Hacker News Reader

Full thread

dbcooper

There's no carbon on the moon.

View on HN

Apparently there probably is:

'Carbon content and degassing history of the lunar volcanic glasses' - https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2511

Those ppm values are approx. 1000x lower than earth's crust.

Define 'those'.

Then we put some carbon on the moon.

EDIT: This is a perfectly valid reply to the lack of carbon asserted by the parent comment. If it's not there, we put it there. How hard is that to comprehend? Space stations and various materials requisite to the operation of space stations didn't exist in orbit prior to us putting them there.

I'm guessing you only got one or two downvotes. That's enough to gray out a comment on HN. The threshold should be higher imo.

We can just skip the moon and go directly to mars then if we have to bring everything from earth.

The moon offers the advantage of very little gravity. We also know that the moon contains a wealth of valuable raw materials. Add in some earth based soil, water and plant life, and we have a valuable self-sustaining space outpost for cheaper missions elsewhere in the solar system. Furthermore, most of the moon operations would be automated to reduce the resources necessary to sustain human life till an abundant supply is established through some form of MRE factory.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com