Space colonization

[ArcticMelt1]

As you know, the main problem in stopping global warming is the overpopulation of the planet. An attempt to make the life of all earthlings worthy will lead to the rapid collapse of the planet's biosphere. In this regard, in all villains of action movies the beat how reduce the population of the Earth. For example, in the films "Moon Racer" and "Agent Kingsman". But of course the repetition of the work of Adolf Hitler is doomed to failure. In this regard, in any case, the world economy will move along the “business as usual” path. Obviously, this development will lead the biosphere and the climate system to a complete collapse. Probably come true the recent forecast of Stephen Hawking.

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/07/stephen-hawking-humans-will-turn-earth-into-a-giant-ball-of-fire-by-2600.html

Humans will turn the planet into a giant ball of fire by the year 2600, said physicist Stephen Hawking.

Overcrowding and energy consumption will render Earth uninhabitable in just a few centuries, Hawking said via video on Sunday at the Tencent WE Summit in Beijing.

The scenario of turning the Earth into Venus is obvious. The rapid melting of glaciers will lead to destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans.

In this regard, there is a need to create space colonies for the salvation of mankind. How many people can put such a colony?

For example, Elon Mask believes that he can take on Mars about a million colonists.

In general, in your opinion, can you save people in space colonies? And how many?

[TerryM]

Zero was not an option?


We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

[ArcticMelt1]

We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

The failures of experiments with the artificial biosphere in theory can be explained by the lack of funding.

Now the chances of creating space colonies have increased significantly. There are reusable rockets, which will reduce the cost of launching rockets into space.

[TerryM]

We've tried at least twice in domes here on earth. Why would we be more successful in space - or on Mars?
Terry

The failures of experiments with the artificial biosphere in theory can be explained by the lack of funding.

Now the chances of creating space colonies have increased significantly. There are reusable rockets, which will reduce the cost of launching rockets into space.

Reusable rockets have been around for a long time, they just haven't proved to be efficient.
Didn't a hanger roof finally collapse on an old Soviet model a few years back?
Terry

[ArcticMelt1]

Reusable rockets have been around for a long time, they just haven't proved to be efficient.

This happened because few rockets were launched into space.

If the greenhouse and tectonic catastrophe becomes obvious to the majority, then this should allow a sharp increase in funding for the creation of space colonies. Then reusable rockets will be very useful. In addition, there are many ideas for the development of space tourism.

[Neven]

How about changing the title of this thread, and then explain in what way this is a policy and/or solution?

[ArcticMelt1]

How about changing the title of this thread, and then explain in what way this is a policy and/or solution?

How is the best to rename a topic?

The solution in the thread suggested by Stephen Hawking.

https://futurism.com/stephen-hawking-humans-must-leave-earth-within-600-years

Professor Stephen Hawking isn’t afraid to state his opinion bluntly and honestly. He has publicly expressed his fears about the future of artificial intelligence (AI), the need for a new Space Age, the serious realities of global warming, how we might reach another Solar System, and that, as a species, humans must leave Earth in order to survive.

Hawking has previously stated that our time on Earth is limited to 100 years, after originally estimating 1,000 years. But, in a new announcement in a video presentation this past Sunday, November 5th at the Tencent Web Summit in Beijing, he gave the human species less than 600 years before we will need to leave Earth, according to the British newspaper The Sun.

Earlier in the year, Hawking said that: “We are running out of space and the only places to go to are other worlds. It is time to explore other solar systems. Spreading out may be the only thing that saves us from ourselves. I am convinced that humans need to leave Earth.”

A major concern of Hawking, and others, is that climate change is already causing rapid sea level rise. It is possible that, if this progression isn’t diminished by a cut in emissions, a significant percentage of what is currently land will be under water. (This is, of course, in addition to the other life-threatening effects of climate change.) Additionally, as this continues, populations are set to continue increasing, which could have disastrous consequences. Hawking is confident that within the next few hundred years, Earth will no longer be a habitable option for humans.

[Neven]

How is the best to rename a topic?

The best way to rename a topic, is go to your opening post by clicking 'Modify' and then just change the subject title. I can also do it for you. A better title will attract more discussants.

