Scientists petition congress for return to Moon

reply to post by webedoomed


we chose to go there so we can say we own it.
this goes back all the way to the ancient world... whereas whoever gets somewhere first can say they own it.

in other words, if USA has man landing on the moon before any other country; the rules goes that USA owns the moon. because they were the first ones to land/step on it.
if some other country say something otherwise, then USA declares war against them. And thats what they want. reason for wars.

USA today is the old Hitler before.. take over everything and own everything... eventually if it aint stopped, we will have a 1 world government. But who is to say we will get there... USA might fall before just like Hitler did.

reply to post by Blue Shift


Sorry buddy, but that's not entirely true.

Check out this document. Starting around page 5, it goes into the cost/benefit analysis which we're already aware of. In a nutshell, it'll take 5 years to recoup investment costs from mining the moon for H3.

Decadal H3

reply to post by Jerow


The hope is that we evolve into a type 1 civilization, and that will require a planetary government.

I get some of what you're saying, but the rest seems to be more projecting fears than actual reality.

Blue Shift
At the moment, it is not, and it's not going to be unless somebody brilliant comes up with a better and cheaper way to get there and back.

Are you really that shorth sighted you cant understand!

There are a umber of good ideas, some very nearly went into real projects. The problem? MONEY. They need a big intial investment. Because of NASA budget cuts alot of the programs got cancelled. No one company or instsitution can afford the intial R&D, its needs a big jump start. Thats the problem. Once you get that done the cost will fall by maginitudes.

Think of it like building a large interstate Highway or railnetwork. The intial cost is billions and the goverment forks some of that out and does alot of the collective planning BUT after its done the returns and benifits excede the cost.

The fact is Space is expensive cause the Infratructure is not there, someone has to put in a huge lump of money to jump start it. If no one is willing to put the time and effort in then its always going to remain out of reach.

I dont see what people CANT SEE THIS!!!!! its infuriating

No wonder America is sinking, no one wants to put in the time or effort for a long term goal that will bring in a bright future. You just want everything done here and now and in the short term.


While you are all moaning about how expensive it is and how its not "such and such" responsiblity China and Russia will be going for it and if they are the first ones to get that infrastructure in place, you can say buy buy to a US dominated world and hello to the 3rd world.

JadeStar

Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the Moon -and do the OTHER things- NOT because they are easy, but because they are hard.".

Very very very good words.

Something that shouldnt have been forgotten.

webedoomed
The Chinese are planning to mine the moon next decade. This is what it's all really about.

The first government to successfully carry tons of H3 from the moon back to earth will become the dominant economy within a matter of years.

We need to beat them to it.

Buzz Aldrin's Dream ,Helium 3 and Lunar Resource Base
page: 1
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Buzz Aldrin Dreams of Mars
Oct, 19 2010 Fox NewsBy: Jeremy A. Kaplan

buzzaldrin.com...

Aldrin endorses the formation of an International Lunar Development Corporation to begin commercial enterprises on the moon. And a broad collation of governments — Russia, China, India, the U.S., and others — should form this quasigovernmental organization, which would help private enterprises capitalize on the lunar resources. Together, these nations can build that lunar gas station.
“Who should send up the propellant? China, India, Europe. We’re going to Mars, we need propellant. And we could buy propellant from them at our moon gas station,” he told Vanity Fair in June.
There are real commercial activities that private enterprises could develop on the moon as well: Helium 3 can be mined, and heavy metal meteorites could be a source of rare earth metals. And the presence of water ice would make great rocket fuel — and rocket fuel is gets us to Mars. Aldrin thinks that base could form part of a transportation infrastructure that would enable us to get to near Earth objects such as asteroids, Martian moon Phobos, even Mars itself and beyond.
The space legend, who is launching a new think tank called U.S.S. Enterprise — which stands for Unified, Strategic, Space Enterprise — believes NASA should think about all of the planets for the most efficient travel across the solar system. And a key item for America should be a permanent base on Phobos.

rickymouse
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Computers are used by the masses of people. If they would have not been affordable, then very few would be using them.

And you have just made the case for Space-X, Virgin Galactic, the Japanese space elevator project, the Skylon, and other such things being built to bring down the cost of space to open it to the masses of people and organizations who might want to go there.

People and organizations which might want to become entrepreneurs, might want to do science, might want to create new art, new economic and political systems either there or based on their experiences while there.

Do not underestimate the 'earth view' effect. All astronauts experience it. A feeling of connectedness and just how interdependent we all are on each other as peoples and nations. Our planet no longer looks inevitable or invincible. It looks fragile and nations are not really visible. The political lines disappear.

We can all learn how to live together up there, or die alone down here.

Back on point...

Space until recently were like computers until the 1970s, in the hands of a few, mostly governmental entities.

That's changing friend. There is no reason why space travel in 2113 won't be like air travel in 2013 at the rate this is progressing.

NASA would most likley only need $10-20 Billion a year to build up a good infrastructure.

$10-20 Billion? Thats a pitance in regards to goverment spending. Hell that likley the US military toliet paper bill.

crazyewok
NASA would most likley only need $10-20 Billion a year to build up a good infrastructure.

$10-20 Billion? Thats a pitance in regards to goverment spending. Hell that likley the US military toliet paper bill.

NASA's current budget is like around $12 billion a year.

It should be about 4 to 7 times that to get serious. And even then it still would consume a smaller percentage of the US federal budget than it did during the 1960s.

this should be a walk in the park with 40 + years tech advances even if they use 1969 tech how hard can it be if it has been done 6 times before

reply to post by JadeStar

Well put, JadeStar. It couldn't have been said better.

Sadly, I agreed with every word of your post. Have a great holiday...

