digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

US plans permanent base on Moon

news.bbc.co.uk — Will serve as science center and possible "stepping stone" for a Mars mission. Funds will come from scrapped shuttle missins, as well as other countries & even some businesses. Could the richest of us be vacationing at the moon in 15+ years?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kevinHaney, on 10/12/2007, -14/+16Alex will love this!
    • Bluth, on 10/12/2007, -11/+12Trebek?
    • wolfzero, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Graham Bell?
    • badave, on 10/12/2007, -6/+21No you nerds. Hamilton, our secretary of the treasury from 1789-1795. He would have loved spending money on things like these.

      And of course, you forgot "the Great". He would have wanted to conquer the moon right after conquering the Persian empire.
    • treelovinhippie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12My question is what about asteroids/meteors hitting the base on the moon?

      We all know most of them burn up in Earth's atmosphere, but the moon has no atmosphere and there is lots of evidence of impacts.
    • Otto, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7>>>"My question is what about asteroids/meteors hitting the base on the moon?"

      Several solutions:
      a) Build it underground. That would be more of a long term project though.
      b) Use airlocks and don't much worry about it. Odds against a collision are minimal anyway, and airlocks would prevent you from losing parts of the base even if other parts were hit.
    • LouCypher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7@badave:
      Alexander Hamilton
      Yea I remember. He was the one who had been shot by VP Dick Cheney
      errr... I mean... VP Aaron Burr
    • wacki, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"My question is what about asteroids/meteors hitting the base on the moon?"

      I would think sitting on the moon is a lot safer than the space station that is currently orbiting the planet. You are using that big rock we call the moon to protect you.
    • CriX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We have yet to get good numbers for Lunar mateorite flux but it's safe to say that this presents a real problem. Bases will probably be buried at least somewhat in regolith for meteorite and radiation protection.

      I'm not sure if the ISS is more or less vulnerable. The ISS is in LEO where there is a lot of debris, but the Moon is a gravity well... so I'm not sure.
    • xGORDOx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Hopefully someone will calculate how much weight the moon can sustain before it alters its orbit.
  • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -5/+87This is the stuff I want my tax dollars spent on. For the progress of man.
    • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+56Cmon people I wasn't being sarcastic, I'm serious, this is awesome.
    • AlanKc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+51I agree.
      And may I speak for all of us Space Geeks when I say:
      IT'S ABOUT DAMN TIME!
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Agreed. This is just cool.
    • BeefBaron, on 10/12/2007, -12/+31Until the USA claims the moon as a new state...
    • jer2eydevil88, on 10/12/2007, -1/+43At least this is something we can achieve... Stabilizing Iraq is the dream now..
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -19/+11"Until the USA claims the moon as a new state..."

      That would be even cooler.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13As huge as this sounds now, one day it will have just been a baby-step towards something far, far greater.

      It's crazy to think where this is heading. I wonder how much I'll get to see in my lifetime...
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7This is the stuff I want my tax dollars spent on. For the progress of man.

      no what sucks and i am into space as much as the next geek, but when politics mixes with anything there is trouble. Often as with computers, the techs promise more than they can deliver for the time and price and the politicians making the decisions dont have a firm grasp of the subject. Both president bushs suggested a manned mission to mars, despite we lose over 1/3 of everything we have sent there. A moon base will be awesome someday.... but as for science for the dollar, nothing can beat the small cheap no need for water robotic probes we use now. I just thinks this kind of grandiose experiments take aways from more feasible and more informative missions, like a probe to europa for instance.
      even the space station which is cool and all has been a waste of money for the science and discoveries it has made.
    • golhra, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8The first step to terra-forming the moon!
    • AlanKc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@PowerCow
      "Often as with computers, the techs promise more than they can deliver for the time.."

