Who Will Control the Moon?

[jordan179]

BackgroundAs I'm sure everyone knows by now, Barack Obama has ordered the abandonment of the American Constellation rocket program, whose principal aim was the American return to the Moon (http://www.space.com/news/obama-nasa-space-plan-reactions-100128 ( Read more... )

Comments

[anonymous]

Worst comes to worst you fill it up with debris and then no one can use it for the next 20,000 years.

You're assuming that spacecraft remain as relatively fragile and vulnerable as they are today, which would require a complete lack of progress in both hull materials and active defenses against micrometeors. I would be astonished if both conditions persisted a mere century.

When the resources returned exceed resources invested, when technologies bring profitable payoff, space travel will get flooded with commercialism just like everywhere else. In the mean time, until the energy efficiencies are there, it's a pretty lousy taxpayer boondoggle.

The problem is that, when that point is reached, if someone else has already gained control of the Moon, then that Power will reap the rewards, because they will have the infrastructure already in place. That this point will be reached is fairly predictable -- if we had deuterium-trihelium reactors, trihelium would already be cost-effective to mine from Lunar sources, and our astronautical

[jordan179]

That was me.

[jordan179]

The broader point being that it is predictable that Man will expand out through the Solar System in the long run. The Chinese are thinking long-term; the thinking Obama just demonstrated was short-term.

[eric_hinkle]

To me, one good reason to get on the Moon can be summed up in two words: "mass driver".

[jordan179]

... and such can be used both for commercial and military purposes, as outlined by Heinlein.

[tagryn]

The progress that SpaceX has made has been impressive to date. Considering Constellation probably wasn't going to be doing manned flights until the late 2010s anyway, at least as far as low early orbit/ISS missions go there's not much of a loss there. The cost overruns on Ares were what killed the program and made privatization the more attractive option. I think a lot of the long-term outcome of this move will depend on what heavy-lift vehicles the private sector comes up wit - clearly NASA wasn't up to doing the job within an acceptable budget and timeline, and the agency paid the price for that.

I still like the Jupiter Direct idea of using Shuttle architecture already developed, but I guess that's not on the table.

[jordan179]

NASA suffers from the problem that it is vulnerable to extreme budget cuts whenever we get a Democrat in the White House. This is an example of the general problem with government programs: they are unstable because dependent on politics; in connection with the construction of space infrastructure this hampers them because major space programs are multi-year, sometimes multi-decade, projects.

Note that it is now the Democrats who are technologically regressive: compare with JFK and LBJ's original support of and Nixon and Ford's hostility toward NASA. The change really came with Bill Clinton.

[tagryn]

...except, the Administration actually increased the NASA budget by $6 billion over the next five years at the same time they discontinued Ares. I agree with you as far as instability in programs being a drawback of how our system works, but at the same time, Constellation/Ares was in serious trouble and unable to hit deadlines, so its hard to defend continuing down that same path.

[jordan179]

... but at the same time, Constellation/Ares was in serious trouble and unable to hit deadlines, so its hard to defend continuing down that same path.

They didn't replace it with any new manned spacecraft. In consequence, NASA will have no manned spaceflight capability for many years to come. They also didn't offer any alternative route for American Lunar exploration and settlement.

Aneutronic Propulsion

[rbrtwj]

Aneutronic nuclear fusion propulsion can make space travel more affordable. Going to the Moon, Mars and beyond, will be easy.

Re: Aneutronic Propulsion

[jordan179]

Yes, that's one of the reasons why Luna will be economically-important, and why she makes a good base for further exploration of the Solar System. Eventually, of course, we'll get most of our tri-helium from the gas giants, but that will be farther in the future, and from the POV of the Earth, Luna will still be the entrepot to the System.

Note that the tri-helium reactions are much more energetic than the most probable boron reactions. Thus, barring something like femto-technology to let us queer the odds, tri-helium will be of vital importance as a fusion fuel.

[jordan179]

The question I find myself asking is which nation-states will be around in a hundred years? Consider the dynamic shift in power on Earth since 1900. Where is the Ottoman Empire?

It's not a question of nation-states. It's a question of cultures. The Western Roman Empire is some 1550 years in its grave, yet the Roman legacy profoundly influences practically every culture in the modern West. And, to take your example, while the Ottoman Empire is long gone, the Republic of Turkey is doing just fine. Nations long survive particular state incarnations.

Then you must consider the fragility of colonies. Most on Earth split from their parent sooner or later. Also most sci-fi predicts an independent Luna. I guess it seems too high-risk.

Only if all you care about is the future power of your state, as opposed to the future influence of your culture.

Obama's simply not capable of taking the long view.

[jordan179]

It is not that it will be dominated by that of the founding nation-state. It's that it will be descended from that of the founding nation-state, and hence (all other things being equal) will be more akin to the founder's culture than to other cultures. And "McDonalds, Virgin, manga and restaurants of all nationalities everywhere" are fairly shallow aspects of culture, compared to founding philosophies, concepts of authority and right, marriage customs, and so forth.

Oh, and in the context of a future in which the Solar System is extensively colonized, eventually the colonial populations will grow to a combined total dwarfing that of the homeworld; they are likely to be far richer per capita than that of the homeworld within decades of their foundation. Thus, the future "globalization" is likely to come from offworld, past a certain point -- just as present-day "globalization" has originated largely from a Power founded in the New World, and it has been a very good thing for Britain that America considered her the Mother Country