Habitation Intention

Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday (CAT). This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post or I feel that the problem presented can be overcome, but it is an argument I need to address.

One of the arguments for space habitation that I've read over and over is that the communication delay would make any unmanned mining efforts impossible. However, it seems this is not the case because of developments in bilateral control. Bilateral control overcomes transmission delay by simulating the robot and the object being manipulated next the the user and copying the motions to the distant robot.

If we are able to overcome communication delay, we will be able to send mining drones faster then manned mining ships, simply because they will be lighter.

They will also be cheaper because these missions won’t need pressurized cabins and other things for human survival. Humans would need not only life support, but the mining colony would need to generate food and extract water while mining.

So, from a pure profitability perspective, unmanned is the way to go. Justifying space habitation in the light of this will be hard. 

 

 

 

In Case You Skimmed

-Since transmission delay isn’t a factor, there is no reason not to use unmanned systems for mining in space.

Reactions

-Would businesses be willing to give us some profit to have a manned space colony?

Photo Credit

ElDave

Imagine a large park with a huge stage with a lone podium. The grass can not be seen because of the numbers of people crowding trying to hear to politician's words. News cameras from every network focus on the stage. As you approach the scene, the words become clear.

"Thus, I declare that the great nation of the United States of America with have its own Moon and Mars base in the next 20 years. They will be named Base Eagle and Base Freedom, respectively. Through these two bases we will harness the resources of other planets and gain a competitive edge for the future!"

The crowd then erupts into a chant of "USA!, USA!, USA!".

Luckily, this is fiction. The world is moving away from continuing colonialism in space and instead they are working with each other to further mankind. This is great progress for us, but it brings the special challenge of Watery Motivation.

The term was first introduced to me in a writing class were we read Martha C. Nussbaum's Compassion & Terror. Her work attempts to expose the difficulties of international action on the downsides of globalism and it attempts to prove why nations can work together to solve those problems. While reading this work, the idea of Watery Motivation struck me the most.

Watery Motivation comes up when Nussbaum reminds us of Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Republic which read "there are two things above all that make people love and care for something, the thought that is is all theirs, and the thought that it is the only one they have. Neither of these will be present in [The Republic]". Nor do they seem to be present in international space development.

It seems to get worse for international activity as Nussbuam disproves the idea that we can dissolve the attachments to the local world to allow for international cooperation. But, she goes on to claim that "a patriotism constrained by respect for human dignity and by a vivid sense of the real losses and needs of others" will allow for international response to the world's challenges. I believe this same reason will allow for peace during the land rush that we will see at the dawn of the next space age.

So yes, we will get Base Eagle and Base Freedom and we will get to chant "USA!" in the world of international space development. But, out of respect for the needs of others, we won't hog the Moon and Mars for ourselves. Our acknowledgment of human dignity will prevent us from causing suffering with our activities in space. Thus, no matter how political our activity in space is, we can still work with others. It all comes down to whether or not we constrain our patriotism.

~In Case You Skimmed

-Respect for others will allow for highly political national space programs to coexist with international space goals

~Reactions

-Is this dangerous, does allow for patriotism to exist in space bring us to close to shattering the dream of a peaceful space age.

~Resources

Nussbaum, Martha C. “Compassion and Terror.” Daedalus. 132 (Winter 2003): 10-26.

I’ve just gotten a .com address for my blog, unfortunately it takes 72 hours for a new domain to be usable. So I’m down for the next 3 days, I’m sorry about the inconvenience.

Update 2/27/10 9:27 am: It turned out the my DNS settings were bad. I’m back online now.

 

The arguments for space habitation imply that humanity must leave this planet at break neck speeds. Space settlement is presented as a window, as an opportunity that can be missed. Supporters mention the varies ways we can go extinct as a reason we should move to space, whether from nuclear war or from a massive object smashing into earth, all of which are time sensitive. Still more urgency creeps in when dwindling resources are noted. This gives those working the field a huge adrenaline rush, it feels like they are working against an unseen clock. Is this attitude healthy? Does urgency make the settlement of space go faster?

