Description of a Lunar Colony (MSSC)

[JohnHunt]

As I was about to respond to one of the comment about where the first colony would be located, I recognized that establishing a few definitions might be in order.

When I asked people's opinions for where the first colony would be established, I was in fact meaning the term colony in the way that most people understand it. But the responses began discussing facilities that I think would better be described as stations or bases.

Station - A small base. It is functional (e.g. industrial) in nature. It probably is only providing a specific service/product such as mining, processing, and shipping regolith.

Base - Simply a bigger station. A base might get large enough that there might be even some private companies servicing the employees at the base - so a small economy. If a base were large enough, it might be providing several different products and services. But I don't think that the term colony is right for it.

Colony - In my mind, a colony is beginning to become independent. It may be established for political (e.g. libertarian) or religious reasons and so independence here is the goal. But these colonies may well trade with the "outside world" but may also have a significant amount of self-government. But also, a colony may be established specifically for the purpose of serving as a life insurance for humanity.

Minimally Self-Sufficient Colony (MSSC) - A specific type of colony intended to be the least expensive and yet the earliest achieved, fully self-sufficient colony. If something happened to Earth, this colony would be able to survive indefinitely without contact with other humans. It would either have the capability to produce all that it needs or it would have sufficient stockpiles of critical components to buy it enough time so that it would eventually provide for all of its needs.

[JohnHunt]

An MSSC would be a small lunar-surface colony which would either be able to produce all that it needs or would have sufficient stockpiles of critical components to buy itself enough time so that eventually, it would provide for all its needs and so survive indefinitely.

Broad But Not Clearly Articulated Support for an MSSC
I think that opening up the solar system in a sustainable way is a broadly held goal for our next steps into space. That includes getting down the costs, "going to stay", and settlement. By sustainable, people generally mean developing enabling and enduring capacities such as fuel depots and ISRU. Multiple US administrations and space advocacy organizations have stated as much if even euphemistically (e.g. "including space into our economic sphere").

But it is also broadly recognized that it would be good to step into space if even because it is dangerous to "have all of our eggs in a single basket". George Bush Jr made a passing mention of this in his VSE speech. Yet, I think that this concept is held theoretically and specific plans to this end are rarely articulated.

MSSC as a Side-development of a Lunar Ice Mining Operations
Given that opening up space permanently is a more recognized immediate goal but that having a back-up for human civilization is only a would-be-nice goal, I would propose that the MSSc would be essentially a side effect of a lunar ice mining operation. But also, a lunar ice mining operation by its nature already goes a long way towards providing sustainable life support. It will be very easy and so very tempting to conduct long-duration manned stays (a lunar base) associated with the lunar ice mining operations.

My argument is, if you are already producing far more than enough water and oxygen, and so can sustain the presence of astronauts for potentially years at a time (especially if they live under regolith) then, why not attempt to go yet further and attempt to establish an MSSC given the potentially extremely high value of this to humanity (i.e. ensuring the survival of humanity).