Forgot your password?

When it comes to U.S. colonies on the moon ...

Displaying poll results.
I am strongly opposed to the idea.
  3302 votes / 11%
I oppose the idea, but weakly
  1316 votes / 4%
Could go either way
  2426 votes / 8%
I favor the idea, but weakly
  3951 votes / 13%
I am strongly in favor
  8787 votes / 29%
Why can't they send them all?
  9620 votes / 32%
29402 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

When it comes to U.S. colonies on the moon ...

Comments Filter:
  • by agm (467017) on Monday January 30, 2012 @11:58PM (#38873613)

    If via taxation, then I oppose it strongly. If via private corporations and voluntary contributions then I think it's a great idea.

    • by Z00L00K (682162) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @06:54AM (#38875439) Homepage

      At least you get something for the tax money.

      Creating a colony on the moon requires a lot of technology development and that will be useful in the long run. Remember that the Apollo program was the seed for major advances in computers and also in materials used in healthcare.

    • by fatphil (181876)
      If via taxation, I support it strongly. If via private corporations and voluntary contributions, then I could go either way.

      The quicker it's bankrupt, the quicker it will stop wasting money doing things that are of no benefit to anyone apart from a few oligarchs.
    • by Ihmhi (1206036) <i_have_mental_health_issues@yahoo.com> on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @10:20AM (#38876721)

      Where's the "I'm in favor of a colony but only as an international expedition" option?

      I'd love for their to be a colony on the moon. I just wouldn't want the United States hogging all of the glory and possibly putting weapons or something of the like up there.

      • by Caerdwyn (829058) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:47PM (#38880047) Journal

        Then pay for your own damned moon base and stop insisting that the US simultaneously foot the bill and get badmouthed for being able to.

    • by jellomizer (103300) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:07PM (#38879589)
      This is really a government thing to do. There isn't really that much profit for a corporation to do such a thing, but a benefit for a government.

      Why is it good for a government to go to the moon.
      1. Powerful bragging rites. This is quite useful, you show the other nations that you can get your act together and do something big and peaceful you will get some cred with other countries, this will show that you are large enough and stable enough to do such a thing, And large and stable governments are a safe thing to invest in.

      2. Good paying jobs. Engineers, Scientists, Manufacturing, manager to manage all these people. Then you need to open up restaurants, have entertainments, and sell housing for all these people... This isn't a short term job for a moon settlement you have careers.

      3. Targeted research. This will give companies and universities a goal for their R&D to do, with a hopefully profitable end.

      4. Optimism. We have loss our optimism of the future. A base on the moon we allow us to feel that the future doesn't have limits. Optimism will get us off our butts and try something new.

      These are good things for government. For a corporation it is a lot of expense without that much of a pay back... Yea a few billion a year in a space hotel... But for a government it can change a lot of things.
  • We've had the technology to do this since 1969, but the US has lost its national will. I like Londo Mollari's quote, "Decadent, obsessed with arts and trinkets..." We've spent ourselves into an entitlement hellhole & become Europe.
    • by war4peace (1628283) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @01:50AM (#38874271)

      We've spent ourselves into an entitlement hellhole & become Europe.

      You wish.

      When I was a kid, "America" was THE place to go to in everyone's dreams.
      30 years later, I would only travel there if forced with a gun to my head. It's sad, really, to see its appeal drop from wow to meh.
      To me, from a desirability POV, USA was long ago replaced by NZ and AU.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        No one dreams any more. No one aspires to something greater than themselves. JFK said in his famous speeches, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but for what you can do for your country," and "We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is hard." Now? The ones that do aspire & dream are attacked from all sides by people who say, "That guy has more than me. The Government should take it from him and give it to me!" We've lost our mojo and I don't think we'll ever get it bac
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by BergZ (1680594)
          "I want a tax cut" is another way of saying "what can my country do for me".
        • by frisket (149522)

          We've lost our mojo and I don't think we'll ever get it back.

          I'm afraid you long since handed your mojo (and pretty much everything else) over to corporations, who bought up the government and now run the country as their private fiefdom, much as Britain used to run it 200+ years ago. And you did this because of a pseudo-Jeffersonian belief that Government is Bad and Business is always Right. You can get your mojo back by the simple expedient of removing the turds who govern you and replacing them with ones who are not beholden to corruption (and good luck with that

      • by FridayBob (619244) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @12:25PM (#38878227) Homepage

        ... When I was a kid, "America" was THE place to go to in everyone's dreams. 30 years later, I would only travel there if forced with a gun to my head. It's sad, really, to see its appeal drop from wow to meh. ...

