It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Lunar Colony Feasibility

page: 2
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro


Beyond the valid questions that you wonder about, there is a more important question that has been ignored and continues to be ignored. The "dead elephant on the dining room table" situation you could say.


The Moon was and continues to be a prime military objective as a military base. President Reagan's Space Defense Initiative, better know as "star wars" and largely ignored and forgotten today (by intent) held that the Moon, as was all space out to and beyond the Moon was a military frontier that was to be the high ground in future world conflicts (world wars). The battle plan is fully explained in "Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years," published by way of the US Air Force in 1989 and commissioned by the U.S. Congress, ISBN 0-08-037432-8.

If you can accept that UFOs may be alien craft and that the reports of bizarre, black triangle craft may be the outgrowth of our own similar craft, then you can possible imagine that we HAVE bases on the Moon and probably even Mars.

Almost weekly we are being led down the path toward colonizing both places when it would seem that such an endeavor is a pipe dream at this stage when the US doesn't even have the means on its own to put people into earth orbit. What is wrong with this brand of reality that we have been sold?




posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

Well have you heard of the Yarkovsky effect.

As photon's from the sun bombard the surface of asteroid's over time it changes there orbital trajectory's and can even cause them to leave there orbital path and enter an eliptical orbit bringing them into conflict with other asteroid's orbits and even the orbital pathway's of the inner planets including the earth.
en.wikipedia.org...

Now given how negligable that force is when applied to a massive body like an asteroid is it really now inconcievable that using explosive force to project an object into space, whether that be kinetic (ballistic launch or magnetic launch system slingshot effect etc) or chemical explosive fuel systems is irrelevant but surely they would (though not constant like solar irradiation) produce a far higher effect for there duration?.


As a race if we all died today but a handful of people escaped and survived, I would regard them as my descendants even if I had no family link so I would care because a living Labtech767 does care? and that would be my living will.

edit on 23-4-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 03:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun
I posted a thread titled The Question of a Lunar Outpost a little more than a month ago, which begins with what I think it is a very detailed and excellent scenario depicting the establishment of military installation on the Moon during the Cold War. I thought the logical foundation for the program which I set was indisputable, and with the help of ATS, I hoped to plot the evolution of the outpost over time. I wanted a better understanding of how such an outpost would function and what daily activities might transpire there, especially since that I felt I'd demonstrated its existence by probability. I suspected that by now the outpost may be a sovereign breakaway civilization, acting independently of Earthly control, baring its own unique relations with extraterrestrial civilizations.

The thread never brought me the clarity I sought. The topic ended up somewhat distracted and derailed, and no logical avenue ever progressed the outpost into a modern and complex operation. My final input to the discussion did, I feel, effectively defeat the premise that the reason which alien disclosure never occurred was because it was thought that a meaningful degree of panic and disorder would ensue, which is an argument I'm also fond of.

Never the less, since the military outpost never achieved what I sought, and given that the American, Russian and Chinese space programs are all talking about establishing bases on the Moon in the decades to come, I was curious to know what could be foreseen of establishing a colony in the near-future. If you have input on the military outpost concept then I'd love to hear it. If not, I'd also love to hear your thoughts on the civilian idea of this thread. I just want to better understand the lunar situation. It's unimportant what the picture looks like in the end, so long as it appears true by probability. There's no reason that both concepts can't exist anyway, which I fully expect that the military outpost exists now, and that a civilian base will exist in the near future.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767
I'm familiar with the concept which you remark on, and ideas related to it such as solar sails and propelling an object through space by focusing a beam of energy onto its solar sail via a station on Earth. It is never the less very interesting that a particle which contains almost no mass could be utilized to push large objects in this manner.

As far as these "inconceivable explosive forces," I can't help but to expect solar sails travelling at any significant velocity would be quickly destroyed by micrometeoroid, "dust" and "debris" impacts over the course of the journey. The average velocity of a micrometeoroid is said to be 22,500mph, which given enough time and impacts would render anything inoperable, where the propulsion of an object to anywhere distant is a lengthy endeavor, and solar sails are presumably more fragile than the hardened hull of the remainder of the spacecraft, including what would've been the thick shell surrounding another mechanism of propulsion. Here you can see the damage caused by micrometeorites to one of the Discovery's windows, and here you can see the damage caused to Endeavor's radiator.

