What I meant by dropping the patriotic BS is that a one world government where sovereign countries no longer existed. Just a sovereign planet.
a permanent manned colony on the moon by 2020
- Thread starter AyameTaylor
- Start date
Space exploration is fine - but it should be done with private money without government subsidization.
The American Moon program paid of in so many inventions, so many things that helped society, that it more than paid for itself. The seeindipitious discoveries of a program such as that almost almost always outstrip the original program itself.
We are throwing away exploration. For the first time in the history of the United States, nobody is really trying to extend the boundaries, no government program is attempting to go beyond the known, and learn for the sake of learning.
We WILL lose out by not doing this. The Chinese have already announced that they plan to go to the Moon. They have the technical expertise to do this, and it is highly likely that they will. And, the United States no longer even has the capability of putting a single man into Earth orbit!
It's a shame, but that is exactly how countries lose their place in the world. They lose their will, over time they lose their military power, and other countries move on an surpass them. And once they have surrendered the top, not one county in history has ever regained it.
Gingrich spoke of the goal, and was ridiculed by the press, and by the other "would be leaders". The Democrats are so caught up in making the United States a totally socialistic country, and far too many of the Republicans can only see military might and nothing else.
Oh well, I had always wanted to learn Mandarin. I have been fascinated with China since I was a little boy, in the late 1940's, hearing my grandfather talk about his days as a Missionary there. And, as he said way back then, once China wakes up, nothing in this world will ever hold them back from dominance.
Oh and Clifty, you are totally insane to even begin to think of a "One World Government". It will NEVER, happen, unless mankind itself undergoes a massive transformation into something totally different.
We are throwing away exploration. For the first time in the history of the United States, nobody is really trying to extend the boundaries, no government program is attempting to go beyond the known, and learn for the sake of learning.
We WILL lose out by not doing this. The Chinese have already announced that they plan to go to the Moon. They have the technical expertise to do this, and it is highly likely that they will. And, the United States no longer even has the capability of putting a single man into Earth orbit!
It's a shame, but that is exactly how countries lose their place in the world. They lose their will, over time they lose their military power, and other countries move on an surpass them. And once they have surrendered the top, not one county in history has ever regained it.
Gingrich spoke of the goal, and was ridiculed by the press, and by the other "would be leaders". The Democrats are so caught up in making the United States a totally socialistic country, and far too many of the Republicans can only see military might and nothing else.
Oh well, I had always wanted to learn Mandarin. I have been fascinated with China since I was a little boy, in the late 1940's, hearing my grandfather talk about his days as a Missionary there. And, as he said way back then, once China wakes up, nothing in this world will ever hold them back from dominance.
Oh and Clifty, you are totally insane to even begin to think of a "One World Government". It will NEVER, happen, unless mankind itself undergoes a massive transformation into something totally different.
A one world government is a totally frightening thought but it is the only way this planet could afford to colonize the moon. Putting a base on the moon might be posible one day but what is the point?
Newt said that a moon base (in jest) has the right to petition to be a state if the moon base population reaches 13,000. THIRTEEN THOUSAND people living on the moon. He did not say the whole moon would become a US state.
Therefore your claim is false and clearly exaggerated to make it seem like the US wants to make the moon the 51st state. How ridiculous.
The moon is so inhospitable. I doubt we will ever see a sustainable moon base in our life time. The price tag would be enormous to build and the costs to resupply the place would be enormous as well.
Then the Moon State declares independence and blah blah blah then there is a wall built and a Moon War starts and BOOM no more Endor.
I saw this movie already.
I saw this movie already.
A moon base would be a huge waste of money and resources unless we had an economic reason to build it. It requires less energy to move material from the moon to low earth orbit, then it does to move resources from the earth to near earth orbit. The moon has water and other raw materials like titanium. At some point it will make economic sense to move material from near space to earth and the moon isn't the only source. Most likely the first space mining operation will harvest water from an asteroid or comet and move it to the space stations orbiting earth.
The most cost effective way to explore and exploit the resources in our solar system, would be to send robots, not people.
The most cost effective way to explore and exploit the resources in our solar system, would be to send robots, not people.
Perhaps the 'colonists' can be 'picked' the same way England did when Australia was to be settled.
If people had that idea a few hundred years ago Canada and the US wouldnt exist. Colonization was impossible without government subsidies. Same with deep sea exploration and the space program so far.
Sure we should subsidize space exploration. But we shouldn't piss away money on bad ideas. Building a moon base for people on the moon is a bad idea.
Exploring the solar system and developing new technology to help exploit the solar system are good ideas, which should be subsidized..
