Re: Lunar Colony
John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Nothing like that happened in Botany Bay. Not even in Mel Gibson movies. The transported prisoners were (almost all) transported for a term of years, often 7, and when it was over they were given return passage, or allowed to stay on in Australia. Most stayed - the worst thing about transportation was the passage, which killed more than the sentence did. Any children they had were as much citizens (or rather free subjects of the crown) as anybody else. While in Australia prisoners were mostly hired out to colonists (AKA squatters). There were strict rules about their treatment that were sometimes even enforced. The minimum standard for food and clothing in the rules were not only (much) better than prisoners would have had in England or Ireland, but in fact better than many poor labourers could have found for themselves back home. They often prospered and their children and grandchildren prospered mightily. Between about 1870 and the Great War Australia was probably the most prosperous country in the world, and working men's wages higher than anywhere else, including the USA. Historically the transported prisoners and their immediate descendants were mostly supporters of Britain the Empire. And of course there never was a war of secession. In fact the Australians recently voted to keep the monarchy - though mainly due to lack of a convincing plan for what to replace it with.
Re: Lunar Colony
John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Nothing like that happened in Botany Bay. Not even in Mel Gibson movies. The transported prisoners were (almost all) transported for a term of years, often 7, and when it was over they were given return passage, or allowed to stay on in Australia. Most stayed - the worst thing about transportation was the passage, which killed more than the sentence did. Any children they had were as much citizens (or rather free subjects of the crown) as anybody else. While in Australia prisoners were mostly hired out to colonists (AKA squatters). There were strict rules about their treatment that were sometimes even enforced. The minimum standard for food and clothing in the rules were not only (much) better than prisoners would have had in England or Ireland, but in fact better than many poor labourers could have found for themselves back home. They often prospered and their children and grandchildren prospered mightily. Between about 1870 and the Great War Australia was probably the most prosperous country in the world, and working men's wages higher than anywhere else, including the USA. Historically the transported prisoners and their immediate descendants were mostly supporters of Britain the Empire. And of course there never was a war of secession. In fact the Australians recently voted to keep the monarchy - though mainly due to lack of a convincing plan for what to replace it with.
RE: Lunar Colony
I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? -Original Message- From: Tyler Durden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, Gotcha. The obvious next place for a greatly expanded Camp X-ray operation. When we start rounding up the millions of terrorists amongst us we'll need a much bigger place to put 'em. And while they're there, might as well have 'em do some martian coalmining or whatever. -TD From: John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED],'Justin' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:20:51 -0500 At 04:39 PM 1/15/04 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: ... Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, and with the time they'd have they could actually start towards building a self-sustaining colony, instead of rushing to get science done before a return trip. I think this is the right way to do the exploration, but also that our culture is more-or-less incapable of it politically and socially. Letting people make such a harsh personal choice, letting them die of old age or ill health on TV, it's hard for me to imagine the American people going for that. Peter Trei --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259 _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
RE: Lunar Colony
I had not considered that the problem the British had with Botany Bay was the lack of sterilization. Sterilization does keep the prison/colony population stable/controllable. Still even sterile prisoners/colonists were imprisoned for their uppity-ness and non-conforming attitudes. If the resulting culture is not too vicious (a al San Quentin), organized revolt seems very likely. Seems a tough box to be in; a vicious culture is not a productive prison/colony. A productive prison/colony is may organize a revolt. This does of course assume politicians dealing with today's problem (unruly citizens and dissent) care about tomorrow's problem (possible prison/colony revolt). History indicates such future-oriented thinking is unlikely :-) -Original Message- From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:29 PM To: John Washburn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one Don't they all get sterilized by radiation on the way to Mars, meaning that there are no children to be concerned about? is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Assuming that the radiation isn't such a serious problem, the moon looks like a more realistic proposition. Only a couple of days away. Lots of energy in sunlight. Lots of available minerals. Gravity well fairly shallow so things can be exported to Earth if on friendly terms and trading -- or just tossed in that direction if things go bad. ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
RE: Lunar Colony
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one Don't they all get sterilized by radiation on the way to Mars, meaning that there are no children to be concerned about? is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Assuming that the radiation isn't such a serious problem, the moon looks like a more realistic proposition. Only a couple of days away. Lots of energy in sunlight. Lots of available minerals. Gravity well fairly shallow so things can be exported to Earth if on friendly terms and trading -- or just tossed in that direction if things go bad. ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
RE: Lunar Colony
I had not considered that the problem the British had with Botany Bay was the lack of sterilization. Sterilization does keep the prison/colony population stable/controllable. Still even sterile prisoners/colonists were imprisoned for their uppity-ness and non-conforming attitudes. If the resulting culture is not too vicious (a al San Quentin), organized revolt seems very likely. Seems a tough box to be in; a vicious culture is not a productive prison/colony. A productive prison/colony is may organize a revolt. This does of course assume politicians dealing with today's problem (unruly citizens and dissent) care about tomorrow's problem (possible prison/colony revolt). History indicates such future-oriented thinking is unlikely :-) -Original Message- From: Jim Dixon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:29 PM To: John Washburn Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one Don't they all get sterilized by radiation on the way to Mars, meaning that there are no children to be concerned about? is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Assuming that the radiation isn't such a serious problem, the moon looks like a more realistic proposition. Only a couple of days away. Lots of energy in sunlight. Lots of available minerals. Gravity well fairly shallow so things can be exported to Earth if on friendly terms and trading -- or just tossed in that direction if things go bad. ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
