What if China militarized the moon?

[Winter Man]

Blimey, how far into the future are we staring in this crystal ball? Self-sustaining off world colonies are waaaaaaaaay into the future.

So's the ability to build a bloody missile silo on the moon. If you can build a nuclear moonbase, you can build a greenhouse and a few solar panels.

[Kryten]

Exactly like that, yes, but with more survivability since by that point you likely have yourself a little self-sustaining moon colony.

How exactly would a lunar colony be more survivable than a nuclear submarine? You're talking about an environment where stealth is easy versus one where it's practically impossible.

[Winter Man]

Because a nuclear submarine will run out of food and air. A moonbase that is, as I've already pointed out, advanced enough to launch interplanetary missiles won't.

[Seret]

So's the ability to build a bloody missile silo on the moon. If you can build a nuclear moonbase, you can build a greenhouse and a few solar panels.

Missile silo on the moon is doable with current technology. We have after all launched rockets from the moon already. Closed loop life support is beyond current tech, and hefting all the infrastructure for full self-sufficiency (ie: the ability to locate and process the raw materials from everything from textiles to semiconductors) is a huge, huge, undertaking.

So no, it's not just a case of a greenhouse and some solar panels. You're talking serious future-tech.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Seret

[Seret]

Because a nuclear submarine will run out of food and air. A moonbase that is, as I've already pointed out, advanced enough to launch interplanetary missiles won't.

Actually it's just food that's the main limiting factor for a nuclear submarine, they can make oxygen by electrolysing seawater. Eventually they'd need to refuel too, but you're talking decades between each refuel. SSBNs can literally stay underwater as long as their food lasts.

[Kryten]

Because a nuclear submarine will run out of food and air. A moonbase that is, as I've already pointed out, advanced enough to launch interplanetary missiles won't.

But both would run out of missiles rather quickly; any endurance past that point would be completely pointless.

[Winter Man]

If you can send the equipment to the moon to dig a hole big enough for a missile silo, you can certainly do closed loop life support. It's not that the techniques are beyond us, just that they use a prohibitive amount of power in their current states. So yeah, a few solar panels and a greenhouse would do it, they'd just have to be a really big few.

[Winter Man]

But both would run out of missiles rather quickly; any endurance past that point would be completely pointless.

Other than, y'know, continuing to live.

[Kryten]

Other than, y'know, continuing to live.

Which is completely irrelevant to deterrence, which was justification in the first place. Nobody is going to be deterred from anything by the prospect of a few dozen people living on the Moon.

[Seret]

If you can send the equipment to the moon to dig a hole big enough for a missile silo, you can certainly do closed loop life support. It's not that the techniques are beyond us, just that they use a prohibitive amount of power in their current states. So yeah, a few solar panels and a greenhouse would do it, they'd just have to be a really big few.

Well, I disagree. As far as I'm aware closed loop life support has never been made to work anywhere by anyone. It's not really my field but as I understand it there's a lot of ongoing research at ESA, but nothing that's anywhere near flight-ready.

Looking at NASA they rate some of the closed-loop systems they're working on between TRL 4 and 6. These are just components of a much larger system, and the whole thing would have to be at about TRL 8 or 9 to be considered mature and reliable for life support.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Seret

[Winter Man]

Well, I disagree. As far as I'm aware closed loop life support has never been made to work anywhere by anyone. There's a lot of ongoing research at ESA, but nothing that's anywhere near flight-ready. I'm quite happy to be proved wrong on that though if you can back your claim up?

Of course it's not flight ready, it's all too heavy and requires too much power. My point is if you don't care about weight and power requirements (not a very common trait in the spaceflight business) you can do it now. If you have the ability to get an enormous mining rig to the moon you've already got ample capability.

Which is completely irrelevant to deterrence, which was justification in the first place. Nobody is going to be deterred from anything by the prospect of a few dozen people living on the Moon.

It is indeed, but while both methods allow deterrence this allows permanence.

[Kryten]

It is indeed, but while both methods allow deterrence this allows permanence.

You've already invoked an enemy capable of and willing to destroy the entire chinese nation. Are we supposed to believe such an enemy would have any qualms about, or difficulty with, destroying such a base?

[Seret]

My point is if you don't care about weight and power requirements (not a very common trait in the spaceflight business) you can do it now.

We aren't able to do it on Earth where weight and power aren't an issue. We just can't do it at all yet. If you've got a source for somebody demonstrating a working closed-loop life support system here on Earth, then I'd love to see it. It would be a huge breakthrough.

[magnemoe]

Because a nuclear submarine will run out of food and air. A moonbase that is, as I've already pointed out, advanced enough to launch interplanetary missiles won't.

Air is not an issue, you split water to get oxygen. You can easy store food for months and resupply from any boat.

Now resupplying an moon base will be far harder, more so as the space center is likely to be hit early, if nothing else to stop the enemy to launching satellites.

If I wanted to put some military assets in space I would put them in an high orbit, faster and lover dV than moon and you can easy move it.

[rkman]

Of course (closed loop life support) is not flight ready... if (xyz) you can do it now

It is not ready at all. There is not even a working prototype in spite of decades of trying.

There is a big difference between "we can (in theory but it has never been done)" and "we can (because we have done it before)".

[TheGatesofLogic]

never mind that a Minuteman only carries 3 warheads maximum.

Oops, meant the MX/Peacekeeper-class missiles not the Minuteman. They were typically loaded with up to 10 of the W-87 SoB's but the original design kept enough room to hold 12 IIRC. Also, my whole statement was, just like the name of the missiles, intended to portray a sense of irony not many people seem to have caught on to. Of course I'm aware the moon isn't made of cheese and of course I'm aware we don't have the firepower to do any such thing, even if the moon WERE just a giant ball of provolone. the idea is the ridiculousness of the goal. If any of the world superpowers nowadays (America prides itself being the only one when it knows it has issues that strip them of only the sole rank in that regard, particularly psychologically if you understand me) had the clarity of purpose to attempt defensive (another ironic term) supremacy they would certainly not attempt a moon weaponization or any such type of foolish endeavor, and with that I have a wonderful idea for a new topic

[AlexisBV]

It is not ready at all. There is not even a working prototype in spite of decades of trying.

+1. Not ground ready, much less flight ready.

See Biosphere 2.

[MrZayas1]

The treaty against space weapons doesn't stand for crap. If any country really wanted to send weapons up into space, then they would. Granted, they would tick off a lot of nations in the process, they could definitely do it. Sending weapons to the moon is extremely inefficient. The most efficient thing for extra-planetary weapons would probably be in the range of Low Earth Orbit, because it can visually see a lot of different target sites, and the missile could travel at extremely high speeds due to the lack of air resistance. The main problem associated with this is that the reentry of the projectile would be extremely hot and they would have to place huge countermeasures because missiles are extremely fragile. Other than that it would be extremely difficult to launch a space station with the tools necessary to conduct un-manned missile launches, unless you wanted to go manned which is extremely hard to keep a secret.

But other than that to Militarize the moon would undoubtedly be extremely difficult due to the face that the target windows, and the moons rotation would have to be aligned in order to launch a missile to the target. And the 3-4 day travel time would off-set that chance even more. The cost of getting a missile launching station to the moon would be extremely expensive and people would definitely notice with all the scientists that study the lunar surface with telescopes and equipment. But a good idea never the less!

[Red Iron Crown]

I don't know why anyone would bother with nukes for attacking Earth from the Moon. The moon is near the top of Earth's gravity well, kinetic energy weapons would do just fine without all the political and radioactive fallout.