The Moon To Be Used As Humanity's "Toolkit" To Rebuild Race.

[rasomaso]

But what happens when they use up all the dust from the moon? Also how do orbital stations get oxygen? I never knew how it doesn't get depleted? Some kind of photosynthesis?

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

Trying to use up all the Regolith on the Moon is like trying to deplete the Earth of dirt, there's a LOT of it. It may even take millenia for a base on the moon to use up all the Regolith but since everything on the surface is Regolith (bar some frozen water ice and Iridium) it would take ages for it to be depleted.

How the ISS maintains oxygen levels is because there are machines called Oxygen Generators on the station. On board there are huge tanks for pure water and we know that pure water is H20 (Two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom). The generator uses what is called Electrolysis. It uses electricty to split the water into the two hydrogen atoms and the one oxygen atoms. The oxygen is then either used to fill oxygen tanks (in case of an emergency) or to give the astronauts oxygen.

There are also things called oxygen candles that provide temporary oxygen supllies if the oxygen generator were to ever fail.

[Human No More]

There are also scrubbers which remove CO2 from the air allowing it to be recirculated without a build up of CO2 to dangerous levels.

[Dreaming Of Pandora]

Originally Posted by Human No More

There are also scrubbers which remove CO2 from the air allowing it to be recirculated without a build up of CO2 to dangerous levels.

True that.

[auroraglacialis]

What a lunatic (pun intended) idea. I mean - dont we have more serious issues to deal with? Especially if Earth is hit hard enough that only a database on the moon survives (meaning the "arks" already existing on Earth are destroyed also). I mean - what makes one think that the survivors of such a blow would be able to access data stored on (fragile!) hard disks on the moon or even fly there. This sounds all kind of nutty. If you want to protect something, bury it in several places on Earth, not on the Moon. To put plants and animals in there is rather strange anyways as it is a bit like the old joke about Noahs Ark in which the Dinosaurs did not fit in - who gets to choose what survives? Just plants and animals that are good resources for humans? You cant save an ecosystem in a database... The best thing to do is to make sure, the biggest mass extinction event already in place is stopped (which is the continous destruction of the ecology of this planet by the current economy and civilization). I would much rather worry about that than about some futuristig possibility of solar flares or asteroid impacts. Chances are if there is the need for such an "ark" within the lifespan of it, it will be brought upon the world by the very same mindset and technology that is needed to create (and access) them.

EDIT: Just thought what a pain it would be for civilization loving people to live on a devastated Earth knowing that all the information is just out of reach because they lost the ability to access it and they'd be reminded of that every night as the moon rises...

EDIT2: Just read that part on colonizing the moon - I sincerely doubt that by 2050 humans will even be close to building a station there. It is hard enough to maintain the space station and think of Mars missions or even to just make a manned moon mission again. The technology is not the problem, the problem are resources and mainly money and I think there are better ways to spend money indeed. IF you believe in a prevailing industrial civilization, the thing to put money in is to develop truely sustainable ways to live (and going to the moon does not help, maybe fusion will help and advanced recycling will help - at least for some decades or centuries). Once that is really managed, go on.

[Human No More]

There are already many such projects on Earth. Even if most of civilisation is lost, the knowledge won't be entirely lost, especially since it's already known then even if part has to be rediscovered, it is a lot easier.

As for mass extinction events, I assume it was talking more about threats to civilisation rather than biodiversity... as it is, such projects can store genetic sequences, cell samples, seeds of plants etc anyway.

[ZenitYerkes]

I think we should worry about how to fix things here before going up there. Really. Millions of dollars could be used there, billions; why not spend that money on something that could avoid blowing ourselves up? Like, nuke neutralizers. That would be cool.

I guess we're getting to a no return point and the only hope for humanity is escaping from Earth. From what we've made of it.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

As for mass extinction events, I assume it was talking more about threats to civilisation rather than biodiversity... as it is, such projects can store genetic sequences, cell samples, seeds of plants etc anyway.

Ah - ok, I'm sorry, that is probably true. I was thinking again about nature and not so much about civilization. True - if you want to just keep civilization alive, it would probably be sufficient to store data and methods to set up some kind of reboot of the same system. Still - if you really want that, it makes more sense to store it on Earth as then people could still go there, take seeds, use the technology there to read the data.

