Apparently, the Chinese have decided to shelve plans for a manned moon landing by 2020. According to XinhuaNet, there are no plans for activity beyond the landing of a rover and the return of samples by 2017. Officials state that the technology for a manned program is still out of reach and that the risk and expense are too high for a 2020 landing.
This is an interesting development. I think there was some real interst in China for putting taikonauts on the moon. No doubt, the infrastructure and development needed for such an effort became apparent. There is considerable prestige for any nation that manages to return the crew safely from a moon landing. But the pragmatic characters in the governing party surely recognize that the Giant Leap for Mankind has already been done and that resources are better spent on other “firsts”.
Other than operating a kind of Lunar Ice Station Zebra where a few lonely scientists would bivouac in metal pressure cans out in the hard vacuum and cosmic rays, I can’t think of a compelling reason for anyone to reside there for too long. For the value proposition, it’s hard to come up with any known mineral wealth up (over?) there that would justify the cost of transport. Generally, only pharmaceuticals have the extreme $/kg that might cover the expenses. Mumbai, Newark, and Shanghai are much closer. But who knows, maybe they’ll find a big vein of rhodium (US$6375/toz) on the surface.
Planetary scientists and atronomers would make good use of a lunar research station. But funding it would almost certainly require the shutdown of many other kinds of research here on the Good Earth. But what else would we do there? Take pictures? Wave the flag?
Going to a moon station would be like going to jail. You would be confined to a cramped pressure vessel for the duration and Death could visit in new ways and old. What if you get a toothache? Would NASA have to mobilize a rescue?
What real military leverage would any country get from a moon base other than defending the moon? If you could afford a military moon base, you could also afford a fleet of nuclear submarines that could hammer any patch of real estate on earth you desire, and maybe bounce the rubble a few times.
I suppose there is planetary tourism. A couple of weeks in the ISS will cost the plutocrat down the street a cool US$20 million. Imagine what One Small Step on the moon would cost. Maybe Richard Branson is working on a package deal- rountrip space fare (coach seats, Virgin Galactic) and a week in the fabulous Sheraton Green Cheese resort for US$50 million. Some restrictions apply.
Lamentations on Chemistry 
Return to the moon!
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/nasa2.htm
staffing
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/nasa3.htm
transportation, consummables, lodging
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/nasa.htm
supplementary financing
Gaussling! How could you?
What did Columbus on his way to discover a new route to the east expect to find? What could he expect? But it lead to “a New World” – yes?
Of course there is no good reason to build a colony! But, we also don’t know until we try what we will learn.
Could also try to colonize under the sea. Maybe its been done… I don’t know. How does submarine travel compare with space travel. Never done either.
There are choices about where to put resources. Unfortuanately, I’ve never been good at those decisions – probably why I’m not in administration.
My point is – it is always easy to be a nay sayer. Exploration and development never looks good and often costs a lot. (I’ve been reminded multiple times recently that support of the American colonies apparently cost the French King his life in the French Revolution – thank god he did support us…) But exploration and development lead to new things.
Exploration and development = R&D – which never is put in the + column when you do the books, but the products that R&D lead to are what eventually give us something to put there…
Right? or am just in left field again?
Bill,
I understand your agument about the merits of exploration. But I am coming to realize that in order to have a moon base, we need concrete reasons to be there. Comparisons with Columbus need to take into account the fact that the early motivations for travel to the new world were absolutely pragmatic. They were looking for wealth and trade. The early Spanish voyages to the new world were looking for gold, silver, and conquest.
The payoffs that NASA is looking for are less compelling and I’m not sure that it is enough to do the deed.
After a lifetime of staunch, unwavering support of manned space exploration of the moon and planets, I now find myself slightly favoring robotic exploration instead. A large fraction of aerospace resources go into life support and constraints based on human biology. If you dial those out, then there is a big uptick in bang-for-the-buck. Manned space exploration is subject to loss of crew accidents that bring in political meddling too. Robotic probes do more things faster and without casualties.
It seems that much of the manned space program of NASA is aimed at how to do manned space programs. NASA no longer needs explorers, it needs superintendants and managers. There is a lack of emphasis on exploration that is evident to outsiders like me.