Do you think NASA should send crew/colony to Moon for research/start colony?

[WestAir]

I honestly dislike the oppositions "cost-effectiveness" argument. Not only is space never going to be cost-effective, but the economy will always be in a position where wasteful spending is wasteful. The Apollo program, for instance, happened during a time where people spent thirty + minutes waiting in long lines to fuel their cars. Money was scarce then, it's scarce now, and it will by definition always make "adventures" a bad financial endeavor.

If we wait until we have enough money to not care about how we spend our money, we'll have the same technology and the same city sky-lines for the next few thousand years. Venture capitalists are risk takers for this very reason.

[EndOfTheEarth]

Don't compare the colonization of the Americas with the colonization of space. They are radically different things.

First of all, it was obvious from the start that there was wealth and trade opportunities. Secondly, you could actually survive there without supplies and live off the land. Third, people went there because there was a promise of a better life. None of these work with the Moon.

It would make way more sense to colonize Antarctica, the Sahara, or the Mariana Trench? These places are easier to get too and are actually less hostile than the Moon or Mars.

I'm inclined to disagree. Based on:

1) We know about resource opportunities including He3 and heavier metals. These are modern economic interests, just as furs, plants, and some metals were of similar interest in the 16-1700s.

2) Early American settlements were faced with similar supply issues, and it took them decades before they were able to produce technologies (including a decent food supply) natively. Heck, it took almost century between the first settlement and the first paper mill. It's still resource management now, just as it was then.

3) You don't think that once we do start putting people up there, this idea won't come up?

People don't colonize places because of convenience. Wyoming, for instance, is perfectly settleable and in a temperate environment, yet the population density is very low, not because it isn't lacking for resources, or supply access, or privacy, but because there isn't much interesting going on. The moon, on the other hand, is the moon; it's still a unique destination with a lot of romantic ideas around it.

Edited May 11, 2013 by EndOfTheEarth

[Nibb31]

I'm inclined to disagree. Based on:

1) We know about resource opportunities including He3 and heavier metals. These are modern economic interests, just as furs, plants, and some metals were of similar interest in the 16-1700s.

2) Early American settlements were faced with similar supply issues, and it took them decades before they were able to produce technologies (including a decent food supply) natively. Heck, it took almost century between the first settlement and the first paper mill. It's still resource management now, just as it was then.

1) He-3 will be of no interest for us for the next 40 years. When we finally do have fusion power, there are easier fuels to get to than to mine He-3 on the Moon. There is not a lot of it on the Moon either, you need to mine 150.000 tons of regolith to get 1 ton of He-3. As for the other elements, we have them in more abundance on Earth than on the Moon.

2) The comparison between colonization of space and the mythology of the American Frontier is typically a strong element for Americans. Although I understand that it is a strong part of your History, it is not a universally shared concept and there is no point in applying the same romanticism to space. As I said earlier, when colonists left Europe for the Americas, they were dreaming of a better life. They knew that they would be able to live off the land, gather the wealth, and trade it back to the homeland. The first colonists screwed up, mainly because they were ignorant, but at least they had a dream and there was an actual potential. There is no better life awaiting anyone on the Moon. The Moon is a barren rock with no special resources waiting for you. You won't be offering a more comfortable or a safer life to your family by moving there.

Besides, if you really want to compare with History, colonization didn't really end very well for most of the leading powers of the time. They spent huge efforts to build those colonies only to lose them to independantists years later. The experience shouldn't really act as an incentive for any political powers to found an autonomous colony on the Moon.

The only thing we can currently do on the Moon is to explore and study it. We have a lot to learn, and we might just unlock something special that will spike more interest in the Moon. So yes, let's build a scientific outpost. It can start as a semi-permanent base like Byrd Station in Antarctica and evolve into something more permanent like the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station.

A permanent colony on the other hand is silly and pointless at this stage.

I honestly dislike the oppositions "cost-effectiveness" argument. Not only is space never going to be cost-effective, but the economy will always be in a position where wasteful spending is wasteful. The Apollo program, for instance, happened during a time where people spent thirty + minutes waiting in long lines to fuel their cars. Money was scarce then, it's scarce now, and it will by definition always make "adventures" a bad financial endeavor.