Something like 'Spreading homo sapiens to other planets'. That's not a solution to AGW, but it is a potential prevention of extinction.

I think that within a few centuries of humans spreading to Mars, we'll have our first Solar System War, with such fierce weapons being employed, that both planets get wiped out. 

[ArcticMelt1]

Ok, renamed the topic.

[gerontocrat]

Re: How many people can fit in a space dinghy?

A lot more if they are all dead.

The rapid melting of glaciers will lead to destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans.

Who says?

[ArcticMelt1]

Who says?

This option follows from the following facts:

1) The amount of carbon in the mantle is on many orders of magnitude greater than in the atmosphere or the crust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon#Occurrence

It has been estimated that the solid earth as a whole contains 730 ppm of carbon, with 2000 ppm in the core and 120 ppm in the combined mantle and crust.[55] Since the mass of the earth is 5.972×1024 kg, this would imply 4360 million gigatonnes of carbon. This is much more than the amount of carbon in the oceans or atmosphere (below).

In combination with oxygen in carbon dioxide, carbon is found in the Earth's atmosphere (approximately 810 gigatonnes of carbon) and dissolved in all water bodies (approximately 36,000 gigatonnes of carbon). Around 1,900 gigatonnes of carbon are present in the biosphere. Hydrocarbons (such as coal, petroleum, and natural gas) contain carbon as well. Coal "reserves" (not "resources") amount to around 900 gigatonnes with perhaps 18,000 Gt of resources.[56] Oil reserves are around 150 gigatonnes. Proven sources of natural gas are about 175×1012 cubic metres (containing about 105 gigatonnes of carbon), but studies estimate another 900×1012 cubic metres of "unconventional" deposits such as shale gas, representing about 540 gigatonnes of carbon.[57]

2) Melting glaciers increase seismic activity.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012018/pdf
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska

https://www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-correlation-of-seismic-activity-and-recent-global-warming-2157-7617-1000345.php?aid=72728

This study will show that increasing seismic activity for the globe’s high geothermal flux areas (HGFA), an indicator of increasing geothermal forcing, is highly correlated with average global temperatures from 1979 to 2015 (r = 0.785).

3) The level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is close to historical highs in the entire geological history of the Earth.

[sidd]

1) Predictions of doom from increased seismicity due to glacier melt must first contend with the fact that this did not occur during MIS5e or 11.

2) I note that CO2 content is now around 400 ppb. Whether this is close to 2000 ppb manifest in the geological record probably depends on the definition of "close."

sidd

[gerontocrat]

Who says?

This option follows from the following facts:

2) Melting glaciers increase seismic activity.

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-1315/167/1/012018/pdf
An Enhanced Seismic Activity Observed Due To Climate Change: Preliminary Results from Alaska

Yes. But the paper referred to points to increased earthquake and volcanic activity that correlates well with ice loss, and predicts that will continue. Sounds very likely.

It does not predict "destabilization of tectonic plates, huge gas emissions from the mantle and evaporation of the oceans". That sounds like a Hollywood disaster movie script.

And Stephen Hawking's prediction of an earth transformed into Venus by 2600 ?
I am sorry, but I can find no link to a science paper on this.

And that is definitely all I'm going to say about that

[ArcticMelt1]

1) Predictions of doom from increased seismicity due to glacier melt must first contend with the fact that this did not occur during MIS5e or 11.

In theory, this can be explained that no large tectonic faults under the melting largest glaciers of the northern hemisphere (Labrador, Scandinavian and Greenland).

Now the situation is opposite. Large faults were found under both parts of Antarctica.



http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/383/1/1#ref-85

Black dashed lines denote the East Antarctic Rift System (Ferraccioli et al. 2011)

GSM - Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains
LV - Lake Vostok

In this regard, the melting of Antarctica is much more dangerous than the melting of the northern ice sheets.

[sidd]

Quite a bit of WAIS melted during MIS5e (and 11). So why no catastrophe then ?

In fact at the last deglaciation WAIS retreated more than we see today, and then readvanced to the point we see today ...

