WOW! about freaking time, if mr bush realy commits to this then despite my better judgement I'd vote for the guy.

Its somthing that we of earth should have done years ago. Moon Base Alpha

quote:

---

In addition to proposing the first trip to the moon since December 1972, the president wants to build a permanent space station there.

---

For his Death Ray.

Ohno.

The amount of cash that would be wasted on such a project would be skyrocketing.

I'm all for space flight and such, but at least spend the money in a way that would be beneficial.

quote:

---

Sarudani Miolnir's fortune cookie read:
Biggest reason I can think of for establishing a colony on the moon would be to use it as a stepping stone for the further colonization of space.

---

Cuz ya know... there will be a point in some time when the Earth won't beable to support us...

People can bitch all they want about not "needing" this now. Well they are right. We don't need it now. We will need it in the years to come. Black powder was arounf for hundreds of years before it had any practical use.

The airplane was seen as a joke, as was the Automobile. Now we rely on these things every day. Just because we dont' need something now. Don't confuse planning for waste. Because no ammount of conservation, no ammount of backwards thinking about How we should all abandon technology, oil, or anything else we use, will change the simple fact that Humanity is expanding. And eventually there will be to many people for this planet to support. We will find another place for some of us to life or we will see Genocide on a scale never before imagined. Hitler's actions would look like an alter boy next to what world leaders would have to do to make this planet livable in a couple hundred years at most.

Oh well, I don't really care for any of the candidates that the democrats are offering. Four more years of Bush can't be that bad, especially if he starts championing this issue.

quote:

---

Reynar stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Waste of resources. A moon base would have nothing to offer us that the international space station already can, and hasn't.

The amount of cash that would be wasted on such a project would be skyrocketing.

I'm all for space flight and such, but at least spend the money in a way that would be beneficial.

---

The moon has tons of resources, and low gravity. Building big heavy stuff there that ends up in orbit would be more economical in the long run.

While I think the idea of colonizing one of those completely barren and un-friendly to organic species planets, it wouldn't serve any real purpose right now, or even in the immediate future. Aside from Mars and some of the Moons of Jupiter, there's not a planet in the solar system worth/capable of keep humans.

Go beyond Jupiter and the sun isn't powerful enough to provide reliable solar power. Some of the planets have extremely violent surfaces, or are tightly wound bodies of gas.

I totally support the space program, NASA is one of the few gov't sponsored agencies that has paid for itself 20 times over with the technology it has developed that we use.

But they even said in the article a station would cost upwards of 400-500 billion. Now is simply not the time to be building wastefull stations on the moon.

btw, humanity isn't expanding, the world's population is actually declining ever so slightly.

How long until something terribly wrong happens, and some creepy monster aliens over run the place, and 1 loan person must escape to earth surviving on only a crappy handgun with limited ammo, this is of course before he finds a stockade of super advanced weaponry at which point the enemies become sitting ducks. Its gonna happen, I've learned this from video games and movies, and would they lie to the veiwing public?

edit: i hate grammar

[ 01-09-2004: Message edited by: Cysa The Clown ]

quote:

---

Reynar attempted to be funny by writing:
...I totally support the space program, NASA is one of the few gov't sponsored agencies that has paid for itself 20 times over with the technology it has developed that we use.
.....

---

Personaly, I wish to some point they left space program in the Air Force's hands. they seemed to get shit done better. Not that I am saying NASA shouldn't exist, but they shouldn't have taken the Air Force out of the picture.

At the moment, Mr Bush has other things he needs to worry about.

And be cool as hell.

Sure, this may not pay off now, it may not pay off in 10 years, but it's like compound interest. As soon as the moon base becomes even mildly self supposring, it will be able to increase it's population, feed them, recycle it's own air and water, put up more housing, and the human race will now have a toehold on another planetoid.

