How to colonize the Moon without busting NASA’s budget

[WarrenPlatts]

Simple, we take the project away from NASA and give it to the Air Force instead.

According long established international law, an imperial power first plants it’s flag on a newly discovered land, thereby claiming it as sovereign territory belonging to the power that first explored it. The task then becomes first and foremost a military problem of defending the territory against all would be usurpers.

Think about it: the first wave of naval exploration of the Pacific were undertaken by navies. The scientific expeditions came later, after the ocean had been mostly charted, and an infrastructure of resupply bases put into place.

Right now, the U.S.A. is a party to the http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html" that’s been in force since 1967. This treaty is a disaster. According to the treaty, the Moon is basically a scientific International Park, rather like Antarctica. Any country is free to explore and exploit the Moon, for peaceful purposes. The treaty explicitly bars national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, or by means of use and occupation, or any other means.

The OST is inherently unfair to the nation that expends the treasury and blood to get there first—U.S. We planted the American flag there in several places. Therefore, it's ours. Since the OST is onerous, we can in all good conscience unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. Our task will then be to defend the Moon from all comers. They can visit, and do whatever—after they pay us a fat licensing fee. If anyone lands on the Moon without American permission, their astronauts will be captured and sent back to Earth in handcuffs.

Thus, the first continuously manned presence on the Moon should be military bases. Once military bases are established, NSF—not NASA—scientists will be able to piggyback on the military installations. Here the model is the Arctic, rather than the Antarctic, where scientists studying the aurora borealis were based out of radar installations guarding against Soviet ICBM’s.

In this manner, NASA can save it’s money for aeronautical engineering and unmanned space probes to more distant objectives. The construction of Air Force bases on the Moon will only place a small dent into the $400+billion DOD budget. And such scientific research that can be conducted will be done under the auspices of NSF, thus further conserving NASA funds.

The Chinese, Russians, and Iranians will howl, but when faced with the fait accompli, there will be little that they will be able to do about it. More daunting, I doubt that the hippies who now control NASA will take kindly to a military usurpation of their bureaucratic turf—even though most of them don’t have faith in manned exploration of space.

 

[Kurdt]

Is that really the kind of world you'd like to live in? Sounds like a breeding ground for conflict to me. If we're ever to progress to a level beyond where we are now we have to stop thinking about what makes us different and concentrate on the things that make us the same.

I could go on but it belongs in a different forum. Anyway I believe if anyhwhere such as the the Moon or Mars were to have outposts or bases they'd be scientific outposts manned by a global effort of resources and expertise. I see very little value in any country wasting money on defending something that has no use other than as an area for scientific research.

 

[Integral]

Could someone explain the need of a manned moon base? What function will it serve? What science will be done? What are the goals of this base?

 

[Entropy]

Yeah, why exactly would we want a base on the moon?

 

[scott_alexsk]

To mine Helium-4 and tritinium(sp)?
-scott

 

[vanesch]

According long established international law, an imperial power first plants it’s flag on a newly discovered land, thereby claiming it as sovereign territory belonging to the power that first explored it. The task then becomes first and foremost a military problem of defending the territory against all would be usurpers.

The flaw in the logic is here: who was the first one is not important, if you have to defend it with military means. Who gets there with the biggest guns is the owner of the moment, not necessarily the first one. And honestly, delivering a few nukes on the moon is easier than to maintain heavily armed bases. So if an international consortium decides to get you off the moon, it wouldn't be too difficult: a few hundred of unmanned rockets with very heavy hydrogen bombs would do. There are few reasons NOT to nuke such bases: they clearly present a danger to about all nations on earth, there's no ecological factor to take into account, or any civilian population to take into account. And there's not even a big danger for retalliation if the initiative goes out from an international consortium (say, the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans and a few others): you're not going to wage a total war on Earth against half the planet for a few bases on the moon.

