Debate Digest: Teacher-student friendships on Facebook, Law school, Balanced budget amendment, US debt ceiling deal.
Debate: Colonization of the Moon
From Debatepedia
(Difference between revisions)
Revision as of 16:33, 21 October 2010 (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Con) ← Previous diff |
Current revision (14:57, 15 June 2011) (edit) Brooks Lindsay (Talk | contribs) (→Pro) |
||
Line 49: | Line 49: | ||
|- | |- | ||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "NO" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em ;"| | ||
- | ===Moon-to-Mars: Would colonizing the Moon aid a mission to Mars?=== | + | ===Health: Is the colonization of the Moon healthy for humans? === |
|- | |- | ||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Colonizing the Moon would test new technologies along with testing space colonization.''' Colonizing the Moon is now far more important than colonizing Mars now. Firstly, the Moon is a far more easier place for people to live since man had stepped foot on Moon, making Moon an ideal place to colonize first. Secondly, Mars have a more hostile environment than the Moon. Thirdly, technology preparing to colonize the Moon is far more developed than technology preparing to colonize Mars. Fourthly, colonizing a place like Moon first will test our abilities to colonize far, hostile planets possibly filled with equally hostile aliens. | + | *'''Moon colony would feel comforted by site of large Earth.''' On the lunar near side, the Earth appears large and is always visible as an object 60 times brighter than the Moon appears from Earth, unlike more distant locations where the Earth would be seen merely as a star-like object, much as the planets appear from Earth. As a result, a lunar colony might feel less remote to humans living there. |
- | *'''Colonizing the Moon is a good test for colonizing Mars.''' If the Moon were colonized then it could be tested whether humans can survive in microgravity. Those results could be utilized for a viable Mars colony as well. | + | *'''Artificial gravity can overcome health risks on Moonbase.''' Artificial gravity is not a very difficult task to accomplish. The technology already exists in many forms and will continue to advance with a focused effort to develop it for a Moonbase. This will overcome any major health risks associated with the low-gravity levels on the Moon as well as on Mars. |
- | *'''Moonbase could be used to launch rockets on mission to Mars.''' A lunar base could also hold a future site for launching rockets to distant planets such as Mars. Launching rockets from the Moon would be an easier prospect than on Earth due to the Moon's lower gravity requiring a lower escape velocity. | + | *'''Moonbase advances knowledge of human viability on alien planets.''' It is critical that humans begin the process of understanding the health implications of living on alien planets, including the Moon, Mars, and possibly others in the distant future. This requires understanding - among other things - the implications of living in a lower-gravity planet, such as the Moon, and developing techniques - such as artificial gravity - to cope with any issues that may arise. The Moon is an ideal place to begin this technological process. |
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Low-gravity Moon would be healthier for elderly| Low-gravity Moon would be healthier for elderly]]''' [http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2008/06/25-good-reasons-to-go-to-the-moon-2/ Ken Murphy. "25 Good Reasons to Go to the Moon." Out of the Cradle. June 14th, 2008]: "7) Human factors. Having 1/6th of Earth’s gravity, the heart doesn’t have to pump as hard to supply oxygen to the brain. While for a youth this would have an atrophy-type effect, for those advanced in years it can serve a rejuvenative effect, as the heart is suddenly relatively stronger. This allows for longer productive lives for our citizens. And you can fly in a large enough space." | ||
Line 65: | Line 67: | ||
====Con==== | ====Con==== | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: Colonizing the Moon is not a logical step toward Mars| Colonizing the Moon is not a logical step toward Mars]]''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/ Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006]: "Don't we need a moon base to go to Mars? No! When George W. Bush made his Mars-trip speech almost three years ago, he said a moon base should be built to support such a mission. This is gibberish. All concept studies of Mars flight involve an expedition departing from low-Earth orbit and traveling directly to the red planet. Stopping at the moon would require fuel to descend to the lunar surface, then blast off again, which would make any Mars mission hugely more expensive." | + | *'''[[Argument: Moon's gravity is too low for human health| Moon's gravity is too low for human health]]''' [http://www.philforhumanity.com/Colony_on_the_Moon.html "Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity]: "The Moon will never be colonized for a single reason. Basically, the Moon’s gravity is less than 17% of Earth’s gravity, and people can not survive long periods of time at such low gravity. [...] Even though people could easily survive short time periods in this low gravity, it would be extremely unhealthy for prolonged periods of time especially when returning to Earth. For instance, long stays in low gravity can and will result with significant loss in bone density and muscle atrophy, just to name the two most common issues with low gravity." |
