NASA Going to the Moon... Again

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Well, whether or not they actually went the first time, they say they're going again now.

NASA is planning to set up a base on the moon. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061205/ap_on_sc/nasa_moon)

For some reason though, it sounds oddly Starcraft-esque to me. Land on the moon, build a base, mine nearby resources, build new base near new resources, Outpost becoming permanent command post, etc.

I like the point the guy makes at the bottom though. Where the hell is the money for this going to come from?

[Fifthfiend]

Mars, bitches!

[Azisien]

I suppose it'd be nice to shunt some money we're currently spending to slaughter people to funding this. But whatever, it's about time I can yell "TO THE MOON BASE!" and actually mean it.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

It's about fucking time, I say!

[adamark]

I wonder who the first people will be to have sex in outer space/on the moon. and who the first moon child will be...

[TheSpacePope]

I wonder who the first people will be to have sex in outer space/on the moon
Dude, I got it covered.

[Pure Liquid Awesome]

Best part of the article:

The structure of the base and the exact duties of the astronauts stationed there have not been decided.

Nor is it clear when the base will begin functioning.

We're going! We don't know in what.... and, uh, we don't know why.... and, uh, we don't know when. But we're going!

[42PETUNIAS]

This would have been a really good thing to do, except like 30 years ago when everybody cared. I mean, now, everyone realizes that a base on the moon would cost a lot of money, and that there isn't really anywhere to get the money from.
It seems that the U.S. government is just trying to run away from the problems in Iraq and all, and distract the public, instead of taking responsibility for the problems.
It's time to stop spending and start mending. (A gold star for anyone who recognizes that quote)

[Death by Stabbing]

pffft NASA's been talking about moon bases since like the 1960's...after they stole the idea from the army...after the Army probably stole the idea from a science fiction book. I think Jules Verne wrote a book about a moon base...

Anyways I'm sure we'll eventually have moon bases but until they can actually show something for all their talk NASA needs to shut up about it. I mean NASA's done some great things but they should stick to what they can actually do for now.

DBS

[Bells]

This has to be a major blow to all those people who keep saying the man never went to the moon... i mean... there goes that conspiracy theory out the window...

Besides... i thought they wouldnt build a base there unless there was already something there to "take", like water or unique minerals... but there isnt, right?

So, i have until 2030 to gather funds for those "terraforming" courses that will pop out eventually... nice!

[Pure Liquid Awesome]

Well, years ago they figured they could extract water and oxygen and nitrogen right from the polar moon-rocks.... maybe they figured that process out to make it cheap enough to be feasible?

[42PETUNIAS]

Well, years ago they figured they could extract water and oxygen and nitrogen right from the polar moon-rocks.... maybe they figured that process out to make it cheap enough to be feasible?

Cheap enough to drag it to earth from the moon? Somehow, i really doubt that. Even if the purpose is to sustain the population, and not to bring resources to earth, i don't think the process would be easy or produce enough to sustain a population. It just seems like they want a moon base to have a moon base, not because theres any real benefit from it.

[Pure Liquid Awesome]

No no, just to keep the people on the Moon happy.... bringing oxygen to the Earth from the Moon seems a little much, even for the US government. I'm sure they would be able to extract it, if they had sufficient power, and a solar array set up that doesn't even have atmosphere to interfere with the radiation would probably produce quite a bit of power, the way current solar technology is going.

But yeah, I agree... they're mostly having one just to have one, but it is a stepping stone to reintroducing the space program. Now if they could just get rid of homeless people, they'd be going in the right direction...

[42PETUNIAS]

I personally fail to see the immediate merit of having a space program. It doesn't serve any practical purpose, its insanely expensive, and the american people has pretty much turned their back on it, no one will really gain as much from a second time on the moon. Back during the first moonwalk, a space program was definitly good as it provided the amerian people with a source of hope and all that, but no one gets the same emotion, its far more expensive now, more time-consuming and all that. Unless a very simple solution arises that makes trips to the moon much easier (like a cheap fuel that provides much more speed, while not needing too much space to contain it) the bulk of he space program should be abandoned until it has a significant purpose to serve.

[Pure Liquid Awesome]

Unless a very simple solution arises that makes trips to the moon much easier (like a cheap fuel that provides much more speed, while not needing too much space to contain it)
Like the Venturestar? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_aerospike#RS-2200) NASA didn't think it was 'feasible'...

[handofpwn]

I think that nasa wants to build just so that when theyre at their high school reunion, they can say : Yeah? Well i built a moon base bitch.

