Sputnik and the Big 5-0

Today's New York Times Science Times section has an all-space, all-the-time theme, in honor of Sputnik's 50th anniversary.

Among other fascinating tidbits:

Tang, no matter what you've heard, was not an invention of the space program. Neither were Teflon or Velcro.

See a slideshow of what the space program actually has done for us landlubbers.

Also, check out semi-sour (bittersweet?) grapes essay on how far we haven't come since Sputnik:

My sci-fi dreams are dead, but Sir Richard Branson and his fellow space entrepreneurs say they have business plans. If Mr. Branson manages to get the cosmologist Stephen Hawking into space and back, he will have done more for the cause of space exploration than 25 years of space shuttles going around in circles.

John Tierney offers bored decabillionaires the chance to be the next Prince Henry the Navigator, King Ferdinand, or Queen Isabella by funding a Mars mission prize, and this sage advice:

Whether you offer a prize or send your own expedition, insist that the ship carrying the first humans to Mars be named after you. Sure, you'll be accused of egotism, but pay the critics no heed. They'll be dead soon enough. Your name will live forever.

More on the private space race from reason here.

Comments

[Syloson of Samos]

Aren't there some awfully good reasons why human exploration of the planets* has been a bust? I just see robots, etc. as best option for the forseeable future (at least beyond Earth orbit).

*As in humans being shot out into space.

[JasonL]

I want a refund on all the Tang I drank between 1975 and 1979.

[Sandy]

Space Sticks!

I want Pillsbury to bring them back, not the hyperexpensive niche form that exists now.

[Dan T]

So this is how it goes:

Various governments on Earth spend probably trillions of dollars and decades of time acquiring knowledge about space and developing the technology to expore it. Eventually, a business or other non-governmental entity (enough with the euphimism "private" to describe activities that involve many people) will build upon this knowledge to put some kind of ship into space and we'll hear it touted as yet more evidence that governments Can't Do Anything Right.

[Alan Vanneman]

I'll always be grateful for Sputnik, because it prompted the State of Virginia to create an "Academically Talented" program to beat those damn Russkies at their own game. Among other things, those fine southern gentlemen who ran the Old Dominion back in the day decreed that us AT types would start studying Latin in the eighth grade. And, frankly, without my mastery of Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, Horace, Catullus, et al., I doubt that we would have won the Cold War. Carpe diem, motherf*cker.

[Warren]

Various governments on Earth have wasted trillions of dollars and decades of time acquiring some modest knowledge about space and developing mostly failed technology to expore it. Eventually, a private business will be able approach the problem with completely new technology and organization. When they first turn a profit, they will finally rid us of the NASA boondoggle.

There fixed that for ya

[JasonL]

Dan T:

The problem in your analysis is the flippancy with which you use the phrase "build upon", as though government action was just about to do it anyway, but didn't feel like it.

[Anonymo the Anonymous]

I'll always be grateful for Sputnik, because it prompted the State of Virginia to create an "Academically Talented" program to beat those damn Russkies at their own game. Among other things, those fine southern gentlemen who ran the Old Dominion back in the day decreed that us AT types would start studying Latin in the eighth grade. And, frankly, without my mastery of Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, Horace, Catullus, et al., I doubt that we would have won the Cold War. Carpe diem, motherf*cker.

Ruskies don't take a dump without first consulting Catullus.

[ed]

Anybody know what's going on inside the International Space Station?

[Urkobold?]

SEX, SEX, AND MORE SEX.

[Minion of URKOBOLD]

URKOBOLD has a book that will be coming out shortly: the KOBOLD-SUTRA. A book that will give you such an intense experience, it could conceivably change your political views! (and the color of your eyes)

[Dan T]

Dan T:

The problem in your analysis is the flippancy with which you use the phrase "build upon", as though government action was just about to do it anyway, but didn't feel like it.

What I mean is that any business that intends to build a space craft is going to have to "build upon" knowledge and experience that was mostly funded by government.

Not that it's necessarily a bad thing, but any fair analysis will acknowledge that the foundation built by "socialized" space travel was the only way that "private" space travel was ever going to happen.

[J sub D]

Nope, without government funded research, there would be no communication, weather or research satellites. Satellite TV wouldn't exist, phone calls to Europe would still use the trans atlantic cable. Hurricanes could only be tracke by airplanes. How come you people cant see that? Just try to name one technological advance that wasn't government funded? I double dare you?

