• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should we establish a scientific base on the moon?

Should we establish a scientific base on the moon?

  • Yes

    Votes: 20 69.0%
  • No

    Votes: 9 31.0%

  • Total voters
    29
I wish there was an option for, "Not yet..." Instead I voted, "No."
There was no indication of a time frame in the poll question...
 
The truth is, a moon base is useless theres no scientific advantage to having a base on the moon except scientific prestige at having tons of money spent on you to do things you could be doing on earth.:rofl
 
The truth is, a moon base is useless theres no scientific advantage to having a base on the moon except scientific prestige at having tons of money spent on you to do things you could be doing on earth.:rofl
Well, actually, there are scientific advantages to having a base on the moon.

Low gravity environment.

Minimal atmosphere.

And probably some other reasons we don't know about and won't until or unless we DO put a base on the moon.
 
There was no indication of a time frame in the poll question...
Right, but in such a generalized query, you are expected to make a few assumptions. I assumed the OP was wondering if we should begin to establish a base on the moon in the next decade or two.
 
Right, but in such a generalized query, you are expected to make a few assumptions. I assumed the OP was wondering if we should begin to establish a base on the moon in the next decade or two.
And such a time frame wouldn't qualify for a "Yes" in your book?

10-20 years from now is too soon?
 
And such a time frame wouldn't qualify for a "Yes" in your book?

10-20 years from now is too soon?
Major space organizations capable of establishing a moon colony plot and construct their projects decades in advance. If you want a moon colonization program to begin initial construction by, say, 2025, you need to begin allocating budget resources today. That means rejecting major (and far cheaper) space program proposals to make room for the vastly more expensive sustained manned spaceflight programs.

Putting a person on the moon is a time consuming and costly endeavour. Keeping a person on the moon is many times more expensive. Couple this with the impending retirement of the US shuttle program (meaning after September, NASA will have no means of even sending people into orbit) and any moon colonization program in the near future is absurdly impractical.

I feel the space program will be stunted by the albatross that is sustained manned spaceflight. There are many deserving projects that offer to reveal the true nature of the universe, and most of those proposals would be rejected.
 
Well, actually, there are scientific advantages to having a base on the moon.

Low gravity environment.

Minimal atmosphere.

And probably some other reasons we don't know about and won't until or unless we DO put a base on the moon.

But we practically know everything there is to know about the moon. There are high altitude desert telescopes that work fine, there are in orbit telescopes that do the same job, just fine. A low gravity environment has few if any applications for scientific research that cannot be applied on earth or on a space station.
 
But we practically know everything there is to know about the moon. There are high altitude desert telescopes that work fine, there are in orbit telescopes that do the same job, just fine. A low gravity environment has few if any applications for scientific research that cannot be applied on earth or on a space station.
Perhaps.

I'm just saying that your statement of "...theres no scientific advantage to having a base on the moon..." was incorrect.

Those scientific advantages may be minimal and unnecessary in your opinion, but they exist.

And we can't know if there are other advantages unless we try to find out.
 
I'm just saying that your statement of "...theres no scientific advantage to having a base on the moon..." was incorrect.

The Space Review: Moonbase why

It isn't incorrect...

Unless you're talking about purported technological advancements that are still science fiction.

They're certainly not going to land there and go "Lets look for some advantage to what we just did."
 
The Space Review: Moonbase why

It isn't incorrect...

Unless you're talking about purported technological advancements that are still science fiction.

They're certainly not going to land there and go "Lets look for some advantage to what we just did."

Well, the thing is that whenever NASA has been tasked to perform some space exploration endeavor, they need to invent some technologies in order to accomplish that task. "Necessity is the mother of invention," as it were. The technologies that are invented because of space exploration are then used for private industry for use in consumer goods. Here are just a few from this site.

From the site said:
ENRICHED BABY FOOD - A microalgae-based, vegetable-like oil called Formulaid developed from NASA-sponsored research on long duration space travel, contains two essential fatty acids found in human milk but not in most baby formulas, believed to be important for infants' mental and visual development.

WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.

SCRATCH-RESISTANT LENSES - A modified version of a dual ion beam bonding process developed by NASA involves coating the lenses with a film of diamond-like carbon that not only provides scratch resistance, but also decreases surface friction, reducing water spots.

POOL PURIFICATION - Space technology designed to sterilize water on long-duration spacecraft applied to swimming pool purification led to a system that uses two silver-copper alloy electrodes that generate silver and copper ions when an electric current passes through them to kill bacteria and algae without chemicals.

RIBBED SWIMSUIT - NASA-developed riblets applied to competition swimsuits resulted in flume testing of 10 to 15 percent faster speeds than any other world class swim-suit due to the small, barely visible grooves that reduce friction and aerodynamic drag by modifying the turbulent airflow next to the skin.

GOLF BALL AERODYNAMICS - A recently designed golf ball, which has 500 dimples arranged in a pattern of 60 spherical triangles, employs NASA aerodynamics technology to create a more symmetrical ball surface, sustaining initial velocity longer and producing a more stable ball flight for better accuracy and distance.

PORTABLE COOLERS/WARMERS - Based on a NASA-inspired space cooling system employing thermoelectric technology, the portable cooler/warmer plugs into the cigarette lighters of autos, recreational vehicles, boats, or motel outlets. Utilizes one or two miniaturized modules delivering the cooling power of a 10-pound block of ice and the heating power of up to 125 degrees Fahrenheit.

