3 ms·

If you look at the moon as a really good space station as opposed to a planet, I think there are many good reasons to set up a base there. * Gravity: enough to

If you look at the moon as a really good space station as opposed to a planet, I think there are many good reasons to set up a base there. * Gravity: enough to help with long term habitation, but low enough that getting on and off is much, much easier than Earth. * Close to Earth * Enough space that one could build a lot of things. It's a lot cheaper to dig than it is to launch more space station modules.

evanlivingston 8y ago
But to what end do we need a really good space station? I realize we can work on more than one problem at a time and that it is expedient to do so. But I often wonder how much space exploration, particularly manned missions, are a distraction from more pressing issues on our home planet. Also, if space exploration is a more scientifically exciting problem than say, ensuring enduring sources of clean water for the millions of people who don't have access to it, well then, that's a sad world indeed.
- icelancer 8y ago
  >> Also, if space exploration is a more scientifically exciting problem than say, ensuring enduring sources of clean water for the millions of people who don't have access to it, well then, that's a sad world indeed. Enduring sources of clean water for everyone in the world is a scientifically very easy problem to solve compared to most of what is discussed on this website. The problem is that it is a politically very difficult problem to solve. And you want Bezos/Musk/etc to fix this... how?
  - evanlivingston 8y ago
    Oh God, I don't want to delegate the task of fixing to the world to just a few tech moguls. However, I would be encouraged to see the scientific community Incorporate a stronger social solidarity into their work. Because a problem is hard or simple is not reason enough alone to pursue it, personally. Finding the largest prime number known might be a somewhat difficult task, but to what end is it found?
    - icelancer 8y ago
      I don't disagree with the main thrust of this comment, but it doesn't have much to do with comparing spaceflight with clean water. One is solvable by the tech community (maybe?) and the other isn't because there are political obstacles in the way. And when tech companies try to solve political issues, people on HN and everyone else who leans marginally liberal get increasingly pissed off that rich people are messing with dem dere laws again.
- pravinva 8y ago
  Solved problem.or not even a problem. There's plenty of water on earth. The only question is if it is drinkable. And at what cost. These are elementary problems solved by simply applying property rights, stuff we have done for millennia for things like grazing land etc( read up Elinor Ostrom). Not a hard engineering problem. You lament is equivalent to someone at his almost empty fridge on a Friday evening and panicking that the world is almost running out of food supply. That's not how things work
akira2501 8y ago
> * Close to Earth * Close to Earth while maintaining a nearly constant distance. * Always reachable. Never is it on the other side of the sun from Earth.
penagwin 8y ago
I see a few problems with those points: * Yes, but unless all resources and future astronauts are all from said moon base then they have to leave Earth anyway. Stopping at the moon would take even more energy. * Close to Earth yes. But not really to anything else (the moon is relatively right next to earth compared to any other object really worth landing on). * Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. It'd be relatively waaaaay cheaper to send more space station modules then to either send raw resources + specially designed building equipment, or moon base modules. Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for it and pay my share in taxes to develop and build a self sustaining base on the moon. My reasoning is more of a engineers "because we can" mentality to a fun (IMO) challenge. We'd also benefit on Earth from the technology developed.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  > Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. There are a number of very smart people who believe that the next big thing is industry in space with materials not from earth.
  - penagwin 8y ago
    Okay, I can see this. I know that a fair number of resources are extraordinarily rare on earth but space bodies are often almost exclusively made of - iridium for example). My knowledge beyond that is limited, I don't know how much those resources are worth, or if there are future uses for them we haven't discovered because of current cost barriers due to rarity. I'd say though, lets pretend that an entire "flight" to intercept an comet/asteroid/material-rich-spacebody (Sorry I don't know the technical terms here) could be reduced to 100million USD. That material would have to be worth that 100million USD, not to mention all of the R/D. Again personally I want humans to one day achieve it just for the heck of it - why not? But others are money driven and I'm not sure it makes actual financial sense (in terms of money making)
    - DerSaidin 8y ago

evanlivingston 8y ago

But to what end do we need a really good space station? I realize we can work on more than one problem at a time and that it is expedient to do so. But I often wonder how much space exploration, particularly manned missions, are a distraction from more pressing issues on our home planet. Also, if space exploration is a more scientifically exciting problem than say, ensuring enduring sources of clean water for the millions of people who don't have access to it, well then, that's a sad world indeed.

icelancer 8y ago
>> Also, if space exploration is a more scientifically exciting problem than say, ensuring enduring sources of clean water for the millions of people who don't have access to it, well then, that's a sad world indeed. Enduring sources of clean water for everyone in the world is a scientifically very easy problem to solve compared to most of what is discussed on this website. The problem is that it is a politically very difficult problem to solve. And you want Bezos/Musk/etc to fix this... how?
- evanlivingston 8y ago
  Oh God, I don't want to delegate the task of fixing to the world to just a few tech moguls. However, I would be encouraged to see the scientific community Incorporate a stronger social solidarity into their work. Because a problem is hard or simple is not reason enough alone to pursue it, personally. Finding the largest prime number known might be a somewhat difficult task, but to what end is it found?
  - icelancer 8y ago
    I don't disagree with the main thrust of this comment, but it doesn't have much to do with comparing spaceflight with clean water. One is solvable by the tech community (maybe?) and the other isn't because there are political obstacles in the way. And when tech companies try to solve political issues, people on HN and everyone else who leans marginally liberal get increasingly pissed off that rich people are messing with dem dere laws again.
pravinva 8y ago
Solved problem.or not even a problem. There's plenty of water on earth. The only question is if it is drinkable. And at what cost. These are elementary problems solved by simply applying property rights, stuff we have done for millennia for things like grazing land etc( read up Elinor Ostrom). Not a hard engineering problem. You lament is equivalent to someone at his almost empty fridge on a Friday evening and panicking that the world is almost running out of food supply. That's not how things work

akira2501 8y ago

> * Close to Earth * Close to Earth while maintaining a nearly constant distance. * Always reachable. Never is it on the other side of the sun from Earth.

penagwin 8y ago

I see a few problems with those points: * Yes, but unless all resources and future astronauts are all from said moon base then they have to leave Earth anyway. Stopping at the moon would take even more energy. * Close to Earth yes. But not really to anything else (the moon is relatively right next to earth compared to any other object really worth landing on). * Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. It'd be relatively waaaaay cheaper to send more space station modules then to either send raw resources + specially designed building equipment, or moon base modules. Don't get me wrong. I'd vote for it and pay my share in taxes to develop and build a self sustaining base on the moon. My reasoning is more of a engineers "because we can" mentality to a fun (IMO) challenge. We'd also benefit on Earth from the technology developed.

nordsieck 8y ago
> Build what? This is similar to point 1. To get any resources there we still have to send them from earth. There are a number of very smart people who believe that the next big thing is industry in space with materials not from earth.
- penagwin 8y ago
  Okay, I can see this. I know that a fair number of resources are extraordinarily rare on earth but space bodies are often almost exclusively made of - iridium for example). My knowledge beyond that is limited, I don't know how much those resources are worth, or if there are future uses for them we haven't discovered because of current cost barriers due to rarity. I'd say though, lets pretend that an entire "flight" to intercept an comet/asteroid/material-rich-spacebody (Sorry I don't know the technical terms here) could be reduced to 100million USD. That material would have to be worth that 100million USD, not to mention all of the R/D. Again personally I want humans to one day achieve it just for the heck of it - why not? But others are money driven and I'm not sure it makes actual financial sense (in terms of money making)
  - DerSaidin 8y ago