        Agreed. I was born in the U.S. and lived there until I was 13. Part of me will always be an American, but I have not wanted to live there for a very long time. Among the developed nations, America has always been a particularly unfriendly place to live for the poor and has become increasingly unfriendly towards the middle-class. For the rich, however, the place just seems to keep on getting better and better. These days, with things like privatized health insurance (in the Netherlands at least) and growing corporate influence, my fear is that life in Europe is becoming ever more like it is the United States.

    • by necro81 (917438)

      We've had the technology to do this since 1969, but the US has lost its national will

      To a certain extent, doing hard things because they are hard, as a test and demonstration of national will, is a worthwhile enterprise unto itself. That got us to the Moon in the first place.

      However, if we are going to build and support a lunar colony at enormous cost (perhaps an order of magnitude greater than the cost of the ISS) you need to have a pretty compelling answer to the question: Why? You can't sustain

      • Here's a famous quote from George Mallory. He was exasperated and short tempered after having been asked "Why climb Everest?" for the umpteenth time & blurted out, "Because it is there!" That encapsulated his spirit. Why did Shackleton go to Antarctica? You hit it on the head perfectly: Because it is hard.
        • by necro81 (917438)
          That can be an explanation for a single person, or small group of like-minded people, going after a single, defined, goal. It isn't a sustainable basis for a government spending upwards of a hundred billion dollars a year on a mission-without-end, with no defined goal other than just existing there. Exploration can be funded that way, colonies cannot. Commerce and economic opportunity can provide a sustainable basis for colonies, but no one's been able to make a sound business case for the Moon.
  • by hoboroadie (1726896) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @12:24AM (#38873783)

    I'd like to see a long-term plan for the territory we already control. Our present methodology will not sustain us much longer. Adam Smith recommended feeding the workers enough to sustain another generation of employees, there has to be a balance.

  • Wrong Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by artor3 (1344997) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @12:48AM (#38873939)

    In some fantasy land, I'd love to have bases (American or otherwise) on the moon.

    The real question is, do I think a permanent moonbase is feasible given current technology, not to mention our cultural and political states?

    To that, the answer is a sorrowful but resounding "no".

    It's highly questionable whether we would be able to build and maintain such a base even under ideal conditions. Our culture is absurdly risk averse, so we'd need to pull it off without a single death, which makes it even more unlikely. And given recent history, I doubt either party would be willing to spend the money, even if success were guaranteed (Newt Gingrich's pandering to Floridians not withstanding).

    • by ArwynH (883499)

      You did not answer your own question. You answered whether you though it was "likely", not whether you though it was "feasible".

      While, unfortunately, I cannot disagree with you on the likelihood of there being such an attempt, I do believe that establishing a permanent moon base within a decade is both feasible and a good course of action.

      The arguments I'd give for it are the same that were given for putting a man on moon. While we may no longer have the soviets to worry about, the rest of the arguments

  • Great idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by DaveAtFraud (460127) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @01:15AM (#38874081) Homepage Journal

    The moon would be a great place for a prison/penal colony. The prisoners could mine water and use the water to grow wheat and other crops that they could then cheaply export back to Earth using a mass driver....

    Cheers,
    Dave

  • Joint operation? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by egladil (1640419) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @02:16AM (#38874369)
    Wouldn't it be better with a international joint operation to create a colony on the moon instead of just a colony belonging to the USA? I'm all in favour of a moon base, but I don't think it should be owned by any one country.
    • Wouldn't it be better with a international joint operation to create a colony on the moon instead of just a colony belonging to the USA? I'm all in favour of a moon base, but I don't think it should be owned by any one country.

      You assume that there must be only one. We're talking moon bases here, not Highlander. Besides, if we're to ever at any point in the future have any moon bases, someone's gotta be first, and in the long run it really doesn't matter who that is.

  • Ok but why US only? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hcs_$reboot (1536101) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @05:29AM (#38875065)
    Why US only? I'm strongly in favor of such a project - which may also offer the ability to visit the Moon to more people in the future.
    But it should be a project shared by many countries, like Europa / US / Asia (...).
    • Why US only? I'm strongly in favor of such a project - which may also offer the ability to visit the Moon to more people in the future. But it should be a project shared by many countries, like Europa / US / Asia (...).

      Why do people keep assuming that there must only be one? There can (and, IMO, should) eventually be many bases on the moon, Mars, etc. But if humanity is to have any bases on other worlds at all, someone's gotta do it first, and in the long run it really doesn't matter who.

