| Onyxmeth said: Maybe because we're currently in a bit of a pinch economically and the money NASA receives for these pet projects could be better spent elsewhere? I'm not saying cut them out forever or disband NASA, but this is really not the time to be spending millions and millions on space projects that won't have any followup for years and are doing this because of a situation that will happen millions of years from now. |
It isnt that space isn't economical, its that its economic effect are unknown. In 1950, we had no idea how important satellites would be for our economy, but because we spent lots of money on NASA and they developed this technology, we were able to reap the benefits of it.
What short term benefits could we get from a lunar base? The best example I can think of is Helium-3 supplies on the Moon, which is a highly efficient energy source. Because the Moon has no atmosphere, the moon is thought to contain large amounts of Helium-3 on its surface. If abundant amounts of Helium-3 are on the Moon's surface, and Helium-3 is as efficient and cost effective as scientists think it is, then it would be very economical to ship Helium-3 from the Moon to Earth. I'm not sure on the specifics, but I've read that one ton of Helium-3 would supply all of Earth's energy needs for a year, which would more than cover the transport costs from the Moon's low gravity to Earth and the maintenance of a lunar base that mined Helium-3.
