Slashdot Mirror


Site for Moon Base Determined

Deinhard writes "Going hand-in-hand with the recent discussion on Moon Bases, Space.com is reporting that the perfect spot for a moon base has been found. According to the article, 'the best spot to settle on the Moon may be on the northern rim of Peary crater, close to the north pole.' What makes the location so important is that it is permanently lit, with a balmy -58 Fahrenheit (-50 C)."

63 of 738 comments (clear)

  1. Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    We are Mooninites from the inner core of the Moon. Our race is hundreds of years behind yours. Some would say that the Earth is our moon, but that would belittle the name of our moon, which is The Moon.

    For one thing, the Moon has one third less gravity than your Earth. I don't know if you can understand that, but our vertical leap is beyond all measurement.

    On the Moon, nerds get their pants pulled down and they are spanked with Moonrocks.

  2. Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fine, I'll build my own moon base! With blackjack...and hookers...in fact, forget the base!

    --
    ____

    ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

  3. And now... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 4, Funny

    They can build the Alan Parsons Project.

    --

    Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  4. Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Record debt and deficits, and the Senate is right now discussing removing the Estate Tax. There is no money for this in your lifetime, it is scifi.

    1. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by bobbis.u · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are other countries in space besides the USA.

    2. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by JasonMaggini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who says it's the government that has to build it?

    3. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      He forgot Poland!

    4. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by stinkyfingers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And why would that stop the US Government? It didn't stop it from going to war, or continuing it, or providing an extension in welfare programs (drug benefit).

    5. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by JasonMaggini · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ah, to be that naive again....

    6. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by Catbeller · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Five years ago, we had plenty of money, and we were paying down the national debt, to the consternation of the debt holders.

      Now we are pumping almost a quarter of our national tax revenues into paying the interest on the exploding debt. The average schmo got $300, the wealthy got hundreds of billions in tax cuts, and we are BROKE. Not an accident; now come the cuts in every guvmint expenditure hated by the right, along with huge increases in defense and surveillance spending.

      We aren't going to buy any moon bases :(

      We are buying a war machine, an occupation authority with 14 permanent military bases in Iraq, an upcoming invasion and occupation of Iran, economic collapse, and a permanent diversion of 25+ percent and rising of our national tax revenues into the hands of the people lending us the money to go broke.

      No moon bases, not ever. A debt society trying to dig out from under the wreckage of the next ten years, for most of this century.

    7. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by terrymr · · Score: 4, Funny

      Something D O O ecconomics, anyone ... anyone .... VOO DOO ecconomics.

    8. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by sp0rk173 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, it's not that naive, but it is naive. IF a corporation builds it, it DOES, without argument, belong to the corporation (unless they donate it). If built by government, it is at least in theory the property of the people. Modern practice has shown this to not always be true, but it's an arguable point. I know the park down the street, national forests, army bases, police stations, etc are ideally there for my good. They were built with the idea that I, as a tax paying citizen of a "democratic" state-based society, will benefit from their existance. Now a days they tend to exist for the extention and proliferation of the system, but it's hard to stop that. I agree that his comment about the base existing for humanity is very naive. If the US government built it - or any government for that matter - it would only exist for strategic allies or neutral nations that we feel cooperation with will benefit us. Just wanted to point out, though, that if a corporation built it, it would exist for one thing: economic profit for the corporation heads.

    9. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by Fareq · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And just what claim does the government have on my family's money if it's been gained by doing honest work? "To prevent some families gathering too much money" is a just a sad excuse for class envy and socialism.

      I'm sorry I have no modpoints today...
      I can't figure out why this is flamebait while everyone else's comments are not...

      You are, of course, correct. The estate tax is, primarily a way to redistribute wealth in an attempt to prevent permanent pseudo-nobility by limiting the number of generations across which nearly-infinite wealth can remain nearly infinite.

      You can argue about whether this is a good thing or not (in my opinion, it is not), but you can not argue that this (and not "revenue generation") is the primary purpose of this tax.

