When it comes to U.S. colonies on the moon ...
Displaying poll results.29402 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8481 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 7945 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Interesting)
If via taxation, then I oppose it strongly. If via private corporations and voluntary contributions then I think it's a great idea.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
If the private sector can supply our healthcare they can supply our space program also
I was born with a severe heart condition in a middle class family. If my place of birth would have been the US instead of Europe I wouldn't be alive today, 43 years later, thanks to your perfect healthcare system.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:4, Insightful)
Love your comment, but careful what you suggest! If we remove the shackles from the defense industry, then they'll start selling weapons to the terrorists and then sell us guns to protect ourselves from the terrorists. It's the perfect racket. You can sort of see it in action along the US-Mexico border. American-made weapons (serious ones like assault rifles and grenade launchers and stuff) are sold to drug cartels and then the DEA and law enforcement groups have to upgrade *their* weaponry. A arms race is de facto in effect in the southern US/northern Mexico.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm guessing from the anti-ATF slant of your post that you are a knee-jerk conservative so I doubt any sources or "facts" will convince you, but I'll post what I have anyway. This article [latimes.com] from the LA times website refers to at least one grenade launcher. This report [senate.gov] from the US Senate describes how Mexican federal police found "three anti-aircraft guns, dozens of grenades, a grenade launcher, AK-47s, several makes of machine guns and more than 26,000 ammunition cartridges" in a home gym in Juarez. Is the grenade launcher American-made? I honestly can't say. But the thousands of grenades mentioned in this article [washingtonpost.com] apparently are. That the grenades were not given directly to the cartels is kind of a moot point. The cartels have them and we made them. The second report does go into great detail about how most of weapons going into Mexico are either American-made or imported to the US and then delivered to Mexico. I also forgot to include land mines and bazookas.
If you're trying to suggest that Mexican drug cartels don't get most of their arms from the US or that these arms are not killing thousands of people, you are just wrong. If you're picking nits to say that the grenade launchers *might not be American-made* then that's a red herring and you are missing the point. Both Mexico and the United States agree that weapons are flowing from the United States to Mexican drug cartels. From December 2006 through May 2011, over 30,000 people were killed by organized crime in Mexico. If you've ever been through El Paso, you know that this violence is creeping over the border back into the US.
If you're trying to suggest that arms manufacturers and dealers would abstain from selling to criminals are disreputable middle men without government regulations preventing them from doing so, you are out of your mind.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't decide that for me. Benefit is, by definition, something that can only be decided by a (supposed) beneficiary.
No, I see nothing in the definition of benefit that requires the recipient to to be grateful or agree to the benefit. The whole concept of taxation, for good or ill, is that someone other than the taxee decides how best to spend some of his money. If you decide how to spend your own money for your own benefit that's simply a free economy. Taxes can and should be spent to the benefit of the population. Everyone receives the benefits of properly spent taxes whether they appreciate those benefits of not. Just try and find a country with low taxes that isn't a hell-hole with no infrastructure and crime and corruption running rampant.
Speaking for myself, I feel anyone in the lower tax brackets (such as $35K/year) is getting basically a free ride. The top 10% earners pay 70% of the income taxes. So I have no sympathy for someone who says their measly couple thousand in taxes wasn't repaid in all the government benefits they received such as road systems, emergency services, police and military protection, education system, and all the rest. The people complaining about the government not doing enough for them are invariably paying the least taxes.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Informative)
The top 10% earners pay 70% of the income taxes
They also take home greater than 70% of income, so that seems pretty reasonable.
You also completely neglect to mention non-income taxes like gas taxes and sales taxes, which are extremely regressive. But you probably knew that you didn't have an honest argument to begin with, so you leave this stuff out to make it easier for you to believe yourself while pounding your chest about those freeloaders.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And make more than 70% of the income, so what's the problem?
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Singapore have an interesting attitude to maintaining law and order.
also, they have always been a major trade centre due to their location.
considering their small size, and high commercial importance, it's easy to see how they don't really need much from tax on the populace - it can mostly come from business.
look at the difference in area between the USA and Singapore (or Switzerland, if you want to play that). how much road do they need to maintain? how much power to transmit? how large a population?
there's a lot at play. you can't just cherry pick a country.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Interesting)
Singapore have an interesting attitude to maintaining law and order.
also, they have always been a major trade centre due to their location.
considering their small size, and high commercial importance, it's easy to see how they don't really need much from tax on the populace - it can mostly come from business.