There are massive advantages of a long term base on the moon, things like much more easily launched spacecraft (1/6 gravity means an enormous reduction in escape speed), an infinite amount of vacuum that is ripe for industrial and scientific exploitation (many processes are greatly dependant on vacuum, and it has many scientific possibilities), as well as the "cool" factor.

quote:

---

Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
This is something we need, but not right now. Now we need to work on our finances, our relations to other countries, and on supporting the international space station. We need to learn what we can from it before we move on. A small step for man may lead to a giant leap to man kind, but only if we know where to walk.

At the moment, Mr Bush has other things he needs to worry about.

---

Agreed, agreed. I like the idea of reinvigorating the space program, but I really don't like the idea of Bush continuing his wacky deficit spending (please note: my only knowledge of his wacky deficit spending comes from the State of the Union address speech when he proposed massive tax cuts and multibillion dollar programs in the same breath).

Also, whatever happened to terrorism? It seems to me like ambitious projects like these are perfect opportunities for terrorist attacks. It's the kind of thing they'd get worked up about and it's the kind of thing that could be easily sabotaged (if they could somehow get past security, which I imagine must be insane). Maybe he's hoping we'll eliminate terrorist activities over the timespan of this project? Or maybe...maybe he's building a base on the moon to get Americans away from terror!!

And while I really can't argue with the cool factor (I wanna live on the moon too it's the year 2000, why haven't we gotten to Europa yet?) the international space station needs our support before this. From a strictly idealistic point of view we really shouldn't pull out of that to pursue our own thing; it would be really nice to promote an attitude that's not 'screw you other nations of the world!'

However, if we pulled out of the space station dealy and got China to come with us, then it would be OK because it would be like Firefly.

[ 01-09-2004: Message edited by: Gunslinger Moogle ]

quote:

---

Gunslinger Moogle had this to say about Matthew Broderick:
However, if we pulled out of the space station dealy and got China to come with us, then it would be OK because it would be like Firefly.

---

I doubt we'll pull out of the ISS, though we really need to replace the shuttles as a means of space travel.

You raise another possibility though, if we don't do it, (the moon base) there's a good chance the chinese eventually will. I'd prefer to see an international moonbase program, but if that doesn't happen I'd much rather see the stars and stripes flying there.

Just my age showing, I remember the cold war a little too well.

I absolutely think we should do this now. Yes, there are plenty of other areas that could use the money, but let's be honest: there are always other areas that need it, and there always will be. In ten or twenty years it will be just as much of a financial drain. If we're going to go into further debt over something, it might as well be for permanent progress.

And to those who are saying that there's simply not much point to getting a base on the moon or a manned mars mission other than the "cool" factor, you're partially right, but you're forgetting some important history. The "end acheivment" of the NASA missions was never where the payoff was. Sure, there's usually some interesting facts learned there, but they're not why NASA has paid for itself a hundred times over.

The real gem of NASA is the technology developed in order to acheive that goal. The progress in miniaturization, in order to fit everything in the craft's weight liminations (can you say computer revolution?). The uncountable number of new alloys and materials built to sustain temperatures and stresses previously unimagined, but now used everyday down here for their versatility. Quite literally, it's the things developed along the way, not the destination, that is the greatest achivement of NASA.

In acheiving a self-sufficient moon base, or a manned mars mission, we've got some unbelievable hurdles to jump. But in answering those questions, we're sure to generate some unbelievable technologies for earth. As just a quick example, we're either going to have to revolutionize fuel efficiencies (which could possiblely solve the upocoming energy crisis), or we're going to have to revolutionize our ability to grow nutrients in limited space (which could solve problems of world hunger)

Yes, it could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But that's hundreds of billions of dollars going striaght to some of the most brilliant minds we have, so that they can solve some of the most hideously difficult feats of engineering and science we've ever concieved of. And you can be damn sure there's going to be one hell of a payoff in the solutions they come up with.

For the same reason, just fiddling about with the international space station isn't going to do much. Yes, there are going to be some interesting experiments performed, and some old theories tossed out as new ones are forged, but there's not likely to be any kind of technological explosion from those kinds of experiments. A true engineering challenge is needed if we're going to develop anything new. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the need to build things capable of interplanetary travel or independent existence is exactly the kind of need that drives progress.

