2018 Moon Launch? 104 Billion. Wow!!

Then Earth needs more energy you just tell the robots to cover more of the Moon w/ solar cells and add orbital solar stations.

They may even write messages on the surface of the Moon w/ the solar cells like

" Yo Resistance ! We are really, really here! "

They are laying off JPL engineers

science.slashdot.org.../10/14/228227&tid=98&tid=160&tid=219

If NASA cannot receive funding to do robotics projects for Jupiter's moons and Mars how can they expect to receive the $104 billion for a manned moon mission?

The world spends 2.5 trillion on it's energy needs now. In 25 years when a Moon energy program might be completed, the world will need 2.5 times as much energy as it uses today and the value of that energy might be $25 trillion.

That is the draw. This planet is not a stagnant agrarian society. The world will need much more energy looking foreward. The Moon can provide.

Originally posted by Frosty
Why did solar cells come from manned exploration?

?? Why? Why do you think? It didn't "come" from NASA but NASA is conducting lots of research into making them high efficiency, they did commision the development of rollable Solar Panels, the same panels you see today on the ISS. Without NASA's support of Solar Panels that technology would most likely left behind in the 80s, along with everyone else who abandoned it.

What fuel cells?

Umm you do know that the Shuttle AND the Space Station uses fuel cells for backup power.

Never heard that NASA had anything to do with LED's...

Cannot find the link right now but NASA did have a plan to send up growlabs to the ISS with a new type of LED growlamp, again we're talking about taking an existing application and making it better (which will eventually lead to an eventual NASA spinoff)

Water recycling has been around for years before NASA just like solar cells

Yeah thats not my point. I know that lots of people expect NASA to invent lots of stuff but they also take existing applications and Improve them Yeah I knwo broken record but it is true.

I would need more than just your word, maybe some links...

That's fine, I'll dig up some links you can dig through yourself.

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.thespaceplace.com...

These two links should be enough to validate my claims. Also there is the fact that the number of Tax Dollars spent on Space Exploration wether it's robotic or manned invariably adds more Tax revenue for the US gov't. Apallo for instance MADE the US gov't money if you take into account ALL the spinoff technologies they either help to pioneer or helped to make better through grants and testing it in extreme environments.

Originally posted by sardion2000

Originally posted by Frosty
Why did solar cells come from manned exploration?

?? Why? Why do you think? It didn't "come" from NASA but NASA is conducting lots of research into making them high efficiency, they did commision the development of rollable Solar Panels, the same panels you see today on the ISS. Without NASA's support of Solar Panels that technology would most likely left behind in the 80s, along with everyone else who abandoned it.

What fuel cells?

Umm you do know that the Shuttle AND the Space Station uses fuel cells for backup power.

Never heard that NASA had anything to do with LED's...

Cannot find the link right now but NASA did have a plan to send up growlabs to the ISS with a new type of LED growlamp, again we're talking about taking an existing application and making it better (which will eventually lead to an eventual NASA spinoff)

Water recycling has been around for years before NASA just like solar cells

Yeah thats not my point. I know that lots of people expect NASA to invent lots of stuff but they also take existing applications and Improve them Yeah I knwo broken record but it is true.

I would need more than just your word, maybe some links...

That's fine, I'll dig up some links you can dig through yourself.

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.thespaceplace.com...

These two links should be enough to validate my claims. Also there is the fact that the number of Tax Dollars spent on Space Exploration wether it's robotic or manned invariably adds more Tax revenue for the US gov't. Apallo for instance MADE the US gov't money if you take into account ALL the spinoff technologies they either help to pioneer or helped to make better through grants and testing it in extreme environments.

You are too generic my friend. Fuel cells? Gasoline fuel cells? I would never have figured. Who was abandoning solar power? Solar cells are used on satelittes but not on too many manned configurations. I don't see where any of this is leading to why we need to go back to the moon.

Fuel Cell - H2 Fuel cell NASA has invested Hundreds of Millions in this technology as a power backup and storage solution.

Solar Power Technology was massively invested into in the 70-80s during that periods "Oil Situation" when Cheap Oil returned pretty much every company working on the technology either stopped funding research or divested the technology. Ask Off_the_Street of his experiences in that industry.

If it weren't for NASA's interest they would not be anywhere near as sophisticated as they are today, IT Sats don't really require extensive arrays, not like the ISS.

