A moon base is essentially impossible. Click HERE for more. By John Massimino at the University of Maryland. Maybe Teddy Roosevelt wants a moon base. He may also want to know where baby's come from. Either way, his hope that we find a way is his hope and it's not to doubt our determination but let's see that it is beyond feasible unless we build a ship/base on earth and land a base on the moon with all of the requisite kit that is required for life sustainability. If men could live in a space ship for more than a year, then we know we can find ways to live in space so why not on the moon? But such arrivals on a foreign moon may cause radioactive consequences for human habitation once the humans arrive back on earth. Moon dust or Meteoric dust causes desertification on earth, the death of plant cells and human cells. We don't want moon dust or moon rocks turning Iowa into a desert. You are still landing your ships on the water upon their return. They will be most likely not return in future missions since that water is the world's water. Sze Sze... Salaam. You don't really live here any longer; not enough money with income support for the North Americans to do so. There is God, There is logic and then there is the argument with the ogre. Teddy has his dreams that also may not involve a take off and re entry vehicle that is just as feasible and also more practical above and beyond anything else we might dream of more appropriately. Remember that these are publicly funded missions just as we need to celebrate that all populations in the world are publicly funded populations and there are fewer and fewer of your people on earth if you do not ensure the money gets to your people and their accounts in the age of joblessness as caused by automation. All notions of the Lunar base have been cancelled until we ensure every North American is recieving their income support benefit and has been ensured housing; some of them veterans that might have assisted in Mercury or Apollo mission landings. Is that Impossible? Any hesitation to say yes could be the emotions of the Living Dead; Teddy Roosevelt who may have preferred rockets over shuttles with take off and re entry capability. But what are we supposed to believe until every North American is guaranteed the toasty warm love and shelter of a horse; possibly an RCMP horse or a horse used for DC park police; nice, happy horsey!! One good thing about our use of space is the use of the space based Lazer on satellite like the Hubble to clean up space debris from old deactivated satellites and any space craft intent on landing in the water on its return to earth. You can land in a desert and respect the water; cheeky monkey. We have to be careful with these eternal errant opinions from those kept alive artificially. Nuclear power generation is one such errant opinion. We don't need it. We could use hydrogen with a massive fuel cell. What is happening in Canada at Ontario only produced nuclear water. It's closed now for it's environmental contamination of lakes, oceans and rivers. If we strip away the possibility of mining the Moon for resources, the scenario becomes a "closed-loop" survival mission. In this case, the answer to saving human life isn't about manufacturing new supplies on the Moon, but about achieving near-perfect efficiency with what we bring from Earth. To prevent death in an environment with zero local water or oxygen, a base would have to operate as a biological fortress; built on earth and landing on the moon. We can summarise what we can learn from this putative venture; that life on earth has not been well managed. The moon is not an escape or a hope for sustained human life. It's more of a crypt. Life there will be dependent on a viable earth with continual resupply of any mission or base or would lunar radiation be like living in a radioactive isotope dump. You would be too radioactive hot in 3 hours. We can those who allegedly travelled there before and drove in the moon in a rover. We need to be sure that our mission forecasts fully understand what has already happened with lunar exploits and why we do not need to revisit this. We need to be sure the public understands. Last, let us just notice how intelligent we are to take public funds and aspire to fly around the moon, recording the achievement but then we take the returning craft and land on the water with the attitude being that it's only a little radiation; not a big deal; eh? We should be afraid of ourselves and resolve that inconsistency; especially in how we must use funds to intelligently, efficiently guarantee and ensure the dignity of human life pursuant to the UDHR Article 25.

 

A moon base is essentially impossible.  Click HERE for more. 

By John Massimino at the University of Maryland. 

Maybe Teddy Roosevelt wants a moon base. He may also want to know where baby's come from. Either way, his hope that we find a way is his hope and it's not to doubt our determination but let's see that it is beyond feasible unless we build a ship/base on earth and  land a base on the moon with all of the requisite kit that is required for life sustainability.  If men could live in a space ship for more than a year, then we know we can find ways to live in space so why not on the moon?  But such arrivals on a foreign moon may cause radioactive consequences for human habitation once the humans arrive back on earth. Moon dust or Meteoric dust causes desertification on earth, the death of plant cells and human cells. We don't want moon dust or moon rocks turning Iowa into a desert. You are still landing your ships on the water upon their return. They will be most likely not return in future missions since that water is the world's water. Sze Sze... Salaam. You don't really live here any longer; not enough money with income support for the North Americans to do so. There is God, There is logic and then there is the argument with the ogre. Teddy has his dreams that also may not involve a take off and re entry vehicle that is just as feasible and also more practical above and beyond anything else we might dream of more appropriately. Remember that these are publicly funded missions just as we need to celebrate that all populations in the world are publicly funded populations and there are fewer and fewer of your people on earth if you do not ensure the money gets to your people and their accounts in the age of joblessness as caused by automation. 

