Slashdot Mirror
The Case for the Moon
apsmith writes "Continuing the flurry of recent hearings on the future of humans in space, a Senate committee on Thursday heard testimony in favor of a return to the Moon. Former senator and moon-walker Harrison Schmitt and physicist David Criswell see the lunar surface as an immense energy resource, just waiting to be tapped. Astronomer Roger Angel sees the lunar south pole as the ideal astronomical observatory, with locations for telescopes 100 times better than anything we've done so far. And geologist Paul Spudis sees a lot of unfinished business on the Moon, to develop it as the "feedstock of an industrial space infrastructure." TransOrbital also sent written testimony."
I'm not a space nut, but why did NASA stop going to the moon in the first place? Its been a couple decades since our last moon landing, no?
Each in due time. Start with the Moon and Mars. Eventually we'll (personally) explore the whole galaxy...
Fuck Iraq, the Moon is the Future. . .
...folowing by USSR was bad new for US space science.
Send a chinese in space, and all of a sudden, space is interesting.
Can americans be rulled without an official enemy ?
This doesn't have anything to do with China's manned space mission, does it? I mean, now that China's got a man up in space (albeit temporarily), the USA wants its domination of space back?
Condemnant quod non intellegunt.
The moon is the next logical step for humanity. Why? Because its close, mainly. A permanant base on the moon will allow us to reach the rest of the solar system easier. There are tons of resoures that can be tapped on the moon, helium-3, for instance. Once we are on the moon, Mars, Jupiter's moons, and the asteroid belt would seem like reasonable destinations for humanity. We are so rapidly using up our resources here on earth, that is no alternatives are found, we will be doomed. Sure the costs and teh risks are astronomical (no pun intended), but the rewards should surely outweigh any such cost. The trick will be finding someone to foot the bill in order to get started.
in-sig-nificant
The extreme (!) cost per pound to ship things by space shuttle would have to be dealt with before mining would be a possibility. Unless you're talking about mining the moon for use on the moon.
We definitely need a moonbase. It's going to get very expensive if we keep on launching probes from Earth. Imagine how much fuel you're wasting just to get something up to escape velocity. If we build a moonbase, and use that as an assembly/construction point, then we can dedicate that much more money to better sensor arrays, cameras, etc.
Not to mention, a moonbase is better than a space station because a space station has to correct it's orbit every so often, there's so much garbage in the space close to Earth, etc. At least the moon is a stable platform where we can build stuff on. Hell, perhaps we can find a cave or something and build laboratories inside that. That way, even if a rogue object hits the moon, the labs will be relatively safe.
We can also build better telescopes. Imagine a telescope on the moon. A scope on Earth has to contend with the irregularities of the atmosphere, etc. But a moon telescope, forget it. Clear view all the way to Andromeda.
What happened to all the dreams back in the 1970's? Wasn't there all sorts of notions about how soon man was going to have massive bases on the moon, etc? Now fast forward to 2003, oops sorry, no go.
What exists on the Moon that cannot be found or created at a price tag magnitudes lower on the Earth?
When we talk about going to the Moon, we're talking about Billions of dollars. That being said, I'm a _HUGE_ space and astronomy nut, but I do not see how going there will improve anything other than our nationalism. Perhaps it may help open the way for future cost effective space travel, BUT we are by no means anywhere near the point where we can justify the govt subsidizing such expenditures because the gains are VERY far away.
Yes, space gave us Tang and Velcro but putting Shuttles into orbit and people on the Moon have not cured _any_ diseases. I would *love* to see Americans on the Moon again and I'd even be willing to help front the bill, BUT the Country does not consider this important.
How far would $87 Billion gone towards development of a research outpost on the Moon?
I wish we had leaders that are looking up and beyond and not try to right personal vendettes at the expense or our future.
And BTW If deficits are o.k., which is what I have been hearing lately, why not go into hock for something for something with vision and with real lasting value.
Nope. That's the major difference between americans and sheeps:
- Sheeps need the leader;
- Americans need the leader AND the enemy.
If you don't like it then come to live in Europe - somehow they manage to live without an enemy AND without a leader too.Less is more !
IMHO, throwing some money at nanotube research is a very good investment, considering the myriad applications. However, designing your entire space program around a technology that may never be possible seems overly risky.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
Returning to the Moon should be our next step.
NO! NO! Mars is a much better place to go. The Moon is a pile of dead rock!
We need SSTO.
NO! NO! SSTO is too difficult and expensive! Expendables can do the job more cheaply until we've developed better technology.
