I don't like this argument, because it doesn't stop anywhere. If we shouldn't spend money on space exploration then we also shouldn't spend money on CERN since what the fuck is a particle accelerator going to do for those in need?
The converse goes just as far: in essence "I don't care if you have food, housing, or textbooks at school--I want to play with my fancy toys."
It comes down to what levels of suffering and inequality you're willing to tolerate.
"I don't care if you have food, housing or textbooks at school - I'm busy lecturing on impossible moral standards to my friends on a computer game forum rather than working to send you money."
I don't mind your hypocrisy, because I think anyone with very high ideals is to some degree a hypocrite due to human frailty. But to be a hypocrite and employ such strident rhetoric . . . it's a little much.
all those pretty rocket weapons we have probably wouldhave never existed it it wasn't for space program rocketry research
Can I get a witness?
Other way around guy.
Space-rockets developed after the German V2 rocket which in turn was developed because rocketry research was not banned whereas the bomb-making was.
Easy mistake though.
all those pretty rocket weapons we have probably wouldhave never existed it it wasn't for space program rocketry research
Can I get a witness?
Other way around guy.
Space-rockets developed after the German V2 rocket which in turn was developed because rocketry research was not banned whereas the bomb-making was.
Easy mistake though.
Yeah, it's been awhile since I've been to the space museum; some stuff gets fuzzy after 10 years.
Darth Waiter on
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
I don't like this argument, because it doesn't stop anywhere. If we shouldn't spend money on space exploration then we also shouldn't spend money on CERN since what the fuck is a particle accelerator going to do for those in need?
The converse goes just as far: in essence "I don't care if you have food, housing, or textbooks at school--I want to play with my fancy toys."
It comes down to what levels of suffering and inequality you're willing to tolerate.
"I don't care if you have food, housing or textbooks at school - I'm busy lecturing on impossible moral standards to my friends on a computer game forum rather than working to send you money."
I don't mind your hypocrisy, because I think anyone with very high ideals is to some degree a hypocrite due to human frailty. But to be a hypocrite and employ such strident rhetoric . . . it's a little much.
Seriously. Get this bleeding heart bullshit out of the thread and come up with a real arguement that doesn't revolve around "WHY WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"
No offence to anyone but lets drop the african children topic and continue with debate and discussion on the moon base. I do recommend a seperate "Save Africa" thread though since alot of debate is going on about it. Not trying to mini-mod but I really wanted to read the discussion on the space station. Does that mean he is wrong? no it just means that if he has so much info and commitment he should make a thread other than this one he can OP and debate that topic in.
Ok moving on:
Ive heard that my idea about the already orbiting fuel stages and old sattelites are actually being considered for the moon base(but of course it was someone idea already before I thought of it). The proposed idea is to move them to a different orbit for processing/ decontaminating (in the case of the fuel tanks) and then moving them to the moon when they are finished with it.
Now keep in mind this is just from a astronomy student but he tends to keep more informed on this stuff that me.
Also the benifits that a astronomy lab(meaning the satillite ones have alot of people all trying to use the same one this means more for everyone) that has no atmoshpere to enterfere with it is very exciting a large scale base with multiple scopes and other equipment could help alot in the areas of astronomy and understanding the universe better.
Feel free to inform me of why im wrong and why it wouldnt work.
I hadn't even thought about an astronomy lab set up on the moon. It makes perfect sense.
Depending upon the time of "day" you would have:
No glare from the sun
No glare from the atmosphere
No glare from pollution
Multiple locations for tracking movement of the same celestial object
What's not to like?
Hell, you could observe weather patterns on the Earth with a much broader scope, albeit only at certain times of the "day."
edit: With multiple locations, you get 24 hour Earth coverage. I'm slow after lunch.
MrMister, I believe the term I'm looking for to describe your presence in this thread is, oh yeah...
Boner-Killer
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
MrMister, I believe the term I'm looking for to describe your presence in this thread is, oh yeah...
Boner-Killer
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
What a bummer? Im sure sociology students, and people working in charity feel the opposite way
fjafjan on
Yepp, THE Fjafjan (who's THE fjafjan?)
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
0
Options
Der Waffle MousBlame this on the misfortune of your birth.New Yark, New Yark.Registered Userregular
MrMister, I believe the term I'm looking for to describe your presence in this thread is, oh yeah...
Boner-Killer
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
What a bummer? Im sure sociology students, and people working in charity feel the opposite way
This sociology student wants you to get the fuck into the africa thread and stop shitting on this one.
