• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Return to the Moon?

Should we go back to the Moon?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 31 75.6%
  • No.

    Votes: 10 24.4%

  • Total voters
    41
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Oh, the maglev train is proven technology.

The lack of air on the moon is observed fact.
I'm not arguing either of these cases.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
What's more expensive, building a rail road (something even civil engineers can figure out), or running point to point rockets everywhere? Rockets cost fuel to run. They're good for unexplored or seldom visited spots, but if there's ever two cities on the moon, they'll be linked by rail.
Yes most likely.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
My approaches are totally practical. And who was restricting our discussion of moon colonization to the rest of this century? By 2100, we'll have a quonset hut up there, at current rates.
The original argument was reference to the proposal by the current Bush administration of returning to the moon by 2020 reaching Mars by 2030. If you can't even reach the moon practically in this century, you can dream all you want about what the next century could be like, but it will not realize unless you can get there first.
Thus the implication of being limited to this non-star trek century.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
So long as the world wastes money supporting people who refuse to work, the human race will be unable to reach it's destiny.
How does the world waste money on ppl that refuse to world? what is humanity's destiny?
 
jfuh said:
Just how do you propose to scale up to such a factor? 80 Saturn V rockets? And the fuel comes from where?

Hmmm...and I thought word "ablative" would explain all.

Did I say or did I not say use the mirrors to melt the material of the asteroid and use it as a propellant?

jfuh said:
Do we? You're using a chemical rocket, time is something you do not have. You really have no idea of how rediculously impractical your approach is do you.

No, I"m not. You need to read what I posted more carefully.

jfuh said:
Mere 23 tons? Have you any idea in your head of how impossible it would be to launch a single ton?

Do you have any idea how impossible it is to teach a cat calculus?

Yeah. A mere 100 tons, once you include support structure. That compares to the mass of a 29 million ton payload? Do I recall saying that mirror would be built on earth? No. Did I say it would be launched in one piece? No. You do get excited over what you don't see, don't you?

jfuh said:
Still improbable and highly highly unrealistic.

Hmmm...you have no concept of human progress, do you? 160 years ago, a bunch of people, including a family named Donner, were stuck in the Sierra mountains a mere thirty miles from their destination because of a little snow. They couldn't imagine self-propelled vehicles, let alone moon landings.

jfuh said:
Dream on rocket boy.

THAT'S a very impressive well thought out rebuttal with solid technical support and footnotes, too.

No mention of how percent utilization is a factor in cost analysis and profitabliity of major projects, though.

You don't have a clue and you're out of your depth, aren't you?

jfuh said:
Nope, not true at all, too much scattering.

Scattering. Yeah, I suppose so. All that air getting in the way, that could be a problem. After all, humans would be far to stupid to figure out how to shape a mirror to take an incoming flood of light and turn it into a more or less straight beam, aren't we? And we're definitely far too stupid to use feedback systems to read beam intensity at the target and adjust the mirror shape to maximize intensity on target. Yeah, we'd never manage that....

How'd they fix the Hubble telescope again?

jfuh said:
From your proposal, it's a matter of never happening.

No. From your attitude it's a matter of always being eye-brow deep in the solid waste tank.

What's your background? Calculator Key Cleaner as Joe's Machine Shop?
 
jfuh said:
The original argument was reference to the proposal by the current Bush administration of returning to the moon by 2020 reaching Mars by 2030. If you can't even reach the moon practically in this century, you can dream all you want about what the next century could be like, but it will not realize unless you can get there first.

Oh, if we wanted to, we could return to the moon, in force, permanently, in ten years. What we need:

1) National Will.
2) Money.
3) Once the decision is made to go, Congress stops playing amatuer engineer/aerospace engineering welfare case worker for each of their disctricts.
4) A defined goal.
5) Knowledge that someone's going to die over the course of the project.

The International Space Station took so long, and so much money, because:

a) t's "international", and not American. Violated 1.
b) Politicians used it as a political football, radically altering function with every election. Violated 3.
c) Politicians sole concern was apparently that as much of the project's money get spent in their district as possible, nothing else. If this wasn't met, the program budget was threatened. Violated 3 and 2.
d) We had, and have, absolutely no idea what the thing is for. Violated 4.

jfuh said:
what is humanity's destiny?