      Actually, even though some tech has failed in space, the ones we have gotten right have greatly exceeded our expectations. Just look at the Hubble Telescope, or the Voyager projects..
    • ByteGuerilla, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7I can't help but feel that we keep distracting our president with the war on Iraq, so he can't focus on the real issues - namely, the Moon... yes, I said it, the Moon.
    • gl00pp, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4will captain pickard be there!!!?
      OMFG what bout RYKER YEA RYKER!!!!
    • e68895f, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2 "This is the stuff I want my tax dollars spent on. For the progress of man."

      because the progress of man in earth is now complete and perfect?
    • CiXeL, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I'll believe it when i see it.
      They've been spouting off ideas like this for decades. Its always another 10-15 years away.
      This is the invisible carrot people. Its kinda like a contract-to-hire position.
      "Oh but if i only work hard enough I'll go perm!!"
      and when 2030 rolls around they'll have a new excuse
    • abertoni, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8 I will paraphrase the eternal words of Dave Chappelle:
      "The United States of the Moon, bitches."
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@AlanKc:

      thats exactly what I am talking about... instead of throughing money at a project that will probably fail to surface, like the super colider in texas and star war and even the space station that it would be better spent on things like hubble and the rovers and more probes and less people.. water and food is heavy.
  • rysolag, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1***** yeah bitch! This is what I'm talking about. Bomb.
  • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -19/+2don't you mean "in a studio?"









    j/k - lol
    • FunkyWitDaSysTm, on 10/12/2007, -12/+2it was a JOKE you weenies
    • mrASSMAN, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2that was mildly humorous. I appreciate your contribution to the discussion.
  • johnjohnstonson, on 10/12/2007, -15/+20what? did someone tell you that they were building nukes on the moon? not satisfied with invading earth countries eh? so what you gonna do? go in there, torture all the moon people, steal their...er...moon oil, and install a puppet government?
    you americans, you only want to go there so you can feel weightless. fat bastards.
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12WE had planned to nuke the moon once...to show the world our power
      Carl Sagan almost got busted as well for sharing some of his studies with other scientists.
      http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/nuke_moon_000514.html
      Probably would have looked cool, but definitely not a good idea.
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2ICBMs could reach the moon with a nuclear payload? Since when?
      I think mr. Riesel is a bit cnofuesd.
    • dancrew32, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3hey hey hey... only most americans are fat... all that other stuff is right..
    • logomancer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2AF General: "Sir! Are you saying we should blow up the Moon?"

      President: "Would you miss it?"
  • auxplage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Hawking will be happy.
  • LavaHot, on 10/12/2007, -6/+4Does this mean we're invading the moon for their oil, cuz I'm not sure they have any.
    • dwang1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+18no of course it's not for the oil, it's for their cheese Gromit!
    • imaskat, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I read somewhere that the president mentioned that there were WMDs on the moon...
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2is that different from the "telescope on the moon" article we had 2 days ago?
  • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3yeah it is cool and all but the moon is a bit farther away than most people realize and I would be willing to bet the rich wont be traveling there soon.
    To drive to the space station by car is like a bit over 3 hours and costs a person 20 million to get there by shuttle, to get to the moon 175 days ...by car..price by space ship??? and then you have to go through the Van Allen belt and i wouldn't want to do that on a regular basis.
    • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14I don't think we plan on driving there.
    • AlanKc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"The price of a round-trip ticket: $100 million."

      http://www.wired.com/news/space/0,2697,68495,00.html
    • drizek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5It takes 3 days to get to the moon.
    • dj_sea2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"It takes 3 days to get to the moon."

      if you think about it, 3 days is not a long time at all considering the weeks of hard traveling people would endure, just to get from the east coast to the west coast back in the 1800's.

      imagine what we could do in another 200 years time.
    • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually, it takes about half a day, if you travel by... dragonfly.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3What about getting there by Giant Lunar Moth?
    • dj_sea2005, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8"What about getting there by Giant Lunar Moth?"