Point is when we set out to accomplish things we have not done before yes I know we've been there done that Actually we barely sampled the Moon we still have much more to learn. What we could learn is always fuzzy like any exploratory endevor, it ain't engineering (Allthough it gives the NASA Engineers something to fret about) There will be tangible benefits that will come of this.

PS. Also another biggy NASA Innovation(yes not just an improvement) that I forgot to mention is called Aerogel, the worlds best insulation, safe forms of the substance for use in homes are coming to market within the next few years. 2 Inches of the stuff is equal to a Hay bale house (R value in the mid 50s) I'm sure you can appreciate just how significant this substance could be for Housing efficiency.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by sardion2000]

"Solar cells are used on satelittes but not on too many manned configurations. I don't see where any of this is leading to why we need to go back to the moon. "

I'll just repost my comments which you failed to see. The Moon is worth up to $25,000,000,000,000 / year to the future!


The world spends 2.5 trillion on it's energy needs now. In 25 years when a Moon energy program might be completed, the world will need 2.5 times as much energy as it uses today and the value of that energy might be $25 trillion/yr.

That is the draw. This planet is not a stagnant agrarian society. The world will need much more energy looking foreward. The Moon can provide.

I don't know. We still need to develop an efficient enough energy carrier to distribute the energy on earth. I assume such a system would use Microwaves to beam the power back down right? I am skeptical this idea will fly, but I think like the space elevator if we send it down to a portion of the world with little in the way of airtraffic/birdtraffic and we say catalyze it into H2 and ship it that way It has a huge amount of technicle hurdles to overcome.

Originally posted by bodebliss
"Solar cells are used on satelittes but not on too many manned configurations. I don't see where any of this is leading to why we need to go back to the moon. "

I'll just repost my comments which you failed to see. The Moon is worth up to $25,000,000,000,000 / year to the future!


The world spends 2.5 trillion on it's energy needs now. In 25 years when a Moon energy program might be completed, the world will need 2.5 times as much energy as it uses today and the value of that energy might be $25 trillion/yr.

That is the draw. This planet is not a stagnant agrarian society. The world will need much more energy looking foreward. The Moon can provide.

What are you talking about? The moon is 250k miles from earth. You will eat up as much money building fascilities and transporting generators to earth as you will make from the selling the money, maybe you will break even.

It is already expensive enough to get power from the plant to a home, how much more difficult will it be to do that from moon to the earth and then to the home? If it is going to cost NASA $200 billion to send just a few men to the moon for a week how much to do all this that you are talking about? Trillions?

I doubt NASA would be involved in its construction.

A very mature private space industry would probably be the financier and in the future who's to say how much it would cost. It's just speculation atm.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by sardion2000]

Here is a good link on space based solar power(SPS):

www.hq.nasa.gov...

If development is to continue there will be a need for 5 - 10 times more power production by the end of the century.

The current usage from all sources is:

379 quads(btu) or 111 terawatts of power if power usage grows to 1,110 terawatts by 2100. Space Power System will be viable.

energy.cr.usgs.gov...

Reserved

[edit on 10/16/2005 by bodebliss]

There's no water on the moon.

www.seds.org... - 13k

Not only did the radio telescope in Puerto Rico show no ice as per this story, but I also read a Stanford scientist explained what would happen to any water brought to the moon by asteroids. It would meld into the terrain like portland cement and water.

And we have plenty of energy right here on earth. Limitless energy. But we won't have very much atmosphere left if we keep burning all of it up in the atmosphere with these darned spaceships. If NASA and the government aren't sucking up tax dollars to roar around in space shuttles watching spiders spin webs and hauling schoolteachers around they are beaming waves up into the stratosphere, bulging it out, seeding chemtrails all over the planet, messing with the weather, and just acting like this is their planet to play with. Then they are breeding demons and practicing mind control, using human victims, young men, women and very young children, as though we're all a bunch of flies they can pick our wings off.

Don't even THINK about giving these people money to go look for water on the moon or build some kind of something or other up on the moon. The more money you give them, the more destruction they will do to Planet Earth and to the people who live on it. Greenpeace, where are you when we need you?

Remember, these people are Illuminati. Former Astronaut Mitchell runs a mind control institute and is in admitted contact with what he calls extra-terrestrials. Many of the other astronauts admit to the same thing -- collaborating with these beings which from all reports are evil, cruel, sadistic, and malevolent.

