# Could a closed colony on the moon survive forever?



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

I've tried researching this on the net but can't find a straight answer.
Let's suppose humans establish a colony like this on the moon, but then the earth is destroyed.
Will the colonists be able to survive quite easily* forever* by growing their own food and re-cycling their water and air?


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

No, I don't believe so. Even if they were able to get water from the deep craters near the poles there are simply things that they would need that can't be generated on the moon. All it would take is a small group of rogue folks to destroy the ability to survive and after a year on the moon I believe that interpersonal relationships would begin to become tattered. will the 1/6 gravity be enough to keep people healthy? In the closed environment will bacteria that we have immunities for evolve and mutate into something dangerous because of the constant exposure to the high levels of radiation?


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

Don't forget about inbreeding eventually destroying the group.


----------



## Seneca (Nov 16, 2012)

It depends on how the earth was destroyed, they would eventually have to salvage resources from somewhere, they would have to have a large enough population to be genetically stable and be able to provide for the population to expand. Tall order for a moon colony. They would by necessity be space travelers even if it were only within the solar system.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

No because currently no technique for producing oxygen. Just not feasible which is why NASA has bypassed the original idea. Would take continual resupply like the ISS does.


----------



## PalmettoTree (Jun 8, 2013)

PaulS said:


> No, I don't believe so. Even if they were able to get water from the deep craters near the poles there are simply things that they would need that can't be generated on the moon. All it would take is a small group of rogue folks to destroy the ability to survive and after a year on the moon I believe that interpersonal relationships would begin to become tattered. will the 1/6 gravity be enough to keep people healthy? In the closed environment will bacteria that we have immunities for evolve and mutate into something dangerous because of the constant exposure to the high levels of radiation?


What he said and more.


----------



## csi-tech (Apr 13, 2013)

One coronal mass ejection and KABLOOEY!!! They are all toast. Unless they construct a sub-lunar habitat that would shield them from everything like that. Or a Dyson sphere maybe. The radiation would act as a mutagen and alter our DNA enough that inbreeding would not be a problem. We could just use the complexes that were already built by the extraterrestrials on the dark side of the moon. They are almost finished with them anyway.


----------



## Lucky Jim (Sep 2, 2012)

So it seems space colonies are not as practical as Hollywood likes to make out..
It just makes us appreciate "spaceship earth" all the more, it's technically a "closed system" and has been recycling its water, churning out oxygen and re-generating life for literally millions of years without a hiccup.
Wait! I feel the inevitable bible quote coming on!-

_"God hangs the earth on nothing" (Job 26:7)_


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

In a word, no. My thoughts mirror others as previously mentioned. 

Also, with no atmosphere to protect the surface from debris bombardment, it would probably only survive one or two cosmic meteor showers before all the facilities and equipment (not to mention lives) were lost. Could you go underground with it? Sure, but then you're looking at money and resources that no one would be willing to invest on behalf of "humanity". Selfish and greedy I know, but it's the true sad state of the earths dominant population today.


----------



## PrepperThyAngus (Sep 30, 2012)

Forever? nothing lasts forever


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

I take "forever to be 2.5 billion years, at which point the sun becomes an enemy and ultimately destroys all life in the solar system.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

This looks like an interesting topic. I don't know why i didn't see it before. Terraforming would be creating a liveable atmosphere on another planet.

Sounds crazy dont it?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terraforming


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

NASA had already determined not feasible. That is why you hear so much about trying to find water planets or moons. With water you can produce hydrogen giving you a reliable fuel source.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

Not sure if hydrogen can be considered a reliable energy source. If we have to generate it from water, then we would be relying on an energy source other than hydrogen.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I think the ideas around hydrogen was for rocket fuel. Use solar power to crack water to Hydrogen and oxygen. Oxygen to breathe and hydrogen for fuel.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

Exactly.


----------



## Ripon (Dec 22, 2012)

Probably a better chance on Mars


----------



## sideKahr (Oct 15, 2014)

Oxygen would not be a problem to obtain from the lunar rock. Power is available from solar sources. But since the moon was formed from the crust of the earth, it is lacking in heavy elements found in the core and mantle. Heavy elements are necessary for modern technology.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

It would last as long as it took to become as in-bread as the British Royal Family. Sorry - not hurling disrespect in your direction. Just using it as a point of reference.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

How many mice does it take to ensure genetic diversity?


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

tinkerhell said:


> How many mice does it take to ensure genetic diversity?


IIRC they always said 400 in class but I never could get them to substantiate why or how they came up with that number.


----------



## Pir8fan (Nov 16, 2012)

paraquack said:


> Don't forget about inbreeding eventually destroying the group.


Exactly. Unless the population is large, there will not be enough genetic diversity.


----------



## paraquack (Mar 1, 2013)

I read somewhere that about 15,000 years ago(??) there was a massive volcanic explosion that created a "nuclear" winter and reduce the human population to 1,500 women according the mitochondrial DNA in the human species today. While 400 of a species might work, it would require non-monogamous relationships, something I think would be difficult at best to convince modern people to do. Oh, each member of the 400 would have to produced offspring only once with each other, and so on and so on with each generation or you would suffer from effects of in breeding.


