The United States should establish a base on the moon.

1. Why should the government be involved?To justify building a moon base there needs to be something that makes it worth doing and reasons why it won't get done without the government. Let's first look at why the government should be involved at all.Some investments take too long to mature to make the risk worthwhile for private investment. Long investments are subject to the risk that something entirely unexpected will happen that dooms the investment prospects. A cheaper way of doing something maybe found unexpectedly. Also patents expire in 17 years, so if an invention has not earned it's investment by then, it's never going to recover. A moon base is an effort that has risks and will take decades to become economic. Earth-based green energy, by contrast, does not have that characteristic, but many space projects do.There are some problems which are inherently matters of national interest. Defense is the classic example, but for a moon base it's climate engineering and infrastructure. One national issue is providing the infrastructure for low cost exploitation of space, the development of climate engineering solutions to global warming, research and development of space solar power that will take many decades, and basic scientific research that improves or understanding of the universe, An understanding of basic science has advanced mankind immensely, but it has no certain economic payout and accounting of the benefits. There is also a benefit to the human spirit. to some extent, it's like asking "Are poetry, movies, and novels necessary?" In terms of food and water they are not, but they feed the human spirit. someone suggested that a manned mission to Mars could be paid for entirely by the television rights. There is also the space tourism business, now at the point where Russia sells trips to the international space station to wealthy individuals. these are examples of people paying for experience independent of the experience making a profit. It's hard to quantify, but its worth something.2. Space RefuelingThe LCOSS lunar probe two years ago verified that there is water in the subsurface soil of the moon. [P3. http://www.nytimes.com...] Separately, scientists analyzed moon rocks recovered by Apollo 17 to establish that there are large amounts of water locked in moon rocks. [P4. http://io9.com...] Craters near the poles have very cold areas permanently in shade that hold significant deposits of ice. [P5. http://www.nasa.gov...] "The ice must be relatively pure and at least a couple of meters thick to give this [radar] signature."Water is important for sustaining a moon base, but water can also be broken down o hydrogen and oxygen, the components of rocket fuel. 90% of the weight of a launch vehicle from earth is the rocket fuel. If a refueling station were available in space, launch vehicles could just go into low earth orbit from the earth, then refuel to continue into high orbit, or to the moon, or deep space. Supplies of water and oxygen could also be provided.Stone Aerospace [P6. http://www.stoneaerospace.com...] has proposed a one to two year mission to demonstrate the economic recovery of fuel from the moon. The Shackleton Crater Expedition [P6. http://www.stoneaerospace.com... ] is planned to cost $5 billion.3. Large Reflectors for Climate Engineering and Power3.1 Climate Engineering. It doesn't matter whether global warming is now primarily human-caused or not, climate has always changed and will continue to change. attempts to control CO2 emissions re terrifyingly expensive, and are bound to fail because China, India, and the rest of the developing world are not going to destroy their economies by signing on. Moreover, there is a risk that even if CO2 control were successful, climate would continue to warm anyway due natural causes. The current temperature of the earth is 287 degrees Kelvin, with nearly all the heat coming from the sun. Hence, blocking 1.4% of the sun's heat would bring about 4 degrees of cooling, about the amount of warming predicted by those who believe CO2 is the cause. The diameter of the earth is about 8000 miles, so blocking 1% of the energy from the sun would take a reflector about 600 miles in diameter, or the equivalent in reflective material distributed in patches. A study a few years ago concluded that building a mirror that large was not feasible. [P8. http://en.wikipedia.org...] However, if the material for the material was mined on the moon and send to earth orbit using a mass driver [P9. http://en.wikipedia.org...], the cost could be dramatically reduced. since a space reflector does not need a supporting structure, it could be be made of extremely thin aluminum alloy. Lunar soil has large percentage of aluminum and iron. [P10. http://www.crystalinks.com... ] I lunar base could convert the soil into structural components.The mission over the next few decades would be to demonstrate the feasibility of building a large reflector. the technology would then be available in case it is needed. 3.2 Extending daylight. There are several uses for reflectors that are a few kilometers in diameter. One is extend daylight in the winters of northern cities. An old (1982) NASA study [P11. http://ntrs.nasa.gov...] determined that reflectors illuminating northern US cities would pay for themselves in 4.5 years due to savings in electric lighting cost. I don't know what a current cost analysis would show, but it would make a good subject for a feasibility experiment.3.3 Solar power stations. the concept is to concentrate solar power using a reflector, use the energy to generate electricity, and beam the power down using microwaves. The technical issues have been studied for a long time. The feasibility depends upon launch costs. A recent study concluded "Such a project may be able to achieve economic viability in 30 years or less" [P12. http://www.dawn.com...] Economic viability means that the electricity generated would pay for the launch and construction costs. The viability risk depends upon the technical risk of the project, but the cost of earth bound power generation. Green energy from wind and solar is so expensive, that if it is required it would very likely ensure the viability of the space alternative. It's more likely, that space power would be needed and practical 30 to 50 years in the future. Large space structures for any application in earth orbit will be much more efficient if the structural elements are fabricated on a moon base.4. Basic researchA moon base is the obvious place for research on the structure and origins of the moon, but it's also the ideal platform for deep space telescopes. The moon is very stable and a large telescope mirror can be made from lunar dust or by spinning a liquid into a parabolic shape. [P13. http://www.technologyreview.com... ] the moon is also an ideal location for a large radio telescope. [P14. http://www.thelivingmoon.com... ]A mass driver could launch deep space probes and provide the structures and fuel for a manned Mars mission. 5. CostsA minimal four-person moon base would cost at least $35 billion plus $7.5 billion per year to operate. Do support the tasks required, about a 24-person base seems appropriate. Figure $200 billion to establish, plus $40 billion to operate. Over time, the costs would decline due to value of the fuel and energy produced.DebateRules attempted after hitting "Accept" don't apply. Con may structure his arguments as he wishes.