SoylentNews

ESA Expert Envisions "Moon Village" by 2030-2050

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

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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

• Re:Pointless. Expensive. Not gonna happen. (Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday September 26 2017, @08:00PM

  by khallow (3766) 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.

  Parent