In his lecture, Carl Honore examines the speediness of modern life. He reveals that, before he became an advocate of the Slow Movement, he wished that he could speed up his interactions with his son. However, after some deep thought, he realized that his speed was damaging his relationship with his son. Wondering what was the cause of this culture is, he realized that “[i]n other cultures, time is cyclical. It's seen as moving in great  unhurried circles.  It's always renewing and refreshing itself. Whereas in the West, time is linear.  It's a finite resource,  it's always draining away”. This causes time to have a much inflated value making us to jam every second with an activity. This might feel like the only way, but it isn’t as Honore proves when he cites economies, such as those in “Nordic countries”, who move slowly yet do well. That, among other examples, lead to his thesis that it is possible to get things done faster then ASAP, but completing work this quickly produces low quality work. In short, he claims it is possible for “good slow” to exist.

Just as Honore, I must concede and say “that there is such a thing as ‘bad slow’. [For example, Honore] got stuck on the M25,  which is a ring road around London …and spent three and a half hours there…that's really bad slow.”. It’s really bad slow when we do not fix out failing schools for years. It is really bad slow when telescopes aren’t being built fast enough to provide the ability to look for objects that can threaten us. It is really bad slow if research in the space and STEM field were to stop. Not having rapid prototyping machines is bad slow. Having to place a hold on a project because the funding was cut is bad slow.

But, do we have to generate progress towards space habitation every second of everyday? I believe the answer is no based on my experience with this blog. What motivated me to post an article everyday was my belief that I needed to generate content to, somehow, help humanity reach the next Maslow Window- a period when space habitation is fundable- before it closes. These need to post by midnight every night lead to horrible posts, writing that did nothing to further the field. If I took this attitude into the industry, I would have produced low quality parts/designs, and I would have burned out sooner or later. However, when I’ve allowed a blog post two or three days in development time I tend to produce posts which I’m most proud of, posts which I know are convincing people and furthering the field because of the reaction I see on social media.

Here’s where I take the pervious paragraph and toss it into my generalization machine. If the urgency I see in space settlement works is replicated in technical works towards space settlement, we have a problem. I don’t work in the aerospace industry, so I have no clue about the culture of NASA, Boeing and other space organizations. But, if those people think we need to progress every second, they will go slower. Once again, it is faster to go as slow as one needs to in order to preserve quality. I point to Apollo as an example of what happens to a program whose main design consideration is a speedy development. The program burnt out in a relatively short time. In short, it is better to wait for the next train to the future instead of sprinting on foot towards it.

Yes, this strategy could delay space habitation, but the Apollo model of space development, the draining bayonet charge to a space faring society doesn’t work in the long term. Yes, we could miss the windows we need to reach for space development. However, if one were to look at these windows as cyclical objects, one would find that humanity still has a chance if we miss a window. But, if we keep having Apollo style bursts into space, the humanity’s chances are greatly reduced because each window is wasted. It is better to miss one window to jump cleanly out of the next.

In Case You Skimmed

-We must redefine what urgency means in this field, it means producing high quality work, not bucket loads of low quality stuff.

Reactions

-Will this slow pace cause trouble with our political cycles? Can we maintain support of long periods of time? Do have have to complete our missions in four years? 

Resources

Honore, Carl . “Carl Honore praises slowness” February 2007. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on February 20 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/carl_honore_praises_slowness.html>

Photo Credit

Stephen Poff

The Carnival of Space #141 has been posted at Starry Critters. Every week, the space community showcases its best articles. The Carnival of Space is ran by Fraser Cain of Universe Today. Please, if you run a space related blog, post a link to this week's Carnival of Space.

While I was reading the paper I reviewed in the last edition of Sunday Paper Club, I realized we might have to deal with another obstacle to space habitation. This obstacle is so big that I can say without any doubt that engineering development is not a substantial obstacle to space habitation when in comparison to the following two.

Thinkers like Gerard O'Neill, Ted Taylor, G. Harry Stine, Edward Gilfillan and many others have warned that a space faring society can destroy themselves. This idea is presented as a solution to the Fermi paradox. But, such a society will be presented with challenges like war, disease and pollution long before they are tested on their ability not to hit the big red button.

Before the nukes go flying, humanity will be increasing spiteful of technology and of engineering. People will become more and more ecocentric, longing to rid themselves of the technology that seems to have caused so much suffering. So, as a society becomes more and more spacefaring, becomes more and more capably of destroy its self, its people will fight against technological advance. Consequently, the closer we get to pulling off space settlement, the hard it will be to convince people to move to the next step and the more likely we are to blow ourselves up. We may just be too tired for the victory party.

