This House would colonize the moon

Colonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons.

Any civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth.

The moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time.

Most experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.

Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth.

It doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence.

A human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.

The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years.[i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.

[i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,

This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.

If we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity.

The technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable.

All of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable.

Equally, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently 

The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.

In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.

Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.

We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.

As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.

In many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two.

The moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project[i].

[i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008

The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist.[i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before.

[i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006

Colonizing the Moon should not be seen as an end goal in and of itself but rather a platform for reaching out further into the universe. The moon makes a better base than Earth for a number of reasons.

Any civilization that is serious about space exploration would probably have to start with the moon. It’s a comparatively simple mission which would allow us to learn the pitfalls and problems while staying within a few days of earth.

The moon also provides a better base for SETI than Earth as Radio telescopes on the far side of the moon would be shielded from the interference of Earth. Equally the Moon’s slow rotation would allow light-based observatories to undertake experiments lasting for days at a time.

Most experts are agreed that it is statistically unlikely that Earth is the only life-bearing planet, to date we have not been serious investigating this issue despite the enormous implications it has for almost every area of human thought and activity.

Whatever the merits of the search for ET, none of this requires a human presence on the moon all of the observational technology required to undertake the research could be controlled from Earth.

It doesn’t require a human presence on the moon, indeed if the purpose is for scientific research, there seems to be a strong argument for not having a human presence.

A human presence on the dark side of the Moon provides extra complications – and therefore extra costs – to simply keep the scientists alive. It seems likely that anybody based in such a situation would have to spend a large amount of their time and effort simply staying alive and performing monitoring functions that could as easily be provided from Huston.

The idea of colonizing another planet as either a contingency against a future extinction event or simply as an area for growth. Extinction events are considered to be any event which destroys over 50 per cent of life on Earth and there are believed to have been five of them in the last 540 million years.[i] It is in the nature of such an event that the warning we would have of such an event would not be sufficient to develop the technology required to relocate to another planet and so, by definition that technology needs to be developed when there is not the need. Taking global warming as an analogy, we now know that we should have been changing our lifestyles and economic models back at a time when virtually nobody believed that it was a reality. The moon could be used to develop biosphere and other technology which could be used in such a future colonization.

[i] Sanders, Robert, ‘Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived?’, UC Berkeley News Center, 2 March 2011,

This is simply wishful thinking on the basis of current technology getting a manned mission to another planet is simply not on the radar – or even close. In the light of this sobering fact there is no reason to go to the moon as some sort of test run for something we’re never going to do. Even if one were to think that it may one day be possible to travel to other planets, surely the sensible thing would be to spend the money developing that technology rather than blowing it on a manned trip to the moon we may well never need.

If we compare the dual experience of Columbus and the Chinese Treasure Fleet of the fifteenth century, the Chinese decided not to pursue exploration and the technology of how to build and sail ships was lost until they were themselves colonized by sea-faring nations. Columbus’ voyages, by contrast were followed up with further expeditions, leading to the largest expansion in the history of humanity.

The technology required to land human beings on the surface of another planetary body is comparable.

All of those involved in the original moon landing are now elderly it seems sensible to deploy that expertise before it is lost. Recorded knowledge is all well and good but experience is also valuable.

Equally, one of the biggest justifications for NASA’s relatively modest budget – roughly nine billion dollars at the moment – is the trickledown technology from its innovations. Developing technology for survival in hostile alien environments may have applications on Earth such as inhabiting Antarctica or using resources vastly more efficiently 

The modern world is vastly different to either of the periods Prop mentions both in terms of our capacity for the retention of existing knowledge and the speed of developing new solutions to old problems.

In addition to which this is comparing two completely different things the technology required here is to keep people alive for extended periods of time.

Equally the technology required for a colonization would need to be permanent and designed to be used many times, quite different from the disposable, one-time-only technology of the 1960s. As a result knowledge of those earlier missions may well be a disadvantage.

We still have the ability to launch and fly spaceships and that knowledge is vastly improved on those early attempts.

As far as the issue of spinoff technology is concerned, if you’re looking to develop products designed for Earth, developing materials and technologies for extra-terrestrial environments is a very odd way to go about it.

In many ways our trips to the moon so far tell us which questions we need to ask, the next stage is to find the answers. It also has the advantage of being close enough to earth that samples and data can be relatively easily sent between the two.

