Is it really necessary to send humans to those places just to get the knock-on benefits? Couldn’t we do those things directly, without going there?
It seems to me that, today, those who have the money to spend on these endeavors would only do so if there were perceived short-term benefits to themselves. That means they plan to exploit the resources, or increase their own power somehow.
I know the good engineers that make this happen are doing it for the challenge and in the pursuit of knowledge, and I know that’s why we poors support it, but that doesn’t “pay the bills.” What is the motivation behind the money? Why are they really doing this?
The old “strip it of all resources and anything else of value” gambit will suffice for this and all others in the future.
It is a really good “proving ground” for longer term human habitation of something like a settlement on a foreign body, without being so far away that some kind of rescue is basically impossible should something go wrong.
Also, going from Earth > Moon > Mars, or where ever, is probably less complex from a total at one time payload perspective than trying to move everything you would need for that longer term destination all at once.
Plus as you alluded to, you can’t really put a price on the political good will that comes from doing something like that. The Moon is a cheaper way to get that good will and some experience from point one as a starting point.
It’s scientifically priceless. For instance, a permanent space telescope/excavation base on the dark side of the moon would be incredible.
…But realistically, post 2026, that should be handled by drones. Doubly so for expeditions to other celestial bodies.
The people pushing for human habitation in space aren’t really technical; they don’t have a good scientific background. But they think they are because they’ve seen some sci-fi, maybe they hold some high office, and their egos are the size of the moon.
They’re also surrounded by bubbles telling them they are right.
There was similar financial angst around the Apollo Program, FYI. The political question was “why didn’t that money go to social programs instead?”
I’m against that. I think the space race was scientifically priceless. But… TBH, I think funding winding down made sense, too.
But that should be distinct from the more recent flights of fancy. Let me be clear: humans (as we exist now) living in space makes zero sense, no matter how much we don’t want that to be the case. It certainly won’t fix any Earth problems.
I’ve never understood their logic. If you can create such a society on another world, would it not be easier to change the society already in this world?
Because humans will… “human” and will always do the things we have shown to do for hundreds of years. That will not change,
People will change their minds, start to form alliances, etc. so if they cannot convince people now, here, if that is already too hard… Why do they think it will be any better on another world where in fact it would be even harder!?
have awesome space sex
Realistically, building stuff. If you want to build large radiotelescooe or space observatory you can’t launch it in one piece.
Other use case would be to run refueling and launch station, given there’s a water ice on the moon, it makes possible to convert it into hydrogen + oxygen and refuel landing vehicles to launch them on a far missions
Ask investors for more money
Next question
It’s a good lauchpad to reach farther distances. It’s much easier to launch through the moon’s atmosphere than the Earth’s, making it the best staging ground to go to Mars or the Asteroid belt, where there might be some valuable minerals or something.
The logical answer would be send robots. But, let’s face it. They’ll probably keep cloning and killing some poor bastard with fake implanted memory to do their bidding in a perpetual cycle.
We like the moon, because its close to us We like the moon, but not as much as a spoon!
we actually seem not at all concerned about doing anything with the moon, it’s either launching more satellites or going to mars.
Is there some benefit Delta V wise to having a lunar or orbiting lunar base perhaps?
We wanna be on da MOON BABY!! Dats why we wanna moon da moon babayyyy, finna jump and bounce around around low gravity babaeeee gotta collect rocks and shit babaaaaa gotta set uo dos fool’s telescopics for alien tities bwaaawbawaaaaa
(Collect and research materials in space far easier and launch rockets more cost effectively. Also for more budget experiments and observations not possible on earth due to the atmosphere/high gravity) bwabaaaaweeeeeeewwwww
Realistically, the Moon would likely carry a mix of science, mining, and power installations.
Science - You can set up a large telescope on the far side of the Moon which won’t have an atmosphere to compete with. There are some concepts which would use existing craters to keep the cost low.
Mining - It is possible for there to be rare earth minerals on the Moon. There is also Helium-3 in the regolith. A country may choose to have a colony on the Moon address terrestrial shortages.
Power - The Moon makes an excellent site to collect solar power. That power could possibly be beamed/reflected to Earth, used to refine high electrical demand materials, or be a site for compute.
As this gets built out, the Moon will likely become a manufacturing hub, especially for missions beyond the Earth-Moon gravity well due to lower launch costs.
Resources that are minimally available on Earth.
Example: The moon has Helium-3 and is close (in comparison to other celestial bodies).
Is it economically viable? Is it ethical? Ehhhhhhhh. I would say no, but Elon “Head Up His Own Ass” Musk would disagree.
