• NASA rules out manned Moon mission in the foreseeable future
    76 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Falubii;40195725]I don't see why I should. Then it will look like I said something wrong or dumb.[/QUOTE] It actually now looks as if you were trying to correct him by writing 1959.
[QUOTE=BrainDeath;40195313]how do astronauts on planets constitute "progress"?[/QUOTE] Indeed. I'd rather have them poking rocks. The way 'manned-missions' make any progress is if they made a semi-permanent/permanent settlement.
[QUOTE=matt000024;40195879]It actually now looks as if you were trying to correct him by writing 1959.[/QUOTE] That's why people should line out posts rather than change them entirely. It's pretty dishonest.
Never say never :eng101:
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40195204]It's not "why could," it's "why would." Sending people into space just isn't practical at the moment. It doesn't yield much information that couldn't be gathered by unmanned probes. Vanity like sending people to the moon/mars is going to be the [I]death[/I] of space exploration, it's negligently impractical, incredibly expensive and until there's actual life-supporting foothold infrastructure on the moon/mars there's no reason to actually go to them. I'd much rather see far more ambitious unmanned missions to actually build infrastructure on the moon, rather than just having to witness this circlejerk of sending people to the moon to bounce around on camera for a few days. The only problem is there's so many people who just don't give a shit about science or practical space exploration and would rather just see people launched into space for the sake of appearances.[/QUOTE] Sending people to the moon for a period of time would allow us to see the effects 1/6 G's has on the human body since now we can only see 0 G effects, it would allow us to develop and prescribe proper treatment so future moon colonists can live a healthy life as good as a normal terrestrial human could. When the moon becomes a future habitat it will be vital to know this information so people don't get sick. It would be more practical to send a group out there for a while to study them then make the proper preparations for future explorers so they could stay up there longer in a habitat, which means less costs of having them brought back and others sent up, that would be a lot of money saved in the long run.
You know what would kick ass. NASA creating a Kickstarter project for a moon mission.
When I die I want my body to be disposed on the moon, so that everytime someone sees the moon they know a man is there...
They say they won't send manned missions. That means they can still send womanned missions!
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;40196861]Sending people to the moon for a period of time would allow us to see the effects 1/6 G's has on the human body since now we can only see 0 G effects, it would allow us to develop and prescribe proper treatment so future moon colonists can live a healthy life as good as a normal terrestrial human could. When the moon becomes a future habitat it will be vital to know this information so people don't get sick. It would be more practical to send a group out there for a while to study them then make the proper preparations for future explorers so they could stay up there longer in a habitat, which means less costs of having them brought back and others sent up, that would be a lot of money saved in the long run.[/QUOTE] So we should finance a project whose main benefit would be advantages gained in further projects with unclear goals? Unless you can show that those further projects would be more useful, why bother in the first place?
Y'all need to go to the Space thread and get educated on whats going on.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40197096]So we should finance a project whose main benefit would be advantages gained in further projects with unclear goals? Unless you can show that those further projects would be more useful, why bother in the first place?[/QUOTE] Further projects would be mining resources from the moon, such as Helium-3 which is useful for nuclear fusion projects, and it is also good for launching other spaceships since there is a lower gravity and no atmosphere (unless terraformed) which means less power is used on that planet.
[QUOTE=areolop;40197105]Y'all need to go to the Space thread and get educated on whats going on.[/QUOTE] Wait, FP got a space thread. Where ?
