NASA How to colonize the Moon without busting NASA’s budget

[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. 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.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

It doesn't make sense to me. Having lifted material up from the Earth, why would you then lower it back down to the Moon. For the sole purpose of assembly? And then lift it up again because it's a cheap launching point? Here's a better idea. Assemble the stuff in space.

I think it makes more sense to colonize space than colonize the moon. The moon can provide a very important service, but not as an assembly point. Rather as a source of raw materials. A relatively small community on the moon could provide the materials for large structures used to colonize space. My ideas on this subject come from books I read 30 or more years ago mostly inspired by Gerard O'Neill.

Here is a site to start with in order to look into the scientific and legal issues involved in space colonization.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society"