We have to choices:

1) Emigrate to the stars, and take our chances.

2) Become extinct on earth.

There's no middle. Extinction is the ultimate eventuality, but real men die fighting. So far, we've put our toe in the water and then moved to the desert.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Hmmm...and I thought word "ablative" would explain all.

Did I say or did I not say use the mirrors to melt the material of the asteroid and use it as a propellant?



No, I"m not. You need to read what I posted more carefully.



Do you have any idea how impossible it is to teach a cat calculus?

Yeah. A mere 100 tons, once you include support structure. That compares to the mass of a 29 million ton payload? Do I recall saying that mirror would be built on earth? No. Did I say it would be launched in one piece? No. You do get excited over what you don't see, don't you?



Hmmm...you have no concept of human progress, do you? 160 years ago, a bunch of people, including a family named Donner, were stuck in the Sierra mountains a mere thirty miles from their destination because of a little snow. They couldn't imagine self-propelled vehicles, let alone moon landings.



THAT'S a very impressive well thought out rebuttal with solid technical support and footnotes, too.

No mention of how percent utilization is a factor in cost analysis and profitabliity of major projects, though.

You don't have a clue and you're out of your depth, aren't you?



Scattering. Yeah, I suppose so. All that air getting in the way, that could be a problem. After all, humans would be far to stupid to figure out how to shape a mirror to take an incoming flood of light and turn it into a more or less straight beam, aren't we? And we're definitely far too stupid to use feedback systems to read beam intensity at the target and adjust the mirror shape to maximize intensity on target. Yeah, we'd never manage that....

How'd they fix the Hubble telescope again?



No. From your attitude it's a matter of always being eye-brow deep in the solid waste tank.

What's your background? Calculator Key Cleaner as Joe's Machine Shop?

All your arguments respond more to a highschool teenager that's half read into a few science fiction novels. As I've said, your ideas are good, but the realities of the situation are it's never going to happen like that.
I've made my standpoints very clear, presented rational probable scenarios of anything happening. You've presented science fiction and given reason that ppl are just too lazy all of which are simply untrue.
There's absolutly no point in wasting time on your nonsense arguments that you claim to be facts.
Go back to high school and relearn physics and chemistry if you want to hold a scientific debate here.
 
jfuh said:
All your arguments respond more to a highschool teenager that's half read into a few science fiction novels. As I've said, your ideas are good, but the realities of the situation are it's never going to happen like that.
I've made my standpoints very clear, presented rational probable scenarios of anything happening. You've presented science fiction and given reason that ppl are just too lazy all of which are simply untrue.
There's absolutly no point in wasting time on your nonsense arguments that you claim to be facts.
Go back to high school and relearn physics and chemistry if you want to hold a scientific debate here.


Actually, I'm an engineer and know exactly what I'm talking about. Did I miss the post where you provided facts and figures? I'm sure your studies of microbiology have prepared you much better for a discussion on extended structures, rocketry, energy, and space science than my background ever did. :roll:

What you're tired of is your own inabiltity to perceive facts that refute your nonsense opinions.

You're out of your depth.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Actually, I'm an engineer and know exactly what I'm talking about. Did I miss the post where you provided facts and figures? I'm sure your studies of microbiology have prepared you much better for a discussion on extended structures, rocketry, energy, and space science than my background ever did. :roll:

What you're tired of is your own inabiltity to perceive facts that refute your nonsense opinions.

You're out of your depth.
Ok, now you're just flat out lying.
There's no way any engineer would ever post such rediculous non-sense of the methoods you've mentioned here thus far. Unless that is you are an engineer in the sense of a cable engineer. Your posts credit to knowledge that stems merely from highschool calculations.
In particular the calculation of mass to thrust of using Saturn V's. No engineer would ever make that sort of mistake.
 
:good_job: Giving Scarecrow a Standing Ovation. My brother is an engineer that worked on Rutan's Spaceship One program (another thing the nay sayers claimed was impossible) and he agrees with Scarecrow.
 
jfuh said:
Ok, now you're just flat out lying.
There's no way any engineer would ever post such rediculous non-sense of the methoods you've mentioned here thus far. Unless that is you are an engineer in the sense of a cable engineer. Your posts credit to knowledge that stems merely from highschool calculations.
In particular the calculation of mass to thrust of using Saturn V's. No engineer would ever make that sort of mistake.

