Moon, asteroids, and Mars are GO!

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by cygonaut, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. cygonaut Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    Many thanks to Chinese dragon breath to put moon back on agenda.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    Unmanned telepresence holds much more promise both scientifically and experiencially for the paying public. Now everyone can come along- We're beyond reversion to an elite few confining their massive, fragile, sweating, pissing, shitting bodys into a cramped container so they can relate their experiences. Now we can transmit in high resolution and bandwidth any sensation we wish, from much faster, longer-functioning, more versatile, unmanned vehicles. Although the neocons love mimicking Vietnam-era distractions, this time it one won't capture the enthralled support of the public nor of the scientific community. We do exploring in hostile environments with telepresence now. We can start shipping our meat again when it's time to colonize.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. cygonaut Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    Vote mining 101 Enron style.

    I should have added:

    The U.S. president's proposed budget for 2005 would control the rising cost of housing vouchers for the poor, require some veterans to pay more for health care, slow the growth in spending on biomedical research and merge or eliminate some job training and employment programs. Total federal revenues have declined for three consecutive years. But in those years, total federal spending has increased more than 20 percent.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/04/politics/04BUDG.html

    Who is going to pay for it?

    Bush gets it from Congress. Congress borrows it from the bank. Taxpayers pay back the loan as well as all the other loans (including the ones for the Iraq nightmare of course).

    Bush is sitting next to the taxpayer and tells the restaurant to "put it on his tab". Mr. Taxpayer is mischievously playing with the "mindless" sign welded on his forehead.
     
  8. cosmictraveler Be kind to yourself always. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    33,264
    I really hope we don't spend more on going back to the moon. We have found nothing there of real interest. We can't even keep the space shuttle working propery or the International space station manned! Lets just try to get the ISS going and kep it going and complete it before we start going off into to many other directions!! :bugeye:
     
  9. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    That's a joke, right?
     
  10. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    If you go back to the moon, you should do so with a bussinessplan to make it pay off, like scooping up helium-3 etc. It is rather re-enacting "done that" things if one throws away taxmoney for a PR re-election stunt just to put american flags on the moon next to chinese flags.

    There must be added value in scientific research advancements or economical exploitation towards return to the moon.

    So, IMO if they do it, they must do it right and go all the way, build some real self-sustaining colonies and space industry overthere....
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2004
  11. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    Vortexx, we can't use Helium-3 right now. The main reason for returning should not be buisness exploitation, it should be for scientific research. That's the way these things work - you explore first, then you exploit.

    I'm still wondering why this announcement would come now, as opposed to the 100th anniversary of the first flight by the Wright brothers a few weeks ago...
     
  12. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    the timing is determined by the agenda of politicians, not by scienctists

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    how much exploration should the nearby moon need? I would think that it has been studied enough in the past decades to determine it's economical value?

    I realize that the initial investments for moon-industry may be of magnitudes larger than already expensive scientific missions, but i feel that in the long run, the moon will be a much cheaper launchplatform than the gravitywell of earth.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2004
  13. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    A damn sight more than it has received. There have been a total of 6 landings there on 6 different sites. That's like saying you can judge all of north america by looking at two places in mexico, two in the US and two in canada...

    The amount of science still remaining to be done is, pardon the pun, astronomical. A fully manned permenant base is necessary, and about a decade of study. During that decade, we'll probably see the beginnings of commercial exploitation, but to try to start with it would be monumentally daft.

    Me personally, I'm waiting for the proposals for radio astronomy telescopes on the far side of the moon out of all the radio noise that we're putting out down here.
     
  14. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,242
    I would agree that radio astronomy on the far side of the moon really adds significant scientific value, because you cannot do that on earth or the ISS (besides the relative undisturbed environment on the far side, one could link with telescopes on earth for superior broad baseline and parallax meusurements) , exactly why I hope the government presents a more detailed value added vision than to state "we go back there" because it looks good politically.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2004
  15. cygonaut Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    Anyway, what you want to exploit business-wise are the asteroids and dormant comets - not the moon. We know enough about both to know the asteroids would be a better investment than the moon.

    Still, about half of the craters on the moon may have water (locked in regolith) and a good amount of metals for serious building. The moon is great for tourism and may have military value.
     
  16. Fukushi -meta consciousness- Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,231
    It's time,....
     
  17. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    EI_Sparks said "Vortexx, we can't use Helium-3 right now. The main reason for returning should not be buisness exploitation, it should be for scientific research. That's the way these things work - you explore first, then you exploit."

    I agree scientific research is crutial but if we don't find a way to economically exploit it it'll be just like the last time we went to the moon. Basically just to show we can do it, mug for the cameras and then go home. The only possible way we'll have the political will to sustain a presence on the moon or mars is if:

    A. an opposing country is already doing/going to do it.
    B. There is a way to make money from it.

    just my opinion.
     
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    "an opposing country is already doing/going to do it"
    Who and when??
     
  19. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    no, I think you misunderstood.

    I said the only possible way we'll have the political will to sustain a presence on the moon or mars is IF an opposing country is already doing/going to do it. The important word was 'if'. China and some others have said they are going to do it but it's still too early to tell if they will actually go all the way.
     
  20. hypewaders Save Changes Moderator

    Messages:
    12,061
    My mistake: I skipped right over the "IF" in your post. There's no space race, and in hindsight we can see there never really has been one.
     
  21. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,624
    QUOTE "There's no space race, and in hindsight we can see there never really has been one."

    I don't follow you, my hind sight sees that there was a space race (at least in the earliest parts of the space program), can you elaborate?
     
  22. cygonaut Registered Member

    Messages:
    23
    I've always been under the impression that Kennedy was competing with the Soviet Union with his promise of a 1969 man on the moon.

    And I honestly think China's public announcements of their intention of getting to the moon and doing things there hit some kind of competitive impulse in Bush. Look back. This recent thing started immediately after China made its moon intentions known.

    I think we have to give China some credit for this (as well as Bush's election campaign of course).
     
  23. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,716
    I get the feeling hypewaders meant after Korolev's death, there really wasn't a space race, just the appearance of one - because after Korolev, the russian programme was in near-total disarray.

    Which, to be frank, could have easily been the fate of the US programme, if Webb had left earlier than he had.

    And which prompts the question - what could have been accomplished if Webb's aide hadn't made that royal fuckup with the Apollo 1 memo?
     

Share This Page