So this is really not the way to go: it would trigger a very hostile reaction against which you cannot do much. I think that if you want to have an influence on what happens on the Moon, then you should simply do what you have always done: do as the others, but just better and more, and the natural authority will come by itself.

Moreover, the reasoning doesn't work very well for you if you consider space around the Earth as similar to the moon: the Russians were there first, so this means they "own" now the space around earth, and users should pay heavy "space visa rights" to the Russians ?

 

[franznietzsche]

Could someone explain the need of a manned moon base? What function will it serve? What science will be done? What are the goals of this base?

Well, since obviously we gained no benefits from landing on the moon, I mean what a waste of money that certainly resulted in us learning nothing of any scientific value, there is no need.

Oh wait...

On a less sardonic note, I am much opposed to the idea of militarising outer space, for the same reasons as kurdt and vanesch.

 

[Astronuc]

Simple, we take the project away from NASA and give it to the Air Force instead.

In this manner, NASA can save it’s money for aeronautical engineering and unmanned space probes to more distant objectives. The construction of Air Force bases on the Moon will only place a small dent into the $400+billion DOD budget. And such scientific research that can be conducted will be done under the auspices of NSF, thus further conserving NASA funds.

Actually, the money for NASA and AirForce come from the same source - the US taxpayer via Federal Treasury. So, from the financial side, it would not matter whether NASA or AF spends the money.

Right now, the U.S.A. is a party to the Outer Space Treaty that’s been in force since 1967. According to the treaty, the Moon is basically a scientific International Park, rather like Antarctica. Any country is free to explore and exploit the Moon, for peaceful purposes. The treaty explicitly bars national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, or by means of use and occupation, or any other means.

Sounds good to me!

The OST is inherently unfair to the nation that expends the treasury and blood to get there first—U.S. We planted the American flag there in several places. Therefore, it's ours. Since the OST is onerous, we can in all good conscience unilaterally withdraw from the treaty.

Um, the treaty was signed in 1967 before the first moon landing in 1969 - therefore, the moon is NOT a territory of the US! Nor has the US laid claim. Yes, the US could withdraw from/break/violate the treaty, but not in 'good' conscience.

. . . , I doubt that the hippies who now control NASA will take kindly to a military usurpation of their bureaucratic turf—even though most of them don’t have faith in manned exploration of space.

I'd rather hippies run NASA than belligerent militants.

 

[Mental Gridlock]

I like what vanesch said about, "...Who gets there with the biggest guns is the owner of the moment..."

That's all it boils down to.

That is the way land "ownership" has always worked. I put quotes around ownership because nobody here on Earth owns any land. We might put up our flag, print out our own arbitrary documents, notarize them, and put up a "beware of dog" sign, but nobody owns it. We just say we do so we can kick your butt if you tresspass. Kind of like if a wolf pees on a tree, he may feel like he "owns" that part of the forest. But does he really? Of course not. That forest will still be there long after the wolf is dead. But the wolf just might attack you if you decide to tresspass, because he arbitrarily believes it's his on account of his pee. I don't see why extraterrestrial land would be any different.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Is that really the kind of world you'd like to live in? Sounds like a breeding ground for conflict to me. If we're ever to progress to a level beyond where we are now we have to stop thinking about what makes us different and concentrate on the things that make us the same.

This is what I'm talking about, and this kind of attitude will doom Western Civilization.

Could someone explain the need of a manned moon base? What function will it serve? What science will be done? What are the goals of this base?

Whoever controls the Moon controls the LEO's; and whoever controls the LEO's controls the Earth. Screw science!

The flaw in the logic is here: who was the first one is not important, if you have to defend it with military means. Who gets there with the biggest guns is the owner of the moment, not necessarily the first one. And honestly, delivering a few nukes on the moon is easier than to maintain heavily armed bases. So if an international consortium decides to get you off the moon, it wouldn't be too difficult: a few hundred of unmanned rockets with very heavy hydrogen bombs would do. There are few reasons NOT to nuke such bases: they clearly present a danger to about all nations on earth, there's no ecological factor to take into account, or any civilian population to take into account. And there's not even a big danger for retalliation if the initiative goes out from an international consortium (say, the Chinese, the Russians, the Europeans and a few others): you're not going to wage a total war on Earth against half the planet for a few bases on the moon.

