Bush mulls major new space effort

[Dis]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Don't any of you have any pride in being a human? Don't you want to see us spread and survive!??

Geeze, if you guys had been around in 1492, the Americas would be a wildlife preserve.

no, the americas would belong to their rightful owners.

[Kuciwalker]

Yep, I'm sure the rights of those moon natives will be a HUGE concern

[Dis]

and the moon is a lifeless rock. I have been there.

Recently (within the past few weeks- check CNN.com space section) it was revealed that the moon has less water than was previously believed. Probalby not enough to support moon bases. Most of the water would be in frozen flakes intermixed with the dirt.

The moon has no value.

Mining on the moon . Do you guys realize how expensive that would be? Yes an automobile would cost $300,000 instead of $15,000- yes brilliant. but at least we wouldn't be tearing up our own planet.

[Kuciwalker]

The moon could provide a good site for a space shipyard - there's some gravity, which is useful so that people can stay there for long periods of time, but there isn't enough gravity to make it unprofitable to move the ship out of its gravity well.

[Ned]

I haven't seen that report. But there does seem to be a lot of hydrogen at the poles. The dirt has oxygen. We could make water.

[Dis]

The only problem with a moon base it would be more complicated than a base in orbit. Why not just create the base in orbit? There are some basic elements on the moon, but you would have to create large facilities to extract anything driving the cost higher than using orbit to launch space ships.

launching from orbit is the way to go.

[Kirnwaffen]

I would like to see us attempt, within the next few decades, a base on the moon. It would be kind of like baby steps: maintain a near-earth space station, then a relatively close colony, then a more distant colony (say, mars). All of this will, of course, be immensely expensive. Even just a moon colony would provide an incentive for better propulsion, communication, and shielding technologies.

[:) Smiley]

More pragmatically, space program funding is also a big plus with states where the space program is a big industry, such as Florida... With butterfly ballots gone, Dubya gotta come up with some new ideas.

[Dis]

screw the moon, I do support a mars misison...eventually. But to make one by 2020 is just too soon. 2050 is a more realistic goal.

[Az]

@private enterprise. Space can become profitable, but it needs enormous starting capital investment. Like comms satellites built after years of various government space projects.

The whole Helium-3 Fusion reactor idea seems very interesting to me, for example. If we could do it with this single industry, more would follow. IIRC, Helium-3 reactions are already very profitable, even with current reactor technology. The problem is, of course, the lack of helium-3.

[:) Smiley]

17 years is more than enough time. From satellite to moon landing took only 12 years, and back then all calculations had to be done the hard way!

47 years ain't a challenge at all.

[Dis]

this is exponentially more challenging

sure we have calculators and computers. But we still rely on 50's era technology to get into space!!

[Ned]

I don't know about that, Dis. I think we know an awful lot more about composite materials, buckyballs and control systems than we did then. We should be able to build much better rockets and space vehicles.

The significant problems still lie in radiation shielding, especially for humans.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Eli
This international law denies one of the most effective incentives for space exploration because of some nice-cozy-fluffy dream.

Do you really think that when there will be lots of human presence in space no one will introduce weapons? Violence will go wherever humans go. Space, like everything else, will be weaponized eventualy and such policies only hinder our progress.

Slightly paraphrasing Col. Corazon Santiago (SMAC seems to have a quote for everything ) :
"Man has killed man from the beginning of time, and each new frontier has brought new ways and new places to die. Why would the future be different?"

Do you think that the human race will benefit from having nuclear weapons platforms in orbit and on the moon's surface? The existence of such weapons increases the chance for the extinction of the human race, and cannot be reasonably described as progress. There's also more chance of mechanical failure in space.

There's no incentive to build weapons in space, period. There's no enemy to justify the weapons system. The only reason to build weapons in space is an addiction to weapons. If there was a cult that liked to cover everything in sombreros, they would probably justify putting a giant sombrero on the moon by claiming that it would yeild spin-off technologies and that it was 'inevitable'.

Sure weapons will probably get into space eventually. But we should try to keep it clean as long as possible, and we should never let the generals run rampant with their addiction.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by Ned
I don't know about that, Dis. I think we know an awful lot more about composite materials, buckyballs and control systems than we did then. We should be able to build much better rockets and space vehicles.

The significant problems still lie in radiation shielding, especially for humans.

That's why we send monkeys.