Several satellites and spacecraft have been critically damaged by micrometeoroids. Solar A was punctured and destroyed by one, Olympus I was damaged by EMP produced by one in its vicinity and ultimately destroyed, and some argue that the Apollo 13 disaster may have been caused by one. We've also seen a great many satellites and probes suddenly go dark for reasons unknown, and I imagine a solar sail would see a higher probability of such catastrophic failure. Then again, for all I know such a sail could and would be tougher than I imagine. However, all the solar sails we've launched so far have suffered catastrophic failures early in their missions, though the sails themselves are never blamed. Instead, rockets failed, software failed, ejection mechanisms failed, sail deployment failed, batteries failed, and things happened which were reportedly never understood.

While the risk to such spacecraft during extended operation may be acceptable in the case of unmanned flights, I expect something more reliable would be sought in the case of manned spacecraft. In that case, what alternative propulsion is available but that which utilizes some form of explosive force? Or do you suppose the solar sail will actually suffice?
edit on 23-4-2016 by Navarro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 05:43 PM
link   
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

ever jump around in a bouncy castle? we could carry inflatibles, and use moondust and some agent to concrete the inflatibles in, not that many payloads before a factory producing that with baser materials, like expanding foam, hydroponics for food production etc. of course, the moon still has impacts so maybe graphene coatings... that have just had a breakthrough to be magnetized and verified to self assemble structually in the lab, which have the great possibility to be used for power generation as solar cells... and well battery breakthroughs. I have a litium iron battery on my motorcycle, weighs less than a lb and actually cranks harder the more drain applied to it... weird but neat business, it sat mid of summer all through winter and just last month still cranked over as hard as day one. Started on the 6th press... and theres better battery tech than that already being discussed right here at ats.



posted on Apr, 23 2016 @ 11:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

Navarro, you're asking absolutely terrific questions. The level of thought you've put into this thread is inspiring.

A great many of you questions have been studied, and preliminary answers and estimates are available in the book Return to the Moon by Dr. Harrison Schmitt. He was the geologist who spent three days on the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission.

His book addresses so many of your questions I cannot list them all here, but they include:

- Physics of 3He fusion and why it preferable to deuterium fusion
- Estimates of fuel requirements for an 3He reactor of a given power output
- Technology required to launch heavy equipment to the Moon (a heavy booster he whimsically calls the Saturn VI)
- Estimated 3He abundance in the lunar regolith
- Mining requirements (what area excavated, to what depth to provide a 1-year supply of 3He for a reactor)
- Techniques and equipment that could be used for excavation
- Life support concerns for bases
- Problems with soil abrasiveness.
- Economics of operating lunar mines and selling 3He

...and much more.

The book is a bit dry and technical, but I have no doubt that you will find it fascinating. I really cannot recommend it more highly to you (or Phage, for that matter).

Hope this helps.




posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 03:58 AM
link   
a reply to: Navarro

I have not thought about that though I have speculated on how an object can degrade on the lunar surface by being impacted by material from space and ejecta from crater formation as well as hard radiation and thermal variance though that was on something I believe and not something proven.

I suppose the sheer size of the area a solar sail would cover would mean that the majority of impact's would merely pass through it leaving small hole's and it would remain still viable over a fair amount of time though if it hit a particularly dense space dust mass or cometry debris tail then that would likely degrade the sail very rapidly, asymmetric decay would also pose the risk of sending the sail into a spin or at least off course from it's intended trajectory.

The thin material is the problem as well, OK it does have it's advantages in that impact energy would likely cause minimul overall damage like a bullet passing through a sheet of cotton leaving only a small hole and perhaps some self healing material's or nano technology could be developed where the sail also processed the light to provide solar energy and then used that energy to power these nano structure's but of course this is merely hypothetical and I am grasping at straw's there, also the cold would likely prohibit any nano particle technology we could produce in earth condition's from functioning correctly out there.