I've swayed multi-million dollar projects in on the spot meetings using a scraps of paper and a pencil, with cartoon pictures and off the top of my head estimates of loads and stresses. When something's impossible it's easy to show, if you know how.

Since you haven't show what I say to be impossible (yeah, you gotta use the algebra you learned in high school. If doing that was a flaw in my argument, too bad), then as far as I'm concerned, it's totally possible. Actually, it's totally possible anyway, but who's quibbling?

You haven't stated how your microbiology training qualifies you for a discussion of extended space structures and basic engineering. I'm waiting.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I've swayed multi-million dollar projects in on the spot meetings using a scraps of paper and a pencil, with cartoon pictures and off the top of my head estimates of loads and stresses. When something's impossible it's easy to show, if you know how.

Since you haven't show what I say to be impossible (yeah, you gotta use the algebra you learned in high school. If doing that was a flaw in my argument, too bad), then as far as I'm concerned, it's totally possible. Actually, it's totally possible anyway, but who's quibbling?

You haven't stated how your microbiology training qualifies you for a discussion of extended space structures and basic engineering. I'm waiting.
Everything you have shown this far is clear indication that you know nothing about the basic princibles of any space launch. Launch weight, launch times, economic value of something that will cost more to retrieve then it will once retrieved.
You're lieing again when you say you've swayed any form of financing if the forms of "evidence" you gave here are any indication of how you think.

Now microbio, perhaps you would like to read my occupation again. Do you know what materials science is? Thus again you are a liar.
 
Vandeervecken said:
:good_job: Giving Scarecrow a Standing Ovation. My brother is an engineer that worked on Rutan's Spaceship One program (another thing the nay sayers claimed was impossible) and he agrees with Scarecrow.
Yes and I worked with the Nobel laurette in Chemistry Alan G. MacDiarmid in chemistry.
Please, your posts here of credentials prove absolutly nothing. You can claim to be Burt Rutan if you wanted to and still your arguments would flat out catch your lies.
Now as for what's been presented by scarecrow, I didn't say his arguments were impossible, I said they were improbable and founded on science fiction but not the realities of science.
 
jfuh said:
Everything you have shown this far is clear indication that you know nothing about the basic princibles of any space launch. Launch weight, launch times, economic value of something that will cost more to retrieve then it will once retrieved.
You're lieing again when you say you've swayed any form of financing if the forms of "evidence" you gave here are any indication of how you think.

Now microbio, perhaps you would like to read my occupation again. Do you know what materials science is? Thus again you are a liar.


Your Profile Info, provided by YOU:

jfuh said:
Gender:
Male
Interests:
Great Out doors and the Deep Blue
Occupation:
Materials Science/ Microbiology
Political Leaning:
Moderate
Party Affiliation:
Independent

Since you allege surprise at my mention of your skills in microbiology, the ONLY possible conclusion to be drawn from your profile is that you forget what bits of fiction you put down.

You must be feeling really embarssed right now, getting caught like that...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your Profile Info, provided by YOU:



Since you allege surprise at my mention of your skills in microbiology, the ONLY possible conclusion to be drawn from your profile is that you forget what bits of fiction you put down.

You must be feeling really embarssed right now, getting caught like that...

doh boy :2rofll:
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Your Profile Info, provided by YOU:



Since you allege surprise at my mention of your skills in microbiology, the ONLY possible conclusion to be drawn from your profile is that you forget what bits of fiction you put down.

You must be feeling really embarssed right now, getting caught like that...
Embarassed? now why would I do that? Look again Materials Science/ Microbiology. Figure it out Engineer, have any idea of what that / means? At least I have been straight forward and honest, much less of what you bave been saying with regards to anything.
Keep it up liar, keep it up.
 
jfuh said:
Embarassed? now why would I do that? Look again Materials Science/ Microbiology. Figure it out Engineer, have any idea of what that / means? At least I have been straight forward and honest, much less of what you bave been saying with regards to anything.
Keep it up liar, keep it up.

good comeback :roll:
 
jfuh said:
Embarassed? now why would I do that? Look again Materials Science/ Microbiology. Figure it out Engineer, have any idea of what that / means? At least I have been straight forward and honest, much less of what you bave been saying with regards to anything.
Keep it up liar, keep it up.


