Giant steps are what you take...
There are two ways to deal with living on the Moon - the cheap-and-nasty way
or the glorious way. The glorious way is more expensive, but it is the way
we should go. Yes, it would cost "trillions of dollars" and be many
peoples' lifetime work, but it would be a legacy for the human race for
millions of years.
The problem with the Moon is simple - it has no air. If the Moon had air,
the next generation of commercial airliners (the "Orient Express") would
probably make it - they could accelerate to the 11 miles per second needed
to get there, fall through space for a day and a half, then glide into the
Moon's atmosphere and land at a lunar airport. Returning would be the
reverse procedure, as it were - the braking is all free, done by the
atmosphere of the target planet.
If the Moon had an atmosphere, it would be *worth* visiting, too. A new
continent the size of Africa, with 1/6 gravity, new minerals, homesteading
rights available, whatever - what a wonderful new frontier. Unlike any
other frontier, going out most nights would show it to you - big and blue
and four times as bright as now. It would also be a day-and-a-half away as
the ICBM flies - making a race-anihilating nuclear war much less likely. As
for amusements, on the Moon the number-one sport would be strapping on wings
and flying, "bird-man" style. It would make a great alternative to
bicycles.
The Moon does not have air because it has too little gravity. That does not
mean that the Moon cannot have air - it simply means that the air has leaked
away. If the Moon was given an atmosphere as thick (at sea level) as that
of the Earth, it would last about 100 million years before half of it was
gone. By then the Moon would be a barren, desert world - water vapour is
lighter, and escapes, and half the Moon's oceans would be gone in a mere ten
million years. On the other hand, ten million years is a long lease. And
if our great-to-the-N grandchildren can't do a little planetary maintenance
every ten million years or so, then it's a pretty poor show.
A breatheable atmosphere on the Moon would need about 60 tons of air per
square metre of surface. (If any of you use Imperial measurements, about
90lbs per square inch. Don't forget that the Moon has 1/6th gravity, so
needs six times the air of Earth.) Assume that you want the Moon covered
in, say, an average of 60m of water (enough for some reasonable seas, but
not vast oceans) and that doubles the amount of atmosphere and hydrosphere
you need. The amount is something like forty thousand million million tons
of water and air. If you assume that frozen air is likely to have about the
same density as frozen water (which given that the "air" is things like
ammonia and carbon dioxide, is not unreasonable) that is a snowball about
120km (80 miles) across. That's about the same size as a comet. There are
lots of chunks of carbon dioxide, water and ammonia "ice" about that size
whizzing around out there.
Of course carbon dioxide, water and ammonia are not a breatheable
atmosphere. The Earth had an atmosphere like this once, but then the plants
got at it. I don't like carbon dioxide or ammonia, but plants love them.
In particular, little single-celled plants - algae - could turn the carbon
dioxide into oxygen, and various bacteria turn the ammonia into nitrogen.
The algae and bacteria would, when finished with, make a great fertilizer to
turn moondust into soil. We'd need fourteen-day crops - although we're near
that, with twenty-day wheat and other crops for growing in northern
latitudes. We might want to breed meat animals more suitable for the Lunar
environment - flying pigs, perhaps?
The effort involved in doing all this would be vast. The spin-offs would be
vast, too - we would need to learn to make a biosphere from scratch. Of
course, as we learn this we would also learn to heal our own biosphere.
If we can send colonies to the asteroids and the cometary belt, we can move
our heavy manufacturing industries out there - nobody is going to mind
strip-mining on an asteroid, and the Earth could be made into a garden.
Perhaps we would prefer to move the asteroids into Earth orbit, and work on
them there - but either way, there would be no need for mines, foundries,
chemical works or any of that filthy stuff here in the air we want to
breathe. Besides, the same technology can be applied to Mars, and possibly
to Venus, too. Mars is half the size of Earth - Venus is nearly the same
size.
The comments about the space program being impractical are correct - but
they are mostly because it has all been experimental so far. The
airbreathing equivalents of the Space Shuttle will certainly be cheaper -
and commercial organisations will want them, since we are talking about
airliners that can fly right around the world in an hour and a half. Most
people expect seat costs to be similar to, say, Concorde - expensive for New
York, but a bargain for the Moon.
Space environments like Mir are fragile, because everything has to be
launched by the Space Shuttle or equivalent Russian fireworks. Saying that
Mir proves that space habitats are impossible while ignoring the
weight-penalty problems is like saying that life in houses is impossible
because of the problems that people like Branson have living in a balloon
gondola for six days. Or like saying that life on a ship must be
uncomfortable by looking at conditions on the Whitbread yachts. With a
sensible launch technology space life will change from "Whitbread yacht" to
"Ocean Liner".
Then, when we've learned to live in our solar system properly, we can
consider other stars...
Simon
---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16
simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?
"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"
or the glorious way. The glorious way is more expensive, but it is the way
we should go. Yes, it would cost "trillions of dollars" and be many
peoples' lifetime work, but it would be a legacy for the human race for
millions of years.
