

A U.S. Army Study for the Establishment of a Lunar Outpost - 9 June 1959 - jericsinger
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/prorizon.htm

======
haribilalic
In 1967, the US signed the Outer Space Treaty. Article IV states that the "
_establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications… …on
celestial bodies shall be forbidden_ ".

<http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/space1.html>

~~~
gaius
We'll see how realistic that is when some vital resource is discovered in
Antarctica.

~~~
PakG1
I have no idea what your comment has to do with the parent? Sorry, confused,
could you clarify?

~~~
haribilalic
There is a similar treaty that applies to Antarctica. We know how to build
bases there (there are over 50 research stations in Antarctica). If the
Antarctic Treaty was broken by building a military base, there'd be a
precedence for building a military base on the Moon too — once we've figured
out how — and breaking the Outer Space Treaty.

------
bugsy
I like these parts:

"There are no known technical barriers to the establishment of a manned
installation on the moon."

"There is a requirement for a manned military outpost on the moon. The lunar
outpost is required to develop and protect potential United States interests
on the moon; to develop techniques in moon-based surveillance of the earth and
space, in communications relay, and in operations on the surface of the moon;
to serve as a base for exploration of the moon, for further exploration into
space and for military operations on the moon if required"

~~~
sorbus
The first is technically true, though. There is very little new technology
which would have to be developed to establish an outpost on the moon, it would
just be ridiculously expensive to ship everything up there.

~~~
bugsy
In 1959 I am not sure it was really true that there were no known technical
barriers. I appreciate though the optimism of von Braun (whose report this
essentially was) that there were no such barriers. In 1959 they still had a
number of things to do just to get to the moon, and 52 years later we still
have not established a base there.

------
RuadhanMc
Perhaps it is from growing up with Star Trek, but for me, space exploration
and settlement is a no-brainer. I almost feel as if that's our purpose as a
species. We're meant to evolve and expand. That's what we've been doing since
day one. Space is the logical next step.

------
timinman
"To be second to the Soviet Union in establishing an outpost on the moon would
be disastrous to our nation's prestige and in turn to our democratic
philosophy."

Though it is probably easier to see now than it was during the cold war, that
claim (especially the last part) is flawed logic.

Although countries may need to use military force for self-preservation,
functional ideologies do not need to be propped up by being first, more
prestigious, or impressive.

~~~
nopassrecover
Actually the success of ideologies is more closely linked to the success of
its implementations than its merit. For instance, the success of monarchies
for such a long period in history was based on their stability. Likewise, it
could be argued that the resurgence of democracy was based on instability in
the existing regimes, more than any greater merit in the ideology. If the
Soviets had been more successful, I can guarantee we'd be saying how the merit
of equality of income is why the Soviets were successful, but we'd be wrong,
just as saying the merit of democracy is why the US was successful.

------
hinathan
The zero-G to high-G simulator (diagram at the bottom) is wonderful. Drop a
sled down cliff for zero-G, then bottom out with a tight radius circle like a
centrifuge. Wow.

