5 ms·

I'm kinda surprised that it's 2012 and humanity still hasn't created a space station on the moon, Mars or some other planet.

blario 15y ago
To what end?
- Cieplak 15y ago
  It would be pretty freaking awesome, although I wonder if the cost of building and maintaining such a station could be recouped from fees and sponsorship.
  - itsmequinn 15y ago
    Or a theme park. There's whalers on the moon.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- agravier 15y ago
  Moon station: Undisturbed astronomical observation (minimize earth's interference, take advantage of moon's almost non existent atmosphere)? A robotic station on the other side of the moon with a transmission station on our side?
- dstorrs 15y ago
  1) Building out sufficient solar power collectors to solve the Earth's energy problems forever. 2) Manufacturing medicines, alloys, and materials that can only be produced in micro-gravity. 3) Protecting humanity against social breakdown and/or extinction in case of massive asteroid strike / global pandemic / etc. 4) Because every dollar that has been spent on space development in the US has put $7 back into the economy by way of spinoffs, technical advances, etc.
  - blario 15y ago
    If bullet number 4 is correct, it sounds like a good idea. I would have to see proof that bullets 2 and 4 are correct in order for me to agree though. 3) is far fetched and would be catastrophic regardless, and 1) may not be viable because the 15 days of the month where the far side of the moon is facing the sun, it isn't facing the earth. If placed on the other side, 50% of the month, earth would be blocking out the sun on the moon's surface, and the other 50% of the month, the near side of the moon wouldn't be facing the sun.
waterlesscloud 15y ago
Suggesting it as a presidential candidate will get you ridiculed, so it's not that surprising.
- kingkawn 15y ago
  More so if the presidential candidate is a raving loon.
ghotli 15y ago
I tend to think of it from an economic standpoint. It takes a great deal of economic capital to put things into space. Until space is returning a reciprocal amount of value to earth then the equations don't match up. Humans love warring, clicking links the internet, eating, fucking, and arguing instead. Intellectuals and idealists still have to abide by economics. Convince a large swath of the populace that a moon base is a good idea via some means of propaganda or figure out how to extract real tangible value from space. What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there. Upon coming to this conclusion, I have found that I've just straight up given up on space. Someday some species may colonize another planet. I just don't think it'll be the homo sapiens, at least not while I'm around. Leave it up to the foundation of the long now. They're the ones I have any semblance of hope in. At least they've got the right mindset.
- jonnathanson 15y ago
  "What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there." There's an old joke that, if we'd found oil on the moon, we'd have colonized it in a heartbeat. Putting aside the absurdity of finding large stores of organic material on the moon, the point is still valid. People usually need an economically viable return on investment before funding such big outlays. It's actually pretty remarkable that our government funded manned space exploration to the extent that it did. And, absent the space race with Russia -- and its military motives -- I wonder if it ever would have. At the end of the day, I'm perhaps a tiny bit more optimistic than you are about the future of space exploration. But let me reemphasize "tiny." I don't think anything dramatic is going to happen in our lifetimes. And, cynically, I don't think anything short of a tangible ecological disaster of epic proportions, or a second militarized space race with, say, China, is going to get us off our butts. It's telling that even Star Trek, that most optimistic of sci-fi series, didn't set the dawn of serious space exploration until after a World War 3.
  - gaius 15y ago
    Once someone builds a fusion reactor then there is "oil" on the moon - He3.
spenceyboi 15y ago
A space station on the moon would require an international effort between many nations willing to fund such an idea. Issues within our own nation and around the world are still too prominent before we begin to significantly make an impact on space travels and exploration.
jakeonthemove 15y ago
Yeah, if only there was a way to launch stuff into space without having to pay $20,000 per KG...
- dstorrs 15y ago
  SpaceX is launching things to LEO for about $5,500 / KG (which is $2,500 / lb) on the Falcon9, so it's getting better. Source: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
  - jakeonthemove 15y ago
    Have they started doing commercial launches? Last time I checked they were still testing the rockets... But yeah, it's much cheaper and hopefully it'll get cheaper in the future. Still not seeing the price go down to sub-$1000/kg anytime soon, though...

blario 15y ago

To what end?

