I am all for having a backup. I do wonder if, in a catastrophe, we would still have the resources to spare to retrieve the seeds from the moon, though.
I am all for having a backup. I do wonder if, in a catastrophe, we would still have the resources to spare to retrieve the seeds from the moon, though.
I’d like to think that there’s a group within the governments out there that have contingencies planned for such things but we’re not aware of them. Like a silo somewhere hidden where they could...
I’d like to think that there’s a group within the governments out there that have contingencies planned for such things but we’re not aware of them.
Like a silo somewhere hidden where they could launch a rocket to the moon if need be.
I'm pretty sure that any cataclysm thorough enough to wipe out every mine shaft seed bank would also be thorough enough to ensure said rockets (and its many necessary pilots, mechanics, engineers,...
I'm pretty sure that any cataclysm thorough enough to wipe out every mine shaft seed bank would also be thorough enough to ensure said rockets (and its many necessary pilots, mechanics, engineers, and the infrastructure to feed them and keep them alive) would also be wiped out or damaged badly enough to prevent getting to the moon and back.
If you can find and secure such a mineshaft well enough to house the aforementioned infrastructure, sticking a seed bank in there too seems roughly as cheap as free in comparison.
Just imagine it. Somewhere, underground, a perfectly functional heavy lift rocket sits ready - meretriciously mothballed, but ready to go now or in 100 years. On top of it sits a lunar lander,...
Just imagine it. Somewhere, underground, a perfectly functional heavy lift rocket sits ready - meretriciously mothballed, but ready to go now or in 100 years. On top of it sits a lunar lander, capable of reaching the moon, landing precisely on top of an underground base, accessing the deep vaults, loading up with a few hundred lbs of seed material, and returning to earth.
At the same time, on the surface, NASA burns through literally 100 billion dollars to build a rocket that physically cannot reach the moon, with a lander that doesn't have a working heat shield and that's so tall it needs a lift for people to exit on the moon - that is, if thoughts and prayers are enough to hold it upright after touchdown.
I always wondered if they had those, but figured if they did, they would languish over time because convincing the next generations to keep it fully operational would be a tough sell unless you...
I always wondered if they had those, but figured if they did, they would languish over time because convincing the next generations to keep it fully operational would be a tough sell unless you get them to buy in early.
I imagine it's less for a case of societal collapse but more for some catastrophe that somehow compromises the seed vaults on Earth. Some species of plants could end up extinct in that case, but...
I imagine it's less for a case of societal collapse but more for some catastrophe that somehow compromises the seed vaults on Earth. Some species of plants could end up extinct in that case, but regular Lunar missions would then still be a thing. I guess this would mostly involve rare plant species.
It seems to me that the article tries to convince us that even the Svalbard vault is not as safe as we'd think and we are relying more and more on the seed vaults.
I like the idea, but it'll depend on how permanent the proposed moon base will actually be and how expensive such a Lunar seed vault would end up being.
That was exactly my thought. Doing that NOW would be extremely difficult and absurdly expensive let alone post event that requires such stuff. The bottom of the ocean would be more practical and...
That was exactly my thought. Doing that NOW would be extremely difficult and absurdly expensive let alone post event that requires such stuff.
The bottom of the ocean would be more practical and feasible and that’s saying something.
The ocean isn't cold enough plus heating, is FULL of "nasty" viruses and bacteria, and we don't have the tech to make things waterproof nearly forever. They'd also be under insane pressures up to...
The ocean isn't cold enough plus heating, is FULL of "nasty" viruses and bacteria, and we don't have the tech to make things waterproof nearly forever. They'd also be under insane pressures up to 600 atmospheres vs, as Professor Farnsworth observe, "anywhere between 0 and 1" for space. I can't think of a worse place than the ocean
And it's still going to be cheaper to solve all of that and retrieve it than it is to solve getting the material to the moon, let alone getting it back.
And it's still going to be cheaper to solve all of that and retrieve it than it is to solve getting the material to the moon, let alone getting it back.
As much as I am in favor of space exploration and the "not all the eggs in one basket" approach, getting things to and from the Moon has a long, fragile technological dependency path. I can see...
As much as I am in favor of space exploration and the "not all the eggs in one basket" approach, getting things to and from the Moon has a long, fragile technological dependency path.
I can see too many roads to ecological collapse that don't leave the infrastructure needed for retrieving that precious archive. The Moon is also a relatively high radiation environment near the surface - not every convenient lava tube will be safe.
Can we keep the archive out of conflicts from whatever geopolitical fracas is building on Earth? If you've got the technology to get to the Moon easily, then those conflicts could easily send a nuke (or a big rock) in some final spasm of wanton destruction.
We really, truly need to start working on our shit as well as building insurance policies against the shit we've lost.
The moon might be our only shot in a nuclear apocalypse. We might not get it back, but we could leave it for others, whether alien or remnant. It being a moonshot is true, but there are no corners...