This discussion should be on one of the antarctica threads.

sidd

[ArcticMelt1]

WAIS melted during MIS5e (and 11). So why no catastrophe then ?

sidd

Possible then there was a too low rate of increase in the amount of greenhouse gases.

Now the level of CO2 is growing at almost cosmic speed. In just a few decades, from a maximum in the last 100 thousand years to a maximum in the last 20 million years.

[Sciguy]

Here's a link to a very entertaining article on Elon Musk's project to colonize Mars:

https://waitbutwhy.com/2015/08/how-and-why-spacex-will-colonize-mars.html

Personally, I don't think it will work because of the radiation received during the 8 month trip and on the surface of Mars.  I voted for less than a 1000.  I just don't see how they'll set up a sustainable environment for producing food to feed the colonists.

And even with the worst predicted impacts of climate change anticipated in the next few centuries, Earth will be far more pleasant to live on than Mars or any other space colony.

[oren]

Discussion of mantle carbon and tectonics etc. don't belong in this subject thread IMHO.
About human colonization of space/other planets as a solution to climate change, overcrowding and carrying capacity issues, I believe that a humanity too stupid/weak-willed to avoid these long-term catastrophies will also be too stupid to colonize space successfully, a much harder endeavor than covering the globe with solar panels and curbing human procreation.
So the only space colonization efforts, if any, will be private projects on a limited scale, with low chances of long-term viability. Terry's zero is probably the best answer, but in the context of the poll less than a thousand I guess.

[Archimid]

If humanity can control climate change and can successfully adapt to climate change, colonization of other planets is almost inevitable. Sadly, climate change may not allow the prosperity required to start colonizing space. Thus the idea of space colonies to save a sample of humans is not realistic.
We defeat climate change and continue our journey through the universe or climate change defeats us.

[Bruce Steele]

Seems like discussing ghosts or ancient aliens. There are plenty of shows on TV that pose as science dealing with similar issues . Talking about space colonies is about as useful. Junk and intended to distract.

[ArcticMelt1]

About human colonization of space/other planets as a solution to climate change, overcrowding and carrying capacity issues, I believe that a humanity too stupid/weak-willed to avoid these long-term catastrophies will also be too stupid to colonize space successfully, a much harder endeavor than covering the globe with solar panels and curbing human procreation.

In theory, you may be right. If people can develop cheap carbon disposal technology, then we can terraform Venus. The only question is how much time does mankind have for solving the problem of climate change. If we do not have time to solve these problems or at least minimize them, then we can share the fate of dinosaurs.

Plus obviously more effort is needed to explore Venus. This is necessary for a better understanding of the catastrophic degassing that took place there. In recent years, appear discoveries on Venus of possible traces of the ancient ocean and plate tectonics.

[TerryM]

Seems like discussing ghosts or ancient aliens. There are plenty of shows on TV that pose as science dealing with similar issues . Talking about space colonies is about as useful. Junk and intended to distract.

Ramen!
Terry

[ArcticMelt1]

I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.

[TerryM]

o

I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.

-and render PV panels obsolete.
Terry

[ArcticMelt1]

o

I would not say that astronautics is not a serious matter. Probably only space technology will save the Earth from the greenhouse catastrophe. For example, the deployment on of near-earth orbit huge screens that will reduce the flow of solar radiation and cool the earth's surface.

-and render PV panels obsolete.
Terry

This option can be used when the terrestrial biosphere and civilization will be on the verge of destruction.

It is much better than spraying aerosols in the atmosphere, as it does not pollute the atmosphere with harmful substances.

[mitch]

Orbiting sun screens will play hell with photosynthesis. The aerosols are relatively benign and much cheaper than space junk.

 Also, the cost of terraforming earth after the fossil fuel crisis will probably be about a million times cheaper than terraforming another planet in the solar system. 

[Bruce Steele]

Aerosol spaying or space mirrors won't fix ocean acidification either. My guess is we will probably try to use both and continue to burn fossil fuels all the while.

[johnm33]

There's plenty of space in deserts next to cool seawater which would be much easier to colonise.

