How Long Would Artifacts Last Under the Moon?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How Long?
In the 1960s, unknown to most, the United States set up a secret base on the moon manned by an "extra" aboard each Apollo lander. NASA architects decided that the base must be built into the native rock, taking advantage of lava tubes to quickly conduct themselves below the surface - granting them protection from the heat, cold, and radiation behind dozens of yards of hard rock. The station was powered by a radioisotope thermo-electric generator.
Unfortunately, the base ended in tragedy. Planners had overestimated the quality of air and water scrubbers and also badly underestimated the need for spares. Changing political fortunes at home caused the base and crew to be left for dead. By accident, towards the terrible end the pressure seal on the base was ruptured exposing the crew and structure to the void.
How far forward in the future might it be possible for a future explorer, armed with a map and old government records, to find moonbase Snoopy and still be able to find any of the technology (LED lighting? Computer systems?) still operational?
Would it be possible that anything would be left after centuries? Millenia?
science-based technology archaeology
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How Long?
In the 1960s, unknown to most, the United States set up a secret base on the moon manned by an "extra" aboard each Apollo lander. NASA architects decided that the base must be built into the native rock, taking advantage of lava tubes to quickly conduct themselves below the surface - granting them protection from the heat, cold, and radiation behind dozens of yards of hard rock. The station was powered by a radioisotope thermo-electric generator.
Unfortunately, the base ended in tragedy. Planners had overestimated the quality of air and water scrubbers and also badly underestimated the need for spares. Changing political fortunes at home caused the base and crew to be left for dead. By accident, towards the terrible end the pressure seal on the base was ruptured exposing the crew and structure to the void.
How far forward in the future might it be possible for a future explorer, armed with a map and old government records, to find moonbase Snoopy and still be able to find any of the technology (LED lighting? Computer systems?) still operational?
Would it be possible that anything would be left after centuries? Millenia?
science-based technology archaeology
1
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
1
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
How Long?
In the 1960s, unknown to most, the United States set up a secret base on the moon manned by an "extra" aboard each Apollo lander. NASA architects decided that the base must be built into the native rock, taking advantage of lava tubes to quickly conduct themselves below the surface - granting them protection from the heat, cold, and radiation behind dozens of yards of hard rock. The station was powered by a radioisotope thermo-electric generator.
Unfortunately, the base ended in tragedy. Planners had overestimated the quality of air and water scrubbers and also badly underestimated the need for spares. Changing political fortunes at home caused the base and crew to be left for dead. By accident, towards the terrible end the pressure seal on the base was ruptured exposing the crew and structure to the void.
How far forward in the future might it be possible for a future explorer, armed with a map and old government records, to find moonbase Snoopy and still be able to find any of the technology (LED lighting? Computer systems?) still operational?
Would it be possible that anything would be left after centuries? Millenia?
science-based technology archaeology
How Long?
In the 1960s, unknown to most, the United States set up a secret base on the moon manned by an "extra" aboard each Apollo lander. NASA architects decided that the base must be built into the native rock, taking advantage of lava tubes to quickly conduct themselves below the surface - granting them protection from the heat, cold, and radiation behind dozens of yards of hard rock. The station was powered by a radioisotope thermo-electric generator.
Unfortunately, the base ended in tragedy. Planners had overestimated the quality of air and water scrubbers and also badly underestimated the need for spares. Changing political fortunes at home caused the base and crew to be left for dead. By accident, towards the terrible end the pressure seal on the base was ruptured exposing the crew and structure to the void.
How far forward in the future might it be possible for a future explorer, armed with a map and old government records, to find moonbase Snoopy and still be able to find any of the technology (LED lighting? Computer systems?) still operational?
Would it be possible that anything would be left after centuries? Millenia?
science-based technology archaeology
science-based technology archaeology
edited 3 hours ago
L.Dutch♦
71.4k22171343
71.4k22171343
asked 4 hours ago
James McLellan
5,6011632
5,6011632
1
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
1
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
1
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
1
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago
1
1
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
1
1
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago
|
show 1 more comment
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Space scientists strive to get samples from comets and asteroids to better understand the history of our solar system. This because anything which is kept away from the nasty solar radiation is going to take way less damage and thus bear more information.
