Could humans live on the moon

1. The near-term reality: living there in short bursts

The immediate roadmap for human presence on the lunar surface relies on pressurized landers and habitat modules that resemble International Space Station‑style cylinders for missions lasting days to months, with Artemis missions using landers as temporary habitats in early phases ^{[1] [2]}. Several companies and space agencies are building rovers, power systems and surface infrastructure to support those missions—Astrobotic for power distribution, Redwire for fused‑regolith paving, and others developing ISRU demonstration technologies—pointing to operational visits becoming routine before permanent bases ^[4].

2. The materials and resources argument: regolith and ISRU as game changers

Lunar regolith contains oxygen‑bearing minerals and metals that could be processed into structural materials, breathable oxygen, and even propellant, making In‑Situ Resource Utilization central to any sustainable presence; researchers argue that sufficient ISRU could convert the Moon from a supply burden into an off‑Earth industrial platform ^{[5] [3] [6]}. However, analyses caution that small ISRU demonstrations (for example producing water for a handful of astronauts) are a poor return on investment unless scaled to hundreds of tonnes per year to support an economy that offsets Earth launches ^[1].

3. The hard physiological limits: radiation, micrometeoroids and low gravity

Permanent habitation confronts fundamental environmental threats: the Moon lacks an atmosphere and magnetic field, exposing inhabitants to higher radiation and micrometeoroid risk that demands substantial shielding—hence proposals for underground or lava‑tube habitats to leverage natural protection ^{[7] [8]}. Low lunar gravity (≈1/6g) poses an unresolved biological question about long‑term human health and reproduction, with experts noting the absence of definitive data and the need for long‑duration studies or variable‑gravity centrifuges to assess impacts ^[8].

4. Engineering approaches: surface structures, subsurface options and power

Engineering concepts range from metal‑cylinder habitats delivered from Earth to in‑place construction using regolith‑derived bricks, sintered roads and tunnel boring for subsurface bases that offer thermal and radiation safety; nuclear or large solar installations are proposed for steady power, but transporting heavy reactors or equipment from Earth remains costly and politically fraught ^{[1] [9] [7]}. The Royal Society and academic reviews emphasize there is interest and initial planning but no single definitive mission plan for permanent settlement yet, underscoring a phased, experimental approach ^[2].

5. Economics, politics and the timeline: who benefits and who pays

Ambitions for lunar settlements are driven by scientific goals, strategic national interests and private commercial visions for off‑Earth industry, and commentators note that funding choices reflect political priorities—arguing that European nations’ limited lander capabilities are a function of spending choices ^[1]. Proponents claim the Moon could become an industrial hub (fuel depots, launch ports) supporting Mars missions and commercial activity, but that outcome requires sustained public and private investment beyond initial exploration bursts ^{[10] [6]}.

6. Verdict: feasible, conditional, and uncertain in scale

Technically, living on the Moon is feasible in stages—short missions and semi‑permanent outposts are near term, and larger settlements are plausible if ISRU, shielding and human health questions are resolved and if economics align—but substantial uncertainties remain about long‑term biology, cost‑effectiveness and political will, and there is no consensus plan yet to cross those thresholds ^{[1] [2] [8]}. Sources provide a roadmap and credible prototypes but also repeatedly emphasize that permanence depends on scaling technologies and commitment, not simply solving one or two engineering problems ^{[5] [3]}.