Jeez. It's mentally taxing to compose something that stupid.

[J sub D]

This is my last attempt. Dan T. Start with Newton's laws, add Goddard's initial research. Add no, repeat NO, NASA, ESA, military related research. How long till AT&T has a satellite up? Weeks? 6 months max?

[An Ottawa Reader]

Actually, Dan T has a point for once. Why didn't private enterprise take the lead in space exploration and perfecting space travel long before this?

(Answer: Space travel made better TV--i.e. propaganda--than business sense.)

[Cracker\'s Boy]

J sub D - not wanting to be joeDanT-ish here, but... wasn't the telephone itself a technological advance? Or say, anethesia? Hell, even rocketry itself? Originally not government funded. If anybody it's governments that are usurping private innovation for their own use.

I'm just sayin'...

CB

[bigbigslacker]

"If Mr. Branson manages to get the cosmologist Stephen Hawking into space and back, he will have done more for the cause of space exploration than 25 years of space shuttles going around in circles."

Because putting Stephen Hawking in space would accomplish...?

[Syloson of Samos]

I don't know if private entities would have funded anything like the Voyager spacecraft. It seems to me that if the government is good for anything when it comes to space exploration then unmanned vehicles sent out to the "frontier" is most appropriate.

[SugarFree]

bigbigslacker,

Because putting Stephen Hawking in space would accomplish...?

It'd be funny?

[J sub D]

J sub D - not wanting to be joeDanT-ish here, but... wasn't the telephone itself a technological advance? Or say, anethesia? Hell, even rocketry itself? Originally not government funded. If anybody it's governments that are usurping private innovation for their own use.

Should I have added a /sarcasm to that post?

[gorgonzola\'s foil]

Dan T,

Do you also feel that Boeing was able to produce the civilian 747's we have today because of B-29 program? I don't think you'll find libertarians supporting the slew of corporate welfare that flows from the government to the military-industrial complex, but Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites company (the partner of Virgin Galactic, maker of SpaceShipOne and winner of the Ansari X Prise) doesn't have the compromised history of suckling at the DoD/NASA teat, that Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, Rockwell, Northrup Grumman, etc, etc, do. It is true that Burt Rutan did start his career as an engineer for the Air Force, but his company currently doesn't follow the technology path of NASA's historical development (which we can get into if you like), nor is their R&D and manufacturing infrastructure the result of a history investing to fulfill federal projects (in direct comparison to the Lockheed Martin Skunkworks or Boeing's Everett, WA "world's largest production floor")

[Dan T]

(Answer: Space travel made better TV--i.e. propaganda--than business sense.)

You're right - it wouldn't have made business sense because the costs of figuring out how to get man into space were always going to be very, very high and it would be decades before anybody would have a product to sell to customers.

So it sort of comes down to the philisophical question of whether we should only do things that make immediate business sense or should we collectively invest the gains from business success (via taxes) and use them to fund things that don't.

[gorgonzola\'s foil]

Dan T,

So, yeah, I agree with you on this: any commercial project in space with Boeing, Lockheed or even Motorola involvement (Iridium satellite phones, for instance) owes a lot to NASA baseline research and the cold war history of the US aerospace industry. Scaled Composites projects don't fit this model.

[ed]

Why didn't private enterprise take the lead in space exploration and perfecting space travel

Well, to focus on just one project--Apollo--the enormous amount of capital and manpower necessary simply could not have been raised privately. Only a government with the means to print money and recruit the top brains in the country and thus monopolize the talent and funding necessary for such a colossal project could do it. The moon landings simply would not have happened otherwise. Some would argue that Apollo was one instance of a "proper" governmental intrusion into scientific realms. Ayn Rand herself did.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

J sub D - Doooohhhhh! My bad. Sorry. Really sorry. Reading back, I see I combined Dan T.'s 11:20 post with your 11:21, in my head.

CB

[Dan T]

Do you also feel that Boeing was able to produce the civilian 747's we have today because of B-29 program?

I would think at least in part. I assume anything learned in the creation of large military airplanes would also be helpful in the creation of large civilian airplanes.

And let's be clear - I don't think that's a problem. If anything, it's feature. "Private" space travel sounds like it would be very cool and I hope people are successful at it.

[de stijl]

Actually, I think Dan T is spot on in this instance. Libertarianism doesn't account for basic research type issues very well if there is no immediate (or reasonably foreseeable) payoff.

