20th century science fiction should always be taken as a how to guide for space colonisation. Now about that FTL transport.
Interesting. So far, there has been a lot of synergy between Musk's companies. But I failed to understand where the Boring Company fit (other than the obvious and boring 'tunnels for cars' angle).
> The moon, however, is dry, cool and mostly rigid, like a chunk of stone or iron. So moonquakes set it vibrating like a tuning fork. Even if a moonquake isn't intense, "it just keeps going and going," Neal says. And for a lunar habitat, that persistence could be more significant than a moonquake's magnitude.
The dryness of the Moon presents an interesting challenge to tunnel boring machines that I don't often see addressed.
Quell quakes and generate electricity at the same time.
Many tubes are big enough for regulation-sized moonball courts. Together with moon dune dirtbiking, the moon might have a promising sports economy.
Wouldn't it be game changing if we found fossils really deep inside the moon as we did this? If the impact that hit Earth to form the cluster of rocks that eventually settled into what is now our Moon, I wouldn't expect it to pulverize earth into dust but rather into large pieces. Imagine of some fossils were encased in some of the larger rocks, which later settled deep inside the lunar core.
In it they review all manufacturing capabilities to date and extrapolate them to zero-g fractions there-of as well as hypothesize the ability of self replicating robotic systems, with a final ephiany of energy break even using Von Neumann replicators of only 15 days... using 1970s technology! A thought engaging dry must-read.
In TV science fiction, it would involve stripping down to one's underwear and having "decontamination salve" slathered on you by another main character.
As for the suits, they were designed half a century ago, before the problem was known (and still worked well enough to get the job done). There has been some progress since then:
Edit: Actually surprised no one had submitted that to HN so have taken the liberty.
That is to say, what would be a safe level of the moon's mass being lost to mining before we had to stop and at what point would we realise the moon's influence has become unpredictable?
Life has been looking up at that luminous surface for hundreds of millions of years. Is it important enough to preserve or should we prioritise human progress? Maybe we can find compromise by building major installations and mining operations on the far side of the moon.
'Why' is what they should really answer.
If the rock is already crushed you can skip a few steps in the smelting process.
In addition, the total mass of the asteroid belt is something like 4% of the moon's (and half of that mass is in the 4 largest asteroids). You would be better off just mining the moon.
These might be transported back to earth. Plus there's iron, cobalt, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, aluminium, and titanium for construction of moon settlements and factories.