+ | |||
+ | *'''[[Argument: Children would not develop properly in low-gravity Moon colony| Children would not develop properly in low-gravity Moon colony]]''' [http://www.philforhumanity.com/Colony_on_the_Moon.html "Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity]: "The bigger problem with colonizing the Moon is the effects that low gravity will have on children. The human development process has evolved perfectly with Earth’s high gravity. On the Moon, children would most likely develop severe and possibly fatal deformities under low gravity. For instance, their bones would be extremely brittle and break often. Their hearts would be very weak and never fully develop, as well as possibly all of their other muscles too. Children would literally grow to extreme heights that will cause severe complications on the spinal cord and digestive systems, because these organs have limited stretching capabilities. As a result, colonists on the Moon might not be able to have healthy children capable of living long enough to have children of their own." | ||
+ | |||
|- | |- | ||
|colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |colspan="2" width="45%" bgcolor="#F2F2F2" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
- | ===Health: Is the colonization of the Moon healthy for humans? === | + | ===Moon-to-Mars: Would colonizing the Moon aid a mission to Mars?=== |
|- | |- | ||
Line 75: | Line 80: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Moon colony would feel comforted by site of large Earth.''' On the lunar near side, the Earth appears large and is always visible as an object 60 times brighter than the Moon appears from Earth, unlike more distant locations where the Earth would be seen merely as a star-like object, much as the planets appear from Earth. As a result, a lunar colony might feel less remote to humans living there. | + | *'''Colonizing the Moon would test new technologies along with testing space colonization.''' Colonizing the Moon is now far more important than colonizing Mars now. Firstly, the Moon is a far more easier place for people to live since man had stepped foot on Moon, making Moon an ideal place to colonize first. Secondly, Mars have a more hostile environment than the Moon. Thirdly, technology preparing to colonize the Moon is far more developed than technology preparing to colonize Mars. Fourthly, colonizing a place like Moon first will test our abilities to colonize far, hostile planets possibly filled with equally hostile aliens. |
- | *'''Artificial gravity can overcome health risks on Moonbase.''' Artificial gravity is not a very difficult task to accomplish. The technology already exists in many forms and will continue to advance with a focused effort to develop it for a Moonbase. This will overcome any major health risks associated with the low-gravity levels on the Moon as well as on Mars. | + | *'''Colonizing the Moon is a good test for colonizing Mars.''' If the Moon were colonized then it could be tested whether humans can survive in microgravity. Those results could be utilized for a viable Mars colony as well. |
- | *'''Moonbase advances knowledge of human viability on alien planets.''' It is critical that humans begin the process of understanding the health implications of living on alien planets, including the Moon, Mars, and possibly others in the distant future. This requires understanding - among other things - the implications of living in a lower-gravity planet, such as the Moon, and developing techniques - such as artificial gravity - to cope with any issues that may arise. The Moon is an ideal place to begin this technological process. | + | *'''Moonbase could be used to launch rockets on mission to Mars.''' A lunar base could also hold a future site for launching rockets to distant planets such as Mars. Launching rockets from the Moon would be an easier prospect than on Earth due to the Moon's lower gravity requiring a lower escape velocity. |
- | + | ||
- | *'''Low-gravity Moon would be healthier for the elderly.''' [http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2008/06/25-good-reasons-to-go-to-the-moon-2/ Ken Murphy. "25 Good Reasons to Go to the Moon." Out of the Cradle. June 14th, 2008]: "7) Human factors. Having 1/6th of Earth’s gravity, the heart doesn’t have to pump as hard to supply oxygen to the brain. While for a youth this would have an atrophy-type effect, for those advanced in years it can serve a rejuvenative effect, as the heart is suddenly relatively stronger. This allows for longer productive lives for our citizens. And you can fly in a large enough space." | + | |
+ | *'''Moon base would spark public interest in Mars mission.''' The creation of a base on our small companion would spark the public's interest, as the creation of such a base would most likely take less than a decade. After this, wait perhaps another decade or so and viola, you have yourself a Mars landing. If we were instead to mount a mission to Mars directly, it would take decades before the mission would be underway. The general public despises long waits, which equals to a lack of funds completely immobilizing the would be Mars landing. | ||
