Timeline for What is the case for human presence on the Moon?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
16 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 1, 2021 at 18:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackSpaceExp/status/1421893491345481733 | ||
| Jul 31, 2021 at 23:01 | history | edited | uhoh |
edited tags
|
|
| Mar 5, 2018 at 21:37 | comment | added | Digger | Assuming that the next marquee goal in the human exploration of Space is the colonization of Mars, let's keep in mind the human element. As John Young used to say (and, I paraphrase), "On the Moon, you're only three days from a safe bed and a warm plate of beans..." John was, above all else, a superior test pilot and engineer. He knew that we'd have a hard time conquering the Solar System if we were taking excessive risks with the lives of our explorers. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 19:48 | comment | added | Slarty | I believe that Robert Zubrin would accept of an astronomical out post on the Moon, it’s just the Moon as a way of getting to Mars that he has a problem with - and I would agree with him. | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 19:23 | answer | added | Slarty | timeline score: 3 | |
| Mar 5, 2018 at 8:01 | comment | added | Edlothiad | If you believe Robert Zubrin, there is none. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 18:46 | comment | added | kim holder | @AnthonyX the issue remains the same, though. Settling space will undoubtedly have tremendous payoffs - eventually. It's only a matter of how much investment we are willing to make, and how long we are willing to wait, before there is net profit. That issue definitely extends far beyond what any one government could do in the space of 4 or even 8 years. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 18:43 | comment | added | kim holder | @ArtisticPhoenix that is a necessary stepping stone, but i don't regard it as a destination, really. The only good reason to put up space stations is that they help you reach the worlds out there. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 16:03 | history | edited | Anthony X | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 29 characters in body
|
| Mar 4, 2018 at 4:30 | comment | added | ArtisticPhoenix | @kimholder the best first place to put humans outside of earth is a space station. But not like the ISS, one that has rotating sections. You could build 3 rotation rings, one at Earth G, one at Mars G, one at Moon G, or just one that you can change. This would give us a chance to see how much gravity is needed for long term settlement. No one knows if the moons gravity is sufficient for long term health (not that I know of). We could build a moon base only to find out you can only spend 2 years in the weak gravity there. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 4:25 | comment | added | ArtisticPhoenix | The moon landings were more a way of showcasing missiles, and technological prowess. It was a way of making space about science and not war, while still showing things that could be used for war. Boosters, guidance, computers etc. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 2:14 | comment | added | Anthony X | This is about the "back to the Moon" aspect of Trump's space policy directive, and the economic, scientific, or political benefits, if any, that could be reasonably expected. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 0:36 | comment | added | kim holder | There is also the question of how far into the future you are thinking. To me, the case for people on the Moon boils down to it being the best first place to put people beyond Earth in the solar system. Then, the question of when that makes sense boils down to how soon after the investment it pays off, and what counts as 'paying off'. | |
| Mar 4, 2018 at 0:07 | comment | added | Organic Marble | A articulate proponent of human outposts on the moon is Dr. Paul Spudis. You might find this paper of his interesting spudislunarresources.com/Bibliography/p/102.pdf and browsing his website might interest you too. spudislunarresources.com | |
| Mar 3, 2018 at 23:55 | history | edited | Anthony X | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2 characters in body
|
| Mar 3, 2018 at 23:43 | history | asked | Anthony X | CC BY-SA 3.0 |