5 ms·

What does a moon base get us, though? It was cool to get bragging rights by being the first to land and come back - in the ultimate show of “soft power” agains

What does a moon base get us, though? It was cool to get bragging rights by being the first to land and come back - in the ultimate show of “soft power” against the Soviet Union. But a permanent moon base? We can’t even fund the ISS.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
bluGill 1y ago
Frankly, a moon base might be cool, but nobody has sold me on it is worth having for any other reason. Some smart people have given good arguments that it isn't worth having. And here I'm sitting in my basement not working on space projects and realizing money spent on space is money I don't have for something else I want (even it is is only $.10 that is still money that adds up).
Teever 1y ago
A moon base gets us a platform to test what long term low gravity does to a human body, and an environment to test ISRU for various materials like water, oxygen, iron, titanium, etc... Being able to prove that people can live in an environment like the moon long term and develop materials that can make their stay there sustainable by reducing consumables and developing replacement parts from lunar material is a great stepping stone. Being able to demonstrate the doubling of usable pressurized space by building and burying modules that can be stocked with equipment brought from Earth would be a remarkable accomplishment.
- ipython 1y ago
  Stepping stone to… what exactly? We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better?
  - Teever 1y ago
    It's a stepping stone to building very large spacecraft/space stations that have rotating habitat rings that would be used to colonize the solar system. These kinds of things can be put into cycler orbits around the Moon or Mars[0] which would allow relatively comfortable and cost effective journeys to these locations. As the scale of these kinds of craft expand they could eventually become destinations themselves akin to massive cruise ships in the sky where some people live out their entire lives. Biosphere 2 was obviously a flawed experiment but it seems that Mir, the ISS, and Tiangong have shown that long term habitation in micro-G is possible, it seems like the extension of that is to try long term habitation of a body with gravity and material to experiment with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
  - nothercastle 1y ago
    Less Money went into biosphere 2. You could probably have automated everything and lowered the workload and bioload significantly.
    - ipython 1y ago
      OK great, how much do you think is necessary to spend? In the 1990s the billionaire Ed Bass spent $150 million to operate Biosphere 2 with an expected mission time of two years. Even after spending $150 million in 1993 dollars, the experiment shut down after only 6 months. [0] So let's say we spend a little more money ($150 million would be approx $335 million today, so maybe $0.5 - 1 billion). That's a lot of money but still a LOT less than establishing a moon base. And by doing it on Earth we can solve for more closed-loop system problems here without also coping at the exact same time with an environment actively trying to kill the participants and a multi-month lead time for any resupplies/"oops"es. Then we can take those lessons learned and apply them to the much harsher environment of the moon. In other words, it's a lot cheaper and faster to learn some lessons here on Earth first before having to tackle all that plus things like keeping yourself alive. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/nx-s1-5442529/biosphere-2-earth-sciences-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/nx-s1-5442529/biosphere-2-ear...
  - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
    > We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better? Because (1) the project would be designed seriously and (2) you don't need a completely closed loop. Just one that's mostly closed.
    - ipython 1y ago
