Scientists petition congress for return to Moon

netbound
I hope the scientists have some influence over Congress, but I doubt it. Most of those on the Congressional Science Committee think the world was created 6,000 years ago and evolution has no basis in reality. Pathetic.

What's the saying? People get the government they deserve?

If people wanted to vote in people with an anti-science agenda they should not be shocked when the pleas of those in science fall on deaf ears.

The dumbing down of politics in the US into a small minded, anything but civil debate has driven out most intelligent people who science means anything for.

Like I said, China at one time had the largest navy in the world. Then they turned inward, destroyed their ships and regressed.

Britain had the largest navy in the world and an empire stretching most of the Earth's surface. It wasn't sustainable for a variety of reasons and so now their major contributions to Earth culture are music, film and football.

The US since around the time of Nixon turned inward, stopped the plans to develop the solar system, let the Apollo era infrastructure disappear and became a nation driven by constant entertainment to the point where big issues in politics are turned into banal political debates over "who's right, and who's wrong" rather than what is best for the country as a whole.

You know, because people shouting over each other on TV is far more entertaining than a level-headed intelligent discussion which might actually get something done. It's all about ratings right?

So it is ironic that China and India seem poised to take the place of the US and Russia in the 21st/22nd centuries.

webedoomed
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

Two out of three... not so bad, eh?

We're inching closer

I still think the grand prize will go to ITER.

Blue Shift


And don't say Helium 3. We don't even have a working fusion reactor of any kind yet, much less one that runs on Helium 3.

There not much on the moon BUT you have Near earth objects made of rare earths, infact there one estimated to have a couple of trillion USD worth of platnium and I think Rubidium on. You also have mars which is rich in iron , titanum and I beleive copper. And you have saturn moon titan that has lakes of ethane.

The moon just makes a very good base of operations as it doesnt take much effort to take off from unlike earth so you could quite easily put maintinece, medical and refuelling faclity there and would be a good and safe docking point for nuclear powerd craft (which are needed really for trips to mars and beyond).

Think of it more as a possible safe habour.

727Sky

I still think the welfare voices will kill anything that gets off the ground.

Its so short sighted I think congress should just ignore them.

Well first start a huge education campaign to try and get the unwashed masses to understand.

But for the rest? well that why you a republic not a democracy. You country needs to act for the survival of your long term future.

crazyewok

727Sky

I still think the welfare voices will kill anything that gets off the ground.

Its so short sighted I think congress should just ignore them.

Well first start a huge education campaign to try and get the unwashed masses to understand.

But for the rest? well that why you a republic not a democracy. You country needs to act for the survival of your long term future.

In the US education is done on a local and state level. That's part of the problem actually but that's a topic for another forum. There is no civic responsibility for seeing education as a shared community investment. It all comes down to zero-sum arguments: "Why should my taxes have to go to educate THOSE kids..." etc, saddly.

No one knows where the next Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson or Michio Kaku will come from. It could be some kid growing up in East LA right now whose parents "snuck in" from Mexico for all we know. The point is, without investment in quality education for all we'll never know.

crazyewok

727Sky

I still think the welfare voices will kill anything that gets off the ground.

Its so short sighted I think congress should just ignore them.

Its hard to ignore them since its the same crew which threatens to shut the government down.

The astronauts would drown up there with the equipment they have.

We haven't recovered from the depression yet, I think spending money on this till things get going would be unwise. I suppose we could borrow more money so all our tax money goes to interest instead of half of it.

We are going to need our money to help people after the disasters that are happening everywhere. I guess these scientists can only see what is in their minds. If someone says that this venture will boost the economy, I think we should send them to see Santa. Building roads and businesses that create necessary products that we use will be a better way to do that.

rickymouse
The astronauts would drown up there with the equipment they have.

We haven't recovered from the depression yet, I think spending money on this till things get going would be unwise.

You know what got the US out of the last depression? Major infrastructure projects and WWII.

Building space infrastructure would require the brainpower, advancement in technology and investment that those two things required. But guess what happened after WWII? The largest peacetime economic boom in the US in the 1950s-60s.

Technological development is driven by BIG ideas and large goals. Usually these have been military but there is no reason why we can not beat swords in to plowshares and repurpose that military machine to build the beginnings of the Star Trek world.

Our future may depend upon it. The next global war is probably not survivable, and penny pinching our way towards an inevitable end is unacceptable as well.

If this stuff requires a "war economy" so be it, isn't that better than actual war over dwindling resources?

reply to post by JadeStar


Because of the technical jobs that are needed for this and the use of automation, the expenditure would only create a limited amount of high paying jobs and hardly any middle income jobs. Building roads or businesses that make appliances would create many more jobs. Creating more mid range middle income jobs would be best.

This moon mission would do very little good for the economy today. It would mostly create continued employment for some people in that field at NASA. Job security and a few new high tech jobs.

I think it is a poor way to invest money to stimulate the economy.

reply to post by Jerow


Do you wanna give any spoilers?

rickymouse
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Because of the technical jobs that are needed for this and the use of automation, the expenditure would only create a limited amount of high paying jobs and hardly any middle income jobs.

That's incorrect. In a robust space economy there will be jobs at many technical levels. And someone has to repair the robots. They can't fix themselves yet so you get mechanics and the modern day Rosie the Riveter's on that as well.

The whole idea would be to both increase the infrastructure in space AND the education level overall so those technical jobs would not be out of reach for the average person.

The project may involve space but the money is spent down here on earth on things like materials, education, mining, etc.

Look, the same argument was made in the 1970s about computers. There was this argument that only a small number of computer scientists would benefit from a boom in computer technology.

