Manned moon outpost could be NASA's next big mission

page: 3
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:21 PM
link   
if we perfected efficient travel means(duration is not a factor here), involving easier lift off, and good fuel consumption.

Of course we would need to build a lift off structure.

I see something similar to this..... not sure if this would work, any physicist here can chime in.

like a 90 degree angel curved catapult that would shoot the shuttle up to gain some lift off.

|
||
|||




posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   


There is just no reason to put humans there.


The learning how to do it is the reason to do it.

Its a stepping stone to deeper missions. Its not the end game in itself.

The L2 missions are warm ups for longer deeper mission to asteroids. Learning to rendezvous with and study asteroids while still deep in the solar system is going to be necessary if we are going to develop sensible strategies to deal with dangerous asteroids.

It probably wouldn't have been my choice if I was writing the plan. However, its measured, workable and may well have more wisdom in the long run than the more obvious avenues.



posted on Nov, 12 2012 @ 04:06 PM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 




The L2 missions are warm ups for longer deeper mission to asteroids. Learning to rendezvous with and study asteroids while still deep in the solar system is going to be necessary if we are going to develop sensible strategies to deal with dangerous asteroids.

I don't see the two as having anything to do with each other.
We have robotic craft that have rendezvoused before.

Since when is it the responsibility of government to move people off this planet?
Doomsday preppers should pay their own tab.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by justwokeup
 




The L2 missions are warm ups for longer deeper mission to asteroids. Learning to rendezvous with and study asteroids while still deep in the solar system is going to be necessary if we are going to develop sensible strategies to deal with dangerous asteroids.

I don't see the two as having anything to do with each other.
We have robotic craft that have rendezvoused before.

Since when is it the responsibility of government to move people off this planet?
Doomsday preppers should pay their own tab.



You're not alone. I expect the majority would agree with you.

Knowing this maybe we should change the mission to instead carve our epitaph on the moon.

"Below lies humanity, we could have had the stars but really we just couldn't be bothered".




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by justwokeup
 




The L2 missions are warm ups for longer deeper mission to asteroids. Learning to rendezvous with and study asteroids while still deep in the solar system is going to be necessary if we are going to develop sensible strategies to deal with dangerous asteroids.

I don't see the two as having anything to do with each other.
We have robotic craft that have rendezvoused before.

Since when is it the responsibility of government to move people off this planet?
Doomsday preppers should pay their own tab.



Just curious...

Why does it have to be doomsday for us to look at possibly getting a foothold on another planet? The Earth, nor its resources, will last forever. The latter running out faster every day. Our planet doesn't even have 1% of what is available to us in our solar system. So while we bicker and squabble for this tiny little bit, the rest is just sitting there waiting in orbit of the sun for someone to get off their ass and come get it.

Overpopulation? Well...we have at least 2 more worlds (depending if we want to count Ceres or other asteroids) just hanging out in the habitable zone of our star with no-one on them yet. Plus, if people actually live there, then they would need to be a part of some government if we want them to represent themselves as part of the human race with the rest of us, so it would make sense for a government to start the colonization.

The better question is why the hell not? What do you seriously think the tiny bit of money NASA gets for this stuff is going to be good for? If we're looking to better allocate funds to something in particular, I can assure you that practically every other budget has a lot more to throw around, including whatever one you're thinking of.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Dashdragon
 


Because some people fail to realize that exploration is the reason they are here on this planet to begin with.

To stop exploring would stagnate the human culture and the very drive for discovery.

Doomsday preppers....lmao......that reply you respondesto cracked me up.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:32 PM
link   
This kind of thing more than any other is NASA's way of defending the moon landings. The pitch is, "We are planning to go again, only this time the whole thing will be way more sophisticated". Translation, "We really didn't go the first time, but when we talk like this it nonchalantly encourages all to believe we did".



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Good luck to them. I think that besides the obvious another giant leap for humanity, if it will be done correctly - by involving mainly US manufacturers and researchers - after initial huge investment it can serve as an even more powerful economic boost project for US itself.
Think about all new the new technologies and manufacturing capabilities. About possible space mining et ctr.
And it will be much needed moral boost for US public, too.
Really hope that this project will become reality.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by yoggi
 


Of course. Designing a new multi-stage mission with a goal to eventually create an outpost is the best proof of Moon landing being a lie.
I hope you realize how it sounds.
And if you mean that since NASA states it send man to the Moon it does not need to develop new delivery methods - you are wrong. Try to find new spare part to mass produced TV from Moon landing era.
You will not be able too. Manufacturers are long gone, factories now use different technologies and materials.
Now think about complex spaceship with gozillion of different no-longer produced parts. It will take just as much effort to rebuild the capability to make technologically outdated parts for old tech rocket and lander then to design it all from a scratch using modern technology and utilizing modern factories.
To make it even more obvious - what will be easier and cheaper for engineer:
a) To make a complete replica of 1970s TV according to exactly the same specs and using recently manufactured 1970-replica parts.
b) To design a new TV with modern technology using any part currently available.



posted on Nov, 14 2012 @ 06:35 AM
link   
reply to post by liejunkie01
 




Because some people fail to realize that exploration is the reason they are here on this planet to begin with.

Naaw! Not quite.
But if you want to explore be my guest. But at your own cost.
If you think you can make a profit mining stuff up there and selling it to people down here, go for it. Fund it with your own venture capitol. There is no shortage of materials needed for human survival down here.

If we ever run short of titanium dioxide for white paint we'll settle for off white.
If we ever run short of gold we'll go back to pinchbeck or tungsten.
It's called adaptability.

No where is it part of our constitution that the government should pay the cost to expand to other worlds.





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join