I mean, there’s currently a space race to colonise the moon. Musk wants it to be a refueling station for Mars trips, China has a three phase plan (and it’s done one phase, scouting) to colonise it (the ILRS).
…so nah, I don’t think NASA has even really been considering it.
You don’t think that a space agency specifically focusing on space flight, travel and expansion hasn’t been extensively researched all of the options? I’m almost certain in the case of NASA it’s more a financial issue and less of not wanting to do it, and that the financial cost is not worth what they expect to get out it anyway.
As for the others, it remains to be seen what Musk will do. He’s got a lot of money to realise what he’s done so far, but I’m not sure if off-world facilities are within his budget (right now).
Not sure what China’s goal is though, they say it’s aimed at scientific research, but I’m not sure what they’re expecting to get out of it that hasn’t been done already. They could do similar research on a much cheaper and easier to maintain space station.
If they’ve decided there’s no research to do up there, and it’d be too expensive… Then why would they be looking at every option for how it could be done?
If they decided there’s not reseach value - they WOULDN’T bother looking at options for living on the moon… Because they don’t see value in doing so.
One can always research multiple options extensively, looking at different kinds of possible research on the moon and what they’d get out of it and whether or not it’s worth the effort, and then conclude that it would be too expensive. Research itself costs time and money too, and NASA has been tight on the money for a while I believe.
While SpaceX and China can practically burn money just for the sake of it.
When do you think they did all that research? Like, are we talking the 1960s? 1990s? 2000s.
…and when do they go "yep! That’s all the options!
Or do you think this research is just an ongoing and constant cost? Is so they’ve hardly “decided” there’s no research to do up there - and it’s too expensive… Like if they’re constantly looking into it, that’s hardly making a decision.
So yeah, I think I’m seeing gaps in what you’re saying. They don’t have some machine that simulates and calculates all possible methods of survival on the moon and costs them using mldern parts every year.
NASA is quite the bureaucracy, and has even gone through spates of firings and under fundings over the year - so I just think you’re venerating an ideal of them being absolutebin their rigor that just not there.
Maybe they’ve looked at some options, not others, but I don’t think they’ve researched and costd or been creative with it in a long long time.
Also what I’ve said would be relatively cheap compared to what China and Musk have looked into and decided is viable so to say such a small plan is impossible, that they’ve done the research on such options, and it mustn’t work, or be worth while… Well, I think you must just want to criticize and venerate NASA’ genius. Where as I suspect for lots of people - probably since the mid 80s - it’s just been a job. Work.
Work directes by each administration, mostly towards investing in observation and research of space phenomena and data. Longer term projects, and ongoing maintenance. Their drones haven’t been that great although they have landed plenty - I think they’ve ALL been for research, and never any aimed at construction or lasting survival.
Anyways your views have limits your imagination is against some ideas, it’s presumptuous. I get it. That’s fine. I just think most of what would could be trying doesn’t get looked at because it’s not within the scope of NASAs current aims and goals.
…which are mostly now outsourced to corporate America. It’s not some house of innovation, it’s not the same thing ot was in the 1960s. I think they’ve now given multiple billions to Musk and Bezos through SpaceX and Amazon Blue, and that speaks to NASAs current viewpoint on in-house experimentation and creativity.
Government institutions are always a product of their age, and in this era, NASA is controlled by the demands of Capital, not hope for humanity or what’s possible - innovation and research into capabilities has been increasingly delegated, outsourced as too expensive, and that’s sad.
Scientists and researchers in the modern economy can no longer stay places that give them the freedom to look into options, and must also go where the money is - which is also sad.
As economic wealth gaps in society increase, and industry grows wealthy, making the eich get richer, human capital, hope, creativity, gets crushed. The needs of Capital and the capabilities and freedoms of the richest over the poorest increase exponentially.
So we have people luke Musk and Bezos flexing in competition, business people and the wealthy, rather than actual scientists and researchers - and it’s a problem of this era of wealth inequality, and will likely continue to be.