Cieplak 15y ago
It would be pretty freaking awesome, although I wonder if the cost of building and maintaining such a station could be recouped from fees and sponsorship.
- itsmequinn 15y ago
  Or a theme park. There's whalers on the moon.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
agravier 15y ago
Moon station: Undisturbed astronomical observation (minimize earth's interference, take advantage of moon's almost non existent atmosphere)? A robotic station on the other side of the moon with a transmission station on our side?
dstorrs 15y ago
1) Building out sufficient solar power collectors to solve the Earth's energy problems forever. 2) Manufacturing medicines, alloys, and materials that can only be produced in micro-gravity. 3) Protecting humanity against social breakdown and/or extinction in case of massive asteroid strike / global pandemic / etc. 4) Because every dollar that has been spent on space development in the US has put $7 back into the economy by way of spinoffs, technical advances, etc.
- blario 15y ago
  If bullet number 4 is correct, it sounds like a good idea. I would have to see proof that bullets 2 and 4 are correct in order for me to agree though. 3) is far fetched and would be catastrophic regardless, and 1) may not be viable because the 15 days of the month where the far side of the moon is facing the sun, it isn't facing the earth. If placed on the other side, 50% of the month, earth would be blocking out the sun on the moon's surface, and the other 50% of the month, the near side of the moon wouldn't be facing the sun.

waterlesscloud 15y ago

Suggesting it as a presidential candidate will get you ridiculed, so it's not that surprising.

kingkawn 15y ago
More so if the presidential candidate is a raving loon.

ghotli 15y ago

I tend to think of it from an economic standpoint. It takes a great deal of economic capital to put things into space. Until space is returning a reciprocal amount of value to earth then the equations don't match up. Humans love warring, clicking links the internet, eating, fucking, and arguing instead. Intellectuals and idealists still have to abide by economics. Convince a large swath of the populace that a moon base is a good idea via some means of propaganda or figure out how to extract real tangible value from space. What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there. Upon coming to this conclusion, I have found that I've just straight up given up on space. Someday some species may colonize another planet. I just don't think it'll be the homo sapiens, at least not while I'm around. Leave it up to the foundation of the long now. They're the ones I have any semblance of hope in. At least they've got the right mindset.

jonnathanson 15y ago
"What's on the moon that is immediately valuable? That's the ticket right there." There's an old joke that, if we'd found oil on the moon, we'd have colonized it in a heartbeat. Putting aside the absurdity of finding large stores of organic material on the moon, the point is still valid. People usually need an economically viable return on investment before funding such big outlays. It's actually pretty remarkable that our government funded manned space exploration to the extent that it did. And, absent the space race with Russia -- and its military motives -- I wonder if it ever would have. At the end of the day, I'm perhaps a tiny bit more optimistic than you are about the future of space exploration. But let me reemphasize "tiny." I don't think anything dramatic is going to happen in our lifetimes. And, cynically, I don't think anything short of a tangible ecological disaster of epic proportions, or a second militarized space race with, say, China, is going to get us off our butts. It's telling that even Star Trek, that most optimistic of sci-fi series, didn't set the dawn of serious space exploration until after a World War 3.
- gaius 15y ago
  Once someone builds a fusion reactor then there is "oil" on the moon - He3.

spenceyboi 15y ago

A space station on the moon would require an international effort between many nations willing to fund such an idea. Issues within our own nation and around the world are still too prominent before we begin to significantly make an impact on space travels and exploration.

jakeonthemove 15y ago

Yeah, if only there was a way to launch stuff into space without having to pay $20,000 per KG...

dstorrs 15y ago
SpaceX is launching things to LEO for about $5,500 / KG (which is $2,500 / lb) on the Falcon9, so it's getting better. Source: http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php http://www.spacex.com/falcon9.php
- jakeonthemove 15y ago
  Have they started doing commercial launches? Last time I checked they were still testing the rockets... But yeah, it's much cheaper and hopefully it'll get cheaper in the future. Still not seeing the price go down to sub-$1000/kg anytime soon, though...