Umm...you're the guy asking why I would mention microbiology to you. You're a troll. I'm through with you.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Umm...you're the guy asking why I would mention microbiology to you. You're a troll. I'm through with you.
Cat caught your tongue? Couldn't keep the lies up?
Lame.
 
Well, if no one else is going to post, let's talk about what's needed to go to the moon for a while.

To begin a colony, we'll have to cart everything there from earth. Air, food, water, walls, floor, roof, power plant and recyling sytem.

The Saturn V was stretched to it's limit to send two men to the surface of the moon and get them back again (yes, I'm quite perfectly aware that Mike Collins stayed in orbit with the CM, thank you).

We're not limited by the payload capacity of the SV, though, or with the limitations of every flight being a manned flight. This both saves a lot of money and increases the amount of cargo that can be delivered. Man-rated systems also require higher safety factors, life support, and redunancy, all of which cost weight.

So let's launch the house, the food, the pond, the family car, and the septic system and the airconditioner before we start our vacation to the moon.

The living structures would be shipped as disassembled pre-fab units ready for assembly on site. There would be at least two units, with completely independent environmental control and power. If one house fails, they can't call the plumber to come fix it.

Six men can rest and sleep in a six-by-nine foot bunk room, with three bunks on each side. Works on submarines, can work on the moon. Air matresses, of course. Foam mattresses have weight and volume problems in shipping.

Most things, especially the walls, would be made of carbon fiber composite laminate boards with aluminum honeycomb core. Depending on the exact materials used, a 1 inch thick board has a mass of about half a pound per square foot. Thus the walls of a 6 x 9 x 8 foot tall room would have a surface area of 348 sq ft and an earthweight of 120 lbs.

Of course, that doesn't include the stiffeners and support structure this box would need, so multimpy that number by four. The bedroom has an earth weight of 500 lbs.

Say the galley/panty is the same, and the sanitary facilities are in a similar modularized room. Add also a recreation room, because the lesson of Skylab should always be remembered. If we're going there to stay, the crew will want Sundays off.

Add in a work-room laboratory that's twice the area of the other rooms. This would have a weight of about 900 lbs, without the supporting structure. Assume that too has mass uncertainty factor of 4.0. 3600 lbs for the lab.

Did I mention that they have to ship an solar electric bulldozer up, too? A vital bit of construction, we need that to dump lunar soil on top of our house. If the weight of the dirt on top equals the force of the air pressure underneath, we don't have to make the structure like a pressure vessel holding internal pressure. The sides of the structure will still require bracing, though. Also, the soil will act as a very necessary radiation shield.

So, we got four 500 lb rooms, and a 4000 lb laboratory. Times two. Plust a bulldozer I'll say weighs a ton.

So, so far we're talking 12,000 pounds plus the dozer, so that's 14,000 lbs.

The Wikipedia says

The module was designed to carry two crew in a 6.65 m³ space. The total module was 6.4 m high and 4.3 m across, resting on four legs. It consisted of two stages—the descent stage module and the ascent stage. The total mass of the module was 15,264 kg with the majority of that (10,334 kg) in the descent stage.

The LM descent stage could land, safely 5,000 kg of payload, or 11,000 lbs. Clearly we could launch the structure for a moon colony on one Saturn V and give it a soft landing. Again, because this is an unmanned delivery (and we have better analysis tools), the LM we actuall use would have a higher payload ratio. So I haven't even started to dig into the 5800 kg mass of the Command/Service Module the Saturn Five launched with each LM.

So, yeah, we could launch a pre-fab outpost with existing technology. We could have done it in 1973.

The real question isn't one of ability, it's one of why.

The moon gives us something a space station can't. Real estate. Want to build a rail gun to shoot packages around the solar system? Anchor it on the moon and ignore that pesky Newton and his Law of Action and Reaction.

There's STUFF up there. Free stuff, just laying around that didn't cost anything to ship from earth. Well, yeah, it looks a lot like dirt and rocks, but hey, it's free! Aluminum ore on earth looks suspiciously like mud, too.

Okay, we got dirt on earh. What else does the moon have to offer? Nothing. Huge quanities of nothing at all. The moon has a vacuum that can't be achieved in earthly laboratories without a lot of hard expensive work. So how much better would microchips be if they could be made in a completely dust and oxygen free environment? High quality microchips will probably become a cornerstone of lunar industry.

