You should be making this argument to NASA - which cuts these projects regularly to sell fantasies of moonbases.
These are type of pipe-dreams that NASA uses to sell new space shuttles in which we study the effects of space on schoolteacher. Anyway - I'm betting that the cost per pound of extracting nickel from an asteroid floating near Mars (how is this helped by a moon base? ) is many millions of times the cost that it is now.
I was just responding to mining of iron ore in space. admittedly don't know enough about this, but these are the arguments that NASA will have to make. Is it worth it? I don't disagree with space travel in general, obviously satelite technology has many profitable functions as well as benifiting mankind in general. I just don't understand the need to go back to the moon. not a fair comparison at all, columbus basically brought a few soilders and slaves over here. The technology, manpower, and money of sending someone into space is exponetially more adjusting for all factors.
First you tell me I should tell this to NASA, then 6 minutes later you tell me it the kind of 'pipe dream that NASA uses to sell new space shuttles'? Quickest. Cynicism. Evar. And I said it before. The space station and the space shuttle are boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky money wasters. I agree with you there. Eliminate them today. But the moon base is a legitimate step forward to a sustainable permanent presence in space. You get trojans, or any of the other NEA's not asteroids at Mars. The #1 impediment to widespread space travel is the cost of getting things out of the gravity well (dropping things into a well is essentially free). The force of gravity on the moon is 1/6 Earth, so cost of leaving the well is 1/6. The number one constraint in a space vehicle is reaction mass, so you can mine reaction mass from the moon, and you don't have to spend a whole lot of money getting it to orbit.
As a percentage of the budget, NASA's funding has been going down. I would like to know more about what he intends to do with regards to the space program, but right now, he's lost my vote. Unless he's the nominee. Then he gets it, regardless. D&D. Attempt Civility! Impeach Bush.
You're not arguing for lower cost satellite/robotic projects to study the earth- you're arguing to me about moon bases and mars bases and asteroid mining. I'm saying that NASA should concentrate on the former rather than the latter. NASA feels differently and apparnetly so do you. And I said it before. The space station and the space shuttle are boondoggles and pie-in-the-sky money wasters. I agree with you there. Eliminate them today. But the moon base is a legitimate step forward to a sustainable permanent presence in space.[/quote] I thought that's what the space station was. The moon base is simply a further away, more expensive version of this. Again - how does this have to do with a moon base? OK - wait, you are arguing that we build a spaceship building factory on the moon to build spaceships on the moon? Why not just build one in space? Of course, aside from iron ore, the materials still have to come up from the earth - so your cost basis is still pretty much destroyed - not to mention that the idea of a spaceship factory is again - a complete pipe dream at this stage.
And how do we get the space ship to the moon? How many space ship refuelings would we need for this lunar gas station to be worth it? You see what I mean when I say pipe dream?
Now that belief set is scary. Ottomaton IMO is dead on. There are several other aspects to consider, some of which will cause certain board members to go ballistic. We desperately need to overhaul our ineffective K-12 educational system. The focus should be in identifying college material students as well as future blue collar personnel. Teach the ones who want to learn, and let the others see the vocational light. Currently, we stigmatize the blue collar set, but these are the people who create and maintain the structures and products the college types design and market. This needs to end unless we want to continue exporting our manufacturing sector jobs. Second, a moon base controls near Earth space. Weaponizing the moon is a shameful thing, but the country that gets there first is dominant. That's why the Chinese have made manned lunar "exploration" a priority. Third, establishing a lunar base, means an easier, less expensive path to Mars. We are exhausting Earth's mineral wealth, and Mars may hold the key in the next century -- which will come whether (or not) we are here (see asteroid). (Why do some people have hemorrhoids -- shouldn't these be called asteroids?) Like Sam, I prefer robotic exploration, but at some point we need to have human, hands-on input. It's what we do. It's what we are about.
Just like sending a man to the moon, and perminent orbiting weather and communications satelites were a pipe dream. See what I mean? They also said the same thing when people in the 1920's were talking about regular intercontinental airplane flights. Alot of people said the same thing when durring WWII, people proposed the atom bomb. On, and on.