[Sithdarth]

No see the reason for extracting Oxygen and Hydrogen from the moon is making fuel to go other places. Places like Mars; which are much more suitable for potential population supporting. See oxygen and hydrogen make for pretty much the most powerful chemical rocket fuel money can buy. The problem is that bringing enough of it into orbit to get to say Mars is a problem. Especially since you also have to bring a few years worth of drinking water, food, and air. Plus a lot of living space and things to do on the several month long voyage.

So you see if you could get these things from the moon and then launch from there, were gravity is 6 times less, it would be a lot cheaper. Getting off the moon even with a crap load of food, water, air, and fuel is orders of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Not to mention the moon is a much harder place to set up a "base". Not only is it good practice for Mars its also close enough so that if something goes wrong the people there can come back.

There are reasons to go to the moon. Assuming that they do find the resources they are looking for. Even if they don't its still a good, and marginally safer, testing ground for a future Mars mission. Walk before you crawl and all that.

[Bells]

I did find it funny (in a morbid way) that they talked about this around the same time that it was said that US actions on Iraq were not productive......

So... like... if they bring enough fertile soil, a lot of trees and work around with the water in the moon, in like 50 years, maybe a breathble atmosphere?

[Pure Liquid Awesome]

Maybe if the Moon becomes the 52nd state, there'll be another swing vote in the next election?

[Sithdarth]

So... like... if they bring enough fertile soil, a lot of trees and work around with the water in the moon, in like 50 years, maybe a breathble atmosphere?

Not going to happen ever. Hell Mars barely has the strength to hold onto its atmosphere and it doesn't have a neighbor six times its size ready to beat it up and take what it wants. I mean theoretically you could set up some kind of atmosphere but you'd have to continously truck in, or create from rocks, the gasses needed to sustain it. We're probably talking tens of thousands if not millions of tons of gas in as little as a few months. Much easier just to build good sized domes to live in. You really don't need all that room anyway.

[Mike McC]

Wouldn't cosmic radiation pose a potential problem to astronauts living on the moon for extended periods of time?

Also, Pure Liquid Awesome rocks for the Bill Hicks avatar.

[Sithdarth]

That's one problem yes. NASA has been working on that one fairly hard for awhile. The simplest solution is building the bases from several feet of concrete made from moon dust. Which is also better for building in general cause its cheap, its there, and its easy to shape.

Other solutions are a bit out there like building a giant electromagnetic screen. But really it can be mitigated to a reasonable amount and then further controlled with things like potassium. Sure there's a risk of developing cancer from prolonged exposure but cancer is almost a given these days anyway. In short, yes a higher risk of cancer but no they aren't going to die from radiation sickness like they just stood next to an unshielded nuclear reactor.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Maybe if the Moon becomes the 52nd state, there'll be another swing vote in the next election?

Well seeing as half the moon has already been bought by several thousand people in 1 acre increments that is unlikely, as those people still live on earth. It's kinda like having a holiday home abroad. You dont get to vote in that countries elections.

Speaking of land ownerships though, I do believe that the US already bought a few thousand acres of the moon for this proposed moon base. The rest of it's still owned by one man though, lucky bastard!

[Mike McC]

Well seeing as half the moon has already been bought by several thousand people in 1 acre increments that is unlikely, as those people still live on earth. It's kinda like having a holiday home abroad. You dont get to vote in that countries elections.

Speaking of land ownerships though, I do believe that the US already bought a few thousand acres of the moon for this proposed moon base. The rest of it's still owned by one man though, lucky bastard!Except that the deeds and land ownership of celestial bodies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraterrestrial_real_estate) isn't recognized by any nation. Also, The Outer Space Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) prohibits any nation from claiming a celestial body. So, that 'land ownership on the moon' scheme isn't really good to hold up, being as there are no countries that recognize these kind of deals as legitimate. The deeds granted are only for symbolic or novelty value. Not to mention there are lots of companies, people, and organizations claiming the right to sell lunar real estate through 'loopholes' in the current law. Chances are that if these claims are ever contested, they won't hold up.

Some highlights of Lunar 'ownership': In the 1950s, deeds for square inches of lunar property were offered as premiums with morning cereals.
In 1957, a Le Mars, Iowa newspaper gave its readers deeds to lunar farms.
In the 1960s, the Moon and Venus were officially annexed by several municipalities. Deer Park, Texas, claimed planet Venus, while Oklahoma City and Geneva, Ohio expanded their boundaries with the Moon.
In 1980, the American Dennis Hope enters the unreal estate business through his own business, claiming to have found a loophole in international law allowing him to claim full sovereignty of the moon. He was the first to sell lunar deeds (also on the Internet) after sending off declarations to the US, (then) Soviet and UN governments.Do ya wanna buy a bridge?

