3 ms·

"As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been ther

"As its text notes, a return to the Moon has been a Congressional priority several times before; that didn't stop Obama from dismissing it with "We've been there."" We've been to Oregon too, with Lewis and Clark. Fortunately, we went back.

hugh3 16y ago
Would we have been back to Oregon, though, if it turned out not to be a lush temperate land of conifer forests, rivers and flat arable soil, but a blazing hot/freezing cold dangerously-irradiated vacuum composed of a mix of rocks and much smaller rocks?
- Anon84 16y ago
  well... we did go back to New Mexico, Utah and the other desert states...
  - starwed 16y ago
    I've actually seen arguments that we shouldn't really have settlements in those areas -- more lush states aren't short of space, and it takes a large amount of infrastructure to make it work.
    - neworbit 16y ago
      You could say the same thing about Los Angeles (massive water requirements over and above what native supply provides) but I don't see us abandoning that particular location anytime soon either. (Edit: clarified LA to Los Angeles)
      - hugh3 16y ago
        I think this argument is silly in the context of the American southwest, but may very well make a lot of sense for the goddamn moon.
  - samlevine 16y ago
    Which are all vastly easier to supply and develop than the moon. So are the north and south poles, the middle of the pacific ocean and the himalayas. I get that putting meat on the ground can have benefits that probes don't provide. I also get that we have to move some people off of this rock in case it gets hit by a bus. But doing something because "it's there" won't ever get sustainable colonies, let alone self sufficient ones. We built a trillion dollar rocket industry so we could blow up the world if the russians invaded europe. Not because we wanted to advance humanity. Not because we really wanted to do something awesome. If you want humans in space en masse you have to come up with a compelling short term reason to do so. Water on the moon doesn't cut it.
- rbanffy 16y ago
  OTOH, a place with abundant solar energy, unexplored mineral deposits, amenable to several fabrication processes (easy to obtain high-grade vacuum), with easy access to space (low escape velocity) and a very good place to build and place telescopes with much easier access by maintenance crews (a moon buggy instead of a shuttle) seems a winner. What you call "rocks" I call "minerals".
  - btilly 16y ago
    Asteroids have all of the same advantages. The greater distance is made up for by not having to transport goods back up out of the Moon's gravity well.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      No gravity may be worse for many industrial processes than a low gravity. One problem is that you can't count on convection to arrange hot/cold fluids and have to pump everything. You also cannot count on bubbles accumulating on the top of structures and have to take measures to prevent their formation or just engineer your systems to live with them. You also cannot rely on stuff staying put because everything wants to float away. With plentiful materials and energy combined with a more or less static position in relation to Earth (the Earth is always in the same position in the lunar sky), a magnetic rail launch system becomes an easy option. You only have to carry fuel (or engines) if you intend to enter Earth orbit. If a landing is enough, you can aerobrake on Earth's atmosphere and parachute (or glide) down.

hugh3 16y ago

Would we have been back to Oregon, though, if it turned out not to be a lush temperate land of conifer forests, rivers and flat arable soil, but a blazing hot/freezing cold dangerously-irradiated vacuum composed of a mix of rocks and much smaller rocks?

Anon84 16y ago
well... we did go back to New Mexico, Utah and the other desert states...
- starwed 16y ago
  I've actually seen arguments that we shouldn't really have settlements in those areas -- more lush states aren't short of space, and it takes a large amount of infrastructure to make it work.
  - neworbit 16y ago
    You could say the same thing about Los Angeles (massive water requirements over and above what native supply provides) but I don't see us abandoning that particular location anytime soon either. (Edit: clarified LA to Los Angeles)
    - hugh3 16y ago
      I think this argument is silly in the context of the American southwest, but may very well make a lot of sense for the goddamn moon.
- samlevine 16y ago
  Which are all vastly easier to supply and develop than the moon. So are the north and south poles, the middle of the pacific ocean and the himalayas. I get that putting meat on the ground can have benefits that probes don't provide. I also get that we have to move some people off of this rock in case it gets hit by a bus. But doing something because "it's there" won't ever get sustainable colonies, let alone self sufficient ones. We built a trillion dollar rocket industry so we could blow up the world if the russians invaded europe. Not because we wanted to advance humanity. Not because we really wanted to do something awesome. If you want humans in space en masse you have to come up with a compelling short term reason to do so. Water on the moon doesn't cut it.
rbanffy 16y ago
OTOH, a place with abundant solar energy, unexplored mineral deposits, amenable to several fabrication processes (easy to obtain high-grade vacuum), with easy access to space (low escape velocity) and a very good place to build and place telescopes with much easier access by maintenance crews (a moon buggy instead of a shuttle) seems a winner. What you call "rocks" I call "minerals".
- btilly 16y ago
  Asteroids have all of the same advantages. The greater distance is made up for by not having to transport goods back up out of the Moon's gravity well.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    No gravity may be worse for many industrial processes than a low gravity. One problem is that you can't count on convection to arrange hot/cold fluids and have to pump everything. You also cannot count on bubbles accumulating on the top of structures and have to take measures to prevent their formation or just engineer your systems to live with them. You also cannot rely on stuff staying put because everything wants to float away. With plentiful materials and energy combined with a more or less static position in relation to Earth (the Earth is always in the same position in the lunar sky), a magnetic rail launch system becomes an easy option. You only have to carry fuel (or engines) if you intend to enter Earth orbit. If a landing is enough, you can aerobrake on Earth's atmosphere and parachute (or glide) down.