And if this applies to some icy/rocky body formed few billions of year ago, it has to apply also to tech leftovers produced less than a century ago.
If they are buried deep enough they will get no UV or X-ray from the sun. They might get occasional high energy cosmic rays, but those events do not bring macroscopical damage. Add to this that electronic from the 60'es was much more bulky than present day, thus while a cosmic ray impact might disrupt a 7 nm track today, would just tickle a 0.05 mm track dating back to those times.
The buried artifact will just be subject to the lunar core heat flow, which is small but still sufficient to keep the temperature above the few K of deep space.
Wrapping up, I would say that:
- the exterior aspect of all the items would be preserved pretty well for geological times.
- the functionality might be affected in some cases: cold welding of dry metallic couplings, demagnetization of magnetic elements are just some of the examples that come to my mind.
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
First what does this base look like?
Taking earth as an analogue lava tubes are about 1-15 metres below the surface. Lets presume the base was the safest possible at 15 metres down.
Now Mars One are projecting a living space of a 1000 square metres for their habitat. So how about a roughly straight section of tube 10 metres wide and 100 metres long.
Danger list:
- Gamma Radiation
- Extreme Heat/Cold
- Space Vacuum
- Asteroids
- The Sun
- Humans
Gamma Radiation
Radiation is all around us, but Gamma Radiation is some of the most high energy. It has a nasty effect on electronics particularly computers. While it may not destroy the computers it will corrupt their running software, which might cause an automated self-destruct sequence to run, or the generators to run too high, etc...
Fortunately a few centimtres of lead or a metre of concrete will save the day. That 15 metres of rock should do the trick.
Also keep explosive things away from the habitat itself, and pipe/cable them.
Extreme Heat/Cold
Being 15metres below the ground this base won't be exposed to the extremes at the surface. Now 1 metre below the surface has a temperature of roughly -21.6 centigrade. At 15 metres we are talking somewhere between -20 and -40. Our equipment regularly survives these temperatures in the arctic/antarctic.
Given that there would be little fluctuation once the heating system failed, this would be unlikely to damage anything in the base. (Aside from initial cooling).
Space Vacuum
Worthy of note, but mostly harmless.
Space being a vacuum means that it has nothing to affect the moon base. The real problem in this scenario is in fact self-harm. The moon base being pressurised could explosively depressurise. Roughly 3000 cubic metres of air (3 metres high by the 1000 metre squared living space) would attempt to vent out one end. The air reserves and any liquid water might decide to do the same thing. Water can boil in space due to lack of air pressure.
As bad as this might sound, structurally speaking the base would be mostly fine. There would be a much larger hole in the habitat were it depressurised, and some amount of mess caused by the rapid air movement. Some things would likely have exploded due to air trapped inside them during manufacture, such as wires, batteries, and computer devices. Some of these may have survived if the government thought to manufacture space worthy versions, instead of using cheaper components presuming the habitat would protect them.
Over time the moon base will leak atmosphere, reducing the amount within. What will cause explosive depressurisation is if a hole forms.
This could be because of some external damage, it is after all in an underground tube, a disturbance could cause rock to hit the habitat and make the hole.
Alternately the most likely culprit is some chemical reaction happening within the habitat. This could be something like acid or a solvent eating through its container, and then affecting the habitat. The more likely is the oxygen in the atmosphere. It loves to react with just about everything. Fortunately your astronaut already dealt with this issue by breathing it in and leaving it as relatively inert carbon dioxide.
Asteriods
The moon gets hit by a lot of rocks, and it has no atmosphere to dissolve them before they hit.
There are a lot of different sized impact craters. Depending on how you try to count it we get around 20 million above the size of 1 km. This is pretty worrying for the moon base because even if the crater is only 2 or 3 metres deep the shockwave could collapse/damage the tunnel, and NASA is worried about that precedent too. Turns out the moons is being hit a lot and often.