The only thing they ever did was invent Tang. They certainly don't know how to glue tiles on very well. When the Challenger crashed, remember how silly they acted? Nobody was allowed to pick up one piece of the shuttle that was scattered over miles and miles? They roped off the whole area and acted like each one of those broken pieces of the shuttle was pure gold.

Ha! Pure junk is more like it.


[edit on 16-10-2005 by resistance]

If a plane crashes and you arrive at the site before authorities and start taking pieces away, you could face serious fines and go to jailfor ten years.

NTSB is the only agency that can investigate crashes.

Originally posted by bodebliss
If a plane crashes and you arrive at the site before authorities and start taking pieces away, you could face serious fines and go to jailfor ten years.

NTSB is the only agency that can investigate crashes.

Yeah. NASA said or even to touch it. And they said the parts were radioactive anyway. Yeah, 10 years if you touch a screw. They had half the country (slight exaggeration) taped off for months. Now you can go on their site and they have links, "NASA getting closer to solving the foam problem." Gimme a break.

Originally posted by sardion2000

PS. Also another biggy NASA Innovation(yes not just an improvement) that I forgot to mention is called Aerogel, the worlds best insulation, safe forms of the substance for use in homes are coming to market within the next few years. 2 Inches of the stuff is equal to a Hay bale house (R value in the mid 50s) I'm sure you can appreciate just how significant this substance could be for Housing efficiency.

[edit on 16-10-2005 by sardion2000]

Yeah, I'll bet everyone will rush out to buy it. Hope it's better than their hyped temperapedic mattresses that make you sweat.

Resistance
Telescopes don't have resolution?

- ALL Digital Telescopes have resolutions.
Hubble is obviously digital.

Frosty
For a small fraction of the cost we could send robots to the moon for years to do what men could accomplish over several missions lasting only weeks....and then with the money left over send out more robots.

Have you ever heard of Columbus? Or Lewis & Clark?

The obvious point i'm making is that we like to explore the unknowns for ourselves. Sure robots can do it as well, and for a cheaper price, but there not as reliable and resourcefull as us, what takes a Mars rover 2 weeks, humans could do in under a day.

Originally posted by resistance

Remember Challenger? Remember Columbia? NASA testified in Congress and all kinds of stuff came out about how incompetent they are.

Take a look at this pic at the bottom of the page on this link. THEN come back and tell me how swift and capable they are.
www.geocities.com...

For God's sake, they are LOOKING FOR WATER ON THE MOON. They claim there's water there, and that they are going to use it to set up a moon village. Ha! The only ones who think there's water on the moon are NASA and the space junkies who think there's life "out there" and will believe anything NASA tells them. No serious scientist who knows anything about the moon would claim such nonsense. Do a Google search for moon, water, and see what you find. There is no atmosphere to trap any water there, and it is very, very hot. Any moisture there might be would vaporize and dissipate into space because there's not enough gravity to hold it to the moon.



Right now they're preparing another fake landing hoax. This time on Mars. They should be better at their hoaxing techniques this time than they were with Apollo. After all, they've had almost 40 years to perfect their legerdemain craft of smoke and mirrors, they and their distinguished gallery of astroNOTs on the web pictured so heroically holding their plastic model spaceships.

Incompetant? They ignored some red flags, but every now and then...who doesn't. Its not much different then a Nascar driver who knows he needs new tires but is in first with only a few laps to go.

As for water on the moon.

Its in the dark areas, like craters. and its water/ice, frozen, and possably underground. I dont see how that so unbelievable, earth has water, Mars use to have water, it got there from comets, which are basically dirty ice balls.

NASA has radio satellite dishes pointed out to space so they can make contact with the intelligent life they think is out there. So far nobody's dialed in.

They do? Not as far as I know...any links to that claim? And Nasa is not apart of SETI, and doesn't control it, and none of its budget goes towards it.


I see no reason why Nasa would fake a Mars landing...same goes for the moon landing. With public space flight a getting closer to reality it would get found out if it was hoaxed. in a couple years people will regulary go into sub-orbit, after that LEO, and after that trips to the moon...Its inevitable that normal people will set foot on the moon. What happens to all of your conspiracy theories then?