      Im sure that will be a suicide mission. the thing will keep trying to fly into the sun.
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2People just do not appreciate a good "Dr Doolittle" reference....
    • Kolar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Humans need to get the ***** off this rock PowerCow.
  • daxsymbiont, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9"Could the richest of us be vacationing at the moon in 15+ years?"

    how ..humanitarian.
  • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12"Remember, The Moon belongs to America"
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Nasa is also expected to ask other countries - and businesses - to help it build the base.
      They also thought businesses would help build the space station and that never really panned out.
      promised manufacturing in space and such.
    • MackPrime, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2or atleast pay for some of it ?
    • TheWalkingDude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7"The Moon belongs to America"
      .. and anxiously awaits the arrival of our Astromen. Will you be among them?
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzuP_NuuvCM
    • PowerCow, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@MackPrime:

      I am just quoting the article, they are going to ask for other countries to help pay and if they expect businesses to help pay, they should look at the space station because there has been little commercial investment, which is what they expected when they first proposed it.
      @TheWalkingDude
      I can see clearly now, thanks..
    • smartass007, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3first come, first served. besides, no one else wants it, apparently...
  • broomett, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5For anyone against it...do some research on how a permanent lunar base can be used to provide more than enough renewable (solar) energy for the entire planet much more efficiently than on earth. And the main materials needed are alreay there.
    • vulcanius, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4Yeah, let's make a gigantic galactic extension cord, that sounds like a realistic plan.

      /sarcasm.
    • hambend, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5@vulcanius
      Maybe you should have done that research broomett was talking about.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave_power_transmission
    • Godel, on 10/12/2007, -5/+19Even better, a giant microwave gun mounted on the moon and controlled by the U.S. Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
    • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Well, at least they aren't putting a giant mirror into orbit that'll reflect 40% of the Sun's rays to prevent global warming. We all knnow what happened to Earthicans then.
    • IEatHamburgers, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@foobar:
      Better yet, let's concentrate the sun's beam through the mirror into one energy blast directed at our enemies. It'll be called Icarus and we'll leave it in the hands of a shady guy who talks in Korean behind our backs.
    • jonnyboy88, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Haha, I just remembered that scenario in Sim City 2000 where the beam misses the collector dish and starts a fire.
  • ateam, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Aghem... we've already got one of these things on the dark side of the moon.

    http://youtube.com/results?search_query=nasa+airbrush&search=Search
    • tedc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Azur2: "I note that no-one has come up with a compelling reason to go to the moon instead of some more interesting world, and with that I rest my case."

      Well, if you built an observatory complex there, it may well be powerful enough to find those more interesting worlds to eventually visit. That's what I am hoping for. Imagine an array of telescopes performing optical interferometry studies from the Moon. (That's where you link several smaller telescopes to attain the resolving power of a single enormous dish.) Radio telescopes have been doing this for years, but it has proven a tough challenge in the visible spectrum...at least from Earth. Even radio astronomy might benefit if they could convert one of the many craters on the far side into a receiver and start surveying in bands that are generally full of noise back home.
  • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -14/+2Why go to the moon?

    Seriously.

    It's a dead rock with little or no water, nothing of interest, and it is already fairly well explored. It's not even much use as a base for further space exploration (it'll take decades to get a moon base reasonably self sustaining, never mind having the factories and other infrastructure required for building spaceships on the moon).

    The money and time would be much better spent sending probes to Titan, Ganymedes, Enceladus and Europa - the most interesting worlds of our solar system, and none of which has been explored. Or, if you absolutely want a manned mission, make it to Mars.
    Mars has potential, the moon does not.
    • ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11The moon's soil is rich in Helium-3, the most ideal gas for nuclear fusion. If we're going to launch a mission to Mars, the moon would be a good refueling depot for a nuclear reactor... that way you can put just enough fuel to get you to the moon in the mission's craft at launch and refuel at the moon. Saves money and allows you to carry more cargo.
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -10/+1Oh yeah, sure, digg me down. Once you're done, please give me a good reason spending cash & time on going to the Moon rather than, say, Ganymede, Titan, Mars or Europa.
    • ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5I thought I just did...