If we wait until we have enough money to not care about how we spend our money, we'll have the same technology and the same city sky-lines for the next few thousand years. Venture capitalists are risk takers for this very reason.

Everything we do, we do at least one of three things. To increase our wealth, to increase our safety, or to increase our comfort. These are the basic motivations that have been pushing Humanity since we were hunter-gatherers. We will always push our boundaries to explore, but that exploration is also based on the hope of finding ways to increase wealth, safety, or comfort.

Venture capitalists are first and foremost capitalists. They will take risks if there is a potential for profit somewhere down the line. So yes, you will need a potential business plan to attract venture capitalists, so cost effectiveness is a mandatory part of the equation.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Nibb31

[NASAFanboy]

1) He-3 will be of no interest for us for the next 40 years. When we finally do have fusion power, there are easier fuels to get to than to mine He-3 on the Moon. There is not a lot of it on the Moon either, you need to mine 150.000 tons of regolith to get 1 ton of He-3. As for the other elements, we have them in more abundance on Earth than on the Moon.

2) The comparison between colonization of space and the mythology of the American Frontier is typically a strong element for Americans. Although I understand that it is a strong part of your History, it is not a universally shared concept and there is no point in applying the same romanticism to space. As I said earlier, when colonists left Europe for the Americas, they were dreaming of a better life. They knew that they would be able to live off the land, gather the wealth, and trade it back to the homeland. The first colonists screwed up, mainly because they were ignorant, but at least they had a dream and there was an actual potential. There is no better life awaiting anyone on the Moon. The Moon is a barren rock with no special resources waiting for you. You won't be offering a more comfortable or a safer life to your family by moving there.

Besides, if you really want to compare with History, colonization didn't really end very well for most of the leading powers of the time. They spent huge efforts to build those colonies only to lose them to independantists years later. The experience shouldn't really act as an incentive for any political powers to found an autonomous colony on the Moon.

The only thing we can currently do on the Moon is to explore and study it. We have a lot to learn, and we might just unlock something special that will spike more interest in the Moon. So yes, let's build a scientific outpost. It can start as a semi-permanent base like Byrd Station in Antarctica and evolve into something more permanent like the Amundsen–Scott South Pole Station.

A permanent colony on the other hand is silly and pointless at this stage.

Everything we do, we do at least one of three things. To increase our wealth, to increase our safety, or to increase our comfort. These are the basic motivations that have been pushing Humanity since we were hunter-gatherers. We will always push our boundaries to explore, but that exploration is also based on the hope of finding ways to increase wealth, safety, or comfort.

Venture capitalists are first and foremost capitalists. They will take risks if there is a potential for profit somewhere down the line. So yes, you will need a potential business plan to attract venture capitalists, so cost effectiveness is a mandatory part of the equation.

I highly agree. Until space travel becomes more efficient and cheaper, we should stick with bases and research outposts, not full-scale colonies. Also, as for the He-3 argument, many forget we do not have efficient fusion powerplants, and the ones we have all use hydrogen, not He-3. Fusion with He-3 is still years away. More likely we will have huge containers of He sitting around earth for no purpose at all.

There also is the "jobs" argument. But that is invalid and false. Because, on a sparkly desert of regolith, it will be expensive and unwieldy for the governments to set up an economy, and yet agian, a colony cannot export anything back since He-3 is not a viable option. Yes, moon-rocks are good, but these will overflow the market in a year.

Also, many forget that the first colonists where on rickety old ships, not state-of-the-art tested and purposely built ships. The seafaring capability of their fleet was way above at the time, meaning if we wanted to compare both, we should wait until our capabilities can bring our presence to the Jovian system.

I'll say this; If the first colony on the moon is comparable to the Mayflower, then the pilgrims sailed on a giant man-o-war. Stick with permenant research outposts for now, civilian colonization is a long way off.

Also, before the first colony in the Americas, we had many permenant trading outposts. Many forget that and think we just build a colony.

Edited May 11, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Alan85PL]

Yes we should. As a science-test-research colony. Its just the normal way space exploration should go!

On moon we can test all posible probes, drills, air and water production facilities, greenhouses etc...

What Robert Zubrin says hop on and go to mars is too easy and risky at this point.

