No Stupid Questions

Putting bases on the Moon means we can do more studies, experiments, etc. outside of Earth, particularly tasks that are difficult to complete by current rovers. Human physiology in low gravity situations, lunar geology, possibility of water and life outside of Earth, that sort of stuff. I'll also echo what others have said about how the Moon could become a launching base for future explorations, given its lower gravity and lack of an atmosphere.

There isn't a conspiracy by lizard men to set up a Death Star, this is driven by the curiosity of humanity and our desire to explore the unknown. The "race" to have the first base between Americans and Chinese is, like during the Cold War between the former and the Soviets, a push to be the first, trying to show that they are ahead in terms of technology and science. In a nutshell, it's driven by curiosity and, at least partly, national pride.

Neither place is close enough or has enough resources for more than a research base, and remotely operating robots on Mars would be a lot easier and safer.

Whoever gets to the moon first gets to throw moon rocks at the others.

I've lost hope that we can ever get to the scale of moving and living anywhere else, not in time before things get worse and resources are scarce. See the start of Interstellar, but without the secret NASA still working on stuff and any extraterrestrial help. So a Earth dying while we fight over scraps. Or the Bladerunner universe but without anything off world, just what we see.

But... if we could find that window and get out there. I still think Gerard O'Neill's ideas are sound. Gravitational wells can be useful for some resources, definitely great for science, but why go back there once you get into space? Energy-wise it's stupid. There's a lot of work and research still on how best to make space habitats safe from radiation and other effects from being away from Earth, but they aren't unsolvable, it just takes being out there and working at it.

The plus is that once we can build one, we have the whole solar system to use, not just a few planets and moons. Collecting sunlight, or making our own, is the only limit. An old National Geographic on this had one artist concept of a habitat far out past the gas giants, and it was a huge mirror assembly with the habitat as a small speck in the middle. Of course getting around will still take a long time unless we break through with fusion or better, but again, being out there will make us work on that more to improve it.

But that's if we can stop doing some of what we're doing on this planet long enough to make the first steps. I don't see it... but stand to be proven wrong and would be ecstatic to see what we almost started in the 1970s.

Datacenters is why China is so interested. Low radiation in moon caves. Free cooling. Low risk of espionage.

fuck

I can think of a few reasons.

First, there is a school of thought that says that the planet is ultimately doomed, and if we want to survive as a species, we need to get off of it. The first step is setting up an off-world base and maintaining it. The Moon is the most convenient place for that. Once we establish that, Mars is the next logical step.

But from there, we also need to get to other places in the universe. The gravity on the moon is significantly weaker than Earth, and it would cost much less fuel to launch to other planets (and beyond) from the moon than from Earth. Of course, that advantage is negated if all that fuel needs to come from Earth, so the space nerds would need to learn how to make rocket fuel out of lunar materials, which they are working on. (A moon base could also allow us to mine passing asteroids for raw materials economically, brcause it will burn far less fuel to get there and back.)

There are also definite scientific benefits. We are currently launching remote observation satellites from Earth into the Lagrange points so they can point outward and be shielded from emissions from Earth. But we can put a much larger manned apparatus on the dark side of the moon (using the moon itself for that shielding) and get all sorts of data that those remote telescopes alone can't gather.

Finally, there is the simple competition between nations. The US will try and establish a moon base first, to try and call "dibs". Eventually, we may end up sharing scientific endeavors there, like we "share" Antarctica. (Actually, the Antarctic situation may be a good analogy for how we will eventually manage the political situation on the moon....)

I personally think manned missions after the first landing is kindq dumb. We should be working on automating in space and if we get that to the point where we can completely kit out a base for humans to use then maybe send people to it. Ultimately to me if space has any future we need to get to where we have a mining and manufacturing loop that can all take place in space.

people love the dream/myth of cutting their old lives free and moving away to start a new one. this is that dream writ large for megalomaniacs who have already run as far as they can from the people they've hurt and from themselves.

There is a lot of science we would like to do in space / on the moon that we can't do on earth. Also some science that we can but shouldn't do, such as some virus research.

I’m getting more cynical as I get older, I witnessed the moon landings when I was young and I was thrilled. Humans are not made to live in, or to travel though space. Space, with its vacuum and high radiation levels is extremely unwelcoming. We better stay on Earth and fix our beautiful planet! But, it is again a space race, if NASA or Bezos or musk don’t get there first, the Chinese might. OMG! The Chinese! So we invent a lot of reasons why humans must live on the moon or mars - whereas our robots are doing a pretty good job in exploring these planets or the universe.

We need the Helium-3 from the moon.