The United States should establish a base on the moon.

Thanks to Con for an interesting and timely topic. Manned exploration of space is emerging as a campaign issue for the next presidential election.My contentions were not attacked and are therefore sustainedCon did not contest that there are worthwhile missions that moon base could accomplish. He did not contest that the costs of the project are reasonable in view of the objectives of combating global warming, providing long term energy to earth, performing valuable scientific research, and building an infrastructure for low cost space refueling. con does not dispute that the project is worth doing at the cost claimed, and that there is no better use of the money. Con's arguments are confined to technical feasibility. Con claims that a moon base cannot be sustained. I will answer each of his objections.Con Contention 1 Con claims that life on the moon cannot be sustained without replenishing the oxygen, and that was proved by Biosphere II. I never proposed that the base be sustained without replenishment. In the cost section I explicitly allowed $40 billion per year to operate the base and that include ample replenishment. However, I provided evidence in Pro contention 2 that there is plenty of water on the moon, and that oxygen is readily derived from the water. At the time of the Biosphere experiments, they didn't know that there was so much water on the moon, so their assumption that the base had to be completely self-sufficient was false.CC 2 Con correctly claims that protection from radiation is necessary for a moon base, and his source gives one solution to that problem, which is to use lunar dust to protect the base. The plan proposed for the Shackleton Crater Expedition [P6] has most of the habitation underground to provide protection from radiation hazards.All space missions face radiation hazards, including the long term habitation of the International Space Station. The Space Station is protected only by the thin metal of the structure, but it's acceptable for periods of up to a year. The moon base would have substantially better shielding, being buried in the lunar soil. However, it's proven that excursions outside the base can be sustained, because astronauts have already accomplished that. When extreme solar flares occur, astronauts must retreat to the shelter. That's the practice on current space missions.While the base on the moon would be sustained for decades, the crew would be rotated at something like nine month intervals. That's not for survival, it's to preserve morale.CC 3 Con argues that microgravity causes bone loss due to inactivity. The moon is not a low gravity environment, not the microgravity environment of earth orbit. the low gravity means that greater masses can be lifted and it' possible to move greater distances with the same amount of effort. A space suit itself is heavy and unlike the orbital environment the weight would be born. If bone loss occurs at al, it would likely be much less than in orbit. However, crew rotation every nine months would ensure that there are no serious lasting effects.CC 4 Con argues that new heavy lift rocket would have to be developed to make a moon base more economic. Con's source put the cost at $5 billion. I allotted $200 billion for the startup costs, which covers the cost of a new rocket. NASA is already developing the rocket for deep space exploration, so it's not an issue. [P15. http://www.nasa.gov... ]CC 5 Con argues that there is plenty of room on earth to sustain a larger population, so there is no need for a moon colony to support population growth. I agree. I never argued that a moon base was needed to support population growth. I gave the purposes explicitly, and Con did not dispute them as being valid.Con granted the reasons for building a moon base and the cost effectiveness. His technical objections are minor, and I have answered them.The resolution is affirmed.