Target Moon: World Space Agencies Detail Lunar Plans

Space.com ^ | December 11, 2003 | Leonard David

[samtheman]

The thing to do is not compete with these countries head-on but to out-think them. For example, why is a Lunar Base superior to an L5 orbital station? Is it just PR, or are there real advantages to being on the moon?

[CasearianDaoist]

radiation

[Cincinatus' Wife]

At the south pole there are peaks in constant sunlight. With the water-ice at the same location, you have the prime real estate everyone is now in a "gold rush" to claim.

[apillar]

The pity is if we would have taken all the money spent on the shuttles / space station projects since the end of the apollo programs and gradually expanded our lunar presence we would in all likelyhood have a rather large and vibrant lunar colony today.

[Cronos]

These countries are not a threat to our space exploration now or within the next 20 years. Come 2025 and things may change, come 2050 and things are definitely going to be different (for instance, compare the time NOW to how things were in say 1930. Folks would've thought that the Brits would remain a superpower along with the French)

[samtheman]

Good point.

Prime real estate is important and hotels on the moon would be a truly wonderful thing.

But in the meantime, its the military high-ground that's most important and that's not on the moon, but at the L5s.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Yes the military consideration is very impt. By utilizing the material on the Moon, we can service and protect our military and commercial satellites.

Here is an animation of the light and the dark. The Moon's Dark, Icy Poles

Extreme Lighting Conditions at the South Pole

[samtheman]

Don't get me wrong. I would love to see us go to the moon. I would love to go there myself. I just refuse to get excited over the fact that other countries want to go there too. Let's see them actually do something, then I'm sure we can catch up. In the meantime: more weapons in space, please.

[HarleyD]

I never saw much advantage in going to the moon under Kennedy and I still don't. The argument is always made that we reaped new products and knowledge. I'm not sure that we wouldn't have made those new products without investing billions of tax payer dollars into the space program. And while I find pictures of galaxies billions of miles away interesting I hardly think its worth the expediture.

Once again we'll end up paying billions of dollars to be the first to go to the moon but does anyone really believe that it will be claimed for the US? If we're the first others will only want to use our knowledge and equipment in "fairness". I say let them go and we'll tag along.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

The fuel on the Moon makes space defense easier and cheaper. Don't count on playing catch-up. The high ground is costly to claim once it is given up.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

We went to the Moon to show we were technically more advanced and superior to the USSR. It lead to their eventual collapse. I'd say that was worth the investment. Now we go back to stay and utilize the resouces that will keep us ahead of other nations, in technology and at the forefront of national security technology.

[Conspiracy Guy]

The Moon landings were a hoax. I offer photographic proof.

CG

[Cincinatus' Wife]

[samtheman]

What fuel on the moon?

And catch-up will be easy. What do you think the first act of one of these countries is going to be, building a full-fledged base? If they successfully orbit the moon, with a live pilot, I'll be impressed. Until then, it's all hype.

And again I say, the moon is not the military high-ground.

[HarleyD]

"We went to the Moon to show we were technically more advanced and superior to the USSR. It lead to their eventual collapse."

Sorry, I respectfully disagree. Our showing we were technically more advanced and superior had nothing at all to do with the collapse of the USSR. IMO our free market economy versus their socialist economy made it impossible for them to compete. This may be a little off topic but once we move towards a socialist economy (and were heading there) we will face the same fate.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

What fuel on the moon?

The water-ice becomes hydrogen and oxygen. The regolith is imbedded with hydrogen and the sun provides solar energy. Some speak of Helium 3 but I'm reserving judgment on that.

[samtheman]

Intersting. Any links to fact-pages regarding the existence of this fuel? I'd like to read more about it.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Our showing we were technically more advanced and superior had nothing at all to do with the collapse of the USSR.

I beg to differ. We showed the Soviets we could put a man on the Moon and return him safely in 10 years, which gave us the right to command their respect. When we stated our intention to build a space shield they went bankrupt trying to compete. That, timed with a Polish pope and low oil prices, were the three nails in their coffin.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Apollo: An American Victory in the Cold War