Because they won't fight back...

[Happy Monkey]

Bush pushes for permanent occupation of Moon.

Actually, I think this could be pretty cool. I'm a fan of the manned space program. All my old books said we'd have moonbases by seven years ago! Get on the ball, NASA!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Didn't the Japanese (maybe Chinese?) announce a short time ago, they planned on establishing Moon bases to support mining operations?

[Aliantha]

But who owns the moon? Is there enough space for everyone?

I vote for venus...the planet luuuurve! No wonder it's so HOT!!!

[Happy Monkey]

There's enough room for everyone who can get there...

...at the moment.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Somewhere, the shades of Heinlein and Ley are smiling.

[breakingnews]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

But who owns the moon? Is there enough space for everyone?

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, but the bill had nothing about creating a separate democratic alliance for governing the moon. Thus he and some other lunar-tics (har har) established an intergalatic federation (not joking) of sorts and were distributing deeds to land plots on the moon. He said the major hotel chains were so far their best customers; on the show, he gave Carson, Donald Trump and Nelly each their own titles to moon property.

I think he ran into some troubles after this. I don't remember his name, so I've been searching for reviews of that episode to find a list of the guests on the show ... however, in three instances his name was omitted entirely. I have a feeling his appearance may have been axed from the broadcast show - there's no way there would be no mention of something this quirky. Furthermore, imbd.com says actor Dennis Hopper appeared on that episode. Perhaps there was a switcheroo.

Anyway. I think a moon base would be awesome. If we have the resources to travel out there and beyond, hell, go for it. We might as well try it while we can - we could end up with the dinosaurs in another couple thousand years.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property,..

Here's another occasion to be pleased about the UN's utter powerlessness. It is a shame that states will be involved in any way but its a big universe once you get a foothold.

[9th Engineer]

We'll probably need to complete the space elevator before any sort of large scale extraterrestrial construction becomes really feasable. I heard a quote on that for about 2020, we need to increase our technology surrounding carbon nanotubes a bit first. It's supposed to reduce the cost of transporting materials to space to only a few thousand dollars a pound or less.

[Happy Monkey]

2020? Not a chance! I'd love to be proven wrong, but materials science will have to have some pretty amazing breakthroughs. A rope thousands of miles long, much stronger than anything we've got, that doesn't degrade in either the humidity of atmosphere or the hard radiation of outer space. I'd be surprised if the planning stageis near completion by 2020.

But I hope I'm wrong.

[Shocker]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, but the bill had nothing about creating a separate democratic alliance for governing the moon. Thus he and some other lunar-tics (har har) established an intergalatic federation (not joking) of sorts and were distributing deeds to land plots on the moon. He said the major hotel chains were so far their best customers; on the show, he gave Carson, Donald Trump and Nelly each their own titles to moon property.

I've read about this guy... you send him some money and then he will send you a deed for some 'property' on the moon. He also sales deeds for other celestial bodies. Only problem is that while the international treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, it doesn't mention anything about sales to private individuals. However, such sales of 'lunar property' are not legally recognized by any nation or world body. I couldn't find his name because most of the internet is blocked at my work, but I know he is from Nevada and you can read more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Registry
and http://www.lunarregistry.com

[9th Engineer]

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands, right now we can make them a few tens of centemeters long. Carbon nanofiber will be strong enough and flexable enough to make a permanent Earth to space connection possible, it's about 100 times stronger than steel and as flexable as plastic. At our current rate of progress I would say we could have everything ready for construction by ~2030, but that wouldn't take the accelerating law of returns into account.

[busterb]

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands, right now we can make them a few tens of centemeters long.

Last night was full moon. Just guessing, but I think someone is a few centemeters short.

[tw]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

Anyway. I think a moon base would be awesome. If we have the resources to travel out there and beyond, hell, go for it. We might as well try it while we can - we could end up with the dinosaurs in another couple thousand years.

Be very careful about letting your emotions replace logical thought. Same hype created a Space Shuttle that cost the US leadership in space launching. Why? Space Shuttle was not created for science or for logical accomplishment. It was created on emotional hype that America would have a space airplane. Air Force was particularly interested in this so as to create a Space Force.

Overlooked his where mankind is accomplishing great things. Robotics is how great men have been advancing mankind. Need I cite example after example - Martian Rovers, the constellation of satellites now in orbit around Mars, Hubble Space Telescope, Chandler, Solar Max, etc. Even earth borne telescopes operate on robotics. And the future tools for this are being developed by innovators in waves. Already the Martian Rovers have been provided with artificial intelligence to change their mission based upon events they detect. Almost all NASA science is accomplished on less than 10% of its budget - in robotics and other intelligent machines.

'Grand Challenge' again demonstrates the future of who will be the world leaders. Next year, 'Urban Challenge' continues making tools that are so necessary for mans conquest of the unknown - and that means space exploration. A benchmark for whether you grasp mankind's greatest advances. Do you know about Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge?

Because a Moon Base is proposed by an administration full of political extremists - and that means low intelligence - then I am indeed suspicious. It would be illogical to not be extremely suspicious. Meanwhile, manned flight repeatedly results in the least prosperous science and at tens of times more cost. After $tens of billion on the International Space Station, ISS still does no science.

Why was the Columbia destroyed? It was carrying the only manned space experiments that we do - Space Lab. Did you know that? Then why do you think a manned moon base is good? Again, we have seen what happens when emotion and political rhetoric is reason for doing something. Do you approve of a moon base only because it feels 'cool'? Or are you doing what a patriotic American does – first learn facts?

When Ballard was doing deep ocean research, he learned something stunning. Rather than look out of portholes, his scientists were running to their instruments and cameras. That is when Ballard got the message. Robotics is the future of deep ocean accomplishment - not manned probes. Have you yet learned the future - or are you so in the 'Columbus discovered America' mode?

Use principles even from Military Science 101. What is the strategic objective? Advancement of science advances mankind. Throwing big bucks at something – ie International Space Station, Space Shuttle, etc – only permtted others to become the advancers of mankind. Need we again cite how America lost space leadership due to Shuttle?

The history of America is doing things for logical reasons. What does a moonbase do other than advance the legacy of George Jr? That question should scare you.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands,

I hope so, but manufacturing will have to become extremely exact, as the tiniest flaw dramatically decreases the strength of a nanotube. And I don't know the physics, but I can certainly see hard radiation, drastic temperature differentials, and space-dust impacts could cause imperfections even if our production methods are perfect. Some form of continually-replaced shielding would probably be needed, which would dramatically increase the weight of the cable.

[bluesdave]

tw, you are quite correct regarding robotics, and satellite based technology. Many scientists at NASA and associated organisations believe that sending manned missions into space is a waste of money, and that "man" can do nothing that a robot cannot, and usually robotic laboratories (aka Mars Rover), are far more cost effective than a "manned" equivalent mission.

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

If Nixon had not killed the Apollo mission, we would have had a base on the Moon by 1975 (that was the plan), and the whole of the space programme probably would have taken a different direction. Who knows which branch of possible futures would have been better for mankind (I'm getting a little Sci-Fi here, I know).

One argument in favour of the Moon base is that it will be much easier, and cheaper, to launch craft to Mars (and beyond). Maybe something useful will be salvaged from the political decisions.

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights (we have also benefited from the non-manned programmes). Unfortunately, I do not recall the site.