Possible US Moon Shot

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 04:54pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote: A Moon program is a worthless waste of time and money, and the only thing that would be gained out of it is that Uncle Sam will be able to wave his dick about in a vaguely masculine fashion. A moonbase would suck up an incredible amount of resources and offer relatively little (worse, it now seems that the original belief that there was ice at the lunar poles is likely wishful thinking.)

Also, a Mars program where we just leave some litter on the Martian surface and take a few rocks home, is worse than worthless. Robotic technology is progressing to the point where humans won't be needed to do a proper survey of the place. The only Mars program that would be worth pursuing is one where we go there, we found a colony, and we terraform the place.

Really, the only bodies that would be worth sending people to are the small Earth-crossing asteroids. They're easy to get to, and each one is an inexpensive space-station-in-a-box.

Unfortunately, to get to that point, we need to entirely scrap the old shuttle program, and concentrate on cheap, ideally recycleable, human transport into space. This would be a far less-expensive goal than any mastubatory manned missions outside of near-Earth space, and it would benefit the Europeans, the Russians, and the Chinese to get in on this program.

There, you have just hit on the importance of the American Space Program. It can improve diplomatic relations with other countries through joint ventures. I think that alone is worth consideration.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-04 05:14pm

GrandMasterTerwynn wrote:
Of course, it is possible if you have a President and Congress willing to engage in ludicrous amounts of deficit spending . . . on something other than their pet pigs.

The key is to somehow make this project the "pet pig" of a significant number of people in Congess.

I figure the Republicans always seem to love to anything as long as it's good for business or the economy so I figure if anyone is going to get it going again it'd have to be them. As it is it looks like Bush is tying it into energy research. Since people won't let his cronies go into the Alaska and jack things up he wants to go to some other pristine place where there likely isn't any wildlife for the tree huggers to cling to.

Of course, I'm sure many groups will find all kinds of ways to bitch about increased spending an a space program. "It could be better spent helping people here on Earth" etc...

Personally, I think in the long run that with the way things are currently going it would be beneficial to everyone to increase funding to space exploration, especially if it leads to alternative energy research.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 05:16pm

Tsyroc wrote: Personally, I think in the long run that with the way things are currently going it would be beneficial to everyone to increase funding to space exploration, especially if it leads to alternative energy research.

Yeah, a guy like Bush that comes from an oil fortune is soooo interested in alternative energy research.

Tsyroc · Post by **Tsyroc** » 2003-12-04 05:18pm

The Kernel wrote:
Yeah, a guy like Bush that comes from an oil fortune is soooo interested in alternative energy research.

That's kind of what I mean. It's his token/bs reason that he gives while crossing his fingers. If it happens to work out I'm sure he'll arrange it so his cronies get first dibs on everything some how.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-04 05:52pm

The Kernel wrote: American voters have VERY short memories.

I was referring more to the drive that W has to succeed. If it was
coming from anyone else, I'd laugh it away as a pipe dream wank
fest, but coming from W, the man who said "fuck you all" to the world
and launched a major regional conflict in Iraq about a year ago.

Andrew J. · Post by **Andrew J.** » 2003-12-04 06:27pm

I just hope he doesn't try to put a giant laser beam on the moon, à la Dr. Evil.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2003-12-04 06:42pm

While I really really ant to see science and the space program take up more than 2% of the budget... Unless we are colonizing

the moon is a waste of time. Though, I may be saying this, because I cant get my biological research fingers into it, because life doesnt and has never, existed on the moon.

I would like to see this increased funding go into genetics research, stem cell research, and trying to find life on Jupiters moons. But tht is self interest more than anything.

If we are doing this purely for economic reasons, then we will need to update our means of escaping the earths gravity well...

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2003-12-04 07:01pm

Isn't it all moot? Regardless of W's actual intentions, without the Cold War there's no reason to rush into space from the public's perspective. I doubt the project, or the increased funding, would survive a change of administration. Certainly not long enough for some of the 'planetary colonisation' or 'terraforming' pipe dreams being bandied about.

Also, NASA is evil, incompetent, mismanaged, and a monopoly. If the US govt won't fund it, wait 10 years and everyone else will do it anyway... which suggests that the US will wait 10 years, realise, and spend half the planets economy doing it late, but first...

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 07:08pm

Project Armadillo all the way!!!

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-12-04 07:23pm

If this pans out, it would be very good in the long run. Creating the sort of vehicles to get up there will create some jobs, and will definately push engineering advances. Ditching the shuttle for longer-ranged vehicles will make the US space program less of a joke. Equipment on the moon looking down could be quite handy.