[42PETUNIAS]

wait-people actually bought the moon?! when did this happen, and for how much?

Edit: question answered.

[Noodlesis]

More vespene gas is needed. :p

Wow I bet that somewhere, there's a little nerd like me controlling George Bush and pretty much any other major figurehead...

[J-Watt]

I seriously doubt that this is anything more than an attempt to raise interest in NASA. After all, America can barely afford the ISS (with the current budget) now that most of the contributing countries have dropped out. Personally, I think that most of the civilized world has lost interest in space travel now that we have satellite technology, and all of the neat things it has brought into modern society.

Also, there isn't a whole lot of purpose to the moon right now. We've already gathered samples from its surface years ago. Unless we're willing to bring in Zero Gravity surveying equipment, there's point to setting up shop.

Also, the cost to travel to the moon and back on a regular basis would be astronomical unless we've designed a new and improved manned lunar craft I'm unaware of.

[scott wegener]

Going to the moon is certainly a step in the right direction, though I heard one of the astronaughts involved (or former astronaught who's now a director of some sort) on NPR yesterday. He said that this would not be a direct step to further space exploration -which is odd because I had always thought a moon base would act like a launch platform for missions further out into the solar system. But the physics are all wrong for that he said.

However, if done it will prove that we can exist on other planetoids, and it would be a proving ground for tech needed to go to Mars.

All in all I say BRAVO. Carl Sagan said it best -what we do in space today (refering to the space station and shuttle mission) is NOT exploration in any sense of the word. Going into orbit to report back how the hybrid tomatoe plants are doing is lame, lame, LAME. We got up there and for 30yrs we've been terrified of taking the next step.

There is a fantastic graphic novel by Warran Ellis called MINISTRY OF SPACE that imagines an alternate post-WWII history in which the British become the pioneers of space while the USA and USSR wear each other down in their decades long strougle. I HIGHLY recommend it to everyone.

Hawkings, Sagan, and others (the Einsteins and Newtons of our times) have said again and again that we NEED to become a multi-planet species or we have no future. World destroying impacts from space happen on a regular cycle as the solar system bobs up and down through the Milky Way's disk. When we are in the disc (so to speak) we are in an area full of flying balls of rock and ice, any number of which will statistically wipe out life as we know it. As Sagan said, we live in a very bad stelar neighborhood.

But I am a cynic. We spend trillions a year in Iraq fighting to control dwindling fossil fuels, and NASA gets 1.7 billion a year.

Truemajority.org (co-founded by Ben of Ben & Jerry's) has a number of great models that show how our government spends over 70% of its money on the military, and most of that on maintaining out of date Cold War nukes. A pathetic amount is left for science, education, and social programs. It will take a shift in world politics to change that.

[Solotaire]

All I know is, Im moving off this rock as soon as that rock is livable.

jm0.02nuyen

[Tydeus]

That's one problem yes. NASA has been working on that one fairly hard for awhile. The simplest solution is building the bases from several feet of concrete made from moon dust. Which is also better for building in general cause its cheap, its there, and its easy to shape.

Several feet of concrete? That's it? Somehow, this does not seem equivalent to our entire atmosphere, in sheer cosmic-ray-stopping potential. I mean, hell, even on Mars you'd get some serious cosmic-ray shit coming at you, but on the moon? Several feet? If 'several' is something on the order of 1,000 to you, then, uh, sure, I guess.

I remember reading that if you use water (which is really quite excellent at slowing cosmic rays thanks to all that hydrogen, which, apparently is far more effective than heavier elements), it needs to be something like 500 meters deep. Fucking cosmic rays. Why you gotta be hatin'?

Other solutions are a bit out there like building a giant electromagnetic screen.

Well, if you have a way of putting out a magnetic field at a strength of about 20 Teslas constantly, for years, then, yeah, that'd work.

But really it can be mitigated to a reasonable amount and then further controlled with things like potassium.

Never heard of this before. How so?

Sure there's a risk of developing cancer from prolonged exposure but cancer is almost a given these days anyway. In short, yes a higher risk of cancer but no they aren't going to die from radiation sickness like they just stood next to an unshielded nuclear reactor.

Well, not really. I mean, we're talking about 1/3 of all your DNA experiencing damage from cosmic rays in a year. That's kind of a lot. Not so much a "higher risk of cancer" as "you will die of cancer if you stay here for very long at all."