[Dr. Muttonstache]

I think we should have a permanent settlement beyond LEO. It will, at least, serve to research long term effects of low gravity, and to test out completely permanent life-support (including food and water).

I think it would be needed before we try and shoot for any colonies on Mars.

[The Jedi Master]

Research only.

People say the moon is great for a colony because it's close and all, but really, the moon is about the worst place for a colony EVER. Imagine living on a literal dustball with no atmosphere to protect you from radiation, you can't take a walk without a bulky, possibly sweaty suit, and even when you do take a walk, all there is to see is gray rocks and possibly a pretty view of the Earth, which you never get to see again, not even to see you relatives for Christmas. Yeah.

[Holo]

which you never get to see again, not even to see you relatives for Christmas. Yeah.

Explain to me why it is impossible to return astronauts to Earth.

[WestAir]

Research only.

People say the moon is great for a colony because it's close and all, but really, the moon is about the worst place for a colony EVER. Imagine living on a literal dustball with no atmosphere to protect you from radiation, you can't take a walk without a bulky, possibly sweaty suit, and even when you do take a walk, all there is to see is gray rocks and possibly a pretty view of the Earth, which you never get to see again, not even to see you relatives for Christmas. Yeah.

Is Mars, Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, or an extra-LEO orbital colony any better at all?

You still won't be able to leave those colonies to explore the outside environment without a space suit. Radiation is still a problem on all of the above. Return to Earth will be excessively difficult (more-so than return from the moon), and all of them have pretty bland things to see: Rocks, stars, mountains. Seems about the same anywhere you go, tbh.

[The Jedi Master]

Explain to me why it is impossible to return astronauts to Earth.

Colony: Noun: Permanent settlement.

[The Jedi Master]

Is Mars, Titan, Callisto, Ganymede, or an extra-LEO orbital colony any better at all?

You still won't be able to leave those colonies to explore the outside environment without a space suit. Radiation is still a problem on all of the above. Return to Earth will be excessively difficult (more-so than return from the moon), and all of them have pretty bland things to see: Rocks, stars, mountains. Seems about the same anywhere you go, tbh.

At least there's the novelty of being first somewhere, of discovering new things, whereas the moon is the most extensively studied thing in the solar system.

[Holo]

Colony: Noun: Permanent settlement.

Just because the settlement itself is permanent, doesn't mean the people there have to be

[Alan85PL]

At least there's the novelty of being first somewhere, of discovering new things, whereas the moon is the most extensively studied thing in the solar system.

This is and will be done with "cheap" probes. Simultanously there has to be an manned training/research/expolration/tech. program.

And the moon is the best playground fot it.

[J.Random]

Not before we try it on Earth. The main property of such colony should be self-sustainability. So the first step in colonizing other planets would be building a hermetic cupola, say, in Sahara desert and creating a self-reproducing living environment inside of it.

[Nuke]

i bucked for colony and reserch but i would also add mining for radioactive material/he3 to the list of reasons to go there. being able to manufacture reactor grade uranium on the moon opens up the door to the rest of the solar system with ntrs or nuclear-electric drives or fission fragment engines, which would be too risky to launch to space from earth. eventually fusion engines/reactors. also add raw materials manufacture to that as well. i can imagine building the space frames, tankage, and habitable areas for a large vessel on the lunar surface or in lunar orbit, and then launch more complex systems from earth like engines, computers, electronics, etc.

to make habitation survivable the moon base would need to be under ground or well shielded. surface structures would come first, we would sheild those with regolith. after that we can start producing lunacrete and use that for building material. then bring in a tunnel boreing machine, and create a network of lunacrete-reinforced tunnels where final habitation would occure.

this should all be done before a mars mission i think. because a trip to mars would end up being just another apollo program. we would go, make a big deal about it, then argue for decades about whether we should colonize it or go to jupiter (and we still dont have a moon base to use as a staging area).

Edited May 13, 2013 by Nuke

[Astronut25]

Something to think about. Someone (unfortunately I forgot who) did some math and found that to go to Mars now would be cheaper than a single TransAtlantic ship was back in the time Europe was colonizing the Americas (comparison by percentage of economy dedicated to endeavor).