RE: Lunar Colony
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004, John Washburn wrote: I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one Don't they all get sterilized by radiation on the way to Mars, meaning that there are no children to be concerned about? is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? Assuming that the radiation isn't such a serious problem, the moon looks like a more realistic proposition. Only a couple of days away. Lots of energy in sunlight. Lots of available minerals. Gravity well fairly shallow so things can be exported to Earth if on friendly terms and trading -- or just tossed in that direction if things go bad. ;-) -- Jim Dixon [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel +44 117 982 0786 mobile +44 797 373 7881 http://jxcl.sourceforge.net Java unit test coverage http://xlattice.sourceforge.net p2p communications infrastructure
RE: Lunar Colony
I would think the problem with the camp X-Ray approach is the same as happened historically in Botany Bay or fictionally in the Moon is a Harsh Mistress. When (not if) the ongoing support of the penal colony collapses what happens? The children are in legal limbo; neither convict nor citizen. (No one is going to pay the expense to ship them home). The colonists are cut off from the home world/empire. They had little love for the home world/empire in the first place. Cut adrift and left to their own devices why wouldn't the colonists/prisoners declare independence and have an interplanetary war of secession? -Original Message- From: Tyler Durden [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 3:22 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, Gotcha. The obvious next place for a greatly expanded Camp X-ray operation. When we start rounding up the millions of terrorists amongst us we'll need a much bigger place to put 'em. And while they're there, might as well have 'em do some martian coalmining or whatever. -TD From: John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED],'Justin' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:20:51 -0500 At 04:39 PM 1/15/04 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: ... Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, and with the time they'd have they could actually start towards building a self-sustaining colony, instead of rushing to get science done before a return trip. I think this is the right way to do the exploration, but also that our culture is more-or-less incapable of it politically and socially. Letting people make such a harsh personal choice, letting them die of old age or ill health on TV, it's hard for me to imagine the American people going for that. Peter Trei --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259 _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
RE: Lunar Colony
Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, Gotcha. The obvious next place for a greatly expanded Camp X-ray operation. When we start rounding up the millions of terrorists amongst us we'll need a much bigger place to put 'em. And while they're there, might as well have 'em do some martian coalmining or whatever. -TD From: John Kelsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Trei, Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED],'Justin' [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: Lunar Colony Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 21:20:51 -0500 At 04:39 PM 1/15/04 -0500, Trei, Peter wrote: ... Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, and with the time they'd have they could actually start towards building a self-sustaining colony, instead of rushing to get science done before a return trip. I think this is the right way to do the exploration, but also that our culture is more-or-less incapable of it politically and socially. Letting people make such a harsh personal choice, letting them die of old age or ill health on TV, it's hard for me to imagine the American people going for that. Peter Trei --John Kelsey, [EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP: FA48 3237 9AD5 30AC EEDD BBC8 2A80 6948 4CAA F259 _ Check out the coupons and bargains on MSN Offers! http://shopping.msn.com/softcontent/softcontent.aspx?scmId=1418
Re: Lunar Colony
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:11, Justin wrote: Trei, Peter (2004-01-15 21:39Z) wrote: Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is obvious. More affordable, but more risk. We might end up with a bunch of dead Mars colonist-hopefuls. Actually I can think of a number of people we could send. The current administration comes to mind. Mr. Cheney, we have a new undisclosed location for you. Mars needs NeoCons. -- Push that big, big granite sphere way up there from way down here! Gasp and sweat and pant and wheeze! Uh-oh! Feel momentum cease! Watch it tumble down and then roll the boulder up again! - The story of Sisyphus by Dr. Zeus in Frazz 12/18/2003
Re: Lunar Colony
Tyler Durden (2004-01-15 18:00Z) wrote: Thank goodness Mr Bush is finally thinking long term. Not only will the Lunar Base focus all of our attention away from the wars and other nastiness down here, it will get us to the moon before Al Qaeda and bin Laden ever have a chance to start spreading their filthy ideas there. If we control the moon, then we can control who goes there. And if we control who goes there, then we can make damn sure that no raghead ever reaches orbit. Even more importantly, we can basically make the entire moon the perfect model of American culture in action, without any other nation to contest our policies there. It could be a paradise, and since no terrorists or ragheads will be allowed, we can also take the opporutnity to make sure that no other undesirables ever get their either, if you catch my drift. But bankrupting America will allow the ragheads to win. A lunar colony within 10 years will certainly bankrupt the U.S. given our current financial situation. Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? It takes close to a billion dollars just to launch a 20-year-old, poorly designed space vehicle into low-earth-orbit. If Bush were serious, he would be his own worst enemy. But he's not. This is just a reelection ploy, combined with some pork for NASA-Houston. Of course, bankrupting the U.S. and getting a base on the moon are both useful objectives. With no financially viable country owning the lunar outpost, things could get quite interesting.