      We need it as a stepping stone to Mars. It'd be nearly impossible to send a team with everything they need to make it to Mars and back just by launching from Earth and going straight to Mars.
    • NivMizzet, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1A Moon base could provide us with all the Building Blocks we need to build long range crafts with potential large deposits of Titanium to build large Ships and working space stations as well as the fore mentioned fuel potential.
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1@ikrit2006: 1) Fusion reactors are probably 30 years or more into the future. 2) Getting He3 to earth would be very costly. 3) It's much faster and cheaper assemble a spaceship in orbit around Earth than build a moon base, build factories on the moon, build a spaceport on the moon, then build the spaceship components on the moon, launch the components, and assemble the spaceship in orbit around the moon.

      @NivMizzet: Titanium is cheap and plentiful here on Earth.
    • ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11. 50 years... the base isn't even expected for another 14 which in reality is more like 20. I'd say there'd be at least another 10 before a Mars mission is even attempted... that'd put us 60% of the way to the fusion reactor... with the rate at which computer technology is being developed and applied to sciences to discover new things, I wouldn't be surprised if we had a reliable fusion reactor in 25 years.

      2. I never anything about getting it to Earth. I was talking about for spacecraft to use it... and again, in 20 years when we have the base, I wouldn't be surprised if the cost is far less than what it would be right now.

      3. Building a spacecraft on Earth is far quicker than building sections on Earth, launching it into lower Earth orbit and assembling there and it would cost less to launch the whole thing at once because you wouldn't have to launch a spacecraft with a team to go assemble parts. Let's just pretend what you said is done, we launch pieces, launch teams to go assemble, etc. After it's all assembled, we'd need to use a ton of fuel to launch a ton of fuel to the spacecraft so it'd be able to actually go somewhere. What's the point in that? The amount of fuel you'd use building pieces individually on Earth, launching into orbit, building in orbit, and then fueling in orbit is a lot greater than launching the whole ship from Earth with just enough fuel to get to the moon then refueling at the moon.
    • foobar5892, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Less ranting! More witty comments!
    • 0crabby0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3We don't need to go to the moon for Helium-3 it exists here on earth and is actually cheaper to mine and process here.

      We need to go to the moon for rare zeolites and salts!

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

      There might be three times as many types of zeolites on the moon(with less gravity) than on the earth.

      Zeolites are used everywhere, from making gasoline from crude - to water purification.

      There's also a gas/liquid we might mine called Silane.

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

      That could be used instead of hydrogen to power rockets...
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I note that no-one has come up with a compelling reason to go to the moon instead of some more interesting world, and with that I rest my case.
    • webfickle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@ azur, small steps you moron. you just dont ***** grow from 1yr to a 35 year old.
      there are smaller steps you must take. and all of this takes time.

      @ azur (yet again)

      "3) It's much faster and cheaper assemble a spaceship in orbit around Earth than build a moon base, build factories on the moon, build a spaceport on the moon, then build the spaceship components on the moon, launch the components, and assemble the spaceship in orbit around the moon."

      So i guess henry ford was pretty retarded creating the assembly line.
      You are thinking in a "now" kind of sense. Think of this long term. Its not easier creating one ship at a time. Making factories and a sort of assembly line on the moon will be better for making ships in the long run.
  • vulcanius, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1I hope NASA isn't put in charge given their not so shiny track record.
    • Balanced, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4>I hope NASA isn't put in charge given their not so shiny track record.

      You mean the record that includes getting people to the moon and back safely? Or the record of building several probes that have worked extremely well.

