djrams80

Yeah, um, not so much. Probably not going to happen, given the immense cost to benefit ratio. Who's going to fund this, considering that no one is even willing to pay for a serious potential impact project here on this planet? Clean fusion power, enough to power the Earth for probably 10,000 years exists on the Moon. This is of course assuming that we can get a fusion reactor running. If not, then Helium-3 becomes basically worthless. Nah. There's no money in an Antarctic settlement, while there's potentially unlimited fundage in a Moon settlement.

I think you are underestimating the value of a Moon settlement. I'd say that the long-term survival of our species depends much more heavily on exploring the known universe, than it does on avoiding an asteroid impact. Learning to live on the Moon and Mars and any other livable, foreign body we can find a way to get to, is something that obviously must be done, or we perish in this finite solar system. The resources available on the Moon also make a settlement there completely necessary, both financially and politically. I personally feel that the Helium-3 on the moon, is the next "must-have" natural resource, no different than oil is now. The countries that have Helium-3 will rule this planet and those that don't, will be relatively poor. Those countries that are not well into their own Moon settlement project at this very moment are very much "behind the curve" and will probably regret this lack of foresight for an extremely long time.

You would call that explanation, um, logical?