i agree we should be there already . it will make a great half way point to other planets like mars or venis and will personally lend myself as manager of the first starbucks on the moon if they decide to build one there.



Edited by - richard s on 10/26/2006 7:46:48 AM

doesnt that Venus word by Richard remind you of something?

24/7 Blaster Universe
Website

bah, Moonbases - what a waste of money. a load of old humbug. why not sort the problems here on Earth out, instead of swanning off on pie-in-the-sky fantasies of living on the Moon?

the umpteen billions wasted on any Moonbase, which would benefit only a small number of people and one country for many, many years, could be spent far more fruitfully and with far more immediate results, on sensible projects like - stemming global warming; de-mining conflict regions; improving water supply to drought regions; inward investment to derelict urban areas; writing off third-world debt; disarming regional militias; redistribution of surplus food to starving populations; and so on and so forth.

build a Moonbase, great idea, then a handful of lucky astronauts can sit back and have a grandstand view while the ice caps melt and the global climate collapses. Never mind though, it makes great telly and gives NASA something to do.

Well they are going to waste our money anyway so instead of a worthless space station make one in/on the moon I really don't think it would cost much more in the long run.

I think it could be a good jump point in the future to go explore our solar system.

Now on the Venis planet I have seen a mod I tried out that had that same planet very funny. I can't remember the mod's name now.

"It doesn’t matter what universe you’re from. That’s got to hurt!"

@Taw-

Reminds you a bit of Tawalkanistan, now doesn't it...?

A base on the moon will be an important step for any exploration of other planets. However, as we've seen, so very few contries are even space-capable at this point. The shuttle program is winding down in the U.S., and we haven't the cash or a design to replace it. Why? Because exploration of space is not a U.S. national priority, and isn't a world priority right now. As Taw pointed out, most politicians are quite worried about their own backyard (or at least their own back sides), and funding and encouragement toward the space program is little more than a pre-election gimmick to appease the constituency. I personally think it's a shame. We can't afford to loose assets like the Hubble telescope, etc. There is much to be gained from space exploration, but indeed, we should try to solve more problems on the ground first, before moving away, if indeed that is possible.

the only way you will see a moon-base is if a major war breaks out and it would have to be a BIG one...bar that i would say the chances are slim.

death is the last great adventure.

I do not understand. You people make no sense. There is already a base on the moon. It is New Berlin. its Federation colony world named for the Terran German city, which evidently enjoys celebrating its namesake with an annual cultural event, the Mazurka Festival, where Cal Hudson and Sisko were jointly posted during their marriages. In early 2370, the colony had falsely reported a renegade Borg attack in its system when in reality it was only a Ferengi trader. This was first mentioned in the star trek episode, the Marquis, Part 1. What am i saying? episode? Star trek IS real.

Out of fan mode
More money should be put into the space program though. Problems wont be solved on earth for a long time, if ever. Money needs to be put into the space program. Eventually, earth will run out of resoucres, and well need to colonise somewhere else. Of course that wont be for a long time, so we conviently decide to deal with it later. And Later. And Later. We should have more money going into the space program of course, but not the way you think of when i say space program. It is far too costly to do it with NASA. We need that money as incentives. NASA will not lead the way into space. Companies will. Just like with the New World and Americas. There were companies, East india trading, Dutch companies, English ones, Not NASA like goverment agencies. Money needs to go to the program, but as incentives primarily. But thats just moi opion.

When all else fails, tell them you want world peace.

it reminds me of the 'boiling frog' example - supposedly a frog thrown in boiling water will jump out, but a frog thrown in a pot of cold water being heated will stay in the pot enjoying the heat until it's too late to jump out and its roasted alive. the space program is our jump-out reflex kicking in, because we aren't as dumb as frogs

yeah, the same resources could go to world peace etc but the amount of money spent on this stuff nowadays is insignificant compared to the amounts spent on defense. as far as this carbon-footprint crap goes my garbage can usually goes out half full each week, so don't preach to me about dwindling resources also, i think most recycling is pointless - if we throw all our garbage in the ground, when its economical to process we can dig it up, think of it as our secret reserve