 

In Case You Skimmed

-As the environment decays in the future, people will be come more opposed to technological progress, including space habitation.

Reactions

-Will ecocentric feelings disappear after a society develops green energy that can meet the demands of that civilization?

-I assumed that a spacefaring society has to pollute, is it possible to become space faring without any pollutions (If we could start over, could we inhabit Mars without the use of hydrocarbons?)

Resources

Martyn J. Fogg, The ethical dimensions of space settlement, Space Policy, Volume 16,  Issue 3, 16 July 2000, Pages 205 -211, ISSN 0265-9646, DOI: 10.1016/S0265-9646(00)00024-2. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V52-40VT2MT-7/2/3b691cbe46c19740b6b7f3501a51eb51)

Photo Credit

Joe in DC

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer an analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically, I read the paper and write down my thoughts while I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes and ideas are from the paper, unless otherwise noted.

This week we are reviewing the paper The Ethical Dimensions of Space Settlement. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.

Article Information

Title: The Ethical Dimensions of Space Settlement

Author(s): Martyn J. Fogg

Date: April 2002

Journal: Space Policy

Volume: 16

Issue: 3

Pages: 205-211

Article Overview

This paper gives an overview of 4 ethical system and how Mars settlement fits within the system. It is focused on terraforming due to its massive impact on Mars’ environment. The article concludes claiming Preservationism is the only system our of the four studied that will not allow terraforming.

Key/Interesting Quotes

“…the challenge of space settlement involves the creation of artificial and autonomous biospheres which can resist or adapt to local barren conditions. Here we have the reason why settlement lags at least four decades behind travel and still remains to happen: the science of life-support systems is much more complicated and poorly understood than rocket science.” Page 1

“While generating considerable interest at the time, the fashion for O'Neill's ideas has declined to be replaced by an enthusiasm for Mars.” Page 1-2

“Haynes was the first to turn his attention to these questions and to commend the concept of terraforming Mars as an ideal arena within which to develop future, cosmocentric, environmental ethics” Page 2

“Anthropocentric morality would therefore hold that, although our obligation toward nature is indirect, it is nonetheless real.” Page 3

“Mars must surely surrender its scientific secrets first before it is exploited and if there is life there, then it must be studied in its natural environment. If the expense of space settlement could be shown to incur a net detriment to human well-being, then this would also rule out the enterprise.” Page 3

“To the ecocentrist, terraforming Mars is only moral if it is truly a barren world.” Page 4

“The cosmos has its own values, [preservationism claims], and its mere existence gives it not only the right to exist, but the right to be preserved from any human intent.” Page 4

“Would Mars be a better place transformed into a living world? Preservationism would say no, but its movement from what is descriptively true of Mars to a prescriptive claim is arbitrary and unconvincing.” Page 6

“Yet if spacefaring is a legitimate activity for microbes, why should it not be so for humans?” Page 6

Personal Response to the Article

I think preservationism does lead to a good idea. Yes, it would be hard to function if a rock had rights, but the idea of leaving things alone could be useful. For example, it could be useful to leave geologically active areas of Mars untouched for studies (and safety). I also think we have no choice to use a ecocentrict view while settling space because that world view will force us to avoid microbes which do not have rights under anthropocentrism or zoocentrism.

Questions Raised by the Paper

How would someone with a zoocentrist view feel about terraforming Mars if it had life on it?

Photo Credit: Miss K ★

The Carnival of Space #140 has been posted at Lights in the Dark. Every week, the space community showcases it's best articles. The Carnival of Space is ran by Fraser Cain of Universe Today. Please, if you run a space related blog, post a link to this week's Carnival of Space.

Big thanks to @Astroengine for explaining this theory to me and linking to a post about it. You should follow him, he’s great.

Quantum Energy Teleportation could change the way we conduct space habitation. This game changing possibility works by copying the traits of on particle to another. Imagine two word documents, one call ParticalA.doc and another, blank one called ParticleB.doc, Quantum Energy Teleportation would be like cutting the contents of ParticleA.doc and then pasting that information into ParticleB.doc. Thus, you will move the file without moving the actual document. Only, Quantum Energy Teleportation destroys the source particle. 