      Don't assume the relatively small percentage of errors and accidents are the norm. NASA has a pretty good track record overall in a dangerous field of exploration. Yes, they need to be critical of their own processes and work to control spending, improve safety, and otherwise make things better, but don't knock them for no good reason.
    • webfickle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4who else would be in charge idiot? canada? LOL
    • Natemaster007, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Just long as they check their units, we should be fine...probably.
  • Abno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10The moon base will be operational October 11, 2342. Mark your calendars.
  • tkcom, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Funds (in trillions) will come from scrapped foreign invasion plans.

    Only if that was said in 2001.
  • ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0I don't see why they try to hide the fact that NASA's budget is getting a nice expansion... just come out and say it. "We're raising taxes this year so we can give NASA more cash"

    Yea, they won't be launching shuttles, but they're also going to be building new spacecraft which should be just as or more costly than launching shuttles.

    Then you have to factor in the number of missions it will take to carry the whole thing to the moon... I'd be willing to bet it takes more missions to set it up than we'll miss between the time the space shuttle retires and the new spacecraft are ready.

    Then, there's all the shuttle missions that get bumped back because the space shuttles retired or because another piece of the lunar base needed to launch...

    Not launching the shuttle isn't paying for the lunar base, it's storing your wealth in material goods whose value degrades over time instead of putting it in a bank account to gain interest.

    Politicians lie and distort the truth because they can get away with it right in front of 75% of the American population.
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10I find your lack of vision disturbing.
    • ikrit2006, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0@Cheney

      My lack of vision or lack of blind faith in our elected officials?
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I'll pay more taxes for space exploration. The science is great for us, and the tax money goes to pay for more jobs for people educated in the sciences. Win-win. People forget too often the good things that come from the money NASA spends.
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Have you ever looked at what the percentage of the national budget devoted to NASA is? It's far less than one percent of the total budget. Now look at what we have gained for that investment. Still think that money spent with NASA hasn't shown a massive return? Do a little research and get back to us.
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1"Still think that money spent with NASA hasn't shown a massive return"
      Yeah like my new super comfy nasa bed!
  • mistercharlie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Permanent base" sounds so ominous. "Galactic retreat" carries much less of a military overtone, and may serve to distract the rest of the world of our imperialist plans. For a moment or two anyway...
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I recommend calling it a "Planetary protection center".

    • Walli, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Has to be "Moon Base Alpha"...
    • Chinzon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What's wrong with "Clavius"?
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Throw Hawking a bone and call it a warm standby.
    • webfickle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3How bout calling it "The Lunar Research and Abortion Center"
  • adeze, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2what about all the alien bases on the dark side, and at the terminator? surely the US could just rent it from them
    • mrlost117, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1ya I dont get it, we left last time cause we werent welcome and had not been back... what gives?

      :p
  • firelord24, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Damn skippy its about time. This may be the coolest thing to be planned by the space program in the last 20 years!
  • nicktripp, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2That's no moon!
  • helaughed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Now, will NASA actually pull through? I'm interested to see if it will actually put backing into this... I hope so. Its about time the U.S. owned a planet.
    • wazzadoin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2a moon. We will own a moon. (nevermind the emphasis of international support mentioned in the article.)
    • JEmerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Given that they're not even going to seriously begin thinking about it, at least according to the article, for about 14 years....I'd say they're not going to do it. As someone else mentioned, 14 becomes 20-something pretty quickly. And once we get to that point, there's bureaucracy, totally different government, probably only a sliver of former staff at NASA.... My glee at article headline faded pretty quickly into musings over whether I'll be alive to see this when it actually comes down. And I say that as someone in his 20s.
  • zhulien, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0if someone gets there first, then the US will need to invade them
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Seriously though, the fastest way to get the US back to the moon is convince China to go there. Or Iran. *chuckle*
    • Herkimer56, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1China is already planning their own trip to the Moon.
  • PiEp, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0And what about the piece of land/moon they want to put the base on? Hasn't the moon been 'sold out' by the Lunar Embassy?
    • Azur2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Fortunately every operation selling stars/land on the moon/land on mars/land on venus or anything else in space, is a fraud.
    • Anderssj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if it wasn't a fraud, how exactly would they go about evicting people off their property :P
    • NinjaBoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1First person there with guns owns it.
  • nirav72, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Hopefully they'll put a freakin laser on the moon!!!
  • Catchpen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Stephen Hawking just recently recommended we colonize somewhere other than the earth since humans will annihilate it sooner or later. Hey let's go whore out another planet!
    • kwelity, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0um the moon isn't a planet...