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Con==== | ====Con==== | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: Moon's gravity is too low for human health| Moon's gravity is too low for human health]]''' [http://www.philforhumanity.com/Colony_on_the_Moon.html "Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity]: "The Moon will never be colonized for a single reason. Basically, the Moon’s gravity is less than 17% of Earth’s gravity, and people can not survive long periods of time at such low gravity. [...] Even though people could easily survive short time periods in this low gravity, it would be extremely unhealthy for prolonged periods of time especially when returning to Earth. For instance, long stays in low gravity can and will result with significant loss in bone density and muscle atrophy, just to name the two most common issues with low gravity." | + | *'''[[Argument: Colonizing the Moon is not a logical step toward Mars| Colonizing the Moon is not a logical step toward Mars]]''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/ Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006]: "Don't we need a moon base to go to Mars? No! When George W. Bush made his Mars-trip speech almost three years ago, he said a moon base should be built to support such a mission. This is gibberish. All concept studies of Mars flight involve an expedition departing from low-Earth orbit and traveling directly to the red planet. Stopping at the moon would require fuel to descend to the lunar surface, then blast off again, which would make any Mars mission hugely more expensive." |
- | + | ||
- | *'''[[Argument: Children would not develop properly in low-gravity Moon colony| Children would not develop properly in low-gravity Moon colony]]''' [http://www.philforhumanity.com/Colony_on_the_Moon.html "Why the Moon will Never be Colonized." Phil for Humanity]: "The bigger problem with colonizing the Moon is the effects that low gravity will have on children. The human development process has evolved perfectly with Earth’s high gravity. On the Moon, children would most likely develop severe and possibly fatal deformities under low gravity. For instance, their bones would be extremely brittle and break often. Their hearts would be very weak and never fully develop, as well as possibly all of their other muscles too. Children would literally grow to extreme heights that will cause severe complications on the spinal cord and digestive systems, because these organs have limited stretching capabilities. As a result, colonists on the Moon might not be able to have healthy children capable of living long enough to have children of their own." | + | |
- | + | ||
|- | |- | ||
Line 102: | Line 103: | ||
*'''[[Argument: Colonizing the Moon is critical for human survival| Colonizing the Moon is critical for human survival]]''' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117038898506395928.html William Burrows. "Colonize the Moon." Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2007]: "The overriding reason to establish a colony on the moon is humanity's survival: Darwin achieves liftoff. [...] Earth has been pummeled by asteroids and probably comets, large and small, throughout its existence. The dinosaurs are thought to have met their end because of a huge asteroid that hit roughly 65 million years ago. But they also may have owed their existence to another huge impactor that killed off their competitors millions of years earlier. As the old saw has it, the giant beasts would still be around if they had had a space program." | *'''[[Argument: Colonizing the Moon is critical for human survival| Colonizing the Moon is critical for human survival]]''' [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB117038898506395928.html William Burrows. "Colonize the Moon." Wall Street Journal. February 2, 2007]: "The overriding reason to establish a colony on the moon is humanity's survival: Darwin achieves liftoff. [...] Earth has been pummeled by asteroids and probably comets, large and small, throughout its existence. The dinosaurs are thought to have met their end because of a huge asteroid that hit roughly 65 million years ago. But they also may have owed their existence to another huge impactor that killed off their competitors millions of years earlier. As the old saw has it, the giant beasts would still be around if they had had a space program." | ||
- | *'''Preserve Earth, but Moon colony safeguards against asteroid event.''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "The bleak conclusion to which these facts point is that humanity is vulnerable as long as we are confined to one planet. Obviously, we must increase our efforts to preserve this planet and its biosphere, an effort in which NASA satellites have played a vital role for many years. But uncontrollable external events may destroy our civilization, perhaps our species. We can increase our chances of long-term survival by dispersal to other sites in the solar system." | + | *'''[[Argument: Moon colony could be safeguard against asteroids| Moon colony could be safeguard against asteroids]]''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "The bleak conclusion to which these facts point is that humanity is vulnerable as long as we are confined to one planet. Obviously, we must increase our efforts to preserve this planet and its biosphere, an effort in which NASA satellites have played a vital role for many years. But uncontrollable external events may destroy our civilization, perhaps our species. We can increase our chances of long-term survival by dispersal to other sites in the solar system." |