So this is really not the way to go: it would trigger a very hostile reaction against which you cannot do much. I think that if you want to have an influence on what happens on the Moon, then you should simply do what you have always done: do as the others, but just better and more, and the natural authority will come by itself.

Moreover, the reasoning doesn't work very well for you if you consider space around the Earth as similar to the moon: the Russians were there first, so this means they "own" now the space around earth, and users should pay heavy "space visa rights" to the Russians ?

Bon jour mi amigo,

You are correct that it is not always the first discoverer that gets the gold. It's the one who's willing to defend it that wins in the end. That's probably what the Chinese are thinking. As for hostile reactions, we deal with those every day as it is. Really, do you think someone will start a war over the Moon when they haven't a chance to do anything about it? As for nukes on the Moon, I think it's good strategery. It would guarantee an assured second strike capability. Any attack on the Moon would be obvious three days before the shells would hit. Plenty of time to react.

The rest of the world shouldn't worry. If the USA really wanted to nuke you, they would have done it a long time ago. No, it's only the crazies that advocate nuclear first strikes.

Actually, the money for NASA and AirForce come from the same source - the US taxpayer via Federal Treasury. So, from the financial side, it would not matter whether NASA or AF spends the money.

Give me a break! All government agencies are created equal; but some agencies are more equal than others. . . . .

Um, the treaty was signed in 1967 before the first moon landing in 1969 - therefore, the moon is NOT a territory of the US! Nor has the US laid claim. Yes, the US could withdraw from/break/violate the treaty, but not in 'good' conscience.

I think about these kinds of deals all the time--mostly because I figure I'm getting screwed. . . . When there's a new gig going on, those that have little to nothing to do with it still want a piece of the action--or at least if they can't get any, they don't want you to get any---at least anyways until they are on top and can dictate the terms. Yeah, it's true that Michaeal Jordan fulfilled the terms of his first contract before he demanded his true worth. And so have we. Forty years is long enough. It's time to renegotiate.

Well, since obviously we gained no benefits from landing on the moon, I mean what a waste of money that certainly resulted in us learning nothing of any scientific value, there is no need.

An understandable belief from an amateur scientist who has never studied lunar science.

Geologists UNITE!

 

[WarrenPlatts]

I like what vanesch said about, "...Who gets there with the biggest guns is the owner of the moment..."

That's all it boils down to.

That is the way land "ownership" has always worked. I put quotes around ownership because nobody here on Earth owns any land. We might put up our flag, print out our own arbitrary documents, notarize them, and put up a "beware of dog" sign, but nobody owns it. We just say we do so we can kick your butt if you tresspass. Kind of like if a wolf pees on a tree, he may feel like he "owns" that part of the forest. But does he really? Of course not. That forest will still be there long after the wolf is dead. But the wolf just might attack you if you decide to tresspass, because he arbitrarily believes it's his on account of his pee. I don't see why extraterrestrial land would be any different.

Thank you.

 

[scott1]

Actually, the money for NASA and AirForce come from the same source - the US taxpayer via Federal Treasury. So, from the financial side, it would not matter whether NASA or AF spends the money.

But the Air Froce get's more money then NASA would.

 

[Integral]

Well, since obviously we gained no benefits from landing on the moon, I mean what a waste of money that certainly resulted in us learning nothing of any scientific value, there is no need.

Oh wait...

On a less sardonic note, I am much opposed to the idea of militarising outer space, for the same reasons as kurdt and vanesch.

So you can't think of any meaningful science that needs a manned moon base either.