[NeilT]

I think the whole premise around whether or not we can have a colony on Mars is based on some very loose assumptions.

First anyone who goes to colonise Mars is not going to be some hedonistic waster who thinks that they can just idle away their time and "have fun".  Colonists are going to be regimented, organised and extremely dedicated.

It is quite clear that until Mars has sufficient atmosphere, any colony on Mars will have to live under the surface, just as it will have to on the Moon.  So whilst Radiation will be a day to day issue, most of the living will be done in underground and radiation proof, habitats, shortly after the colonists arrive.

Thinking about that, you might want to revisit the efforts of Elon Musk with his Boring company and the way in which he is both making tunnels and also building materials in one go.

We have already reached the point where we can achieve sustainable life off our planet.  Unless we destroy ourselves in the next 50 years or so it is inevitable that we will leave our planet and start to explore/colonise other planets in the solar system.  We will go chasing adventure/fortune/fame/resources.  But we will go.

So now it is a race.  Our own destruction of our planet, or our own ability to reach the stars.

My take?  We could do it right now, we just don't have the incentive.  A choice between certainly dying on Earth and, maybe, dying on Mars?  There will be plenty of takers for that one.

[Archimid]

If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

[b_lumenkraft]

Big projects take a lot of planning. Plannings take a lot of time.

To build a new power plant it takes 10-20 years. To build a new car it takes 5-10 years.

A project as the colonisation of another planet would take a very long time. Since we haven't done it yet, no one can say how long exactly, but i would say 50-100 years is optimistic.

Do we even have so much time?

[TerryM]

If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

Ramen!
Terry

[kassy]

If anyone was to be serious about this project the logical first step would be to build a base on the moon and practice there.

One thing that fascinates me is that what you eat influences the make up of the intestinal bacterial  genome.

So if you would build a base you would want to grow food there but how much ´earth/ground´ do you take up there? Plants also live in combination with soil bacteria, fungi etc.

It would be interesting to see a comparison from before launch/at arrival/couple of years after that.

Basically the colonists would be in a quite poor environment and i wonder what that will do in the long run (don´t expect to ever see the paper though).

[oren]

If anyone was to be serious about this project the logical first step would be to build a base on the moon and practice there.

A key difference is that the moon lacks water, which is to be found in the martian poles IIRC.

[magnamentis]

Plannings take a lot of time.
To build a new power plant it takes 10-20 years. To build a new car it takes 5-10 years.

ever been in china let's say in 2-3 years cycles, planning does not have to take so much time as we afford the luxury in some places nowadays and whenever it was necessary, things were simply done and not even that badly.

this does not contradict the meaning of your post about having to hurry up but that part has to be relativated ( is relative )

nice weekend @all

[ArcticMelt1]

If self sustaining underground cities can survive in mars, they can certainly survive climate change on Earth.

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.

[kassy]

If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Both scenarios are equally likely....

[Bruce Steele]

ArcticMelt, Again your proposed volcanic induced 100-200 degrees Celsius is pure conjecture . Yes former extinction events may have been triggered by volcanism , the Siberian traps and the Permian event but the CO2 release was ostensibly due to vast coal seams that overplayed the area of volcanism. 

[ArcticMelt1]

If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Both scenarios are equally likely....

Unfortunately, a catastrophic option cannot be ruled out. The nearest planet to us is very similar to Earth in size and mass. Now there are many works that suggest the existence of life and oceans on Venus in the past. It cannot be ruled out that there once was also a rational civilization, which destroyed both itself and the planet.

Probably now terrestrial civilization burns carbon more rapidly than during any eruptions of the supervolcanoes in the entire geological history of the Earth. Therefore, dangerous consequences for tectonic plates are possible.

For example, recent work.

