NationStates Jolt Archive

First off I'll take it as read that NASA got to the moon 1st in 1969 etc .

Now that they want to go back again, what do you think of their chances? Is China going to beat them to it? If China does beat them to it does NASA get first dibs as they've been there before? (PS can one of them please speed it up and take GWB & TB with them - on a one way ticket of course).

screw the moon.

I just wish they'd do it sooner than 2024. I'll be 73! :eek:

Nobody has dibs on the moon.
Basically its 'you get what you grab' once people start staking claims they can enforce.

Theoretically, you can't have dibs on the moon. If we all obeyed the treaties, nobody can claim exclusive ownership of a celestial body.

Still, I can see the Chinese doing it first, if only because they'll have less people asking for better tax spending. (Namely because disagreeing with the Party is still unhealthy.) American government will never have that kind of unity.

Psh. And how long do you think all those treaties are going to last if/when the US gets this planned 'moonbase' up and running?
About as long as your average moth in a supernova.

Besides, the only people who signed the 'moon treaty' (IE: The one forbidding all forms of colonisation/terraforming) are non-spacefaring countries. I beleive the US and Russia only agreed not to build weapons platforms and such in space.

The rocket is little more than an updated Saturn V, so much so that NASA is pillaging parts for the Ares from Saturn V's in museums and on display in various places.

First off I'll take it as read that NASA got to the moon 1st in 1969 etc .

Now that they want to go back again, what do you think of their chances? Is China going to beat them to it? If China does beat them to it does NASA get first dibs as they've been there before? (PS can one of them please speed it up and take GWB & TB with them - on a one way ticket of course).

Since we were already there, China can not logicly beat us to the moon.

As to going back, I wish it was being done sooner but at least they are making an effort to go back.

screw the moon.

They intend to try.

I'm going to say the People's Republic of China isn't going to beat the United States in going 'back' to the moon.

Their space program is mainly for propaganda purposes, I saw some Chinese State Television footage during Shenzhou V. The sole member of the crew matched down a red carpet to salute the assembled group of Party bigshots in his space suit, and recited a scripted speech.

The Chinese Space Program, right now, only has a budget of about USD$4 billion (total), compared to NASA USD$20 billion (annually). The PRC needs a blue-water navy and infrastrucutre more than a space program with no immediate economic returns.

First off, they'll need to build a better ship than the Apollo rockets. Those were under sheilded, poorly equipped, horribly inefficient, and chemical rockets.

Really, I think if Apollo 18 had launched on time, Gordon and crew would have died because of a flare that occured during the schedule. Those rockets were poorly sheilded from radiation. Not enough to kill them right away with background from space but they probably couldn't survive a flare.

And they didn't have enough backups. We almost lost the infamous 13 because of system failures and insufficient backups.

They had a mass ratio of about 600.

They were chemical rockets. I still can't understand why NASA hasn't made the switch to NPRs or NERVAs once beyond the exosphere. Far stronger and more efficient.

Time to seize the moon for the US; we need to demonstrate our scientific dominance, and frankly it would be wonderful if this program produces the kind of investment in science and math that the original space race did.

I wonder if there's a way to weaponize it, or even better stick missiles on it...at the very least, we should claim it so we can mine the hell out of it.

Time to seize the moon for the US; we need to demonstrate our scientific dominance, and frankly it would be wonderful if this program produces the kind of investment in science and math that the original space race did.

I wonder if there's a way to weaponize it, or even better stick missiles on it...at the very least, we should claim it so we can mine the hell out of it.

We promised the Ruskies we wouldnt put WMD's on the moon so long as they didnt.

I think that if it was demonstrated that the moon had significant natural resources (gold or something, I dunno) that were exploitable in some easy fashion, that the Moon could easily be covered in mines in the next twenty years or so, government influence or no.

Time to seize the moon for the US; we need to demonstrate our scientific dominance, and frankly it would be wonderful if this program produces the kind of investment in science and math that the original space race did.

I wonder if there's a way to weaponize it, or even better stick missiles on it...at the very least, we should claim it so we can mine the hell out of it.
And that's why you're stupid.

Nobody could man the moon base for very long because of the low gravity of the moon. Bones and muscle would go strait to hell in a few months. And you have to figure a way to get all the building materials up there, inclduing heavy particle and EM sheilding.

Also, what would we mine from it? Moon rocks to run tedious geological and chemical tests on?