Still some of the new technology's which are being investigated look set to make the like's of solar sail's purely speculative idea's, then again pursuing the solar sail technology may have some benefit's such as development of new ultra light, strong and self healing fabrics with solar voltaic property's which would make new satellites far lighter and cheaper since a great deal of there wieght is traditionally found in there solar array's so though I personally no longer believe it the most viable option for deep space (I may be and probably am wrong) it is still an area of great research potential.

Though there is a great deal of energy in these tiny particles, what if the material had pizzo propertys as well and could convert the kinetic energy or a proportion of it also into energy, just another avenue of thought for potential application's, that energy could also be used on a space probe to detect were the sail was damaged and to allow small adjustment's to the overall structure allowing it to compensate over time for loss of surface area and maintain symetrical light reflection distribution, of course it would still lose overall area over time and become useless so then the argument is really how long would it remain viable.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 04:10 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

Or send one of these to the moon, it look's like it was meant to be packaged in a rocket anyway though that is just a coincidence due to the job it is intended to do.

12160.info...
projectcamelot.org...

Or a later version of it made to run autonomously as manning it would be problematic to say the least.

Probably no where better than under the lunar surface to build a base, it would still be in danger from large impact's but small micrometeors and hard radiation then become far less of a problem, of course this older boring machine is huge so something smaller as well, lighter and more easily transported as I doubt anyone has a rocket that could launch that into space let alone to the moon or mars but what if or rather when someone can, I really hope the US get's back on track though as China will become dominant in space within two decades otherwise, short sighted president's and other western leaders are a problem for future generations like corporations and free trade politician's, burning the future for the now.

edit on 24-4-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 05:41 AM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Well if entrenchment is deemed more stable then excavation to dig trenches, you know those hose vents you you can buy and attach to the back of a dryer? basically like a slinky with material attached to the outside, 3 to 4 inches compacted 3 to 4 feet exanded with a given diameter or circumference... compact is of course a good thing and the great strength of some materials qualify, of course circular separators to help strengthen and divide areas over some expanse as engineering the load bearing of the material over head as well as anything that could drive over or the force that could impact... a crater mean depth measurement of the largest sites would give the worst case senario to make sure it could withstand that sort of force if so encountered for less contingency needs to hunker down and brace for impact and be business as usual for a very very long time.

of course robotics could indeed work remotely to construct from safely inside a landing module or temporary command base by a human crew... with walks to inspect the quality of construction. We have the technology so wy not use it to expand horizons... of course im pretty sure people know my stance about carrying ignorant beliefs 1000s of years old into space that solves no issue of advancement except to limit its very expansion.

The solar sails yes hopping into solar winds can whip things to breakneck speed but certinally breaches, fortunately magnetic shielding of what appears spider like in representation shields us as the local solar body speeds across its course in orbit around its local black hole as does everything else around the galatic center zoom out and it likely looks like any ol accretion disc zoom in and well locality zoom further in and there be stars charges and phantoms like when the atom was split nothing was expected to be there opps what is that? um quark because not supposed to be there then the mulons and gulons yadda yadda yadda wonderful isnt it? Whole universes floating right before ones eyes and in one like a mite on an eyebow hair with a mite on the mites eyebrow hair ad infinitum?

The one star that is larger than our whole known solar system within our own galaxy is indeed dumbfounding and awe inspiring micro cosim and macro cosim is just a matter of conditioned attachments hoping for some stability in chosen patterns of belief which is also subject to change on observation or convienance of the individual asserting or exposing such, the great whatif always inspires the possibility beyond the nope because this concept demands its own validity by others ?
If it can stand on its own then it needs no crutch or spokes people to carry it... but utilizing it to its greatest potiential? requires setting all that other crap thats being carried down... thats the real key to gravity, as the true weight of the matter when it burdens the mind it also burdens the shoulders burdens the heart and helps no one as it might as well be a head stone here lays... magnetism: couldnt help but stick around and ended up getting stuck



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 12:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Aliensun




The Moon was and continues to be a prime military objective as a military base.