Blue Shift

Still, if you want to support very expensive white collar welfare, I guess a space program is a good way to keep our scientists and technicians from selling their skills to the highest bidder.

And that's where you're wrong.

Perhaps its because I live in a city with a large defense/space contractor (Boeing) and an ambitious asteroid mining company (Planetary Resources) and attend a university at the cutting edge of much groundbreaking research (UW Go Dawgs!) that my view is skewed but I look around me and I see the effect a company like Boeing or Microsoft had on this city.

This city is booming, rode out the last two recessions including the collapse of 2008 and is an attractor of some of the brightest minds in the world. For every "white collar" job created, plenty of "blue collar" jobs are created to support it, whether it is auto mechanics, coffee barristers, night club bartenders/barmaids and bouncers, retail sales and management people, construction workers (and most importantly perhaps), teachers, etc a rising tide lifts all ships.

And that by the way is independent of political ideology. Its an economic reality of opening up a new industry which frees up capital.

The biggest lie going is that the nation is broke. The biggest problem is that capital is not free to do what it is supposed to do because everyone has been fear porned and conditioned to believe they need to prep, hoard, and bunker down for impending disaster.

As a result there ends up being less capital to go into new industry, which leads to a bleaker outlook which then feeds back into the fear porn of the dystopian future.

And we hurdle down the spiral to insure that life imitates art.


Seattle has been described as a city on the edge of the future by people like Michio Kaku for the simple reason that it still -is- a forward thinking, optimistic place with people doing new and interesting things which might lead to the next boom.

If that boom is based on something like Planetary Resources becoming the Microsoft or Boeing of the 21st century, so be it.

Bring on the future, because the present ain't so bright.


Musical interlude, just cause....

We can choose this:



Or choose this:


The important thing is the recognition that we DO have a choice.

JadeStar


It should be about 4 to 7 times that to get serious. And even then it still would consume a smaller percentage of the US federal budget than it did during the 1960s.

I always thought it was $6 Billion?

netbound
reply to post by JadeStar

 

Well put, JadeStar. It couldn't have been said better.

Sadly, I agreed with every word of your post. Have a great holiday...

Thank you so much. You too.

crazyewok

JadeStar


It should be about 4 to 7 times that to get serious. And even then it still would consume a smaller percentage of the US federal budget than it did during the 1960s.

I always thought it was $6 Billion?

Nope: 17 so we were both wrong..

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nasa.gov...

JadeStar


Nope: 17 so we were both wrong..

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nasa.gov...

Ha!

I must of been thinking of russia.

Ironic really seeing as russias getting more done at the moment and has
Had since the 70's a better saftey record than the usa.

Guess it shows the us gov couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery i guess

If offerd a chance to go on a soyuz id take it. If i was ever in the past offerd a spot on the shuttle id run a mile!

reply to post by crazyewok


And physical "high ground."

crazyewok

JadeStar


Nope: 17 so we were both wrong..

en.wikipedia.org...

www.nasa.gov...

Ha!

I must of been thinking of russia.

Ironic really seeing as russias getting more done at the moment and has
Had since the 70's a better saftey record than the usa.

Guess it shows the us gov couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery i guess

That depends on what you mean by getting things done.

Where are all the Russian probes to Mars, the outer planets? Where are the great Russian space observatories?

NASA has spent $9 billion on the James Webb Space Telescope for example. Russia does not typically create interplanetary probes or space telescopes.

The focus of Russia's program has been manned missions to low earth orbit using a vehicle designed in the 1960s. They have talked a good talk for decades about going to the Moon or Mars but all they have are plans and plenty of experience on the many low earth orbit space stations they created from the first Salyut to Mir to the Russian segments of the ISS.

Now that is no slight against them because as you said, it's reliable and turned out safer than our shuttle. But a seat on a Soyuz is still something like $25 million USD. Ouch!

Where is the Russian Space X? etc....

See what I mean?

If you think about it, for what they have spent and for how narrow their focus has been they should have accomplished MORE than they have.

I guess it goes to show that when the cost of getting into low earth orbit is high, governments will squander the money on getting there rather than making it cheaper to get there. After all, why bring the price down when its being paid for by tax money and your goals are narrow? There's no incentive to bring the cost down.

If offerd a chance to go on a soyuz id take it.

That's cool. Me, I'd prefer to ask for the $25 million it cost to go and then spend $1 million of that in a couple of years riding in a Space-X Dragon capsule. Same view. Cheaper by a factor of 25.

Then I'd take $10 million of that and donate it to very good astronomical instrument for the study of extrasolar planets, I'd take $4 million of it and donate it to organizations which work on getting underprivileged kids into STEM and save/invest the other $10 million to be able to do more with it down the road.

If i was ever in the past offerd a spot on the shuttle id run a mile!

They're quite safe now that they don't go anywhere

reply to post by lostbook


'[M]any are asking why...?"


... because they can't afford it.

Jerow
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

For reals?! Can you point me into the right direction, so I can read more about this please.
You have really perked my curiosity on this.

JadeStar

That depends on what you mean by getting things done.

Where are all the Russian probes to Mars, the outer planets? Where are the great Russian space observatories?

Thats the thing I think we have a diffrent meausreing stick, though to be honnest im only judgeing NASA by what they have done the last 20 years. But yes Russia does have a more narrow focus , BUT it does excell at what it does. NASA on the other hand they have a borad focus yet most of that focus gets wasted in projects that get canned, it seems to be the epitmomy of waste. Yes they have sent some good probes out and telescopes but they have equaly canned vital tec development like the NERVA engine, really the probes and telescopes should have gone first in the cuts as they are just "iceing on the cake " if you will.

JadeStar

They're quite safe now that they don't go anywhere

edit on 24-12-2013 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)

You still wouldnt get me on the death trap!