      What all of this has to do with the moon, however, is beyond me. Surely by now it has become obvious that the U.S. government is not going to be a major space player again. U.S. industry might someday, otherwise, I'm betting on the likes of Japan or China...

      Maybe Japan... then the base could have a big earth in the middle of the flag instead of a big sun...

    10. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by HMA2000 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The US was never paying down the debt for any extended period of time (I believe our longest period of paying it down was 9 months.) Take a look for yourself, you'll see the number never goes down.

      http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdpenny.htm

      Also, a large part of the "surplus" was unsustainable. To some degree the surplus was a result of cost cutting but mostly it was the result of increased revenue in the form of capital gains tax. Around the late 90's the government was collecting incredible amounts of capital gains tax due to stock market bubble. This was not a sustainable form of revenue.

      The "debt holders" are a sundry group with many different agendas and motives. To suggest that they were all worried about the debt being paid off (which wasn't happening anyway) is misleading at best.

      Considering how much misleading crap you were able to pack into your first sentence I think it is safe for people to disregard the rest of your hyper-biased post.

      As an aside, I understand it is fashionable to hate Bush on this board and to suggest that he is somehow some evil genius/dumb monkey pulling all the strings to make the rich richer but you do yourself and your politcal cause a huge disservice when you exaggerate (and lie about) your claims.

    11. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by Fareq · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just to correct a small point:

      Let's assume for the sake of argument that the definition of "the wealthy" is any family who earns more than $320,000 per year. (I am using the "Married Filing Jointly" status for this comparison. There are significant differences (unmarried individuals can earn $320,000 before entering the highest bracket, but married couples can total no more than the same $320,000 -- or about $160,000 each))

      Let's also assume that the "average schmo" is family earning, oh... $58,500 per year. (Remember, that's the couple's total, not the individual -- for this calculation, individual is $29,050)

      I am using 1999 as the standard for "before the tax cut" and 2004 as "after the tax cut". For the purposes of this calculation, I am assuming income to be the taxable income, if only to simplify calculations. I am aware that there were a myriad of little credits and deductions added to the tax code in the last several years, and that ignoring them decreases the accuracy of my comparison.

      Feel free to do more in-depth research to get more-accurate numbers.

      The Wealthy:
      in 1999, they earned $320,000 of taxable income, and were taxed as follows: (calc from the 1999 IRS Form 1040 Instructions)

      Income over $283,150: Tax 90,200.50 + 39.6% of all income over $283,150.
      $90,200 + (.396)*(320000-283150) = $104,793 in taxes.

      In 2004, they earned the same $320,000:
      Income over $319,100: Tax: $86,328 + 35% of all income over $319,100.
      $86,328 + (.35)*(320000-319100) = $86,643

      $104,793 - $86,643 = $18,150 in tax cuts, a 17% decrease in income tax.

      That's right, the family earning $320,000/yr pays 17% less now than before! Let's check out our "average schmo" family.

      1999:
      If you make less than $100,000 you use the tax table instead of the rate schedule. In 1999, the tax table said married couples earning $58,500 in taxable income owe: $10,791

      2004:
      Same rules apply, in 2004 the married couple owed: $8,106.

      That means the tax cut saved them
      $10,791 - $8,106 = $2,685. This means that they owe 24.8% less tax today than they did before the tax cut.

      That means the average couple saved over 24%, the wealthy couple saved about 17%. Not quite so unfair-to-the-average-schmo as you might think.

      If you disagree with my definitions of average and wealthy, feel free to plug in your own numbers. I used these because they were near the cutoff points for different tax brackets, and I assumed that the government's definition of average and wealthy were based on those numbers.

      ---

      There will be an immediate response of "bah, percentages, average-guy saved under $3k, wealthy-guy saved over $18k!" to which I can only say, you can hardly consider it fair to decrease taxes on the average individual so far that they are being *paid* by the government...