I totally dis agree.
A military base there would be a sitting duck.
Plus any missiles from there would take many hours to strike earth.
Which gives defensive missiles in earth orbit plenty of time to hit them.

You can't stage a missile war from 230,000 miles away.



posted on Apr, 24 2016 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: samkent

Good point's but it is still a feasable site, especially with optical camouflage as well as radio camoflauge stealth technology's becoming ever more highly developed, by the time the missiles became detectable they would probably already be in the atmosphere so there launch site would be obscurred and the base if hidden or on the far side of the moon would be far more secure than an earth based launch site.

It was also an old pipe dream of the US military.
en.wikipedia.org...
www.defensemedianetwork.com...
www.inquisitr.com...

Of course this beg's the question did they do more than simply plan?.


Now the shroud is a more interesting tactic, a large number of stealth satalites each carrying a payload of titanium missiles with a heavy metal core, they would likely use a kinetic energy rather than explosives or nuclear to do there damage, once launched the fuel from each drop missile is expended in acceleration and final manouvering at the designated target and they then finish there flight in gravity assisted free fall impacting the target with a force similar to a large meteorite or small asteroid strike and are capable of similar damage to a nuclear device with non of the radiation (or far less depending of course on what they hid and what heavy metal is used in there core - uranium for example for busting heavy bunkers), also referred to as kinetic dart's though this is a misnomer as they are powered to accelerate at there target letting gravity help in the acceleration as well though only at the final stage after they enter the atmosphere and correct for flight drift?.

This was the logical progression from the nuclear missile stage of tactical balistic missiles as well and they can be dropped with impunity, no earth based launch site and almost total earth coverage (except at the high arctic), these launch facility's only become detectable when they go from dark to active operation such as manouvering but even then they are probably stealth technology so how detectible are they, they are likely in high orbit as this offsets the need to manouvre since the missiles can then deliver there kinetic warhead to any point on the planet from there high orbital location were they would most likely be arragned in an orbital chain of platforms around the planet to cover the entire globe for any necessary strategic deployment.

The kind of weapon NO one would admit to having as it can easily be construed as a weapon of first strike and basically removes the status quo achieved by the nuclear balance which prevented a nulcear war as the owner of these platforms then has the capability of launching a simultaneous strike on there opponants silo's, major defence installations, city's and command & control infrastructure disabling them before they can retaliate and leaving only there tactical ballistic submarines as a viable threat.

Of course does any one have the shroud?.


edit on 24-4-2016 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 03:47 AM
link   

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Navarro

I have not thought about that though I have speculated on how an object can degrade on the lunar surface by being impacted by material from space and ejecta from crater formation as well as hard radiation and thermal variance though that was on something I believe and not something proven.

I suppose the sheer size of the area a solar sail would cover would mean that the majority of impact's would merely pass through it leaving small hole's and it would remain still viable over a fair amount of time though if it hit a particularly dense space dust mass or cometry debris tail then that would likely degrade the sail very rapidly, asymmetric decay would also pose the risk of sending the sail into a spin or at least off course from it's intended trajectory.

The thin material is the problem as well, OK it does have it's advantages in that impact energy would likely cause minimul overall damage like a bullet passing through a sheet of cotton leaving only a small hole and perhaps some self healing material's or nano technology could be developed where the sail also processed the light to provide solar energy and then used that energy to power these nano structure's but of course this is merely hypothetical and I am grasping at straw's there, also the cold would likely prohibit any nano particle technology we could produce in earth condition's from functioning correctly out there.

Still some of the new technology's which are being investigated look set to make the like's of solar sail's purely speculative idea's, then again pursuing the solar sail technology may have some benefit's such as development of new ultra light, strong and self healing fabrics with solar voltaic property's which would make new satellites far lighter and cheaper since a great deal of there wieght is traditionally found in there solar array's so though I personally no longer believe it the most viable option for deep space (I may be and probably am wrong) it is still an area of great research potential.
...

