I always figured that it would be a dozen years beyond my death at least until men again walk on another body besides Earth. It now looks as though they might possibly return to the moon before that. I never saw migration of large populations as the goal, but, rather, to establish hives of humans in as many locations as possible, to allow for extending the human race as long beyond the existance of the Earth as possible.
@Brandon9000,
Given the likelihood of Man decimating this planet, and given the fact that the US is the world leader in space exploration, a president with no sympathy for the space program is a blow against Man's future.
Hell even Ronald Wilson Reagan promoted space through Star Wars.
I would accept militarization of space as the price to pay, if need be! In fact it seems very doubtful, given Man's penchant for war, that militarization and space are mutually exclusive.
The US needs a threat from space, whter it be the Russians, or an asteroid or Edgar's distant relatives.
Although I am fascinated with the possibility of expanded space exploration and always have been, and agree that we have not progressed in it as far as we should have since first starting the space program.... I regretfully think all our resources need to be put into energy independence, alternative fuels, infrastructure and the redesigning of our social programs and safety nets at this time.
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
edgarblythe wrote:
Actually, Brandon, I generally agree with your desire for a manned program. In the light of economic dire straights, Obama may see cause to slow the program. I don't know that he has said that. So far, I don't see that he has a plan to alter the program as it is. I find it disturbing that dissention within NASA, over the rocket to be used has not been settled.
During the Apollo program, I imagined that by now we'd have bases on the moon and perhaps Mars. The glacially slow progress in the space program since Apollo is very disappointing. I can only hope that we have government office holders who at least agree in principle that putting Man in space is good.
It's a combination of lack of vision amongst out elected leaders - for whom the benefits of a long-term space program are practically non-existent, at least to them personally - and crappy marketing by NASA. What should be seen and marketed as the next 'great frontier' and play into the sense of Manifest Destiny that made America great, is instead... not marketed hardly at all.
Cycloptichorn
Exactly. The sorts of people who get into Congress tend to have very little appreciation for something of long term value like this.
@Bi-Polar Bear,
Bi-Polar Bear wrote:
Although I am fascinated with the possibility of expanded space exploration and always have been, and agree that we have not progressed in it as far as we should have since first starting the space program.... I regretfully think all our resources need to be put into energy independence, alternative fuels, infrastructure and the redesigning of our social programs and safety nets at this time.
I understand, but consider that Spain probably had many domestic problems at the time Queen Isabella financed Columbus's voyage, and probably still has many domestic problems. Some fraction of the resources have to be put into programs with
long term goals.
@Brandon9000,
agreed....no argument. we just can't afford to put as much into right now as we'd like...IMO.
There are several disadvantages to the Moon as a colony site:
The long lunar night would impede reliance on solar power and require a colony to be designed that could withstand large temperature extremes. An exception to this restriction are the so-called "peaks of eternal light" located at the lunar north pole that are constantly bathed in sunlight. The rim of Shackleton Crater, towards the lunar south pole, also has a near-constant solar illumination. Other areas near the poles that get light most of the time could be linked in a power grid.
The Moon lacks light elements (volatiles), such as carbon and nitrogen, although there is some evidence of hydrogen near the north and south poles. Additionally, oxygen, though one of the most common elements in the regolith constituting the Moon's surface, is only found bound up in minerals that would require complex industrial infrastructure using very high energy to isolate. Some or all of these volatiles are needed to generate breathable air, water, food, and rocket fuel, all of which would need to be imported from Earth until other cheaper sources are developed. This would limit the colony's rate of growth and keep it dependent on Earth. The cost of volatiles could be reduced by constructing the upper stage of supply ships using materials high in volatiles, such as carbon fiber and other plastics, although converting these into forms useful for life would involve substantial difficulty. The 2006 announcement by the Keck Observatory that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus,[19] and possibly large numbers of other Trojan objects in Jupiter's orbit, are likely composed of water ice, with a layer of dust, and the hypothesized large amounts of water ice on the closer, main-belt asteroid 1 Ceres, suggest that importing volatiles from this region via the Interplanetary Transport Network may be practical in the not-so-distant future. However, these possibilities are dependent on complicated and expensive resource utilization from the mid to outer solar system, which are not likely to become available to a Moon colony for a significant period of time.