Are we talking about historic missions or are we talking about the future? What, on earth, or the moon for that matter, does the missions of the 60's and 70's have to do with the missions of tomorrow? Do you think that another suitcase full of rocks will justify the expense of a manned colony? We need something more then that. What do you propose? What is there that needs the presence of a human? Good science can be done with modern robotics why waste mass and money on sending a man? Really it does not make any sense to put man on the moon or Mars without some well defined needs. We can not afford to do this for glory or heroics, there must be some real and apparent need. What is that need? Please tell me.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, since obviously we gained no benefits from landing on the moon, I mean what a waste of money that certainly resulted in us learning nothing of any scientific value, there is no need.

Oh wait...

On a less sardonic note, I am much opposed to the idea of militarising outer space, for the same reasons as kurdt and vanesch.

Not entirely true. There was a GREAT DEAL we gained from going to the moon. A Lot of new technology was developed specifically because we needed to invent it to go there. It's not the act of going to the moon that gave us the great benifits.

 

[-Job-]

The moon is pretty big. Considering that only a handfull of nations can actually afford to go to the moon, there's really not much to fight about, not many to fight with and very little to defend. Eventually the moon may become more valuable and habitable, but by then Mars will be perfectly within reach so this notion of territoriality is a little ridiculous and would only hurt us. Besides, I'm a human being and then I'm an American, in that order, so i am able to cooperate with other humans, regardless of nationality.
I vote against.

 

[batboy]

Because of our gravity, the moon will be a cheaper launching point. Thus, saving future NASA assets. They'll ship parts there and have people assemble them there. It's basically expanding NASA, another facility. This makes sense to me.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

Not entirely true. There was a GREAT DEAL we gained from going to the moon. A Lot of new technology was developed specifically because we needed to invent it to go there. It's not the act of going to the moon that gave us the great benifits.

Cyrus!
Finally paid my internet bill. I see they moved this thread to the politics section. In the Astronomy section, they just lock the threads--here you get banned. Glad to see your freak flag waving. However, I would add that regardless of all the spinoffs generated, the intrinsic lunar science that was done during Apollo justified the expense.

 

[Cyrus]

Oh dear god, what internet company in their right mind would grand you service? Well, it was a nice quiet around here while it lasted. I thought you had shipped out to Iraq by now. :rofl:

My freak flag waving?

I don't know much about the lunar science that directly benifitted the United States, but I do know that a good amount of the technology that was needed eventually found its way to the average citizen.

And I don't care much for your lunar base idea, it's an utter waste of money for nothing. Isn't our debt large enough as it is because of bad military policy?

 

[WarrenPlatts]

The moon is pretty big. Considering that only a handfull of nations can actually afford to go to the moon, there's really not much to fight about, not many to fight with and very little to defend. Eventually the moon may become more valuable and habitable, but by then Mars will be perfectly within reach so this notion of territoriality is a little ridiculous and would only hurt us. Besides, I'm a human being and then I'm an American, in that order, so i am able to cooperate with other humans, regardless of nationality.
I vote against.

The Moon has only the surface area of Africa, according to my recollection. Correct me if I'm wrong. But I guess that can be considered to be pretty big. Whether that's worth defending. . . . Was Canada worth defending? There was this wasteland up North, and some people had faith and thought it was worth defending--and now look at it! It's better than Mexico!

As for being a human being and then an American--in that order--you've got it backwards. I am a physical system, an animal, a carnivore, a primate, a human, and an American, but not in that order.

 

[-Job-]

How about you choose your order, and i choose mine. :tongue2:

 

[Gokul43201]

Simple, we take the project away from NASA and give it to the Air Force instead.

A brilliant idea, what with the roaring success of programs like Star Wars.

 

[WarrenPlatts]

A brilliant idea, what with the roaring success of programs like Star Wars.

Yeah, and NASA's even better with the smashing success of the Space Shuttle. And don't forget about the IST.

 

[franznietzsche]

So you can't think of any meaningful science that needs a manned moon base either.