[ 01-09-2004: Message edited by: Chalesm ]

quote:

---

Chalesm had this to say about John Romero:
So Bush may finally get the space program going again? ... Damn, if it wasn't for this I could have voted democrat with a clear concience. Now it's back to the act of balancing the issues in my head.

I absolutely think we should do this now. Yes, there are plenty of other areas that could use the money, but let's be honest: there are always other areas that need it, and there always will be. In ten or twenty years it will be just as much of a financial drain. If we're going to go into further debt over something, it might as well be for permanent progress.

And to those who are saying that there's simply not much point to getting a base on the moon or a manned mars mission other than the "cool" factor, you're partially right, but you're forgetting some important history. The "end acheivment" of the NASA missions was never where the payoff was. Sure, there's usually some interesting facts learned there, but they're not why NASA has paid for itself a hundred times over.

The real gem of NASA is the technology developed in order to acheive that goal. The progress in miniaturization, in order to fit everything in the craft's weight liminations (can you say computer revolution?). The uncountable number of new alloys and materials built to sustain temperatures and stresses previously unimagined, but now used everyday down here for their versatility. Quite literally, it's the things developed along the way, not the destination, that is the greatest achivement of NASA.

In acheiving a self-sufficient moon base, or a manned mars mission, we've got some unbelievable hurdles to jump. But in answering those questions, we're sure to generate some unbelievable technologies for earth. As just a quick example, we're either going to have to revolutionize fuel efficiencies (which could possiblely solve the upocoming energy crisis), or we're going to have to revolutionize our ability to grow nutrients in limited space (which could solve problems of world hunger)

Yes, it could cost hundreds of billions of dollars. But that's hundreds of billions of dollars going striaght to some of the most brilliant minds we have, so that they can solve some of the most hideously difficult feats of engineering and science we've ever concieved of. And you can be damn sure there's going to be one hell of a payoff in the solutions they come up with.

For the same reason, just fiddling about with the international space station isn't going to do much. Yes, there are going to be some interesting experiments performed, and some old theories tossed out as new ones are forged, but there's not likely to be any kind of technological explosion from those kinds of experiments. A true engineering challenge is needed if we're going to develop anything new. Necessity is the mother of invention, and the need to build things capable of interplanetary travel or independent existence is exactly the kind of need that drives progress.

---

What he said. Well minus thinking about voting democratic. That thought never crossed my mind.

quote:

---

Palador ChibiDragon had this to say about Optimus Prime:
This is something we need, but not right now. Now we need to work on our finances, our relations to other countries, and on supporting the international space station.

---

Finances are booming, relations are doing fine now that we showed some rocks and liberated Iraq, and the international space station is ahead of schedule as it stands.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any objection to a moon base as anything but politically motivated or pure short-sightedness.

maybe.

quote:

---

Reynar wrote this stupid crap:
Waste of resources. A moon base would have nothing to offer us that the international space station already can, and hasn't.

The amount of cash that would be wasted on such a project would be skyrocketing.

I'm all for space flight and such, but at least spend the money in a way that would be beneficial.

---

I totaly agree 110%!!

quote:

---

Alaan painfully thought these words up:
If we are lucky the Moon may also have a very similar mineral/metal make up as the Earth. If so, a nice influx of materials that are becoming less common on Earth. And we may be able to sate our curiosity about how the Moon was formed.

---

Thus reducing its mass, and sending it plummeting into the Earth. Either that, or the Death Ray facility will misfire.

Ohno.

quote:

---

Check out the big brain on Burger!
..... As soon as the moon base becomes even mildly self supposring, it will be able to increase it's population, feed them, recycle it's own air and water, put up more housing, and the human race will now have a toehold on another planetoid.
.....

---

Hate to Burst Your Bubble, but even a moon base will need routine trips to replace the crew every so often. Prolonged periods in Low and Micro gravity messes up your body. Iffin I remember right, they are using the data NASA Gathers on Astronaughts bone demineralization to help understand Osteoporosis, since both are very similar, ‘cept Astronaughts get the effect in like the tenth degree. That is only one example, there is a slew of other physiological problems.

