NASA Says It Will Set Up Polar Moon Camp

Finally the stage will be set for unearthing (unmooning?) the monolith. This was supposed to happen in 2001, we're way behind schedule.

ps. Where is my flying car? BTTF promised me flying cars.

Not that long ago our local AIAA chapter hosted a dinner for a nationally distributed, government supported, multidisciplinary group (the acronym escapes me now) which had for over a year been exploring concepts for moon habitats in conjunction with "the vision." The slide show presentation included several rather impressive-looking (albeit austere--a la ISS) lunar surface habitats. Even so, I found the presentation and the concepts (then to date) lacking in several regards.

First, as to whom (which specialties) had been included (or, rather, not included) in the study. In particular--and being located in the morning shadow of the Sierra Nevada was the stimulus--it seemed to me that the very people who might be among the best qualified, and bring by far the most longstanding experience, for engineering (and building) a moon habitat had apparently not been considered: those from the mining industries. One needs only to see some of the "mining machines" used over the previous two centuries to see how effectively, and how quickly, potential mines could be tunnelled and transformed into large scale ore extractors, operating simultaneously above ground and deep underground--and over multiple phases, from extraction to processing to transportation; and not only that, these mining machines were typically manufactured, assembled as kits, and transported to distant sites for assembly and use. ...which brings me to the second reason to have been a bit "underwhelmed" with our guests' study results...

...the seeming lack of consideration of any concept other than surface habitats. Concepts which, it seemed to me, might be the least cost effective, and impose the greater challenge for maintaining a safe environment, when compared to underground habitats. (pros and cons left for future discussion) The notion of living and working under the lunar surface suggested another source of expertise which might have been overlooked by the conceptualizers...toy manufacturers...in particular, those who have demonstrated such ingenuity in designing toys that can assume (can morph into) different shapes and uses!

Finally--and referring here to the many impressive boring and tunneling machines used in civil engineering projects--it seemed that tunneling to create a moon habitat could have numerous features not available (or not available at equally-low cost) to a lunar, surface-only colonization effort. For example:

A machine that could bore its way under ground (like a tunneling insect) could be virtually totally autonomous--or controlled remotely, even from earth! Continuous flesh and bone presence would not be required while it did its slow work.

Such a machine could both grow (itself) and also serve as the habitat itself; and it could (be) steer(ed) and clear out any kind of base configuration as might be desired.

Many if not most of the complexities (and costs to design and test solutions) entailed in protection against lunar-surface hazards could be eliminated...and or solved in a safe/survivable insitu habitat.

The same equipment that created the habitat could also be used to extract essential (and marketable) resources--possibly even helping to fund the growth and maintenance of the colony.

What are your thoughts, and counterpoints, as regards these ideations of mine?

Boring/tunnelling machines are extremely heavy chunks of metal. How do we get the components to the moon? They would have to be shipped piecemeal and then assembled on the moon surface, many, many payloads later. They also break down, tooling wears and they require significant maintenance. This seems very impractical and not at all autonomous.