Singapore's government also owns significant percentages of some of Singapores biggest companies including Singapore Airlines and SingTel via Temasek Holdings.
If the US govt tried buying up controlling stakes in private corporations we'd hear _very loud_ and _very shrill_ cries of communism and nationalisation.
Not to mention this has not always been in the best interests of commerce, having such a large stake in Singapore Ailines means that they've held control of Changi Airport and used that to their favour in the past. SIN is a very big hub for Europe-Asia air travel, Singapores control of Changi lead to the expansion of other SE Asian hubs at Kuala Lumpur and Bangkok.
Re: (Score:3)
Shh, you'll puncture the 'it's socialist for government to own businesses'. Confusing isn't it. When a government owns a business and generates a profit, the private for profits scream that the profit is a tax and governments shouldn't compete. When private for profit businesses generate huge profits, it's no longer a tax and 'er' your just jealous and GTFO and STFU.
The big Reagan/Thatcher privatisation rush turned out to be nothing more than a gigantic betrayal by government and a conspiracy to cheap th
Re: (Score:3)
Singapore have an interesting attitude to maintaining law and order.
You mean like actually beating you with a stick if you overstay your visum? It's interesting all right, in the same way as the Milgram experiment is interesting. (This may not sound like really awful punishment, until you realize that you're injured for life as a result.)
Re: (Score:3)
That, and you'd have to execute all of your felons, which could be as high as 1% of the American population, or about 3 million people. Good luck finding a politician who would sign that bill.
It they stuck a rider on the bill that made copyright infringement a felony, they'd be all over it with appropriate RIAA backing. Killing off your potential customers might not sound like good business practice but it pretty perfectly tracks the curve of stupidity they are currently following.
Re:Speak for yourself (Score:5, Insightful)
Benefit is, by definition, something that can only be decided by a (supposed) beneficiary.
Only in pure, abstract theory. Counterexample: The mentally ill.
As for me, my relationship with government is a net loss.
That depends on what you figure in. Once you consider not just taxes and benefits, but also the fact that pretty much everything you do every day depends on the government, it starts to shift.
Go shopping? Money provided by the government, legal framework for selling and buying stuff provided by government. Driving there? Roads courtesy of your government. Traffic laws that give you an excellent chance of arriving alive also. Not having to live in a bunker armed to the teeth? Thank the government for providing a reasonable (though not perfect) amount of internal security. Your probably went to a public school, and horrible as it probably was, it's your tax dollars at work. Not having to pay for some kind of private fire department insurance in case your house catches fire? Government again. Oh, and even if the fire department were privatized, the contract law that your insurance would be built on would be a government benefit.
Unless you are a redneck survival nut and would much rather live in a cave and hunt mammuts, government is definitely a net benefit.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:4, Funny)
Sorry, but practically 100% of the cost of a moon colony would be spent on Earth.
Practically? Is there another planet that we can spend the money with?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:4, Insightful)
We manage to do just fine in Antarctica. We can all share that; why can't we all share the moon?
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because there's no oil there, and it sucks being there. Watch what happens when Antarctica stops being an ice-bound hell-hole, and when people start finding all kinds of useful resources there.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Interesting)
Let me make a clarification.
Since Russia started aggressively making claims to international territories in 2007, Russia has been scrutinized on the other side of the globe within Antarctica. Concerns were raised when Russia announce that it was about to breach Vostok Lake some 12,000 feet below the polar ice cap. The issue came to a head in March 2008 with Sergei Ivanov reassuring the international community that Russia will continue to honor the 1959 Antarctic Treaty.
Also my earlier google search results included the Arctic circle oil reserve dispute which made for an embarrassing comment about issues concerning the other side of the globe *blush*.
Like the moon, the Arctic Circle is covered by an international agreement. The international agreement allows for exclusive economic zones 200 nautical miles from their coast lines. Since 2007, Russia has made claims to large portions of the Arctic circle in hopes of gaining mineral rights for the large oil deposits recently speculated to be there. Since Russia used a controversial survey to extend their EEZ, there is some disagreement on the claim's validity.
Re: (Score:3)
No, it is Antarctica too. Not just oil but coal, iron, gold, and other minerals have been discovered in Antarctica. It is a huge continent that could seriously be exploited if somebody cared to make the effort.