      Who will design and execute this “seriously”? Given the current state of our government (shutting down as I type), I don’t foresee any “serious” projects from the feds any time soon. Even when there are serious people - everything will get politicized. So nasa is out. Ok so maybe a multibillionaire. Perhaps Elon musk? Yikes. Or Bezos? Maybe. The EU is kinda busy increasing their defense spend, preparing to engage in Ukraine so I don’t see them super excited to do this. China or India perhaps? Also, why shouldn’t it be completely closed loop? If you’re designing to address the myriad of scenarios that can unfold in space, I’d say you’d want that experience under your belt. Its already easy mode doing this exercise on earth you might as well give yourself a little challenge to capture lessons learned.
      - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
        > Who will design and execute this “seriously”? NASA. > why shouldn’t it be completely closed loop? Because it doesn’t need to be. Engineering an ecological carbon cycle is hard. Putting in long-lived CO2 scrubbers is not.
    - bunderbunder 1y ago
      I'd argue that you need a loop that's capable of operating without Earth support for a significant length of time - vastly beyond what they managed with Biosphere 2 - for margin of safety reasons. Possibly also with a very different, scaled down design - maybe not growing all their own food, for example - because 13,000 square meters is maybe a bit much for a first off-planet base. And the best place to start working out how to do that is right here on Earth. Because it's an immediate cost reduction of at least one and probably several orders of magnitude, and because you can much more easily iterate on the design while you're still working out the kinks. And then, once you've got it working well here on Earth, then you have a go at doing it on the moon. This idea that the best place to get started on working out how to do these sorts of things is on the moon makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Space Shuttle program should have had astronauts rushing to work out the kinks of EVA missions in space instead of doing everything they could to test and practice procedures in swimming pools in an effort to learn as much as possible before you blow half a billion dollars on trying it out in orbit.
hdgvhicv 1y ago
Can you see a future for humanity where the moon isn’t colonised?
- stickfigure 1y ago
  Yes? Why do we need to colonize the moon with squishy meatbags with billions of years of evolutionary optimization for life on Earth? All these dreams of star-trek like interstellar travel (or even interplanetary travel beyond taking a selfie and going home) require major advances in the physics tech tree. Might come, might not.
  - dotancohen 1y ago
    Would you not like to see major advances in the physics tech tree? The way you get those advancements, is to have a goal. And funding. A moon colonization program provides both.
    - stickfigure 1y ago
      To use video games as an analogy: You can't invest all your resources racing up one tech tree; you have to build the whole economic engine to achieve those later levels. "Moon base that produces positive economic benefit" is about 10 steps up a very expensive tech tree and we don't even know what the rungs are. I also don't think this is very imaginative. If you want to colonize the moon, why send a man in a can? How about genetically engineering a human-ish that's better adapted to that kind of environment? That's the kind of technology advancement that makes manned interplanetary missions reachable.
      - jjmarr 1y ago
        > You can't invest all your resources racing up one tech tree; you have to build the whole economic engine to achieve those later levels. The exact opposite of that has been the meta in most 4X games I've played. You always rush specific techs because you understand the ROI for the specific empire you're going for. That involves specialization. Apollo allowed America to demonstrate its ability to land a rocket with pinpoint accuracy on the Moon, implying it would be easier to land an ICBM on the Soviets. The USSR got a large PR boost through launching Sputnik and then a person. It convinced many people communism was a superior ideology for advancing science and technology. Turning it into a "Space Race" allowed the USA to reframe the discussion for the world in a way that let America catch up.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