    12. Re:Finance: Money for Moon Base Unknown by vertinox · · Score: 3, Interesting

      IF a corporation builds it, it DOES, without argument, belong to the corporation (unless they donate it).

      Not unless their property is seized forcefully!

      Haven't you heard of Space Pirates? Yaarr!

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
  5. Re:Hello Slashdot reader, I am Ignignot & this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    So I suppose you'd be a good person to ask who wrote "The Moon Rulez" on my car with a key.

  6. Too bad... by polyp2000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I own that bit of the moon, i have a certificate to prove it.

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
    1. Re:Too bad... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well in that case, you'd better get up there before anyone else and protect your claim!

    2. Re:Too bad... by blogeasy · · Score: 3, Funny

      It looks like the standard price for land on the moon is $18.95/acre. Maybe they could buy you out.

      --

      Browse the Information Directory
  7. -50c?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    "But Keptin, this is the Garden spot of Ceti Alpha 6"

  8. Always??? by Fnagaton · · Score: 5, Funny

    "What makes the location so important is that it is permanently lit"

    Even during a lunar eclipse? ;)

    --
    Martin Piper
    Owner - ReplicaNet and RNLobby
    1. Re:Always??? by Ayaress · · Score: 3, Informative

      Eclipses are relatively rare. It's one thing to have to run off stored energy for a few hours a couple times a year tops, it's another one to have to run off batteries for half of every month.

    2. Re:Always??? by Ayaress · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Easy way to deal with that (instead of cutting off outside light and imposing an artificial day/night cycle inside the base) is to change the kind of people NASA gets for astronauts. The Mercury through Apollo astronauts were mostly pilots, and a lot of space shuttle astronauts have been as well. But I think a permanantly-lit lunar base would be better suited for naval officer, particularly ones that serve on submarines.

      People on submarines have to adapt to weeks and even months without any sense of time. No daylight, no night, sometimes not even a well defined schedule. Not everybody can handle it, but some people get by pretty well. Not to mention that submarines are cramped and uncomfortable places to be, which isn't uncommon in space travel.

    3. Re:Always??? by h4rm0ny · · Score: 4, Funny


      Tell you what, build the base on the other side of the moon and send Goths. Lots of Goths.

      Gothsss in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!

      --

      Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
  9. Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by tquinlan · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...we've had the technology for years as Robert Zubrin points out in his book. The moon is just a big rock, and we've been there before.

    (Seriously, read the book, and if you're not convinced, well, you should be. ;) )

    --
    DBA? Software Engineer? My company is hiring! Click
    1. Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by TripMaster+Monkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The moon is just a big rock

      Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars, and with only 1/6 the gravity and no atmosphere, it's easy to get those materials into orbit.

      "Skipping" the moon is sheer lunacy (pardon the pun). Once established, the Moon Base will py for itself countless times over.

      --
      ____

      ~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey

    2. Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by tquinlan · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, read the book. It is actually *more* costly to go to the moon first, since you have to take off, land, then take off again. That there is 1/6th the gravity does not mean that there is no gravity; consequently, you have to expend fuel to take off again.

      Did you even read the book? I didn't think so.

      --
      DBA? Software Engineer? My company is hiring! Click
    3. Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by Capt'n+Hector · · Score: 3, Funny
      Iraq is just a big desert

      Yes, just a big desert, chock full of raw materials we need our war against Iran, and with only 1/6 the popularity and no insurgents, it's easy to get those materials into the market. "Skipping" Iraq is just wack (pardon the pun). Once established, the Iraq war will pay for itself countless times over. --

      --
      Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
      Africus aut Europaeus?
    4. Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by brontus3927 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Moon's Composition:
      1. Oxygen: 42%
      2. Silicon: 24%
      3. Iron: 13%
      4. Calcium: 8%
      5. Aluminum: 8%
      6. Magnesium: 6%
      7. Other (including lots of Helium-3 & Titanium): 3%
      Incidently, the largest concentration of Iron looks to be in the general area of where the article recommends putting a base
    5. Re:Dammit, skip the moon, go to Mars... by lgw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm not te AC, but: Mars (presumably) has a reasonable amount of water , and the dust has faced at least some erosion, so it won't eat through space suit seals and kill you if it gets in your lungs (moon dust is sharp).

