81–90 of 150 posts
While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon.
You mean the arrogant billionaires that think they can buy everything and anything and mostly ruin them?
Cause these are the only ones that have expressed interest, instead of, you know, contributing to more menial tasks like food/water shortage, environmental protection etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> preserve the planet in its pristine state For those that have jumped straight to the comments this isn’t the flavor of TFA: > The moon hosts several sites of extraordinary scientific importance (SESIs) to astronomy. > Only within the last 20 years have astronomers discovered locations on the moon where conditions are ideal for the study of the early universe. The far side of the moon, for example, is one of the mos…
"the installation of telescopes is possible at only three sites" The far side of the Moon is bigger than Russia. I have my doubts about such a categorical claim as "only three sites are suitable for telescopes". On Earth, we build observatories in mountainous terrain regularly.
There was a similar theme in Kim Stanley Robinson's book Red Mars - a lot of the initial crew of colonists actually wanted to preserve the planet in its pristine state. I thought this was completely crazy. There are no ecosystems to protect, no endangered species, no green living things. Moving development from Earth into space should count as an overwhelming win for the environment.
A key theme in the trilogy was the independence (or not) of Mars from Earth. This really kicks in when the Arkady character argues that as the actual inhabitants of Mars, the colonists themselves should decide how they make their future rather than Mission Control on Earth. Kim Stanley Robinson then explores this tension from several viewpoints (including terraforming, as you say) that are held by his major characters. This also defuses the possible criticism of the plot that such an expensive mission would have been conducted while leaving the massive issue of terraforming unresolved.
> I thought this was completely crazy.
So did a lot of the characters, especially the ones who go about the terraforming anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We've been able to carve out national parks before, why do you think we can't do that on a larger scale?
National parks require a nation, who owns parts of the Moon? Why would they be interested on making "parks" on their part of the land? Think of it more like Antarctica, which actually makes things fine I guess, since Antarctica is basically a big scientific lab, with almost no industrial development
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Age of Exploration has ended so long ago that we have all collectively forgotten how it works. Almost every square meter of land on Earth is covered by one group or another of People with Guns. The only ones that aren't are ones so deeply undesirable that nobody cares. But it actually works in a fairly intuitive manner. People who get to the Moon can do as they like there. Anyone who wants to stop them is invited…
Presumably those who get to own the Moon will have people here on Earth who they love or care about. Following the "this is just how it is" logic, what's stopping a barrel of gun from being pointed at those people?
That will be long enough that by the time it happens, they may not have any connections to Earth.
Plus, back on Earth, you have all the normal limitations of the gun barrel. If Nigeria doesn't like what Brazil is doing in space, Nigeria is still going to find it challenging to threaten the Brazilians doing space work with guns.
And to the point being made here, protesters protesting out in front of SpaceX are going to find it challenging to successfully deploy gun-power against them, because the local dominant People with Guns take a very dim view of violating their monopoly... and, likely, SpaceX (here really just any space company) is already acting with their approval.
The net of the complicated web of People with Guns here on Earth still pretty much boils down to the situation I described. Space exploration isn't going to be done by voting or polling, and the Veto of the Merely Loud (among the other vetos) that is so easy on Earth is going to prove quite difficult to project into space. In space, nobody can read your Earth protest sign.
While I understand their concerns, it seems a bit crazy to think you have any right to tell people what to do or not do on the moon.
Is it any more crazy than thinking that some corporation, country, or individual has a right to do something on the moon?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?
I think it actually might be the best spot because the far side of the moon is always positioned facing away from earth. Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that?
I know Mercury shares this. Not super useful, except at the boundary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These places surely cannot be scarce in the universal sense? Are they even scarce in our own solar system?
I think it actually might be the best spot because the far side of the moon is always positioned facing away from earth. Is there anywhere else in the solar system that can claim that?
If you're building on this scale, why not put two on opposite sides of, say, Deimos? The delta-v between there and LEO is less than the delta-v between the lunar surface and LEO: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/93/Solar_sy...
