I think this is in the "cloud-cuckoo-land" area. There's no significant
shielding on the lunar surface from cosmic rays and all the exciting things
the sun does. The radiation dose is too high to simply live on the surface
of the moon. Logistics to deal with this have to consider the exposure to
personnel whilst setting up shielded living and working places for them. I
think this argues machinery, either to drill into the ground or to cover
with "soil". Trying to do this by hand is going to give far too high
radiation doses to personnel, even if it is actually possible, which
remains to be demonstrated. The logistics of a moon base are such that
this will probably stretch the whole world's finances, if it ever is, in
practice, achievable. I doubt whether one more hole in the surface of the
moon is going to forward that very much, if at all, and for that the price
is far too much.
I think it can be safely consigned to the Jingoism "box" like all too much
right now in the tiny political world mindset that is the UK right now.
On 21 November 2014 11:13, John Wood <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> I believe there is some notion of using the probe to evaluate a
> possible location for a moonbase at the southern pole.
> Is this venture realistic? Or is it now outdated now we have the ISS.
> Would the cost of putting habitable structures on the moon result in
> realistic benefits or is it just a cosmologist's fanciful aspiration?
> On 11/21/14, Michael <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> > On 21/11/2014 09:31, Cerridwen Connelly wrote:
> >> With having to pay all that money to the EU, and whatnot in this
> >> country all the time, this seems an incredibly expensive idea,
> >> although nice in theory.
> >> Hwyl,
> >> Cerri
> > Cerri, it's an interesting subject, but to discuss it on Britarch we
> > would need to make it relevant to British archaeology. That is why I
> > posted a reply suggesting how the money could be spend on British
> > Archaeology.
> > So, before we get told off for being off topic, I suggest we quickly
> > move this onto "how £500 million could be spent on British archaeology"
> > - which would then allow me to express my own personal views about how
> > much money has been wasted on space research.
> > Just as a few ideas I suggested:
> > 1. To dig Doggerland - the last piece of the island that formed in the
> > North Sea as sea level rose.
> > 2. To take an archaeological site and excavate it - not at a human
> > scale - but at a molecular scale.
> > 3. To have a detailed LIDAR of all Britain.
> > 4. To have detailed aerial photography in visible and other useful
> > wavelengths.
> > And the last - which is probably the most "moonshot" in terms of its
> > shear audacity and achieving something which no one could believe is
> > possible is to have individuals walk across every square meter of the UK
> > and complete a 100% geophysical survey of the UK (except buildings).
> > MIke