      I'm not sure that a Mars colony could become self-sustaining, but it could get a *lot* closer to that than the moon. Either the moon or Mars would be a far better place to launch rockets from than Earth, as you have less gravity to fight, but still enough to avoid the hassles of 0G construction.

      Plus, smash enough comets into Mars and it would retain an atmousphere for quite some time. The moon is a lost cause for terraforming.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  10. Slashdot polls work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I bet it was all triggerd by our poll

  11. Solar Radiation? by dubiousx99 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't solar radiation be a hazard from the constant light?

    1. Re:Solar Radiation? by MoralHazard · · Score: 5, Informative

      Have you ever heard of a little thing called the "International Space Station"? Yeah, exactly.

      If you leave Earth's protective envelope, you do become subject to larger exposures of radiation, but the danger can be minimized with shielding. People can take a decent amount of radiation exposure before they show any health effects, even the long-term cancer risks.

      Basically, you just have to build sheltered structures for the inhabitants to block the radiation. It can be a choice of construction materials, or you can just bury the structures and pile regolith on top--the old bomb shelter solution. All it takes is a bulldozer and some internal supports, and you've got a pretty nice shelter.

      Spacesuits aren't very good radiation protection, so they'll probably impose daily, monthly, and mission-specific limits on outdoor activities for inhabitants. If they also keep alert to solar activity, they can just head indoors when the worst stuff is coming.

      How can you keep alert to incoming radiation, you ask? The ionizing, harmful parts of solar radiation are mostly charged particles, which travel slower than the speed of light. Big emissions of charged particles happen in conjunction with particular types of electromagnetic radition, which DOES travel at the speed of light (duh). So we look for the EM radiation that signals a coming charged particle storm, and tell the moonies to get indoors quick.

      Not perfectly safe, but come on: they're on the fucking moon.

    2. Re:Solar Radiation? by SydShamino · · Score: 3, Informative

      All of your points are very good, yes. It is possible to block radiation.

      But the International Space Station (altitude 220 to 224 miles) remains below the inner Van Allen radiation belt (min altitude 250 miles or so in some places).

      So using it as an example of people living with solar radiation is a bad idea. They get more exposure than people on the ground, yes, due to the lack of atmosphere to block radiation, but they avoid the worst of it by staying below the earth's magnetic shields.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  12. Interesting.. by technomancer68 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is going to be interesting to see how the man that "laid claim" to the moon is going to handle people that he's sold property to. I wonder how he will respond to the government building a base on "his" territory.. Hmmm wonder if this will turn into a court battle?

    --

    The Technomancer
    "Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-
  13. ice station zebra by MrLint · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Up at camp in the mountains in Feb. couple of years ago it was -40 in the daytime. Which is almost bearable if the wind isnt blowing... so as long as the wind isnt blowing on the moon... hmmmm well then there ya go:) no wind blowing on the moon

  14. Penguins are awesome. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    -50 isn't so bad. Almost tolerable. To penguins or something. Maybe we could make a penguin farm on the moon.