If we do some rough calculations. A musketball impact roughly every 1380 years for an area of 752 square meters. That is a direct hit to this moon base, and quite likely catastrophic.
The Sun
... will swallow the earth, or come pretty close in about 7.6 Billion years.
So either the Earth (and its moon) are now parts of the Sun, or the sun is sitting so close that the moons surface starts to liquefy/erode.
Humans
Somewhere between now and the sun killing us all. Humans will want to move.
If we are tardy, the moon is a great mining opportunity for making our trans-solar space ship. I doubt the base would be preserved.
If we are enthusiastic, the Moon will be mined, settled, and used for space ship construction in the not so distant future. It is hard to determine how quickly we would find and/or destroy this base. Most human settlement occurs above the top 10 metres of ground, and it would take numerous generations to get a full population going, presuming that 1/6g is habitable by reproducing humans. Then again, presumably a 15 metre deep lava tube might make a very convenient location to setup, and be found if not immediately then shortly after.
Long answer Short
You have till the first human settlements on the moon, assuming they look for magma tubes too, because they are poorly funded/have to look for cost efficiencies.
Otherwise you probably have 1380 years, maybe a bit more if the site is luckier than expected, or the humans install an atmosphere/laser defense system.
Otherwise you have till the humans need to strip mine/convert the moon sometime later.
7.6 Billion years is the cap, excepting the serious good luck to be missed by those who fly the moon off into deep space.
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
4
down vote
Space scientists strive to get samples from comets and asteroids to better understand the history of our solar system. This because anything which is kept away from the nasty solar radiation is going to take way less damage and thus bear more information.
And if this applies to some icy/rocky body formed few billions of year ago, it has to apply also to tech leftovers produced less than a century ago.
If they are buried deep enough they will get no UV or X-ray from the sun. They might get occasional high energy cosmic rays, but those events do not bring macroscopical damage. Add to this that electronic from the 60'es was much more bulky than present day, thus while a cosmic ray impact might disrupt a 7 nm track today, would just tickle a 0.05 mm track dating back to those times.
The buried artifact will just be subject to the lunar core heat flow, which is small but still sufficient to keep the temperature above the few K of deep space.
Wrapping up, I would say that:
- the exterior aspect of all the items would be preserved pretty well for geological times.
- the functionality might be affected in some cases: cold welding of dry metallic couplings, demagnetization of magnetic elements are just some of the examples that come to my mind.
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
Space scientists strive to get samples from comets and asteroids to better understand the history of our solar system. This because anything which is kept away from the nasty solar radiation is going to take way less damage and thus bear more information.
And if this applies to some icy/rocky body formed few billions of year ago, it has to apply also to tech leftovers produced less than a century ago.
If they are buried deep enough they will get no UV or X-ray from the sun. They might get occasional high energy cosmic rays, but those events do not bring macroscopical damage. Add to this that electronic from the 60'es was much more bulky than present day, thus while a cosmic ray impact might disrupt a 7 nm track today, would just tickle a 0.05 mm track dating back to those times.
The buried artifact will just be subject to the lunar core heat flow, which is small but still sufficient to keep the temperature above the few K of deep space.
Wrapping up, I would say that:
- the exterior aspect of all the items would be preserved pretty well for geological times.
- the functionality might be affected in some cases: cold welding of dry metallic couplings, demagnetization of magnetic elements are just some of the examples that come to my mind.
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
up vote
4
down vote
Space scientists strive to get samples from comets and asteroids to better understand the history of our solar system. This because anything which is kept away from the nasty solar radiation is going to take way less damage and thus bear more information.
And if this applies to some icy/rocky body formed few billions of year ago, it has to apply also to tech leftovers produced less than a century ago.
If they are buried deep enough they will get no UV or X-ray from the sun. They might get occasional high energy cosmic rays, but those events do not bring macroscopical damage. Add to this that electronic from the 60'es was much more bulky than present day, thus while a cosmic ray impact might disrupt a 7 nm track today, would just tickle a 0.05 mm track dating back to those times.
The buried artifact will just be subject to the lunar core heat flow, which is small but still sufficient to keep the temperature above the few K of deep space.