MrMister, I believe the term I'm looking for to describe your presence in this thread is, oh yeah...
Boner-Killer
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
What a bummer? Im sure sociology students, and people working in charity feel the opposite way
its not cut and dry, there is room for charity, sociology, and moon bases.
These types of arguments are always insanely frustrating, because its not easy to take the "moral high ground" approach when arguing for scientific exploration.
My next guess is you will say something along the lines, "what about scientific exploration for pure humanitarian aid such as cheep renewable energy, or easily sustainable clean water systems for impoverished and undereducated areas?" Because this instantly undermines my argument.
Hooray for feeling like a callous bastard because of excitement for science for science's sake. Something can be said for simply expanding the realms of human knowledge
I hadn't even thought about an astronomy lab set up on the moon. It makes perfect sense.
Depending upon the time of "day" you would have:
No glare from the sun
No glare from the atmosphere
No glare from pollution
Multiple locations for tracking movement of the same celestial object
What's not to like?
Hell, you could observe weather patterns on the Earth with a much broader scope, albeit only at certain times of the "day."
edit: With multiple locations, you get 24 hour Earth coverage. I'm slow after lunch.
You could, but 24 hour Earth coverage and complete Earth coverage are not the same thing. That's why we launch multi-satellite constellations. At theoretical best, you'll only over see 50% of the Earth from a single satellite (including the Moon).
I hadn't even thought about an astronomy lab set up on the moon. It makes perfect sense.
Depending upon the time of "day" you would have:
No glare from the sun
No glare from the atmosphere
No glare from pollution
Multiple locations for tracking movement of the same celestial object
What's not to like?
Hell, you could observe weather patterns on the Earth with a much broader scope, albeit only at certain times of the "day."
edit: With multiple locations, you get 24 hour Earth coverage. I'm slow after lunch.
You could, but 24 hour Earth coverage and complete Earth coverage are not the same thing. That's why we launch multi-satellite constellations. At theoretical best, you'll only over see 50% of the Earth from a single satellite (including the Moon).
True, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And easier to use the same astronomy lab to monitor the Earth when it's in view and the cosmos when the Earth is out of range. Cheaper too. I'm not saying we should scrap the satellites we have, just round them out with other observation units that are easily reparied on the moon's surface.
And now we have yet another thought from my hyperactive brain: we've discussed using the moon as a jumping off point to start the colonization of Mars; what about using the moon as a base to cheaply maintain manmade satellites? Or has this already been mentioned?
I just realized that nobody's leaped to the idea of us installing a deadly laser beam on the moon yet. I mean we have the thread about ADS active right now. Who's to say that this man isn't behind the whole thing?
I just realized that nobody's leaped to the idea of us installing a deadly laser beam on the moon yet. I mean we have the thread about ADS active right now. Who's to say that this man isn't behind the whole thing?
lol. I just kind of figured it was a given that any base on the moon would eventually become militarized.
I just realized that nobody's leaped to the idea of us installing a deadly laser beam on the moon yet. I mean we have the thread about ADS active right now. Who's to say that this man isn't behind the whole thing?
lol. I just kind of figured it was a given that any base on the moon would eventually become militarized.
I'd like for you to also note where that image is hosted. Coincidence?
I just realized that nobody's leaped to the idea of us installing a deadly laser beam on the moon yet. I mean we have the thread about ADS active right now. Who's to say that this man isn't behind the whole thing?
lol. I just kind of figured it was a given that any base on the moon would eventually become militarized.
I'd like for you to also note where that image is hosted. Coincidence?
Hey now lets not forget about international space law....
(lol)
ok sorry but who enforces this law? and could they stop the US from death raying them if they tried to stop us?
I just realized that nobody's leaped to the idea of us installing a deadly laser beam on the moon yet. I mean we have the thread about ADS active right now. Who's to say that this man isn't behind the whole thing?
lol. I just kind of figured it was a given that any base on the moon would eventually become militarized.
I'd like for you to also note where that image is hosted. Coincidence?
Hey now lets not forget about international space law....
(lol)
ok sorry but who enforces this law? and could they stop the US from death raying them if they tried to stop us?
Not a chance in hell. Unless our lasers needed extending charging periods.
Does the moon rotate? I remember very vaguely from 3rd-grade science that the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth.
That sounds right to me. Still having something on the poles or outward face in the way of astronomy bases would be a real assit to the world. Also having 100's of railgun turrents pointed at the earth would be awesome.
He just needs to convey it in a less high horsed fashion.
