Talk:Colonization of the Moon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WikiProject Space
Portal:Space
 Space Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Space.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Related projects:
WikiProject Space exploration WikiProject Space exploration Importance to Space exploration: Mid

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article is supported by the Moon WikiProject.

This project provides a central approach to Moon-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-priority on the priority scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.


Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 8/5/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Peer review Colonization of the Moon has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Space Colonization WikiProject edit

Core concepts

Colonization and terraforming

Organizations

Contents

[edit] Polar Regions

The section on "Polar regions" has many dubious and/or unsupported claims, which I have marked with "[citation needed]". For example it completely ignores the effects of lunar libration. From reading I have done I believe it is not true that Malapert mountain has continuous Earth line-of-sight, nor does it have continuous illumination. Each claim needs to be individually examined and supporting references provided. I do not have time to research them right now, but it is quite likely that future research on my part will result in a major rewrite of this section. Much has been published in this area, there is no excuse for not providing references.Charles 19:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages (and) Disadvantages

What is the intent of the sections in the article entitled Advantages (and) Disadvantages ?

Advantages (and) Disadvantages versus what?

Clarify whether this is comparison to:

  • Colonies on Earth
  • Colonies in space (where?)
  • Colonies at Lagrange locations (where?)
  • Colonies on asteroids (which ones?)
  • Colonies on Mars
  • Colonies somehwere else....

All the above have been proposed as sites for colonies, and each location has strong proponents and opponents, some people seem to favor their preferred colony site with religious fervor. I would ike to enhance those sections, but need some more clarification on what is expected before I start working on it.Charles 16:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] differential time travel B*llsh*t

Scientists also discovered over time the difference in how time travels on the moon than on earth. For example, if a human being travels to the moon and returns again immediately, one would notice that the ageing process does not have as much of an effect on the person, as if that person lived on earth for that same period of time.

- I picked out this little piece of work from the article by 140.203.12.242 . I have absolutely no clue of where this came from and have never heard about such a ridiculous thing, so I'm taking it out asap. AlexKM 20:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity

Well, technically time does travel slightly different on the Moon (or on a spacecraft or even aircraft) as an effect of Einstein's theories of Relativity, but the effect is so small it is impossible to detect by any practical means. Whoever wrote that piece was probably confused with Intersteller near-light speed travel, where the effect would be quite noticeable. Nevertheless I agree with the deletion  :-) Charles 16:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Solar Panels

There was some years ago an article in a Science mag about that it's been investigated that something like that could be possible that the minerals in the moon soil could be used in creating the solar panels, so that minimal amount of raw materials could be brought from earth; at the coolest there could be like a huge solar panel creating moon bulldozer that leaves a trail of solar panel behind... or something like that. The main idea of course was that the moon soil has many useful ingredients for a solar panel

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sigmundur (talk • contribs) 21:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Discussion

Hello,

What else do we need to do to this page to bring it up to the standard for Wikification ?

I will be happy to help this effort.

Lunar development is a lifetime passion for me, and I am delighted to find this page on Wikipedia. I intend to be a frequent visitor.

Thanks,

Charles R.

