Why going to the moon may be absoluetly nessecary.

We can always use them at the moon. We could build a telescope, a space station and the first spaceport!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Or you can go to the moon and use the water there for energy supply and, of course, water supply. We could even get ome oxigen there, plant some trees inside a greenhouse and use the water to keep the plants going and starting a natural oxigen supply. Of course we would have to do all that indoors, and we would have to use the right kind of material for the walls, so that the oxigen doesn't escape!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Are they any more efficient? How much energy do they supply?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

you know what, spaniards thought that columbus was retarded, and maybe they were right, seeing as a nation founded by outcasts in the new world is currently the WORLD'S ONLY SUPERPOWER. It's kinda ignorant to think people won't go out there because "we can't afford it". We're obviously going out there sometime, as soon as somebody or a group of somebodys get the balls and the resources together to do it.

I'm sure companies would drool over what's on the moon: He3, platinum, better solar exposure for solar panels, construction grounds for very-low-G factories, and a perfect launch pad for any sattilite or ship any company on earth wants lobed into orbit (build the thing on the moon and throw it into orbit with a rail gun, save the fuel of launching from earth). Scientists would obviously get kicks out of the astronomy possible on the moon (no atmosphere), not to mention just walking on the moon taking in the sights.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

oh my god, I just repeated everything you wrote, okay, I'm stupid, g'night everyone!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Nuclear war, biological war, plague, famine, or political chaos that might result from rebellion after income ineqaulity becomes more extreme. Global warming and the global population growth or even plant diseases could threaten the global economy.

Imagine the future earth as one giant Haiti without foreign troops available to help the wealthy keep the poor majority under control. If the Haitian majority become enraged enough to endanger the Haitian elite then the Haitian elite will just flee to America where their Swiss bank accounts will serve them well. Because the Haitian elite can flee to America they do not need to negotiate a peace with the Haitian majority that would limit ability of the elite families to squeeze wealth for themselves out of a broken nation.

When the elite have no where to run to they might not be willing to gamble with the political health of their nations, the health of the environment and the health of the economy, all in exchange for a potential family and class profit.

I don't want one hundred thousand elite families of 2150 to be able move to artificial environments on the moon for a few centuries while they wait for their loyal soldiers on earth to reestablish order on earth. Imagine how profitable vaccine sales for bioengineered viruses could be.

Political and environmental stability for the earth shoud be achieved first, only then should we engage in public funding for exciting but relativly useless feats of science and engineering.






(though I am proud of my dad for designing Apollo's inertial navigation and apprecate the taxpayer wealth that he brought into my family.)

 

I think it would be on their greatest interests to avoid that. Do you think they would enjoy living in the moon?

 

Can people enjoy living in highrises in New York?

I think artificial environments on the moon could be safe happy places if enough people lived up there and you poured vast amounts of resources and tax dollars from the earth into building the artificial environments.

 

what about rebelion factions? if the elite cower away to their moon mansions, all it would take is a handful of crafty geniuses on earth to build a ship, or fleet of ships (you never know, propulsion tech in the future could be pretty easy to muster up compared to now), fit them with guns and rain hell all over the manicured lunar lawns of the rich and powerful! It'd be terrorism, a much different scenario than exists today, but I don't think you can seriously think that ALL THE POPULATION OF EARTH will be the dumb wreched masses they're expected to be. With many billion people, you'll probably have a few geniuses that are crazy enough to do something SO stupid as to go against the social elite!!!

p.s. i'm not promoting modern terrorism, terrorism today is for some of the dumbest causes I've ever heard of and any of the people that are part or affiliated with terrorist groups are heartless b****rds. I'm just saying rebelion is a part of society and is destined to happen.

 

Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here.

 

"Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here."

Why would a company that depends upon the American consumer, lobby against restrictions on outsourcing? It would be easy to become so enthusiastic while harvesting golden eggs that you would fail to notice that you are trampling to death the goose that lays the golden eggs.

Why would anybody who cares about the future grandchildren of their unborn great granchildren lobby to remove the regulations that were supposed to start being enforced against coal burning utilities? Mercury, acid rain, and global warming are real but the coal industry will not abandon their revenue stream. People will decieve themself and believe whatever they want to believe; therefore the elite who have the power to lead us into self-destruction despite being ordinary self-decieving people, are a threat to themselves and everybody else.

 

If Rumsfeld gets his way the moon will not be undefended. SDI will not be ready to shoot down ICBMs any decade soon but SDI /(reagan's star wars) may be almost ready to shoot down satellites.

North Korea could send a nuclear weapon to NYC disguised as a yacht if they wanted to or they could use many other methods of delivery easier than ICBMs but star wars pork may still be sold based on the Nort Korean threat.