The NanoSail-D2 required 12.5 square feet of solar sail per every pound of mass. Assuming we were to launch three astronauts averaging 180lbs each, to cover their bodyweight alone we'd require 6,750 square feet of sail to match the sail-to-mass ratio of the D2. Assuming the main craft was the same mass as the Apollo Command/Service Module, an additional 404,875 square feet of solar sail would be required. If we next attached a lander of the same mass as the Lunar Module, an additional 418,750 square feet is needed. Of course, the Apollo spacecraft consisted of more than just those two components, but those two do include a chemical propulsion system which is theoretically not needed given the sail, although the weight of Apollos propulsion may be equal or even surpass the weight of the equipment necessary to operate the sail, including battery banks. In any case, the mass of the CSM, LM and our three astronauts would equate to 830,375 sail square footage, or about fourteen and a half football fields, totaling more than nineteen acres, and more than eight city blocks.

If we shift our attention away from the Moon and eye something more along the lines of Mars, the additional crew habitat space, storage space, stored materials weight, expanded life support and additional scientific equipment one would expect such a mission to carry, would easily lead to about a solar sail equal to and perhaps greater than the size of an entire city. The mass of the space shuttle alone was 4,470,000lbs. If we were to extract the shuttle from mothball and cart it around space, we'd need 55,875,000 square foot of solar sail to do the job, about two square miles. The Space Shuttle was designed for Low Earth Orbit missions only, and its longest mission was 17.5 days. A craft purposed for a Mars mission would be tasked with operating considerably longer. NASA estimates that at a minimum, an Earth-Mars transfer would involve six months, or about 10.5 times longer than the Space Shuttle's longest mission. In that case, we're talking about a 21 square mile solar sail, about the size of Manhattan Island, or 1/14th the size of New York City overall.

If such a massive undertaking isn't already mind-boggling in its impracticality for you, keep in mind that the sail-to-mass ratio we're using is resultant of minimalism intended for a short-term and relatively inexpensive unmanned experiment. Realistically we'd have to expect secondary and even tertiary backup systems. We're talking about placing American lives at risk on primetime television, and we're also talking about a multi-hundred-billion dollar investment. We're probably looking at a workload distributed over three or four sails, and I imagine NASA would plan for a total power loss of one full sail. In the event of a three sail system, then the added sail space equates to seven square miles, for a total of 28 square miles now. That's to say nothing for any exotic safety measures such as the nanites you proposed and the additional mass they'd involve. They may be extremely small machines, but in order for them to repair a meaningful amount damage which a massive 28 square mile solar sail could be expected to sustain over a six month journey in space, not to mention the necessary return trip, their additional mass would then be considerable, and that considerable mass would have to be compensated with a considerable extension of the solar sails. Assuming the environmental limitations you mentioned earlier could be remedied, production costs of a meaningful amount of nanites, given the scope of their task, would already be extreme, so the additional sail space may seem inconsequential given that fact.

We've also not accounted for the fact that we'd need an additional and entirely different propulsion system for which to slow us down once we arrived at our destination - there is no reverse thrust for a solar sail. Presumably, we at very least need something along the lines of an ION main engine and RTS thrusters as well as their required subsystems, storage tanks and material to fill those tanks with. Naturally, we again need to extend the size of our solar sails considerably to account for this additional mass, and possibly again to account for additional engine and thruster mass given the fact that the sails may fail to retract when required, meaning additional reverse thrust will be needed. We might very well be talking about a sail closer to half the size of New York City at this point than the 1/14th we were discussing earlier. Not only that, but now we've got conventional engines mounted onto this massive craft of ours. Seems to me that it's well past time to return to considering a more conventional chemical rocket, or a propulsion system such as the NERVA-XE as I remarked upon in the original post. I just can't imagine how solar sails may ever have any future in manned spaceflight. I can see solar sail cube satellites just as easily as I can see the solar panel satellites of today, but manned spaceflight by solar sail appears inconceivable, at least beyond LEO.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Saint Exupery
a reply to: Navarro

Navarro, you're asking absolutely terrific questions. The level of thought you've put into this thread is inspiring.

