From an article about Bigelow Aerospace (the company working on expandable space stations)
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2011/0627/features-robert-bigelow-aerospace-real-estate-cosmic-landlord.html

Quote :

"The Outer Space Treaty, a 1967 agreement that forms the basis of international space law, has been signed by every major power on Earth. It establishes that the resources of the moon should be shared and that while sovereign nations may explore or build bases, they cannot claim land as their own and must be open to a wide range of United Nations rules, regulations and inspections. But a few paragraphs from the end of the treaty, in Article 16, Bigelow points out a detail he believes will radically change the future of space exploration. Any signatory to the treaty can send a letter of withdrawal and 12 months later will have been recognized to have withdrawn from the treaty. "Now, can you think of a particular country that is very impressive, that is extraordinary in its potential and its power and its capacity … and that has made no bones about going to the moon?" If China pulls a land grab, Bigelow says, America's only option will be to withdraw from the treaty as well and send its own personnel to the moon to start claiming American territory. And they'll have to turn to commercial providers like Bigelow Aerospace to do it. "Without the private sector, this country is not capable of doing that or getting there in time. It will be too little, too late.""

Yes, there are those that think space travel is a waste of money, but thinking long-term strategy, a nation that has a robust space infrastructure is at a significant advantage to nations that do not.

I'd like to discuss reasons why having a presence on the moon (and other celestial bodies) would be to our advantage (or disadvantage if that's what you think).

One advantage: We now know that the moon has a good amount of water, and if a country can set up a station to process that water and use it for fuel/consumption/radiation shielding, it requires a LOT less energy to launch these items from the moon rather than the Earth. This will set the stage for missions to asteroids, mars (and it's 2 moons), and other places where there are potentially important strategically and/or economically.

6/9/2011 9:19:48 AM

I don't see it, IMO. We barely have the resources to fight two minor wars on the other side of the planet, what makes you think we will have the resources to compete/battle for the moon?

6/9/2011 9:32:25 AM

The resources available in space can be found here on earth. No one has been able to tell me otherwise. As such, the purpose of going to space is to go to space, there are no economic or strategic reasons to go. Going to the moon and setting up mining/etc can do nothing for us here on earth but make it easier to go to space.

[Edited on June 9, 2011 at 9:50 AM. Reason : .,.]

6/9/2011 9:50:43 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3

6/9/2011 10:02:52 AM

Quote :

"The resources available in space can be found here on earth."

I think the idea is that these resources may be more abundant in space -- abundant enough to offset the obviously higher costs associated with going to space.

Quote :

"We barely have the resources to fight two minor wars on the other side of the planet, what makes you think we will have the resources to compete/battle for the moon?"

The space program is pretty inexpensive, relatively speaking. The entire Apollo program cost around $135 billion (adjusted to 2005 dollars). That's around a tenth what has been spent on the "minor wars" during the same length of time.

6/9/2011 11:36:24 AM

http://moonandback.com/2011/06/03/robert-bigelows-keynote-address-at-the-2011-isdc-governors-gala/

Robert Bigelow (again) speaking about his business, but then one of the questions was about the moon... it's all a good watch, but he talks about the moon and china (and eventually implications for mars) around 23:00



Other points he makes... property. When the acquisition of property on the moon (and other places) begins, then space is going to get very interesting. He believes (with good reason based on current policy) china is going to beat us to the moon. (yes we were there before but we didn't stay)... once that happens and they start surveying, we will then be kicking ourselves in the asses for not developing the infrastructure needed to compete.

6/9/2011 12:15:15 PM

Quote :

"We barely have the resources to fight two minor wars on the other side of the planet, what makes you think we will have the resources to compete/battle for the moon?"

those wars are more expensive by multiple orders of magnitude than the space program has ever been.

6/9/2011 12:16:05 PM

Not this shit again.

6/9/2011 12:18:41 PM

spend the money on research and development then laugh at the chinese when we discover a reasonable method of space travel.

6/9/2011 12:23:17 PM

Don't you think colonizing/mining/occupying the moon is going to be many times more expensive than just dropping some people off for a short time and then bringing them back to earth?


How far off are we talking here? 25 years away or more like 75?

6/9/2011 12:24:04 PM

^bingo

6/9/2011 12:25:52 PM

Quote :

"Other points he makes... property. When the acquisition of property on the moon (and other places) begins, then space is going to get very interesting. He believes (with good reason based on current policy) china is going to beat us to the moon. (yes we were there before but we didn't stay)... once that happens and they start surveying, we will then be kicking ourselves in the asses for not developing the infrastructure needed to compete."

Well of course he's going to say that he's a aerospace contractor.

6/9/2011 4:51:58 PM

"Hey guys! Guys! I've just had the greatest idea. Hey, guys, listen.

Let's go to the moon.

That's right, the fucking moon.

Sure it's just a rock in the sky. It doesn't matter what's actually there, or how much it costs, but it'll distract our dumbass populace from the quagmires and endless wars I'm getting us into. It'll be great! After all, I need more criticism of my foreign policy about as much as I need a hole in the head. And with any luck it'll keep those negroes from getting all uppity on my watch. How can you riot against a country that's so cool we send people to the moon. You can't. It'll be awesome. I can't wait to rub this shit in Khrushchev's fat little face. Alright, you guys get on that."

