A Moon Base really does make sense

steveox

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2007
Messages
7,499
Location
Way Down South
What if a Comet or a giant astroid is on the way collide with the earth? We can have worlds Scintist and Military on the moon. Russians,Chinese,Japanese and the Americans on the moon defending our world together. Im sure nobody isnt gonna have a disagreement on this.
moon.jpg

So its not a silly idea after all. Install Nuclear Missles on the moon and one day we see this approaching the earth
asteroid_satellites.jpg

We know what to do.
 
Werbung:

palerider

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2007
Messages
4,624
Exactly what do you believe that we could do from the moon that we couldn't do from the earth or an orbiting platform?
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
What a total waste of money. As Palerider says, chances are we can do it on a satellite platform or on earth making construction quicker and cheaper. And to be honest I don't want any missiles facing me from any other nation from the moon thanks, theres enough on Earth.
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Missiles not the answer.
...So its not a silly idea after all. Install Nuclear Missles on the moon and one day we see this approaching the earth...
Instead of posting on the Internet, if you would spend more time watching, reading, about the problem of asteroids striking the earth and the proposed solutions, you would know that scientists do not think that using atomic missiles is a solution. They say that missiles would not deflect the path of an asteroid, only break it into still dangerous pieces that would still strike the earth.
 

9sublime

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2007
Messages
2,620
Location
Bristol
Tell me this is hypothetical and not the next stupid bandwagon you've jumped on and started believing.

If it was on the way, I wouldn't be the one making the suggestions. I'd probably leave it up to those who were somewhat qualified.
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
If memory serves, the 2012 date is from the "end" of the Mayan calendar. However, this particular end of the world scenario was eventually disproved when it was shown that the Mayans intended the calendar to be cyclical; instead of ending it just repeats.

I wish I could remember where I'd read that now. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Theory

If memory serves, the 2012 date is from the "end" of the Mayan calendar. However, this particular end of the world scenario was eventually disproved when it was shown that the Mayans intended the calendar to be cyclical; instead of ending it just repeats.

I wish I could remember where I'd read that now. Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
I have read about it but I remember the calendar as being cyclical was just a theory...not proved. But what the resident Mensa member was incorrectly referring to was an asteroid that has been plotted to be a near earth course for about 2012 (not a certain collision). It is supposed to pass so close to the earth that it will be closer than some of the communications satellites. Whew!!!
 

vyo476

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
2,401
Location
Massachusetts
I have read about it but I remember the calendar as being cyclical was just a theory...not proved. But what the resident Mensa member was incorrectly referring to was an asteroid that has been plotted to be a near earth course for about 2012 (not a certain collision). It is supposed to pass so close to the earth that it will be closer than some of the communications satellites. Whew!!!

Ah. I hadn't heard about that one. Or maybe I did; there are so many "end of the world" scenarios out there that they all get jumbled in my head sometimes.
 

dahermit

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 22, 2007
Messages
1,916
Real threat

Ah. I hadn't heard about that one. Or maybe I did; there are so many "end of the world" scenarios out there that they all get jumbled in my head sometimes.
Asteroids are a very real threat. They have hit earth in past with devastating results on several occasions before the time of man. They will hit earth again...we just do not know when. It would behoove us to have a plan and the resources allocated before it happens. If one of the big ones hit, we can kiss our collective asses good bye. Nevertheless, we are pooping in our own nest so much now that it is likely that we do not have much time left anyway.
 

Castle

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
225
Location
Former US of A
It really depends on the size of the asteroid and early detection. I am all in favor of funding that allows scientists to continue to keep looking. There is really no need for a moon based platform for this purpose. I agree that blasting one into smaller chunks is probably not a good idea. A real killer asteroid will only become a group of killer asteroids if it is big enough to cause a world ending event.

If it is caught early enough, I do think that ion propulsion technology may be able to shift the trajectory enough to avoid an impact. This concept is promising if early detection is possible.

I do, however, see other applications for a moonbase. It would certainly be s great jump platform for planetary exploration and even deep space probes especially if water deposits were found on the moon. The fact that it is a very low gravity environment is another advantage.

-Castle
 

r0beph

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 2, 2007
Messages
543
Location
Huntsville, Alabama
I have read about it but I remember the calendar as being cyclical was just a theory...not proved. But what the resident Mensa member was incorrectly referring to was an asteroid that has been plotted to be a near earth course for about 2012 (not a certain collision). It is supposed to pass so close to the earth that it will be closer than some of the communications satellites. Whew!!!

there's only a few NEOs a day.... but even in 2012, it's not that huge, ie world ending, even if it impacted. 2036 I think is the more dangerous one, well most notorious.
 
Werbung:

gtanner79

Member
Joined
Oct 8, 2007
Messages
16
I couldn't help

Back to the original thought on this post - I couldn't resist relating something I read off ESPN.com Gregg Easterbrook, the Tuesday Morning Quarterback, is actually an intelligent author and lecturer - he regularly sprinkles his hilarious NFL column with other thoughts - here's his thoughts on the proposed moon space station. I guess he also gave an interview on NPR talking about the same thing.

"Although someday men and women will live on other worlds, until there is a propulsion breakthrough, it is folly for NASA to contemplate a super-expensive base on the moon, especially without a scientific rationale. Using current rocket technology, it costs about $25,000 to place a pound of cargo on the lunar surface. That means a moon-base crewmember would consume about $1 million per day worth of water, food and air, while the overall moon-base project might cost $200 billion or $300 billion. When 45 million Americans lack health care insurance, it is absurdity squared to contemplate taxing that group to spend $1 million per day per astronaut just for supplies on the moon -- especially when the main thing the crew of a moon base would do is monitor instruments, which could be accomplished from an office building in Scottsdale, Ariz."

Just a thought.
 
Top