[ToucanLoucan]

I mean it's not so much that they lost momentum as there's just... not a ton of good reasons to go to the moon. It's a long, incredibly dangerous trip and there's just not much there.

Same reason we've never sent people to Mars, it's even more complicated, magnitudes more dangerous, and what exactly are we accomplishing in doing so...? Nothin there.

[Larrikin]

There are multiple seasons of a really good show called For All Mankind that basically has a rebuttal to your argument for every single decade in history since the first moon landing. You should check it out as it is really well written.

[snozolli]

George W. Bush called for a permanent moon base back in '04. The primary motivator, from what I recall, was as a launching point for Mars exploration.

https://www.npr.org/2004/01/15/1597182/bush-calls-for-manned...

The timeline is pretty entertaining and a bit depressing, if you wanted to see the plan succeed:

...

By 2014: The first manned mission for the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

By 2015: Astronauts will land on the moon using the Crew Exploration Vehicle.

By 2020: The United States will have established an extended human presence on the moon, using it as a launching pad for other manned exploration missions.

As for why, 1) to ensure the survival of humanity, 2) to drive scientific development and 3) because it's there.

[JKCalhoun]

I like the optimism of 1970:

https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024...

https://i0.wp.com/newspaceeconomy.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024...

[bruce511]

1) no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent. If earth loses the ability to resupply the base dies.

2) science on earth drives scientific development. The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow. All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there.

Yes we could collect, and study, more moon rocks. But outside of that theres not much to study (that can't be better studied on earth or in LEO).

The cost of study on the moon is a few orders of magnitude higher than LEO which in turn is a few extra zeros from study on earth.

I'll add that right now budgets for study on earth have been slashed. There's a lot more value to be gained spending that moon money here.

3) this argument is irrefutable. It's also pretty weak when appropriations are discussed. Apollo got killed because "been there, done that" with next to no reoccurring value.

Space has given us huge value. Mostly in LEO. GPS, Weather, Communications, satellite TV. Plus further out, Hubble, James Web, and probes like Voyager et al feed us data. This is the legacy of Apollo. Moon bases? Mars Bases? They make no scientific or financial sense.

[snozolli]

no base on the moon (or mars) has the potential to be earth independent.

I see no reason that a Mars base couldn't eventually be entirely self-sustaining. More importantly, the challenges drive the innovation necessary to make humanity a spacefaring species, which is necessary to ensure the survival of humanity.

The fields of science best done on the moon are insanely narrow.

Nobody said anything about science on the moon. Again, the challenge drives innovation.

All of the scientific advancements from Apollo etc were from building stuff to get there, not being there.

So you already understood the point I was making, yet you decided to argue against a complete straw man instead?!

The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.

[ToucanLoucan]

> I see no reason that a Mars base couldn't eventually be entirely self-sustaining.

Seriously?

Problem 1: The atmospheric composition and pressure is trying to kill you at all times. Anyone who lives on Mars will either do so under massive domes to maintain breathable atmosphere at a pressure humans can survive at. Any breach in this dome is fatal to all inside. If we can't make a dome work somehow, we're now all living in tiny, pressurized shelters and any outdoor time at all requires a full EVA suit and is treated as life-threatening.

Problem 2: The law of thermodynamics is also trying to kill you at all times. Average temp is -81 degrees Fahrenheit. You must not only pressurize and condition air for human life, you must also heat it, continuously. If anything happens to your heating system, you are dead within a day.

Problem 3: To grow food will require all the atmospheric support the people already do, plus a reliable source of clean water. Mars has ice caps, but you're nowhere near them unless you land there, and then you better have an even bigger heater to solve Problem 2 with.

> The point of a moon base as a stepping stone to Mars habitation -- again, from 20 year old memories of articles -- is in studying the real-world, long-term effects on humans of living off-Earth, as well as a low-gravity environment in which to assemble the sort of large ship required to move humans such a long distance.

Any humans who live on Mars right now are guaranteed to die there, for the simple fact that it's logistically all but impossible to not only get people there, but to do so in such a way where they have the supplies for a trip home, including fuel for vehicular re-ascent and earth return. Not to mention food, water, living space, and the sort of space vehicle that can travel for 6-8 months, land/remain in orbit for mission duration, then return 6-8 months. If you want to live on mars for a week, you're committing to a year and a half in space, aboard a craft that cannot resupply at any point, no can anything go wrong that requires help from Earth. At our current technology, again, basically suicide.

And again, we could PROBABLY solve these issues, you're right. But we come back again to: why? Mars doesn't have anything we need, and even what could be useful, we have ample supplies back on Earth. A moon base I'll grant would be better for low-G construction, perhaps even of something that could make the journey to Mars itself, but that's a lot of money and risk to use one dead rock to leapfrog to a second dead rock.

And none of this touches on the psychological issues people will deal with being locked in a pressure vessel 270 million miles from home with about 4 sources of imminent death within reach at all times.

[bruce511]

In addition to the problems you outline, I'll toss in the lack of a magnetic field (for both Mars and the moon.)

While not as glamorous as the lack of, you know, water, air, heat etc it makes solar and cosmic radiation pretty deadly. Which means the bases need to be underground. So, um, the first thing to ship to both should be a big heavy digger...

[wafflemaker]

Check out dV by Daniel Suarez (actually the sequel, Critical Mass, is about a Lunar Base).

SPOILERS AHEAD

  ###



  ###



  ###

To say it briefly, a base on the moon could solve the climate and energy crisises.

Longer version. Think of Earth's gravity well. It's the obstacle to any significant space infrastructure. Anything of matter can't be built on LEO, with resources shot from , because it would destroy Earth's atmosphere.

Unlike resources in Lunar regolith (sand on moon). Moons gravity is much lower and there is no atmosphere. Harder to land than on Earth, It's just that we would need a significant amount of mass to jumpstart Moon excavation.

[bregma]

"We choose NOT to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."