[QUOTE=BreenIsALie;40197156]Wait, FP got a space thread. Where ?[/QUOTE] Over here guys. [url]http://facepunch.com/showthread.php?t=1250267[/url]
[QUOTE=godfatherk;40197011]When I die I want my body to be disposed on the moon, so that everytime someone sees the moon they know a man is there...[/QUOTE] Better get saving.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;40197129]Further projects would be mining resources from the moon, such as Helium-3 which is useful for nuclear fusion projects, and it is also good for launching other spaceships since there is a lower gravity and no atmosphere (unless terraformed) which means less power is used on that planet.[/QUOTE] In order: 1. Helium-3 is currently useless because we have no idea how to build an He-3 fusion reactor that would break even, let alone produce more energy than it consumes. 2. Helium-3 is rare on the moon, requiring over a hundred million tons of processed regolith for one ton of He-3. It would be much cheaper to artificially produce it on Earth. 3. Launching spaceships from the moon is only possible if you can build them on the moon- otherwise you're just wasting an enormous amount of delta v taking parts to the moon and launching from there. Since there is very little on the moon to build with, that's not very handy. 4. The moon cannot have an atmosphere. It's not a question of terraforming, but of gravity. It just can't hold air, it doesn't have the mass to do so. Right now there is no compelling reason to go to space. Until a reason arises, space exploration will be a combination of scientific interest and national dick-waving, not a sustainable industry.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40197673] Right now there is no compelling reason to go to space. Until a reason arises, space exploration will be a combination of scientific interest and national dick-waving, not a sustainable industry.[/QUOTE] How to sound ignorant in two sentences
Hey guys, they aren't doing it because they don't have enough funds to fake it again!!! :tinfoil:
But we need to pump money into a better military force so we can fight off brown people and other goons!
[QUOTE=catbarf;40197673]In order: 1. Helium-3 is currently useless because we have no idea how to build an He-3 fusion reactor that would break even, let alone produce more energy than it consumes. 2. Helium-3 is rare on the moon, requiring over a hundred million tons of processed regolith for one ton of He-3. It would be much cheaper to artificially produce it on Earth. 3. Launching spaceships from the moon is only possible if you can build them on the moon- otherwise you're just wasting an enormous amount of delta v taking parts to the moon and launching from there. Since there is very little on the moon to build with, that's not very handy. 4. The moon cannot have an atmosphere. It's not a question of terraforming, but of gravity. It just can't hold air, it doesn't have the mass to do so. Right now there is no compelling reason to go to space. Until a reason arises, space exploration will be a combination of scientific interest and national dick-waving, not a sustainable industry.[/QUOTE] Um, when we start mining asteroids we can use materials we collect from them to bring to the moon, build more spaceships, and send those out to mine more asteroids. It would be more profitable that way, so we don't have to build ships. We could land on mars but mars has too much gravity and will likely have an atmosphere once we terraform it. As for the Helium-3, there is a place on the moon where the sun always shines, and we could harness the solar energy to power the machines capable of processing the regolith, it will take some time but Helium-3 has a high potential once we understand how to use it correctly. I think the moon does have the potential to be terraformed with a light atmosphere, plenty of earth species like birds can go to low atmospheric pressures, if we and replicate their genes and alter our lungs to act like theirs we could possibly survive on the moons low pressure, the atmosphere could be replenished when it gets dangerously low. Gene altering is a solution that isn't looked at much when it comes to terraforming despite its effectiveness, a lot of life can survive in a place inhospitable to us so why not alter us to have that life's ability. As for the atmosphere possible washing away from solar radiation, using an extremely high powered explosion in the core (please don't think I am talking about doing this tomorrow, this is a distant future solution) we could possibly restart the moon to have a magnetosphere, using very accurate calculations. As a side note, the low gravity effect on the moon could be useful to study how humans will react to a habitat on Mars, of which we have no clue how we will adapt since we only have zero G encounters. Also all of this sounds mighty technological, I might be far too optimistic on how fast humans will develop the technology capable of all this. But you never know.
[QUOTE=matt000024;40195546]We need a space elevator to cheapen the process of going to space. That would set the USA ahead of other nations for probably centuries.[/QUOTE] Nah we should just build a giant cannon and shoot shit into space. Some sort of big-ass railgun.