Journal of Earth Science and Engineering 4 (2013) 1-53
Anthropogenic Earth-Change: We are on a Slippery Slope, Breaking New Ground and It’s Our Fault—A Multi-Disciplinary Review and New Unified Earth-System Hypothesis
C. Allen

Received: January 01, 2014 / Accepted: January 12, 2014 / Published: January 25, 2014

Abstract: Human activity could be changing the Earth’s foundations themselves, as we affect multiple systems interacting in feedback mechanisms changing the atmosphere, hydrosphere, cryosphere, biosphere, and even the lithosphere (solid surface) and asthenosphere (deformable semi-molten rock layer beneath). Anthropogenic movement of ice, water and sediment alters viscosity and movement of the asthenosphere; this induces earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanism and rifting, and may induce plate-tectonic-change. These processes may account for the timing of unexplained contemporary Icelandic, New Zealand, Chilean, Japanese and Indonesian seismicity, volcanism and magma movement. Climate-change and sea-level rise are creating: slip-planes from differential water pore-pressures and/or weakening of previous fault-planes; sediment-change and altered hydrology and reservoir-mass, inducing isostasy and further change in pore-pressure. Loss of plant biomass and diversity alter hydrology, precipitation and transpiration, causing isostasy and further sediment- and climate-change. Increased ocean-mass, temperatures and acidity, reduced oceanic oxygenation, and increased transport of (organic) sediments elevate the production and destabilisation of gas-hydrates, causing slumps and tsunamis. Isostasy and altered viscosity of the asthenosphere increase seismicity, slope and faulting, which are the prime triggers for slumping and tsunamis.
Altered asthenosphere flows hasten subduction and rifting landward of subduction, enhancing volcanism. All of these processes predominantly coincide, temporally and spatially, in the coasts and continental margins, and the Pacific ring-of-fire, although response times and extents may vary from immediate to multi-millennial scales and from negligible to catastrophic. Contemporary Icelandic seismic and volcanic activity is explained by depleted magma reserves on the north-western side of the mid-ocean ridge as asthenosphere moves from the constructive boundary under deglaciating and rising Greenland.

Key words: Anthropogenic climate-change, volcanism, tectonism, vegetation-change, sedimentation, isostasy.

Several charts from there

[gerontocrat]

If the Daleks took over Earth it would be easier on Mars too.

Wrong. The Daleks are already on Mars.

H.G. Wells book "The War of the Worlds" was based on a kernel of truth, but the microbes got the Daleks before they could do much damage. But what do you think really triggered the Krakatoa explosion? The truth is hidden in the archives of "The Deep State".

Honest Injun!

[crandles]

It is doubtful. If the Earth's atmosphere as a result of a tectonic catastrophe warms up to 100-200 degrees Celsius, then it will be much easier to survive on Mars than in Earth's bunkers. Cooling technologies are much more complex than warming technologies. For example, you can compare how long the landing missions on Venus and Mars worked.

What is this "tectonic catastrophe"?

So far, I have seen a link to large quantities of carbon in the crust and mantle.

Much of this carbon is in solid form. Also 'Rock weathering' results in carbon being removed from atmosphere into solids. Yes, heat up these solid compounds with lava and throw it through atmosphere and some may well end up being oxidised to CO2. However Earth has been through lots of cycles of significantly increased volcanoes like yellowstone eruptions. AFAIK none of these have increased temperatures by anything like 100+ degrees celcius in the last couple of billion years.

So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

If so? Yawn. If you think it is much more probable, then I am sceptical.

edit: maybe a couple of billion is pushing it a little but range over last 500 million years appears to be only about 20C:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record

[TerryM]

I think we'd need to boil off the oceans to reach anything like those temperatures.
Terry

[sidd]

Even the dino killer didn't boil off the oceans ...

sidd

[crandles]

Lethal levels of CO2 are about 84,000 ppm so about 200 times the current level. That only takes 8 doublings of the CO2 level and with climate sensitivity of 2-5C per doubling that would give warming of 16C to 40C. Therefore, it looks like we should worry about lethal CO2 levels before we worry about 100C temp rise.

And to get to 100C temp rise, getting to 100% CO2 atmosphere at current pressure levels is not enough so we would need to significantly increase the amount of gases around Earth to achieve that so there may well be a few other issues before reaching that 100C temp rise.

[NeilT]

A key difference is that the moon lacks water, which is to be found in the martian poles IIRC.

The more important key fact is that the moon lacks an atmosphere.  One of the calculations by "scientists" was that, with the proposed systems, the habitats would suffer oxygen levels incompatible with life.