He has a real argument, but it's being presented very compellingly since it comes across as dismissing all blue sky research, which is patently absurd since there's a dozens of times we do it and something that helps everyone falls out of it.
Practically, there's also the fact that NASA's budget will not change for this particular idea, so while there are valid reasons not to like it, they're not because it's somehow conflicting with aid money to Africa, New Orleans survivors or anywhere else.
He just needs to convey it in a less high horsed fashion.
He has a real argument, but it's being presented very compellingly since it comes across as dismissing all blue sky research, which is patently absurd since there's a dozens of times we do it and something that helps everyone falls out of it.
Practically, there's also the fact that NASA's budget will not change for this particular idea, so while there are valid reasons not to like it, they're not because it's somehow conflicting with aid money to Africa, New Orleans survivors or anywhere else.
I hadn't even thought about an astronomy lab set up on the moon. It makes perfect sense.
Depending upon the time of "day" you would have:
No glare from the sun
No glare from the atmosphere
No glare from pollution
Multiple locations for tracking movement of the same celestial object
What's not to like?
Hell, you could observe weather patterns on the Earth with a much broader scope, albeit only at certain times of the "day."
edit: With multiple locations, you get 24 hour Earth coverage. I'm slow after lunch.
There would be no point in a telescope on the moon observing earth, there are already satellites closer to the earth that can do that.
The big advantage is that you could put radio telescopes on the dark side of the moon, which would be free from all the radio noise that our planet pumps out.
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
Do satellites capable of detecting earthlike planets around other stars or more robotic explorers like the ones that found water today on mars heading to places like Europa and Titan not have the same effect for you? When push comes to shove, that's the tradeoff we're looking at with a fixed NASA budget. The numbers just don't add up.
I'm honestly curious, not trying to be a dick here. The scientific stuff is what gets me excited, I could care less whether people are actually present in the short term, but I'm not an engineer.
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
Do satellites capable of detecting earthlike planets around other stars or more robotic explorers like the ones that found water today on mars heading to places like Europa and Titan not have the same effect for you? When push comes to shove, that's the tradeoff we're looking at with a fixed NASA budget. The numbers just don't add up.
I'm honestly curious, not trying to be a dick here. The scientific stuff is what gets me excited, I could care less whether people are actually present in the short term, but I'm not an engineer.
It's not interesting to watch planets through artificial eyes on 6 hour time delays from when thing's happen, and be completely unable to repair things if they break down, or improvise innovative new experiments and arrangements. Most people would tend to agree that if a moonbase enables us to more cheaply launch further scientific missions, it is far more worth the effort.
After all, the only reason we look for water on other planets is with an eye to going there.
electricitylikesme on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
It's not interesting to watch planets through artificial eyes on 6 hour time delays from when thing's happen, and be completely unable to repair things if they break down, or improvise innovative new experiments and arrangements. Most people would tend to agree that if a moonbase enables us to more cheaply launch further scientific missions, it is far more worth the effort.
See, I'd say that while it's less fun for you or me to watch, it's also way less expensive (mars rovers were ~$400 and 200 million) and gives you much of the same information. If you realize you missed something, send another probe or even a bunch, you're still saving gobs of money getting all of that equipment there relative to the $450 billion to put men on mars.
If the machine breaks, you lose the machine. If things break when people are there, there's a good chance the people die. Either they have the equipment to fix it or they don't.
I haven't exactly seen any really exciting research come out of having people on Mir/ISS, and I'm not sure what would be different on the airless void of the moon. A telescope on the far side... cool, but we're spending the cash we'd spend on that sending people there. Now getting some biologists to mars, maybe that would mean something...
Cheaper missions from the moon? It'll cost us way more to get the people in place to launch those missions than to just launch them from earh.
I get the impulse of having people "on scene," it's just that the environments are so hostile and horribly far away (as far as re-equipment goes) that it changes the numbers markedly.
Does the moon rotate? I remember very vaguely from 3rd-grade science that the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth.
The moon does rotate, but it, like most (if not all) satellites, is locked into a period of rotation that keeps one face towards it's mother planet. This is due to the effect of gravitational tides. This is why the moon has a "dark side" (it's not actually dark all the time, but it simply is never visible from the Earth).
Pluto and it's moon Charon are double tidally locked. They each keep the same face towards one another, meaning the moon never rises or sets if you are on Pluto.
Mercury is locked into a strange 2:3 orbital:rotational cycle, such that it always has 3 days every 2 "years".
Venus is even stranger, though that is not due to tidal locking as far as I know.
