The United States should establish a base on the moon.

It motivated me to look into the subject, from which I learned a lot. CC 1. Source P6 says hydrogen and oxygen can be derived from water, and Con offers no evidence it cannot. Water is H2O, with two atoms of hydrogen bonded to one oxygen atom. Electrolysis, application of DC voltage, separates water it into hydrogen and oxygen. The process is energy intensive, but it is well established. Recently, scientist discovered that a catalyst will lower the energy required for electrolysis. [P16. . http://oilprice.com... ]. The sun gives off hydrogen as the solar wind. Hydrogen from the solar wind bonds to to the lunar soil to a depth of t least 2.6 m and can be recovered by heating the soil. [P 17 . http://www.nss.org... ] It's probably easier to get it from water, but that's another method. Power for a moon base could be provided by the combination of solar panels with fuel cells. A fuel cell is another way to produce hydrogen. When the sun is shining, electricity from the solar panels separates water into hydrogen and oxygen. In solar night, the hydrogen is recombined in the fuel cell to produce electricity. this was studied as early as 1993. [P18 . http://www.nss.org... ]CC 2. I think Con is arguing that putting the base underground to protect it from radiation would be expensive. The Shackleton Crater Expedition included the cost in their $5 billion estimate for a mission that established a small base and further produced demonstration qualities of fuel. One of the mission objectives for the lunar base is to mine surface minerals and refine them into metals for structures. That implies that equipment for moving and processing lunar soil are part of the startup costs anyway, so that equipment could be used for excavating the the base location. the thin metal of the international space station provides adequate protection for up to a year, so the vehicle transporting the astronauts and then a space station-type of habitation would suffice until the base is constructed under ground. I allotted $200 billion in startup cost, which is probably generous. CC3. The study con cited was for microgravity in an orbiting space station. The gravity on the moon is 16.7% that of earth. The Apollo space suits used on the moon had weight on earth of 200 pounds [P19. . http://en.wikipedia.org... ] On the moon they would weigh 33 pounds. In orbit, they would weigh zero. If 33 pounds is not enough to adequately prevent bone loss, weight could be added to restore the equivalent of the astronauts weight on earth. In orbit, centrifugal force balances gravity, so the technique of adding weight does not work. The effective weight in orbit is always zero. If no measures are taken to prevent bone loss, the longest an astronaut could stay safely on the moon is 22 months. [P20 . http://www.nss.org... ]. The planned crew rotation is only 9 months, so even if no measures are taken to prevent bone loss, the mission would be safe. Increasing the equivalent body load to 3/8 of earths gravity would extend the safe mission duration to 36 months. or a 180 pound astronaut, that would be accomplished with an earth weight of 404 pounds, weighing 67 pounds on the moon. CC4. Con concedes heavy lift rocket development is not a problem. CC5. Con successfully rebutted an argument I never made. whatever population problem the earth has, a moon base doesn't address it.3.3 Solar power stations. Con introduces new arguments against a solar power space station. He points to a treaty prohibiting weapons on space. I don't understand the relevance to a solar power space station which is not a weapon, and could not be used as a weapon. I'm guessing that someone might think the microwave power beam that sends the power to earth might be used s a weapon. That's not possible because the energy density in the beam is too low. The beam is spread out over several square miles so that it does not pose a threat to wildlife or to the environment. Since it poses no threat to wildlife, it wouldn't be useful as a weapon. The energy density is a function of the antenna geometry, which is fixed in the design. Con points to sources saying that a solar power space station won't be a practical energy source for at least thirty years. What makes it impractical right now? What makes it impractical is the high cost of transporting all the materials for the power station from the earth's surface to orbit around the earth. The moon base treats the problem by mining the materials on the moon, fabricating the structure in pieces, and launching the structures to earth orbit with the mass driver. Making all of that cheaper advances the date at which an orbiting power station is practical. The objective is to develop the technology for building low cost orbiting power stations so that the technology would be available when it is needed. It probably won't be needed for thirty years, but it will take decades to develop practical technology. That's why construction of a moon base should start now and be planned to be sustained for at least several decades. Con never argued against the uses of a lunar base for developing orbital refueling, for climate engineering experiments, and for basic research in science. Con did not argue that the costs were unacceptable or that the money could be better spent on other things. I have answered his technical objections to the feasibility. The resolution is affirmed.