A perfected SDI might be able to defend the elite on the moon from rebel earth terrorists.

from http://grant.henninger.name/space/ :
During the Clinton Administration, Donald Rumsfeld chaired the Commission to Assess United States National Security Space Management and Organization—referred to as the Rumsfeld Commission—which released a report the week before President Bush took office stating that it is in the United States national interest to "[d]evelop and deploy the means to deter and defend against hostile acts directed at U.S. space assets and against the uses of space hostile to U.S. interests. (vii)" This view was echoed by Donald Rumsfeld again after he became Secretary of Defense. In a press conference he stated, "Our dependence on operations in space, however, makes us somewhat vulnerable to new challenges. It's only logical to conclude that we must be attentive to these vulnerabilities and pay careful attention to protecting and promoting our interest in space." (Rumsfeld)

This is to say, using space for military purposes, with an increased reliance on GPS and communication and spy satellites, has created a new weakness in the military's defenses. Passive satellites are vulnerable to many different types of attack, which none of the satellites are defended against. Because the military has become so reliant upon these satellites it would like to defend them, but that requires putting weapons in space and developing the ability to deny the use of space to any other country.

This is also to say, the military has an interest in denying space access to interests hostile to the United States. With China recently putting its first Taikonaut in orbit, and looking to mount a moon mission within a decade; with Russia looking to launch a manned Mars mission; and with the European Union looking to leap frog over the United States in their war fighting ability, the US has a need to prevent access to space by any one of these countries incase hostilities between them and the US arise.

While it might seem almost silly to talk of hostilities arising between the EU and the US, or even between Russia and the US right now, it is clear that interests between the US and any one of these countries will not always be the same. It is also reasonable to believe that interests will continue to diverge as they have been since the end of the Cold War, and that the EU, Russia, and especially China will become competitive states with the US.

In order to gain the ability to deny access to space for another country the United states must put weapons in space so they may shoot down space bound rockets during their boost phase.

The need for space weapons to deny space access
The American Physical Society has released a report stating that it is next to impossible to shoot down a rocket or ICBM upon assent using ground based defenses (American Physical Society). Unless there is perfect knowledge of when and where the rocket is launched from and its trajectory is known, the military has no hope of destroying the rocket until it is reentering the atmosphere or is in orbit. Since many of the anti-space weapons do not need to be in orbit for long, and the do not need to reenter the atmosphere at all, it is necessary for the military to destroy the rockets upon assent.

In order for the military to destroy rockets upon assent, the military requires space weapons. These weapons could more than half the military's response time to hostile launches. Since these weapons would already be in space, it would not be necessary for the military to launch an anti-missile missile from Vandenberg Air Force Base or Fort Greely, Alaska.

The people's reservations about space weapons
Historically, space has been used for peaceful purposes. It was the most visible battlefield during the Cold War, yet its battles were those of science and engineering, not guns and bombs.
Dating back to the height of the space race and Cold War, the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, more commonly called the Outer Space Treaty, stated that, "The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interest of all countries (Article I)." Clearly weaponizing space goes against our longest held beliefs about the proper use of space and against ratified treaties, more specifically.

Throughout recent history, there have been two thoughts on space; one way of thinking about space is that it is for peaceful exploration for the benefit of all mankind, as stated in the Outer Space Treaty. The other way of thinking about space, however, is one put forth by the military, where space is the next battlefield and whoever controls space, controls Earth.

 

What does this have to do with anything? We aren't Spain, and the moon isn't North/South America. The Spanish sent Columbus out in search of something that they knew would be fantastically valuable, if they could get it - a water rout to India. There is nothing obviously valuable waiting for us on the moon. There is currently no use for Helium 3. Mining platinum or other materials from the moon would be prohibitively expensive with anything like our current technology, and the demand for them back on earth isn't high enough to justify going through the trouble. The gravity is too high for the sorts of exotic materials-processing that we currently do on space stations. If there was a way to make money off the moon, companies would be doing it already.

On a side note, I don’t think that the Spanish thought Columbus was retarded. If they thought that, they probably wouldn’t have spent a bunch of money funding his trip.

 

Yes. But my point is that they are a threat to themselves too.

 

"Why would they do this kind of thing? Even if the elite was on the moon, it would still be on their best interest to keep things well down here."

"Yes. But my point is that they are a threat to themselves too."

I believe your point. The answer to why would they do it is that at each step along the path they could fail to understand what they are doing. At each step they would perceive their interests in such a way that would lead them to the next step. They can believe what ever they want to believe. They can think think that their actions are for the good of the majority or they can think the bad guys forced them down their path. IMO It is perfectly normal to be selfishly self-deluded.

 

Were they charged with violating the laws of thermodynamics?

 

DwayneD.L.Rabon,

Do you have any links to 'this guy'?
I don't doubt in the possibilities you put forth, and I am beginning to believe that every conspiracy theorist is right. But I'd still like to see some more info.

 

I call B.S. The science journals would eat it up and make him an instant celebrate if he could demonstrate such a device.

 

If such devices existed, the chinese would be the first to buy them, as they could break the us elite oil-based hegemony with it

 

Basic science lesson time: a catalyst changes the activation energy of a reaction, but cannot change the total energy difference between products and reactants. Diatomic hydrogen and oxygen are in a much higher energy state than water (which is why you can use hydrogen and oxygen as a fuel). That energy still has to be put in – a catalyst doesn’t just magically make the energy appear out of nowhere.