Talk:Lunar outpost (NASA)
|WikiProject Spaceflight||(Rated C-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Solar System / Moon||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
- Gregg Easterbrook is probably a great columnist, but why is he singled out among any other who editorialized about the outpost ? Hektor 20:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- I don't understand your argument. Because multiple people have offered criticism we shouldn't mention any of them? In any event, I have added several other critics, so if that is your argument it no longer carries such weight as once it might have. Jacob1207 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- The columnist quoted uses unscientific and inflamatory words, and provides no rational arguments. If humans are to colonize space, I would think the moon would be about the first place to go.
- I have added the material back, albeit leaving out some of the more inflamatory parts. If you read the article, he does provide quite a few good reasons. He main argument is not that a Moon base is useless, but that the massive resources that must go into it could be better spent on other useful scientific projects. I think this is captured in the quotation provided and other remarks about his column. If you still disagree, let's talk. Jacob1207 22:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- His argument is about how the benefits do not outweigh the costs. He literally says that you could do more with robots. Just to plug my own opinion here, I disagree completely. If you study history, you can see all the inventions that were borne out of space exploration that we take for granted. Imagine the things we will invent in order to survive in an uninhabitable planet! We will invent things that allow us to live off barren land and create self-sufficient methods for living. The technology that will be created will make extraordinary use of solar power. Think of how this technology will translate to Earth uses. Think of how surviving in a land with no access to oil will force us to think of a way to use "greener" energy! The benefits of moon colonization are REAL, they are not abstract and valuable only to scientists, they are valuable to all mankind and planet Earth. Tablecat (talk) 23:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Rename to NASA's proposed lunar outpost? or merge with Colonization of the Moon?
In my opinion, lunar outpost is a horrible name for a page that describes NASA's proposed lunar outpost. Is it the purpose of this page to discuss all lunar outposts, or just NASA's? Several countries have plans to place human outposts on the Moon, and NASA's proposal is only the latest such suggestion. It is not obvious how this page is supposed to differ from Colonization of the Moon. Some explanation of what the rationale of this page is would be greatly appreciated. Lunokhod 22:31, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
- Lunar outpost is a temporary name before an official name is selected by NASA. The goal of this article is to document the facility which has been outlined by NASA early december as its next major space project after the International Space Station. Hektor 05:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
- Perhaps a rename to Lunar outpost (NASA) would then be appropriate.
I realize that this article has already been moved, however, I think its focus should be changed and the article renamed again. This article is about NASA's Lunar Architecture Study and the proposed base it outlines as a continuation of the Vision for Space Exploration and Project Constellation. Right now, there isn't a real plan for a lunar outpost, there have been many studies like this one done in the past, just look at the chapter on Lunar Architecture in the Exploration Systems Architecture Study for a partial list of previous studies. While this might materialize into a real lunar outpost, right now it shouldn't be represented as such. Grant 17:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's important to recognize that "outpost-duration missions" are the plan-of-record for implementing NASA's current vision for human visits to the lunar surface. That it is current makes it different (right now) from previous proposals. (Of course the article probably overemphasizes the likelihood of this mission being accomplished. Something similar may eventually get built but by that logic, ISS is "Mir 2". ;-) In any case, the first subsection of the article makes it clear the article is specifically about NASA's reference design for a lunar polar outpost. The chapter Grant mentions uses the phrase "lunar outpost" 38 times, but maybe the article should be renamed to "Lunar Outpost Reference Design (NASA)"? Sdsds 23:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
New page outline
I'm working on re-writing this article, making it about the Lunar Architecture Study. Here is my proposed outline:
- The Studies Purpose
- The Studies Recommendations
- Sortie vs. Outpost
- Polar Outpost Site
- Outpost Buildup
- Justifications for a Lunar Outpost
- Post 2025 Opportunities
Please let me know what comments you have on the above outline. Thanks! Grant 19:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- I think there should be an article just like the one you outline, and it should probably be called "NASA Lunar Architecture Study". It would be great if the "Polar Outpost Site" section said "See main article at "Lunar outpost reference design (NASA)". Sdsds 23:15, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- both good ideas - there are many pages that need linking together - one thing I notice is that there is a good page on Project_Constellation - it would be a good idea to start there, linking to the new Lunar Architecture (NASA), and perhaps some kind of template like the one used here for easy navigation to linked topics sbandrews 13:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- The outline should include the "Criticisms" section that has been added back in. I think it fits in well after "justifications." Jacob1207 03:43, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Importance to Space exploration
I have (with this edit) reclassified this article as being of "High" (rather than "Top") importance to space exploration. It seems like a close call, but establishing the outpost is planned for so many years in the future that making it "Top" importance today seems overly ... optimistic. (sdsds - talk) 21:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- This is the successor project of the International Space Station, which is Top, so it should be at the same level. It is also the first permanent settlement of humankind on another celestial body. Hektor 08:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
I've gone a step further, and reduced the importance rating to "mid".. this is a hypothetical outpost, and seems unclear whether it will actually happen (so the analogy to the ISS is way off). I've also reduced the quality rating for the same reason; the information seems outdated.. is this still actually being planned? Mlm42 (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
"These criticisms perhaps fail to grasp the importance of Mankind's personal involvement with his exploration of space and the inherent possibility of a future dependence on robotics." I question both the neutrality of this statement and whether "Mankind" should be capitalised or not.
- I removed this section because it appeared to be original research and not neutral. GrantHenninger (talk) 18:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Neil Armstrong, however, was very candid in his descriptions of existing structures and lifeforms on the moon. Naturally, this has been heavily censored. Additionally, there have been major mining operations on the moon for decades. When the Illuminati destroys itself, and the inner earth inhabitants return to the surface, we will learn the truth of these things. In the meantime the public are expected to believe that the moon has practically no man-made construction since the 60's. More believable would be the suggestion that Humans are made from cardboard and masking tape, with a drop of honey mustard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:43, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
Alternatives are not proper criticisms
Writing as someone who worked at NASA for years as a manager, there are still major problems with the criticism section.
1) That some group criticizes expenditure for a rival project does not automatically make their arguments correct, or even encyclopedic. There has long been rivalry within NASA manned vs. unmanned spaceflight. The article does not make it clear that the “criticism” is partly the platform of those opposed to manned spaceflight. (I’m about to correct this.)
To expand on this (without intruding on the article), just because there is a US budget battle established, hypothetically, between reusable energy resources and a manned lunar base, or hypothetically, between a new class of attack submarine and a manned lunar base does not make the comparison encyclopedic. I.e., a think tank could chose to compare a manned base to any pet project. These “the money could be better spent elsewhere” arguments are political devices and suppositions, not encyclopedic fact.
2) The criticisms are dated, now that significant water sources have been found on the moon. Buzz Aldrin (before water was discovered) characterized the moon as lifeless and barren, but that applies almost equally to Mars. It’s probably true that Moon water is much cheaper to extract, while the sun’s energy source is stronger, and more reliably unaffected by Mars’ planet wide storms. I.e., Aldrin was touting a political agenda that is now less well supported by fact.
3) Given NASA’s commitments to existing projects, and given its generally leisurely response to new opportunities — many projects take years of investigation before significant funding is established — there has not been time to develop proposals based on the water finds. It’s certain that the graphics shown in the article, developed 20 years ago, will have almost nothing to do with a colony with a water ice-emphasis. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 07:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC)