"...back on the Moon within the decade."
Dec. 7th, 2003 03:27 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
plutherusOh, yeah.
An international conference of scientists, engineers, and mission planners met in Hawaii last month.
Yesterday, they released their declaration calling for an international coordinated effort to set up permanent bases on the moon.
They listed many reasons, primarily commercial exploitation, which I don't think would really be cost-effective. Anything mined from the moon would cost currently a whole lot more to send back to earth than just mining the same things here. They did, however, also mention the slightly less material goals of "...to establish a second reservoir of human culture in the event of a terrestrial catastrophe, and to study and understand the universe."
The barely skirted my favorite reasons: in the long term, we have to go out to space if we're going to survive as a species. The Earth won't last forever, even barring any more giant comets slamming into us (one doesn't have to destroy the Earth to really suck for us. Another one that kills off 90% of species would make our future pretty bleak, and those have hit a few times before). There's a thousand other things that could happen, from out-of-control pollution, gaian collapse, the eventual death of the sun, etc. If we wait until catastrophe is upon us to start going out there, it'll be too late. And the gods only know how long it'll be before we destroy our civilization ourselves and what'll happen in the meantime before we rebuild to this point again.
In the shorter term, though, Dr. Robert Zubrin pointed out one of the best reasons a couple of months ago when he testified before the Senate: In the 60's the number of science and technology graduates more than doubled. In the 70's and 80's, they went back down to pre-Apollo levels. A real goal in space would be a huge visible event that would inspire countless people: encourage them to study science and technology, seeing something they could actually apply it to when they graduate, and showing a future that could be brighter than just endlessly repeating our cycle of which nation is the prominent empire this decade. Though I'd like to see a commitment to the slightly longer term goal of building Mars colonies, a base on the moon would be a good first step.
An international conference of scientists, engineers, and mission planners met in Hawaii last month.
Yesterday, they released their declaration calling for an international coordinated effort to set up permanent bases on the moon.
They listed many reasons, primarily commercial exploitation, which I don't think would really be cost-effective. Anything mined from the moon would cost currently a whole lot more to send back to earth than just mining the same things here. They did, however, also mention the slightly less material goals of "...to establish a second reservoir of human culture in the event of a terrestrial catastrophe, and to study and understand the universe."
The barely skirted my favorite reasons: in the long term, we have to go out to space if we're going to survive as a species. The Earth won't last forever, even barring any more giant comets slamming into us (one doesn't have to destroy the Earth to really suck for us. Another one that kills off 90% of species would make our future pretty bleak, and those have hit a few times before). There's a thousand other things that could happen, from out-of-control pollution, gaian collapse, the eventual death of the sun, etc. If we wait until catastrophe is upon us to start going out there, it'll be too late. And the gods only know how long it'll be before we destroy our civilization ourselves and what'll happen in the meantime before we rebuild to this point again.
In the shorter term, though, Dr. Robert Zubrin pointed out one of the best reasons a couple of months ago when he testified before the Senate: In the 60's the number of science and technology graduates more than doubled. In the 70's and 80's, they went back down to pre-Apollo levels. A real goal in space would be a huge visible event that would inspire countless people: encourage them to study science and technology, seeing something they could actually apply it to when they graduate, and showing a future that could be brighter than just endlessly repeating our cycle of which nation is the prominent empire this decade. Though I'd like to see a commitment to the slightly longer term goal of building Mars colonies, a base on the moon would be a good first step.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: Yeah, right
Date: 2003-12-07 05:46 pm (UTC)Mars, on the other hand, is another story.
As is Venus, and several of the moons of Jupiter. Most of those will take a lot more work and technology to create any kind of habitation. There have been published studies on how to terraform both Venus and Mars for only a couple of hundred years and a trillion or so dollars each, if we wanna go that far. But sealed colonies on Mars are doable now with current technology and budget, easily within 20-odd years.
But we can learn a lot from colonizing the moon which will allow us to do the rest. The moon, I think, should be seen as a step, not a destination.
If we really wanna do it right, we should devote the next 15 years of budgets for NASA, the ESA, Russia, and China into building a space elevator. If we did that, we'd have no space exploration for a decade and a half, but after that, getting to orbit would be cheaper than a round-trip ticket to London...
Re: Yeah, right
Date: 2003-12-07 06:44 pm (UTC)But isn't Mars pretty much a frozen wasteland? There is water there, which means the potential to support life is there, but what about people?
As is Venus, and several of the moons of Jupiter.
Don't know much about the moons in Jupiter... but isn't Venus the "global warming" planet? Isn't that what the earth is on its way to becoming? If so, then it seems pretty silly to colonize Venus rather than reversing the problems on earth.
Most of those will take a lot more work and technology to create any kind of habitation. There have been published studies on how to terraform both Venus and Mars for only a couple of hundred years and a trillion or so dollars each, if we wanna go that far. But sealed colonies on Mars are doable now with current technology and budget, easily within 20-odd years.
Couldn't that same technology be used to sustain life here? I mean, there are certain gases that could be released in the atmosphere to bind with the greenhouse gas, therby rendering it pretty much harmless. Couldn't we use the resources to fix the mess we have made here? What is to stop us from making a mess from whatever planet is unfortunate enough to have us?
I think we have to learn a few internal lessons before humanity is ready to move on.
But we can learn a lot from colonizing the moon which will allow us to do the rest. The moon, I think, should be seen as a step, not a destination.
This makes sense. A place to trouble shoot the entire idea.
If we really wanna do it right, we should devote the next 15 years of budgets for NASA, the ESA, Russia, and China into building a space elevator. If we did that, we'd have no space exploration for a decade and a half, but after that, getting to orbit would be cheaper than a round-trip ticket to London...
To do that we would have to convince congress to spend some of that 348 billion dollars it spends in the military in the space program. ANd that is something I would get behind.