      anyone reminded of Space Odyssey by this? (book not movie)
    • repins, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2There was a book :)
    • MrContent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1What a ***** dick that Hawkins.

      Listen, you barely need a flippin 2nd grade to state that "We (the human race) need to populate another planet to survive a planetary catastrophe.".

      I mean, it does'nt get any more ***** obvious than that. And everyone is like, ohhh he's so inteligent. Well that statement was not very intelligent Captain Obvious.
  • kayjay, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2aaah, the moon, at least there theres no need for crazy airport security.
    the moon is the only place where the al quaida cant bomb you.
    also, there arent any insurgents in space!
    • Screwy1138, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2pfffft. YET. damn rebel alliance.
  • boiboi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Do you think tom cruise will visit the moon? he once said he used to travel the galaxies in the previous life defeating evil aliens. maybe the final showdown between Cruise and Xenu will happen on the moon.
    • Chinzon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3LMFAO I don't know why you're being dugg down.
  • hongy_r, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2what a monumental waste of money.
    • RedNeckerson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6If you think the space program is a waste of money, you should refuse to use XM radio, cell phones, cable TV, and most electronic gear including computers. After all, they're the result of wasted money.
    • webfickle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3hongy = monumental waste of atoms
  • tresk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Total Recall
  • civilwarlord, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Isn't Rita Repulsa's moon base still there? Can't we use that?
    • matts0344, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Yeah, I forgot about that.

      Doooo doo doo do di doooo (calls Dragonzord).
  • stellamaris, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My brother and I were watching "If We Had No Moon" on the Discovery Science Channel last night, and I wondered if I'd get to see people living on the moon in my lifetime. When I woke up, this was one of the top news headlines.
  • MrContent, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1The means to get there are ridiculous. If a missile is still the best way to get there I say don't go, the base will fail anyway.

    We have 15 years to make something better than a flippin bomb. I say focus on that.
  • Mystikal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Providing the Earth gets to 2024...
  • dantoniOH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0its not as fun as a good 'ol fashioned space race!
  • foxhaze, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Shouldn't we be aiming for our permanent base in the Middle East first?
  • 98formula, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Here's what it would look like if we were to blow up the moon!!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH1VW5K-UuU

  • leemac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Very exciting. We have to explore our universe as the Earth will not last forever. DUGG
  • malkir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I would love to see this. At the same time I don't think we as a species will get very far in space tech until we can show corporations how to turn a profit in outer space.
  • imaskat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What would it take to introduce an atmospehere to a planet satellite like the moon? I mean, I loved "Total Recall" and whole idea of that atmosphere being created on Mars was very cool (Sorry if I have ruined the ending for anyone). I wonder what it would take to make that happen on the moon? Would it be possible???
    • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The moon's size makes the atmosphere unliveable and probably impossible to terraform.
  • prodaea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We need a more efficient way to get out of the atmosphere.
  • joineddigg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0We need the money here on planet Earth.
    • Managore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yes. Otherwise, how will we declare war on Iran?
  • sumgi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's not far enough away
  • aer0sense, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1There should be a donation page setup for whoever in the world wants to donate for it on Nasa's website.
    • ersatzphi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Don't worry there are already donations going on.

      They're called taxes. :)
  • sfacets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does the US own the moon now?
  • rtini, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This will go nicely with our permanent base in Iraq. Maybe we can become a nation of 52 states!
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.