SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
A NASA scientist suggests that building a base on the moon would be feasible within a $10 billion budget, in a special issue of New Space focusing on the feasibility of lunar colonization:
What if I told you there's no reason we couldn't set up a small base on the moon by 2022 without breaking the bank? The endeavor would cost about $10 billion, which is cheaper than one U.S. aircraft carrier. Some of the greatest scientists and professionals in the space business already have a plan. NASA's Chris McKay, an astrobiologist, wrote about it in a special issue of the New Space journal, published just a few weeks ago.
Before we get into the details, let's ask ourselves: Why the moon? Although scientists (and NASA) don't find it all that exciting, the moon is a great starting point for further exploration. Furthermore, building a lunar base would provide us with the real-world experience that may prove invaluable for future projects on other planets like Mars, which NASA plans to reach by 2030. The main reason the moon is not a part of NASA's plan is simply because of the agency's crimped budget.
NASA's leaders say they can afford only one or the other: the moon or Mars. If McKay and his colleagues are correct, though, the U.S. government might be able to pull off both trips. All it takes is a change of perspective and ingenuity. "The big takeaway," McKay says, "is that new technologies, some of which have nothing to do with space — such as self-driving cars and waste-recycling toilets — are going to be incredibly useful in space, and are driving down the cost of a moon base to the point where it might be easy to do." The document outlines a series of innovations — already existing and in development — that work together toward the common goal of building the first permanent lunar base.
[cont..]
Here are the articles in question, all of which are open access:
What Do We Do with the Moon? (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.29003.gsh)
Toward a Low-Cost Lunar Settlement: Preface to the New Space Special Articles (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0039)
A Summary of the Economic Assessment and Systems Analysis of an Evolvable Lunar Architecture That Leverages Commercial Space Capabilities and Public–Private Partnerships (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0037)
Lunar Station: The Next Logical Step in Space Development
(open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0031)
U.S. Government Funding of Major Space Goals: A Historical Perspective (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0036)
Site Selection for Lunar Industrialization, Economic Development, and Settlement (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0023)
Life Support for a Low-Cost Lunar Settlement: No Showstoppers (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0029)
Using the Agile Approach for Lunar Settlement (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0038)
Lunar-Based Self-Replicating Solar Factory (open, DOI: 10.1089/space.2015.0041)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MikeRo on Saturday March 19 2016, @09:42PM
Amen. The biggest issue with the Mars or Bust crowd is they don't know their history. Apollo, Gemini and Mercury were amazing projects and eventually the first moon landing will be viewed as the greatest event of the 20th century. But after a handful of landings, the public lost interest and budgets were slashed. The Mars or Bust crowd seem to think that this time the public won't lose interest and will pay for ongoing human Mars exploration, if only they can convince us to go once. But after a successful Apollo-style Mars mission, the public will lose interest and again budgets will be slashed. If we build up infrastructure in space and on the Moon, we have a shot at making it somewhat self-sustaining and then we can look at expanding outwards.