The problem with the Moon is simple - it has no air. If the Moon had air,
the next generation of commercial airliners (the "Orient Express") would
probably make it - they could accelerate to the 11 miles per second needed
to get there, fall through space for a day and a half, then glide into the
Moon's atmosphere and land at a lunar airport. Returning would be the
reverse procedure, as it were - the braking is all free, done by the
atmosphere of the target planet.
If the Moon had an atmosphere, it would be *worth* visiting, too. A new
continent the size of Africa, with 1/6 gravity, new minerals, homesteading
rights available, whatever - what a wonderful new frontier. Unlike any
other frontier, going out most nights would show it to you - big and blue
and four times as bright as now. It would also be a day-and-a-half away as
the ICBM flies - making a race-anihilating nuclear war much less likely. As
for amusements, on the Moon the number-one sport would be strapping on wings
and flying, "bird-man" style. It would make a great alternative to
bicycles.
The Moon does not have air because it has too little gravity. That does not
mean that the Moon cannot have air - it simply means that the air has leaked
away. If the Moon was given an atmosphere as thick (at sea level) as that
of the Earth, it would last about 100 million years before half of it was
gone. By then the Moon would be a barren, desert world - water vapour is
lighter, and escapes, and half the Moon's oceans would be gone in a mere ten
million years. On the other hand, ten million years is a long lease. And
if our great-to-the-N grandchildren can't do a little planetary maintenance
every ten million years or so, then it's a pretty poor show.
A breatheable atmosphere on the Moon would need about 60 tons of air per
square metre of surface. (If any of you use Imperial measurements, about
90lbs per square inch. Don't forget that the Moon has 1/6th gravity, so
needs six times the air of Earth.) Assume that you want the Moon covered
in, say, an average of 60m of water (enough for some reasonable seas, but
not vast oceans) and that doubles the amount of atmosphere and hydrosphere
you need. The amount is something like forty thousand million million tons
of water and air. If you assume that frozen air is likely to have about the
same density as frozen water (which given that the "air" is things like
ammonia and carbon dioxide, is not unreasonable) that is a snowball about
120km (80 miles) across. That's about the same size as a comet. There are
lots of chunks of carbon dioxide, water and ammonia "ice" about that size
whizzing around out there.
Of course carbon dioxide, water and ammonia are not a breatheable
atmosphere. The Earth had an atmosphere like this once, but then the plants
got at it. I don't like carbon dioxide or ammonia, but plants love them.
In particular, little single-celled plants - algae - could turn the carbon
dioxide into oxygen, and various bacteria turn the ammonia into nitrogen.
The algae and bacteria would, when finished with, make a great fertilizer to
turn moondust into soil. We'd need fourteen-day crops - although we're near
that, with twenty-day wheat and other crops for growing in northern
latitudes. We might want to breed meat animals more suitable for the Lunar
environment - flying pigs, perhaps?
The effort involved in doing all this would be vast. The spin-offs would be
vast, too - we would need to learn to make a biosphere from scratch. Of
course, as we learn this we would also learn to heal our own biosphere.
If we can send colonies to the asteroids and the cometary belt, we can move
our heavy manufacturing industries out there - nobody is going to mind
strip-mining on an asteroid, and the Earth could be made into a garden.
Perhaps we would prefer to move the asteroids into Earth orbit, and work on
them there - but either way, there would be no need for mines, foundries,
chemical works or any of that filthy stuff here in the air we want to
breathe. Besides, the same technology can be applied to Mars, and possibly
to Venus, too. Mars is half the size of Earth - Venus is nearly the same
size.
The comments about the space program being impractical are correct - but
they are mostly because it has all been experimental so far. The
airbreathing equivalents of the Space Shuttle will certainly be cheaper -
and commercial organisations will want them, since we are talking about
airliners that can fly right around the world in an hour and a half. Most
people expect seat costs to be similar to, say, Concorde - expensive for New
York, but a bargain for the Moon.
Space environments like Mir are fragile, because everything has to be
launched by the Space Shuttle or equivalent Russian fireworks. Saying that
Mir proves that space habitats are impossible while ignoring the
weight-penalty problems is like saying that life in houses is impossible
because of the problems that people like Branson have living in a balloon
gondola for six days. Or like saying that life on a ship must be
uncomfortable by looking at conditions on the Whitbread yachts. With a
sensible launch technology space life will change from "Whitbread yacht" to
"Ocean Liner".
Then, when we've learned to live in our solar system properly, we can
consider other stars...
Simon
---
"This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind" -Ecclesiastes 4:16
simon@ | Not affiliated to any religion
simon@ | Not affiliated to any politics
H (+44/0)1784 431998 | Not affiliated to any ideology
W (+44/0)1784 434568 (GMT/BST) | What does that make me?
"I have been asked to point out, as if you couldn't guess, that my rantings
are not the opinions of One Chip Solutions. So now you know, don't you..?"