Are we talking about historic missions or are we talking about the future? What, on earth, or the moon for that matter, does the missions of the 60's and 70's have to do with the missions of tomorrow? Do you think that another suitcase full of rocks will justify the expense of a manned colony? We need something more then that. What do you propose? What is there that needs the presence of a human? Good science can be done with modern robotics why waste mass and money on sending a man? Really it does not make any sense to put man on the moon or Mars without some well defined needs. We can not afford to do this for glory or heroics, there must be some real and apparent need. What is that need? Please tell me.

Wow. i would think you would have had a better appreciation for what was learned thanks to the apollo missions. I'm dissappointed in you.

This has nothing to do with basic science research. Its the engineering research I'm interested in this case. Does that jog your memory? Or do I need to go down the list?

Advancements made during the apollo program:

Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.

Definitely useless. What benefit have those ever provided humanity with? What a waste of money, right Integral?

Digital signal-processing techniques, originally developed to computer-enhance pictures of the Moon for the Apollo Program, are an indispensable part of Computer-Aided Tomography (CAT) scan and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) technologies used today in hospitals worldwide.

CAT scans and MRI were definitely not worthwhile advances.

Water purification technology used on the Apollo spacecraft is now employed in several spinoff applications to kill bacteria, viruses and algae in community water supply systems and cooling towers. Filters mounted on faucets can reduce lead in water supplies.

Cleaner water supplies you say? Bah, give me good ol' bilge water.


I'm seriously dissappointed in your lack of...perspective. Manned spaceflight is not useful for basic science. However, the engineering challenges it forces us to overcome will benefit those of us stuck here on the ground in ways we cannot yet imagine. A concerted effort towards manned spaceflight is a sort of 'technical progress accelerant'. It forces us to solve all sorts of other problems in the process that are useful, that may not have been solved otherwise, at least not as soon.

 

[Cyrus]

You forgot wd-40.
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/science/f_apollo_11_spinoff.html

 

[laurelelizabeth]

Right now, the U.S.A. is a party to the http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html" that’s been in force since 1967. This treaty is a disaster. According to the treaty, the Moon is basically a scientific International Park, rather like Antarctica. Any country is free to explore and exploit the Moon, for peaceful purposes. The treaty explicitly bars national appropriation by claim of sovereignty, or by means of use and occupation, or any other means.

The OST is inherently unfair to the nation that expends the treasury and blood to get there first—U.S. We planted the American flag there in several places. Therefore, it's ours. Since the OST is onerous, we can in all good conscience unilaterally withdraw from the treaty. Our task will then be to defend the Moon from all comers. They can visit, and do whatever—after they pay us a fat licensing fee. If anyone lands on the Moon without American permission, their astronauts will be captured and sent back to Earth in handcuffs.

Thus, the first continuously manned presence on the Moon should be military bases. Once military bases are established, NSF—not NASA—scientists will be able to piggyback on the military installations. Here the model is the Arctic, rather than the Antarctic, where scientists studying the aurora borealis were based out of radar installations guarding against Soviet ICBM’s.

In this manner, NASA can save it’s money for aeronautical engineering and unmanned space probes to more distant objectives. The construction of Air Force bases on the Moon will only place a small dent into the $400+billion DOD budget. And such scientific research that can be conducted will be done under the auspices of NSF, thus further conserving NASA funds.

The Chinese, Russians, and Iranians will howl, but when faced with the fait accompli, there will be little that they will be able to do about it. More daunting, I doubt that the hippies who now control NASA will take kindly to a military usurpation of their bureaucratic turf—even though most of them don’t have faith in manned exploration of space.

I have an idea: What if all the countries that have space programs worked together? That could even (*gasp*) improve relations between countries if they worked together on something that is neutral and doesn't belong to any country (the moon). If there were military bases on the moon preventing anyone from going there it would just take away the sense of wonder of going there, and spawn conflicts here on earth. Can't we all just get along?