[QUOTE=smurfy;40195852]Why would we want to go back to the Moon? We've done it, NASA is working towards a manned asteroid landing now. No Moon landing doesn't mean no space exploration[/QUOTE] If we go back it should be to build a base there, not just do a repeat of 1969. Plus helium-3, it's very rare on Earth, and it is used in nuclear fusion research.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;40197953]Um, when we start mining asteroids we can use materials we collect from them to bring to the moon, build more spaceships, and send those out to mine more asteroids. It would be more profitable that way, so we don't have to build ships. We could land on mars but mars has too much gravity and will likely have an atmosphere once we terraform it. As for the Helium-3, there is a place on the moon where the sun always shines, and we could harness the solar energy to power the machines capable of processing the regolith, it will take some time but Helium-3 has a high potential once we understand how to use it correctly. I think the moon does have the potential to be terraformed with a light atmosphere, plenty of earth species like birds can go to low atmospheric pressures, if we and replicate their genes and alter our lungs to act like theirs we could possibly survive on the moons low pressure, the atmosphere could be replenished when it gets dangerously low. Gene altering is a solution that isn't looked at much when it comes to terraforming despite its effectiveness, a lot of life can survive in a place inhospitable to us so why not alter us to have that life's ability. As for the atmosphere possible washing away from solar radiation, using an extremely high powered explosion in the core (please don't think I am talking about doing this tomorrow, this is a distant future solution) we could possibly restart the moon to have a magnetosphere, using very accurate calculations. As a side note, the low gravity effect on the moon could be useful to study how humans will react to a habitat on Mars, of which we have no clue how we will adapt since we only have zero G encounters. Also all of this sounds mighty technological, I might be far too optimistic on how fast humans will develop the technology capable of all this. But you never know.[/QUOTE] Nothing you have described offers a practical, short-term reason to actually expand to space. The ability to build spaceships in space is of no consequence if there is no good reason to go anywhere with them, and so no reason to build the ships to begin with. Harvesting lunar He3 may be possible, but we don't have any need for He3 [I]and[/I] we can produce it on Earth for far, far less than the price of a series of manned missions to the moon to set up a self-sustaining mining colony- it'd be like Europeans setting up an Antarctic colony to harvest water and ship it back, rather than just dig a well back home. Even the most practical one you listed, studying the effects of low gravity, is much more easily done with a spinning space station in low Earth orbit using centripetal acceleration to provide some gravity. As far as we know there's nothing out there that can't be produced significantly more cheaply on Earth. Going to space is a solution in search of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of going to space, I grew up on Heinlein and E.E. Smith, but from a realistic perspective it's a very tough sell. Until someone can find a good reason to expand into space that isn't simply hoping we find something along the way that makes it worth our money, it's just not going to happen. You can't sell $20k-a-pound launch costs with the vague hope that you'll be making future expedition a little easier, and maybe that future expedition will be worth it. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=SpaceGhost;40201098]If we go back it should be to build a base there, not just do a repeat of 1969. Plus helium-3, it's very rare on Earth, and it is used in nuclear fusion research.[/QUOTE] It's very rare on the moon too. Like I said before, you'd need to process a [I]hundred million[/I] tons of rock just to get one ton of He3. And again, right now there is no demand for He3. What we have on Earth and can synthesize ourselves is much cheaper and more than adequate to meet research needs.
With the Economists from Facepunch, and their sub High School educations, I can't believe no one realized that increasing public spending actually increased the GDP of a country. Who would have fucking known?
[QUOTE=catbarf;40201114]Nothing you have described offers a practical, short-term reason to actually expand to space. The ability to build spaceships in space is of no consequence if there is no good reason to go anywhere with them, and so no reason to build the ships to begin with. Harvesting lunar He3 may be possible, but we don't have any need for He3 [I]and[/I] we can produce it on Earth for far, far less than the price of a series of manned missions to the moon to set up a self-sustaining mining colony- it'd be like Europeans setting up an Antarctic colony to harvest water and ship it back, rather than just dig a well back home. Even the most practical one you listed, studying the effects of low gravity, is much more easily done with a spinning space station in low Earth orbit using centripetal acceleration to provide some gravity. As far as we know there's nothing out there that can't be produced significantly more cheaply on Earth. Going to space is a solution in search of a problem. Don't get me wrong, I love the idea of going to space, I grew up on Heinlein and E.E. Smith, but from a realistic perspective it's a very tough sell. Until someone can find a good reason to expand into space that isn't simply hoping we find something along the way that makes it worth our money, it's just not going to happen. You can't sell $20k-a-pound launch costs with the vague hope that you'll be making future expedition a little easier, and maybe that future expedition will be worth it. [editline]8th April 2013[/editline] It's very rare on the moon too. Like I said before, you'd need to process a [I]hundred million[/I] tons of rock just to get one ton of He3. And again, right now there is no demand for He3. What we have on Earth and can synthesize ourselves is much cheaper and more than adequate to meet research needs.