Wrapping up, I would say that:
- the exterior aspect of all the items would be preserved pretty well for geological times.
- the functionality might be affected in some cases: cold welding of dry metallic couplings, demagnetization of magnetic elements are just some of the examples that come to my mind.
Space scientists strive to get samples from comets and asteroids to better understand the history of our solar system. This because anything which is kept away from the nasty solar radiation is going to take way less damage and thus bear more information.
And if this applies to some icy/rocky body formed few billions of year ago, it has to apply also to tech leftovers produced less than a century ago.
If they are buried deep enough they will get no UV or X-ray from the sun. They might get occasional high energy cosmic rays, but those events do not bring macroscopical damage. Add to this that electronic from the 60'es was much more bulky than present day, thus while a cosmic ray impact might disrupt a 7 nm track today, would just tickle a 0.05 mm track dating back to those times.
The buried artifact will just be subject to the lunar core heat flow, which is small but still sufficient to keep the temperature above the few K of deep space.
Wrapping up, I would say that:
- the exterior aspect of all the items would be preserved pretty well for geological times.
- the functionality might be affected in some cases: cold welding of dry metallic couplings, demagnetization of magnetic elements are just some of the examples that come to my mind.
answered 3 hours ago
L.Dutch♦
71.4k22171343
71.4k22171343
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
add a comment |
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
natural bodies are formed of low energy state complexes in equilibrium, synthetic compounds are not generally engineered with such considerations in mind and we can assume from engineering disaster in the question that such trends as galvanic decay were not considered, let alone what to do with the now unattended rtg's used to power the base in what they thought was perpetuity.
– Giu Piete
1 hour ago
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
First what does this base look like?
Taking earth as an analogue lava tubes are about 1-15 metres below the surface. Lets presume the base was the safest possible at 15 metres down.
Now Mars One are projecting a living space of a 1000 square metres for their habitat. So how about a roughly straight section of tube 10 metres wide and 100 metres long.
Danger list:
- Gamma Radiation
- Extreme Heat/Cold
- Space Vacuum
- Asteroids
- The Sun
- Humans
Gamma Radiation
Radiation is all around us, but Gamma Radiation is some of the most high energy. It has a nasty effect on electronics particularly computers. While it may not destroy the computers it will corrupt their running software, which might cause an automated self-destruct sequence to run, or the generators to run too high, etc...
Fortunately a few centimtres of lead or a metre of concrete will save the day. That 15 metres of rock should do the trick.
Also keep explosive things away from the habitat itself, and pipe/cable them.
Extreme Heat/Cold
Being 15metres below the ground this base won't be exposed to the extremes at the surface. Now 1 metre below the surface has a temperature of roughly -21.6 centigrade. At 15 metres we are talking somewhere between -20 and -40. Our equipment regularly survives these temperatures in the arctic/antarctic.
Given that there would be little fluctuation once the heating system failed, this would be unlikely to damage anything in the base. (Aside from initial cooling).
Space Vacuum
Worthy of note, but mostly harmless.
Space being a vacuum means that it has nothing to affect the moon base. The real problem in this scenario is in fact self-harm. The moon base being pressurised could explosively depressurise. Roughly 3000 cubic metres of air (3 metres high by the 1000 metre squared living space) would attempt to vent out one end. The air reserves and any liquid water might decide to do the same thing. Water can boil in space due to lack of air pressure.
As bad as this might sound, structurally speaking the base would be mostly fine. There would be a much larger hole in the habitat were it depressurised, and some amount of mess caused by the rapid air movement. Some things would likely have exploded due to air trapped inside them during manufacture, such as wires, batteries, and computer devices. Some of these may have survived if the government thought to manufacture space worthy versions, instead of using cheaper components presuming the habitat would protect them.
Over time the moon base will leak atmosphere, reducing the amount within. What will cause explosive depressurisation is if a hole forms.
This could be because of some external damage, it is after all in an underground tube, a disturbance could cause rock to hit the habitat and make the hole.