 

[Astronuc]

International Space Station?


Space exploration requires very expensive infrastructure and a lot of energy, particularly the energy to change the graviational potential of any mass that must be lauched from the Earth's surface to say 300 km in orbit. It costs on the order of $10,000 to put 1 kg into space - well that assumes whomever goes up just might want to return to earth.

 

[drankin]

Basically if a handful of hostile nations were able to have bases on the moon, they would be friends once they were there. Chances are they will need each others help on occasion. And being in such awe that they are actually there, I think their differences would seem pretty trivial in comparison.

 

[Smurf]

he's been banned dude.. he's not listening anymore.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Neo-conservatism is still alive and well in some people I see. The OP makes as much sense as Bush trying to claim a military right to the space around the Earth.

I think it's a good idea to explore ideas around colonising the moon, but I think actual physical efforts are best left to when we have developed viable technology to do so, it's a kind of juggling act. I'm not sure the information gained from trying now, would outweigh the cost consideration. I think eventually we'll have to try to do this at some point, but I'd wait until we are more advanced before we set foot there. It sounds like a catch-22 but I think if we are more advanced it will save time and money when we do establish a base so it might work out better. Just my speculation based two cents.

Oh and of course the OP is wrong, America never landed on the moon, as well know it was all staged in Area-51. :tongue2: Therefore no one has rights to it

And Russia of course has rights to the space just around Earth. Or should I say Russian dogs do, was a dog up there first wasn't it?

 

[K.J.Healey]

Basically if a handful of hostile nations were able to have bases on the moon, they would be friends once they were there. Chances are they will need each others help on occasion. And being in such awe that they are actually there, I think their differences would seem pretty trivial in comparison.

I think you're wrong on that point. Sure, the scientists, engineers, cosmonauts would get along great and respect each other with awe and comradery.
But never forget the power of earth-bound politics.

 

[K.J.Healey]

Neo-conservatism is still alive and well in some people I see. The OP makes as much sense as Bush trying to claim a military right to the space around the Earth.

I think it's a good idea to explore ideas around colonising the moon, but I think actual physical efforts are best left to when we have developed viable technology to do so, it's a kind of juggling act. I'm not sure the information gained from trying now, would outweigh the cost consideration. I think eventually we'll have to try to do this at some point, but I'd wait until we are more advanced before we set foot there. It sounds like a catch-22 but I think if we are more advanced it will save time and money when we do establish a base so it might work out better. Just my speculation based two cents.

Oh and of course the OP is wrong, America never landed on the moon, as well know it was all staged in Area-51. :tongue2: Therefore no one has rights to it

And Russia of course has rights to the space just around Earth. Or should I say Russian dogs do, was a dog up there first wasn't it?

What about basic computer rights? With AI becoming increasingly more powerful, can't we consider the first satellite/rocket to be a primitive "baby" or even "fetus" computer? And can't we argue about a "fetus"'s rights to declaration of property? life? and the ability to bear arms?
To follow the US constitution we should allow only primitive unmanned spacecraft that are armed with nuclear weapons. Might as well make their decision-making processes random to properly reflect human intelligence. They were there first right?

 

[mbrmbrg]

Forgetting politics for a mo'

I've been overly romanticized by sci-fi such as Robert Heinleins's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, so I'm curious if anyone has any ideas about the title of this thread. Historically speaking, colonialization decimated native populations, but from a WesternCiv perspective, gave birth to wonderful new societies. A globally representative government was given another kick-start after a couple thousand years in Great Britain's 13 American colinies, and what would today's world be like without the Aussies? Could dumping criminals on the moon give birth to a state just as cool? And as far as we know, there ain't no native population to do wrong by up there.

Whoa... and would Moon As Criminal Dumping Grounds help with the funding? Living quarters on the moon would be orders of magnitude more expensive than on earth, but there would be many fewer "second offenders"... Ummm I'm really reaching here. Help out?