These extreme conditions could naturally support cryogenic storage of seeds, spores and even animal gametes for thousands of years. Additionally, the moon’s lava tubes — vast underground chambers — provide natural radiation shielding and stable environments, almost perfectly suited for long-term preservation.
The moon might be our only shot in a nuclear apocalypse. We might not get it back, but we could leave it for others, whether alien or remnant. It being a moonshot is true, but there are no corners on earth that's safe from geopolitics: targeting the moon will be too pointlessly expensive for war time wanton destruction when people are always much closer targets for hate.
I guess my question is "our only shot at at what?" If the Earth is destroyed to the point that current life needs a kickstart, likely due to nuclear armaments, then it's likely inhospitable to any...
I guess my question is "our only shot at at what?" If the Earth is destroyed to the point that current life needs a kickstart, likely due to nuclear armaments, then it's likely inhospitable to any new life that would spring from those seeds. In the time that it takes for the world to recover enough, I think it's likely that an entirely new set of ecosystems and species will fill the space. It's entirely possible that the old native life will now be invasive or just not suited to their old locations anymore.
That's on top of the language problem. It's similar to the issue we have with nuclear waste disposal sites: how can we convey to an unknown future civilization that may or may not share our language what they should do? How would an alien species understand information about what is in the vault and use it to restore the old natural life? Would they do such a thing or simply study the existing state of Earth and view the vault as a historical artifact, not to be used if it's even understood? What about a future human civilization - would they know the vault is even there and know to look for it, or would they stumble upon it and have to decipher its intent?
I like the concept of a seed vault on the moon, but just like computers a backup is only good if you can restore from it. Otherwise, you just have 0 backups.
I see what you're trying to say, but space travel is getting cheaper all the time, esp with moon base coming up as @Aerrol observed. Chernobyl was a big deal, but at the end of the. century it's...
I see what you're trying to say, but space travel is getting cheaper all the time, esp with moon base coming up as @Aerrol observed.
Chernobyl was a big deal, but at the end of the. century it's actually a small area affected; even Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Fukuoka are mostly perfectly fine. I don't see a scenario where all of human is wiped out in war, that we'd still need seed vault for, agreed. But we could see one region wiped out immediately:
In 2015, the civil war in Syria destroyed the ICARDA seed bank near Aleppo — one of the world’s last repositories of drought-resistant wheat and barley for the Middle East. For the first time in history, a withdrawal was made from the Svalbard Vault so that scientists could re-establish these crops elsewhere.
Troubling scenes from an Arctic in full-tilt crisis: The heat that hit Svalbard in February was so intense that scientists could dig into the ground with spoons, "like it was soft ice cream."
Again, most humans will still be around after a disastrous area-wide wipe out, and we're already going to the moon, and maybe soon, remotely piloted semi autonomous drone tech gets good enough to deposit /retrieve at a fraction of the price.
As for long shot alien tombstone, we can encase some seeds in a bakelite/crystal/something and put it on the door. They'll recognize life.
Wow, great answers - basically what I would say. Only thing I'd add is I don't see this as a either-or scenario. I want another Earth backup to Svalbard ASAP + having this as a third backup that...
Wow, great answers - basically what I would say. Only thing I'd add is I don't see this as a either-or scenario. I want another Earth backup to Svalbard ASAP + having this as a third backup that is hopefully better proofed against climate and more directly human induced catastrophe (nuclear reactor explosions, military conflict). Yes, someone might still attack the Moon but it's not really that likely in the coming decades.
And yes, as @patience_limited says - we have to sort our damn shit socially and get back onto a track of peaceful negotiation instead of posturing and god forbid even more open conflict.
Archive Link: https://archive.is/gfFkE Really intriguing idea that would honestly be a lot less costly than you might think given the current plans for building a permanent base(s) on the Moon....
Really intriguing idea that would honestly be a lot less costly than you might think given the current plans for building a permanent base(s) on the Moon. I'm all for it, assuming it's done securely and with independent oversight.
I am all for having a backup. I do wonder if, in a catastrophe, we would still have the resources to spare to retrieve the seeds from the moon, though.
I’d like to think that there’s a group within the governments out there that have contingencies planned for such things but we’re not aware of them.
Like a silo somewhere hidden where they could launch a rocket to the moon if need be.
Wishful thinking I know.
Sounds like a sweet location. Maybe they could vault some seeds there.
But wouldn’t that defeat the purpose of having something off-world for even more security and whatever [insert cataclysmic scenario on earth]?
I'm pretty sure that any cataclysm thorough enough to wipe out every mine shaft seed bank would also be thorough enough to ensure said rockets (and its many necessary pilots, mechanics, engineers, and the infrastructure to feed them and keep them alive) would also be wiped out or damaged badly enough to prevent getting to the moon and back.
If you can find and secure such a mineshaft well enough to house the aforementioned infrastructure, sticking a seed bank in there too seems roughly as cheap as free in comparison.
Just imagine it. Somewhere, underground, a perfectly functional heavy lift rocket sits ready - meretriciously mothballed, but ready to go now or in 100 years. On top of it sits a lunar lander, capable of reaching the moon, landing precisely on top of an underground base, accessing the deep vaults, loading up with a few hundred lbs of seed material, and returning to earth.