First, there are a ton of really cool ideas for applications in space settlement in the first comment, written by MrT, to the Discovery News article Teleporting Energy. I think there are some really interesting ideas in that comment that should be explored. 

But I would like to explore another aspect of this technology. The search for energy is the driving force of space habitation. But, without the lost energy due to traditional means of transmissions, there would be no reason for humans to leave Earth. But, the critic may say “but there are rare resources and minerals that are abundant in space”.

I reject the criticism, with energy teleported to us directly from the sun and power planets on other planets would make artificial transmutation child’s play. The ability to transmit information faster then the speed of light would mean that telepresence can be established on any planet.

But, this might not all be bad for space habitation. This method of using space might be cheaper and safer then sending people, thus it would allow humanity to use space faster and maybe using those supplies will keep comfortable on Earth until we are ready to settle space.

In Case You Skimmed

-The ability to teleport energy reduces the market force of space settlement

Reactions

-Without energy demands driving us, what other reasons could we have for space settlement?

Resources

Photo credit: Flickr user Kliefi

arXiv:1002.0200v1 [quant-ph]

Ouellette,Jennifer , “Teleporting Energy” Weblog entry. Discovery News. February 4, 2010. February 8, 2010 <http://news.discovery.com/space/teleporting-energy.html>

From my study of space habitation, most, if not all the problems, are solved. There are detailed plans for space settlements, business arguments proving that it will be profitable and engineering analysis of obstacles surrounding space habitation.

Even so, there is no moon base or mars base and Sendhil Mullinathan’s TED talk explains why. We have done most of the work and I will claim we are traveling the last mile of the journey towards space habitation. I claim that the same reason why insulin isn’t used as much as it should by patients is why space habitation hasn’t occurred. Space habitation will need a behavioral change in humanity to gain support. I don’t know much about human behavior, but my understanding is that humans hard wired to not leave a resource until it is depleted. This was a core survival technique that is the base of our society (major cities cluster around resources needed for survival, mainly water, were as dessert settlements are rarer). Space habitation supporters are telling humanity that we need to go acquire more resources before we run out of resources on Earth.

In Case You Skimmed

-Human behavior may prevent space habitation

Reactions

-Do you think we will be able to change this behavior, even though we are already suffering because of dwindling resources.

Resources

Mullinathan, Sendhil. "Solving Social Problems with a Nudge" February 2010. Online video clip. TED. Accessed on February 6 2010. <http://www.ted.com/talks/sendhil_mullainathan.html>

Welcome to Counter Argument Thursday (CAT). This is where I write blog post the is opposite and critical of my position on space habitation and space habitation. I do not agree with the position in the blog post, but it is an argument I need to address.

Space habitation is a dream that cannot survival the vicious political cycles in modern government structures, just like every plan that takes multiple generations. space habitation will take at least two generations. Even a moon base takes 30 years to build, as claimed in the paper Lunar Industries and Their Value for the Human Environment on Earth. I can’t even claim there will be long term political stability in a totalitarian state, they too have political cycles.  In fact, unless a long term goal in woven into the social fabric of a nation, it won’t get done. Furthermore, to be blunt, space is far from being woven into the social fabric of, at least, the United States. I offer the Rasmussen Reports article 50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration as proof. If a moon landing can’t make space into a social goal, nothing can. Thus, there will be progress toward space habitation while it is politically favorable and that progress will be halted when the tides turn.

In Case You Skimmed

-Space habitation is a long term goal the requires political stability.

-Political stability simply doesn’t exist

Reactions

-Could an international organization offer the political stability needed to space habitation?

-Could space habitation research hibernate in academia during politically rough times, only to reemerge better then ever when the public is ready?

-Will there be funding for space habitation in academia during politically rough times?

-Will there be a student interest in space habitation during politically rough times?