A great many of you questions have been studied, and preliminary answers and estimates are available in the book Return to the Moon by Dr. Harrison Schmitt. He was the geologist who spent three days on the Moon during the Apollo 17 mission.

His book addresses so many of your questions I cannot list them all here, but they include:

- Physics of 3He fusion and why it preferable to deuterium fusion
- Estimates of fuel requirements for an 3He reactor of a given power output
- Technology required to launch heavy equipment to the Moon (a heavy booster he whimsically calls the Saturn VI)
- Estimated 3He abundance in the lunar regolith
- Mining requirements (what area excavated, to what depth to provide a 1-year supply of 3He for a reactor)
- Techniques and equipment that could be used for excavation
- Life support concerns for bases
- Problems with soil abrasiveness.
- Economics of operating lunar mines and selling 3He

...and much more.

The book is a bit dry and technical, but I have no doubt that you will find it fascinating. I really cannot recommend it more highly to you (or Phage, for that matter).

Hope this helps.


After the subject of abrasiveness was introduced to the discussion earlier, I briefly investigated the activities of the Apollo astronauts while on the Lunar surface in order to determine if an alternate and significant factor was also contributing to the advanced deterioration of the their equipment. Naturally I began with the man who's boot received that infamous damage of having three layers worn through. Of course, that man was none other than Dr Schmitt himself. I found that Schmitt wasn't simply walking about the Moon, but was exerting significant force on objects using his boots, thus significantly adding to the wear and tear of his equipment. In this video below, you'll see Schmitt forcefully kicking a very large rock around the surface of the Moon:


I also reviewed a portion of the data by the NASDIRT project which studied the effects of lunar soil abrasiveness. On page 15, you'll observe it was determined that "Schmitt had fallen or made contact with the lunar surface on more occasions than any other Apollo astronaut." In the video above, you may have noticed that Schmitt seemed to have difficulty walking and struggled somewhat after kicking that rock around. He even quieted while he walked, as though he was concentrating on the activity. I'd say he nearly fell at about 38 seconds into the video even.

The "gunking up" of rotation bearings may be an issue of its own, one which I imagine could be solved simply by covering the bearings with a polymer or other material in order to prevent dust in the environment from entering them. Something that's applied after the various components are attached, and which extends beyond the area of the bearings, sealing them off from the environment. As far as the destructive effects on non-bearing surface areas, I can't help but suspect that soil abrasiveness alone wasn't the culprit, but misuse and abusive of equipment played a significant role.

Most importantly, it should be noted that the boot which suffered the notorious damage was Schmitt's right boot, which happens to be the boot you see him kicking the rock with in the video. In this picture you observe some of the damage that boot sustained, and it appears consistent with damage resultant from kicking an abrasive object. A simple outer metal casing seems in order for the boots. Reinforcing the exterior of the knees and elbows with the same may also be in order. A series of smaller metal plates lining the gloves also appears reasonable. Perhaps something comparable to a miniaturized version of chain mail. These metal components would need to be completely sealed against the suit in order to prevent lunar soil from getting between the metal and the polymer, allowing for abrasion through chaffing with movement.

In the book, did Schmitt remark upon the variable that was his kicking?
edit on 26-4-2016 by Navarro because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 05:44 AM
link   
Science fiction has carried war into space enough as it is... this talk of militarizing space and weaponzing space only displays so much ignorance of our species... that we dont even belong there if there is hope or intent to carry it out into the yonder.

If others are met in that yonder, diplomacy should be the first weapon we are armed with... and only one IMHO.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 10:18 AM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

You are correct, however we will need to be able to protect ourselves if we ever do venture beyond the solar system, just why is the galaxy so quiet?, ok radio attenuation but surely we would have heard something unless we are a very lonely species indeed.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:29 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Cant really go into that without sounding like some nutter needing a straight jacket, but straightening the idiocracy going on here on planet E first is a good idea... simply for the reasons I last stated and the one just mentioned. Just consider the possibility we are too backwards and unevolved for such to be allowed, especially here in a thread talking about making a damned military base on the effing moon ffs instead of one for research and advancement of the species beyond such barbarianism.

