Moon colonization is one of those ideas that comes along now and again, usually when an American president is trying to demonstrate that they have the vision thing. When President Bush suggested it in 2004 it was at a speech to staff at NASA and was framed as part of a wider strategy of space exploration[i] with the moon functioning as a launch pad for explorations further into space. To be precise he said Living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time[ii] <\/p>\n
It seems fairly unlikely that Sci-Fi ideas of fully-fledged cities are likely any time soon but talk of a permanent scientific base - similar to the international space station or the Rothera Research Station in Antarctica. <\/p>\n
Proponents of moon colonization have various theories about the potential benefits, ranging from solid front runner of scientific research, through the more speculative launch pad and mining, and ending up in the frankly fanciful hotel and Amusement park or casino complex. At least those proponents who feel the need for a reason for colonization tend to use these arguments to demonstrate the validity of the case. For others its the more instinctive Because its there or Because its next and certainly, a review of literature shows that it is an idea which has always spoken powerfully to the human instinct to explore. <\/p>\n
Opponents tend to speak with a rather more unified, if prosaic, voice and point out that it would be hugely expensive and there is no particular need to do it. <\/p>\n
There is then a slightly separate argument that takes place within and around the environmental movement that says colonizing the moon would be good preparation for living on other planets once weve trashed this one, to which the reply of environmentalists tends to be along the lines of Oh, so you can trash that one as well? <\/p>\n
Whatever the motivation to go or not nobody disputes that doing so would be extremely expensive and scientifically challenging. There are huge issues to be overcome just in terms of keeping the astronauts alive. There is also some dispute as to whether we could learn anything from a manned base that could not be done remotely. <\/p>\n
There are other challenges in terms of the logistics of the operation and these mean that much of the discussion has taken place around whether the idea is worthwhile in principle rather than in practice. When Bush made the speech it was distinctly redolent of Kennedys By the end of the decade remark about putting a man on the moon in the first place. As much a statement of American supremacy and financial and organizational muscle as anything to do with the science it would promote or reveal. Whatever the reason the financial woes that came later apparently put an end to the idea and little has been heard about it since. Indeed Obama cancelled the first stage of the program in 2010 as being too expensive, behind schedule and lacking innovation.[iii] <\/p>\n
[i] http:\/\/www.nasa.gov\/missions\/solarsystem\/bush_vision.html<\/a> 14 January 2004 <\/p>\n [ii] President Bush Offers New Vision for NASA, NASA, 14 January 2004 <\/p>\n [iii] http:\/\/news.bbc.co.uk\/1\/hi\/sci\/tech\/8489097.stm<\/a> <\/p>\n <\/p>\n Here is the original post: Moon colonization is one of those ideas that comes along now and again, usually when an American president is trying to demonstrate that they have the vision thing. When President Bush suggested it in 2004 it was at a speech to staff at NASA and was framed as part of a wider strategy of space exploration[i] with the moon functioning as a launch pad for explorations further into space. To be precise he said Living and working there for increasingly extended periods of time[ii] It seems fairly unlikely that Sci-Fi ideas of fully-fledged cities are likely any time soon but talk of a permanent scientific base - similar to the international space station or the Rothera Research Station in Antarctica Continue reading
\nThis House would colonize the moon | idebate.org<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"