 

[laurelelizabeth]

I like what vanesch said about, "...Who gets there with the biggest guns is the owner of the moment..."

That's all it boils down to.

That is the way land "ownership" has always worked. I put quotes around ownership because nobody here on Earth owns any land. We might put up our flag, print out our own arbitrary documents, notarize them, and put up a "beware of dog" sign, but nobody owns it. We just say we do so we can kick your butt if you tresspass. Kind of like if a wolf pees on a tree, he may feel like he "owns" that part of the forest. But does he really? Of course not. That forest will still be there long after the wolf is dead. But the wolf just might attack you if you decide to tresspass, because he arbitrarily believes it's his on account of his pee. I don't see why extraterrestrial land would be any different.

I agree with you ^_^

So really what needs to be done is send astronauts on the moon to pee there. Sounds like a plan..lol

Forgetting politics for a mo'

I've been overly romanticized by sci-fi such as Robert Heinleins's The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, so I'm curious if anyone has any ideas about the title of this thread. Historically speaking, colonialization decimated native populations, but from a WesternCiv perspective, gave birth to wonderful new societies. A globally representative government was given another kick-start after a couple thousand years in Great Britain's 13 American colinies, and what would today's world be like without the Aussies? Could dumping criminals on the moon give birth to a state just as cool? And as far as we know, there ain't no native population to do wrong by up there.

Whoa... and would Moon As Criminal Dumping Grounds help with the funding? Living quarters on the moon would be orders of magnitude more expensive than on earth, but there would be many fewer "second offenders"... Ummm I'm really reaching here. Help out?

Hmmm... i guess their accents would be sort of like what you would hear if a Russian moved to Texas? (I don't know, but it would be really interesting.) They could also put all these criminals into simple houses (but not horrible living conditions), and have there be chores that they have to do that if they don't do, they would be making life worse for themselves...

 

[kyoshi]

personally i am doing a research project on the subject and believe that true enough ownership of said land should come after its colonization and terraforming and seeing as how that will take over an estimated thousand years i think were good on the whole violence thing. As for colonization i see more positive in it then negative we would actually have room for all of these 6.8+ billion people rather than having every crowded around in third world countries. That is the true purpose of working together, to achieve somthing that will not just benefit one but all including those who wanted to but had nothing to comtribute.*or at least that's how i was raised*

 

[aquitaine]

Werhner von Braun pushed for long term human habitation on the moon and in space in general from the early 50's until the day he died, but not enough of the right people listened. The moon could have many future uses such as construction of spacebound ships, launching point for further exploration and exploitation of the solar system and its resources, various low g scientific experinments, mining activities (since the moon has no ecosystem feel free to strip mine the hell out of it), helium 3 for future fusion reactors, and probably more I can't think of at the moment. There is plenty to gain in the long term by going to the moon.

Here is something else worth considering: Why did we even go to the moon in the first place? I personally suspect it was to make sure we got there before the Soviet Union. Why are going planning on going back now? I find it somewhat suspicious that we "suddenly" announce we're going back after China announced it was planning to go there for the first time. Is this the only reason we are reaching out in the universe? To "get there" before someone else does?

I personally have been very critical of NASA. It just seems like it has stagnated for the last two decades, and doesn't have much in the way of long term vision. I don't think it is completely the fault of NASA itself, since it is chained to an electorate that by and large doesn't give a damn about the long term survival or viability of the human race, the obscene popularity of the SUV in the 15 years before oil prices went through the roof is testament to this. However, NASA's inability to even make a 60's era launch system is hugely embarrassing. I was reading recently that, for example, they tried to use the heat shield from the original Apollo program in their new rockets that are underdevelopment but couldn't figure out how it was made.

We do seriously need to find ways to reduce the costs of putting things into orbit, one way or another, and maybe a REAL presence in space is one good way to do it.

Btw, when they launch stuff how is the money being spent (such as how much does fuel, etc, cost)? From the outside it just looks like a financial black hole.