Not even remotely. Any colony requiring resources from Earth to simply sustain life is doomed to fail. It's one thing to propose moving finished goods and structural elements, it's quite another to suggest shipping food, water, nitrogen, etc. The moon is an energetically expensive target anyway. How can you figure? Yeah, it sure is science fiction when you're talking about space colonies in a vacuum-dessicated wasteland like the moon. It's a lot more achievable in a place with proper pressure, temperature, gravity, etc. Especially when there's protection from radiation and useful resources available. That would be extremely difficult, but achievable. A moon colony in a pressure vessel buried underground is nonsense. There's literally no advantage to it. Only if the colony is expected to maintain a constant supply from Earth, as vacuum-dessicated wastelands would require. Until it gets cracked by a meteoroid striking the ground above it. Or simple wear and tear. There are few examples of long-term habitation in pressure vessels, and all of them have had potentially disastrous problems. Simple psychological reasons would be sufficient, but large amounts of space make growing food more practical. Especially if there is sunlight available. Whereas a gas-separation barrier on Venus could be tens or hundreds of thousands of cubic meters. 1 bar of pressure means it doesn't need to be very thick at all, nor structural. You say that pressure vessels are a solved problem, but balloons have been solved for even longer. The ISS is not intended for very-long-term habitation like a useful space colony would have to be. What's the point in shoving an ISS-like-installation on the moon? There's no future there. That's not pushing anything further. That's just yet another ho-hum space station that happens to be buried on the moon. No. The ISS is also "permanently manned" and "off-world", and doesn't rightly deserve the term "colony." Look up what the term colonization means--the migration of a species to an area in order to populate that area. There's no real migration occurring when there's just a rotating set of astronauts who get stationed somewhere that's entirely on life support from Earth. That's not colonization at all, that's putting a pseudo-military outpost on the moon. Only because people keep insisting that it ought to be done in the harshest, most difficult areas possible to imagine. Rather than being willing to venture a bit further, where the actual barriers to survival are a lot lower. Merely having a habitat somewhere off Earth would be difficult enough, why pick a place that adds additional problems? Because that is a place where people might actually conceivably be able to migrate. Permanently. Which is the point of colonization. Is it dangerous? Absolutely. Is it likely to fail the first time? Yes, it is. But colonization has always been dangerous and liable to fail. Picking a place that is at least significantly less hostile would go a long way. Suggesting that the moon makes a good target for colonization would be like knowing about North America but opting instead to colonize a barren rock in the middle of a frozen ocean a month away by sailing ship, because a four month trip is simply far too long for comfort.
Well we've been to the moon...so why go back. What are we going to do on the moon...float around some, look at oddly shaped rocks maybe? We're not in an economic or technological advantage to be trying to install a lunar base or colony....although that could be a future objective. We could deal with the orbital space station....but we've been doing that for decades. Sending astronauts into it is more of a novelty than it is scientific. There wouldn't be any point. Probing planets sounds fun....unless you don't know anything about the planets. Story of our scientific age. We think Venus is Earth like....key word WE THINK. Maybe rushing in isn't such a good idea.... The sun, lol, it's hot...and if our astronaughts get anywhere near it they'll be bacon. Even Mercury, the planet closest to the sun is still burnt to a crisp, and it's several thousand light years away from the sun. Mega bad idea? I think so.... What's left? OH MARS! That big planet we've been sending satellites and rovers to for decades. That planet we know a lot about despite never having been there. We should go there. Honestly it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out where to go, it only takes one to make the journey possible, and who are we kidding one isn't nearly enough.
What? Who thinks Venus is "earth-like"? It's not at all earth-like, it just happens to have regions of its atmosphere that aren't quite as hostile as the rest of the solar system. What are you talking about?
From one perspective, discovering more perfect knowledge of structures could enable us to place a habitat anywhere on Earth in such places as the ocean floor. Such knowledge could also be useful on Europa while ameliorating the phenomena of climate change on Earth.
Umm....scientists..... I don't know. I just follow the science news. Blame the scientists. It's all over Google if you look. http://www.astrobio.net/pressrelease/3185/earth-like-venus http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Earth_like_Venus_999.html Mercury is 46 million kilometers (28.5 million miles or 0.31 AU) from the Sun, and at its farthest it is nearly 70 million kilometers (43 million miles or 0.46 AU) from the Sun. Happy? I think at 3AM, which it was last night, a pot shot at distance is perfectly acceptable. That's what I'm talking about....not that the meaning of what I said was lost on you or anything /facepalm
Their concept of earth-like involves Venus's past, not its present condition which is entirely unlike Earth--aside from being a geologically active rocky planet with a thick atmosphere. That atmosphere just happens to be made of CO2, sulfuric acid and nitrogen, and so much thinker that the pressures and temperatures at the surface are so high that human beings can barely make a probe last a few minutes... "Earth-like" is very relative. That's not even a significant portion of one light-year, which is over five trillion miles. No object in the solar system is a light-year distant from the Sun.
Based on some recent news articles I've read, I probably should have put an option to vote on going to a moon of a different planet. Just read a fascinating article about one of Saturn's moons. The name escapes me at the moment.
Oh so you've been there......please.....tell us more...... Quit nit picking. I think we're all mature enough to not be petty.
If humanity wishes to avoid extinction it will have to travel to interstellar space. Perhaps it's best if humanity stays home.
In my opinion, we could be solving two "problems" with one "stone" by discovering ways and means to explore that moon and the bottom of our own oceans; and even learn how to build structures that may accommodate for global climate change.