Resources

Krafft A. Ehricke, Lunar industries and their value for the human environment on Earth, Acta Astronautica, Volume 1, Issues 5-6, May-June 1974, Pages 585-622, ISSN 0094-5765, DOI: 10.1016/0094-5765(74)90023-X. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V1N-4805SJ8-5/2/4d9bdc1efb4a1a033b97f934b0fe09e8)

Rasmussen Reports, “50% Favor Cutting Back on Space Exploration” Weblog entry. Rasmussen Reports. January 15, 2010. January 18, 2010 <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/lifestyle/general_lifestyle/

january_2010/50_favor_cutting_back_on_space_exploration>

I have always been interested in urban sociology, but recently, I noticed a connection between urban sociology and space habitation. But, there are a few things that hold me back from writing articles on this topic. So, I’m asking my readers for input on the following questions I've been struggling with.

• There is a theory that states points of increased transportation have increased land values (leading to increased population there), but, in a space economy, spaceports will need to be in low density areas. How do I deal with this paradox?
• In a massive space economy, can Earth ever be viewed as an unfavorable place to live, just like the inner city is viewed as an unfavorable place to live now? I can’t accept my own claim because Earth is the only place we know where life can survive without a couple million in machinery and technology. Can Earth be subjected to planet wide urban decay?
• Is it possible for the traffic between ground and Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to mainly consist of commuters?
• I’m not comfortable with picturing Earth as the hub of economic activity in a space faring society. Even space based manufacturing is more geared towards serving other colonies, not Earth. Am I right or am I missing something?

Thank you for helping me develop this theory.

The Carnival of Space #139 has been posted at Mama Joules. Every week, the space community showcases it's best articles. The Carnival of Space is ran by Fraser Cain of Universe Today. Please, if you run a space related blog, post a link to this week's Carnival of Space.

Welcome to the Sunday Paper Club. Every Sunday, this blog will offer an analysis of a paper on space habitation and other related topics. These are my opinions on a weekly scientific paper; basically, I read the paper and write down my thoughts while I read it. They are subject to my perspectives and believes. I am open to debate, so if any reader believes I have misinterpreted something in a paper, please point it out. I'm only a student and I'm still learning how to read these papers and interpret them. All quotes and ideas are from the paper, unless otherwise noted.

This week we are reviewing the paper Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases. I am using a new format based on the Lifehacker article Back to School: Keep an Academic Reading Journal.

Article Information

Title: Engineering, Design and Construction of Lunar Bases

Author(s): Haym Benaroya, Leonhard Bernold and Koon Meng Chua

Date: April 2002

Journal: Journal of Aerospace Engineering

Volume: 15

Issue: 2

Pages: 33-45

Article Overview

Building on the moon is harder than it looks. Traditional construction methods fail to be useful on the harsh surface. The moon’s soil clings to everything and binds moving parts (not even WD-40 can fix that). The temperature variances weaken structures. This paper is an index and summary of the top papers in lunar construction. 

Key/Interesting Quotes

“On the lunar surface, numerous constraints,different from those for terrestrial structures, must be satisfied by all designs.” Page 1

“A post-Apollo evaluation of the need for a lunar base has been made (Lowman 1985) with the following reasons given for such a base: Advancing lunar science and astronomy; Stimulus to space technology and test bed for technologies required to place humans on Mars and beyond; Utilization of lunar resources; Establishment of U.S. presence; Stimulation of interest of young Americans in science and engineering; and Beginning of long-range program to ensure survival of species.” Page 1

“Scientific advantages of a polar location for a lunar base (Burke 1985) are that half the sky is continuously visible for astronomy from each pole and that cryogenic instruments can readily be operated there due to the fact that there are shaded regions in perpetual darkness.” Page 2

“Relationships between severe lunar temperature cycles and structural and material fatigue, a problem for exposed structures [need to be studied]” Page 2

“Factors of safety, originally developed to account for uncertainties in the Earth design and construction process, undoubtedly need adjustment for the lunar environment, either up or down, depending on one’s perspective and tolerance for risk [need to be studied]” Page 2

“Buckling, stiffening, and bracing requirements for lunar structures, which will be internally pressurized [need to be studied” Page 2

“…it appears that concurrent engineering will be a byword for lunar structural analysis, design, and erection. Concurrent engineering simultaneously considers system design, manufacturing, and construction, moving major items in the cycle to as early a stage as possible in order to anticipate potential problems. Here, another dimension is added to this definition. Given the extreme nature of the environment contemplated for the structure, concurrency must imply flexibility of design and construction.” Page 2

“…mass rather than weight-based criteria should be the approach of lunar structural engineers.” Page 2

