NASA Going to the Moon... Again - Page 2

Pure Liquid Awesome · 12-05-2006, 01:55 PM

Well, years ago they figured they could extract water and oxygen and nitrogen right from the polar moon-rocks.... maybe they figured that process out to make it cheap enough to be feasible?

42PETUNIAS · 12-05-2006, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pure Liquid Awesome

Well, years ago they figured they could extract water and oxygen and nitrogen right from the polar moon-rocks.... maybe they figured that process out to make it cheap enough to be feasible?

Cheap enough to drag it to earth from the moon? Somehow, i really doubt that. Even if the purpose is to sustain the population, and not to bring resources to earth, i don't think the process would be easy or produce enough to sustain a population. It just seems like they want a moon base to have a moon base, not because theres any real benefit from it.

Pure Liquid Awesome · 12-05-2006, 05:00 PM

No no, just to keep the people on the Moon happy.... bringing oxygen to the Earth from the Moon seems a little much, even for the US government. I'm sure they would be able to extract it, if they had sufficient power, and a solar array set up that doesn't even have atmosphere to interfere with the radiation would probably produce quite a bit of power, the way current solar technology is going.

But yeah, I agree... they're mostly having one just to have one, but it is a stepping stone to reintroducing the space program. Now if they could just get rid of homeless people, they'd be going in the right direction...

42PETUNIAS · 12-05-2006, 05:10 PM

I personally fail to see the immediate merit of having a space program. It doesn't serve any practical purpose, its insanely expensive, and the american people has pretty much turned their back on it, no one will really gain as much from a second time on the moon. Back during the first moonwalk, a space program was definitly good as it provided the amerian people with a source of hope and all that, but no one gets the same emotion, its far more expensive now, more time-consuming and all that. Unless a very simple solution arises that makes trips to the moon much easier (like a cheap fuel that provides much more speed, while not needing too much space to contain it) the bulk of he space program should be abandoned until it has a significant purpose to serve.

Pure Liquid Awesome · 12-05-2006, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 42PETUNIAS

Unless a very simple solution arises that makes trips to the moon much easier (like a cheap fuel that provides much more speed, while not needing too much space to contain it)

Like the Venturestar? NASA didn't think it was 'feasible'...

handofpwn · 12-05-2006, 05:22 PM

I think that nasa wants to build just so that when theyre at their high school reunion, they can say : Yeah? Well i built a moon base bitch.

Sithdarth · 12-05-2006, 06:32 PM

No see the reason for extracting Oxygen and Hydrogen from the moon is making fuel to go other places. Places like Mars; which are much more suitable for potential population supporting. See oxygen and hydrogen make for pretty much the most powerful chemical rocket fuel money can buy. The problem is that bringing enough of it into orbit to get to say Mars is a problem. Especially since you also have to bring a few years worth of drinking water, food, and air. Plus a lot of living space and things to do on the several month long voyage.

So you see if you could get these things from the moon and then launch from there, were gravity is 6 times less, it would be a lot cheaper. Getting off the moon even with a crap load of food, water, air, and fuel is orders of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Not to mention the moon is a much harder place to set up a "base". Not only is it good practice for Mars its also close enough so that if something goes wrong the people there can come back.

There are reasons to go to the moon. Assuming that they do find the resources they are looking for. Even if they don't its still a good, and marginally safer, testing ground for a future Mars mission. Walk before you crawl and all that.

Bells · 12-05-2006, 06:41 PM

I did find it funny (in a morbid way) that they talked about this around the same time that it was said that US actions on Iraq were not productive......

So... like... if they bring enough fertile soil, a lot of trees and work around with the water in the moon, in like 50 years, maybe a breathble atmosphere?

Pure Liquid Awesome · 12-05-2006, 06:45 PM

Maybe if the Moon becomes the 52nd state, there'll be another swing vote in the next election?

Sithdarth · 12-05-2006, 06:50 PM

Quote:

So... like... if they bring enough fertile soil, a lot of trees and work around with the water in the moon, in like 50 years, maybe a breathble atmosphere?