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Con==== | ====Con==== | ||
- | *'''Moonbase distracts from protecting against asteroid strike.''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/ Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006]: "it borders on criminal that NASA is doing nothing to prepare for a deadly comet or asteroid strike. (The agency says it has already cataloged 835 'potentially hazardous' large space rocks.)" | + | *'''[[Argument: Moon colonization distracts from protecting against asteroids| Moon colonization distracts from protecting against asteroids]]''' [http://www.slate.com/id/2155164/ Gregg Easterbrook. "Moon Baseless". Slate. Dec. 8, 2006]: "it borders on criminal that NASA is doing nothing to prepare for a deadly comet or asteroid strike. (The agency says it has already cataloged 835 'potentially hazardous' large space rocks.)" |
*'''Human survival is ensured by fighting global warming, not Moonbase.''' Global warming is the predominant threat to humanity at present. Fighting it should be the focus of our efforts. In so far as a Moonbase distracts and diverts resources from this effort, it does a disservice to our long-term survival. | *'''Human survival is ensured by fighting global warming, not Moonbase.''' Global warming is the predominant threat to humanity at present. Fighting it should be the focus of our efforts. In so far as a Moonbase distracts and diverts resources from this effort, it does a disservice to our long-term survival. | ||
Line 127: | Line 128: | ||
*'''A colony at the Lunar north pole could rely on solar energy.''' Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, (not only) because it receives nearly continuous sunlight. | *'''A colony at the Lunar north pole could rely on solar energy.''' Because the Moon's axis of rotation is almost perfectly perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, it may be possible to power polar colonies exclusively with solar energy. For example, Malapert mountain, located near the Shackleton crater at the lunar south pole is attractive as a possible site for a lunar base, (not only) because it receives nearly continuous sunlight. | ||
- | *'''A Moonbase need not mean permanent "colonization" for visitors.''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "Taking the Los Angeles Times title, 'Don’t colonize the Moon,' at face value, I will first point out that the Vision for Space Exploration proposes an 'outpost' on the Moon. This is hardly colonization in the sense that Europeans colonized North America." | + | *'''[[Argument: Moonbase need not mean permanent "colonization" for visitors| Moonbase need not mean permanent "colonization" for visitors]]''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "Taking the Los Angeles Times title, 'Don’t colonize the Moon,' at face value, I will first point out that the Vision for Space Exploration proposes an 'outpost' on the Moon. This is hardly colonization in the sense that Europeans colonized North America." |
- | *'''Water is present on the Moon.''' According to the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission, water is a plentiful resource on the Moon. Additionally, it seems to be still forming, thus advancing the possibility that human life could be sustained there. "Scientists even hope that astronauts could one day not only drink the water but extract oxygen from it to breathe and hydrogen to use as fuel. The reports from the Indian mission were backed up by the findings of two other studies to be published in the journal Science, showing that the water may be actively moving around, forming and reforming as particles mixed up in the dust on the surface of the moon." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/24/water-moon-space-exploration-india] Independent LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of copious amount of water in lunar polar region, albeit its results suggest that cleaning might be required before the water is drinkable. [http://planetary.org/news/2009/1113_LCROSS_Lunar_Impactor_Mission_Yes_We.html] | + | *'''[[Argument: Water is present on the Moon| Water is present on the Moon]]''' According to the Indian Chandrayaan-1 mission, water is a plentiful resource on the Moon. Additionally, it seems to be still forming, thus advancing the possibility that human life could be sustained there. "Scientists even hope that astronauts could one day not only drink the water but extract oxygen from it to breathe and hydrogen to use as fuel. The reports from the Indian mission were backed up by the findings of two other studies to be published in the journal Science, showing that the water may be actively moving around, forming and reforming as particles mixed up in the dust on the surface of the moon." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/24/water-moon-space-exploration-india] Independent LCROSS mission confirmed the presence of copious amount of water in lunar polar region, albeit its results suggest that cleaning might be required before the water is drinkable. [http://planetary.org/news/2009/1113_LCROSS_Lunar_Impactor_Mission_Yes_We.html] |