All that the "international cooperation" which happens there at the moment is mainly to avoid the spark that might just start the war on the "bottom of the world" over those resources. It has thus become a defacto international wildlife refuge.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Funny)
Yes we do. Wouldn't want a bunch of illegal aliens moving in..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
you are an eye opener. "They said so" is the best reason ever. You win an internet.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:4, Funny)
So... people go out to the moon, and develop violent tendencies towards their elected officials? Where I'm from, that's called "terrorism".
You heard it here folks, proof positive that the moon causes terrorism. A well respected astronaut comes back from the moon and starts threatening government officials? And who could forget the mooninite terror attacks of 2007 [youtube.com]? It is obvious to anyone that the moon supports terrorism. I call on the president to destroy the moon, there can be no negotiations. Their invaders openly mock us with a middle finger, and they brain wash our peaceful ambassadors into terrorism like the good Edgar Mitchell mentioned above. I urge my fellow slashdotters to contact their congressmen and urge them to declare war on the moon, it's for our children's sake.
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Tools of a corporation: Ingenuity, Efficiency, Customer Loyalty
You forgot the most important tool corporations have: Government.
Re: (Score:3)
We don't have nationalistic bases on Antarctica.
Rubbish. There are dozens of them [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, really? Every base in Antarctica is operated by international agencies and national governments have no say in what happens at those bases, territorial claims are not made upon Antarctica, and national flags do not fly at any of those outposts? Military personnel also never show up at any of those locations as well?
I'm glad that I've been set straight on those facts. Here I thought that much of that activity in Antarctica was all about establishing a national presence there and to ensure that each na
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:4, Insightful)
How many manned flights has the EU launched into space? Zero. For a union that has 64% larger population than the US, just as much technology, and arguably better manufacturing capacity (where are all the biggest cruise ships built? which country is #2 for exports? (Germany)), that's not so great.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is still awash with spare cash. We've got tons of it; maybe not quite as much as in the 60s, but there's still tons of it, and our population is probably double the size (or more) of what it was back then, meaning a much bigger economy. The problem is that we're spending all that cash on stupid things, like overseas wars and bailing out mismanaged corporations. Back in the 60s, we could afford to support a huge military and also go to the Moon. Now, we need to have better focus, but instead we s
Re: (Score:3)
The USA is still awash with spare cash. We've got tons of it; maybe not quite as much as in the 60s, but there's still tons of it, and our population is probably double the size (or more) of what it was back then, meaning a much bigger economy. The problem is that we're spending all that cash on stupid things, like overseas wars and bailing out mismanaged corporations. Back in the 60s, we could afford to support a huge military and also go to the Moon. Now, we need to have better focus, but instead we spend at least as much on the military as before.
Cut the DoD budget to <25% of its current size, and there'll be plenty of money for Moon missions and lots more too, such as badly-needed infrastructure improvements.
Pay no attention to the elephant in the room (Entitlements)... Cut the military! It is the sole source of budgetary problems!
Re:Depends how it is funded. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm currently reading "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" for my book club. The comonly held theory among classic sci-fi authors is that prolonged exposure (or heaven forbid being born in low gravity environments) will reduce bone density and muscle mass to the point where humans would not be able to tolerate earth's gravity.
Most sci-fi authors consider colinisation of either Earth or Mars to be a one way trip due to the graviational acclimatisation.
Re: (Score:3)
My bet is that colonization/migration would have to be something for the young in either direction. Us old farts would have too many health problems going in either direction to be able to make the trip. I'm fine with that too BTW, but I wouldn't talk my kids out of such a migration if the opportunity came up.
The correct answer is simply "we don't know." Such studies have never been conducted, and we certainly have no idea at all about gestational development of placental mammals in either microgravity e
Re: (Score:3)
We really have no idea what happens in a partial gravity environment. The few people who have actually been to the Moon were arguably athletes and even the longest stays there were far too brief to come to any definitive conclusion. At best all we can do is to extrapolate what happens in a microgravity environment.
There was a module that was supposed to go onto the ISS that would have studied such effects (in a slow moving centrifuge), but sadly it was pulled off the manifest before the ISS was completed.
Should've done this already (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Should've done this already (Score:5, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:Should've done this already (Score:4, Interesting)
... 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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, as a country made up of immigrants from all over the World, I really don't think the people are all that special.
[...]
They won't be able to let go of the myth of "American Exceptionalism".
See what you did up there?
You somehow managed to blame immigrants on USA's fall.
