Meteor impacts and supervolcanoes seem to be the near-term worst case scenarios, neither which change the state of living on the moon. I don't know that the metaphor of them being under the same roof works.
I know the risks are astronomical (literally), but anything significant enough to alter Earth's mass would also alter the moons orbit.
I just think if we are talking about an extraterrestrial base for the sake of "backing up" the human race then it is prudent to pick a location that isn't in any way dependant on the master copy.
However I appreciate other concerns also take priority as well (cost, practicality, etc) but if the topic were strictly just about backing up humanity then my ideal candidates would be Mars plus some location outside of our solar system. But I'm venturing well into the realm of sci-fi now.
I agree and I think it usually simplifies industries in negative light. But the dairy lobby ain't something to shrug at. I think i remember reading a while back on legislation deciding if products like almond milk can call themselves milk.
The most logical plan I heard was the following: Solar power works way better, and potentially nonstop at the poles of the moon. Use that energy to cook moonrock into building materials and lauch it all into orbit on an electromagnetic mass driver. Then design and build Oniell cylinders, once we have rigorous tests of artificial gravity on humans. If you want a Mars base after the fact, go for it. Put a station in orbit around Mars that recieves deliveries from the moon.
> The most logical plan I heard was the following: Solar power works way better, and potentially nonstop at the poles of the moon.
the problem is, unless you're at the pole, you have 2 weeks of power followed by 2 weeks of pitch black darkness, so you have to have a lot of batteries or the station isn't livable 50% of the time.
Run a power cable from the pole. Put a mirror in orbit. Put a nuclear reactor on the moon (don't have to worry about safety issues, which should lighten it considerably).