The moon functions as a sort of attic for the Earth, a repository of rocks than are no longer found on earth. There are also resources, such as lunar glass and Helium3, which could be potentially very valuable if they are there in sufficient quantities, human beings can simply cover more territory than Robots and make assessments like these more easily. If these rare minerals exist in sufficient quantity they could potentially fund the whole project[i].

[i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008

The idea of a mining community on the moon is even more absurd than that of a scientific one. However valuable the minerals found the cost of extraction would never be covered. Furthermore the quantities required to meet the cost of extraction, let alone make a profit, would have a downward effect on the price of the commodity on earth. The whole exercise would become self-defeating. Equally, although chemicals such as Helium 3 would be useful if thermonuclear fusion was being used to produce energy it is a technology that does not yet exist.[i] Once again it would seem to make sense to invest the money in fusion technology first, then, if it happens, we how where to find Helium 3 – after there’s a practical use for it, not before.

[i] Lasker, John, ‘Race to the Moon for Nuclear Fuel’, Wired, 15 December 2006

To make the kind of funding this project would require available, massive public and political will would be needed. This simply doesn’t exist.

The Cold War mentality of the ‘60s provided a justification. Having been beaten to get a man into space, there was an imperative for the American people to beat the USSR to the Moon.

No such justification exists for going the at all now, let alone going back. The only country in the world with both the technical and financial resources to do this, the United States, simply doesn’t have the political stomach to do it.

Our fascination with discovery and exploration – especially anything to do with space – is one of the enduring aspects of the human condition. There are many areas of scientific development for which there is little popular support as people don’t really see the point, however space exploration is one which retains support[i].

Polling levels no are at broadly the same level they were in the 1960s, receiving support from about forty per cent of the electorate. However, it’s worth noting that NASA has consistently higher public approvals than other federal agencies. It seems that, unsurprisingly, people aren’t that happy about the government spending any of their money but, if they’re going to do it, NASA gets more votes than the Environmental Protection Agency or the Internal Revenue Service.

[i] Public Opinion Polls and Perceptions of US Human Space Flight, Roger Launius, Space Policy 19 (2003) 163-175

There are simply no good scientific reasons to send a manned flight to the moon. The desire to do so may have good justification in science fiction but not science fact[i].

This research is simply not related to the reality of modern cosmology, it will tell us nothing about how the universe works or, frankly, anything we don’t even know already or could find out through unmanned missions.

The idea that there is serious research to be done is simply untrue. Cosmology is being conducted at the edge of the universe and the beginning of time. It’s not about collecting moon rocks.

[i] “Brave New World”, Editorial, Nature, 1 February 2007

Clearly there is more than one way to skin a cat and there is research that can be done away from work that cannot be done here. The benefits that could come from a low-gravity, non-atmospheric research facility are not about ‘collecting moon rocks’ there would be benefits in, for example, the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI) would benefit greatly from small radio telescopes based away from the distractions and interferences based on Earth[i]. As has been shown by the International Space Station, there is useful medical research that can be conducted in low or zero gravity, notably research based on aging.

[i] "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008

Whichever argument you pursue for going to the moon there are better and cheaper ways to achieve those designated goals. Whether it’s scientific, business-related, or as a ‘practice’ for exploration of deep space, there are better ways of spending the money and deploying the scientists, engineers and technicians. To waste not only the money but, more importantly, the time and expertise in the name of extending a national mythology or a political ego-fix is absurd. The cost of a moon landing, let alone an extended colonization, is foolish when there are other projects in all of those fields that are crying out for public funding.

There are many worthy projects that could benefit from this funding, however that doesn’t defeat the importance of returning to the moon and developing a base there. There is absolutely nothing in the history of other manned projects into space that suggests that humanity as a whole is poorer, hungrier, sicker or more stupid because we did so.

Rather, we received those remarkable pictures of the Earth from space confirming what we look like in a way no map ever could. The various detritus of the mission in terms of solid rocks as well as ephemeral experience to prove that there is a universe out there waiting for us to find it.

A reminder, even in the darkest of times economically, that humanity has an astonishing capacity for exploration – both of the universe around us and within our own minds. Likewise the capacity of scientists and others to inspire us by showing our place in an extraordinary universe is beyond price.

We left the cave, went over the hill, crossed the Atlantic, circumnavigated the globe, went into space, went to the Moon…

And then stopped.

It’s time to start again.