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This discussion has been archived.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: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:32AM (8 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @11:32AM (#573039)

    Humans don't belong on a giant asteroid.
    It would be infinitely easier to settle them in colonies on Antarctica--but why does nobody propose that? Oh, right, because it is POINTLESS.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:12PM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:12PM (#573055) Journal

    Humans don't belong on a giant asteroid.

    Humans don't "belong" anywhere, yet they're already all over the place, including Antarctica.

    It would be infinitely easier to settle them in colonies on Antarctica--but why does nobody propose that?

    There are many colonies in Antarctica. But no one proposes anything beyond that because treaty [wikipedia.org] blocks development of Antarctica. In particular, from the The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty [nsf.gov]:

    Prohibition of Mineral Resource Activities

    Any activity relating to mineral resources, other than scientific research, shall be prohibited.

    While I can see the environmentalism-based reasoning behind this, it remains that there's a huge legal obstacle just to looking for mineral resources, which would be one of the key drivers for a colonization of Antarctica.

    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @12:35PM (#573070)

      The Protocol on Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty [nsf.gov]

      Not Safe For Government? ☺

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:12PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @04:12PM (#573216)

      You are going to tell me with a straight face that a treaty is what is stopping a land rush to settle the bountiful land of Antarctica? It's only got a relatively
      small number of people doing a tour of duty there for their govt as a means to secure their country's claim on the continent, should events change. (Yes, the govt will fund science work there, but the main purpose is to keep the station manned.) Even with the treaty, nobody wants another country to jump everyone else's claim and start resource extraction getting all the goodies to itself. Not that it has been economical yet to start doing any of that.

      But Antarctica is just one example. I could point to a number of large deserts with basically nobody living there and point out the same thing: all of those places are infinitely easier to live in than the moon or Mars... yet there is no push to colonize those places. Why not? Because there is nothing to be gained.

      The only logical argument I could see for settling another world is to have a backup of humanity in case the entire Earth became uninhabitable, but I find that unbelievably far fetched as even a ruined Earth is far, far more habitable than any other world in our solar system could EVER BE.

      If you say the answer is for people to leave the solar system and find a human compatible, Earth like world, I must point out the vast distances in light years and conclude that you are delusional--unless you have managed to break the laws of physics and invent the warp drive.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:00PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:00PM (#573454) Journal

        You are going to tell me with a straight face that a treaty is what is stopping a land rush to settle the bountiful land of Antarctica?

        I'm not "going to", I already did.

        Not that it has been economical yet to start doing any of that.

        Exactly. It's illegal to even look for something economical. There's no point to even starting.

        I could point to a number of large deserts with basically nobody living there and point out the same thing: all of those places are infinitely easier to live in than the moon or Mars... yet there is no push to colonize those places.

        They're already been colonized and some have very large cities (eg, the cities of the Middle East and North Africa, or those in the western US area).

        The only logical argument I could see for settling another world is to have a backup of humanity in case the entire Earth became uninhabitable, but I find that unbelievably far fetched as even a ruined Earth is far, far more habitable than any other world in our solar system could EVER BE.

        Unless, of course, being on Earth means you are dead. Then it quite possible for other parts of the Solar System to be more habitable, particularly, if one goes through the trouble of creating habitats that make living in those other places just as comfortable as living on the best places on Earth.

        I see a variety of other logical arguments. First, resources in space can be used on Earth. Just because it isn't economical now to bring space resources to Earth doesn't mean it will stay uneconomical forever. We're already seeing a large decline in the cost of access to space.

        Second, a considerable number of people want to go to space. While it's not very economical now to do so, once again, the trend is towards making it cheaper.

        Third, economies generate their own gravity. If you can build a self-sustaining and growing colony (or network of colonies), it will create its own value and economic activity even in the absence of significant trade from Earth.

        Fourth, living in the many peculiar environments off of Earth is a strong force for innovation while no similar impetus exists on most of Earth.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:01PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:01PM (#573156)

    humans belong everywhere they can/want to live.
    whether or not you agree, humans will colonize other planets, and in order for the technology to mature, it needs to be developed and tested.
    and the moon is close, while at the same time harsher than Mars and the interesting moons of Jupiter and Saturn.
    so it's a good testing ground.

  • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:37PM (1 child)

    by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:37PM (#573186)

    Sort of agree, but for the opposite reason--we'd be much better settling on a rock farther away than the moon, because the moon is still close enough to Earth for a colony there to not save us from an extinction-level event.

    --
    "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:40PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:40PM (#573190)

      *to not save us from several kinds of extinction-level events. blarg

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:56PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Tuesday September 26 2017, @03:56PM (#573204) Journal

    The Moon and asteroids with a fraction of the Moon's mass, like Ceres, are big balls of untapped resources.

    We know people can live there. If they can do it by using local resources instead of being dependent on resupply, then permanent colonies will take hold there eventually.

    Antarctica treaty issues aside, there is no biosphere to speak of on the Moon's surface. Nothing to contaminate other than a few heritage sites.

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]