[JasonL]

"collectively invest the gains"

Leaving the moral dimension aside for a moment (I'd like to be able to collectively invest your retirement funds. Sound good?), the practical effect of this is investment without the normal constraints on investments. Goverment projects are politically incentivized not to fail, and the involuntary nature of tax based funding means that individual participants can't opt out when they have met their risk tolerance. All of that money gets bound up in something that inevitably runs out of control and won't die.

The mechanism for rational investing is gone, so you wind up with a lot of boondoggles relative to successes.

[Cracker\'s Boy]

"Provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare."

Most of the money spent on space research fell under the purview of the first part of that phrase. Any subsequent spinoffs that result in private industry making profit fall under the purview of the second part of the phrase, in that our government will tax the shit out of those profits.

CB

[JasonL]

"Actually, I think Dan T is spot on in this instance. Libertarianism doesn't account for basic research type issues very well if there is no immediate (or reasonably foreseeable) payoff."

I'm inclined to say that reasearch funding would be the last thing to go as we moved toward libertopia, but sometimes I wonder if that isn't just a childish love affair with Big Science Whizbangery on my part. When I'm honest with myself, I don't see why a completely private education system wouldn't include just as much lab work.

[Dan T]

The mechanism for rational investing is gone, so you wind up with a lot of boondoggles relative to successes.

You are correct. I suppose then the question is, are the successes worth the extra costs (boondoggles)?

Although if we agree that certain thing won't be done without being done by the government, then the boondoggles are not an extra cost, but simply part of the necessary cost.

Now regarding this:

I'd like to be able to collectively invest your retirement funds. Sound good?

You guys are way to black-and-white on this kind of thing. Of course I don't want all of my money collectively invested, but I don't mind some of it being used as such. You really can't have civilization otherwise.

[SugarFree]

I don't have much problem with NASA, in the same that I view it as a public good, much like the military (and I'm not too troubled by public roads.) But I think it is perfectly "libertarian" to demand that every last single penny is well-spent and throughly accounted for. If they have to take my money, we can at least expect them to be shrewd stewards of it.

[P Brooks]

"What I mean is that any business that intends to build a space craft is going to have to "build upon" knowledge and experience that was mostly funded by government."

No shit? Newton worked for the government?

[Taktix?]

(enough with the euphimism[sic] "private" to describe activities that involve many people)

This would have to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post. And you misspelled euphemism.

[Pro Libertate]

If the private sector were the only player in space, then I think it would've taken longer for us to get there. Because of the large costs. However, I don't think the private sector would've wasted tens of billions of dollars on manned "demonstrations" of space flight. Rather, once we sent men to the Moon or wherever, we would've done so for some more practical reason. In addition, I doubt seriously that a purely private system for getting to space would cost anywhere as near as much as it does now.

So, a private sector approach might not have taken off until, say, the 1970s. But we'd likely have cheaper access to orbit and a far more comprehensive manned presence in space under a commercial regime. With an established commercial space infrastructure, space research would be a whole lot easier and a whole lot cheaper.

Naturally, in the beginning, the largest single reason for putting men and women into space would be for space porn, but that's a sad truth for all nascent industries.

[Dan T]

This would have to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you post. And you misspelled euphemism.

Yes, I always misspell euphemism. But I stand by my point that some organization made up of hundreds of thousands of employees and millions of shareholders doing business with tens of millions of customers is hardly "private". (In fact, aren't corporations often referred to as "public" or at least "publicly traded"?)

I think it's euphemistic because it implies that only the "public" government can interfere with your liberty while the "private" businesses are off doing their own thing, bothering nobody.

[iih]

Why didn't private enterprise take the lead in space exploration and perfecting space travel long before this?

Politics. Because it was politically motivated in the first place to beat the Russians. Good propaganda.

Interestingly, the January 2004 Bush announcement to send man back to the moon was widely controversial within the space community because the scientific return from such a program would be far less than, say, sending robots to Mars. There was an uproar upon the 2004 announcement, at a time when NASA/JPL were heavily engaged in the Origins Program, whose science return was far more spectacular and much cheaper and safer than NASA's Future: The Vision for Space Exploration Program. Origins also had defense implications.