I certainly don't understand why research can't just be directed, like in Civilization. I mean it's not as if some of the greatest inventions of the modern world were invented/discovered by blue-sky research.
Biggest issue with that idea I can see is that many of what you might call the greatest inventions of the modern world weren't invented as a stand alone solution, but rather were invented to solve a smaller issue with accomplishing a larger goal. A good example would be all the things that have come out of the space program. A lot of the things that came out of it weren't researched for the purposes they proved to be the most beneficial in overall.
I think one could probably make the case that innovations are almost as readily stumbled across as they are intentionally discovered in the field of research. In other words while your goal may be to, using the same example, get to the moon lord only knows what you'll come up with while researching ways to do it.
Which I think is a point that has probably been repeated at least a few times by now. Yeah, a moonbase by itself doesn't accomplish much by itself in the short-term. Although I don't think it's supposed to. My guess would be that it's part of a much larger overall plan of space exploration and understanding which is inarguably a good thing. However while getting it set up there's a very good chance that technologies that are beneficial to all of mankind will be stumbled across in the process.
Would researching those technologies directly be more efficient? Probably, but the point is that without the larger goal, would they ever get researched at all? The best answer I can give is "Maybe" which isn't all that reassuring.
Posts
Can I get a witness?
"I don't care if you have food, housing or textbooks at school - I'm busy lecturing on impossible moral standards to my friends on a computer game forum rather than working to send you money."
I don't mind your hypocrisy, because I think anyone with very high ideals is to some degree a hypocrite due to human frailty. But to be a hypocrite and employ such strident rhetoric . . . it's a little much.
Other way around guy.
Space-rockets developed after the German V2 rocket which in turn was developed because rocketry research was not banned whereas the bomb-making was.
Easy mistake though.
Yeah, it's been awhile since I've been to the space museum; some stuff gets fuzzy after 10 years.
He just needs to convey it in a less high horsed fashion.
Ok moving on:
Ive heard that my idea about the already orbiting fuel stages and old sattelites are actually being considered for the moon base(but of course it was someone idea already before I thought of it). The proposed idea is to move them to a different orbit for processing/ decontaminating (in the case of the fuel tanks) and then moving them to the moon when they are finished with it.
Now keep in mind this is just from a astronomy student but he tends to keep more informed on this stuff that me.
Also the benifits that a astronomy lab(meaning the satillite ones have alot of people all trying to use the same one this means more for everyone) that has no atmoshpere to enterfere with it is very exciting a large scale base with multiple scopes and other equipment could help alot in the areas of astronomy and understanding the universe better.
Feel free to inform me of why im wrong and why it wouldnt work.
I hadn't even thought about an astronomy lab set up on the moon. It makes perfect sense.
Depending upon the time of "day" you would have:
No glare from the sun
No glare from the atmosphere
No glare from pollution
Multiple locations for tracking movement of the same celestial object
What's not to like?
Hell, you could observe weather patterns on the Earth with a much broader scope, albeit only at certain times of the "day."
edit: With multiple locations, you get 24 hour Earth coverage. I'm slow after lunch.
Boner-Killer
As a freshman Aerospace engineering student, I find this prospect very, very exciting. In fact, I wrote many of my college essays on a lack of current programs to get young students like myself excited to enter engineering. A program like this is inspiring and will hopefully turn alot of young people's minds to education and the sciences.
People in the thread have said already that there is always something "better" upon which money can be spent. However, I came to this thread to discuss moon bases. Not to be guilt tripped out of my excitement for scientific exploration.
What a bummer? Im sure sociology students, and people working in charity feel the opposite way
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
its not cut and dry, there is room for charity, sociology, and moon bases.
These types of arguments are always insanely frustrating, because its not easy to take the "moral high ground" approach when arguing for scientific exploration.
My next guess is you will say something along the lines, "what about scientific exploration for pure humanitarian aid such as cheep renewable energy, or easily sustainable clean water systems for impoverished and undereducated areas?" Because this instantly undermines my argument.
Hooray for feeling like a callous bastard because of excitement for science for science's sake. Something can be said for simply expanding the realms of human knowledge
You could, but 24 hour Earth coverage and complete Earth coverage are not the same thing. That's why we launch multi-satellite constellations. At theoretical best, you'll only over see 50% of the Earth from a single satellite (including the Moon).
True, but it's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick. And easier to use the same astronomy lab to monitor the Earth when it's in view and the cosmos when the Earth is out of range. Cheaper too. I'm not saying we should scrap the satellites we have, just round them out with other observation units that are easily reparied on the moon's surface.