  15. Moon Bases in Lava Tubes. by Greg+Wright · · Score: 4, Interesting

    One proposal for a moon base I found interesting was using lava
    tubes as pre-built bases. It provided radiation as well as
    meteorite protection. They actually did a bunch of research in
    lave caves in Oregon some time ago.

    http://www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5ombrr1.html

    --
    --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
    1. Re:Moon Bases in Lava Tubes. by Greg+Wright · · Score: 3, Informative

      I also know of no volcanic activity that has taken place in the past,
      however, I think they *are* talking about Lunar(our moon) bases. At
      least what I can gather from this:

      "Evolving Lunar Lava Tube Base Simulations with
      Integral Instructional Capabilities"

      http://www.oregonl5.org/lbrt/l5lbi88.html

      In part:

      "The concept of lunar bases inside lunar lava tubes was suggested by
      F. Horz in his 1985 paper, "Lava Tubes: Potential Shelters for
      Habitats." Lava tubes are made by crusting over of lava channels
      (Greeley, 1971; Harter & Harter III, 1982; Greeley & Spudis,
      1986). Lunar lava channels, or sinuous rilles, some of which appear to
      have uncollapsed roof segments, have measured widths of from 200m to
      1.5km. Roof thickness in excess of 10m provides meteorite and
      radiation shielding and moderation of surface temperatures (Horz,
      1985). An entrance is easily cleared into the shielded environment of
      a tube for the largest machinery."

      I guess there must have been some in the past. Later in the document
      they go on to talk about Mars as well.

      --
      --greg Vulcan quiescent... Q: What machine shutdown with this message?
  16. What about Earth-moonbase LOS? by amstrad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't putting a moonbase so close to the Moon's limb will cause line of sight communication problems during parts of the month due to lunar libration?

    Possible solutions:
    1) very tall antenna
    2) relay satellite

  17. watch out for water ice! by Zapraki · · Score: 5, Funny
    in the permanently shadowed depths of craters around the lunar north pole, water ice may lurk...

    Wow, I didn't realize that the moon was going to be so dangerous, what with water ice lurking in the inky blackness and all.

    Kinda reminds me of playing Xcom2: Terror from the Deep...

    1. Re:watch out for water ice! by Snarfangel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wow, I didn't realize that the moon was going to be so dangerous, what with water ice lurking in the inky blackness and all.

      It is pitch black. You are likely to be drowned by Water.
      >light lantern
      That does nothing. It appears the lantern's batteries are dead.
      >scream for help
      In space, no one can hear you scream.

      --
      This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
  18. Re:Why bother? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Build it in parts here, assemble on the moon. Easier to launch a bigger ship from there.

  19. Re:Why bother? by Ogive17 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Current space ships use up most of their fuel leaving Earth's atmosphere. If a manned trip to Mars was to happen, they would have to refuel unless they wanted to take 3 or 4 years to get there (and the water/food needed for that trip would make a launch straight from Earth basically impossible).

    --
    "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
  20. Perfect contest by shanmuha · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Now that we have 'official' private space launches, I implore all those zillonaires-with-more-money-than -they-know-what-to-do-with, to come up and sponsor a x-prize like prize for the first moonbase!

  21. Hmm by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's important to me that my moon base have all 4 seasons.

    Will I get that there?

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  22. Re:Up Nort' by Hoplite3 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The lack of atmosphere really changes the way heat flows. Our intuition about hot and cold is shaped by convection, where heat is transfered to gas molecules that bump against us and are then swept away. With no atmosphere, heat transfer slows down. The only heat loss on the moon would occur by conduction into the surface of the moon.

    How "cold" is the moon in human terms? I don't have any idea. I'd imagine sunlight would be more important for constant solar power (well, barring eclipses).

    --
    Use the Firehose to mod down Second Life stories!
  23. Re:Expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is there some sort of fat virgin shortage on the moon?

  24. Re:There's always an eclipse on Earth by Ayaress · · Score: 5, Informative

    You've got it backwards. Take a look at the numbers. The maximum possible number of lunar eclipses per year is three.

    What you're thinking is that when there is an eclipse, it's visible everywhere on earth, I think. Solar eclipses are only visible in certain places.

    The alternative is that you're thinking of solar eclipses, and just completely wrong. The maximum possible number of solar eclipses visible from ANYWHERE on earth in the same year is five (also worth noting that if there are five solar eclipses, there can only be two lunar eclipses).

