To the moon, Alice, to the moon.....

[El Sitherino]

I'm an idealist Sithy.... Leave me alone in my Ivory Tower

If I can't have my dreams of people being rational, then no one can.

 

 

[ForeverNight]

Hey, I always figured that in order to solve the world's 'problems' we had to have more than just Earth. I think that we should move past Earth, actually do some colonlinization beyond our world. Why? When the world's final nuclear war strikes, we can support the world from the colonies and nurse it back to health.

 

Seriously?

 

Yeah! Get away from Earth and learn about the Universe! Learn about ET, learn about what's out there. Would you rather find out that there are aliens out there that are xenophobes via first contact away from Earth, or by the discovery of this giant ship orbiting Earth raining hell down up it?

 

A bit extreme, yes. But it does get my point across somewhat, I think.....

[Ataris]

But you assume so much with that statement. So far, there is no evidence to support existence of life outside of Earth. Even the discovery of water on Mars wouldn't prove much of anything. It would simply be another way for the scientists and the media to begin propoganda about being closer to discovering the origin of humanity. In reality, water being on a planet doesn't account for the other environmental factors involved. Perhaps this is a tangent, but it ties into my argument that we really have no purpose outside of our world before we're sure that it is taken care of first.

 

So the idea here is let's stop making these new technologies so that we can focus on making new technologies?

 

 

All these cool gadgets we have came from NASA's space research. The microwave oven, our new refrigerators, televisions, game consoles, processors, even personal fans. Pretty much everything that contains energy conservation technology is built off of NASA designs that were fueled by our drive to make affordable technology that can also pay for itself when colonizing space.

 

Sometimes you gotta feel the burn to make the cut, so to speak.

 

But is a moon colony the way to do it? Perhaps if NASA convinced me that the abundance of money they want to visit the moon and then start to figure out if there is any purpose on it was worth it, then I would be more willing to accept the argument. All in all, however, money tends to come from somewhere, and NASA will inevitably find a route to the moon. I just wish that we'd make the switch to clean energy instead of biding time so that the process can be "democratic," a hindrance to the fact that it will ever happen at all, while we spend money on things like this.

[Arcesious]

The moon is perfect for setting up an interplanetary travel nexus. If we go there, we've got to set up a nice big moon base with factories and mining operations. From there it would be much cheaper to build and launch spacecraft and whatnot, due to the much lower gravity and the fact that it doesn't have an atmosphere. You wouldn't even need rocket fuel, just a long magnetic rail to slingshot spaceships off of. (IE: A huge mass driver) What about oxygen, food, and water? There's no reason that humans would have to be on the moon doing the work. We could make it all completely automated with robots and everything.

[ForeverNight]

Only problem with your setup Arc, is how are we going to get stuff to the moon to launch the stuff there? By launching from Earth. Now, if Orion (IIRC it was Orion) pans out and we do get the whole setup, then maybe it works, but, anyway, there's still going to be issues with that bit. On the whole, however, I like it.

 

@ Ataris: have you ever heard of the Drake equation?

N = R* × fp × ne × fl × fi × fc × L

 

Now:

 

N = Number of civilizations that emit radio waves

 

R* = Rate of formation of stars suitable for life

 

fp = Fraction of said stars that have planets

 

ne = Number of 'earths' in a planetary system

 

fl = Fraction of those planets where life develops

 

fi = Fraction of those planets where intelligent life evolves

 

fc = Fraction of those planets that develop technology

 

L = Lifetime of Civilizations

 

Alright, now let's set a value in there to infinity, because the universe is arguably Infinitely big -and J7, please no discussions on infinity, please - From there we are left with an infinite amount of civilizations unless it is IMPOSSIBLE for life to develop. Now, since humans can exist on the moon -granted with technology- it's arguable that life can develop outside of our planet -kinda arrogant of us to assume otherwise when you get right down to it.

 

Anyway

 

[/rant]

 

Drake Equation Source

[Ataris]

I suppose I should have clarified that I was not intending to totally bash the idea of life on other planets. It's possible there is, and I will not deny it. But at the moment, space exploration doesn't need to continue for the explicit purpose of finding them when we need to spend our money on other things. Water from the moon? Fine. But a moon colony? Let's hold off on that exploration of the universe stuff for a while.

 

And personally, I'm not sure that other civilizations would want to destroy us outright just because they find us. But this is a Star Wars forum, after all, and so I suppose anything is possible when it comes right down to it.

[ForeverNight]

Eh, maybe Humanity is just twisted, but I can't see us going to the stars and not destroying what we see as a threat, nor can I see anybody else not doing the same.

 

As for aliens, it was in the far future that we would encounter them, just because of the size of the Universe.

 

I guess I just believe too much in a corrupted form of Manifest Destiny, the stars are there, let's go!

 

:shrug:

[El Sitherino]

But is a moon colony the way to do it?

Considering the problems we have to account for there are ones we need to start making progress on here, there's not much of a difference in the technological application.

We can't begin to set up a colony until we can develop the appropriate environment to house a colony, which requires tapping into renewable energy resources and learning to clean our waste and use it to replenish other sources.