All notions of the Lunar base have been cancelled until we ensure every North American is recieving their income support benefit and has been ensured housing; some of them veterans that might have assisted in Mercury or Apollo mission landings.  Is that Impossible? Any hesitation to say yes could be the emotions of the Living Dead; Teddy Roosevelt who may have preferred rockets over shuttles with take off and re entry capability. But what are we supposed to believe until every North American is guaranteed the toasty warm love and shelter of a horse; possibly an RCMP horse or a horse used for DC park police; nice, happy horsey!! 

One good thing about our use of space is the use of the space based Lazer on satellite like the Hubble to clean up space debris from old deactivated satellites and any space craft intent on landing in the water on its return to earth. You can land in a desert and respect the water; cheeky monkey. We have to be careful with these eternal errant opinions from those kept alive artificially.  Nuclear power generation is one such errant opinion. We don't need it.  We could use hydrogen with a massive fuel cell. What is happening in Canada at Ontario only produced nuclear water.  It's closed now for it's environmental contamination of lakes, oceans and rivers. 

If we strip away the possibility of mining the Moon for resources, the scenario becomes a "closed-loop" survival mission. In this case, the answer to saving human life isn't about manufacturing new supplies on the Moon, but about achieving near-perfect efficiency with what we bring from Earth.

To prevent death in an environment with zero local water or oxygen, a base would have to operate as a biological fortress; built on earth and landing on the moon. We can summarise what we can learn from this putative venture; that life on earth has not been well managed. The moon is not an escape or a hope for sustained human life. It's more of a crypt. Life there will be dependent on a viable earth with continual resupply of any mission or base or would lunar radiation be like living in a radioactive isotope dump. You would be too radioactive hot in 3 hours. We can those who allegedly travelled there before and drove in the moon in a rover. We need to be sure that our mission forecasts fully understand what has already happened with lunar exploits and why we do not need to revisit this. We need to be sure the public understands. 

Last, let us just notice how intelligent we are to take public funds and aspire to fly around the moon, recording the achievement but then we take the returning craft and land on the water with the attitude being that it's only a little radiation; not a big deal; eh? We should be afraid of ourselves and resolve that inconsistency; especially in how we must use funds to intelligently, efficiently guarantee and ensure the dignity of human life pursuant to the UDHR Article 25. 

1. The 99% Recycling Rule (Physico-Chemical Life Support)

Without local water, every drop must be recovered. The International Space Station already does this, but a long-term lunar base would need to be even more efficient.

 * Water Recovery: Systems like the Urine Processor Assembly would distill every milliliter of waste, sweat, and breath condensate back into ultrapure drinking water.

 * Oxygen Generation: We use Sabateir Reactors. They exist only in theory.  Astronauts exhale carbon dioxide (CO_2). We react that CO_2 with hydrogen (H_2) to create water (H_2O) and methane. We then zap the water with electricity (electrolysis) to give the oxygen back to the astronauts to breathe again.

2. Biological Regeneration

If we cannot "boil soil," we must use biology. High-efficiency "space greenhouses" or bioreactors filled with algae (like Chlorella) would be mandatory.

 * The Trade: Algae are champions at gas exchange. They scrub the CO_2 from the air and produce O_2 through photosynthesis.

 * The Food: In a dire survival situation, the algae itself becomes a protein-rich food source, closing the loop between breathing and eating.

3. Absolute Containment (The Leakage Problem)

The biggest threat to life in this scenario isn't just "not having" oxygen; it's losing it.

 * Static Seals: The base would likely be welded together rather than bolted to prevent "gas bleed" into the vacuum.

 * Airlock Recovery: Every time an astronaut goes outside, the air in the airlock cannot be vented. it must be pumped back into the base to save every molecule.

4. The "Umbilical" Strategy

If the Moon truly offers nothing—no water in the shadows and no oxygen in the dust—then a lunar base is not a "colony"; it is a permanent ward of Earth.

 * Resupply Cadence: Survival would depend entirely on a constant "conveyor belt" of rockets bringing fresh hydrogen and nitrogen to replace the small amounts lost over time.

The Reality of the "Dry" Moon

If there is no water and no oxygen, the Moon remains a place humans can visit, but never truly inhabit. We would be like divers underwater; we can stay as long as our tanks (or our recycling machines) hold out, but we are always one mechanical failure away from the end.

Without In-Situ Resource Utilization (using the local soil/ice), a lunar base is essentially a very expensive, very dangerous submarine in a vacuum.