Alternately the most likely culprit is some chemical reaction happening within the habitat. This could be something like acid or a solvent eating through its container, and then affecting the habitat. The more likely is the oxygen in the atmosphere. It loves to react with just about everything. Fortunately your astronaut already dealt with this issue by breathing it in and leaving it as relatively inert carbon dioxide.
Asteriods
The moon gets hit by a lot of rocks, and it has no atmosphere to dissolve them before they hit.
There are a lot of different sized impact craters. Depending on how you try to count it we get around 20 million above the size of 1 km. This is pretty worrying for the moon base because even if the crater is only 2 or 3 metres deep the shockwave could collapse/damage the tunnel, and NASA is worried about that precedent too. Turns out the moons is being hit a lot and often.
If we do some rough calculations. A musketball impact roughly every 1380 years for an area of 752 square meters. That is a direct hit to this moon base, and quite likely catastrophic.
The Sun
... will swallow the earth, or come pretty close in about 7.6 Billion years.
So either the Earth (and its moon) are now parts of the Sun, or the sun is sitting so close that the moons surface starts to liquefy/erode.
Humans
Somewhere between now and the sun killing us all. Humans will want to move.
If we are tardy, the moon is a great mining opportunity for making our trans-solar space ship. I doubt the base would be preserved.
If we are enthusiastic, the Moon will be mined, settled, and used for space ship construction in the not so distant future. It is hard to determine how quickly we would find and/or destroy this base. Most human settlement occurs above the top 10 metres of ground, and it would take numerous generations to get a full population going, presuming that 1/6g is habitable by reproducing humans. Then again, presumably a 15 metre deep lava tube might make a very convenient location to setup, and be found if not immediately then shortly after.
Long answer Short
You have till the first human settlements on the moon, assuming they look for magma tubes too, because they are poorly funded/have to look for cost efficiencies.
Otherwise you probably have 1380 years, maybe a bit more if the site is luckier than expected, or the humans install an atmosphere/laser defense system.
Otherwise you have till the humans need to strip mine/convert the moon sometime later.
7.6 Billion years is the cap, excepting the serious good luck to be missed by those who fly the moon off into deep space.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
First what does this base look like?
Taking earth as an analogue lava tubes are about 1-15 metres below the surface. Lets presume the base was the safest possible at 15 metres down.
Now Mars One are projecting a living space of a 1000 square metres for their habitat. So how about a roughly straight section of tube 10 metres wide and 100 metres long.
Danger list:
- Gamma Radiation
- Extreme Heat/Cold
- Space Vacuum
- Asteroids
- The Sun
- Humans
Gamma Radiation
Radiation is all around us, but Gamma Radiation is some of the most high energy. It has a nasty effect on electronics particularly computers. While it may not destroy the computers it will corrupt their running software, which might cause an automated self-destruct sequence to run, or the generators to run too high, etc...
Fortunately a few centimtres of lead or a metre of concrete will save the day. That 15 metres of rock should do the trick.
Also keep explosive things away from the habitat itself, and pipe/cable them.
Extreme Heat/Cold
Being 15metres below the ground this base won't be exposed to the extremes at the surface. Now 1 metre below the surface has a temperature of roughly -21.6 centigrade. At 15 metres we are talking somewhere between -20 and -40. Our equipment regularly survives these temperatures in the arctic/antarctic.
Given that there would be little fluctuation once the heating system failed, this would be unlikely to damage anything in the base. (Aside from initial cooling).
Space Vacuum
Worthy of note, but mostly harmless.
Space being a vacuum means that it has nothing to affect the moon base. The real problem in this scenario is in fact self-harm. The moon base being pressurised could explosively depressurise. Roughly 3000 cubic metres of air (3 metres high by the 1000 metre squared living space) would attempt to vent out one end. The air reserves and any liquid water might decide to do the same thing. Water can boil in space due to lack of air pressure.
As bad as this might sound, structurally speaking the base would be mostly fine. There would be a much larger hole in the habitat were it depressurised, and some amount of mess caused by the rapid air movement. Some things would likely have exploded due to air trapped inside them during manufacture, such as wires, batteries, and computer devices. Some of these may have survived if the government thought to manufacture space worthy versions, instead of using cheaper components presuming the habitat would protect them.