    Furthurmore, of those maximum of three eclipses per year, not all of them are total. The north or south pole sometimes escapes them. If the north rim of the moon is visible, then the north pole station will remain lit.

    Now, when there is a lunar eclipse, the maximum length is two hours for a partial eclipse, and 1 hour 42 minutes for a total eclipse.

    In the worst possible case scenario, a north polar base on the moon will have to run without solar power for a total of six hours a year, broken into three two-hour blocks.

  25. Re:Lunar eclipse by databoing · · Score: 3, Informative

    *BZZT!* Wrong! Thanks for playing!

    A lunar eclipse occurs when the moon is in the umbra or penumbra ("shadow" for you laypeople) of the EARTH.

    A SOLAR eclipse occurs when the moon gets between the earth and the sun.

    Solar eclipses are more common (once every 2 years, offhand), than lunar eclipses (once every 4 years).

  26. No problem by El · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Growing up in Alaska, I've been outside in -60F weather, and it's not so bad (you can always put on more insulation). You just have to keep every part of your body covered, including wearing a face mask. Once you solved the problem of a total lack of oxygen, solving the problem of keeping warm should be trivial.

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:No problem by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Once you solved the problem of a total lack of oxygen, solving the problem of keeping warm should be trivial.

      There is no problem with a lack of oxygen. The vacuum would kill you way before you had a chance to suffocate.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
  27. Moonbase Pluses by TiggertheMad · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Any materials obtained here would still need to be sent to the moon, and then to Mars.

    Except the tons and tons of hydrogen, oxygen, and water that you are going to extract from the ice frozen in the ice caps in the poles. In addition, they might be thinking of mining the ice, which would involve tunneling. To me this makes a lot of sense, as several meters of rock is wonderful protection from high speed rocks, is wonderful insulation to help maintain a constant tempature, and is a cheap way to add to the size of the space station without having to build entire new modules. The moon would be a good place to put a telescope, since it is massive enough to be stable, unlike an inhabited orbital platform, and could be the start of a massive Very Long Baseline array for looking at really distant objects. Plus, it could be the start of permanent off world colonies. Mars is a good idea, but it's kind of a long first trip. Plus, It will give us extra time, as invading aliens will probably stop to level the moonbase before attacking earth.

    --

    HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
  28. Re:Why bother? by brontus3927 · · Score: 3, Informative
    While I support going to the Moon, I don't think the "stepping stone" arguement is valid, for the reasons you list above. As Zubrin points out in his Case for Mars, greater delta v (change in velocity, which equates to fuel) is required to get from Earth to Moon to Mars than Earth to Mars. However, it's not the only reason to go. Why go:
    • "Dark" or Far side of the Moon. Great for radio astronomy because you have a giant rock (the Moon) permenantly between the disk and the source of noice (Earth radio).
    • Abundant source of Helium-3 He3 is an isotope of Helium with only one neutron. Fusion research currently deals with Dueterium (D)-Tritium (T) (Hydrogen with 1 neutron and with 2 neutrons respectively) fussion which is "dirty" in the respect that is spews radioactive neutrons. D-He3 fusion, on the other hand, has very little radioactivity (most of it due to unspent fuel). Helium 3 is relatively rare on Earth, but could meat current power needs for 100 years (IIRC). By that time, we should have the tech to scope He3 out of Jupiter's atmosphere.
    • low-G (not zero/micro-G) research. It has applications.
    • retirement? low-G is easier on the heart & bones withouth the pesky decalicification.
    • Solid base for manufacturing. All the benefits of zero-G manufacturing, but something solid to bolt the machinary to.
  29. Moon race, part 2 by salimma · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Now that the Chinese, Indian and Japanese all profess an interest in colonizing the moon.. the question is, will the first nation who reach the site claim its entirety, and how valid would that claim be?