So you would have to switch crews out often, and let me tell ya, A trip to the moon would cost a hell of alot more that to the ISS. O and launching stuff from the moon? Yes it would look on the surface to be cheaper...But you still have to send that shit up there from Earth.

I would rather see the ISS or even a just a US only space station get more funding. And well NASA to get a major overhauling of it management and processes, their quality control blows.

quote:

---

Maradon! attempted to be funny by writing:
Finances are booming, relations are doing fine now that we showed some rocks and liberated Iraq, and the international space station is ahead of schedule as it stands.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any objection to a moon base as anything but politically motivated or pure short-sightedness.

---

I don't know if you've kept up or not, but the ISS has been up and running for quite some time now, and thus far has done basically nothing for us. It is basically a failure.

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing any good reason to create a base on the moon that would effectively be an ISS that doesn't float. 500 billion dollars is a lot to spend for something that wouldn't provide us with any real advantage.

It's one thing to spend that money, but why not use it to say, build a national magna-train rail system across the United States? Or spend it as research for a new Space Shuttle design (the current one sucks). Or twords methods of finding a way to travel faster then 35,000mph in space.

Aside from the "cool-factor" I have yet to see a good reason for why it should be done. If you're going to fund the space program, at least fund them for things that will provide an advantage to us. A silly colony on the Moon will only provide as more of a resource drain, as they can already do pretty much the same thing in the ISS.

[ 01-09-2004: Message edited by: Reynar ]

quote:

---

Reynar had this to say about Punky Brewster:
[QB]I don't know if you've kept up or not, but the ISS has been up and running for quite some time now, and thus far has done basically nothing for us. It is basically a failure.

It's one thing to spend that money, but why not use it to say, build a national magna-train rail system across the United States? Or spend it as research for a new Space Shuttle design (the current one sucks). Or twords methods of finding a way to travel faster then 35,000mph in space.

QB]

---

Part of the cost is the design and implementation of a new shuttle/space craft.

I rather have a moon base than a space station, it wont fall apart due to neglect and reenter our atmosphere. I propse that a moon base is jsut more durable and long lasting and thus has a cheaper cost over its life time than the ISS does. once at the moon you can set up a semi permenate crew since even partial gravity is way better than no gravity (less or low bone density loss) and they can produce fuel for future missions elsewhere that will have a lower and much safer cost than earth based missions.

but hey if they say no moon but we can have a nationwide highspeed railway insteed i guess a 1/4 of a loaf is better than no loaf at all.

quote:

---

I rather have a moon base than a space station, it wont fall apart due to neglect and reenter our atmosphere.

---

Because we all know that we like to neglect our multi-billion dollar international space stations and let them fall down.

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Taeldian wrote:
Because we all know that we like to neglect our multi-billion dollar international space stations and let them fall down.

---

"Ma, can I have a multi-billion dollar space station?"

"No, you'll play with it at first, but after a while, I'LL have to wind up feeding it, walking it and cleaning up after it."

"Awww, come on."

quote:

---

Taeldian stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
Because we all know that we like to neglect our multi-billion dollar international space stations and let them fall down.

---

Well duh! Soon the phrase will be "It's raining international space stations" instead of men. ;D

quote:

---

Taeldian obviously shouldn't have said:
Because we all know that we like to neglect our multi-billion dollar international space stations and let them fall down.

---

Well, there was the rather embarassing "Skylab" incident, where America's first space station kind of... crashed into Australia.

Remeber, whenever you feel like making fun of Mir or the International space station, at least the russian and international efforts stayed up.

quote:

---

Chalesm stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Well, there was the rather embarassing "Skylab" incident, where America's first space station kind of... crashed into Australia.

Remeber, whenever you feel like making fun of Mir or the International space station, at least the russian and international efforts stayed up.

---

Sounds like someone loves the commies, boys.

quote:

---

King Parcelan had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Sounds like someone loves the commies, boys.

---

Nyet!