Any particular reason why we aren't colonizing the moon?

Seems legit. Source?

What kind of contributions? People are discussing ways to establish human presence outside of Earth and some retard say we should colonize on Earth instead because it would be more efficient.

The point is not to have another efficient colony, that's why it has nothing to do with the subject

Calling the guy a dirty spic and a shitposter is far more of a contribution, yes?

Big stock of Helium-3 that can be used in fusion reactors instead of Tritium.

Yes
Not that guy btw

LOL

Can't terraform it.
Mars will be drowning in water when we are finished :)

Possibly George H. Leonard, Somebody Else Is on the Moon
There's also a larger image of these strange structures.

In 1994 French radio astronomer Jean Heidmann first proposed a SETI observatory in the farside Saha Crater with a link to the nearside Mare Smythii plain and thence to Earth. Later Italian physicist Claudio Maccone brought this issue to the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. Maccone is proposing a radio-quiet zone on the farside that will guarantee radio astronomy and SETI a defined area in which human radio interference is impossible. This was all turned down because...

>This was all turned down because...
Far less financial investment necessary to build one on earth.
>but ayyyliums

...because the far side is populated.

>people who don't believe my Mars/Lunar fairy tales should be banned

todo-miedo.net/misterios-de-la-luna/
elreinodelassombras-zant.blogspot.com/2013/07/bases-extraterrestres-en-la-luna-y_2162.html

Only 2 sites i can find that image on. Seems heavily altered.

...

...

...

...

...

Because getting to the moon is almost as hard as getting to mars, but the long-term payout of colonizing the moon is far worse than that of colonizing Mars. Aside from this, the moon's surface conditions are dramatically more harsh than even the harshest day on Mars in every way. Temperature swings, radiation exposure, day/night cycle, gravity, atmosphere, available resources, and more are all much more mild on Mars.

If we can solve the problems with transit time to Mars (which, if Musk is to be believed, can be as short as 2-3 months with current tech) the moon won't even be a considerable option. It's like asking if you'd rather live in Antarctica or a remote forest in North Dakota.

...

Whatever happened to "muh oxygen 3 mining would make it profitable"

Don't worry President Elect Donald John Trump will make NASA great again.

At this point in time, it would be vastly cheaper to set up a moon base compared to a mars base.
But we haven't gone back since then.
I don't want to say aliens is the reason, but aliens are the reason why we can't go back and set up a base of operations.
Its part of the agreement NASA and the UN made with the small alien base that was already there for centuries.

look east monday night after sunset, super large full moon will rise

If laser-propulsion ever got advanced enough for space travel, would it make sense to set up a base on the moon for those launches?

>little atmosphere to interfere with laser
>weaker gravity to overcome during launch
>solar energy could power equipment in a more efficient way on the moon
>no adverse weather conditions present

Dust and extreme temperature changes could damage equipment, though. I wonder if there's a feasible way around that?

All that presumes that you're building things on the surface of the Moon. Why do that when you can just build things in orbit using materials mined in orbit from asteroids? Sure the lunar surface is extremely useful for industrial processes that require both near vacuum and gravity, but you wouldn't use it for everything.

because mining asteroids will likely always be more expensive than just shipping earth-like mining equipment to the moon?

Not necessarily. The primary cost would be in creating the processes in the first place, whereas that cost has already been paid for mining in gravity. It's a possibility that being able to work on every face of an asteroid at the same time would lead to higher throughput for the same amount of effort.

Plus mining on the Moon would contaminate the atmosphere of it with lots of dust, which would reduce the value of its surface for vacuum+gravity industrial processes. So either you can't do it or would have to add on extra cost for minimising contamination.

And that's ignoring the extra difficulties that come with the lunar surface, long day night cycle with rapid, large changes in temperature, the extremely abrasive regolith etc. Plus all the same vacuum problems that asteroid mining would involve.

Would you take a 3 years contract of lunar soil exploitation if it allowed you to provide for your family ?

Helium-3, and if at some point fusion is cracked and we need a massive supply of it, we WILL build on the moon.

But we won't build a city. It'll be a refinery full of robotic miners controlled either completely remotely or by a handful of human overseers.

Easier to get from gas giants.

Even easier to just produce it here

I reported you because you should stay in your fucking containment board

Announcing reports is a bannable offense, my easily triggered hombre' :^)

I haven't been banned yet my easily duped wigger