Capsules are stupid, you have little control over your landing area.
Winged spacecraft are stupid! Wings are dead weight on the way up.
Coming down on rockets (Delta Clipper) is stupid. You have to carry your landing fuel up, and then down, again.
No concensus whatsoever. As a result, we either do NOTHING, or we do things halfway, and then change direction, which is WORSE.
IMHO, one thing the space station has taught us is that building and running a space station is HARD. If there's ONE piece of value we should get out of the ISS, it's how the heck we can do it BETTER, if we can just get a Next Time.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Mars may be cool but if you don't want to tranform the whole planet into second Earth there are almost no advantages of having Mars colonies compared to Moon colonies and there are many disadvantages caused by its distance from Earth. On average opositions it is 202 times farther from Earth than Moon and light travels a few minutes from it. It takes months for spaceprobes to travel to Mars during most favorable conditions.
It is important to explore Mars but its colonization is a completely different story.
Save the bandwidth. Don't use sigs!
We're not a presence in space because we can only go on camping trips there, and there's not much useful you can do on a camping trip other than take pictures of yourself among the beautiful scenery.
It's not enough to do camping trips. It's not enough to have an outpost that is continually restocked from home. It's not enough to have a self-supporting village out there. What is needed is a colony out there with the ability to build more colonies. Once we have a that, we can fill the space between the planets in the solar system. The reason to do that is to have more grandchildren.
We don't have the technology to build a self-supporting village, much less a colony that can build new colonies. The moon can give us raw materials, but I doubt that its gravity is enough to prevent long-term bone loss and muscle atrophy in humans. We should look into rotating structures for how to live in space. And we need to work on closed biosystems. We've made good progress on solar cells, computers, and robots in recent decades, which definitely helps.
Lets face it, its sunset for the US manned space program. Huge, bloated projects like the $90 billion Space Station, that might not even be completed. then endless introspection when there is an accident.
China has an efficient, working space program. They've cloned, and modernized the Soyuez, which is a much more cost-effective space vehicle than the space shuttle. And China has a national spirit for science. Its not like the US and Europe when leftists endlessly whine about hazards of progress and diversion of funds from social needs. And the US in a new Vietnam, an interminable war in Iraq and sinkhole for any economic surplus for science.
"Ruguo nimen yao fangwen yuhuan, bixu xuexi Zhongwen!"
I'd rather spend the money on a space elevator. Once you can get things into space at a lower cost and time frame, going to the moon and mars would be easier.
Boy, it sure would have been nice to see an $87 Billion appropriations bill for moon / Mars exploration. Oh, wait, the Congress and Senate did just pass an $87 Billion approprations bill. What say you we just up and leave and use the money for space exploration instead?
A telescope on the lunar south pole can only observe half the sky, while a telescope on the lunar equator can observe all the sky (during one month). So why is the south pole supposed to be an ideal place for telescopes?
Sure we could spend billions on a new space program but what if...
What if? That's not a good argument.
We already possess the core technologies - they won't be perfect, but they're there. Developing better/new tools should be emphasized, but not to the point of halting the development of applications that use these existing tools. Many times the two create a development cycle (developing a computer component on a computer, and then using that component on your next computer to develop better components which you'll use on your next...), in which case you can't ignore work in one area.
Those fancy applications are helpful by inpiring others to get involved in the develop of better methods and tools. Popular Science magazine is a good example.
This is not my sig.
I wonder who would own the moon in the case that scientist actually found a strong resource that would be invaluable here on Earth, or something along those lines. Every country that has a space program would head on up there and try to stake their claim at the moon, and even countries that didn't previously have a space program would probably develop one if there was a valuable resource on the moon to be gathered.
Which brings me back to my original question, who would own the moon?
YOU'RE WINNER !
Another lame blog
It seems to me that many of the same Slashdotters ranting and raving against environmentalists, energy conservation, and solar power here on earth also are ardent proponents of colonizing the moon and the planets.
Why is solar power good if it is a light second away but bad if it is in much more accessible places like the Sahara desert? Why not first deploy solar power stations in the Sahara and then figure out how to do it on the moon?
And how do you think people are going to manage to live on the moon, where everything needs to be recycled, when we can't even manage to even keep our resource needs from growing disproportionately, let alone live in balance, here on earth?
I think manned space exploration is a waste of money and time. But perhaps there is one good thing that would come out of it: a lot of people would finally begin to understand what environmentalists have been saying all along.