At the same time, on the surface, NASA burns through literally 100 billion dollars to build a rocket that physically cannot reach the moon, with a lander that doesn't have a working heat shield and that's so tall it needs a lift for people to exit on the moon - that is, if thoughts and prayers are enough to hold it upright after touchdown.
I always wondered if they had those, but figured if they did, they would languish over time because convincing the next generations to keep it fully operational would be a tough sell unless you get them to buy in early.
I imagine it's less for a case of societal collapse but more for some catastrophe that somehow compromises the seed vaults on Earth. Some species of plants could end up extinct in that case, but regular Lunar missions would then still be a thing. I guess this would mostly involve rare plant species.
It seems to me that the article tries to convince us that even the Svalbard vault is not as safe as we'd think and we are relying more and more on the seed vaults.
I like the idea, but it'll depend on how permanent the proposed moon base will actually be and how expensive such a Lunar seed vault would end up being.
That was exactly my thought. Doing that NOW would be extremely difficult and absurdly expensive let alone post event that requires such stuff.
The bottom of the ocean would be more practical and feasible and that’s saying something.
The ocean isn't cold enough plus heating, is FULL of "nasty" viruses and bacteria, and we don't have the tech to make things waterproof nearly forever. They'd also be under insane pressures up to 600 atmospheres vs, as Professor Farnsworth observe, "anywhere between 0 and 1" for space. I can't think of a worse place than the ocean
And it's still going to be cheaper to solve all of that and retrieve it than it is to solve getting the material to the moon, let alone getting it back.
As much as I am in favor of space exploration and the "not all the eggs in one basket" approach, getting things to and from the Moon has a long, fragile technological dependency path.
I can see too many roads to ecological collapse that don't leave the infrastructure needed for retrieving that precious archive. The Moon is also a relatively high radiation environment near the surface - not every convenient lava tube will be safe.
Can we keep the archive out of conflicts from whatever geopolitical fracas is building on Earth? If you've got the technology to get to the Moon easily, then those conflicts could easily send a nuke (or a big rock) in some final spasm of wanton destruction.
We really, truly need to start working on our shit as well as building insurance policies against the shit we've lost.
The moon might be our only shot in a nuclear apocalypse. We might not get it back, but we could leave it for others, whether alien or remnant. It being a moonshot is true, but there are no corners on earth that's safe from geopolitics: targeting the moon will be too pointlessly expensive for war time wanton destruction when people are always much closer targets for hate.
I guess my question is "our only shot at at what?" If the Earth is destroyed to the point that current life needs a kickstart, likely due to nuclear armaments, then it's likely inhospitable to any new life that would spring from those seeds. In the time that it takes for the world to recover enough, I think it's likely that an entirely new set of ecosystems and species will fill the space. It's entirely possible that the old native life will now be invasive or just not suited to their old locations anymore.
That's on top of the language problem. It's similar to the issue we have with nuclear waste disposal sites: how can we convey to an unknown future civilization that may or may not share our language what they should do? How would an alien species understand information about what is in the vault and use it to restore the old natural life? Would they do such a thing or simply study the existing state of Earth and view the vault as a historical artifact, not to be used if it's even understood? What about a future human civilization - would they know the vault is even there and know to look for it, or would they stumble upon it and have to decipher its intent?
I like the concept of a seed vault on the moon, but just like computers a backup is only good if you can restore from it. Otherwise, you just have 0 backups.
I see what you're trying to say, but space travel is getting cheaper all the time, esp with moon base coming up as @Aerrol observed.
Chernobyl was a big deal, but at the end of the. century it's actually a small area affected; even Nagasaki and Hiroshima and Fukuoka are mostly perfectly fine. I don't see a scenario where all of human is wiped out in war, that we'd still need seed vault for, agreed. But we could see one region wiped out immediately:
We've already had to use Svalbard
We're going to the moon anyway
we're losing Svalbard now
Again, most humans will still be around after a disastrous area-wide wipe out, and we're already going to the moon, and maybe soon, remotely piloted semi autonomous drone tech gets good enough to deposit /retrieve at a fraction of the price.
As for long shot alien tombstone, we can encase some seeds in a bakelite/crystal/something and put it on the door. They'll recognize life.
Wow, great answers - basically what I would say. Only thing I'd add is I don't see this as a either-or scenario. I want another Earth backup to Svalbard ASAP + having this as a third backup that is hopefully better proofed against climate and more directly human induced catastrophe (nuclear reactor explosions, military conflict). Yes, someone might still attack the Moon but it's not really that likely in the coming decades.
And yes, as @patience_limited says - we have to sort our damn shit socially and get back onto a track of peaceful negotiation instead of posturing and god forbid even more open conflict.
Archive Link: https://archive.is/gfFkE
Really intriguing idea that would honestly be a lot less costly than you might think given the current plans for building a permanent base(s) on the Moon. I'm all for it, assuming it's done securely and with independent oversight.