Instead, GWB made the announcement that NASA will shift funding from Origins to sending man back to the moon and colonizing it. Many at that point thought that there must be oil on the Moon --otherwise why? It turns out to have been simply another media stunt, reminiscent of the early space program. The administration was hoping to have the American people nationally all excited about something (other than politics) -- but obviously failed. Currently, there are some tensions between pro-moon-colonization (powerful minority) and anti-moon-colonization (less powerful majority).

My 2 cents.

[Dan T]

However, I don't think the private sector would've wasted tens of billions of dollars on manned "demonstrations" of space flight.

I dunno, if I'm a potiential customer I'd sure as hell want them to demonstrate space flight before I stepped into one of their rockets.

[Dan T]

Politics. Because it was politically motivated in the first place to beat the Russians. Good propaganda.

And, it worked out pretty well for us. Money well spent, I'd say.

[Pro Libertate]

Dan T.,

Like commercial airlines? Started risky, got less risky. Some people have a high tolerance for risk, others less. We didn't get to safe flying because of government intervention, we got there because ordinary people wanted a quick and safe means of transportation.

[iih]

And, it worked out pretty well for us. Money well spent, I'd say.

But the current "Future Program" is plainly dumb politics. The exact opposite outcome of the early program.

[JasonL]

The mechanism for rational investing is gone, so you wind up with a lot of boondoggles relative to successes.

"You are correct. I suppose then the question is, are the successes worth the extra costs (boondoggles)?

Although if we agree that certain thing won't be done without being done by the government, then the boondoggles are not an extra cost, but simply part of the necessary cost."

The number of desirable things that just won't happen unless the government does them is vanishingly small. I'm leaving some room here becaue I can't imagine every possible case. It is absurd to think we wouldn't have commercial satellites, for example.

[Scooby]

ProLib,
I don't know if modern commercial aviation is a good example of the success of free private enterprise. The industry might have been a hotbed of competition when it started up, but it's been so heavily subsidized, regulated, and repeatedly bailed out for so many decades that we essentially have a handful of nominally private state airlines.

That's not to say that we wouldn't have an air travel industry without gov't tinkering. We'd undoubtedly have an air travel industry, and it would most probably be better than what we have now. It's just not a good example of private enterprise fulfilling a need.

[Taktix®]

In fact, aren't corporations often referred to as "public" or at least "publicly traded"?

Corporations are public when they are publicly traded. A company chooses to go public if it wants, or stay private, or form an L.L.C., etc.

Your lack of this basic knowledge shall preemptively disqualify you from any further economics discussion...

[Pro Libertate]

Scooby,

I was only addressing the risk proposition that Dan raised. No, the airline industry is not a libertarian utopia by any stretch.

[J sub D]

Naturally, in the beginning, the largest single reason for putting men and women into space would be for space porn, but that's a sad truth for all nascent industries.

Everybody know that the first recording of the human voice was Mary Had A Little Lamb. Few know the second recording was aural sex. 😉

[MikeP]

If NASA has a place in a free society -- and that is a big if -- it is in the high risk cutting edge technology development and demonstration that private enterprise may have a harder time funding.

Anyone who has been paying attention will recognize that that phase of NASA's existence ended around 1970.

Everything spent by NASA since then on near-earth exploration has been an utter waste of money and resources. NASA's only value nowadays is in serving as an example of how not to build a space transportation system, how not to build a space station, how not to operate a national aeronautics and space agency.

[MikeP]

And Dan T,

You continue in your tiresome "public development versus private development" shtick to fail to recognize the essential truth: Government intentionally spends monies on advanced research and development to be placed in the public domain for the public good. It is the legislature's stated goal for such programs to jump-start private development of the technologies. Congress doesn't want to run a technology program: They want private enterprises to run better technology programs, and they believe that the public technology programs facilitate the private ones.*

That bureaucracies such as NASA sometimes forget this and instead act to preserve their own internal interests happens as one would expect. Such behavior requires occasional correction with new legislation.

* Not intended to imply that I believe what Congress believes.

[Pig Mannix]

Everything spent by NASA since then on near-earth exploration has been an utter waste of money and resources. NASA's only value nowadays is in serving as an example of how not to build a space transportation system, how not to build a space station, how not to operate a national aeronautics and space agency.

I'd agree. If government has any role in space at all, it's probably in the context of defense against other governments with space capability. Put the space program back under the purview of the DoD.

