The moon has been bathed in solar/cosmic radiation since the beginning of time, as it is unprotected by any sort of meaningful EM field and composed of a LOT of aluminum, which conducts radiation well.
It will always be toxic to us, and always be radioactive all the way to the chewy center.
I meant irradiated lunar rock, actually. But thanks, that’s interesting info, too!
We found the perfect place for Galt’s Gulch!
Sure, you can do something about it- with a smaller tech base than you’d need to terraform planets or generally have an autonomous extraterrestrial civilization. The hundreds of enormous refuelable boosters being put forward by the likes of SpaceX as a basic lifeline for a Mars colony represents plenty of ready delta-V for an intercept of a comet. Indeed, one or two would do- which certainly aren’t enough to build up a colony to self sufficiency into the indefinite future.
You, for the win.
Step right up and claim your prize; one complimentary internet.
*sigh *
Here is how the story always seems to go: “The search is on for habitable/terraformable planets and habitable zones around sun-like stars where humans can live besides Earth!”
Um, no. There is only one planet humankind can live on, and it is Earth. And even it is uninhabitable over the majority of it’s surface without significant skill, technology and luck.
Other planets and moons are no good because 1) wrong gravity, which humans depend upon for proper metabolic and physical processes, 2) wrong atmosphere (poison/corrosive/pressure) 3) wrong temperature (unless you want to cook or freeze in seconds) 4) high radiation 5) too far away to get there with all of our supplies and equipment and 6) gravity wells are expensive and risky to land in and blast off from, making it unlikely we could come and go with ease or make a living launching mined materials from them.
All but a minuscule number of places have ALL of the above problems, and more.
Human life on extraterrestrial planets and moons will be limited to living under domes, in tunnels and caves, at best stepping outside for limited time wearing gas masks and severe climate suits. Genetic tampering will be a horrifying temptation, but it will leave those populations of people only slightly more comfortable, and stranded in their custom environment.
There is a convenient solution which also promises to fit the widest variety of situations:
Build orbital colonies (I favor O’neil-style, which are big cylinders spinning on their long axis, people living on the inside surface) using automation and collecting materials already adrift in space well outside of the dangerous and resource-sapping gravity wells. Instead of mining metals and welding them in to place, for the most part, we would build the cylinders out of sintered rock or frozen mixtures of rock and ice. It will basically be like concrete. Combined with an outside energy-collecting system and lit from within, these colonies could be built around virtually any kind of star if there is rocky material there which can be used. Alien cultures that moved to space a few thousand or million years before us probably already live mostly around stars such as red dwarfs, which we consider “uninhabitable”.
For the near term, we can build the first, closest colonies out of lunar material. Earth could be surrounded by brilliant rings of colonies, without appreciably affecting Luna’s mass. We might move on to Mercury after that, for the abundant energy. Mars’ moons would serve as practice for utilizing planetoids, and then it’s on to the asteroid belt. Wherever there is loose material. We crack, sift and mine it, and use the tailings for our colony shells. “Mining” would take place inside giant bags, so the leftovers will still be there, waiting to be used. Construction might be done by heating material at the focus of a massive solar mirror, and spraying that onto the skin of a rotating inflated form, in the fashion of a gigantic 3D printer.
Inside the colonies, the thick walls will protect from even extreme radiation. The outer layer will be built to absorb debris impacts, probably using corrugated or foamed ceramics. The atmospheric mix, pressure and temperature will be controlled for perfect comfort. There will be clouds in the sky. Hills, rivers, and lakes will be built. Agriculture and storage could take place in cavernous areas under the surface. Some designs show O’Neil colonies as built with gigantic mirrors and windows to light the interior (fragile and complex), but a better solution would probably be electric lighting either suspended along the axis, or in the form of upward-pointing “streetlights” which illuminate the “overhead” area of surface (as in the Rama books by A.Clarke).
Again, construction could be largely automated. There is abundant, easy-to-reach material in our own home system for millions of such colonies. I see a future where our system is filled with swarms of colonies, and the vast majority of our population live in space where there is far more manufactured livable ground than on Earth.