There is continuing uncertainty over whether the low (one-sixth g) gravity on the Moon is strong enough to prevent detrimental effects to human health in the long term. Exposure to weightlessness over month-long periods has been demonstrated to cause deterioration of physiological systems, such as loss of bone and muscle mass and a depressed immune system. Similar effects could occur in a low-gravity environment, although virtually all research into the health effects of low gravity has been limited to zero gravity. Countermeasures such as an aggressive routine of daily exercise have proven at least partially effective in preventing the deleterious effects of low gravity.
The lack of a substantial atmosphere for insulation results in temperature extremes and makes the Moon's surface conditions somewhat like a deep space vacuum. It also leaves the lunar surface exposed to half as much radiation as in interplanetary space (with the other half blocked by the moon itself underneath the colony). Although lunar materials would potentially be useful as a simple radiation shield for living quarters, shielding against solar flares during expeditions outside is more problematic.
Also, the lack of an atmosphere increases the chances of the colonial site being hit by meteors, which would impact upon the surface directly, as they have done throughout the Moon's history. Even small pebbles and dust have the potential to damage or destroy insufficiently protected structures.
Moon dust is an extremely abrasive glassy substance formed by micrometeorites and unrounded due to the lack of weathering. It sticks to everything, can damage equipment, and it may be toxic.[20]
Growing crops on the moon faces many difficult challenges due to the long lunar night (nearly 15 earth days), extreme variation in surface temperature, exposure to solar flares, and lack of bees for pollination. (Due to the lack of any atmosphere on the Moon, plants would need to be grown in sealed chambers, though experiments have shown that plants can thrive at pressures much lower than those on Earth.[21]) The use of electric lighting to compensate for the 28 day/night might be difficult: a single acre of plants on Earth enjoys a peak 4 megawatts of sunlight power at noon. Experiments conducted by the Soviet space program in the 1970s suggest it is possible to grow conventional crops with the 15 day light, 15 day dark cycle.[22] A variety of concepts for lunar agriculture have been proposed,[23] including the use of minimal artificial light to maintain plants during the night and the use of fast growing crops that might be started as seedlings with artificial light and be harvestable at the end of one lunar day.[24] Placing the farm at the constantly lit North Pole would be a way of escaping from this problem. One estimate suggested a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed 100 people.[25]
--Wikipedia
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
There are several disadvantages to the Moon as a colony site:... One estimate suggested a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed 100 people.[25]
--Wikipedia
We should give it a try. A lot can be done with a little ingenuity. In the worst case, we'll learn a lot. Then, on to Mars.
@Brandon9000,
What do you think would be the cost of colonizing the moon or mars? Can we afford it? It seems that none of you advocates of manned space projects truly address these questions.
@Advocate,
Could Spain afford to send Columbus's ship to find a new route to India in the 15th century, and was it worth it? When the human race emerged from Africa where it had evolved, was exploring and settling the planet's other continents worth it? It's absolutely stupid for humanity to stay in one solar system in the midst of billions of them, just because of people like you who can't see any further than a few years down the road.
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'll phrase it more carefully for low IQs. Obama proposed cancelling the return to the moon program. Later, during the campaign he said that he had changed his mind and didn't want to cancel it. I want to believe him but am not certain whether I should.
I imagine that, if Obama cancels the moon program, you'll complain loud and long -- almost as much as you did back in early 2005 when GWB dropped his proposed plans for a manned mission to Mars.
You
did complain about that, didn't you?
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
I'll phrase it more carefully for low IQs. Obama proposed cancelling the return to the moon program. Later, during the campaign he said that he had changed his mind and didn't want to cancel it. I want to believe him but am not certain whether I should.
I imagine that, if Obama cancels the moon program, you'll complain loud and long -- almost as much as you did back in early 2005 when GWB dropped his proposed plans for a manned mission to Mars.
You
did complain about that, didn't you?
I am in favor of everything which advances space travel and opposed to everything which holds it back, and very vocally so, and I always have been. If someone proposed a multi-trillion dollar plan for building a colony on the Moon, I would recognize that his plan wasn't cost effective and ask him to propose a more efficient program, but I would always be in favor of the mission. I believe that we ought to stop messing around, colonize what can be colonized in the solar system, and do some serious research towards developing spacecraft propulsion systems capable of flight to other solar systems (although their fruition will almost certainly not be in my lifetime). I am, and always have been, wholly committed to the colonization and exploration of space. Developing space travel is always the right choice, and delaying the development of space travel is always the wrong choice.
What do you think we should do about space travel? Your post could be taken as suggesting that you may not be very interested in the prospect.