Over time the moon base will leak atmosphere, reducing the amount within. What will cause explosive depressurisation is if a hole forms.
This could be because of some external damage, it is after all in an underground tube, a disturbance could cause rock to hit the habitat and make the hole.
Alternately the most likely culprit is some chemical reaction happening within the habitat. This could be something like acid or a solvent eating through its container, and then affecting the habitat. The more likely is the oxygen in the atmosphere. It loves to react with just about everything. Fortunately your astronaut already dealt with this issue by breathing it in and leaving it as relatively inert carbon dioxide.
Asteriods
The moon gets hit by a lot of rocks, and it has no atmosphere to dissolve them before they hit.
There are a lot of different sized impact craters. Depending on how you try to count it we get around 20 million above the size of 1 km. This is pretty worrying for the moon base because even if the crater is only 2 or 3 metres deep the shockwave could collapse/damage the tunnel, and NASA is worried about that precedent too. Turns out the moons is being hit a lot and often.
If we do some rough calculations. A musketball impact roughly every 1380 years for an area of 752 square meters. That is a direct hit to this moon base, and quite likely catastrophic.
The Sun
... will swallow the earth, or come pretty close in about 7.6 Billion years.
So either the Earth (and its moon) are now parts of the Sun, or the sun is sitting so close that the moons surface starts to liquefy/erode.
Humans
Somewhere between now and the sun killing us all. Humans will want to move.
If we are tardy, the moon is a great mining opportunity for making our trans-solar space ship. I doubt the base would be preserved.
If we are enthusiastic, the Moon will be mined, settled, and used for space ship construction in the not so distant future. It is hard to determine how quickly we would find and/or destroy this base. Most human settlement occurs above the top 10 metres of ground, and it would take numerous generations to get a full population going, presuming that 1/6g is habitable by reproducing humans. Then again, presumably a 15 metre deep lava tube might make a very convenient location to setup, and be found if not immediately then shortly after.
Long answer Short
You have till the first human settlements on the moon, assuming they look for magma tubes too, because they are poorly funded/have to look for cost efficiencies.
Otherwise you probably have 1380 years, maybe a bit more if the site is luckier than expected, or the humans install an atmosphere/laser defense system.
Otherwise you have till the humans need to strip mine/convert the moon sometime later.
7.6 Billion years is the cap, excepting the serious good luck to be missed by those who fly the moon off into deep space.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
First what does this base look like?
Taking earth as an analogue lava tubes are about 1-15 metres below the surface. Lets presume the base was the safest possible at 15 metres down.
Now Mars One are projecting a living space of a 1000 square metres for their habitat. So how about a roughly straight section of tube 10 metres wide and 100 metres long.
Danger list:
- Gamma Radiation
- Extreme Heat/Cold
- Space Vacuum
- Asteroids
- The Sun
- Humans
Gamma Radiation
Radiation is all around us, but Gamma Radiation is some of the most high energy. It has a nasty effect on electronics particularly computers. While it may not destroy the computers it will corrupt their running software, which might cause an automated self-destruct sequence to run, or the generators to run too high, etc...
Fortunately a few centimtres of lead or a metre of concrete will save the day. That 15 metres of rock should do the trick.
Also keep explosive things away from the habitat itself, and pipe/cable them.
Extreme Heat/Cold
Being 15metres below the ground this base won't be exposed to the extremes at the surface. Now 1 metre below the surface has a temperature of roughly -21.6 centigrade. At 15 metres we are talking somewhere between -20 and -40. Our equipment regularly survives these temperatures in the arctic/antarctic.
Given that there would be little fluctuation once the heating system failed, this would be unlikely to damage anything in the base. (Aside from initial cooling).
Space Vacuum
Worthy of note, but mostly harmless.
Space being a vacuum means that it has nothing to affect the moon base. The real problem in this scenario is in fact self-harm. The moon base being pressurised could explosively depressurise. Roughly 3000 cubic metres of air (3 metres high by the 1000 metre squared living space) would attempt to vent out one end. The air reserves and any liquid water might decide to do the same thing. Water can boil in space due to lack of air pressure.