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of space exploration, but I also recognize that it'll be a lot more difficult than most people realize and NASA ain't doing much work on stronger engines. This plan is just a rerun of the Apollo program except this time they'll be taking Laptops that can run Half-Life 2along for the trip. What we really need are large cycle-ships and station-ships with large gravity-rings and power plants. And we should probably replace the shuttle with something based on the Delta Clipper for low orbital transports. And landers for Lunar missions and Mars missions.

And that's why you're stupid.

Nobody could man the moon base for very long because of the low gravity of the moon. Bones and muscle would go strait to hell in a few months. And you have to figure a way to get all the building materials up there, inclduing heavy particle and EM sheilding.

Also, what would we mine from it? Moon rocks to run tedious geological and chemical tests on?

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of space exploration, but I also recognize that it'll be a lot more difficult than most people realize and NASA ain't doing much work on stronger engines. This plan is just a rerun of the Apollo program except this time they'll be taking Laptops that can run Half-Life 2along for the trip. What we really need are large cycle-ships and station-ships with large gravity-rings and power plants. And we should probably replace the shuttle with something based on the Delta Clipper for low orbital transports. And landers for Lunar missions and Mars missions.

The 2024 date is based on replacing the shuttle by 2020, I believe. As for what could be gotten from the moon, well, Robert Heinlein had a few ideas that might be workable in The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Is_a_Harsh_Mistress).

Moon, bleh been there, done that. Now Mars, now Mars is where it's at. *nods*

Why don't they pull down their pants and bend over when they talk about going to the moon? Rocket scientists have no sense of humor. :(

We are not sending prisoners to the moon. It's not happening. And the book makes a point I was trying in this very thread; you can't live on the moon too long or you lose muscle and bone.

We are not sending prisoners to the moon. It's not happening. And the book makes a point I was trying in this very thread; you can't live on the moon too long or you lose muscle and bone.

Yeah, I know. And the point about losing muscle and bone mass just says that you can't go back to Earth easily. Maybe people wouldn't want to return after a while. And the gravity on Mars is much less than Earth, too, so there'll be the same problem, though perhaps not quite as severe.

And that's why you're stupid.

Nobody could man the moon base for very long because of the low gravity of the moon. Bones and muscle would go strait to hell in a few months. And you have to figure a way to get all the building materials up there, inclduing heavy particle and EM sheilding.

It'll take time, but we have to start somewhere.

Also, what would we mine from it? Moon rocks to run tedious geological and chemical tests on?.

The moon's got a ton of helium-3. By the time we're established on the moon, it's very likely that prototype fusion reactors will be operational and they will need elements like this to generate energy.

Considering that the PRC has a grand total of 2 manned launches, I'd put my money on the US getting there first.

Personally, I think the Moon plan is a very good one. It goes back to the roots of manned exploration. It goes back to what we know will work. It takes advantage of the already existing technology from both the Apollo and STS programs.

Plus, the US has already been to the moon. We have done it, and we know how to go back. When one decides to go to the moon, you don't just slap together a bunch of components and let them fly. It takes much effort to design such a craft. It took 7 years to design and build the LM.

Sorry. I just can't consider the PRC a major player in the space race with only 2 manned launches.

On a related note, why the hell hasn't the ESA put up any astronauts?

It'll take time, but we have to start somewhere.



The moon's got a ton of helium-3. By the time we're established on the moon, it's very likely that prototype fusion reactors will be operational and they will need elements like this to generate energy.
Arg! Again with the fusion reactors! There are prototype reactors now that would use that helium as fuel. The problem is that they are incapable of producing more power than they consume. That means they drain power, not generate it.

You can't just assume that we'll have fusion reactor that will put out more power than you put into it in the future. I have followed fusion research for quite a while and I know that tokamaks are not going to provide a surpluss of energy. The best output that can be done is still less than the input required to run the device. We have to assume that we will still have the same technical limits today when planning for tomorrow so we'll be ready for the future just in case what's on the drawing board never makes it off.

You're an avid reader of Popular Science, aren't you? I'll tell ya, that publication has been going downhill for years and years now and very few good things are left in it, Gray's column being one of them. So much hope, so little realism.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If the cost of getting the fuel back here and using it in a reactor is greater than the output of the reactor it will be a waste of resources.

Arg! Again with the fusion reactors! There are prototype reactors now that would use that helium as fuel. The problem is that they are incapable of producing more power than they consume. That means they drain power, not generate it.

You can't just assume that we'll have fusion reactor that will put out more power than you put into it in the future. I have followed fusion research for quite a while and I know that tokamaks are not going to provide a surpluss of energy. The best output that can be done is still less than the input required to run the device. We have to assume that we will still have the same technical limits today when planning for tomorrow so we'll be ready for the future just in case what's on the drawing board never makes it off.