Just... please correct me if I'm wrong, but USA has been made of immigrants from day 1. OK, they were called colonists because the natives had no word for "immigrants".
No, I'd say the country went south because, starting '90s, it had no more sizable enemies to struggle against. Just like a sportsman quitting sports, it got lazy and fat and lost its will to push forward. At the same time, emerging countries pushed forward.
Time sh
Re:Should've done this already (Score:4, Interesting)
I read an intriguing theory on American Exceptionalism years ago, probably in a book or article about ADHD. As I recall, the idea was that certain genetic traits bring forth more novelty-seeking behaviors (that's the ADHD part) and that immigration could act as a filter selecting for these genes. If you accept the notion that there's a correlation between ADHD and an increased urge to immigrate, then it makes sense. But I don't know of any actual research in support of this theory.
Re: (Score:2)
Now, as a country made up of immigrants from all over the World, I really don't think the people are all that special.
See what you did up there? You somehow managed to blame immigrants on USA's fall.
Just... please correct me if I'm wrong, but USA has been made of immigrants from day 1.
I think that's exactly what he meant.
(which, by the way, is only true if you don't count native Americans, of course).
Re:Should've done this already (Score:5, Informative)
What, noone ever told you that "native Americans" were just the first wave of immigrants (by 10-15K years)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Management Fallacy (Score:3)
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)
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).
Re: (Score:3)
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)
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
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Funny)
I think you meant:
Cheers,
Mike.
Nonetheless, you made my day. Thank you.
Re:Great idea (Score:4, Insightful)
I've read it a couple of times. You seem to have missed that.
By the way, what's wrong with a fiercely libertarian independent lunar colony?
Cheers,
Dave
Re: (Score:2)
what's wrong with a fiercely libertarian independent lunar colony?
The wrong people would be on a dry, desolate radiation-bombarded rock. Better to send all the statists.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, what's wrong with a fiercely libertarian independent lunar colony?
Polygamy!
I repeat, what's wrong with a fircely libertarian independent lunar colony?
Cheers,
Dave
Joint operation? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh barf.
Let's sit around the campfire, sing Kum Ba yah and gush about how great, effective, wonderful and pure the UN is!
I gotta ask - is the USA's problem with the UN that they're corrupted by people they don't control, or that they do corruption better than the US government?
Whenever I hear Americans complain about the UN, it always sounds like variations of "we don't like the competition".
Re: (Score:3)
Taxes.
Peace through speeches.
Dude, have you *watched* your election campaigns? Also: the US has been happy to gridlock things they don't like while speechifying, so pot - meet kettle.
Electing Iran to the Commission on the Status of Women.
Electing Gaddafi-era Libya to the Human Rights Commission.
It's an election. You don't always get who you want. If you want to be freaked out, it's that a majority of the world's countries think those two were good ideas.
Condemning the most democratic country in the Middle East and praising the organizations trying to destroy it.
That would be the one secretly building nuclear weapons, right?
Israel might be a fair criticism, except that they (secure in the knowledge that the US is their bestest buddy) tend towards se
Ok but why US only? (Score:4, Interesting)
But it should be a project shared by many countries, like Europa / US / Asia (...).
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Strongly Opposed to the Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, which other countries have the healthier economies than the US?
Oh, right, China.
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Sweet. The combined resources of all four just funded a few toilets.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
An alternative (Score:2)
All in favor for it (Score:2)
Not a manned one (Score:2)
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.
Always have a backup (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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
A bit far out... man. (Score:2)
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
Of course, if it's a colony of all lawyers... (Score:3)
bankers, politicians and the 1%, I could be persuaded to change my mind.
It's not the destination that matters (Score:2)
Cynical campaign ploy (Score:3)
I oppose it strongly, for an odd reason (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:You insensitive clod... (Score:4, Interesting)
Agreed. A colony on the moon is an interesting experiment in microgravity living, but Mars is likely to be a much better choice for long-term survival because of the stronger gravity—about double that of our moon, at more than a third of Earth norm.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because larger projects consisting of steps with no plausible backup plan succeed far more often than planned localized progression with backup support a few days away at most.
The Moon couldn't possibly have any resources to manufacture parts for a Mars mission in a lower gravity.
Re: (Score:2)
planned localized progression with backup support a few days away at most.
More like over three days, assuming you have a prepped and ready rocket that won't get scrubbed because of bad weather or anything like that. In an environment as hostile as the Moon or Mars, it's likely the situation is either resolved, the colony has to be abandoned or everyone is dead long before a supply rocket can help them. It's going to be like the wild west, there's no rescue chopper coming to extract you. You damn well better survive on your own, whether you're days or months away from help.
