I’m not so sure that would be an unmitigated bad thing. How much cheaper would the Mars probes and so on have been if we didn’t have to punch them through the Earth’s atmosphere first? Also, once we’ve taken that first step, I think every next step is easier. I could be convinced that this would be better in the long run. But, you’re right: I’m counting chickens.
I thought JFK would already have that title. He was a little ballsier about space challenges (but then, he had a slightly different reason…)
LAME
I have an even BETTER idea! after the ore is mined, why don’t we process it up there! and leave it there! In the end it would probably cost a lot less than sticking it on a rocket and sending it into orbit!
Really long term plans make sense - we do have a lot more manufacturing equipment down here on Earth, but viable Lunar ore deposits would likely be a lot more valuable to the moon itself than to Earth.
Yatta! Yatta! Yatta!
What the hell are they going to do on the moon? The same exciting stuff they do on the ISS? Boy what a thriller that program has been. Even with Apollo the public lost interest pretty quickly. Fact is, the moon is quite a boring place. After a few days of watching astronauts hop around on that gray, monotonous surface again, the taxpayer hangover will begin to kick in. I just hope this idea never gets off the ground.
I’d much rather the money be spent on sustainable technologies for our own beautiful planet.
Hey Ace, the biggest benefit, IMO, would be to get a launch station a good deal of the way out of the Earth’s gravity well, thus making further exploration from there much easier and cheaper.
Outstanding. Space exploration is wonderful. If Canada doesn’t get in on this, can I send cash donations directly to NASA?
Setting up satellite/probe construction facilities sounds like a very, very big endeavour; and I don´t see that happening for the next few decades at least.
My take on this is that the most feasible use for a lunar base now is an observatory, on the dark side of the moon there are no electromagnetic interferences from Earth sources, so a radio-telescope would be shielded against them. An optical telescope would benefit from the absence of an atmosphere and the lower gravity force, so a larger mirror could be constructed… YMMV, FWIW and all that.
Let’s have both. Space exploration WILL happen; the problem right now is the the practical technology, the money, and as demonstrated, the popular will are all not available.
But we have to get off the planet and became a spacefaring race. Our security and future as a species are out there, not here.
That story reads like an Onion article.
He wants to build a space station on the moon. You just can’t make this stuff up, folks.
You didn’t actually read the story, didja, Neuroman? 'Cuz a second re-reading fails to yield the supposed claim of a lunar space station… 
Or maybe Bush wants to blow up the Moon FIRST to make room for the new space station! That fiend!
FNC’s words, not his.
Regardless, he should call it ‘Future World’. Or better yet, ‘Lunar Base 3’, just to fuck with people.
Would a second re-reading be the third reading or the fourth? Let’s see, you read it once, then re-read it, then performed the second re-reading.
OK, you read it three times, all’s clear now 
Excellent math, Roady.
Actually, I read it once at the office, the first time I saw this thread… read it again - well, skimmed it, really - when I got home, and then read it again after I saw Neury’s post. So really, I read it 2.5 times. But “r-rea” doesn’t make any sense, so I just rounded up.
Well, come on. Would you really miss it that much?
Well, yeah. What else would I use for navigation when migrating?
I’m no fan of George W. Bush, but I think a serious emphasis on getting back into space is a damn good thing.
I just wish the country was in better shape so we could actually support this effort in earnest. As it is now, I wonder if it’s just election-year pandering…
**
**
Why? Can you explain how this will benefit most people?