Our Moon Is Livable

[rodsky]

---

It is very obvious that it isn't livable. You have to put an artificial human habitat in there for the humans to stay longer in. For me, it will be ideal as a tourist destination for thrill seekers and perhaps just a mining colony and nothing more.
Just imagine how the fish lives in a fish tank, that is probably what its like also living in the moon.

I believe you discussing about the quality and/or dependencies of life and/or living on the moon, but as to the ability (via technology) to live there for a week or a year, or more, the point remains true that it is indeed livable, provided the technology infrastructure needed for such survival is present. You yourself admitted that a fish in a fishbowl is living in the bowl, so again, you may be right about the bleak quality of life in it, but then some of us just want to determine livability, defined as "will you survive say, a week or a year on the moon."

-RODION

[athiesta]

...that sounds nice and all, doesn't it? that may be possible in the not so distant future. we may be soon building condos in Marius Hills and your neighbors are going to be terrorists from Guantanamo Bay.

Moon hole might be suitable for colony | Tampa Bay, St. Petersburg, Clearwater, Sarasota | WTSP.com 10 Connects

livable? habitable?

I would like to tell you that not even bacteria was found on moon, the most basic living organism never strive on the moon.

if you say livable, well movie directors were ahead of us... they even told us we can live in outer space...

[athiesta]

I believe you discussing about the quality and/or dependencies of life and/or living on the moon, but as to the ability (via technology) to live there for a week or a year, or more, the point remains true that it is indeed livable, provided the technology infrastructure needed for such survival is present. You yourself admitted that a fish in a fishbowl is living in the bowl, so again, you may be right about the bleak quality of life in it, but then some of us just want to determine livability, defined as "will you survive say, a week or a year on the moon."

-RODION

spaceshuttle is livable based on what you are implying...

my question is... if the spaceshuttle lands on the moon... cover it with dirt... does it mean moon is livable? just a thought.

[rodsky]

spaceshuttle is livable based on what you are implying...

my question is... if the spaceshuttle lands on the moon... cover it with dirt... does it mean moon is livable? just a thought.

Yes, the space shuttle is indeed livable--but only for a maximum of about 16 days. Livability is not a limit--it's a RANGE--it can range from a millionth of a second to a million years--it all depends on available technology that can support and promote life, even in totally barren and desolate conditions.

Let's use the window analogy. Every place in the universe, from the perspective of human beings, has a "window" of livability. For instance, as in the previous example, the space shuttle is livable, but the window is only about 16 days. On earth, that window (range) increases to about several billion years, due to what the environment can offer, possibly even longer if technology is present that allows that range to increase. Therefore, on the moon, the livability window will all depend on the technologies we create to support living there.

Now there are obvious exceptions to the window analogy. For instance, since human beings are creatures that exist in a temperature range between -30 degrees C and 40 degrees C, one place that's definitely not livable would be on the surface of a star (i.e. the Sun). But what makes a moon/planet different, is, as long as there's nothing to boil/melt the surface of this moon/planet, and the surface is SOLID, then if there was just a way to properly shield human beings from the vacuum of space, the low/high temperatures, then a human being can live on the surface of that moon/planet, according to the window of livability (based on the technology he carries along with him).

If technology can aid human survival (indefinitely) on a barren planet, or a space station orbiting at any of the Lagrange Points, then whatever body it may be (be it a moon, planet or space station, or yes, even the space shuttle), then it's livable.

-RODION

[kalanrakas]

Nice analogy but as you said, it all depends on available technology. If technology will be available in the future enabling humans to survive even just a minute or two on the surface of a star or a black hole, then such would also become livable per your analogy. Hence, there will be no more obvious exception to the window analogy.

Philosophical, I know, but still consistent with the logic and definition of livability you are using. Isn't it?

[rodsky]

Nice analogy but as you said, it all depends on available technology. If technology will be available in the future enabling humans to survive even just a minute or two on the surface of a star or a black hole, then such would also become livable per your analogy. Hence, there will be no more obvious exception to the window analogy.

Philosophical, I know, but still consistent with the logic and definition of livability you are using. Isn't it?

Point taken. But since the topic is about the moon (Earth's satellite), the focus is on practical livability. We do have the technology on earth for practical livability on the moon--it's not some exotic/future technology that still needs to be researched/found, it's already here--what humans just don't have at this moment is the political will and economic drive/need to go and establish a permanent human presence there. I merely used the issue of livability as a "range", to expand the minds of others in this thread who are seemingly bent on insisting that the moon is not livable--it is--but we (as an entire race) simply choose NOT to live there.

-RODION

[NASYO]

i guess so.
wala pa man jud tawo naka-adto sa buwan.

[rodsky]

i guess so.
wala pa man jud tawo naka-adto sa buwan.

Twelve people have walked on the moon. Here are the names of those astronauts listed chronologically by the date of their walk.

July 20, 1969: Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin

Nov. 19, 1969: Charles (Pete) Conrad (dec.) and Alan Bean

Feb. 5, 1971: Alan Shepard (dec.) and Edgar Mitchell

July 30, 1971: James Irwin (dec.) and David Scott

Apr. 21-23, 1972: Charles Duke and John Young

Dec. 11-13, 1972: Harrison Schmitt and Eugene Cernan

Each of these missions had a CM pilot, who didn't get to walk, but still orbited on the moon, which makes the people who went to the moon 12 + 6 = 18

Plus 2 from the failed AP13 mission 18 + 2 = 20

Plus 2 from Apollo 8 LOI 20 + 2 = 22

Plus 3 from Apollo 10 Prep mission 22+3 = 25

So all in all, 25 people have seen the moon up close and personal, with 12 people actually walking on it. You cannot make liars out of 25 men, and the 500,000 contractors who worked day and night to make their missions possible.

-RODION

[athiesta]

Yes, the space shuttle is indeed livable--but only for a maximum of about 16 days. Livability is not a limit--it's a RANGE--it can range from a millionth of a second to a million years--it all depends on available technology that can support and promote life, even in totally barren and desolate conditions.

Therefore, on the moon, the livability window will all depend on the technologies we create to support living there.

-RODION

if you are referring to habitability... well its a different story. For billions of years we only know that earth is the only habitable planet. The rest are fiction we want to believe. Rod, with regards to self sustaining technology... IT NEVER AND DIDN'T HAPPEN, sci-fi movies are good on this setting.

livability is also sustainability if you say human can make this things happen, well maybe yes maybe no... but reality tells me rod, we cannot even maintain the world we live in...

[cromagnon]

well maybe yes maybe no.

wether u think u can , then u can . ...

if ur pessimist , then u cant'''......



there's nothing imposible in the future .. . even aliens have no sweat , living from 1 galaxy to another..