----------



## tinkerhell (Oct 8, 2014)

What is so wrong with inbreeding? Isn't it a method that dog breeders use to promote some traits and illiminate others?


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

This story states that the human population may have gone down to 40 people at a low estimate and just a few thousand at a high estimate. Last two paragraphs. But the rest is interesting as well.

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...omes_than_our_closest_primate_relatives_.html

But anyway im ready. Who else is ready?


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

tinkerhell said:


> What is so wrong with inbreeding? Isn't it a method that dog breeders use to promote some traits and illiminate others?


When inbreeding there are incurred medical problems. Ask any COE breeder what the problems are.


----------



## HuntingHawk (Dec 16, 2012)

There was a special on discovery channel about future space exploration. Basically, to do so have to follow the water. They covered some of the more serious issues that would have to be overcome like having artificial gravity. Serious issues with loss of bone density for those spending six months on the ISS. Just because a couple have a high IQ doesn't mean their offspring will. Can only carry so many spare parts so going to have to be able to fabricate them.


----------



## GTGallop (Nov 11, 2012)

paraquack said:


> While 400 of a species might work, it would require non-monogamous relationships, something I think would be difficult at best to convince modern people to do.


I don't know... If you've seen some of the morals the younger generation has these days, you might think differently. Sex is as casual to them as anything else they do for a lot of millenials.


----------



## Prepadoodle (May 28, 2013)

As has been pointed out, water seems like the biggest hurdle to long term success. If they could mine water, either from the moon, passing comets, or some other source, it would get a whole lot easier.

Energy isn't a problem really, they would get plenty of solar. Radiation isn't a problem if they build shielded shelters. The long term effects of low gravity can be overcome by spending enough time in a centrifuge or building rotating habitats. Acceleration is acceleration, it doesn't matter if it comes from gravity or angular momentum.

Genetic diversity is over-rated. The colonists would have their genetics sequenced and undesirable matings avoided. Natural (or artificial) mutations would diversify the gene pool eventually. At one time, every species had only a very few members. This is true both for biblical creationism and for evolutionary theory.

The moon's lack of heavy elements would be a problem, but it might be possible to develop work-arounds.

In case you didn't know, they have tried this on earth. The Biosphere project in Arizona is one example, but there have been others. This project tried to live 2 years in a sealed habitat in the 1990s. Within 16 months, they were running out of oxygen. Fights broke out. They couldn't feed themselves. Although they did complete the 2 years, they couldn't have lasted much longer. A second try at the same facility only went a few months before being abandoned. (Source here)

Could a colony survive long term on the moon? Hell, I doubt humans will survive another 1,000 years here on Earth. I think the technical problems could probably be overcome, but the human factor... well, that makes it impossible to say one way or the other.


----------



## Moonshinedave (Mar 28, 2013)

Mars would be a much better choice than the moon.


----------



## PaulS (Mar 11, 2013)

We are going to want a manned station on the Moon before we go to Mars. Why? because it will cost about 1/6 as much in fuel to launch from the moon and less if we launch from Lunar orbit. There are huge deposits of titanium on the Moon right at the surface. It may not be a "heavy" element but it can be used to build strong buildings and rockets. The Lunar crust is mostly silicates - just like the Earth's crust and the lack of an atmosphere means we could make silicone based electronics a lot cheaper and better than we produce on Earth. Shelters will have to have strong frames and use a slurry mix from the Lunar rock to protect the colonists from solar radiation and micrometeor impacts. The bases will likely be placed at the polar regions for 24 hours of solar power and to harvest the ice in the deep craters. The colony, if it to survive on its own will need to harvest asteroids and comets for materials that are essential. The newest ion drives could build enough thrust to escape the Lunar gravity for a three week trip to and from Mars. From Earth it takes between one and two years to get to Mars due to the massive fuel costs. 

Mars is not a lot better than the Moon for a colony. There is little atmosphere and no magnetic field to protect from solar radiation. The habitat modules can provide an atmoshere to breathe but they will not stop heavy solar radiation bombardment. For that kind of protection they will have to build underground or build into the lava tubes in the volcanic region. Terra forming Mars is possible but it will have to begin by heating the planets core to provide a strong magnetic field. Then we will need to install an atmosphere that will support anaerobic bacteria that produce oxygen as a waste product. We have to initialize the bacteria in the soil to provide the proper nutrients for plant growth. Once that is started we need to replenish the water that has been depleted by solar bombardment for the last three million or so years. 

All of that is possible but we have to be able to harness the resources to put it into effect and that means corporate expansion into space. Harvesting asteroids is going to be big business. Getting gold, silver, iron, water and radioactive materials from the asteroid belt is going to make some people very wealthy and break others - just like the gold and oil rushes on Earth.


----------