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:I am in favor of everything which advances space travel and opposed to everything which holds it back, and very vocally so, and I always have been. If someone proposed a multi-trillion dollar plan for building a colony on the Moon, I would recognize that his plan wasn't cost effective and ask him to propose a more efficient program, but I would always be in favor of the mission. I believe that we ought to stop messing around, colonize what can be colonized in the solar system, and do some serious research towards developing spacecraft propulsion systems capable of flight to other solar systems (although their fruition will almost certainly not be in my lifetime). I am, and always have been, wholly committed to the colonization and exploration of space. Developing space travel is always the right choice, and delaying the development of space travel is always the wrong choice.
So you
did complain when Bush scrapped the Mars mission, right?
Brandon9000 wrote:What do you think we should do about space travel? Your post could be taken as suggesting that you may not be very interested in the prospect.
We have better things on which to spend our tax dollars, like investing in mass transit and repairing our bridges and roads here on earth.
@mysteryman,
One of the spin off s that is often ignored is semi conductors: and computing: computers are small because they have to fit on rocket
The thing is: spending money on science generally does no harm: invading countries does;
Look at the time scale this way: America was discovered in 1492: it took around 300 years until it became viable.
@joefromchicago,
agreed...at least in the short run.
@joefromchicago,
joefromchicago wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:I am in favor of everything which advances space travel and opposed to everything which holds it back, and very vocally so, and I always have been. If someone proposed a multi-trillion dollar plan for building a colony on the Moon, I would recognize that his plan wasn't cost effective and ask him to propose a more efficient program, but I would always be in favor of the mission. I believe that we ought to stop messing around, colonize what can be colonized in the solar system, and do some serious research towards developing spacecraft propulsion systems capable of flight to other solar systems (although their fruition will almost certainly not be in my lifetime). I am, and always have been, wholly committed to the colonization and exploration of space. Developing space travel is always the right choice, and delaying the development of space travel is always the wrong choice.
So you
did complain when Bush scrapped the Mars mission, right?
If it happened, and had I known it happened, I certainly would have. All I know is this - his father proposed it, and a few years later, I became aware that it had been cancelled because they had gotten a look at the actual costs involved. To this moment, I don't know who cancelled it. If your debating strategy is based on the idea that I am not strongly in support of the space program, and only bring it up because it presents a chance to criticize Obama, then you're an idiot. You are actually not a better expert on my experience than I am. I enrolled in college as a physics major with the idea of doing spacecraft propulsion research (although it didn't work out like that), and I've been a member of the National Space Society. I'm a big supporter of the space program no matter the personalities or parties involved.
joefromchicago wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:What do you think we should do about space travel? Your post could be taken as suggesting that you may not be very interested in the prospect.
We have better things on which to spend our tax dollars, like investing in mass transit and repairing our bridges and roads here on earth.
You're just the sort of person who would have turned down Columbus in the 15th century because Spain had domestic problems, which, of course, it still has.
By the way, just for laughs sometime discuss the actual thread topic, because, you know, Joe, if you can come into my threads and derail them onto other subjects, you can't complain if I do the same to yours.
Whenever anyone criticizes the spending on manned (and some unmanned) space projects, you get the old shibboleth about Isabella's great investment in the Columbus project. They are really not comparable. The spending on Columbus was relatively small potatoes, and its purpose was to find a new route to the orient. Finding the new world was serendipity. Regarding the latter, just think of all the great spin-offs we will realize from the research spending here on earth on energy, transportation, the environment, medicine, etc.
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:If your debating strategy is based on the idea that I am not strongly in support of the space program, and only bring it up because it presents a chance to criticize Obama, then you're an idiot. You are actually not a better expert on my experience than I am. I enrolled in college as a physics major with the idea of doing spacecraft propulsion research (although it didn't work out like that), and I've been a member of the National Space Society. I'm a big supporter of the space program no matter the personalities or parties involved.
That rings awfully hollow when the only time you manage to express your selective outrage is when a Democrat considers cancelling a NASA program.
Brandon9000 wrote:You're just the sort of person who would have turned down Columbus in the 15th century because Spain had domestic problems, which, of course, it still has.
Columbus got three lousy little boats. I'm sure the Spanish monarchy was able to afford that expense.
Brandon9000 wrote:By the way, just for laughs sometime discuss the actual thread topic, because, you know, Joe, if you can come into my threads and derail them onto other subjects, you can't complain if I do the same to yours.
I don't recall ever complaining about your contributions to my threads. In fact, I don't even recall you contributing to any of my threads.