I mean, there’s currently a space race to colonise the moon. Musk wants it to be a refueling station for Mars trips, China has a three phase plan (and it’s done one phase, scouting) to colonise it (the ILRS).
…so nah, I don’t think NASA has even really been considering it.
You don’t think that a space agency specifically focusing on space flight, travel and expansion hasn’t been extensively researched all of the options? I’m almost certain in the case of NASA it’s more a financial issue and less of not wanting to do it, and that the financial cost is not worth what they expect to get out it anyway.
As for the others, it remains to be seen what Musk will do. He’s got a lot of money to realise what he’s done so far, but I’m not sure if off-world facilities are within his budget (right now).
Not sure what China’s goal is though, they say it’s aimed at scientific research, but I’m not sure what they’re expecting to get out of it that hasn’t been done already. They could do similar research on a much cheaper and easier to maintain space station.
If they’ve decided there’s no research to do up there, and it’d be too expensive… Then why would they be looking at every option for how it could be done?
If they decided there’s not reseach value - they WOULDN’T bother looking at options for living on the moon… Because they don’t see value in doing so.
So your argument conflicts with its self.
One can always research multiple options extensively, looking at different kinds of possible research on the moon and what they’d get out of it and whether or not it’s worth the effort, and then conclude that it would be too expensive. Research itself costs time and money too, and NASA has been tight on the money for a while I believe.
While SpaceX and China can practically burn money just for the sake of it.
When do you think they did all that research? Like, are we talking the 1960s? 1990s? 2000s.
…and when do they go "yep! That’s all the options!
Or do you think this research is just an ongoing and constant cost? Is so they’ve hardly “decided” there’s no research to do up there - and it’s too expensive… Like if they’re constantly looking into it, that’s hardly making a decision.
So yeah, I think I’m seeing gaps in what you’re saying. They don’t have some machine that simulates and calculates all possible methods of survival on the moon and costs them using mldern parts every year.
NASA is quite the bureaucracy, and has even gone through spates of firings and under fundings over the year - so I just think you’re venerating an ideal of them being absolutebin their rigor that just not there.
Maybe they’ve looked at some options, not others, but I don’t think they’ve researched and costd or been creative with it in a long long time.
Also what I’ve said would be relatively cheap compared to what China and Musk have looked into and decided is viable so to say such a small plan is impossible, that they’ve done the research on such options, and it mustn’t work, or be worth while… Well, I think you must just want to criticize and venerate NASA’ genius. Where as I suspect for lots of people - probably since the mid 80s - it’s just been a job. Work.
Work directes by each administration, mostly towards investing in observation and research of space phenomena and data. Longer term projects, and ongoing maintenance. Their drones haven’t been that great although they have landed plenty - I think they’ve ALL been for research, and never any aimed at construction or lasting survival.
Anyways your views have limits your imagination is against some ideas, it’s presumptuous. I get it. That’s fine. I just think most of what would could be trying doesn’t get looked at because it’s not within the scope of NASAs current aims and goals.
…which are mostly now outsourced to corporate America. It’s not some house of innovation, it’s not the same thing ot was in the 1960s. I think they’ve now given multiple billions to Musk and Bezos through SpaceX and Amazon Blue, and that speaks to NASAs current viewpoint on in-house experimentation and creativity.
Government institutions are always a product of their age, and in this era, NASA is controlled by the demands of Capital, not hope for humanity or what’s possible - innovation and research into capabilities has been increasingly delegated, outsourced as too expensive, and that’s sad.
Scientists and researchers in the modern economy can no longer stay places that give them the freedom to look into options, and must also go where the money is - which is also sad.
As economic wealth gaps in society increase, and industry grows wealthy, making the eich get richer, human capital, hope, creativity, gets crushed. The needs of Capital and the capabilities and freedoms of the richest over the poorest increase exponentially.
So we have people luke Musk and Bezos flexing in competition, business people and the wealthy, rather than actual scientists and researchers - and it’s a problem of this era of wealth inequality, and will likely continue to be.