6/9/2011 5:37:00 PM

We need more Unobtianium!

6/9/2011 5:52:37 PM

6/9/2011 7:40:50 PM

Quote :

"Other points he makes... property. When the acquisition of property on the moon (and other places) begins, then space is going to get very interesting. He believes (with good reason based on current policy) china is going to beat us to the moon."

To enforce property rights either requires occupation or a willingness to fight over it. It is absurd to believe the Chinese are going to completely occupy the moon, as however small the moon is, we are still talking 23 million square miles. If we ever want to put something there, just show up and use a vacant spot.

6/9/2011 8:37:59 PM

The joke is that if there we're literally gold bars waiting for people in low earth orbit, it still would not be profitable to go up there and get them.

6/9/2011 10:40:51 PM

^^there are very specific locations where water is abundant, and those places are rare. No doubt that the chinese would hit up those locations first.

6/10/2011 12:18:16 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRygA_sM6lM

6/10/2011 1:41:59 AM

BUY AN AD, BIGELOW AIRSPACE

6/10/2011 3:45:10 AM

^^^

and by abundant you mean in the proportion of the amount of water in concrete

6/10/2011 12:43:42 PM

As long as the clones don't figure out there are other clones with them we should be fine.

6/10/2011 12:46:20 PM

It's a wonder we ever left the trees, much less the savannah with the mentality being displayed here.

6/10/2011 3:20:49 PM

China wants to do wut?

6/10/2011 3:21:01 PM

http://www.space.com/23787-china-moon-rover-change3-launch.html

11/30/2013 11:10:26 PM

We should let them have at it, then a week before launch deploy some signal jammers to the moon to fuck them up

12/4/2013 8:20:12 PM

they're sending a rover to the moon. reading this thread you'd think they were already building a McDonald's up there with not one but two drive thru's.

i think we have a little bit before we have to figure out how to take land from them. MURICA.

[Edited on December 4, 2013 at 11:28 PM. Reason : ]

12/4/2013 11:27:47 PM

Smath has been reading The Blaze again, you guys.

12/5/2013 1:49:44 AM

Is there not an international treaty that prevents land grabbing on the moon?

12/5/2013 1:08:18 PM

someone didn't read the OP.

also, LOL@thinking policy will stop anything

12/5/2013 1:17:43 PM

yes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outer_Space_Treaty) but it's an old treaty and probably won't last through the next few decades.

12/5/2013 1:19:46 PM

i wouldn't worry about this for another 200 years

12/6/2013 9:10:36 AM

Hey smath

Seen this?

http://www.universetoday.com/65220/japan-shoots-for-robotic-moon-base-by-2020/

12/6/2013 11:35:54 AM

"JAXA" reads cooler than "NASA". i think we're done for.

12/6/2013 11:43:52 AM

^^hadn't seen that... looks pretty interesting. JAXA is one of the partners on the ISS and have contributed several things including lab(s?) connected to the station.

12/6/2013 12:00:02 PM

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/china-jade-rabbit-lunar-arrival/

CHINA LANDS ON THE MOON

12/14/2013 5:52:37 PM

How close are they to Apollo landing areas?

12/14/2013 5:58:53 PM

Maybe we can pay them to take photos of the Apollo sites. Unless...

[Edited on December 14, 2013 at 7:01 PM. Reason : .]

12/14/2013 6:57:03 PM

Quote :

"How close are they to Apollo landing areas?"

there are discussions about how to protect these historic sites... there is a movement to have them named world heritage sites, etc, but really how will that be enforced? There is nothing to stop a chinese rover from landing near one and disturbing it.

Deployment of rover:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFb1E63AxNI#t=332

First Picture:

12/14/2013 7:47:45 PM

So the answer is that they are close enough to drive to the landing site, will we get cool pics?

12/14/2013 9:24:37 PM

12/14/2013 10:11:05 PM

Quote :

"So the answer is that they are close enough to drive to the landing site, will we get cool pics?"

honestly i don't know how close they landed to the apollo sites. i doubt it is close enough to drive to.

12/14/2013 10:25:30 PM

lol... the fox news headline...

Quote :

"SPACE RACE SUCCESS China safely soft-lands lunar probe on moon"

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/12/14/china-safely-soft-lands-rover-on-moon-state-media-reports/

12/14/2013 10:27:00 PM

landing site compared to the apollo landings...

12/15/2013 11:04:02 AM

http://jumpjack.wordpress.com/2013/12/11/back-to-the-moon-chinese-mission-change3-with-yutu-rover-december-2013/

12/15/2013 11:08:17 AM

we could use all the moon money to instead build a magic karate hand to punish the rich so perfectly as to eliminate hunger completely till the day the technically non-existent poor must be used as fuel to escape from them and their dirty borgeoise genes

12/15/2013 4:59:53 PM

why isn't the surface uniformly lit?

http://youtu.be/cFb1E63AxNI?t=8m40s

12/15/2013 6:04:47 PM

Quote :

"IT IS 2 MOONS"

12/15/2013 8:49:24 PM