Perhaps if NASA convinced me that the abundance of money they want to visit the moon and then start to figure out if there is any purpose on it was worth it, then I would be more willing to accept the argument.

Returning to the moon is far off, but what is happening now is we are cutting all funding for projects that lead in that direction. The problem with this is that this research that gets us back to the moon will resolve the issues we have currently with finding feasible energy sources that won't be run dry inside a decade. Especially since there are no fossils on the moon, just old moon cars and lots of rocks.

 

All in all, however, money tends to come from somewhere, and NASA will inevitably find a route to the moon. I just wish that we'd make the switch to clean energy instead of biding time so that the process can be "democratic," a hindrance to the fact that it will ever happen at all, while we spend money on things like this.

 

You realize that resolving the issue of clean energy is directly related to the matter of why we haven't returned, right? That's actually what the big freeze in moon missions has been about, reliable resources that are cost-effective and reduce redundancy and dependence. Going to the moon is no longer the point, nor is it in anyway constructive. We already know we can reach the moon, what we want to do now is take the next step and begin to create ways to colonize. Colonizing requires an atmosphere in which life can be sustained, life can only be sustained by creating ways to recycle and replenish sources quickly. Which is exactly what we're trying to do here, replace and repair what has been destroyed.

The thing NASA did for our technological output was they bypassed all the bull**** that these bureaucratic agencies put us through with their constant bickering, based not on morals or science but on re-election campaigns. We'd still be driving crappy guzzling clunkers if not for their advances in fuel combustion technology, because with each launch we needed to advance the rate at which we reached space and reduce the amount of fuel consumed. Quite an interesting task, and definitely not what the gas and car companies want you to think, as I'm sure you've probably seen their commercials acting like they were always at the forefront of their technology.

It was actually that they were contracted by NASA for various parts to contribute and in return they get the knowledge attained, same as how we got all of our new fancy tv's (30 years after the initial developement) and microwave ovens.

[Ataris]

If the money is being put to uses for technological advances, then that makes much more sense. I thought the money was simply to return to the moon and analyze it for water content, something I did not feel was worth the investment necessarily.

 

I suppose the real question, then, is how the government will respond to NASA's request. After reading the above article, it seems uncertain to me as to how well NASA is convincing them.

[El Sitherino]

I suppose the real question, then, is how the government will respond to NASA's request. After reading the above article, it seems uncertain to me as to how well NASA is convincing them.

 

Poorly as usual, we'll have both Democrats and Republicans railing on about how we need to focus on the good American citizens on Earth and then they'll fill their pockets with money and say "Another tough day on the job."

 

They'll also probably mention something about a tang tax, which will degenerate into rumors about taxes on sex.

[Totenkopf]

And probably show up in the media as a proposal to tax the Wu Tang Clan.

[Ataris]

Well, I guess that's politics for ya.

[Tobias Reiper]

I find it worth it, the learning experience could come in handy, and we'd get to develop newer and better technology.

I mean, if we don't start space travel now, we might never find other planets that we can live on, and I'd rather we did because when the sun starts expanding, it'll literally be the end of the world, and the sun will swallow up Earth, killing the human race, and even though that won't happen until god knows when and we'll all be dead, it'll be our great-great-great-great-great more greats than I should but grandsons and granddaughters who get burnt, and despite my violent thoughts and general dislike of the mass of idiots in the world, I'd rather that not happen.

So I say go to space, but **** the moon, develop faster spaceships so you can go to planets and back faster and find a livable planet that could be in a galaxy far, far away for all I care, just do it.

[Prime]

If the money is being put to uses for technological advances, then that makes much more sense. I thought the money was simply to return to the moon and analyze it for water content, something I did not feel was worth the investment necessarily.

But the effort to do so is what generates the technological advancements. It's these kinds of goals and research that have helped generate many of the technologies that we commonly use. It is worth it just for that reason alone. Plus knowing the water content has huge implications and is a very important question in the long run.

 

It also surprises me when I see Americans in particular protesting against this sort of thing. When everyone is complaining about jobs and a bad economy, something like this generates lots of work for many sectors. From the rocket designers filtering down to the bolt manufacturers. It seems to me that putting money into this kind of thing makes just as much sense as pumping billions into the auto industry, for example.

[El Sitherino]

It also surprises me when I see Americans in particular protesting against this sort of thing. When everyone is complaining about jobs and a bad economy, something like this generates lots of work for many sectors. From the rocket designers filtering down to the bolt manufacturers. It seems to me that putting money into this kind of thing makes just as much sense as pumping billions into the auto industry, for example.

 

It surprises me too, but then I remember that American's now believe capitalism is about easy money made off of slave labor and fake money, pay cuts and layoffs, because of the easy quick money we shut down all of our factories and exported our labor. Until we stop thinking that having industry jobs is communist we can't actually make jobs.

So it's really just a matter of too many stupid people talk really loud and we still think Reaganomics will work, which is why putting money into the auto industry didn't work, we don't build cars here anymore.