I cant even enjoy Star Trek Enterprise(the Baccula one) because of the Texan sort of fellow always being so confrontational with everyone... of course that sort of thing seems to become "justified" in the storyline when finding out other species that are advanced from other worlds are avoiding the prime directive and interfering with development of other worlds no so advanced in the name of greed and power...

Hell it could be that way, but best not to set ourselves up for it on the wrong foot; if you catch my drift... and not just in the thread sense either. World peace should come first beyond extremism and any work we do in space a collaborative effort in the name of humanity not corporations.

Of course the likely senario most close to reality ignoring all of this, and assuming alone... would be similar to the series Cowboy Bebop as scifi goes.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: BigBrotherDarkness

I actually think you have many good point's but I disagree, life on earth is by nature predatory and it would be naive to assume that because we DO have a humane side which makes us feel bad about feeding off of other animal's in our small planetary eco system that other sentience species would be also so inclined.

We have a severe dichotomy of personality which is best showin in our love/hate relationship with our own race and our constant tribal feud's also how our disagreement's often fall into chaos and even violence so why not they, just because they reach a plataue of development does not mean that all there violence is vanquished, on the contrary it is a prime survival trait so in all likelyhood they too will have violent traits, possessiveness and predatory instinct as well as perhaps the encumbant motivation to destroy us at the first sight of us just like a guy does when he find's he has mice nesting in his basement.

We by tryint to live up to our BETTER nature are not therefore in any way the rule of life in the cosmos and it is just as likely to have a fully predatory eco system like nature into which our arrival on the scene would be best viewed as the experience of a fry in an ocean of potential predators and other threat's.

Sure there are most likely benign sentient life forms that are well intentioned but on the fruit fly time scale of the human consciousness (in reference to cosmological timescales that any sufficiantly advanced race would live by having most likely long ago extended there lifespans to take advantage of there new level of existance) we would probably be of no significance or consequence to them.

That is until we announced our arrival, Again?.



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767

Yes indeed we evolved from animal species, like chickens having those yummy lizard legs as scales evolved into feathers... but we have this lovely thing called communication, we have this not so lovely thing called belief, that is really an accepted global mental illness, that te current establishment just keeps cycling around to make money off of and not really advance except through a slow trickle... yay cds! one grand for the player... several years later yay rewrittable... one grand for the player, even later now on ROMs one grand for the player etc etc etc when it could have been boom all at once.

See how this nonsense works? But how this nonsense actually doesnt benefit anyone? Thats the tickle down all industry so heavy its at the bottom of one side of the scales people on the oterside of the scales and shake shake shake wheres all our money going?

So yeah it can move beyond all of this programming that says kill fight and f__k cause we dont need your money but we want it so dance and love those chains maybe youll actually retire or win a lottery some day or dance monkey dance and get famous then you can be a poster child for all the other monkeys theres the hope now shake shake shake we got some change.

How can logical and rational people not reason and see that that is the reality and beyond all that programming unite away from that old get nowhere solve nothing rhetoric?

Yup lets carry it into space George lets carry it into space...



posted on Apr, 26 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: LABTECH767




Good point's but it is still a feasable site, especially with optical camouflage as well as radio camoflauge stealth technology's becoming ever more highly developed, by the time the missiles became detectable they would probably already be in the atmosphere so there launch site would be obscurred and the base if hidden or on the far side of the moon would be far more secure than an earth based launch site

You seem to forget that the US would know the location of the Moon base in the early stages of construction.
So camo is pointless.
Stealth missiles from the Moon is a myth.
A few seismic listening devices would pick up any launch as it happens.
Radar would take it from there.
Missiles from Earth would have many hours to deflect/destroy the incoming.
A few hours after that the Moon base would receive a nuke for dinner.

No country is going to spend hundreds of billions on a weapon that's only good for one 50/50 attack.




top topics



 
8
<< 1   >>

log in

join