[/QUOTE] Building spaceships would be very efficient if we could create a practical Alcubierre drive, they would allow better storage for colonizing and terraforming extra-solar planets, and inter-solar moons like the Jovian moons, this would increase our speed of how much planets we could control and exploit their resources. Harvesting He3 would be a side project alongside the spaceship construction, a valuable one at that if it's cheaper to produce on the moon instead of earth. Also, I can't imagine a spinning space station placed in low earth orbit would be much cheaper than going to the moon itself, and going to the moon can produce valuable resources like stated above.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201257]Building spaceships would be very efficient if we could create a practical Alcubierre drive[/QUOTE] Pure science fiction at this point. [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201257]they would allow better storage for colonizing and terraforming extra-solar planets, and inter-solar moons like the Jovian moons, this would increase our speed of how much planets we could control and exploit their resources. [/QUOTE] We seem to be talking past each other, because I've said this a couple of times already and you seem to have missed the point: So far, there is nothing discovered out in space that we cannot get more cheaply on Earth. Earth is already very rich in useful resources compared to most of the solar system. Most stars don't even have useful planets, just gas giants and lifeless balls of rock. Put more simply: There is no reason to go to other planets for resources that exist (often in greater quantities), or can be synthesized at lower cost, on Earth. It's like trying to justify a colony on Antarctica to harvest water, rather than dig a well back at home. If there is no reason to go to other planets besides sheer curiosity, there is no demand for spaceships to take us there. If there is no demand for spaceships, there is no demand for expansion to permit orbital construction. You can talk about how much cheaper it would make spacecraft or how it would permit colonization or how we could go mine but there is no need for ships, no need for colonies, no need for mining. It is cheaper, more practical, and less hostile to colonize the seafloor than the moon. [b]Until you can find something worth going to get, it's not worth the price.[/b] [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201257]Harvesting He3 would be a side project alongside the spaceship construction, a valuable one at that if it's cheaper to produce on the moon instead of earth. [/QUOTE] So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the moon mining operation alone (leaving aside the setup costs) would be worth the price. Again, over a hundred [i]million[/i] tons of rock would need to be processed for every ton of He3. [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201257]Also, I can't imagine a spinning space station placed in low earth orbit would be much cheaper than going to the moon itself, and going to the moon can produce valuable resources like stated above.[/QUOTE] Putting a space station in LEO is infinitely easier than putting it on the moon. We have thousands of satellites and stations of various kinds already in LEO, have you noticed how many are on the moon? Low orbit is as little as eighty miles above the Earth. The moon is a quarter million miles away, and has its own gravity well. Instead of using a lifter to get to orbit, deploying, and returning the lifter, it would mean lifting to orbit, performing a transfer to the moon, and then landing on the moon- distinct tasks that are akin to trying to combine an express elevator, freight train, and submarine into one vehicle. And again: He3 is not a 'valuable resource' until we have a demand for it, which we don't, and it's not valuable enough to disassemble the moon rock-by-rock looking for trace amounts of it. The money would be better used creating it artificially on Earth as a byproduct of certain nuclear reactions.
[QUOTE=catbarf;40201408]Pure science fiction at this point. We seem to be talking past each other, because I've said this a couple of times already and you seem to have missed the point: So far, there is nothing discovered out in space that we cannot get more cheaply on Earth. Earth is already very rich in useful resources compared to most of the solar system. Most stars don't even have useful planets, just gas giants and lifeless balls of rock. Put more simply: There is no reason to go to other planets for resources that exist (often in greater quantities), or can be synthesized at lower cost, on Earth. It's like trying to justify a colony on Antarctica to harvest water, rather than dig a well back at home. If there is no reason to go to other planets besides sheer curiosity, there is no demand for spaceships to take us there. If there is no demand for spaceships, there is no demand for expansion to permit orbital construction. You can talk about how much cheaper it would make spacecraft or how it would permit colonization or how we could go mine but there is no need for ships, no need for colonies, no need for mining. It is cheaper, more practical, and less hostile to colonize the seafloor than the moon. [B]Until you can find something worth going to get, it's not worth the price.[/B] So far nobody has been able to demonstrate that the moon mining operation alone (leaving aside the setup costs) would be worth the price. Again, over a hundred [I]million[/I] tons of rock would need to be processed for every ton of He3. Putting a space station in LEO is infinitely easier than putting it on the moon. We have thousands of satellites and stations of various kinds already in LEO, have you noticed how many are on the moon? Low orbit is as little as eighty miles above the Earth. The moon is a quarter million miles away, and has its own gravity well. Instead of using a lifter to get to orbit, deploying, and returning the lifter, it would mean lifting to orbit, performing a transfer to the moon, and then landing on the moon- distinct tasks that are akin to trying to combine an express elevator, freight train, and submarine into one vehicle. And again: He3 is not a 'valuable resource' until we have a demand for it, which we don't, and it's not valuable enough to disassemble the moon rock-by-rock looking for trace amounts of it. The money would be better used creating it artificially on Earth as a byproduct of certain nuclear reactions.