I think the reason that this article was given a cleanup notice may be partly because it is very POV. The article doesn't have much information on difficulties a lunar colony might face, and it does not have any hint of an opposing viewpoint such as skeptic’s reasons for why a lunar colony may be impractical. I don't have any particular opinion of either viewpoint but both sides of a topic should be presented. Sentences should be rewritten so they don't particularly support or deny something. Take the paragraph,
One big problem with a Lunar colony has been a source of continuous power. While a nuclear power plant would solve this, it would be a very expensive proposition, either lifted from the Earth's deep gravity well, or fabricated with on site materials by machines transported from Earth. While solar panels would be much more easily fabricated, the long lunar night (14 Earth days) would require some kind of massive and expensive power storage facility. This site neatly eliminates that problem because it is exposed to the sun most of the time; two closely spaced arrays would receive continuous power. The solar panels, incidentally need not necessarily be silicon. It is more feasible to simply use the several hundred degree difference between sun and shade to run basic heat engine generators.
Lets illustrate the problems by going over them one by one, first it states that transporting a nuclear power source would be very expensive as well as fabricating one on site, which might be true but the paragraph does not attempt to justify these claims. Second this article seems to be centered on the original authors choice for the location of a lunar colony. The article makes no effort to talk about other possible sites. Next take the sentence "It is more feasible to simply use the several hundred degree difference between sun and shade to run basic heat engine generators." This sentence could be rewritten (along with the entire article) as "It might be more feasible to use the difference in temperature between the sun and shade to run heat engine generators."
The article doesn't provide a history of proposed Lunar Habitats (from my own memory I can think of plans from both the United States and the Soviet Union to build Lunar bases).
The article states that "several fanciful habitats have been suggested", but doesn't state anything else about these habitats, or why they MIGHT BE (remember neutral POV) "fanciful".
There are no references anywhere in this article, the article states "The latest radar mapping and other sensor data have suggested an intriguing site near the Moon's South pole." But the question now is "What is the source of information?", "What organization conducted this research?", "When did this research take place?".
I feel that the business section is also, very speculative and very POV dependant.
Well those are some of my ideas of what is wrong with this article and why it needs a cleanup, if you have any suggestions feel free to voice them. As stated before I am not here to take a position for or against colonization of the moon but to point out the one sided nature of this article and any other problems I see.
--Silver86 00:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've added a pro and con discussion and made some npov edits. What else is needed? --agr 20:02, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well we could use a few more sites perhaps somthing like Peary (crater), and I think the Transport section could use a bit of a re-write.--Silver86 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And also, what to do with the business section? )Maver1ck 11:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps we Could change it to "Possible economic opportunities on the moon" or somthing to that effect and disscuss that in a NPOV way.(don't forget to cite your souces)--Silver86 06:22, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Isn't there something very wrong with the Wikipedia process when no reason for putting up a cleanup notice is not given? Moreover Silver86 writes that he thinks it is because it is POV, yet POV was not the tag used. As for sources, much of recent knowledge on the Moon is from the Clementine mission in 1994 and papers on proposed Peak of Eternal Light often use data from this mission. Interestingly this article does not contain links to Peak of Eternal Light though I cannot see exactly why this is so. 85.164.123.89 17:46, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The likely reason why there was no link to Peak of Eternal Light is that no one working on this article had heard of it before. I've added it. This is probably not the best place to discuss wikipedia policy if you want someone that matters to pay attention. I agree that we should either list specific places that still need improvment or it's time to remove the cleanup tag. --agr 16:40, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Whoever this "someone that matters" might be I suspect them of being asleep at the wheel; I am fighting a few battles elsewhere. Instead I have changed my policy towards local fixes such as here. I had hoped this subthread would have woken up those that set the tag to explain themselves. Without the original reasoning there is no benchmark against which we can determine wether or not the time is ripe to remove the cleanup tag. Personally I feel the time is here, the article, while not complete, is sufficient for passing general muster. I am, however, not going to claim the authority to do that on my own. On the longer term I feel military aspects of the moon should be added. US forces had planned a lunar base in the 50's and with the possibility of He3 and ice on the moon a number of sites become of induatrial/commercial and thus also strategic importance. Add to this the recently disclosed space warfare doctrine and president GW Bush' moon and Mars initiative I feel convinced the US military aspects should be added. I know that there is a UN resolution on military presence on the moon but that can also be cancelled. Or would it be better with a separate article on military aspects of the moon? And thenks for adding the link to Peak of Eternal Light. 85.164.95.58 18:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest a seaparate article on military use of the moon and space if you think you have enough material. A base is not the same as a colony. There is an article on the Outer Space Treaty, which the U.S. has ratified and which bans military use. As for the cleanup tag, how about we request specifices by Feb. 20, otherwise the tag goes? I think that would be fair to all. --agr 21:11, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A separate article is possible but it will as far as I know be a bit small and with much overlap. For instance many of the early astronauts were military test pilots, and the Soviet launch vehicles were military in nature. A base in not a colony, true. The US military had planned a base in the mid 50's with a few tens of crew members but to protect the resources on the moon you would need a lot more, also civilians. The old project name was "Project Horizon" but there is no disambiguation page for this, instead it leads to a different project. I second the idea of a deadline to remove the tag. 85.164.76.159 17:05, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
OK, we have passed the deadline 2005-02-20 mentioned above, yet the tag remains. Also I see article itself has not been edited since 2005-02-09 and discuss page not since 2005-02-13. Time to drop the tag? 85.164.85.121 21:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I removed the cleanup tag per above discussion. --agr 01:15, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)


