Water on the moon

[Hawk200]

This seemed interesting. Wonder how long it would be before we make a permanent presence on the moon.

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20091114/NEWS/911140323/-1/rss

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

That is pretty awesome. I too also wonder when we will be making Colonies on the Moon.

[JoeTomasone]

I wonder why we would bother.   Where's the need?

And not for nothin', but we can't afford to live here on Earth; who wants to pay the prices they'll charge to ship stuff to the Moon?    If you can't get Amazon to ship there for a reasonable price, I ain't goin'.

[Cecil DP]

But, No Cheese!!

[Hawk200]

I wonder why we would bother.   Where's the need?

Lot of things can be done in a lower gravity environment. Medical research  and manufacturing to name a couple. Be a lot easier to move some things around.

Energy wouldn't really be an issue either. With no atmosphere, solar energy would be easy to harness.

Having significant amounts of water would eliminate one of the biggest issues of permanent installations.

As to Amazon, why buy an actual book when you could download it? Most of our reading materials would probably be in electronic format by the time we had a permanent presence there.

It would probably be awhile before it turned into a tourist resort though.

[jimmydeanno]

NASA researcher noted a few things about the moon:

a) Heavy Helium is found in vast amounts on the moon.  It's worth about $300 million / ton.  There is none found on earth.  It is a key element in the process of fusion.  Heavy hydrogen found on the bottom of the ocean can be used with it to create fusion power plants.

b) Apparently, the moon is made of about 10% platinum.  Platinum, besides looking nice for jewelry, is a key ingredient in the production of fuel cells.  We only mine about 100 tons of platinum a year on earth because it is scarce.

c) There have been a few successful experiments in "beaming" energy through the air.  They noted that the possibility of having a huge solar array and that technology could enable us to send energy back to us easily.

d) Living/creating things on the moon teaches us more than it does here on earth.  Eventually, for the survival of mankind, we will need to branch out and expand our area of influence - Mars, etc. 

Colonizing and developing the moon has some significant interests for the success of mankind.

[Major Lord]

The moon would make a fine prison, but only for offenses of higher Gravity.

Major Lord

[Flying Pig]

I just heard on the news that it was Neil Armstrong's Aquifina bottle.

[desertengineer1]

I agree that we've got a long way to go regarding energy.  It takes a HUGE amount of thrust to get out of the atmosphere, and even more to negotiate between gravity wells and a safe descent.

Some of the studies are revealing some really cool concepts such as the use of lagrange points (L4, L5) as intermediate stops and possible station locations.

But we've got a long way to go regarding any significant presence.  Energy is the main factor.  A reliable, tangable source is needed, and the required output increases exponentially with the task (i.e. life support vs. platinum or heavy hydrogen mining).  Then there's the energy requirement to negotiate the gravity wells in reverse.

The moon is one of the most hostile places in the solar system.  But I'm with the crowd that we'll need to survive here first.  (i.e. I hope we don't kill ourselves or let an asteroid like Apophis hit us while we're busy trying to kill ourselves).

[Майор Хаткевич]

Most astronauts were convinced that we had the technology to get to Mars back in 1970. That is when all of the 'high technology' on a space capsule paled in comparison with my iPod Touch.

We had the rockets to get to the moon without difficulty, and we had the technical know-how to do it as well. What stopped us? The Soviet Union (technically back than I was part of that) and the public. Once the US beat the Soviets to the Moon, for some reason the emphasis switched to these [darn] re-usable shuttle things - big mistake.

Getting into orbit, while a good idea at the time, to establish some major installations in space, has failed. The ISS is tiny, especially given that we've been working on it for 11 years. I don't even want to think about what some of the equipment there looks like, running on Pentium Is and Mbs storage capacity...

That said, getting to the moon isn't realistic for the US now, nor will it for a long time. Sure we can do it with some 100 billion, but when we cut China an interested check higher than that monthly...it will be hard to justify.

By the way, China not only plans on reaching the moon, but will most likely do it too.

[flyerthom]

But, No Cheese!!

Business op! Bottled Moon water or Moon wine!

[Fuzzy]

China on the moon? Hopefully a particularly relevant Dos Gringos song might outline the future of china more accurately.

Besides, we have plans to get back on the moon too. Just because they come out with a plan, doesn't mean they should start counting their cheese returns just yet.

[Майор Хаткевич]

China on the moon? Hopefully a particularly relevant Dos Gringos song might outline the future of china more accurately.

Besides, we have plans to get back on the moon too. Just because they come out with a plan, doesn't mean they should start counting their cheese returns just yet.

And...where will we get the money, when NASA is already being considered irrelevant by the public?

[Gunner C]

We're a nation that won't even be able to pay the interest on our debt within 5 years and we want to go back to the moon in 10 years?  Sorry.  The game's over.

[Major Lord]

I agree. If we are going to go to Space, it will need to be a private-sector operation. The Federal Govt can hardly find its hind quarters with both hands, let alone a big glowing ball of light in the sky.

Major Lord

[Fuzzy]

I'm going to have to say negative. Space travel is safely in the hands of NASA. They got us there before and believe it or don't, they have an actual budget so I wouldn't exactly count us out.

Were still buying military tech like it was going out of style. The situation is bad but were not exactly closing up shop and turning off the lights.

Until some innovation takes place that makes space travel more viable. Private sector space travel will remain basically a publicity stunt.

[Майор Хаткевич]

NASA budget barely gets a shuttle up once in a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

[C/MSgt Lunsford]

NASA budget barely gets a shuttle up once in a while.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:NASA_budget_linegraph_BH.PNG

Jesus...  I wonder why they are not getting enough funding.

[jimmydeanno]

I wonder why they are not getting enough funding.

Because the average American doesn't think there are any tangible benefits of its research, viewing it as a waste of money that should be left to the private sector.

Also, with two wars, unemployment rates and a lack of funding for things like schools and roads, many think the money could be spent elsewhere...

[PHall]

I wonder why they are not getting enough funding.

Because the average American doesn't think there are any tangible benefits of its research, viewing it as a waste of money that should be left to the private sector.

Also, with two wars, unemployment rates and a lack of funding for things like schools and roads, many think the money could be spent elsewhere...

The "average American" has nothing to do with the budget. It's the "average American Congresscritter" that makes the budget decisions.
And as we all know, they are a seperate breed from the rest of us...