Probably left by a paunchy guy in a Cessna, flying out of Cowskull, Nevada. 
that’s wonderful news! Can’t wait for that lunar base (from what I heard it sounds like NASA is walking along its plans even though there are big questions about its future budget).
Apparently it’s an encouraging sign. But, still, what use (other than purely scientific) is a Moonbase?
Astronauts gotta pee, y’know. Duh.
Here’s a quick article on this.
The main thing is this can mean a quicker production of a permanent moon base. Just a hop skip and jump to the moon (237,000 miles) and interstellar spacecraft can launch from there for longer missions without disturbing our atmosphere as much, maybe.
How much of an advantage would that be, really? To get to the Moon, astronauts would still have to use a ship launched in Earth’s atmosphere. Unless we can also build a space elevator, that is – but if we have a space elevator, why not launch interstellar spaceships from the top of it, instead of the Moon’s surface?
A moonbase is next logical step in humanity’s expansion from our planet. Why did Europeans leave Europe to form colonies in Americas? There’s a natural tendency with lifeforms to expand whenever and wherever possible. The technology that would come out of the engineering required for us to live in the moon will “trickle down” to our everyday lives, like it always did with NASA innovations.
Plus, its a stepping stone for future Mars missions and future Mars bases. We shouldn’t as a species have all of our eggs in one basket, the way we are destroying our planet and the enormous lack of interest by most of our world to do anything about it.
Did I mention the coolness factor?
Plus, a slightly silly reason : our sun in a couple of million years will start expanding as it finishes burning its Hydrogen fuel, and it will make things pretty toasty here on Earth. We should advance space exploration as much as we can so we don’t get caught with our pants down.
Was this another one of those dumb things that NASA always knew was true but had to “prove” for publicity? Like Mars once being covered in water?
The Europeans colonized the New World because there was gold to steal or land to farm in the New World. And to thrive there, they needed only the technology they already had. Outer space does not offer similar opportunities, and the challenges of colonizing the Moon would be far greater, and the reasons to do so less compelling, than colonizing Antarctica.
I earnestly believe that space travel means racial survival. However, I do not believe that necessarily means it is going to happen. People will not do something extremely difficult and/or expensive unless they have very immediately compelling reasons to do so – to make vast profit, or avert some imminent danger, in the short run. Nobody is going to go live on the Moon for the sake of something as abstract as “racial survival,” nor for the “coolness factor.” So what would they go for? I have run at least two threads on the economic potential of space travel, and nothing posted in them convinces me there is any short-term potential for anything other than tourism. There’s probably not much military potential, either. As discussed here, space-based weapons have never been developed, despite a lot of speculation in that direction, because they have many disadvantages compared to ground-based weapons.
The next thing we drop on the moon ought to deposit a metric buttload of kudzu seeds. That stuff will grow anywhere. Of course the lunar gardeners will curse us 100 years from now, but that’s the first step in terraforming.
Or for that matter, why not launch giant robotic penguins from it; after all, we can actually build those.
We are so far from building even unmanned spacecraft capable of interstellar transit in anything like a human lifetime, or indeed, surviving a longer transit and performing any useful exploration and collection of data with any acceptable degree of reliability, that this particular justification is less substantial than cotton candy in a deluge. By the time we are capable of making any kind of regular manned interplanetary missions we’ll already have a permanent human presence in orbital space and be exploiting planetoids from which it is possible to extract mineral resources and useful substances (including water, which is actually fairly common in space) without having to pull them up out of a gravity well.
As for finding water on the Moon, it is of scientific interest, but it is neither of really practical use nor especially surprising to the planetology community. Although liquid water is a universal solvent which is a vital medium for the conduction of any kind of life we would readily recognize, the thermal and radiation conditions on the Moon’s surface are such that water is liquid only transitorily if ever and any nascent life would be destroyed before evolving into something more robust. (The lack of air, on the other hand, is not a particular problem; indeed, the present high oxygen atmosphere of Earth is highly toxic to more primitive organisms, and is actually a waste by-product of alge, cyanobacteria, and the vegetative members collected under kingdom Plantae.) That water may exist on the Moon indicates that its existence on other bodies more amenable to liquid conditions is highly likely, and of course it provides a local precious resource should some group or nation elect to establish a permanent human presence on the Moon, but frankly the Moon is rather a dead end destination aside from the planetological research it can provide, and operating on the Moon’s surface, as discovered by the Apollo lunar surface missions, is fully of difficulty and hazard to very little foreseeable material benefit.
Stranger
:rolleyes:
Stranger
Well, they’re looking to build a moonbase. Astronauts would be living there. Sure, they still have to get up there and doing that DOES still mess with the ozone…
The Space Elevator though is definitely out. History Channel had something on this.
If the cable snaps on the ground, you’ll have a loose elevator base dragging around a huge cable while it orbits, knocking over whatever it wants. If the cable snaps from the top base, it will fall. Thousands of miles. Might not be good.
So an elevator MIGHT happen, but some serious design is needed.
While I don’t disagree with the latter statement that there are a lot of design details (including how you are going to fabricate and erect this cable), the issues you bring up are not significant ones. The far end of the cable would have to be anchored to a mass in geostationary orbit. If the root end comes loose, it’ll essentially sit there; in fact, you probably don’t want to rigidly anchor it to the ground, as there is no way that any bedrock foundation is going to be able to accept the tensile loads placed upon it. One suggestion is to “anchor” the root end in a mostly submerged platform, allowing the drag of the water to provide both positive tension and damping.
The design of the cable would, by nature, be a taper (i.e. you want less mass lower down), and you would deliberately build a weak point relatively low on the cable so that if the tensile strength were exceeded, the anchor would pull the upper part up and only a small portion would fall to Earth. We currently have neither the technology to build long strand nanotube molecules for this, nor to assemble it into such a structure, but this isn’t far beyond foreseeable technology.
Stranger
The water was found now and not in 1969 because the astronauts put the water then in 1969 for some later astronauts to find.
To paraphrase Mr. Fats Waller:
There’s water on the moon tonight
It’s a sin if we waaaste it
Come along and let’s taaaste it
Had it ordered for you
Sorry Fats. I know water was your least favorite beverage. Too bad it wasn’t oxygin they found.
There are literally about a thousand asteroids that are easier to get to energy wise than the moon. Asteroids are probably much easier and safer to land on and take off as well. I also would not be surprised if at least one of them, if not many of them have WAY more water than the moon. And others are probably extremely high in pure or nearly pure metals.
IMO, asteroids are by far the way to go.
Why? Are they nearer to Earth?
Here you go.
Near or far aint the only part of the story.
http://echo.jpl.nasa.gov/~lance/delta_v/delta_v.rendezvous.html