On mars you bottle the oxygen and let in some CO2.  On the Moon you have to fix the balance as you have no CO2 to let in.

The moon may be closer and cheaper to get to and easier to extract colonists from or even exchange people with, but with the impact of 1/6th G on musculature, no atmosphere and virtually no water, plus the same radiation issue as Mars (or more), the Moon is orders of magnitude harder to keep a permanent habitat.

Mars may be further away, hard to get to, more expensive to get to, but the climate is significantly more conducive to life than the Moon.

Also, yes, people could live underground on the Earth.  But would the rest of the planet simply let them live a comfortable life when they were all dying above ground?  Our species is pretty self destructive.  Mars gives distance from the "madding crowd" as well as challenges.

The point is fairly simple.  So long as the human race only lives on the third rock from the sun, it is possible that the whole species can be wiped out in one catastrophic event.  Once we go beyond the bounds of a single planet, that is no longer a consideration.

It just depends on how you look at it.  Species or cost or person.

[litesong]

I think that within a few centuries of humans spreading to Mars, we'll have our first Solar System War, with such fierce weapons being employed, that both planets get wiped out. 

That's what I believe..... & without the smiley face.

[GoSouthYoungins]

Why is ZERO not an option? Humans probably can't live very far AT ALL away from earth. There are no verifiable examples of humans going beyond 300 miles from earth...(and here we go: yes, I am saying that the moon landings are not verifiable...they are not repeatable...the Nixon admin is renowned for lying...NASA claims to have lost/recorded over the original tapes...and no one has gone since the Nixon admin despite our technology drastically improving in every relevant realm.) There is all sorts of magnetic/electric/gravitational stuff that we have evolved here with. If we try to leave, and I mean even a single person, they will die. This is probably the case with every intelligent life form in the universe, which perfectly explains the Fermi Paradox.

[ArcticMelt1]

Why is ZERO not an option?

Ok, added.

[ArcticMelt1]

So are you talking about something that has less probability than 1 in a billion in any given year?

In this regard, the fact that the atmosphere of Venus weighs 90 times more than the atmosphere of the Earth is very mysterious.

The atmosphere of Venus is as massive, which greatly slows the rotation of the planet. A recent example.

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120214-venus-planets-slower-spin-esa-space-science/

In the early 1990s scientists with NASA's Magellan mission calculated that a single rotation of Venus takes 243.015 Earth days, based on the speed of surface features passing beneath the orbiting spacecraft. But scientists now mapping Venus's surface with the European Space Agency's Venus Express orbiter were surprised to find the same features up to 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) from where they were expected to be, based on the previous measurements. According to the new data, Venus is rotating 6.5 minutes slower than it was 16 years ago, a result that's been found to correlate with long-term radar observations taken from Earth.

If over 16 years the period of rotation of Venus has slowed down by 6.5 minutes, then it can be calculated that the slowdown of the period of rotation of Venus from the earth day could happen in just 130 thousand years. This may mean that the tectonic catastrophe on Venus occurred relatively recently.

Unfortunately, Venus is studied very little. Everyone is trying to find a primitive life on a small and dry Mars. But probably seismic exploration and core drilling on Venus would be much more useful. This would solve the main mystery - why a planetary catastrophe occurred on Venus.

[oren]

and here we go: yes, I am saying that the moon landings are not verifiable...they are not repeatable...the Nixon admin is renowned for lying...NASA claims to have lost/recorded over the original tapes...and no one has gone since the Nixon admin despite our technology drastically improving in every relevant realm.

GSY, you have fallen for the moon landing denial claptrap, very sad.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_evidence_for_Apollo_Moon_landings

No one has gone again simply because of a lack of political will to spend the required amounts and take the necessary risks. But maybe someone will soon - as a private endeavor. Thanks to the advancement of technology, costs have gone down significantly.
NASA has landed automated rovers that have been traveling for years on the surface of Mars, and still people believe it's impossible to land humans on the nearby moon for a few hours - a much easier undertaking.

What's next? Flat Earth? Chemtrails?