Admittedly, the moon is a rock. But bear in mind that anything we do to it will last a long time. There's no erosion to speak of and no bio-degradation going on.
So what? Bear in mind that there's even less in leo and geo than there is on the moon (except that thankfully there is erosion of a sort, as in radiation, and colliding gas and junk). But still we've managed to pollute those environments, and continue to do so. When we first started throwing junk up there, we could not conceive of orbit as an environment deserving of protection. Now we know otherwise.
What's to keep a lunar colony from bulldozing radioactive waste a mile from their base and leaving it there for posterity? Why even bother to seal it? What happens when you dump barrels of human sewage on the moon or waste chemicals (if we are ever so unwise as to define anything on the moon as "waste")?
Are there sites on the moon that should be preserved for esthetic reasons? Historical, certainly: I'd be pissed if the Chinese drove a tractor over Armstrong's footprints.
Our kids could hate us for screwing up the moon if we go in with the attitude that there's nothing we can do to it that matters.
Space/Science » in reply to Re: space enviro-wackies
There may be a real issue here
The whole thread (34 posts)
- space enviro-wackies
- Re: the irony
- Re: space enviro-wackies
- They are disgusting. Completely. §§ (n/t)
- If the moon has extremely limited water ice...