That's true. However, we have no idea what kinds of technological advancements are going to emerge in the next 20 years. The point is to establish some basic infrastructure and take advantage of the possibility. At the very least, we'll gather some valuable scientific and technological data.

You're an avid reader of Popular Science, aren't you? I'll tell ya, that publication has been going downhill for years and years now and very few good things are left in it, Gray's column being one of them. So much hope, so little realism.

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch. If the cost of getting the fuel back here and using it in a reactor is greater than the output of the reactor it will be a waste of resources.

SciAm fan myself. I'm just saying it's plausible and that it may become a very economic decision to establish a presence on the moon, however temporary it is. The goal should be to explore these possibilities and determine if it will be feasible to produce helium-3 and other materials.

I'm with Vetalia. We are going to need the moon and its resources if we are to get past the eventual oil crash. Since the moon has no environment to speak of, we can easily mine the hell out of it with no real consequences. A Mars mission will be made much easier with a moon base, as launching from the moon is a damned sight easier than launching from Earth, lemme tell yah.

And hopefully we can finally name the moon Luna like we should so we can stop calling it "The Moon" as if it were the only one or the most important just because it's the one that orbits our planet.

So, when are we going to Mars?

whatever, the UK, is going to get farther than everyone, I heard somewhere that they were putting some money and research, serious research, into wormhole technology. When the US takes the moon, and mars, and the China decides to fight them for it, because mars is red, so it belongs to the reds, England will rebirth its massive empire into the cosmos farther than China or the US....god won't that be bloody enthraling.

And hopefully we can finally name the moon Luna like we should so we can stop calling it "The Moon" as if it were the only one or the most important just because it's the one that orbits our planet.

I love this idea. Earth and Luna has a nice ring to it.

The Chinese Space Program, right now, only has a budget of about USD$4 billion (total), compared to NASA USD$20 billion (annually).

Money is important of course, but so is how it's spent. For example, how much of that USD 4B is going for the Chinese program goes into $500 hammers compared to the US programs $500 hammers? Very important that.

Money is important of course, but so is how it's spent. For example, how much of that USD 4B is going for the Chinese program goes into $500 hammers compared to the US programs $500 hammers? Very important that.

Pff, those $500 hammers are just to cover up their skimming off money for research on the UFO's at Area 51;)

So, when are we going to Mars?

when a lot of us are dead, thats when it will happen

Since the moon has no environment to speak of, we can easily mine the hell out of it with no real consequences.

Oh, there would be some very real consequences if you mined the 'hell' out of it. Mine enough from deep out of a planetary body, and eventually, it just collapses. Although that would probably only happen very late stage.

Oh, there would be some very real consequences if you mined the 'hell' out of it. Mine enough from deep out of a planetary body, and eventually, it just collapses. Although that would probably only happen very late stage.

...

I'm fully aware of that. Somehow, though, I doubt we'd mine it to that extent, which is why I didn't mention it.

We promised the Ruskies we wouldnt put WMD's on the moon so long as they didnt.


Well since the agreement was with the "Soviets" then since they do not exist anymore..... weapons on the moon shouldn't be a problem. How else would we defend against Chinese or the odd ET that comes along trying to steal our Moon rocks?

...

I'm fully aware of that. Somehow, though, I doubt we'd mine it to that extent, which is why I didn't mention it.

Are tides would start to disappear first.

We are not sending prisoners to the moon. It's not happening. And the book makes a point I was trying in this very thread; you can't live on the moon too long or you lose muscle and bone.

I think he was thinking more along the lines of power (solar and geothermal) as well as tunnel farming.

What stops one from building a base along the lines of a centrifuge? Artificially enhancing the gravity?

Since we were already there, China can not logicly beat us to the moon.

As to going back, I wish it was being done sooner but at least they are making an effort to go back.

Sorry, I meant China beating NASA in going back to the moon - poor grammer.

[QUOTE=On a related note, why the hell hasn't the ESA put up any astronauts?[/QUOTE]

ESA - LOL

What a complete waste of time, money (and dare I say it - oh what the) space.

The EU are more likely to agree to giving in and disbanding than the ESA putting anyone into space.

Richard Branson has got a better chance of putting men into space that ESA -
Need I go on?

I think he was thinking more along the lines of power (solar and geothermal) as well as tunnel farming.

