Slashdot Mirror
Speculations on a Moon Colony
Buggernut writes "As reported by the BBC, humans could be living on the Moon within 20 years, according to a leading lunar scientist."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Fourty years ago, when the Americans were graring up for their first moon missions, the 'pundits' made exactly the same predictions.
Today it's the Chinese, but it all seems very similar.
Sure we've got better technology now, but will that really make the difference? Lunar colonisation will only happen when there's political will to see it happen, and frankly, I can't see the conditions being right for that for some time.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
The article just says it's technologically feasible. How boring.
In the movie The Right Stuff, and, IIRC in the book,a congressman says to an astronaut "What makes your rockets go up?" The astronaut starts to saying something about reaction masses and exhaust velocity, and the comgressman cuts him short and says, "No. What makes your rockets go up is funding."
Of course a Moon base is technologically feasible. Goodness, if we're just talking technological feasibility we should be able to be a lot more imaginative than that. (Project Orion, anyone?).
But unless someone "salts" the Moon with gold nuggets (I believe it's in Carl Sandburg's The People, Yes in which someone starts a rumor that there's gold on the Moon, and so many people start heading for the Moon that the person who started the rumor figures there must be something in it after all and joins them) I don't see how it's going to happen.
(Another nugget from The People, Yes "Another baby in Cuyahuga County, Ohio--why did she ask: 'Papa, what is the moon supposed to advertise?'" I'd give a nickel to know whether Heinlein read that before writing "The Man who Sold the Moon.")
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
It seems odd that we can spend 400 billion dollars on defense in a year, but not have NASA be doing 10x the work they do now....
Why can't we spend 20 billion less (what is that, a couple stealth bombers?) and get:
*NASA sending a probe a month to mars, or the OTHER 7 PLANETS
*build a better ISS.
*colonize the moon
*colonize mars
*put a big honkin telescope(or an array of them!) on the moon/mars.
*mine moon/mars for resources(water, building materials?, ore???)
*have a launchpad on the moon, since it would be less fuel intensive to launch from there
*build a space shuttle that kicks ass. that can easily takeoff/land/look cool without needs major repairs after every mission.
*or...
those might not seem practical, but why not? the advancement of science shouldn't be determined by profitability of a given project.