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I guess we're getting to a no return point and the only hope for humanity is escaping from Earth. From what we've made of it.

If that is true and that point is near, then seriously we are ****ed. Because this is not going to be an option for probably many decades or even centuries. Space travel over long distances is SciFi. If you talk about a select few living on the moon - people could by the same reasoning also survive under these conditions on a devastated Earth.

I know the feeling of wanting to escape. I think many people on Earth today know that, at least the ones that realize what devastation is happening and are not still pretending that environmental destruction and finite resources are a lie. But the reactions are all so different.

Compare it to an escape from a building that quite obviously is unstable and about to collapse, but my path would be straight out of the door instead of climbing to the roof hoping for the unlikely chance for a helicopter ride to another building.

Likewise it does not really make sense to hope for some miracle solution that manages to save billions of people to space (or do you think you would be among the 1000 or 10000 or 100000 chosen if it came to it?) if there is a much more realistic and tangible way - basically save the land, keep the condition of this planet in a state that ensures your survival. At all costs. Whatever it takes.

Think of the two alternatives you and me proposed here - either get some spaceship or moon colony going with some few survivors of the humans race packed into a generation ship or stop civilization as we know it and the many survivors of that change would live differently - without supermarkets and cars. Guess what, you dont have supermarkets and cars in space either. The living conditions of such a crammed space colony would really not compare to life on Earth under "uncivilized" conditions, or would you think so?

A problem with my argument obviously is that your solution is something that people would just have to go on like they did before, just try harder, work more, spend more money and then believe it is reachable, while my proposed solution would require to step out of this track. Sadly the latter is something people are not used to and thus less likely to accept while the first solution is something perfectly along the line of thinking that has ruled the world in the past years. So admittedly, I have a harder stand here, but I hold it more sane.

[Human No More]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I think we should worry about how to fix things here before going up there. Really. Millions of dollars could be used there, billions; why not spend that money on something that could avoid blowing ourselves up? Like, nuke neutralizers. That would be cool.

I guess we're getting to a no return point and the only hope for humanity is escaping from Earth. From what we've made of it.

If you've invented one, go ahead.
Oh wait, you haven't.

[ZenitYerkes]

Originally Posted by Human No More

If you've invented one, go ahead.
Oh wait, you haven't.

Great powers of deduction you possess, I see.

[auroraglacialis]

Nuke neutralizers - yeah. nice idea. Then its only biological, chemical and conventional warfare you have to take out next to make peace. So I am all in for neutralizing nukes and all the other WMDs, but thats just a start. Humans of this culture are waging a constant war against nature - conventional, chemical, biological AND nuclear. They bomb the earth for minerals, they poison the rivers and oceans with chemicals, they carry invasive species all over the world and they dump nuclear waste in the landscape or spray it in the air in "incidents". This is what has to be stopped, as this is not a theoretical possibility that might happen if someone hits a button, it is happening NOW.

[Human No More]

Truthfully, I say this as someone who would rather there was no need for nukes... but as long as places like North Korea, Pakistan and China have them, as long as places like Iran want them... then the rest of the world would be stupid to get rid of them... They would be destroyed if they did.

The point of them as weapons is that if you ever need to actually use them, they've failed in their purpose. If there were no nuclear weapons (or other WMDs), I'm fairly sure the Cold War would have become World War 3 and would have seen tens of millions of deaths through conventional warfare.

[ISV Venture Star]

Originally Posted by ZenitYerkes

I think we should worry about how to fix things here before going up there.

Somewhere, James Cameron just vomited.

[Human No More]

Well said.

[auroraglacialis]

Originally Posted by Human No More

The point of them as weapons is that if you ever need to actually use them, they've failed in their purpose. If there were no nuclear weapons (or other WMDs), I'm fairly sure the Cold War would have become World War 3 and would have seen tens of millions of deaths through conventional warfare.

I doubt it - the WMD scare was self strengthening and I doubt the hatred between the two sides would have ever been so great if it was not for the knowledge that the other could simply eliminate everyone in the own country at once. Violence ALWAYS leads to more violence and threats always lead to more threats - if that is the intention, then so be it.
And weapons failing their purpose? As if that never happened before. Sometimes, everything "fails it purpose" and then what?

The need is there to stop that vicious cycle of ever greater power - and this of course means that all sides will have to do so. And this is not going to be done by the governments, that is for sure.