As bad as this might sound, structurally speaking the base would be mostly fine. There would be a much larger hole in the habitat were it depressurised, and some amount of mess caused by the rapid air movement. Some things would likely have exploded due to air trapped inside them during manufacture, such as wires, batteries, and computer devices. Some of these may have survived if the government thought to manufacture space worthy versions, instead of using cheaper components presuming the habitat would protect them.
Over time the moon base will leak atmosphere, reducing the amount within. What will cause explosive depressurisation is if a hole forms.
This could be because of some external damage, it is after all in an underground tube, a disturbance could cause rock to hit the habitat and make the hole.
Alternately the most likely culprit is some chemical reaction happening within the habitat. This could be something like acid or a solvent eating through its container, and then affecting the habitat. The more likely is the oxygen in the atmosphere. It loves to react with just about everything. Fortunately your astronaut already dealt with this issue by breathing it in and leaving it as relatively inert carbon dioxide.
Asteriods
The moon gets hit by a lot of rocks, and it has no atmosphere to dissolve them before they hit.
There are a lot of different sized impact craters. Depending on how you try to count it we get around 20 million above the size of 1 km. This is pretty worrying for the moon base because even if the crater is only 2 or 3 metres deep the shockwave could collapse/damage the tunnel, and NASA is worried about that precedent too. Turns out the moons is being hit a lot and often.
If we do some rough calculations. A musketball impact roughly every 1380 years for an area of 752 square meters. That is a direct hit to this moon base, and quite likely catastrophic.
The Sun
... will swallow the earth, or come pretty close in about 7.6 Billion years.
So either the Earth (and its moon) are now parts of the Sun, or the sun is sitting so close that the moons surface starts to liquefy/erode.
Humans
Somewhere between now and the sun killing us all. Humans will want to move.
If we are tardy, the moon is a great mining opportunity for making our trans-solar space ship. I doubt the base would be preserved.
If we are enthusiastic, the Moon will be mined, settled, and used for space ship construction in the not so distant future. It is hard to determine how quickly we would find and/or destroy this base. Most human settlement occurs above the top 10 metres of ground, and it would take numerous generations to get a full population going, presuming that 1/6g is habitable by reproducing humans. Then again, presumably a 15 metre deep lava tube might make a very convenient location to setup, and be found if not immediately then shortly after.
Long answer Short
You have till the first human settlements on the moon, assuming they look for magma tubes too, because they are poorly funded/have to look for cost efficiencies.
Otherwise you probably have 1380 years, maybe a bit more if the site is luckier than expected, or the humans install an atmosphere/laser defense system.
Otherwise you have till the humans need to strip mine/convert the moon sometime later.
7.6 Billion years is the cap, excepting the serious good luck to be missed by those who fly the moon off into deep space.
First what does this base look like?
Taking earth as an analogue lava tubes are about 1-15 metres below the surface. Lets presume the base was the safest possible at 15 metres down.
Now Mars One are projecting a living space of a 1000 square metres for their habitat. So how about a roughly straight section of tube 10 metres wide and 100 metres long.
Danger list:
- Gamma Radiation
- Extreme Heat/Cold
- Space Vacuum
- Asteroids
- The Sun
- Humans
Gamma Radiation
Radiation is all around us, but Gamma Radiation is some of the most high energy. It has a nasty effect on electronics particularly computers. While it may not destroy the computers it will corrupt their running software, which might cause an automated self-destruct sequence to run, or the generators to run too high, etc...
Fortunately a few centimtres of lead or a metre of concrete will save the day. That 15 metres of rock should do the trick.
Also keep explosive things away from the habitat itself, and pipe/cable them.
Extreme Heat/Cold
Being 15metres below the ground this base won't be exposed to the extremes at the surface. Now 1 metre below the surface has a temperature of roughly -21.6 centigrade. At 15 metres we are talking somewhere between -20 and -40. Our equipment regularly survives these temperatures in the arctic/antarctic.
Given that there would be little fluctuation once the heating system failed, this would be unlikely to damage anything in the base. (Aside from initial cooling).