I added a picture at the top because I felt it needed it, and added the NASA tag at the bottom becuase all of the images on this page are from NASA --Silver86 05:31, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also added a few things to the "See Also".--Silver86 07:01, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've reworked the location and "Business" sections. --agr 19:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your reworking of the location section does seem to clean things up a bit. I like it.--Silver86 20:29, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I've also added an intro and touched up transportation. I think it may be at the point where the notices can come off: Anything I'm missing? --agr 13:11, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I took the NPOV off, but I've left the Cleanup becuase I think the article could use just a little bit more polishing.--Silver86 19:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I might take another pass after a break. Any sections in particular that concern you? --agr 20:46, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Well I thought that the article, should have an introduction similar to the colonization of space article, somthing that states the obvious to the layman and serves as a short simple and sweet introduction, them some of the information in the introduction can be moved to other sections like history. Perhaps moving the current statement about apollo to somewhere in the history. And brief information about the moon apollo missions in the history(becuase they were important to the fesibility of sending people to the moon and landing, and gathering information) along with these we must include the link to the actual mission article. Well those are my ideas at the moment.--Silver86 22:09, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I edited the intro and history sections. I left the Apollo sentence in the intro as I think it belongs there. The article isn't perfect, but I feel it is on a par with most other Wikipedia articles at this point. --agr 18:13, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A bit of interesting info from NASA

I found this little bit on NASA, its only somwhat related. I'm not saying we should add it to the article, but maybe I'll add a bit to the rover article. --->[http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/f_leftovers.html Apollo's Lunar Leftovers ] --Silver86 22:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Radiation hazards on the Moon

This article really doesn't say much about the problem of radiation on the moon. FYI: There is an interesting story at Science@NASA on one possible solution using electric fields to repel radiation. [1]. BlankVerse ∅ 11:51, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Moonbases

Given that the Moonbase [in Star Ocean 3] is a major research area which contains a couple of major events in game [including Fayt, Maria and Sophia's realisation of their powers and destiny], should it be classed as a Notable Moonbase in the video games section of this article? User:Hogtree

[edit] moon dust

Shouldn't the article mention hazards of moon dust? Samohyl Jan 10:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] China

"Spurred by the prospect of a Chinese lunar base, in 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush called for a plan to return manned missions to the Moon by 2020. Propelled by this new initiative, NASA issued a new long-range plan that includes building a base on the Moon as a staging point to Mars."

I'd say this is inaccurate. The new NASA initiave was spurred in the response to the loss of Space Shuttle Columbia.

Until we know for sure what it was spurred by, there's no point in even speculating on it. Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. bob rulz 04:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia

Is it appropriate to add the Moonbase Wikia site to the page? It's not getting any attention, and it's a blank slate for individuals and groups that want to work together to develop something. Chadlupkes 23:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No. It is apppropriate to add external links which provide further information. That site is, as you say, a blank slate. At such time that it becomes a useful resource, a link would be appropriate. -Harmil 16:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] moonquakes

It is stated on the mainpage "Advantages list" that the Moon is geologically dead. This is inaccurate. The Moon experiences frequent Lunar quakes, likely the result of collapsing crater walls "ringing" through the whole Moon (the Moon has no mantle comparible to Earth's that would deaden seismic activity).

[edit] Image copyrights

What's with the "©NASA" captions on the images here? The image pages each say This file is in the public domain because it was created by NASA. Ojw 21:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Most footnote links are dead

Most of the links in the "notes" section are dead. I'll wait a few weeks, but if these aren't fixed, I'll just remove them all. Lunokhod 17:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions for improvement before nominating as a Good article

I have just read through the entire text, and think that this topic is fairly well written. I'd like to nominate this as a good article, but there are a few things that need to be adressed before hand.

  • The "introduction" is way too long. This should only be about one paragraph, as opposed to 5. The details should not be placed here, but rather in the text that follows.
  • The article is somewhat long, and very wordy. As this is an encylopedia entry, and not a white paper, we should strive to be concise, and to remove extraneous details (such as "The low gravity may find health uses such as allowing the physically disabled to continue to enjoy an active lifestyle.").
  • The intro makes it sound like "Since the Moon is made of 42 percent oxygen, we can easily extract all of this for use in a colony!" The same goes for iron, and silicon. However, as is well known (and stated much, much, later in the article) it is VERY hard to extract elements from an oxide. This needs to be explained before making is sound like it will be very easy to mine resources on the Moon. The same goes for He-3. There are no helium-3 reactors on Earth, and this will have nothing to do with the early manned exploration of the Moon.
  • There are MANY instances where "science fiction" concepts are presented. This diminishes the importance of the topic because it makes it sound like colonies will never become "reality". It is my opinion that this article should emphasize the early stages of building a colony, not the far off into the unimaginable future where Mag-Lev trains criss-cross the lunar surface with space elevators, and so on.
  • There are almost no inline citations, and this give the impression that the article is more science fiction than science (which, in my opinion, is not the case).

Lunokhod 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Make a redirect page titled "Moon outpost" and link it to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/l/Talk%7EColonization_of_the_Moon_2659.html"