It's not unreasonable to think we can place a largely self-contained, automated fuel production device on the Moon. A better question would be, are the resources needed to fuel it there, handy, and close together? We should go there and make sure of it. This is not some wild technology we're talking about. We can do this stuff. Right now, there isn't another nation that can. That technological lead is something I'd like to see continue, as well as manned space flight. We need to be expanding our abilities there, not cutting them back. If the program needs some tweaking, fine, but don't gut major parts of it. This is something Bush did that is actually a good idea. I was disappointed that his time frame was so long. Hell, Obama would, for all practical purposes, put a stake in it. D&D. Civil is as Civil does. Impeach Bush. Please.
I totally agree with this but I think the system identifies blue collar workers very well by default. I'm not saying that the system is great, but most people come out with the ability to at least read and write, which is crucial for doing blue collar jobs. everything else is learned on the job. we may not be putting out the brightest engineers right now, or even the most critical thinkers, but people do come out of the public education system with the most basic skills. that's the point I was trying to convey.
And this is the same argument that led to the space shuttle and the space station - useless projects designed to do things because we could, without asking why or what was realistically possible after they were done - projects that you admitted were boondoggles. Aren't we supposed to be having space hotels and space docks and space fleets and space factories in orbit by now? Why don't we wait till we're a little bit closer to building spaceships to builiding spaceship gas stations on the moon - and putting a bunch of teachers on the moon is not going to get us there much faster, I am sad to admit.
Given that it takes trilllions of dollars to put a tin can in low orbit so that astronauts can study the effects of zero-g on Venus Flytraps - I'm somewhat inclined to think it is not entirely reasonable in my lifetime.
First, nobody ever had a declared plan for the space station beyond as a research platform. No overarching industrial plans whatsoever. So, that really doesn't qualify at all. And as far as I know they never talked about the Shuttle for space tourism, either, though those discussions were before my day. But based on everything I am able to read it was always a development platform for the military as much as anything else. So in this case, intentionally or not, it seems you have built a strawman.
But the lunar gas station for the mobile asteroid mine is all drawn up and ready to roll? Sure.... That's about as realistic a plan right now as a space factory for vehicle assembly - which is nowhere close. They talked about the Shuttle as a cure for all that ails mankind - that's what defense contractors do when there are trillions of dollars to be made. Yes because man times have changed. Right?
Actually, does exist. That's what the current moonbase plan is all about. So, I guess you might want to find out about what it is you are dismissing as worthless pie-in-the-sky before you dismiss it. What contractors say is irrelevant. I'm not talking about contractors. The contractors would prefer if you kept the space shuttle program running indefinitely. What I am talking about isn’t some contractor pie in-the-sky. But again, based on everything I can read, you are wrong. Nixon told NASA that they had to build a shuttle that the USAF would like. Relevant people at NASA apparently even told Nixon it was a boondoggle, but it was either build the boondoggle or eliminate the space program. But there was never a legitimate feasibility study that showed that talked about space tourism and people moving into the space station, or about the Shuttle as designed being a money maker. I don't even understand what this means - to me it looks like gibberish. What are 'man times'?
Hyperbole? Because if not, I hope by trillions you mean $0.13 Trillion. The US is commited for $53 Billion of that amount. Whether that's a waste or not is a legitimate debate, but it's not the strawman that you are arguing against.
Change the word from "current moonbase" to "current space station" and I can show you all sorts of wonderful plans, from NASA and beyond. Whoops. Based on everything you can read that is written by NASA and others who will gain trillions from this, I am wrong - it is not only possible but attainable in the near term, at much lower cost than one would expect! Very ironic - where have we heard this kind of talk before with respect to a monumentally complex and cosltly operation unlike anything undertaken before? Man, times have changed. Wow you are so logical you can't even read a misplaced comma - you should change your name to spock. Very well I concede, Mr. Spock. Moonbase away - start spending the trillions now, our mobile asteroid mines will pay for themselves many times over in future decades.
Yeah if we take out the costs of the entire space shuttle program - which is essentially built entirely for the space station. And don't forget to deduct the cool million+ NASA earned for hitting a golf ball off of it! Quite honestly though tens - hundreds of billions - trilions - when the effective return is putting teachers in space - Does it matter?