Re: Lunar Colony
But bankrupting America will allow the ragheads to win. A lunar colony within 10 years will certainly bankrupt the U.S. given our current financial situation. Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? It takes close to a billion dollars just to launch a 20-year-old, poorly designed space vehicle into low-earth-orbit. If Bush were serious, he would be his own worst enemy. But he's not. This is just a reelection ploy, combined with some pork for NASA-Houston. Of course, bankrupting the U.S. and getting a base on the moon are both useful objectives. With no financially viable country owning the lunar outpost, things could get quite interesting. Can't we just match this up with the 60% of the federal budget taken up by social security and medicare/medicaid by launching all the recipients of those programs to the moon?
Re: Lunar Colony
Pete Capelli (2004-01-15 20:12Z) wrote: Of course, bankrupting the U.S. and getting a base on the moon are both useful objectives. With no financially viable country owning the lunar outpost, things could get quite interesting. Can't we just match this up with the 60% of the federal budget taken up by social security and medicare/medicaid by launching all the recipients of those programs to the moon? Yeah, taking the matching funds concept to a new height might not be a bad idea.
RE: Lunar Colony
Justin wrote: Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? The more realistic numbers I've heard are $400 billion for a moon base, double that for a Mars mission. I don't know the incremental cost to sustain the moonbase. Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, and with the time they'd have they could actually start towards building a self-sustaining colony, instead of rushing to get science done before a return trip. Frankly, I'd like to see Mars terraformed - start by diverting a comet or two to strike it and thicken the atmosphere so things warm to the point where only respirators and warm clothing are needed instead of spacesuits. At the moment, the highest temperature reached anyplace on Mars is +50F or so, but the rover expects to see night time lows of -150F (FWIW, my town expects -18F tonight, and -50F on top of Mt. Washington is possible (no temperatures include windchill)). Peter Trei
Re: Lunar Colony
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 12:00, Tyler Durden wrote: Even more importantly, we can basically make the entire moon the perfect model of American culture in action, without any other nation to contest our policies there. It could be a paradise, and since no terrorists or ragheads will be allowed, we can also take the opporutnity to make sure that no other undesirables ever get their either, if you catch my drift. (Or that they all /do/ go there, to stay) I had wondered how long it would take for the inevitable U.S. announcement of a renewed push for lunar and mars colonization after the Chinese announced their plans to colonize and mine the moon awhile ago. --bgt
Re: Lunar Colony
Trei, Peter (2004-01-15 21:39Z) wrote: Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? The more realistic numbers I've heard are $400 billion for a moon base, double that for a Mars mission. I don't know the incremental cost to sustain the moonbase. Realistic? I haven't seen moon base defined yet. $400 billion for ISS-on-the-Moon, sure. $400 billion for a useful Moon base? I doubt it, but I admit my $1T+ guess is just as arbitrary. It could be $100B if NASA forces a bunch of engineers to work for no pay, if we steal resources from 3rd world countries, and if we staff the mission with Islamic astronauts who don't have any problem dying. It could also be $10T, depending on what Moon Base really means. Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is obvious. More affordable, but more risk. We might end up with a bunch of dead Mars colonist-hopefuls. Frankly, I'd like to see Mars terraformed - start by diverting a comet or two to strike it and thicken the atmosphere so things warm to the point where only respirators and warm clothing are needed instead of spacesuits. How could we possibly divert comets accurately, or even reliably? How would a comet impact help the situation?