[NASAFanboy]

Something to think about. Someone (unfortunately I forgot who) did some math and found that to go to Mars now would be cheaper than a single TransAtlantic ship was back in the time Europe was colonizing the Americas (comparison by percentage of economy dedicated to endeavor).

Yeah, but they didn't have politicians cutting their funding every year.

I think we should hand off the lunar exploration to private companies, like Golden Spike and Bigelow. Bigelow already has expressed interest in a moonbase, so I think the future is Golden Spike Lunar Landers ferrying NASA astronauts to an purchased Bigelow moonbase.

[GJames]

I voted for research only for many of the same reasons that other people have put (not running before you can walk .etc).

However, I would personally be very disappointed if humans didn't go back there and then onto Mars by 2050 or so. My view of 2100 is of a continued research-orientated human presence on the Moon and maybe Mars, and manned missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn either having happened or be seriously on the drawing board.

I'm an optimist, what can I say!

[NASAFanboy]

I voted for research only for many of the same reasons that other people have put (not running before you can walk .etc).

However, I would personally be very disappointed if humans didn't go back there and then onto Mars by 2050 or so. My view of 2100 is of a continued research-orientated human presence on the Moon and maybe Mars, and manned missions to the moons of Jupiter and Saturn either having happened or be seriously on the drawing board.

I'm an optimist, what can I say!

While our probes are going to Alpha Centauri and such. I think exploration of the Jovian System will begin around 2070, with a manned base by 2090, Saturnian and beyond by 2090 and Titan Base by 2100. Interstellar by 2130.

Manned Mars mission by 2030, Mars Base by 2040, Moonbase by 2030.

I'm an optimist.

[tek_604]

Manned Mars mission by 2030, Mars Base by 2040, Moonbase by 2030.

I'm an optimist.

You'd have to be an optimist with numbers like those, given the budgets available. As it stands now, the planetary science (I am part of this community) budget is being slashed, and we (I'm European, but indirectly work for both NASA & ESA - sounds fancier than it really is, trust me) have a load of scientists with nothing to do, and this is causing one hell of a stink, given the successes with remote sensing post-Apollo.

That being said, I am pro-manned spaceflight at this point. We have driven robotic technology pretty much as far as it can go, and in my opinion, NASA is right to be pushing its manned program ahead, at the cost of planetary science (and a load of other NASA programs nobody remembers, like STEM, or public outreach efforts, which are also being slashed). But, there is never going to be the money right now to do bases of any kind. I'd be happy with boots on the Moon by 2030, and even this I think is optimistic.

And that's only if they bury this NEO asteroid capture nonsense. Which they won't just yet, as you've got different people arguing for their own projects taking precedence over something else.

Something else to consider is just how much the current NASA & ESA infrastructures need to be improved. The DSN is in deep need of upgrading and extending (they need more 70m dishes), and ESA has no 70m dishes at all. This restricts the amount of data which can be transmitted to Earth. This all needs to be figured in also.

In the end, NASA & ESA do not have the money to do it any time soon. And bringing in the Russians (who say they are going all over the place, and when they do get some hardware together, looks like it was built in the 70s, and then it doesn't make it anywhere), Japanese (who do a pretty good job with a limited budget), Indians, Chinese, probably wouldn't help much either.

And I do agree with some previous posts; we are much more risk averse than we were in the 60s. Maybe because we have learnt what risks there are now, and unlike us, national space agencies (or private companies for that matter), can't plonk a ready supply of Kamikaze whatever-nauts on top of some wonky rockets and hope for the best. *phew*

[Borklund]

Yes, both colony (eventually) and research (initially). Start with a mini-ISS in orbit around the Moon, then establish lunar outpost(s) on the surface, then build on that.

Sadly, none of these things will happen in my lifetime.

[WestAir]

Yes, both colony (eventually) and research (initially). Start with a mini-ISS in orbit around the Moon, then establish lunar outpost(s) on the surface, then build on that.

Sadly, none of these things will happen in my lifetime.

Yup. It seems like without a drastic change in funding and infrastructure, this century will be as amazing for space enthusiasts as the 17th Century was. Mars and the moon seem just as far away as ever.

Edited June 4, 2013 by WestAir

[ShachonianX]

Besides from research and colonization, it can also be used as a lunar mining site.