      (Apologies for having to repeat myself [slashdot.org].)

      This nitpicking about which country should (or shouldn't) go first, or whether it should be a joint effort or not, or overseen by an international ruling body or not, is ultimately self-defeating fo

      • You 're right. Everyone should be trying to establish three moon bases. That way, if one is in trouble, two others are there to help.

  • by rdnetto (955205) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @05:46AM (#38875123)

    Why does it have to be a US colony? There are plenty of other countries (with healthier economies) who'd be willing to contribute resources to such a mission if had partial ownership of the result.

    • by raehl (609729)

      Sorry, which other countries have the healthier economies than the US?

      Oh, right, China.

      Good luck with that.

    • by Frederic54 (3788)
      I am sure China will have a colony on the moon before the USA have one...
      • by anyGould (1295481)

        I am sure China will have a colony on the moon before the USA have one...

        Agreed - they have the cash, the will, and aren't that far behind on the tech (and the will to learn the tech). The fun question will be - do they go it alone, or do they create their own multinational group? And who gets to be in the lunar club?

  • I'm more interested in a moon colony in the US, whether it's The Clangers or other moonfolk doesn't matter too much.
  • But only if there are whales [youtube.com].
  • A Moon base that's constantly manned would have prohibitive costs and many complications. However, if the base is capable to operate autonomously even when there aren't anyone around then it could be a good idea. Now the Moon has been studied more than enough, so the only reason to build a base there would be if we could mine it and process the minerals, then either send it back with a mass driver or send it in orbit for other missions that go further.

  • by gman003 (1693318) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @09:26AM (#38876227)

    Rule #1 in computing: always have a backup copy of anything remotely important.

    I'm pretty sure the human race is a pretty important thing. There's hundreds of different things that could render the Earth uninhabitable at a moment's notice, from asteroid impacts to supervolcanoes, and that's not even taking into account what we're doing, or could do, to destroy the planet on our own - global warming, nuclear war...

    Put a self-sustaining colony on some other planet or moon, big enough that it can survive for several generations without Earth. That way, no matter what happens on Earth, we've got a backup copy of Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

    • by downhole (831621)

      The best way I've ever seen my objection to this point put is that there is no conceivable disaster that could ever befall the Earth that would make it less habitable than any of the other planets are right now. Mars is already in worse shape for human habitation than we could ever make Earth, and every other planet out there is worse still.

      Not to mention that having a truly independent off-planet backup of the human race would be inconceivably expensive. A couple of guys in a glorified tin can somewhere is

  • While I do think that in theroy, a moon base is pretty cool, it is rather far fetched.

    We are a LONG way off from being able to do that. I think it IS something we should push for however.

    The first step is sending robots to the moon and trying to figure out how to extract native resources for building and survival.

    Until you are able to reliable do those things, talk of "moon bases" is just a fantasy.

    Unless some magic technology is developed, which it hasn't in the last 50 years, the moon is too far, and Eart

  • by gestalt_n_pepper (991155) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @11:16AM (#38877351)

    bankers, politicians and the 1%, I could be persuaded to change my mind.

  • It's the journey. We will learn much, solve countless problems, and develop enabling technologies we can't imagine. Taken together, these things are worth whatever it takes.
  • by FridayBob (619244) on Tuesday January 31, 2012 @12:05PM (#38877955) Homepage
    While I would welcome a permanent colony on the moon in principle, "President" Gingrich is not going to make it happen, just as Bush's plans did not pan out. Gingrich's plans, just as those of Obama's predecessor, would be outrageously expensive and --- more importantly -- he would not have to pay for them: because of the duration of the project, that would be left to his poor successor. For the latter, this "gift" represents a no-win situation: since his (or her) Republican predecessor was also have been busy slashing taxes, there wouldn't be enough money lying around to pay for it (trillions of dollars). However, the new President would (as usual) also find it very difficult to increase any taxes in order to raise the necessary funds to pay for the project. Of course, Gingrich knows that, but all that matters to him is that it helps him get elected this year. If a permanent, self-sustaining moon colony is ever going to happen, it would have to be an international effort (not just the U.S.) with plenty of private investment.
  • I strongly support colonies on the moon. I do not support them being US colonies. I also do not support them being Russian or Chinese colonies. They should be a jurisdiction of their own, a sovereign state right from the beginning.

Advertising is a valuable economic factor because it is the cheapest way of selling goods, particularly if the goods are worthless. -- Sinclair Lewis

 



Forgot your password?
Working...