Line 152: | Line 153: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Colonized Moon could export mineral resources to Earth.''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "The Moon may offer mineral resources, so to speak, of great value on Earth. Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, working with the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin, has shown that helium 3, an isotope extremely rare on Earth, exists in quantity in the lunar soil, implanted by the solar wind. If – a very big if – thermonuclear fusion for energy is produced on Earth, helium 3 would be extremely valuable for fusion reactors because it does not make the reactor radioactive. A more practicable use of helium 3, being tested at the University of Wisconsin, is the production of short-lived medical isotopes. Such isotopes must now be manufactured in cyclotrons and quickly delivered before they decay. But Dr. Schmitt suggests that small helium 3 reactors could produce such isotopes at the hospital. In any event, research on the use of helium 3 would clearly benefit if large quantities could be exported to the Earth." | + | *'''[[Argument: Colonized Moon could export mineral resources to Earth| Colonized Moon could export mineral resources to Earth]]''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "The Moon may offer mineral resources, so to speak, of great value on Earth. Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, working with the Fusion Technology Institute of the University of Wisconsin, has shown that helium 3, an isotope extremely rare on Earth, exists in quantity in the lunar soil, implanted by the solar wind. If – a very big if – thermonuclear fusion for energy is produced on Earth, helium 3 would be extremely valuable for fusion reactors because it does not make the reactor radioactive. A more practicable use of helium 3, being tested at the University of Wisconsin, is the production of short-lived medical isotopes. Such isotopes must now be manufactured in cyclotrons and quickly delivered before they decay. But Dr. Schmitt suggests that small helium 3 reactors could produce such isotopes at the hospital. In any event, research on the use of helium 3 would clearly benefit if large quantities could be exported to the Earth." |
:[http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2008/06/25-good-reasons-to-go-to-the-moon-2/ "25 Good Reasons to Go to the Moon." Out of the Cradle. June 14, 2008]: "A good proportion of the Lunar soil returned by astronauts was in the form of glass. Lunar glass has the distinct characteristic of having formed in a water-free environment, making it anhydrous. What advantages this may offer in the field of optics is largely Luna Incognito. Then there’s fiberglass, composites, etc." | :[http://www.outofthecradle.net/archives/2008/06/25-good-reasons-to-go-to-the-moon-2/ "25 Good Reasons to Go to the Moon." Out of the Cradle. June 14, 2008]: "A good proportion of the Lunar soil returned by astronauts was in the form of glass. Lunar glass has the distinct characteristic of having formed in a water-free environment, making it anhydrous. What advantages this may offer in the field of optics is largely Luna Incognito. Then there’s fiberglass, composites, etc." | ||
- | *'''Colonizing the Moon will foster space commercialism.''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-2.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "3. Foster commercialization [...] There is no agreement among scientists over the role private enterprise ought to play in human spaceflight. Yet already, commercial companies help build the machines that carry astronauts into space. [...] Many experts think space tourism and even certain mining and manufacturing will succeed in space if only entrepreneurs are turned loose (and perhaps assisted with federal money or incentives). [...] "Perhaps future space probes will be plastered in commercial logos, just as Formula I racers are now," Rees says. "Perhaps 'robo-wars' in space will be a lucrative spectator sport." | + | *'''[[Argument: Colonizing Moon will foster space commercialization| Colonizing Moon will foster space commercialization]]''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-2.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "3. Foster commercialization [...] There is no agreement among scientists over the role private enterprise ought to play in human spaceflight. Yet already, commercial companies help build the machines that carry astronauts into space. [...] Many experts think space tourism and even certain mining and manufacturing will succeed in space if only entrepreneurs are turned loose (and perhaps assisted with federal money or incentives). [...] "Perhaps future space probes will be plastered in commercial logos, just as Formula I racers are now," Rees says. "Perhaps 'robo-wars' in space will be a lucrative spectator sport." |
Line 173: | Line 174: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Moonbase will help answer remaining scientific questions.''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-4.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "4. Gather rocks [...] The Apollo era answered many questions about the Moon. But much was left undone. [...] Scientists see the Moon as an attic of Earth, a place where rocks long ago blasted from our planet are sitting around waiting to be studied. This history has not decayed much because there is almost no atmosphere and little geological activity on the Moon. [...] Earth, on the other hand, regularly recycles clues to its past, pulling material inward, and spitting it back out as unrecognizable lava. [...] 'We are talking about finding material from the very early Earth,' says John Armstrong of the University of Washington in Seattle. 