Re: (Score:3)
planned localized progression with backup support a few days away at most.
More like over three days, assuming you have a prepped and ready rocket that won't get scrubbed because of bad weather or anything like that. In an environment as hostile as the Moon or Mars, it's likely the situation is either resolved, the colony has to be abandoned or everyone is dead long before a supply rocket can help them. It's going to be like the wild west, there's no rescue chopper coming to extract you. You damn well better survive on your own, whether you're days or months away from help.
We're still talking the difference between 3 + Delay days to the moon, versus 200 + Delay days to Mars. If the Moon People run into trouble, they have to plan for a week, maybe two on the outside before help comes. A bad weather day isn't going to matter to the Martians - any help is six months away anyway.
Of course, this ignores the obvious question: does anyone really believe that the US can actually get their ass in gear and complete a lunar base in eight years? I sure don't. (And that's before we tackle
Yeah but... (Score:2)
...there are a lot more tourism dollars in moon trips.
Re:Trading one gravity well for another (Score:5, Insightful)
This would be very useful as a staging ground. Communication times between the moon & earth are short, and travel time could be relatively short based on the actual space travel industry that emerges. This means that it can be done a lot more experimentally and interactively than doing completely prepared long-distance shots through the solar system.
Once we get established on the moon, then we can know how to better bootstrap farther-out bases.
Re: (Score:3)
Why the moon [Re:Trading one gravity well for...] (Score:5, Insightful)
If we can build a habitat on the moon, why not just build it farther out in the solar system, where there might actually something that hasn't been studied to death?
Well, first, there are advantages to having the first long-term habitat be close by. You might want to build habitats "farther out in the solar system" after you've worked the details out in a place where you can send repair parts in three days instead of three hundred. You can work out a lot of the life support and resource extraction details that can be used anywhere. It's a first step, not an only step.
Second, turns out that the moon really hasn't been "studied to death." The Apollo (and Luna) landings were on a very restricted subset of the moon's surface, parts that were moderately flat, relatively near the equator, and on the Earth-facing side. Turns out that there are parts of the moon that are vastly different than what we've seen.
This is 'Merica, Dammit (Score:2)
A car's a half-assed idea; if you can build a wheel, you may as well make it a turbine; then build the whole damn jet, gorram it!
Re: (Score:2)
That is most likely how it will be done. I don't see any national government being able to muster both the resources and the political will to beat the private sector to this goal. Of course, this all depends on a 10x reduction in launch costs, but there are several companies working on that already. Most notably, SpaceX is trying to make their Falcon family of rockets 100% reusable. If they can reuse each rocket 10 or more times, that will get us well below the $1000/lb benchmark.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, this means that we're more likely to see a giant Coke banner on the moon, as those corporations find ways to better the bottom line.
The private sector does things for one, and only one reason - to make money. They might decide to make cool things to make money, but the money comes first over the cool.
Re: (Score:3)
[Cont'd...] Lunar regolith is roughly 40% oxygen. The rest is iron, magnesium, aluminum, calcium, and some other useful elements. People are already designing machines to harvest these resources, just waiting for a chance to get there. Meanwhile, Google and the X-Prize Foundation are running a whole series of competitions to prove various steps along this resource utilization chain. Within the next 3~4 years you'll start seeing privately funded robotic missions on the lunar surface, and from that point on,
A low budget item [Re:Could go either way] (Score:2)
To go back to the moon we'll need to first reinstate the 50's and 60's tax levels, and then quit spending it all on the military-industrial complex.
No.
Spending on NASA in the US is, right now, about one half of one percent of the federal budget. Even if we raised space spending back up to the 1960s peak, when it briefly hit 4.3 percent of the federal budget, that would increase the federal spending only by... let me calculate... 4.3 percent.
Re: (Score:2)
Find value and they will come (Score:3)
I figure once we get a base there, we will start finding some resource (helium 3, moon regolith, water at low G, etc) that makes space a profitable prospect for corporations, then you will see bunches of private monies thrown to get to the moon, Mars, etc.
Suppose Mars did/does have life and much of it is long gone... I can imagine industrious individuals drooling at the prospect of massive amount of fossil fuels there along with other raw mineralogical materials. Reduced gravity on both could be a benefit
Re: (Score:2)