bluGill 1y ago

Frankly, a moon base might be cool, but nobody has sold me on it is worth having for any other reason. Some smart people have given good arguments that it isn't worth having. And here I'm sitting in my basement not working on space projects and realizing money spent on space is money I don't have for something else I want (even it is is only $.10 that is still money that adds up).

Teever 1y ago

A moon base gets us a platform to test what long term low gravity does to a human body, and an environment to test ISRU for various materials like water, oxygen, iron, titanium, etc... Being able to prove that people can live in an environment like the moon long term and develop materials that can make their stay there sustainable by reducing consumables and developing replacement parts from lunar material is a great stepping stone. Being able to demonstrate the doubling of usable pressurized space by building and burying modules that can be stocked with equipment brought from Earth would be a remarkable accomplishment.

ipython 1y ago
Stepping stone to… what exactly? We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better?
- Teever 1y ago
  It's a stepping stone to building very large spacecraft/space stations that have rotating habitat rings that would be used to colonize the solar system. These kinds of things can be put into cycler orbits around the Moon or Mars[0] which would allow relatively comfortable and cost effective journeys to these locations. As the scale of these kinds of craft expand they could eventually become destinations themselves akin to massive cruise ships in the sky where some people live out their entire lives. Biosphere 2 was obviously a flawed experiment but it seems that Mir, the ISS, and Tiangong have shown that long term habitation in micro-G is possible, it seems like the extension of that is to try long term habitation of a body with gravity and material to experiment with. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_cycler
- nothercastle 1y ago
  Less Money went into biosphere 2. You could probably have automated everything and lowered the workload and bioload significantly.
  - ipython 1y ago
    OK great, how much do you think is necessary to spend? In the 1990s the billionaire Ed Bass spent $150 million to operate Biosphere 2 with an expected mission time of two years. Even after spending $150 million in 1993 dollars, the experiment shut down after only 6 months. [0] So let's say we spend a little more money ($150 million would be approx $335 million today, so maybe $0.5 - 1 billion). That's a lot of money but still a LOT less than establishing a moon base. And by doing it on Earth we can solve for more closed-loop system problems here without also coping at the exact same time with an environment actively trying to kill the participants and a multi-month lead time for any resupplies/"oops"es. Then we can take those lessons learned and apply them to the much harsher environment of the moon. In other words, it's a lot cheaper and faster to learn some lessons here on Earth first before having to tackle all that plus things like keeping yourself alive. [0] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/nx-s1-5442529/biosphere-2-earth-sciences-climate-change https://www.npr.org/2025/07/07/nx-s1-5442529/biosphere-2-ear...
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago
  > We couldn’t even handle a closed source experiment on earth (see biosphere 2), why would one on another celestial body fare any better? Because (1) the project would be designed seriously and (2) you don't need a completely closed loop. Just one that's mostly closed.
  - ipython 1y ago
    Who will design and execute this “seriously”? Given the current state of our government (shutting down as I type), I don’t foresee any “serious” projects from the feds any time soon. Even when there are serious people - everything will get politicized. So nasa is out. Ok so maybe a multibillionaire. Perhaps Elon musk? Yikes. Or Bezos? Maybe. The EU is kinda busy increasing their defense spend, preparing to engage in Ukraine so I don’t see them super excited to do this. China or India perhaps? Also, why shouldn’t it be completely closed loop? If you’re designing to address the myriad of scenarios that can unfold in space, I’d say you’d want that experience under your belt. Its already easy mode doing this exercise on earth you might as well give yourself a little challenge to capture lessons learned.
    - JumpCrisscross 1y ago
      > Who will design and execute this “seriously”? NASA. > why shouldn’t it be completely closed loop? Because it doesn’t need to be. Engineering an ecological carbon cycle is hard. Putting in long-lived CO2 scrubbers is not.
  - bunderbunder 1y ago
    I'd argue that you need a loop that's capable of operating without Earth support for a significant length of time - vastly beyond what they managed with Biosphere 2 - for margin of safety reasons. Possibly also with a very different, scaled down design - maybe not growing all their own food, for example - because 13,000 square meters is maybe a bit much for a first off-planet base. And the best place to start working out how to do that is right here on Earth. Because it's an immediate cost reduction of at least one and probably several orders of magnitude, and because you can much more easily iterate on the design while you're still working out the kinks. And then, once you've got it working well here on Earth, then you have a go at doing it on the moon. This idea that the best place to get started on working out how to do these sorts of things is on the moon makes about as much sense as suggesting that the Space Shuttle program should have had astronauts rushing to work out the kinks of EVA missions in space instead of doing everything they could to test and practice procedures in swimming pools in an effort to learn as much as possible before you blow half a billion dollars on trying it out in orbit.

hdgvhicv 1y ago

Can you see a future for humanity where the moon isn’t colonised?

stickfigure 1y ago
Yes? Why do we need to colonize the moon with squishy meatbags with billions of years of evolutionary optimization for life on Earth? All these dreams of star-trek like interstellar travel (or even interplanetary travel beyond taking a selfie and going home) require major advances in the physics tech tree. Might come, might not.
- dotancohen 1y ago
  Would you not like to see major advances in the physics tech tree? The way you get those advancements, is to have a goal. And funding. A moon colonization program provides both.
  - stickfigure 1y ago
    To use video games as an analogy: You can't invest all your resources racing up one tech tree; you have to build the whole economic engine to achieve those later levels. "Moon base that produces positive economic benefit" is about 10 steps up a very expensive tech tree and we don't even know what the rungs are. I also don't think this is very imaginative. If you want to colonize the moon, why send a man in a can? How about genetically engineering a human-ish that's better adapted to that kind of environment? That's the kind of technology advancement that makes manned interplanetary missions reachable.
    - jjmarr 1y ago
      > You can't invest all your resources racing up one tech tree; you have to build the whole economic engine to achieve those later levels. The exact opposite of that has been the meta in most 4X games I've played. You always rush specific techs because you understand the ROI for the specific empire you're going for. That involves specialization. Apollo allowed America to demonstrate its ability to land a rocket with pinpoint accuracy on the Moon, implying it would be easier to land an ICBM on the Soviets. The USSR got a large PR boost through launching Sputnik and then a person. It convinced many people communism was a superior ideology for advancing science and technology. Turning it into a "Space Race" allowed the USA to reframe the discussion for the world in a way that let America catch up.