[/QUOTE] If they were lifeless balls of rock then we would need to terraform them adequately, also there are useful resources life those used in nuclear weapons, obviously we have no need for them now but if and when we encounter an extraterrestrial life with our level of knowledge and intelligence, we will certainly want a defense should things go south. The level of uranium on earth probably isn't enough to combat an inter-stellar civilization. As for He3, there is no need for it now but when we figure out how to harness it properly then it will be plenty useful, the sooner we start excavating it the sooner those hundred million tons would be processed, the energy they require could come from the eternal sunlight part of the moon and the parts could be created by mined asteroids. We need to think about the future here and how preparing for it will get things done faster, the sooner we go on the moon the faster we will have spaceships, nuclear fuel, resources, territory, etc. All of this will be useful in our exploration of the universe. None of this seems useful at all right now, but in the future all of this would be well worth humanity's time. I'm also not saying we should go to the moon just for He3, we should go there for its space advantage over earth and simply mine the He3 with whatever resources are left for that project.
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40195204]It's not "why could," it's "why would." Sending people into space just isn't practical at the moment. It doesn't yield much information that couldn't be gathered by unmanned probes. Vanity like sending people to the moon/mars is going to be the [I]death[/I] of space exploration, it's negligently impractical, incredibly expensive and until there's actual life-supporting foothold infrastructure on the moon/mars there's no reason to actually go to them. I'd much rather see far more ambitious unmanned missions to actually build infrastructure on the moon, rather than just having to witness this circlejerk of sending people to the moon to bounce around on camera for a few days. The only problem is there's so many people who just don't give a shit about science or practical space exploration and would rather just see people launched into space for the sake of appearances.[/QUOTE] manned missions are far more important to our technological progress because robots don't need to eat, sleep, exercise, or think on their own. humans do.
[QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201663]If they were lifeless balls of rock then we would need to terraform them adequately, [/QUOTE] Why bother? We haven't even come close to hitting the population capacity of our planet. We'll see apartments in Antarctica and on the seafloor long before we see them on Mars. [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201663]also there are useful resources life those used in nuclear weapons, [/QUOTE] Such as? [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201663]obviously we have no need for them now but if and when we encounter an extraterrestrial life with our level of knowledge and intelligence, we will certainly want a defense should things go south. The level of uranium on earth probably isn't enough to combat an inter-stellar civilization. [/QUOTE] Sorry, but aliens existing near enough that we could ever discover them, let alone them being still alive or developing before humanity goes extinct, let alone being anywhere near the same level of technology as us, is pure science fiction. And really, we should explore space so we can build defense for war against aliens? Sounds like you may be watching a bit too much Star Trek. The chance of aliens existing within ten thousand years developmentally of us and close enough that there could be contact would require such a staggeringly unlikely combination of coincidences that by comparison the likelihood of an asteroid wiping us all out tomorrow seems like a sure thing. [QUOTE=supersoldier58;40201663]As for He3, there is no need for it now but when we figure out how to harness it properly then it will be plenty useful, the sooner we start excavating it the sooner those hundred million tons would be processed, the energy they require could come from the eternal sunlight part of the moon and the parts could be created by mined asteroids. We need to think about the future here and how preparing for it will get things done faster, the sooner we go on the moon the faster we will have spaceships, nuclear fuel, resources, territory, etc. All of this will be useful in our exploration of the universe. None of this seems useful at all right now, but in the future all of this would be well worth humanity's time.[/QUOTE] And again, nobody invests trillions upon trillions of dollars on a project that [i]might possibly someday in some form be worth investing in[/i]. That is not how industry works, that's not how governments work, that's not reasonable or sustainable or a good idea in general. There's no guarantee that He3 fusion will [i]ever[/i] be sustainable, there's no reason to build He3 processing on the moon over synthesizing it here on Earth, there's no pressing need for spaceships or territory or nonexistent resources. Besides, if you're talking big-picture thousand-years-from-now humanitarian development, it's going to require technologies well beyond what would be developed in going to space. Better to invest the money in public subsidies of genetic research, cybernetics, nuclear and fusion energy research (wow, maybe we'll then have a reason to go get that He3, who knows), rocket propulsion, hydroponics and recycling, and all the other ancillary technologies that would normally be at best byproducts of a manned space mission. Going to the rock hanging in space is not the goal. Technology is.