Re: Lunar Colony
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 16:11, Justin wrote: Trei, Peter (2004-01-15 21:39Z) wrote: Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is obvious. More affordable, but more risk. We might end up with a bunch of dead Mars colonist-hopefuls. Actually I can think of a number of people we could send. The current administration comes to mind. Mr. Cheney, we have a new undisclosed location for you. Mars needs NeoCons. -- Push that big, big granite sphere way up there from way down here! Gasp and sweat and pant and wheeze! Uh-oh! Feel momentum cease! Watch it tumble down and then roll the boulder up again! - The story of Sisyphus by Dr. Zeus in Frazz 12/18/2003
Re: Lunar Colony
But bankrupting America will allow the ragheads to win. A lunar colony within 10 years will certainly bankrupt the U.S. given our current financial situation. Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? It takes close to a billion dollars just to launch a 20-year-old, poorly designed space vehicle into low-earth-orbit. If Bush were serious, he would be his own worst enemy. But he's not. This is just a reelection ploy, combined with some pork for NASA-Houston. Of course, bankrupting the U.S. and getting a base on the moon are both useful objectives. With no financially viable country owning the lunar outpost, things could get quite interesting. Can't we just match this up with the 60% of the federal budget taken up by social security and medicare/medicaid by launching all the recipients of those programs to the moon?
Re: Lunar Colony
Pete Capelli (2004-01-15 20:12Z) wrote: Of course, bankrupting the U.S. and getting a base on the moon are both useful objectives. With no financially viable country owning the lunar outpost, things could get quite interesting. Can't we just match this up with the 60% of the federal budget taken up by social security and medicare/medicaid by launching all the recipients of those programs to the moon? Yeah, taking the matching funds concept to a new height might not be a bad idea.
RE: Lunar Colony
Justin wrote: Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? The more realistic numbers I've heard are $400 billion for a moon base, double that for a Mars mission. I don't know the incremental cost to sustain the moonbase. Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is not a suicide mission; supplies could be sent for rest of the emigrants natural lives, and with the time they'd have they could actually start towards building a self-sustaining colony, instead of rushing to get science done before a return trip. Frankly, I'd like to see Mars terraformed - start by diverting a comet or two to strike it and thicken the atmosphere so things warm to the point where only respirators and warm clothing are needed instead of spacesuits. At the moment, the highest temperature reached anyplace on Mars is +50F or so, but the rover expects to see night time lows of -150F (FWIW, my town expects -18F tonight, and -50F on top of Mt. Washington is possible (no temperatures include windchill)). Peter Trei
Re: Lunar Colony
On Thu, 2004-01-15 at 12:00, Tyler Durden wrote: Even more importantly, we can basically make the entire moon the perfect model of American culture in action, without any other nation to contest our policies there. It could be a paradise, and since no terrorists or ragheads will be allowed, we can also take the opporutnity to make sure that no other undesirables ever get their either, if you catch my drift. (Or that they all /do/ go there, to stay) I had wondered how long it would take for the inevitable U.S. announcement of a renewed push for lunar and mars colonization after the Chinese announced their plans to colonize and mine the moon awhile ago. --bgt
Re: Lunar Colony
Trei, Peter (2004-01-15 21:39Z) wrote: Does anyone think it will take less than trillions of dollars to establish a moon base? The more realistic numbers I've heard are $400 billion for a moon base, double that for a Mars mission. I don't know the incremental cost to sustain the moonbase. Realistic? I haven't seen moon base defined yet. $400 billion for ISS-on-the-Moon, sure. $400 billion for a useful Moon base? I doubt it, but I admit my $1T+ guess is just as arbitrary. It could be $100B if NASA forces a bunch of engineers to work for no pay, if we steal resources from 3rd world countries, and if we staff the mission with Islamic astronauts who don't have any problem dying. It could also be $10T, depending on what Moon Base really means. Interesting OpEd piece in the NYT today pointing out that a manned Mars expedition becomes *much* more affordable if no return trip is planned. This is obvious. More affordable, but more risk. We might end up with a bunch of dead Mars colonist-hopefuls. Frankly, I'd like to see Mars terraformed - start by diverting a comet or two to strike it and thicken the atmosphere so things warm to the point where only respirators and warm clothing are needed instead of spacesuits. How could we possibly divert comets accurately, or even reliably? How would a comet impact help the situation?