    --
    Michel
    Fedora Project Contribut
    1. Re:Moon race, part 2 by brontus3927 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Under the Moon Treaty, the Moon is international domain, just like Antartica

  30. Re:Moon Bases in Oregon by natoochtoniket · · Score: 4, Funny

    Great idea. Oregon would be an ideal place to build a moon base. Not only could we use the lava tubes for potection against solar radiation, but the logistics would be much simpler and cheaper. Putting everything on rockets and sending it a quarter million (or so) miles to the moon would be really difficult and expensive. It would so much easier to just have it delivered to Oregon in the first place. UPS and Fedex even go there, already.

  31. The moon is too dry. by Mad+Bad+Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Yes, just a big rock, chock full of raw materials we need for your trip to Mars,

    The main requirement for a trip to Mars are volatiles for fuel and life support, and the moon has almost none of those.

    Sure, there is lots of metal oxide laying around on the moon for building an empty ship out of ; but even then, the standard processes we have for making steel or aluminum require large amounts of carbon (to reduce the oxides) and water (to cool down the molten metals afterwards). Again, the moon just doesn't have those.

    If we could find a Near-Earth asteroid with abundant volatiles like water ice and ammonia ice, it'd make more sense to build a base there than on the moon.

    --
    >;k
  32. I am Gnotigna, Royal Daughter of Ignignot by LPetrazickis · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hello, beloved earthlings.

    We have been observing your earthworld with moonminds vast and merry for many moonyears. You earthtechnological earthachievements are moonimpressive to our moonminds.

    Unfortunately, we mooninites are fighting a civil moonwar. Moonsibling is killing moonsibling. As Moonheir to the Moonthrone, I am trusted with protecting the ample Moontreasury.

    Fellow sapients, the Moon needs your earthhelp. I need to transfer the equivalent of $50,000 USD to two thousand and one Earth banking accounts. In order to do so, my moonsubterfuge moonskills will have to deceive the earthbankers.

    I plead with you on my moonknees.

    Please let me transfer $50,000 USD to your earthaccount. The moonmoney will have to stay earthhidden for at least pi earthdecades. I trust you will earthsafeguard it from the moonpretenders to the Moonthrone.

    We will moonreward all earthhumans moongenerously.

    In order for me to transfer $50,000 to you, I need an initial earthmoney fund to earthbribe the earthbankers. Please send me $500 now, and I will moonreimburse you in the transfer.

    The Moon cries out for your earthhelp as the moonpretenders moonrape, moonravage, and moonraze their way to my moonpalace. Please take my $50,000.

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  33. Whatever happened to Malapert Mountain? by RevRigel · · Score: 3, Insightful

    TFA claims there are no constantly sunlit spots near the south pole, but remembering an article I saw a few years ago, I looked up Malapert Mountain, also in a space.com article. Same story..constantly lit, on a crater rim, and the inside of the crater is constantly dark, so it would be perfect for an optical telescope with a short cable run to the moon base at the crater rim. They even suspect strongly that there's water ice in the crater there. So, what gives? Is the previous article wrong or are the people in the current article suffering from amnesia/not-discovered-here? They seem to both be using data from Clementine. Here's another, more informative site on Malapert with lots of pretty pictures.

  34. Lets clear up some Gravity and Leaping issues here by DumbSwede · · Score: 4, Informative
    OK these figure seem to be getting misquoted a lot lately on Slashdot.
    The Moon has about 1/6 Earth Gravity
    Mars has about 1/3 Earth Gravity.

    Assuming a 6-foot man can jump 6 feet on Earth, he could jump about 1/(1/6)*3 + 3 feet for a total of 21 feet on The Moon, 1/(1/3)*3 +3 for a total of 12 feet on Mars. Keep in mind when a 6-foot man jumps 6 feet here on Earth he is only lifting his CENTER of gravity 3 feet with a starting height of 3 feet for it.

  35. Good location by Fillymon · · Score: 3, Funny

    you sure wouldn't want to stick it where the sun don't shine.

    --
    P.S. - This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R were eliminated.