Water, the Moon, and Colonisation

With the recent discovery of fair quantities of water on the moon (near the lunar South Pole) the question of colonisation seems to have been reborn somewhat. Of course, having water at the site of your base would be a huge help to those manning it, as both a source of sustenance and a way to manufacture rocket fuel.

Of course, there are still many other problems associated with building a base on the moon. The cost of such a thing is the obvious one. Another serious issue is the deterioration of bone and muscle mass, and the effects of low gravity on the immune system. Yet more problems are the power issues (long lunar nights make solar power difficult to come by) and creating a breathable atmosphere.

Anyway, what is your opinion of space colonisation? Is it a good thing for our governments to spend taxpayer money on at this time? What sort of timescale do you think we are looking at? And when may it be possible to extend our reach outside of our Earth-Moon system?

50 years and colonization can begin, with today tech there's no posibility to even think about it

Well, that might be a little pessimistic mf92, as NASA plans a permanently manned lunar base by 2025, as does the European Space Agency- I believe Russia also has similar plans.

On the other hand, let's not swing the other way and, like Kennedy, predict that things are going way better than they are!

Can you make decent coffee with the stuff?

Good question, bbrout, I expect they will crash another rocket into the crater to find out.

I was just thinking about this last week, while I was considering reading Heinlein's "The Menace From Earth" again.  I don't think it would be all that difficult, except for the obvious fact that there's no air, the day/night temperature extremes are a little crazy, and the long-term effects of low gravity aren't known yet.  However (just as in Heinlein), I think we'll be able to work those things out, and maybe the biggest challenges will be the people ones.

It's simply a matter of costs. Like the International Space Station, it will involve a large cost per man-day (only more so). The question is whether the scientific benefits justify the costs. There were a lot of questions about ISSA because the money could produce larger scientific returns elsewhere, and I imagine there would be similar ones for any moonbase.

The moon is a great place for building various types of telescope. Any other scientific applications that leap out at you?

Elroch: We could use all the helium-3 to test out new fusion reactors! That way, when we get it wrong, there's a slightly lower chance of loss of life! 

The Obama Administration has suggested to NASA the they scrap plans for a moon base.  This may change due to recent discovery of water on the moon.  The reality of space exploration is bound by earthly budgetary constraints.  I think it goes w/ out saying that we (the U.S., ESA, and Russia) need to strike a balance of progressing towards space exploration w/ out breaking the bank.  Perhaps increased cooperation between the space fairing contries would allow for accomplishments such as man exploration of Mars. 

Yes, the helium 3 sounds interesting. Not sure how much they have been overhyping it (like the water). Another related idea that I had a long time ago was for a particle accelerator (just in case if makes mini black holes - if the moon turned into a black hole, all we would lose would be moonlit nights )

   Actually Elroch, if the moon were swallowed by a Black Hole, it would likely be the end for 95% of the worlds' population.  The Earth would shift on its axis plunging us into a new Ice age. Without Tidal action the Oceans would stagnate. Without Tidal action there would be no Jet Stream and no Gulf Stream to carry warm water and warm air northward. The Equatorial region would become an unliveable hothouse and the North a frozen wasteland. 

   That would all be acedemic anyway after the tidal waves, earthquakes, and Volcanos, finished with us.

   I can think of a number of other reasons to establish a presence there.  Foremost would be as a stopping off point as we head out on longer trips.

   I'm personally looking forward to Moon Ball, played in one sixth of Earth gravity in an indoor arena. Colonizing the moon will be a commercial enterprise eventually.

Um, not really.  A black hole retains mass and gravity of whatever it swallows.  A black hole that swallows the moon would be tiny, but would still have all the moon's gravity, and as long as you kept a safe distance, like 240,000 miles, the gravitational field would feel the same.  The tides, etc. would all continue.

taodell, Eternal_Patzer is correct, which is why I said the only change would be the lack of moonlit nights. The gravitational field from a black hole with the mass of the mooon would be indistinguishable from that of the moon. The tides would continue without change.

And it sure would be tiny. About 0.1 millimeters in diameter by my estimate.

 Personaly i think it is a great idea to set up a moon base. We have been in the space age for 40 years now and it's the logical next step.

Money should not be the issue as the hole universe lies out there to be discoverd.

My guesstemate for a fair time scale to set up a moon base is within the next 25 years, thus by AD2036 at the latest.

The current space agencies have to come to the party though. 

I have read an article, few yeras ago, that the concrete using the moon sand and resins has been already patented, ready for use.

Other big problem for colonies should be protection from meteorits and cosmic rays. Any construction should have an additional protection from the meteorits and also mini meteorits. There should be some fast tracing system of new holes with immediate fillings ready to close automaticaly any small opening.   

I would like to do some structural designs in that occasion, realy I would.