Not really terraforming, it is a step in moon colonization and then colonization of Mars and space "The Final Frontier".
CO<sub>2</sub> lasers - the lasers that they still use today to cut through metal - were invented in 1964 so they were already built.
Because the technology doesn't exist? Sorry but I'm quite sure it does these days. That was 50 years ago you know - defense needs and philosophies have changed quite substantially.
I guess you didn't see the links I included? The things in the link are things that can't be done by remote control payoff. Thus spending $500,000,000 with a actual payoff of $0 is a bigger money sink than spending $10,000,000,000 and getting a payoff of $50,000,000,000 in mineral wealth and energy production.
How much mineral wealth and energy did we extract from our first foray on the moon? Anyway - how do you discover if there is mineral wealth and energy to extract in the first place - by sending a robot or a guy?
I would hope you could figure this out for yourself, but they don't have to wait for the people to arrive at the moon before they actually use the laser, in order to prevent them from going to the moon.
Well rocket technology can't really make any more groundbreaking discoveries. It's pretty much as efficient as it can get. Here's the problem. Research was being done for Nuclear Propulsion (i.e. controlled atomic bomb in a can) in order to allow pratically unlimited supply of fuel for mere pounds of reactive isotopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Prometheus). At the moment, we have 30k lbs of fuel to move about 45k lbs of payload. Due to protests from environmentalists, they pulled the plug on the project. So with the current propulsion system, you really can't travel in space without a huge investment in time. Since you have such a strong opinion against space exploration, let me spare you the textbook answer of why going to the moon is benificial. Here's something most people might not know....there is an abundance of Helium-3 on the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium_3). Helium-3 is the forefront of new energy producing technology for the long-term future. I don't think it is a coincidence that Bush stated the mandate to go back to the moon right before/during the start of the oil price crisis. Let me ask you this, why are the Chinese trying to get to the moon? The Chinese govt is the most economic driven govt in the world. There is no way in hell the Chinese would go to the moon unless there was a profit involved. And I'm not talkin about 'cash in the bank' profits. There is a larger stake at hand. And for all the budget freaks out there, NASA is just a scape goat. NASA's budget is about 0.7% (less than a penny per dollar) of the federal budget. Don't be fooled about NASA eating up funds. It's relatively cheap in my opinion. Everyone knows well where the bulk of the dollars are going. Obama definately lost my vote. Cutting NASA's budget is not the answer. You want to save some money? Reduce military spending to a reasonable level.
what are you trying to prove, that you know about space flight more than me. congratulations, I was just responding to the point about shooting the russians off the moon with a laser. you win, geesh.
We already know it exists. It is not on the moon, but the moonbase is the stepping off point that enables you get it.
not to mention the excess supply would in theory drive the price down, further making it difficult to make up the cost
I would hope people would figure this out for themselves before they deveote time and money towards builidng a laser to shoot chinese astronauts off the moon or for sending spacemen up to shoot chinese astronauts off the moon.
If you're going to get into the economics of it, you're talking about spending trillions of dollars to extract millions of dollars worth of iron, silicon, etc (as far as I know, we're not running out of a lot of that stuff, which is recyclable anyway). Not an argument you're going to win anytime soon. Maybe in a few hundred years.
The whole premise is flawed. There is no shortage of people qualified to be astronauts, the money would go to try to improve the worst in the education system, not the best. Obama isn't trying to improve astrophysics departments at top universities, he is trying to improve education at the very lowest levels for the students having the most trouble. Kids that can't read under the current education system are not the pool that NASA draws from, they are the pool McDonalds draws from.
Again, at some point these are transformational technologies. We generate electricity in space - we can shut down coal plants and affect global warming. How much is that worth? We mine enough platinum metals to make hydrogen fuel cells practical, how much is that worth? For technologies that have gone before - how exactly do you evaluate the benifits to mankind of NASA weather satelites which make weather prediction a reality? What is that actually worth? Same thing about communications satelites. Remove reliable intercontinental communications and reliable weather prediction, including huirricane prediction. How do you even quantify a dollar amount effect that these things provide? The prudent thing for Marco Polo to do would have been to stay in Italy and invest in a local business with no risk. If Isabella had used her money to educate the poor, Spain would have been better off in the short run. Do you really think that those two were poor ideas?
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. There is a greater weight in nickel metal asteroids floating around than comprises the entire mass of the planet Earth. One asteroid = several hundereds of years of current production on Earth. Cut prices by a factor of 100 and you still have many trillions of dollars waiting. All that is needed is some long term planning, something that corporations loathe.