“Newer work and development of nonlinear stress-strain models to describe the mechanics of the lunar regolith can be found in Johnson et al. (1995) and Johnson and Chua (1993)” Page 3

“In the likely situation that a layer of regolith (lunar soil) is placed atop the structure for shielding, the added weight would partially (in the range of 10–20%) balance the forces on the structure caused by internal pressurization” Page 3

“…during the times of low solar activity, the annual dose-equivalent for humans on the exposed lunar surface may be about 30 rem…” Page 3

“…the dose equivalent over an 11 year solar cycle is about 1,000 rem…” Page 3

“…It appears that at least 2.5 m of regolith cover would be required to keep the annual dose of radiation at 5 rem, which is the allowable level for radiation workers…” Page 3

“Construction in a vacuum has several problems. One would be the possibility of outgassing of oil, vapors, and lubricants from pneumatic systems.” Page 3

“The lunar surface has a layer of fine particles that are easily disturbed and placed into suspension. These particles cling to all surfaces” Page 3

“a device that is simple and conventional looking and has no moving parts is preferred [to those which are complex and have many moving parts in space]” Page 4

“Inflatable structural concepts for a lunar base are proposed (Broad 1989) as a means to simplify and speed up the process while lessening the costs.” Page 4-5

“A concept proposed by King et al. (1989) would use the liquid oxygen tank portions of the Space Shuttle external tank assembly for a basic lunar habitat…this idea, if proven economically feasible, may provide the most politically palatable path to the lunar surface, with the added advantage that many of the necessary technologies already exist and only need resurrection” (Page 5)

“Horiguchi et al. (1998) study simulated lunar cement.” Page 5

“In order to avoid the difficulties of mixing concrete on the lunar surface due to lack of water, Gracia and Casanova (1998)have suggested examining use of sulfur concrete because sulfur is readily available on the Moon.” Page 5

“Construction of a lunar base will at least partially rest on the capabilities of the Army Corps of Engineers.” Page 6

“‘In all human societies, the quality of life depends first on the physical infrastructure that provides the basic necessities such as shelter, water, waste disposal, and transportation,’ wrote Grigg (1988) Today, and especially for the lunar base, we have to add communication and power as part of the physical infrastructure.” Page 7

“…the regolith reaches the relative density of 90–100% below 30 cm.” Page 7

“Although the ejection of regolith would not be acceptable on the lunar surface, since the resulting dust would travel far, research showed that explosives buried deep enough would not create craters but loosen the soil very effectively.” Page 7

“Bernold (1994) showed that the compaction of lunar soil necessary for creating a stable road base would create unique problems. Preliminary research data indicated that the normal size distribution of soil particles would make it impossible to achieve needed density and strength using common methods of static or vibratory compaction.” Page 8

‘‘Lunar tramway systems can take advantage of the reduced gravity, which permits building wider spans and/or using smaller cable diameter for lifting and transporting heavy loads.” Page 8

“One of the main problems in robotic control of equipment is the time that signals need to travel through vacuum, atmosphere, or fiber-optic or other communication lines.” Page 9

Personal Response to the Paper

The idea that regolith has a density of 90%-100% below 30cm (about 11.8 inches) stunned me. A lot of the moon base ideas assume that we can build underground, I don’t think we can get through bedrock. On Earth, we blast, but this paper proves that is impractical because the debris produced would orbit the plant, at a low altitude, making the process dangerous. The paper mentions using a wire to loosen the soil, but it is still a difficult process.

It was strange though, I felt encouraged by readying this article despite its presentation of countless problems. It seems that every problem was addressed and those which still need work are neatly listed in an appendix at the back of the paper. This paper provides humanity with a checklist of topics that need to be covered before we can begin lunar settlement. Maybe I feel good about reading this article because it seems a massive task is broken down now. 

Questions Raised by the Paper

What was the process that made the moon’s soil so dense?

The wire on a tramway placed on the moon could produce electricity because of the radiation, could this be a danger to occupants?

The article mentioned most excavation tools wouldn’t work in reduced gravity, I understand most of them, but why wouldn’t a backhoe work?

Assuming we could mix concrete on the moon, what happens to concrete that is outgassed?

What does the Army Corps of Engineers have to do with the moon base and can we use their budget in building it since the article states they will lead the effort?