Regolith may be mostly crap, but if we can get the tech going to get to the moon, we can get to LEO's. Baby steps, of course, but I don't expect politicians or the local complainers to even consider what it would take for larger strides.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-12-04 07:31pm

The Kernel wrote:
Tsyroc wrote: Personally, I think in the long run that with the way things are currently going it would be beneficial to everyone to increase funding to space exploration, especially if it leads to alternative energy research.
Yeah, a guy like Bush that comes from an oil fortune is soooo interested in alternative energy research.

You do know that some of the biggest investors in alternative energy research are oil companies, right? They are quite well aware that the oil won't last forever. So they want to be ready when the time comes, so they can switch to whatever's next.

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-12-04 07:32pm

Talk is cheap. I don't see Shrub making anything resembling a serious committment to such a venture.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 07:39pm

Beowulf wrote: You do know that some of the biggest investors in alternative energy research are oil companies, right? They are quite well aware that the oil won't last forever. So they want to be ready when the time comes, so they can switch to whatever's next.

Gee, that must be why there are so many incentives for auto companies to develop clean-burning, renewable hydrogen cars right? And even though they have the technological means, the oil companies are just jumping to convert gas stations right?

Oh, wait...

Post by **Beowulf** » 2003-12-04 08:28pm

The Kernel wrote:
Beowulf wrote: You do know that some of the biggest investors in alternative energy research are oil companies, right? They are quite well aware that the oil won't last forever. So they want to be ready when the time comes, so they can switch to whatever's next.
Gee, that must be why there are so many incentives for auto companies to develop clean-burning, renewable hydrogen cars right? And even though they have the technological means, the oil companies are just jumping to convert gas stations right?

Oh, wait...

Or maybe the technology isn't there yet. Hydrogen is not dense at all, which means you need to put huge volumes of it under pressure.

Oh, wait, what happens if that tank goes up?

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-04 08:39pm

Beowulf wrote: Or maybe the technology isn't there yet. Hydrogen is not dense at all, which means you need to put huge volumes of it under pressure.

Oh, wait, what happens if that tank goes up?

GM Honda, Daimler-Crysler and BMW all have fuel cell automobiles ready to go that are already in government pilot programs. They have made numerous statements that what is going to hold up their release to the public is not the technology, but the infrastructure to support them (read: fuel stations). Gee, it wouldn't be in the oil comapnies best interests to delay the rollout of fuel cell cars would it? Nah, couldn't be anything like that...

Dark Hellion · Post by **Dark Hellion** » 2003-12-04 09:01pm

I just hope he doesn't try to put a giant laser beam on the moon, à la Dr. Evil.

You've found his secret plan. This "Laser" will both shoot down nuclear missles from rogue nations, and zap terrorists before they can act. No one will misunderestimate him now! Mwuahahaha

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-12-05 12:36am

I don't think this will make any difference. I pray to God it will, but I'm too cynical to expect much.

Robert Walper · Post by **Robert Walper** » 2003-12-05 02:05am

Given the vast scale of distances in astronomical terms, I don't see true space exploration as being really feasible unless some science fiction FTL drive system suddenly crops up.

I mean, I love the idea of space exploration and such, but would we really find those who'd be willing to give up Earth forever just to make a trip to another star system were the probability of nothing being there is extremely high? Even the moon is days away for NASA, and it's in orbit!

We're stuck on Earth, and probably will be until we've gone extinct. A pessimistic view undoubtably, but given the pitiful squabbling between our species throughout the planet, I don't see humanity accomplishing much outside of our sphere of influence(pun intented).

Patrick Degan · Post by **Patrick Degan** » 2003-12-05 07:35am

Robert Walper wrote:Given the vast scale of distances in astronomical terms, I don't see true space exploration as being really feasible unless some science fiction FTL drive system suddenly crops up.

I mean, I love the idea of space exploration and such, but would we really find those who'd be willing to give up Earth forever just to make a trip to another star system were the probability of nothing being there is extremely high? Even the moon is days away for NASA, and it's in orbit!

We're stuck on Earth, and probably will be until we've gone extinct. A pessimistic view undoubtably, but given the pitiful squabbling between our species throughout the planet, I don't see humanity accomplishing much outside of our sphere of influence(pun intented).