What stops one from building a base along the lines of a centrifuge? Artificially enhancing the gravity?

A centrifugal base? Expensive, I'd think, instead of just burrowing into the Moon and dealing with the low gravity. Of course, while there have been some studies of the effects of low gravity from astronauts at the Space station, a whole lifetime of low gravity is something else entirely. Heavens! Humanity might ... dare I say it? evolve.

A centrifugal base? Expensive, I'd think, instead of just burrowing into the Moon and dealing with the low gravity. Of course, while there have been some studies of the effects of low gravity from astronauts at the Space station, a whole lifetime of low gravity is something else entirely. Heavens! Humanity might ... dare I say it? evolve.
...
Not...really. Loonies would get really weak and frail by our standards. If they ever came back to Earth they'd surely die. They'd be have difficulty breathing and moving. It'd be more that a step backward.

And yes, a gravity ring would be expensive to set up and run and it would only provide a limited area for living space and it would need to be a huge ring for comfort. Spin Calc (http://www.artificial-gravity.com/sw/SpinCalc/SpinCalc.htm) would be able to tell you just how big and fast you'd need to make up the difference.

...

I'm fully aware of that. Somehow, though, I doubt we'd mine it to that extent, which is why I didn't mention it.

Never underestimate the short sightedness and greed of humanity to set itself up for something daft like this.

Never underestimate the short sightedness and greed of humanity to set itself up for something daft like this.
Do you have any idea how much energy would be required to "mine the hell out of it"? The moon is a 7.3477×10^22 kg ball of mostly the same stuff that makes up Earth except it's not as densly packed. It would still require huge amounts of energy to gather all that mass up and move it off-world--er, off-moon.

Just getting the equipment up there would be a challenge because as I stated previously, the Apollo rockets had a mass ratio of 600 and you'd need lots of them and they'd need to be bigger to move all that equipment to the moon and then move the ore off.

Nyrath (http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/) runs and Dummy's Guide to Space Travel for those interested in actually having an idea of what would really be involved and hard sci-fi in general.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm quite aware of the limitations and requirements such an endeavour would take, but at the same time, I am also quite aware of how much humanity can do when propelled by greed. Take for example oil. When first discovered, what do you believe was the approximate total global amount of said reserves, taking into account all deposits since found? One would imagine a vast quantity. And yet some 100 years later, we are talking about upcoming oil crisis where there is no recovery. If there is sufficient use for minerals found on the moon, I guarantee that it will be an inevitability that it will be mined out to the point of collapse.

We promised the Ruskies we wouldnt put WMD's on the moon so long as they didnt.

I think that if it was demonstrated that the moon had significant natural resources (gold or something, I dunno) that were exploitable in some easy fashion, that the Moon could easily be covered in mines in the next twenty years or so, government influence or no.

Our promise not to weaponize the moon was with the USSR, not Russia. The USSR no longer exists, so I'm betting we will put weapons up there. Hell, depending on the availability of fissionables, I wouldn't be surprised to see weapons manufactuiring facilities built there. From a strategic point of view, we would then have an untouchable retaliatory force, and the world would be ours. *Insert maniacal laugh here if you must*

Not really. Lunar weapons installations will still need gads of fuel to fire on earth, and would have predictable firing windows, unlike subs. Orbital weapons are even worse. They're much easier to kill with ASAT missiles and have limited and very predictable orbits.

Nobody has dibs on the moon.
Basically its 'you get what you grab' once people start staking claims they can enforce.


Sweet! "Star Wars"!!!!

Our promise not to weaponize the moon was with the USSR, not Russia. The USSR no longer exists, so I'm betting we will put weapons up there. Hell, depending on the availability of fissionables, I wouldn't be surprised to see weapons manufactuiring facilities built there. From a strategic point of view, we would then have an untouchable retaliatory force, and the world would be ours. *Insert maniacal laugh here if you must*


[Dr. Evil]I say we put a big friggin' laser up there to build a "Death Star".[/Dr. Evil]

Yeah, I'm really hung up on the Galactic Empire thing this morning.

Yes, yes, yes. I'm quite aware of the limitations and requirements such an endeavour would take
Then I assume you're also aware that the moon is made of the same stuff that composes the Earth because it was likely formed from dust that got shot into obrit after 2 proto-planets collided to form Earth.

Non Aligned States has it right on about lunar WMD's.

And there would be no reason to stop at the moon for a trip to Mars. It'd just be another liftoff. Even though it'd take a lot less fuel than a liftoff from Earth it'd be more than if you stayed in freefall the whole trip.