Space Vacuum
Worthy of note, but mostly harmless.
Space being a vacuum means that it has nothing to affect the moon base. The real problem in this scenario is in fact self-harm. The moon base being pressurised could explosively depressurise. Roughly 3000 cubic metres of air (3 metres high by the 1000 metre squared living space) would attempt to vent out one end. The air reserves and any liquid water might decide to do the same thing. Water can boil in space due to lack of air pressure.
As bad as this might sound, structurally speaking the base would be mostly fine. There would be a much larger hole in the habitat were it depressurised, and some amount of mess caused by the rapid air movement. Some things would likely have exploded due to air trapped inside them during manufacture, such as wires, batteries, and computer devices. Some of these may have survived if the government thought to manufacture space worthy versions, instead of using cheaper components presuming the habitat would protect them.
Over time the moon base will leak atmosphere, reducing the amount within. What will cause explosive depressurisation is if a hole forms.
This could be because of some external damage, it is after all in an underground tube, a disturbance could cause rock to hit the habitat and make the hole.
Alternately the most likely culprit is some chemical reaction happening within the habitat. This could be something like acid or a solvent eating through its container, and then affecting the habitat. The more likely is the oxygen in the atmosphere. It loves to react with just about everything. Fortunately your astronaut already dealt with this issue by breathing it in and leaving it as relatively inert carbon dioxide.
Asteriods
The moon gets hit by a lot of rocks, and it has no atmosphere to dissolve them before they hit.
There are a lot of different sized impact craters. Depending on how you try to count it we get around 20 million above the size of 1 km. This is pretty worrying for the moon base because even if the crater is only 2 or 3 metres deep the shockwave could collapse/damage the tunnel, and NASA is worried about that precedent too. Turns out the moons is being hit a lot and often.
If we do some rough calculations. A musketball impact roughly every 1380 years for an area of 752 square meters. That is a direct hit to this moon base, and quite likely catastrophic.
The Sun
... will swallow the earth, or come pretty close in about 7.6 Billion years.
So either the Earth (and its moon) are now parts of the Sun, or the sun is sitting so close that the moons surface starts to liquefy/erode.
Humans
Somewhere between now and the sun killing us all. Humans will want to move.
If we are tardy, the moon is a great mining opportunity for making our trans-solar space ship. I doubt the base would be preserved.
If we are enthusiastic, the Moon will be mined, settled, and used for space ship construction in the not so distant future. It is hard to determine how quickly we would find and/or destroy this base. Most human settlement occurs above the top 10 metres of ground, and it would take numerous generations to get a full population going, presuming that 1/6g is habitable by reproducing humans. Then again, presumably a 15 metre deep lava tube might make a very convenient location to setup, and be found if not immediately then shortly after.
Long answer Short
You have till the first human settlements on the moon, assuming they look for magma tubes too, because they are poorly funded/have to look for cost efficiencies.
Otherwise you probably have 1380 years, maybe a bit more if the site is luckier than expected, or the humans install an atmosphere/laser defense system.
Otherwise you have till the humans need to strip mine/convert the moon sometime later.
7.6 Billion years is the cap, excepting the serious good luck to be missed by those who fly the moon off into deep space.
answered 33 mins ago
Kain0_0
5024
5024
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Worldbuilding Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f131626%2fhow-long-would-artifacts-last-under-the-moon%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
LED lightning in something built in the 60's?
– L.Dutch♦
3 hours ago
1
millenia. what's to happen? no opportunity for decay. no weather. just a deep freeze. probably good for a million or so years, i suppose..
– theRiley
3 hours ago
Shhhh. Super secret technology. (LEDs were invented in the early 1960s, if I got it right)
– James McLellan
3 hours ago
LED's did exist, they were just prohibitively expensive in anything more than weak red.
– Kain0_0
3 hours ago
Yes in 60's for first practical ones, but they were very costly and not any good, only weak red from visible ones. In 70's that changed. Old LEDs did not live long. If they are deep under surface they should be good for millennia.
– Artemijs Danilovs
3 hours ago