Exploring the solar system and developing new technology to help exploit the solar system are good ideas, which should be subsidized..
The moon is a better place to handle large ships as relaunching them means less 'fuel used' when gravity is 1/6. With no atmosphere explosions/mishaps would not have the same shock-wave but projectiles would go further with no wind resistance. Having to repair a ship might mean docking it, which would be easier and safer for the inhabitants of earth, the moon or in your backyard when yo consider a long distance ship might be 1/2 mile long and most of it engine when empty.
If leaving the solar system it would most likely be a one way trip and I'm pretty sure water on earth is more than enough hydrogen and oxygen for out energy needs for some time compared to getting some from Saturn that is , ..wait for it, ..... water. Apparently the plan is to run the oil out first as there is no other use for it, lets hope they realize that having fire in the next ice-age might make all the difference between extinct and living in a city in the ice that is several miles tall or saving a few barrels so that other energy system can be jump-started. Oddly enough, the CO2 exhaust is just what plants like and who eats plants, well...... ?
Two hundred and fifty miles above the Earth puts you a long way from the nearest kitchen tap. And at $15,000 a pint, the cost of shipping fresh water aboard the space shuttle is, well, astronomical.
Asteroid mining refers to the possibility of exploiting raw materials from asteroids and other minor planets, including near-Earth objects. Minerals and volatiles could be mined from an asteroid or spent comet to provide space-construction materials (e.g., iron, nickel, titanium), to extract water and oxygen to sustain the lives of prospector-astronauts on site, as well as hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel. In space exploration, these activities are referred to as in-situ resource utilization. A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore.
In 2006, the Keck Observatory announced that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus, and possibly large numbers of other Jupiter Trojan asteroids, are likely extinct comets and consist largely of water ice. Similarly, Jupiter-family comets, and possibly near-Earth asteroids that are defunct comets, might also economically provide water. The process of in-situ resource utilization—using materials native to space for propellant, tankage, radiation shielding, and other high-mass components of space infrastructure—could lead to radical reductions in its cost.
Asteroid mining refers to the possibility of exploiting raw materials from asteroids and other minor planets, including near-Earth objects. Minerals and volatiles could be mined from an asteroid or spent comet to provide space-construction materials (e.g., iron, nickel, titanium), to extract water and oxygen to sustain the lives of prospector-astronauts on site, as well as hydrogen and oxygen for use as rocket fuel. In space exploration, these activities are referred to as in-situ resource utilization. A comparatively small M-type asteroid with a mean diameter of 1 km could contain more than two billion metric tons of iron–nickel ore.
In 2006, the Keck Observatory announced that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus, and possibly large numbers of other Jupiter Trojan asteroids, are likely extinct comets and consist largely of water ice. Similarly, Jupiter-family comets, and possibly near-Earth asteroids that are defunct comets, might also economically provide water. The process of in-situ resource utilization—using materials native to space for propellant, tankage, radiation shielding, and other high-mass components of space infrastructure—could lead to radical reductions in its cost.
Nonsense, there were people in the Americas for thousands of years. Remember the land bridge? And, umiaks...
That was my point, if they can mine it but it would be for use on-site and not for sale back on earth. Earth has enough resourses to sustain life unless you plan to see a population that stands shoulder to shoulder across the whole planet. Do it right it can be a lot bigger than it is today but there is a limit if longevity is part of the goal. If a 'new Australia' was in the works and there was life on the destination this time it might be better to try and adapt to that world rather than kill it off and trying to reproduce earth there. Just so the Middle Ages don't repeat themselves.
I agree MHz, the point of creating a mining colony in space would be to avoid the cost of lifting the same resources from earth into space.
Moving water and other materials from these objects to earth would require less energy. When it makes sense, we will exploit our solar system's resources and the colonies will happen on their own. Now if someone wants to send a mission to Mars so that they can claim to be the first... that's different. But the US already claimed the first to the moon prize, so building a base would be pointless and redundant as well as expensive.
Moving water and other materials from these objects to earth would require less energy. When it makes sense, we will exploit our solar system's resources and the colonies will happen on their own. Now if someone wants to send a mission to Mars so that they can claim to be the first... that's different. But the US already claimed the first to the moon prize, so building a base would be pointless and redundant as well as expensive.
I think that Canada and America are artificial entities invented by colonizing nations in a false attempt to legitimize their crimes against the original inhabitants. Colonizing is a nice clean word, like collateral damage. PC for hiding the truth.
Newt said that if we have a colony on the moon and they reach 13,000 in population they have a right to petition to be a state... the moon colony does. Not that the whole moon becomes a US State...
Therefore your claim is false.