Not going to happen ever. Hell Mars barely has the strength to hold onto its atmosphere and it doesn't have a neighbor six times its size ready to beat it up and take what it wants. I mean theoretically you could set up some kind of atmosphere but you'd have to continously truck in, or create from rocks, the gasses needed to sustain it. We're probably talking tens of thousands if not millions of tons of gas in as little as a few months. Much easier just to build good sized domes to live in. You really don't need all that room anyway.

12-05-2006, 05:10 PM	#14
42PETUNIAS helloooo! Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: The Court Posts: 2,816	I personally fail to see the immediate merit of having a space program. It doesn't serve any practical purpose, its insanely expensive, and the american people has pretty much turned their back on it, no one will really gain as much from a second time on the moon. Back during the first moonwalk, a space program was definitly good as it provided the amerian people with a source of hope and all that, but no one gets the same emotion, its far more expensive now, more time-consuming and all that. Unless a very simple solution arises that makes trips to the moon much easier (like a cheap fuel that provides much more speed, while not needing too much space to contain it) the bulk of he space program should be abandoned until it has a significant purpose to serve. __________________ noooo! why are you doing that?!

12-05-2006, 05:22 PM	#16
handofpwn legally sane since 1999 ^^ Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: see that tall building behind you? now, see that thing that looks like a high powered rifle? well... Posts: 186	I think that nasa wants to build just so that when theyre at their high school reunion, they can say : Yeah? Well i built a moon base bitch. __________________ "My advice is take it as a compliment, as long as nobody makes a grab for the family jewels."(fifthfiend) My myspace Click for cookies Deviant Art Bullet For My Valentine Aww, stop makeing fun of Messy-Poo "Nothing better than boobs." (RaiRai) Check out my friend's forum. 2% of the internet population does not have a myspace. Copy and paste this in your sig if you are part of the 98% that do.

12-05-2006, 06:41 PM	#18
Bells That's so PC of you Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: In a Server-sided Dimension where time is meaningless Posts: 10,490	I did find it funny (in a morbid way) that they talked about this around the same time that it was said that US actions on Iraq were not productive...... So... like... if they bring enough fertile soil, a lot of trees and work around with the water in the moon, in like 50 years, maybe a breathble atmosphere? __________________ *BELLS STORE : Clothes! You wear* them! Free US Shipping Subscription System? WTF?! Zazzle Black!**

12-05-2006, 01:55 PM	#11
Pure Liquid Awesome Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: I was born and raised. Posts: 96	Well, years ago they figured they could extract water and oxygen and nitrogen right from the polar moon-rocks.... maybe they figured that process out to make it cheap enough to be feasible?

12-05-2006, 05:00 PM	#13
Pure Liquid Awesome Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: I was born and raised. Posts: 96	No no, just to keep the people on the Moon happy.... bringing oxygen to the Earth from the Moon seems a little much, even for the US government. I'm sure they would be able to extract it, if they had sufficient power, and a solar array set up that doesn't even have atmosphere to interfere with the radiation would probably produce quite a bit of power, the way current solar technology is going. But yeah, I agree... they're mostly having one just to have one, but it is a stepping stone to reintroducing the space program. Now if they could just get rid of homeless people, they'd be going in the right direction...

12-05-2006, 06:32 PM	#17
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	No see the reason for extracting Oxygen and Hydrogen from the moon is making fuel to go other places. Places like Mars; which are much more suitable for potential population supporting. See oxygen and hydrogen make for pretty much the most powerful chemical rocket fuel money can buy. The problem is that bringing enough of it into orbit to get to say Mars is a problem. Especially since you also have to bring a few years worth of drinking water, food, and air. Plus a lot of living space and things to do on the several month long voyage. So you see if you could get these things from the moon and then launch from there, were gravity is 6 times less, it would be a lot cheaper. Getting off the moon even with a crap load of food, water, air, and fuel is orders of magnitude easier than getting off earth. Not to mention the moon is a much harder place to set up a "base". Not only is it good practice for Mars its also close enough so that if something goes wrong the people there can come back. There are reasons to go to the moon. Assuming that they do find the resources they are looking for. Even if they don't its still a good, and marginally safer, testing ground for a future Mars mission. Walk before you crawl and all that.

12-05-2006, 06:45 PM	#19
Pure Liquid Awesome Sent to the cornfield Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: I was born and raised. Posts: 96	Maybe if the Moon becomes the 52nd state, there'll be another swing vote in the next election?