Unless I'm missing something, the statement isn't that they don't want to go to the moon full stop, it's that they don't want to go to the moon because they're planning on going to Mars instead. The last bit of the statement is basically "We can't do both, and if we try we'll do neither"
[QUOTE=catbarf;40201778]Why bother? We haven't even come close to hitting the population capacity of our planet. We'll see apartments in Antarctica and on the seafloor long before we see them on Mars. Such as? Sorry, but aliens existing near enough that we could ever discover them, let alone them being still alive or developing before humanity goes extinct, let alone being anywhere near the same level of technology as us, is pure science fiction. And really, we should explore space so we can build defense for war against aliens? Sounds like you may be watching a bit too much Star Trek. The chance of aliens existing within ten thousand years developmentally of us and close enough that there could be contact would require such a staggeringly unlikely combination of coincidences that by comparison the likelihood of an asteroid wiping us all out tomorrow seems like a sure thing. And again, nobody invests trillions upon trillions of dollars on a project that [i]might possibly someday in some form be worth investing in[/i]. That is not how industry works, that's not how governments work, that's not reasonable or sustainable or a good idea in general. There's no guarantee that He3 fusion will [i]ever[/i] be sustainable, there's no reason to build He3 processing on the moon over synthesizing it here on Earth, there's no pressing need for spaceships or territory or nonexistent resources. Besides, if you're talking big-picture thousand-years-from-now humanitarian development, it's going to require technologies well beyond what would be developed in going to space. Better to invest the money in public subsidies of genetic research, cybernetics, nuclear and fusion energy research (wow, maybe we'll then have a reason to go get that He3, who knows), rocket propulsion, hydroponics and recycling, and all the other ancillary technologies that would normally be at best byproducts of a manned space mission. Going to the rock hanging in space is not the goal. Technology is.[/QUOTE] You must be awfully naive and are completely avoiding some of my points. First of all, do you really think that out of the 100 billion stars in our galaxy with even more planets, that there is not life that poses a threat to us? Obviously this sounds Sci-Fi due the the fact that companies have farmed the idea of extraterrestrial life so much in their products, but if we don't let that influence our minds we can see that the probability is fairly high. If you were going somewhere that had very little water, and was a 70% chance there was going to be no rain, I would buy some water wouldn't you? Rather than risk dying from dehydration, I bought the water. That is the same idea applies here, I would rather have the nuclear arsenal rather than die from inter stellar warfare (again, don't let opinion bias you, look at the high chance of a threatening life). And "useful resources like those used in nuclear weapons" how do you not see what I mean? I mean things such as plutonium, uranium, etc. You simply cannot find enough of that on earth to have sufficient protection from any threatening life. Also, you avoided what I am saying on He3, I am saying we do it as a [B]side project[/B] along side space ship construction, if we are doing a full scale facility on the moon we might as well process some regolith to get some valuable energy. I can't imagine it would up the cost much at all. Also, I don't think you understand what we would do with overpopulation. We wouldn't go on the sea floor, we would build upwards into the sky before that, since that would be much cheaper, its the fact that we will run out of space and resources to create more space, we will need to have control of extra terrestrial planets or moons to get more resources for the over population, the sooner we do that the better and more stable it will be. And how do you suppose we do that research without testing? How do you suppose we find out the effects of 1/6 G without testing, we could build that lovely and convenient spinning space station, or we you start a lunar facility that could be used after testing, and start a basis for future space endeavors. And the people that have the space ships, the territory, and the very existent resources are the ones that will be successful and have a good grip on the future world. We need to plan ahead for future success, instead of just doing things as we go along.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.