'Samples of the Earth 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago could tell us a lot about the state of the early atmosphere, what the crust and surface were like, and possibly even when life began to evolve.'" | + | *'''[[Argument: Moonbase will help answer remaining scientific questions| Moonbase will help answer remaining scientific questions]]''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-4.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "4. Gather rocks [...] The Apollo era answered many questions about the Moon. But much was left undone. [...] Scientists see the Moon as an attic of Earth, a place where rocks long ago blasted from our planet are sitting around waiting to be studied. This history has not decayed much because there is almost no atmosphere and little geological activity on the Moon. [...] Earth, on the other hand, regularly recycles clues to its past, pulling material inward, and spitting it back out as unrecognizable lava. [...] 'We are talking about finding material from the very early Earth,' says John Armstrong of the University of Washington in Seattle. 'Samples of the Earth 3.9 to 4.0 billion years ago could tell us a lot about the state of the early atmosphere, what the crust and surface were like, and possibly even when life began to evolve.'" |
*'''The Moon would be ideal site for a space observatory.''' A lunar base would provide an excellent site for any kind of observatory. Particular advantages arise from building observatory facilities on the Moon from lunar materials. As the Moon's rotation is so slow, visible light observatories could perform observations for days at a time. It is possible to maintain near-constant observations on a specific target with a string of such observatories spanning the circumference of the Moon. The fact that the Moon is geologically inactive along with the lack of widespread human activity results in a remarkable lack of mechanical disturbance, making it far easier to set up interferometric telescopes on the lunar surface, even at relatively high frequencies such as visible light. | *'''The Moon would be ideal site for a space observatory.''' A lunar base would provide an excellent site for any kind of observatory. Particular advantages arise from building observatory facilities on the Moon from lunar materials. As the Moon's rotation is so slow, visible light observatories could perform observations for days at a time. It is possible to maintain near-constant observations on a specific target with a string of such observatories spanning the circumference of the Moon. The fact that the Moon is geologically inactive along with the lack of widespread human activity results in a remarkable lack of mechanical disturbance, making it far easier to set up interferometric telescopes on the lunar surface, even at relatively high frequencies such as visible light. | ||
- | *'''The Moon is ideal for extra-terrestrial discovery.''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "Another example of Moon-based astronomy can be the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), by radio telescopes that on the far side would be shielded from terrestrial interference. Small telescopes on the Moon’s solid surface could be linked to form interferometer arrays with enormous resolving power. Astronomy in a limited sense has already been done from the Moon, namely the Apollo 16 Ultraviolet telescope emplaced by Apollo astronauts and before that, the simple TV observations of Earth-based lasers by the Surveyor spacecraft. The much-feared lunar dust had no effect on these pioneering instruments." | + | *'''[[Argument: Moon is ideal for extra-terrestrial discovery| Moon is ideal for extra-terrestrial discovery]]''' [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/series/moon/why_go_back.html "Why Go Back to the Moon?" NASA. January 14, 2008]: "Another example of Moon-based astronomy can be the search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI), by radio telescopes that on the far side would be shielded from terrestrial interference. Small telescopes on the Moon’s solid surface could be linked to form interferometer arrays with enormous resolving power. Astronomy in a limited sense has already been done from the Moon, namely the Apollo 16 Ultraviolet telescope emplaced by Apollo astronauts and before that, the simple TV observations of Earth-based lasers by the Surveyor spacecraft. The much-feared lunar dust had no effect on these pioneering instruments." |
|width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | |width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top:0.5em;"| | ||
====Con==== | ====Con==== | ||
- | *'''There are generally too few scientific reasons to colonize the Moon.''' [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7127/full/445459a.html "Brave blue world." Nature (Editorial). February 1, 2007]: "It is commonplace to dismiss NASA's human spaceflight efforts as a waste of money and expertise. For a country with an alarming budget deficit to devote tens of billions of dollars to a project with so little prospect of palpable returns is hard to justify. Certainly, science does not come close to offering a justification." | + | *'''[[Argument: Too few scientific reasons to colonize the Moon| Too few scientific reasons to colonize the Moon]]''' [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v445/n7127/full/445459a.html "Brave blue world." Nature (Editorial). February 1, 2007]: "It is commonplace to dismiss NASA's human spaceflight efforts as a waste of money and expertise. For a country with an alarming budget deficit to devote tens of billions of dollars to a project with so little prospect of palpable returns is hard to justify. Certainly, science does not come close to offering a justification." |
