. It then saw a modest climb peaking up to 23.7 billion in 1992 - 25 years ago. It's been on a constant decline ever since down now to 18.x billion. And again huge chunks of that already modest budget are eaten up by mandatory spending that's acccomplishing absolutely nothing.

            The rest of your pointless nit picks are you shifting your goal posts, as usual - since most of everything you state is provably wrong.

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday September 27 2017, @07:43PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 27 2017, @07:43PM (#573981) Journal

              And again you resort to Reddit like behavior. Changing your own goal posts, habitually taking things out of context, and generally showing an inability to provide any valuable content whatsoever. Excuse the ad hominem but this is a recurring pattern from you, and seemingly only you. Okay, we can all forgive Aristarchus. He's clearly touched. I do not believe you are. Act like an adult.

              You are right. This is ad hominem and irrelevant to the discussion. Let's move on.

              There are several things to remember about the Chinese space program though not a one is unique to them:

              1) Their efforts move at a snail's pace.

              2) They've made promises like this repeatedly over the past couple of decades and haven't delivered on them.

              3) Their leaders are very sensitive to risk.

              4) And there's a lot that needs to happen between demonstration of humans in space and a soft landing on the Moon, till we see some sort of colony or outpost on the Moon. This progress isn't happening.

              The entirety of aerospace, whether it be government programs or private efforts is chock full of these sorts of problems and delays. After you've spent a few decades observing such issues, you get a feeling for what isn't serious. Announcements without any sort of concrete schedule is an example of what isn't serious.

              This [wikipedia.org] is the udget of NASA. Their peak in 1966 was about 43.6 billion dollars - almost all dedicated to a single project. Following our victory that precipitously declined to where it finally bottomed out in the late 70s, which is where you had to go to find a point lower than today. The lowest level it reached was about 14.3 billion dollars. It then saw a modest climb peaking up to 23.7 billion in 1992 - 25 years ago. It's been on a constant decline ever since down now to 18.x billion. And again huge chunks of that already modest budget are eaten up by mandatory spending that's acccomplishing absolutely nothing.

              Yes, that's what I called nearly constant. We had mandatory spending accomplishing nothing back then too with the Shuttle operating and ISS development underway. That would be more in current dollars than the current SLS development costs per year.