The moon could be perfect for cutting-edge telescopes — but not if we don't protect it

[Admin]

Moon-based telescopes would allow astronomers to conduct cutting-edge science. But given how busy the moon is getting, will the lunar surface be free enough from interference?

The moon could be perfect for cutting-edge telescopes — but not if we don't protect it : Read more

 

[Fission]

Thank you for the reminder that what has driven us to explore outer space is the search for knowledge. What exactly is out there when we look up at the heavens. There is so much yet to explore. Unfortunately, NASA appears to have sold out to commercial interests that promote colonization of the Moon and Mars. They have literally claimed that they are building an escape hatch from Earth for when we ruin the planet in the future. Let's be honest - if we reach that point it is game over. What they are building is a boondoggle for private, commercial interests that will provide little benefit.

We have only begun to scratch the surface of the Moon. Let's wait awhile before we alter the surface of the Moon as we have done to the Earth. Lunar missions should be limited to scientific exploration. All commercial exploitation and military installations on the Moon should be banned at this time.

 

[Cdr. Shepard]

Thank you for the reminder that what has driven us to explore outer space is the search for knowledge. What exactly is out there when we look up at the heavens. There is so much yet to explore. Unfortunately, NASA appears to have sold out to commercial interests that promote colonization of the Moon and Mars. They have literally claimed that they are building an escape hatch from Earth for when we ruin the planet in the future. Let's be honest - if we reach that point it is game over. What they are building is a boondoggle for private, commercial interests that will provide little benefit.

We have only begun to scratch the surface of the Moon. Let's wait awhile before we alter the surface of the Moon as we have done to the Earth. Lunar missions should be limited to scientific exploration. All commercial exploitation and military installations on the Moon should be banned at this time.

Chill out, comrade. Before you seize the means of production, note that without private aerospace, we would not be going to the moon, or Mars, or beyond until you and I were long dead.

We scratched the surface over half a century ago and nothing has been done since. Your assertion that private "boondoggles" -- which alone indicates you don't understand the definition of "boondoggle" -- will provide little benefit is entirely baseless. There is indeed so much yet to explore that would remain unexplored for centuries if you were running the show. The protection of sites deemed of high scientific importance should be undertaken; it will also likely be industry players like SpaceX that gets those projects on-site at reasonable cost and on a reasonable timeline. It seems your opinion is rooted in emotion and ignorance rather than justifiable concern for the lunar environment, which has been left 99.999999% unaltered by human activity and will remain so for hundreds of years even if assuming the most optimistic of timelines for commercial development. Do you not fundamentally understand how difficult it would be to even "ruin" a patch of the lunar surface with a lunar base that could support a small town's population? Do you not understand that Artemis II & III are so often and reliably delayed that we'll be lucky to have fewer than 10 total boots on the regolith before 2030?

NASA hasn't "sold out" to private interests, and in fact, they could stand to manage the use of US taxpayers' earned income a bit more responsibly instead of throwing it at Boeing / Lockheed, enriching their lobbyists while burdening us with absolutely laughable cost-overruns for projects that aren't completed for a decade beyond target timing. Perhaps you prefer SLS (See: Boondoggle) do all the heavy lifting in space, so that none of this comes to fruition...ever. That would certainly preserve the lunar environment indefinitely, as you wish.

 

[Fission]

Chill out, comrade. Before you seize the means of production, note that without private aerospace, we would not be going to the moon, or Mars, or beyond until you and I were long dead.

We scratched the surface over half a century ago and nothing has been done since. Your assertion that private "boondoggles" -- which alone indicates you don't understand the definition of "boondoggle" -- will provide little benefit is entirely baseless. There is indeed so much yet to explore that would remain unexplored for centuries if you were running the show. The protection of sites deemed of high scientific importance should be undertaken; it will also likely be industry players like SpaceX that gets those projects on-site at reasonable cost and on a reasonable timeline. It seems your opinion is rooted in emotion and ignorance rather than justifiable concern for the lunar environment, which has been left 99.999999% unaltered by human activity and will remain so for hundreds of years even if assuming the most optimistic of timelines for commercial development. Do you not fundamentally understand how difficult it would be to even "ruin" a patch of the lunar surface with a lunar base that could support a small town's population? Do you not understand that Artemis II & III are so often and reliably delayed that we'll be lucky to have fewer than 10 total boots on the regolith before 2030?

NASA hasn't "sold out" to private interests, and in fact, they could stand to manage the use of US taxpayers' earned income a bit more responsibly instead of throwing it at Boeing / Lockheed, enriching their lobbyists while burdening us with absolutely laughable cost-overruns for projects that aren't completed for a decade beyond target timing. Perhaps you prefer SLS (See: Boondoggle) do all the heavy lifting in space, so that none of this comes to fruition...ever. That would certainly preserve the lunar environment indefinitely, as you wish.

You clearly capture the problem: "we would not be going to the moon, or Mars, or beyond until you and I were long dead." If one examines the issue of space exploration you would come to the conclusion that is the best outcome possible. You obviously are all in on the boondoggle which means: "a wasteful and worthless project undertaken for political, corporate, or personal gain, typically a government project funded by taxpayers." The benefit of funding manned missions to the Moon and Mars is left for the taxpayer to imagine. It will cost at least tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars to accomplish the mission that we as taxpayers will have to support. That mission also carries the possibility of catastrophic failure.

It seems that the debate over the advantages of unmanned missions vs manned has been skipped over. Unmanned missions have been incredibly successful over the past 50 years. That is because they are dedicated to scientific discovery. Just look at the results. There are three benefits to manned explorations: the commercialization of space; the militarization of space; and the fulfillment of overblown science fiction fantasies.