- | *'''Manned mission to Moon is less cost-effective than robotic missions.''' [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10 "Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006]: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?" | + | *'''[[Argument: Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic missions| Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic missions]]''' [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10 "Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006]: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?" |
- | *'''Knowledge of Moon is extensive; colonization will add little.''' [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007]: "Scientific investigations, discussed in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report 'The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon' define an extensive exploration program. If pursued, the program would add additional information to our present knowledge of the Moon’s early history and current state. However, we already have an excellent understanding of the Moon’s history and composition compiled from data returned from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo missions. The more recent Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions also contributed to our understanding. Added detail is only of interest to those who have spent most or all of their professional lives studying the Moon. It is unlikely that any new information collected during detailed lunar exploration will resolve fundamental questions being asked regarding the origin and evolution of the solar system." | + | *'''[[Argument: Knowledge of Moon extensive; colonization adds little| Knowledge of Moon extensive; colonization adds little]]''' [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007]: "Scientific investigations, discussed in the recent National Research Council (NRC) report 'The Scientific Context for Exploration of the Moon' define an extensive exploration program. If pursued, the program would add additional information to our present knowledge of the Moon’s early history and current state. However, we already have an excellent understanding of the Moon’s history and composition compiled from data returned from Surveyor, Lunar Orbiter, and Apollo missions. The more recent Clementine and Lunar Prospector missions also contributed to our understanding. Added detail is only of interest to those who have spent most or all of their professional lives studying the Moon. It is unlikely that any new information collected during detailed lunar exploration will resolve fundamental questions being asked regarding the origin and evolution of the solar system." |
Line 203: | Line 204: | ||
|WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | |WRITE CONTENT FOR THE "YES" BOX ABOVE THIS CODE width="45%" bgcolor="#F2FAFB" style="border:1px solid #BAC5FD;padding:.4em;padding-top: 0.5em;"| | ||
====No==== | ====No==== | ||
- | *'''Manned mission to Moon is less cost-effective than robotic missions.''' [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10 "Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006]: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?" | + | |
+ | *'''[[Argument: Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic mission| Manned mission to Moon less cost-effective than robotic mission]]''' [http://articles.latimes.com/2006/dec/10/opinion/ed-moon10 "Don't colonize the moon." LA Times. December 10, 2006]: "Manned moon flight may appeal to baby boomers, but it makes little scientific sense for most space missions these days. Robots can now perform, or be developed to perform, most of the tasks people would do at a moon station. And even if the world shares the goal of landing astronauts on Mars, this is a roundabout way to achieve it. Why re-create the old technologies for going to the moon when they are of no use to get to Mars?" | ||
Line 214: | Line 216: | ||
====Pro==== | ====Pro==== | ||
- | *'''Colonizing the Moon will improve cooperation between States.''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-2.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "2. Bring nations together Just as the International Space Station packed explorers from previously antagonistic nations into tight quarters, an effort to return to the Moon could bring nations together in an era of increasing international tension, some analysts say. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is a good example of a country the United States might want to work more closely with. 'I think the international public would cheer a program designed as a flagship for how space technology can be a role model for letting technicians of various countries work together in programs that would benefit all of us,' said William K. Hartmann, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson." | + | *'''[[Argument: Colonizing Moon will improve cooperation between countries| Colonizing Moon will improve cooperation between countries]]''' [http://www.space.com/news/moon_top10_031208-2.html Robert Roy Britt. "10 Reasons to Put Humans Back on the Moon." Space.com. December 8, 2003]: "2. Bring nations together Just as the International Space Station packed explorers from previously antagonistic nations into tight quarters, an effort to return to the Moon could bring nations together in an era of increasing international tension, some analysts say. China, with its own lunar ambitions, is a good example of a country the United States might want to work more closely with. 'I think the international public would cheer a program designed as a flagship for how space technology can be a role model for letting technicians of various countries work together in programs that would benefit all of us,' said William K. Hartmann, a senior scientist at the Planetary Science Institute in Tucson." |