Entirely too pessimistic, I'd say. Granted, we may never find it feasible to leave our star system, and there probably will never be any FTL travel. But there is plenty that mankind can accomplish within our little corner of the universe. Colonising the Moon and Mars or Venus may be impractical, but large orbital habitats with rotational gravity would be practicable. The large moons of the solar system could be mined for their minerals, while the atmospheres of Jupiter and Saturn could be mined for hydrogen for fusion plants and fusion-drive spacecraft servicing the colonies. For the more distant habitats, large focussing lenses could be constructed and employed to beam sunlight at sufficent luminosity to service any habitation located out as far as Saturn. With free solar energy to be collected, sufficent mineral wealth in the moons and large asteroids, and abundant hydrogen available, a solar civilisation could be quite adequately supported for many millenia to come.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-05 08:53am

The Kernel wrote:
Beowulf wrote: Or maybe the technology isn't there yet. Hydrogen is not dense at all, which means you need to put huge volumes of it under pressure.

Oh, wait, what happens if that tank goes up?
GM Honda, Daimler-Crysler and BMW all have fuel cell automobiles ready to go that are already in government pilot programs. They have made numerous statements that what is going to hold up their release to the public is not the technology, but the infrastructure to support them (read: fuel stations). Gee, it wouldn't be in the oil comapnies best interests to delay the rollout of fuel cell cars would it? Nah, couldn't be anything like that...

not to continue this thread hijack, but speaking of pipe dreams, hydrogen fuel cells take the cake. Do you have any idea on how much it would cost to create an infastructure of compressed hydrogen dispensing stations? Do you really want to drive around on top of a tank of compressed hydrogen? Hybrids are the future. 40, 50, 60 mpg Gas/Electric hybrids are less than 10 years away. Honda and toyota have hybrids on the market that get upwards of 50 miles per gallon. (Prius, Civic Hybrid) Ford and GM have hybrid models coming out in 2-4 years, and guess what, they are selling them faster than they can make them. Long story short: Hydrogen = explosive pipe dream. Hybrid = realistic alternative.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2003-12-05 09:28am

Col. Crackpot wrote: not to continue this thread hijack, but speaking of pipe dreams, hydrogen fuel cells take the cake. Do you have any idea on how much it would cost to create an infastructure of compressed hydrogen dispensing stations? Do you really want to drive around on top of a tank of compressed hydrogen? Hybrids are the future. 40, 50, 60 mpg Gas/Electric hybrids are less than 10 years away. Honda and toyota have hybrids on the market that get upwards of 50 miles per gallon. (Prius, Civic Hybrid) Ford and GM have hybrid models coming out in 2-4 years, and guess what, they are selling them faster than they can make them. Long story short: Hydrogen = explosive pipe dream. Hybrid = realistic alternative.

Back this statement up please. GM (you know, the LARGEST car company in the world) seems pretty confident that they are the future, and the enormous amount of non-subsidized R&D dollars that companies like GM are putting into it is staggering.

Hybrids are a good alternative to gasoline engines, but car companies seem to think of them as a stopgap measure until they can roll out their fuel cell designs. There are a lot of trade offs with hybrids (power being the most obvious) that fuel cells don't have to deal with. Mercedes demonstrated an S-class powered by a fuel cell two years ago that was capable of putting out competative performance with the S420. Impressive for such an early design.

Your statement about exploding cars because of hydrogen fuel is aparently something they have worked out, since GM has made assurances that their hydrogen cars present no risk of explosion over that of a conventional car. You seem to think the technology is lacking, when it may simply be a factor of the fueling depots not wanting to support such cars. After all, LNG cars exist today, but how many LNG fueling stations have you seen? That's why fuel cell cars are going to city programs and cab companies first; these people have their own fueling stations and it isn't as big a deal to change over.

I'm not as familiar as some others on this board of the practical limits of hydrogen fuel cells in automotive applications, but I see no reason to be pessimistic about the technology. The fact that so many large automotive manufacturers have been standing behind fuel cells lately (Honda has been gushing about them for years) shows that they have a lot of potential. They may not replace gas anytime soon, but if the oil companies get in line, we can have hybrid-like sales of these things by 2010.

paladin · Post by **paladin** » 2003-12-05 09:51am

The real reason the US is going back the moon is to stop the evil Moonmen from invading!

Nathan F · Post by **Nathan F** » 2003-12-05 10:27am

Meh, you and you alternative fuel sources...Gimme my gas guzzling 350 V-8 with the Holley 4 barrel carb any day of the week.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-12-05 10:29am

Nathan F wrote:Meh, you and you alternative fuel sources...Gimme my gas guzzling 350 V-8 with the Holley 4 barrel carb any day of the week.

You should also pay 1.2€/L for gas, that'd teach you

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-05 10:32am

Nathan F wrote:Meh, you and you alternative fuel sources...Gimme my gas guzzling 350 V-8 with the Holley 4 barrel carb any day of the week.

bah! I'll take a '66 Satellite with a 440 6-pack all day!