[Dan T]

And Dan T,

You continue in your tiresome "public development versus private development" shtick to fail to recognize the essential truth: Government intentionally spends monies on advanced research and development to be placed in the public domain for the public good. It is the legislature's stated goal for such programs to jump-start private development of the technologies. Congress doesn't want to run a technology program: They want private enterprises to run better technology programs, and they believe that the public technology programs facilitate the private ones.*

I think you're misreading me. I agree with the above, and have no problem with it in general.

My problem is when libertarians ignore the public element of the equation to promote their agenda of reducing the size of government in other areas.

[Dan T]

Corporations are public when they are publicly traded.

I understand that - remember that my objection is that often here such very public companies are referred to as "private".

[Dan T]

Dan T.,

Like commercial airlines? Started risky, got less risky. Some people have a high tolerance for risk, others less. We didn't get to safe flying because of government intervention, we got there because ordinary people wanted a quick and safe means of transportation.

Not a bad example, but I suspect that much of the development in aircraft technology is a result of government military projects. I could be wrong about that, however.

[iih]

Dan T, MikeP:

What about pure science missions? There is probably no commercial interest for private corporations to do these kinds of missions, and no defense interest for the government either. See for example the noble objectives of the Origins program (which I link to above). Do not expect scientists at universities to build their own space program to answer their science questions.

[Pro Libertate]

If access to space wasn't so gosh-awful expensive, then universities probably could afford to launch research missions to orbit and to the outer solar system. Not to mention the boat-load of research we could do if we had an actual permanent presence on the Moon and elsewhere.

[MikeP]

iih,

Private lift vehicles exist, are improving, and will do fine without NASA around. Furthermore, one can easily imagine private spacecraft companies -- probably as offshoots of existing private satellite companies -- developing to serve pure science researchers who have money. Universities do not need to develop their own space programs.

But most importantly...

Do not expect scientists at universities to build their own space program to answer their science questions.

...why is anyone else obligated to answer the science questions of scientists at universities?

If it is necessary to have public funding of science -- another big if -- then provide public funding of science! Let the scientists get their space services from the private market.

[iih]

Pro Libertate:

Not to mention the boat-load of research we could do if we had an actual permanent presence on the Moon and elsewhere.

Being on the moon in and of itself does not do much to us. Why have a base/colony on the moon while we can have one right here on Earth? Only more expensive. "Elsewhere" will be many many times even more expensive.

Programs such Origins (see link above, though some of the planned missions have now been removed from the site because they were discontinued) has an infinitely larger science return for far less money, than establishing a presence on the moon, which is more expensive and has far less science return.

[iih]

MikeP:

Private lift vehicles exist, are improving, and will do fine without NASA around. Furthermore, one can easily imagine private spacecraft companies -- probably as offshoots of existing private satellite companies -- developing to serve pure science researchers who have money. Universities do not need to develop their own space programs.

We are certainly in agreement there.

...why is anyone else obligated to answer the science questions of scientists at universities?

We are in agreement here, too.

If it is necessary to have public funding of science -- another big if -- then provide public funding of science! Let the scientists get their space services from the private market.

Here is how I would like to do it: If I pay tax, I would like to have a choice as to where to put my tax money. I would put in public funding of basic space science, basic government services, defense (but not offense), etc. But that is a different story.

All I am saying is that given that we are already paying for a space program, carrying out missions such as Origins are far more profitable to the public than going to the moon and establishing a permanent presence there. Colonizing the moon is something private industries should take up if they wish (and deem it profitable, of course). Otherwise, why do I have to pay for something that is terribly expensive, has very little science return, and costs a ton of money. That is the reason of my dissatisfaction with how NASA operates. For goodness sake, Michael Griffin is a right wing ideologue!

[Pro Libertate]

Well, there's access to a near-vacuum, the lack of atmosphere for astronomical purposes (might be able to build a much larger telescope on the Moon than we could launch into orbit), and so on.

I'm talking about this in a situation where we already have a substantial private sector involvement with manned space ventures. Without that, then the old arguments about scientific bang for the buck can still be make for robotic missions.

The lack of scientific return in manned space exploration to date has a lot to do with the fact that we haven't really sent men into space primarily for research. Sure, we've sent a scientist to the Moon and a number into orbit, but that was never the principal reason for those missions.

In any event, cheap access to space will be had once the Urkobold Lunar Sex Prize is up and running.

