[brityank]

... how about we use capitalism to our advantage?

We need to continue with exploration of space -- but we also need to get the pioneers, then the settlers, out into a true space station and Moon colony. The restrictions that the military holds on NASA, while necessary in part, are also the main holdback to Mankind's future in space. Were NASA in charge of the Western Expansion of the US we'd all be stuffed along the Atlantic/Pacific seaboards, still exploring the interior. Expensive? Yes; but Penny wise/Pound foolish, as there are many capitalistic opportunities known that can currently be sent off-Earth that will lead to even more.

Privatize Space Access.

[RKV]

I'd like to think positively of long term manned presence in space. The problem that we have is that the human body does not tolerate weightlessness well over long periods. At least, that is what my admittedly limited research tells me. If we want to go stay on the moon or in orbit for long periods we will have to overcome this issue. We are a long way from there now, if I read the science correctly.

[Man of the Right]

The notion that you need to have spam in a can to exploit space is a 1940s Sunday matinee concept. Technology and the world have moved on.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"We need to continue with exploration of space -- but we also need to get the pioneers, then the settlers, out into a true space station and Moon colony."

Why?

If you think government intrusion into our lives is bad now, imagine this "lifestyle alternative" on what would essentially be a civilian military base for government-selected elites.

If you want space to be a place where people can live in freedom, then the only way to get there is by private efforts, supported only by a government consent to homesteading-type property rights guarantees.

[First_Salute]

Yes.

The moon is the "satellite" we need, which will not be threatening to re-enter Earth's atmosphere every decade.

From the moon, we can launch and land with much less stress on the vehicles.

A space station in orbit around the moon, could much more easily be serviced from there, than from here.

The trouble is not really the cost, but is the "thing" about neutrality, about which everybody signed off on [using the moon] aways back.

But since those treaties, we seem to be getting along pretty well down in Antarctica; so why not on the moon?

[Dec31,1999]

Privatize Space Access.

While I agree, I wonder if it is profitable yet. Sometimes the state needs to subsidize projects with vision which are not yet profitable in the private sector, IMO.

Columbus wouldn't have sailed to the New World if it hadn't been for Queen Isabella's funding.