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: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Saturday March 19 2016, @10:48PM
There is also the other interpretation, which is that actually at least some of them understand it perfectly well and do it deliberately so they come come back and score more points attacking NASA on budget issues again the next year.
Practically nothing else a politician can mess with has anywhere near the degree of guaranteed result as f***ing around with a public project's budget, specifications or management/oversight - it will always make it worse, doesn't matter if it's space, defence, transport, health, IT, whatever. The beauty, for the politician, is that it could have been that bad (or worse) anyway, and no one can disprove that without a time-machine and an assassin. Meanwhile the fact that it _is_ now that bad, obviously completely justifies the politician's original decision to mess with it in the first place to prevent it being worse. Such stunningly accurate foresight, such dedication to protecting the public purse, demands votes...