Line 222: | Line 224: | ||
*'''Territorial claims on the Moon will become a source of conflict.''' Just as humans staked out claims on Earth's North Pole, it is also likely that different countries will begin staking claims to territory on the Moon. This creates the possibility of raising tensions between nations. | *'''Territorial claims on the Moon will become a source of conflict.''' Just as humans staked out claims on Earth's North Pole, it is also likely that different countries will begin staking claims to territory on the Moon. This creates the possibility of raising tensions between nations. | ||
- | *'''International interest in returning to the Moon is limited.''' [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007]: "Recent press releases seem to indicate that international interest in cooperating with NASA on returning humans to the Moon does not exist. Some, such as the British, have clearly indicated they have other plans. Based on statements made by NASA it would appear that in order for the initiative to return to the Moon to be successful, international cooperation will be required." [But, it does not exist at a very high level.] | + | *'''[[Argument: International interest in returning to Moon is limited| International interest in returning to Moon is limited]]''' [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/804/1 Donald A. Beattie. "Just how full of opportunity is the Moon?" The Space Review. February 12, 2007]: "Recent press releases seem to indicate that international interest in cooperating with NASA on returning humans to the Moon does not exist. Some, such as the British, have clearly indicated they have other plans. Based on statements made by NASA it would appear that in order for the initiative to return to the Moon to be successful, international cooperation will be required." [But, it does not exist at a very high level.] |
|- | |- |
Current revision
[Edit] Is colonizing the Moon a good idea? |
[Edit] Background and contextThe colonization of the Moon is the proposed establishment of permanent human communities on the Moon. Moon colonization is also known as space settlement, space humanization, and space habitation. The most prominent proposal, within NASA, is known as the "Moonbase". Advocates of space exploration have seen settlement of the Moon as a logical step in the expansion of humanity beyond the Earth. In 2006, US President George W. Bush announced plans to colonize the Moon, although the subsequent economic crisis dampened talk of such a colony under the Obama administration. Yet, the debate continues, framed by multiple questions: Is space exploration and colonization - of the Moon and any other planet - important? Is it important as a source of inspiration? Is is necessary as a means of fulfilling a supposed, innate "human impulse" to explore and discover? Is the Moon a good testing ground for broader space exploration and colonization? Is it a good testing ground and possibly "launch-pad" for a mission to Mars ("Moon-to-Mars")? Is colonization of the Moon safe? Can humans survive, reproduce, and grow healthily in low-gravity? Is the colonization of the Moon generally feasible, practical, and economically reasonable? Are there commercial/export opportunities on the Moon? Is colonization of the Moon, and any subsequent space exploration important to human survival? Is colonization important to scientific discovery on the Moon as well as of the universe? Can colonization help heal political conflicts on Earth? Overall, is the colonization of the Moon a good idea? |
[Edit] [ ![]() Space exploration: Is colonizing the Moon critical to space exploration/discovery? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Health: Is the colonization of the Moon healthy for humans? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Moon-to-Mars: Would colonizing the Moon aid a mission to Mars? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Human survival: Is colonization of the Moon critical to human survival? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Feasibility: Is the colonization of the Moon feasible? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Economics: Is the colonization of the Moon economical? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Science: Are there good scientific reasons for colonizing the Moon? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Manned mission: Is a manned mission to the Moon a good idea? | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Politics: Will a colony on the Moon improve the political relations between states? | |
[Edit] Pro
|
[Edit] Con
|
[Edit] [ ![]() Pro/con sources: | |
[Edit] Yes
|
[Edit] No
|
[Edit] See also
[Edit] External links |
Categories: Space | Moon | Mars | Planets | Society | Science | Sci-fi | Technology | Future