the chinese have already announced they plan to visit the moon and establish a camp. the space shuttle cannot reach the moon, period. the space shuttle is cute, yeah, but a model of efficiency it is not. NASA's announcement that they are returning to capsules is a nice wakeup call- shuttle technology isn't ready yet, and won't be ready for primetime until scramjet-rockets are perfected. Even then, shuttles probably won't be flying to the moon - but they should be able to reach orbit at a much lower cost per pound of weight, which is key to exploring and colonizing space. The closure of the shuttle program is a good move on NASA's part, but I'm afraid the risk-averse atmosphere it created will not leave them anytime soon - so expect plenty more robotic explorations but don't hold your breath waiting on a manned mission to mars.

P.S to go back to my recycling point, if we had left an equivalent weight of space station material to the weight of the shuttle on all its trips the international space station would be finished by now. In other words, a reusable Soyuz/Apollo style capsule riding on top of the payload would have delivered more material by now.

Edited by - Cold_Void on 10/26/2006 5:41:55 PM

venus or veinus when you reply to a post when you first wake up in the morning spelling is forgiven . i was never a good speller but im a darn good mattress salesman!

i wake up in the morning with a terrible pain in the side of my neck (apart from the Mrs!) I think I need a new mattress - what do you recommend?

I'm all for the useful and practical use of space technology - wether satellites, orbita factories, Tawsat-1, sensible stuff that has benefits. Silly pipedream exploring and Moonbases, all that's just a waste of money imo.

We switched to memory foam pillows and mattress. Sleep so much better it is a wonder we ever thought anything else would do.

Two brand names over here is are: Tempurpedic and Isoform.

Cold_Void hit the nail on the head, Robotics Space Exploration is the wave of the future. Less costly then sending manned vehicles into space(No food,Water,Heat or Air needed) As Far as a base on the moon, that would be at least 50 years in the future. They would need advanced radar and probably laser technology to protect a structure on the surface from meteor impacts, thousands impact the moon every day. Golf ball size would wipe out anything built, Maybe they could make it out of Temperpedic material to absorb the impact

As Tawakalna said something useful.

Well My thinking was to land on the moon and dig into it like a underground base that would be protected from those impacts, and with it being underground you could also bring plants for help with oxygen, and to see how well they grow in that type of atmosphere. Unless something like this is done we will never have space factories and all that nice futuristic stuff.

Which comes another question if said base was made would you still float around even being inside the moon? I think yes, so yet more technology to make some kind of gravity machine for on bases, and ships.

A base inside the moon could lead to many new advancements in space living and flight.

Insurance Vampire: you sell mattresses as well? Is there nothing the grasping multi-national conglomerate of Indycorp doesn't have a market share in?

I wouldn't object to going to the Moon if there was a direct and immediate benefit, something useful to bring back. But, afaik, the only thing of any use on the Moon is supposed to be water? and let's face it, there's plenty of that down here already, and in a few decades we'll have a lot more (especially if you live in low lying coastal districts) Ah well, I dare say the Moon people will be glad if no-one turns up.

more seriously: CV has a good point re: why the Moon programme rears its head every few years. It's a matter of national pride for the US, I think, having been the only people to get there, and not having been back since the early 70s, so when the US is hard pressed and feeling insecure, someone says "hey I know, why don't we go back to the Moon, then everyone will feel great!" There's no real practical reason to do it, but it gets headlines and let's folk forget for a while just how bad things are. You can see the same psychology at work in Russia - the country is a complete toilet and it's long since gone to the dogs (and the Mafia) but they keep plugging away with their space programme, and most Russians take a rather inappropriate degree of pride in it (still) as it's about all they've got that keeps them in the big leagues of world technology.

there's also a strategic issue; the US is the only country that could realistically get to the Moon and set up a permanent base, relatively quickly. Such a prospect would give it a superb strategic advantage for the rest of the century, missiles could be stuck up there very easily. Bearing in mind that only recently the US warned China off as regards competition for strategic advantage in space, a declaration of intent to go back to the Moon permanently makes more sense.

I believe that there is or at least was an international treaty against use of the Moon for military purposes, but we know how much international treaties are worth these days, don't we?