Imagine a million different self-sustained townships with a virtually unlimited variety of culture; so many brilliant minds free to learn, experiment and explore. Millions of years of resources exist for this within our own solar system. We may never develop interstellar travel, but it won’t matter. Even the future instability of our sun would be dealt with simply by towing our homes to a safer distance. But if we do make the big jump to other stars, we could build homes there just as good for us out of almost any old junk we find there. We could even send robots ahead to build our colonies for us, and populate them with forests and animals.
There are plenty of people who already enjoy playacting as non-humans, I don’t think it’s all that much of a stretch to suppose that some would trade their frail meatsack bodies for a chance to explore outer space.
You know.
I’ll just leave this here.
That does not match the illustration.
@coherent_light Conveniently, building space colonies relieves us of the unhealthy or even lethal consequences of all the existing alternatives. If the issue to you is scale, then you’re welcome to start out at a pace you’re comfortable with. Any questions?
How is it horrifying if you are saying that we are already stranded in a custom environment? It sounds like the current norm. I think that changing humanity itself is usually the best way to address problems, because it increases their capabilities, while offloading tasks to machines diminishes their capabilities. Why not a person who can easily run 30-40 MPH instead of one who drives a smoky car and gets fat? Also, it is far more favorable for human diversity than a monoculture is. Making dozens or even hundreds of different kinds of human for different kinds of habitat is always a good idea and should be done already.
Of course, none of that precludes the building of orbital colonies.
just keep in mind that currently a) resources are distributed poorly ( some people barely work and make millions; other people work day in and day out in a desperate attempt to get by. ) b) we are already destroying the things we are accustomed to ( re: global warming, oil wars, et al. )
yes. absolutely the system works for some. those people – myself included, i guess, despite complete lack of safety net – are living the dream. it definitely doesn’t work for everyone though. moreover, we may well be in a relative golden age. our extremely volatile current “calm” may seem bliss before the coming storm.
of course, some consider me an optimist.
That’s just not right. We do not have the technology to deflect a comet, given the short warning times I mentioned. Call it a year at best–that’s still not enough time. It’s not a matter of delta-v alone. You have to get there in time.
There’s plenty written on this. For example: http://www.popsci.com/we-may-need-fusion-powered-rockets-to-stop-comets-from-destroying-earth
@popobawa4u I don’t think the purpose of humanity is to adapt to harsh living conditions and carry out its existence at hard labor. Our current form is perhaps not perfect, but it is also not inadequate. Living in space will be 100% dependent on technology, so it’s best to let tech be interchangeable extensions of ourselves, as we are now, rather than breed a species to, say, tolerate methane and high gravity so it can scrape the rocks for aluminum. Genetic tampering might save mechanical resources, but the cost will be measured in squandered human potential. Simple machines will always be more suited for tasks than brutally modified human bodies.
Nature’s method of genetic diversity, having multiple large groups which mate among themselves, and occasionally among other groups, is more than sufficient. We don’t need genetic engineering for this.
Offloading tasks to machines frees us to research and improve. It gives us breathing room above and beyond mere survival. THAT is always a good idea.
The whole point of orbital colonies is that they hold the promise of adapting any hostile extraterrestrial environment to be perfect for the modern human form. This means there are far more places we can live, just not the ones we’ve been focusing on so far; planets and moons. I find it utterly incredible that some people are so stuck on the romantic notion that a human has to live on a planet, that he’d consider genetic engineering to make it so, or burble on about how we could tamper with genes so that we could live in exotic environments aboard colonies too.
Which is where the transhumanists have a point. If we transfer human consciousness into machines, colonization begins to become practical (the ghosts from Baxter’s ‘Vacuum Diagrams’). As much as I hate transhumanism, I have to admit I’d be ok with a) indefinite consciousness that I could suspend and reactivate at will (not to mention split off into iterative copies) b) drifting around the cosmos for eons meditating on creation. At least it sounds cool on weed.
I only hate that most self-professed transhumanists I know of appear to be simply techno-libertarian-capitalists who still see transforming humans as new ways to do the same old shit, like commerce and status games. But I see the strength of it being that the ability to free humanity of cognitive biases and outmoded instincts greatly increases their options and sustainability. Wherever they happen to be.
I like the middle ground: we should be improving ourselves all the time, specifically in the areas of cognition and hazard survival.
That said, machinery, our tools, are still extensions of ourselves. At least until they become sapient, that is…
My Brawndo t-shirt has been getting a lot of me time since the election.