And now we have yet another thought from my hyperactive brain: we've discussed using the moon as a jumping off point to start the colonization of Mars; what about using the moon as a base to cheaply maintain manmade satellites? Or has this already been mentioned?
lol. I just kind of figured it was a given that any base on the moon would eventually become militarized.
Hey now lets not forget about international space law....
(lol)
ok sorry but who enforces this law? and could they stop the US from death raying them if they tried to stop us?
Not a chance in hell. Unless our lasers needed extending charging periods.
That sounds right to me. Still having something on the poles or outward face in the way of astronomy bases would be a real assit to the world. Also having 100's of railgun turrents pointed at the earth would be awesome.
Practically, there's also the fact that NASA's budget will not change for this particular idea, so while there are valid reasons not to like it, they're not because it's somehow conflicting with aid money to Africa, New Orleans survivors or anywhere else.
Particularly when the US in particular cheerfully manages to lose $1 billion in Katrina aid money.
There would be no point in a telescope on the moon observing earth, there are already satellites closer to the earth that can do that.
The big advantage is that you could put radio telescopes on the dark side of the moon, which would be free from all the radio noise that our planet pumps out.
Do satellites capable of detecting earthlike planets around other stars or more robotic explorers like the ones that found water today on mars heading to places like Europa and Titan not have the same effect for you? When push comes to shove, that's the tradeoff we're looking at with a fixed NASA budget. The numbers just don't add up.
I'm honestly curious, not trying to be a dick here. The scientific stuff is what gets me excited, I could care less whether people are actually present in the short term, but I'm not an engineer.
After all, the only reason we look for water on other planets is with an eye to going there.
Well, there's also that whole "oh hey, possibility of life!"
See, I'd say that while it's less fun for you or me to watch, it's also way less expensive (mars rovers were ~$400 and 200 million) and gives you much of the same information. If you realize you missed something, send another probe or even a bunch, you're still saving gobs of money getting all of that equipment there relative to the $450 billion to put men on mars.
If the machine breaks, you lose the machine. If things break when people are there, there's a good chance the people die. Either they have the equipment to fix it or they don't.
I haven't exactly seen any really exciting research come out of having people on Mir/ISS, and I'm not sure what would be different on the airless void of the moon. A telescope on the far side... cool, but we're spending the cash we'd spend on that sending people there. Now getting some biologists to mars, maybe that would mean something...
Cheaper missions from the moon? It'll cost us way more to get the people in place to launch those missions than to just launch them from earh.
I get the impulse of having people "on scene," it's just that the environments are so hostile and horribly far away (as far as re-equipment goes) that it changes the numbers markedly.
The moon does rotate, but it, like most (if not all) satellites, is locked into a period of rotation that keeps one face towards it's mother planet. This is due to the effect of gravitational tides. This is why the moon has a "dark side" (it's not actually dark all the time, but it simply is never visible from the Earth).
Pluto and it's moon Charon are double tidally locked. They each keep the same face towards one another, meaning the moon never rises or sets if you are on Pluto.
Mercury is locked into a strange 2:3 orbital:rotational cycle, such that it always has 3 days every 2 "years".
Venus is even stranger, though that is not due to tidal locking as far as I know.
And subjugate the natives. Maybe. Well, probably.
All that's missing is a few Buds and some lawn chairs.
Sounds classy.
Biggest issue with that idea I can see is that many of what you might call the greatest inventions of the modern world weren't invented as a stand alone solution, but rather were invented to solve a smaller issue with accomplishing a larger goal. A good example would be all the things that have come out of the space program. A lot of the things that came out of it weren't researched for the purposes they proved to be the most beneficial in overall.
I think one could probably make the case that innovations are almost as readily stumbled across as they are intentionally discovered in the field of research. In other words while your goal may be to, using the same example, get to the moon lord only knows what you'll come up with while researching ways to do it.
Which I think is a point that has probably been repeated at least a few times by now. Yeah, a moonbase by itself doesn't accomplish much by itself in the short-term. Although I don't think it's supposed to. My guess would be that it's part of a much larger overall plan of space exploration and understanding which is inarguably a good thing. However while getting it set up there's a very good chance that technologies that are beneficial to all of mankind will be stumbled across in the process.
Would researching those technologies directly be more efficient? Probably, but the point is that without the larger goal, would they ever get researched at all? The best answer I can give is "Maybe" which isn't all that reassuring.
That's no moon, it's a trailer park!