We all know what happened, don't we?

Now any kid who wants to can learn how to code for little or nothing and its taught in even some of the poorest schools.

Theres's no reason why the space boom should not echo previous booms like the 50s post-war boom or the 90s internet boom.

Right now we have some people who are hacking genes in homemade wetlabs in their kitchens. This is the equivalent to what Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were doing in their garage with computers in the 1970s.

We have high school kids building cubesats which have been launched into space.

Do not underestimate the human capacity to retool, relearn and rebound.

We're not talking about a mission. We're talking about building a new way. A new economy based on a new massive peacetime infrastructure project.

Robots can't do everything yet, and we still have something between our ears they do not, at least for now.

If a nation can spend nearly a trillion dollars on two wars which have done nothing for the economy don't you think it wise to invest a similar expenditure in building the infrastructure for future generations while at the same time elevating the level of everyone?

I do.

reply to post by JadeStar


I think that's a little too idealistic and naive, tbh. There are natural limitations to the amount of education one can absorb. Different people become overloaded and incapable to continue furthering their knowledge at different points. I honestly don't think the average individual would be competent and overall fit enough to do a job out in space.

It seems more likely that pressures will wipe out the least fit, and the most fit will be lead out to the stars. There is already technological shifts which the "average" are incapable of properly handling. Sure, the average can handle an iphone, but a linux console? You can't teach that kind of syntax to everyone, and yet we're going to trust them with a job out in space? Not wise.

JadeStar

 

Now any kid who wants to can learn how to code for little or nothing and its taught in even some of the poorest schools.

Sorry, but I call shenanigans. Maybe very easy coding, but computer programming requires a level of abstraction that simply can't be taught to the average mind.

Theres's no reason why the space boom should not echo previous booms like the 50s post-war boom or the 90s internet boom.

Right now we have some people who are hacking genes in homemade wetlabs in their kitchens. This is the equivalent to what Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak were doing in their garage with computers in the 1970s.

They are not average minds.

reply to post by Blue Shift


with such little time spent there, how would they know if anything useful was on the moon.

First of all, we must make a deal with the residents...

A permanent Base on the Moon is forbidden.

Arken
"The Warning" was: You can visit us, but you can't establish here!

Horizon Lunar Outpost

American manned lunar base. Study 1959. In 1959 the US Army completed a plan for a manned military outpost on the moon. The Horizon lunar outpost was said to be necessary to protect United States interests on the moon; to conduct moon-based surveillance of the earth and space, to act as a communications relay, and to serve as a base for exploration of the moon. The permanent outpost would cost $6 billion and become operational in December 1966 with 12 soldiers

reply to post by lostbook


they encountered E.T. them E.Ts told them not to go there.
the moon has a dark side which cannot be seen from earth called the dark side of the moon.
thats where all their bases are.

to cut it short; there has been 3 astronauts who went there after the incident and never came back.
from that point on man didn't go there anymore, only robots.

Having slept on it and woke up to a mild morning from last nights howling winds I hope the U.K government makes mining resources from the Moon a number one priority.

However there are a few niggles in the Moon Treaty that probably need altering and updating.

The treaty makes a declaration that the Moon should be used for the benefit of all states and all peoples of the international community. It also expresses a desire to prevent the Moon from becoming a source of international conflict. To those ends the treaty does the following:[citation needed]
Bans any military use of celestial bodies, including weapon testing or as military bases.
Bans all exploration and uses of celestial bodies without the approval or benefit of other states under the common heritage of mankind principle (article 11).
Requires that the Secretary-General must be notified of all celestial activities (and discoveries developed thanks to those activities).
Declares all states have an equal right to conduct research on celestial bodies.
Declares that for any samples obtained during research activities, the state that obtained them must consider making part of it available to all countries/scientific communities for research.
Bans altering the environment of celestial bodies and requires that states must take measures to prevent accidental contamination.
Bans any state from claiming sovereignty over any territory of celestial bodies.
Bans any ownership of any extraterrestrial property by any organization or person, unless that organization is international and governmental.
Requires all resource extraction and allocation be made by an international regime.
wiki moon treaty

other links.

34/68. Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

reply to post by lostbook


The USA has had fifty years or so to get ahead with space. It has not gone anywhere. Lots of low resolution images and classified documents. Time to step aside..

reply to post by Tindalos2013


From your quote from the moon treaty:

"Requires all resource extraction and allocation be made by an international regime."

If China and other nations are working on at least a long-term goal of mining Helium-3, how do the words "international regime" limit or expand that? 'Regime', which means 'form of government', precludes private mining missions, even for water.

And it is a word I don't see often in a positive or neutral context due to the media emphasis on only using it for 'you are not supposed to like the country'. From the Wikipedia article 'Regime':

Modern usage

While the word regime originates as a synonym for any form of government, modern usage often gives the term a negative connotation, implying an authoritarian government or dictatorship. Webster's definition states that the word regime refers simply to a form of government, while Oxford English Dictionary defines regime as "a government, especially an authoritarian one". Nowadays the political use of the word regime is most commonly applied to any government that is most of the time not democratically elected and imposes strict and often arbitrary rules and laws on the people that are, because of the undemocratic nature of the government, non-negotiable. English language press journalists deploy it selectively to cue their news audiences to view particular foreign governments negatively.

spartacus699
Men have not been to the moon, only rovers. And it's only gonna be rovers. It's possible that one day man will walk on the moon but so far it's still way out of reach.

Only remote controlled lunar rovers with cameras on board ?

reply to post by lostbook


Forget the moon

www.evawaseerst.be...