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.

 

Colonizing the Moon, Who's to Stop You?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:24 PM
link   
Say a nation, an Agency, a consortium, goes back to the moon with the plan of sending the resources there to slowly build up enough infrastructure, to mine and process the oxygen, hydrogen, helium, and heavy metals to create an eventual near self sustaining outpost, possibly a full self sustaining Base? The incentive would be finding this somewhat fictitious isotope of helium that could be valuable for energy production, Helium 3.

The Russians take this notion seriously from what I hear, and NASA is not ignoring their interest.

We need another space race, enter China, Japan, India, and of course our friends in Europe.

Who succeeds and who bails from the initial commitment investment should deside the benefits, who's to say they have any right to trump claims? Who's to say a dichotomy says it isn't ones' right. But 'the claimants'? I always understood the land grabbers that defended their claim in history kept that what they conquered.

Of what grounds does the idea stand on that no nation, consortium, or group, cannot do what they are capable of on extraterrestrial bodies in space? How much common sense does that make? It's like saying I can build a Mercedes, and my neighbor can only build a Yugo, yet I have to let him use my Mercedes? That's no incentive for discovery!

If you have interest, this thread is a knee-jerk reaction to a documentary called "Moon for Sale".

Google Video Link


It's quite long video, view it you choose. My focus is the idea of ownership, and the idea if you have it an nobody else can take it, isn't it yours?

OK, How does one post a Google video, apparently its not the same way as a Youtube?
edit on 6-2-2012 by Illustronic because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Considering the americans made it a no fly zone,that alone would stop any plans.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   
Direct link?

video.google.com...



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by paperface
Considering the americans made it a no fly zone,that alone would stop any plans.


That was a request, not an administered law. I'd like to keep this thread real.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by paperface
 


Smells fishy when a country makes "The Moon" a no fly zone... didnt realize it had a for sale sign.

anyways everyone knows the moon is already has habitants up there. like THEY'D let you stay up there.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Kriltosthe2nd
 


I'd appreciate we keep this on topic. Maybe view some of the video, skip to at least half way through if you have attention deficit disorder. The docu is talking about actual procedures going on right now. Not about history.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:42 PM
link   
I don't think they want anyone there period. I think we are hundreds of years away from even thinking about using the moon for resources. Too much crap to sort through down here.

Possession is ownership. If you are the first one there and can keep others from going there, that pretty much makes it yours.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


we should claim the moon for ATS and make nasa pay rent to keep there stuff up there



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 07:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkmask
 


Pretty much all I'm saying. One shouldn't have to wait for every kid in Africa to get an education before one discovers Penicillin. A logic that everything needs fixed before unrelated progress proceeds to me is inapplicable, and counterproductive.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Kriltosthe2nd
 


yep, the moon snails looked dangerous and they told us via telepathic powers we should stay at home for at least the next 200 years...the fact they had telepathic powers was enough to follow their advice...and i am not kidding

maybe russia catched some of them and now knows their weekness or has made a deal or realized they have only telepathic, not physical power....



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:04 PM
link   
I want to see Robert Heinlein 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' come to sort of the political reality of the book without the squashing of people by the mass drivers the Moon Colony was using to send stuff back to Earth.

But before that, I suppose we'd have to send up indentured workers to the Moon; indentured in the term that they'll have to work for their ticket home, rather than be slaves. They'd be reasonably autonomous in their personal relationships, as long as they keep cool heads and continue to work towards earning that ticket back to Earth.

Whos to stop us but the government who would say that the Lunar Colonist's indentured labour makes profits to be taxed, or profits at all?

Perhaps a Lunar Colony should not be expected to make a profit that can be tangibly enjoyed in the financial market on Earth. A Lunar Colony should have its Sovereignty as a goal to be worked towards, for sure, but Earth must be indentured to helping make it self-sustaining rather than simply an extension of Earth.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:17 PM
link   
The obstacle is getting stuff of of earth. From orbit, or the lunar surface this obstacle is minimized by some number x. Nothing so far is realistically able to lift better than rockets. Once in space, other propulsion systems can be used effectively, but not from sea level. Yet.

The Russians are known for building the largest machines on earth, do they really think they can power up all of what is needed to orbit? I mean track records aside and all. With proper funding, would the ultimate answer be a world wide consortium ?

I think no one single entity will ever try this, it would have to be an unprecedented cooperation of all we have at this point in time.

Later, maybe not, but I would need serious convincing that an agency has the resources, technology, and initiative to do so.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:23 PM
link   
The big issue is getting to the moon.

So how much would it cost to get there. how would we plan things. How would we get back?

I would like to see the surface for myself.

anyone see transformers 3? lol



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I declare myself King of the moon.

But I guess possession in 9/10ths of the law.
Anyone who establishes infrastructure there will essentially own that, and the land it inhabits.
Also need to eliminate the natives, for politically sustainable colonization.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by rom12345
I declare myself King of the moon.

But I guess possession in 9/10ths of the law.
Anyone who establishes infrastructure there will essentially own that, and the land it inhabits.
Also need to eliminate the natives, for politically sustainable colonization.


Im the shogun. I say we use the natives to learn more about it. after that we use them as slaves to build our bases.

Those who do not wish to be slaves can die with honor by walking into the airlock without a space suit.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by BulletShogun
 


Getting off earth is way over 90% of the energy needed. The rest is slight directional in-flight fires, and low thrust rockets that require much less fuel, leaving the moon is easy, a sniper bullet could likely reach escape velocity from the moon, (OK, a bit of an exaggeration).

Once in earth orbit your power requirements are so much less than leaving our surface I don't even want to venture into the percentages involved in comparison.



posted on Feb, 6 2012 @ 08:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by BulletShogun
 


Getting off earth is way over 90% of the energy needed. The rest is slight directional in-flight fires, and low thrust rockets that require much less fuel, leaving the moon is easy, a sniper bullet could likely reach escape velocity from the moon, (OK, a bit of an exaggeration).

Once in earth orbit your power requirements are so much less than leaving our surface I don't even want to venture into the percentages involved in comparison.


I knew the 90% part. Odd is that learned that from a workout manual.

I was talking about Money and objects needed. I bet any mid sized corporation has the funding for it. And i have an idea for a new launch pad idea.



posted on Feb, 7 2012 @ 12:01 AM
link   
Let's figure out how to take care of ourselves, on our own planet, before we start screwing things up for the rest of the galaxy.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


Nations and corporations have no business on the moon. Simple as that. Before we go to the moon and try to do anything serious there, we need to get rid of countries, and economies, all that jazz that is just manufactured reality.

The only people that should be on the moon are scientists, scientists that represent Earth, not a single group of people. Once you leave the surface of the Earth, and pass through the atmosphere, and national ties should be forgotten, there are no borders in space.



posted on Feb, 8 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
I'm pretty sure the 'Outer space treaty' of 1967 precludes any nation state for claiming a celestial body, in whole or in part. It was done deliberately to stifle competition for off planet resources.

Also, by stating that "the activities of non-governmental entities in outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies, shall require authorization and continuing supervision by the appropriate State Party to the Treaty and that States Parties shall bear international responsibility for national space activities whether carried out by governmental or non-governmental entities." the same dampening applies to corporations.

Nobody will rush to acquire what they are barred from owning by prior treaty.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join