[iih]

Pro Libertate:

Instead of building, transporting, and maintaining a large telescope on the moon, spend much less money on a multiple aperture satellite program such as TPF, Planet Imager, or Planet Finder to achieve a far more superior telescope system in space (no atmosphere) at fractions of the price. We already know how to send stuff cheaply to space, so lets send a whole bunch of "little" telescopes (very small fuel costs), each not costing more than a million or 2 (peanuts in NASA's budget), so that if one breaks, the system retains its functionality and there is no need for any maintenance costs (the "micro-satellites" are essentially dispensable). The imaging capabilities of such a system would be superior to any monolithic telescope we can build for Earth, the Moon, or for space-based imaging.

By the way, a few years back the website for Origins (which included multiple satellite imaging missions):

http://origins.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/missions.html#pi

was beautifully maintained. Planet Imager and Planet Finder (both were future missions under Origins), among other missions, had complete websites dedicated for each, for example. Now you get a paragraph for each, which is very sad I think.

But these details get us into space policy. My dissatisfaction inherently lies in (1) the wastefulness of NASA nowadays, and (2) the politicization of NASA's missions and agendas. And it is all paid for by our tax money.

[Pro Libertate]

As things stand, I'd rather pare down NASA to scientific missions (or to nothing, in Libertopia) and maybe some involvement in R&D to work towards that whole cheap access to space goal. I say that with the knowledge that my yen for man occupying every world of any size in the solar system will be denied for quite some time. But at the pace that NASA is working at, I don't see that as much of a give.

Still, the best case situation is for us to get a substantial private presence in space, then piggy back the science on that. If Lunar Disney is operational, there's no reason that we can't send some scientists to the Moon, too. Men can do a whole lot more than robots. At least, until robots achieve greater-than-human sapience and take over and stuff.

[robc]

Newton worked for the government?

Lets see...
Member of Parliament
Warden of the Mint
Was Oxford government funded?

[Aresen]

robc

Newton worked for the government?

Lets see...
Member of Parliament
Warden of the Mint
Was Oxford government funded?

Yep. All of those things.

OTOH, he had to hide his Unitarianism (in the strict religious sense) in order to be able to keep them. Can't have heretics in our Universities or Government, you know.

[Rick Barton]

de stijl:

Libertarianism doesn't account for basic research type issues very well if there is no immediate (or reasonably foreseeable) payoff.

I beg to differ. The most expensive tools of astronomical exploration used to be the huge telescopes and they were enthusiastically funded with non-government money. Many people love space exploration and it seems that their numbers and enthusiasm would afford many commercial and charity avenues for the financing of space exploration. In addition to the private satellite launch companies in operation, there are hundreds of organizations for astronomy/space enthusiasts.

If space exploration were privatized there would be a motivation for those doing it to both educate the lay community about it as well as to cater to their scientific interests in order to generate donor support from them. This dynamic would tend to more actively involve the general public in the enterprise then they are with the taxpayer funded space program.

The political power wielded by those who receive tax dollars for the government space program could well prove a formidable obstacle to eliminating it. Perhaps a way to over come this obstacle and transition into private space exploration would be to give tax credits to those who make donations to non-government space exploration during the transition period.

When the machinations of free enterprise motivate space exploration, I believe that it will yield surprising and even unimaginable progress. Just look at the results of the forays of capitalism into the other frontiers of human kind.

[J sub D]

Member of Parliament
Warden of the Mint

Both occurred well after Principia.

[Syd]

But not Newton's service at Oxford.

[alphahawk1999]

I also think that NASA should be used as a form
of defense not only of the U.S. of A. but for
the Earth as well. This Earth-Moon Defense
Force would primarily locate and, if necessary,
destroy asteroids that on a collision course with the Earth.
I do see two main difficulties with having a moonbase: massive radiation; and, lunar gravity. Both are very challenging to overcome.
Although I would like to see Jackie Chan in some well coreographed fighting in lunar g. Now there's an idea, make movies on the moon!

[CASTOR]

I began celebrating the 50th anniversary of Sputnik on January 1, 2007 when I embarked on a project to single-handedly detect and track 1,957 unique satellites orbiting our Earth. This is only 1/20 of the total satellite population. To date (September 27), I have detected 1,650 satellites with only two telescopes and a CCD camera. My website http://www.castor2.ca has additional information and images. I consider this a self proclaimed world record unless some other amateur astronomer has done better.