SPORTS TRAINING - Space-developed cardio-muscular conditioner helps athletes increase muscular strength and cardiovascular fitness through kinetic exercise.

ATHLETIC SHOES - Moon Boot material encapsulated in running shoe midsoles improve shock absorption and provides superior stability and motion control.

Other spinoffs in this area include: Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel televisions, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, cool sportswear, sports bras, hair styling appliances, fogless ski goggles, self-adjusting sunglasses, composite golf clubs, hang gliders, art preservation, and quartz crystal timing equipment.

So technologies used in space exploration can then be used in many unexpected ways for private sector industries to provide goods and services to the public.
 
The money spend on the Iraq war could have created a huge scientific base on the moon, and mars, and created several space stations, and created many new space telescopes, a new shuttle program and other things..

So, what is actually wasted money?

Put things in perspective, thats what the peope of the US have great problems with these days... I would say also Europeans, but to a slightly lesser degree.

Are you kidding? A huge scientific base on Mars alone would cost a ridiculous amount of money. We can't even send people to the Moon and you're talking like we could have put up a scientific base on Mars for the price of the Iraq war. While much could have been bought or paid for by saving money on the war, this is not one of them.

So yes, please put things in proper perspective.
 
Last edited:
Moon potential goldmine of natural resources

Also applies to asteroids and other moons.

You do realize the energies we're talking about to be able to mine and bring things back to earth, right? Not to mention the radical increase in our technologies? None of it's feasable right now, we can't mine asteroids, we can't house people on the moon. Fighting gravity is HUGE work and you'll have to do it every time you want to leave, and what are we getting in return? It's not going to be worth it yet. This whole moon base/mining space thing is pure fantasy. You may as well claim you're a level 12 paladin with a +3 flaming bastard sword and 35 AC.
 
Well, actually, there are scientific advantages to having a base on the moon.

Low gravity environment.

Minimal atmosphere.

And probably some other reasons we don't know about and won't until or unless we DO put a base on the moon.

Actually, there's no atmosphere on the moon. That would be an advantage for pointing a telescope at objects in space. If we had a great telescope on the moon, we could see some things that we can't with the Hubble or with telescopes on earth.
 
Actually, there's no atmosphere on the moon. That would be an advantage for pointing a telescope at objects in space. If we had a great telescope on the moon, we could see some things that we can't with the Hubble or with telescopes on earth.

The HUbble is in space, so it's already free of the distortions. As for the other effects, they can easily be accounted for and corrected. While for any realistic study of science, astronomy would be the best for things such as space stations and moon stations, it's not like we can't correct for aberrations. We can already detect large planets which orbit suns from data collected on earth. And visible light is not the only frequency we can measure, and the different wavelengths will have different dispersions through the atmosphere; leading to less aberration in some frequencies.
 
The Space Review: Moonbase why

It isn't incorrect...

Unless you're talking about purported technological advancements that are still science fiction.

They're certainly not going to land there and go "Lets look for some advantage to what we just did."
That link just proves that there ARE scientific advantages to a moon base.

I never said those scientific advantages were enough to justify a moon base, but only that they existed.
Like the "telescopes would require less adjustment for atmosphere on the moon" bit. Not enough of a reason to go there, as I understand it, but it is nonetheless a scientific advantage - for astronomers.

The primary reason that I would support a lunar base would be (and this is probably a much larger in scale idea than NASA has) for the purpose of building and launching robotic probes, which would be much less expensive - in terms of propulsive needs – due to the lower gravity there.

Obviously, that would require manufacturing methods we haven't yet developed, but...

If and when methods of manufacturing that can be used to build probes in space are developed, it would seem reasonable to do it on the moon, as it’s both relatively near the earth, a nice big platform for putting stuff on, and has low gravity that allows for easier launch of such.

Of course, some persons would say we should go there now, so we can develop those methods in the environment they will be used in…

Others would say the ISS can be used for that.

But meh.
 
It would be a base where humans live and study astronomy long-term. Obviously, it would be expensive, but we would gain a lot of knowledge about the universe that we can't get here on earth.

If there's no commercial industry and no military value, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars.
 
If there's no commercial industry and no military value, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The commercial value and military value isn't necessarily in the moonbase itself but rather the technologies that are developed because of the moonbase.
 
If there's no commercial industry and no military value, it's a waste of taxpayer dollars.

It may be the perfect spot to continuously watch the earth and attempt to pull the "Global Warming" myth out of the **** can. I can see eco-terrorist and scientific whackadoodle types supporting such a moon base.
 
The money spend on the Iraq war could have created a huge scientific base on the moon, and mars, and created several space stations, and created many new space telescopes, a new shuttle program and other things..

Just imagine what could have been done with the 12 trillion dollars totally wasted on social programs, then. Why, we could have colonies on Saturn's Rings, one on the top side, one on the bottom.
 
It may be the perfect spot to continuously watch the earth and attempt to pull the "Global Warming" myth out of the **** can. I can see eco-terrorist and scientific whackadoodle types supporting such a moon base.

No, geosynchronous satellites are more than sufficient to serve that purpose.

The wealth of the moon is in it's rocks, not in it's scenery.
 
Yeah but satellites are blah... a moon base has "cool" factor and the liberals could really rely on nationalistic pride to push the budget through.
 
Back
Top Bottom