Plenty of silicon up there, too.

So, the colony's buildable (I have talked costs, though), and there's stuff to exploit. Instead of wasting billions of dollars on "bridges to nowhere" or socialized medicine or bribes to Yasser Arafat, the US could do itself a big favor by exploiting the moon.

One hurdle, though. The stupid space treaty.

I'll get back to that later.
 
I don't know Scarecrow, couldn't you give us some details?

Wow, what a slam-dunk.
 
Of course, we don't have to fly pre-fab aircraft carbon fiber composite sandwich panels.

How about inflatable houses? They'd be pretty light, and we'd still have pour dirt on top to insulate and protect from radiation anyway. Also, one needn't worry about the weather blowing the structure around, eh?

I imagine that in the beginning, during the construction phase, trips will last less than two weeks, coinciding with the site's lunar dawn and ending at lunar sunset, until they get an alternate power supply to run things through the night. Get's pretty cold up there, in the dark. Real damn quick, too.

I would expect the first on-site power station would be a nuclear reactor, a convetion uranium burning fission plant but there are alternatives.

We could string wires around the moon, linking up solar voltaic cells. Pretty lossy, though, since they're facing I2R losses, even if they use homegrown aluminum wires. (what? ship six thousand miles of copper wire up from the earth? uh-uh!)

Perhaps it could be possible to beam sunlight around the moon using mirrors? No, our resident expert, jfuh, says mirrors don't reflect light.

Then again, how about using superconductive lines girdling the moon in a trench that has permanent shadow to keep the conductors out of sunlight. Okay, our expert is going to say "impossible", but I'm only echoing a proposal by the Chairman of the British Interplanetary Society, as detailed in a 1986 issue of "Spaecflight".

Power will be a problem for a permanent colony, until they develop enough industry to buiild their own equipment on site. To make simple aluminum bus-bars, flat rectangular section bars that wires can be bolted to for the distribution of electric power, the colony will require:

Ore (lunar soil is fairly rich in a number of metals, including aluminum and titanium)

Mining facilities. That bulldozer they used to bury their house shouldn't be left idle.

Smelting facitilies. The sun, a mirror, crucibles, and such. An iron pot can hold molten aluminum, once it's separated. While all the stuff needed must first come from earth, I see no reason why growth won't come from local materials.

But now it gets difficult. Forming and shaping requires machine tools, and I suspect that it will be along long time before they can make their own lathes and milling machines. But that's what needs to happen in the long run.

Again, though, markets need to exist for the procucts. How are those created? Businesses expect a return on their investments, and as far as I'm concerned, governments don't have a place this picture. If the free market can't sustain a lunar colony, it shouldn't be built.
 
Why don't we just nuke the hell out of the moon just for kicks? That would solve alot of stuff, like ending worldly hunger and stopping terrorism. How? I dunno, just ask the little grey alien standing next to me.
 
I for one believe we should go back to the moon.
I see the moon as a starting point for developing other space technologies
The moon has resources that could be mined for shipment back to Earth or used in an overall program to launch a mission to Mars and beyond.
Allowing all the kinks to be worked out closer to earth.
The technologies gained from having a lunar base are countless.

Some replies back I read a post about having a VLT on the Moon. That would be a great idea. Because of its low gravity the support structures could be made mobile…

Yes…..MOBLIE!
 
Did we really land on the moon the first time? That's one conspiracy theory I think might actually have some merit. I sorta side with the "we faked it" crowd.
 
Do you know that TV show myth busters got tons of requests for them to debunk the conspiracy theory that the moon landings were faked. And they came to the conclusion that the only way they could prove/disprove the lunar landings would be to actually go to the moon and retrieve something left from the last landing. :rofl But they did do extensive reseach because that was one of their favorite myths that they would love to prove/disprove. They just can't.
 
talloulou said:
Did we really land on the moon the first time? That's one conspiracy theory I think might actually have some merit. I sorta side with the "we faked it" crowd.

Why?

Why would we fake it, when we can do it?

Why would you believe the looney conspiracy people about anything?
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Why?

Why would we fake it, when we can do it?

Well why wouldn't they just send a rover to the moon to point out the crap we left up there and shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all?

Why would they give up exploring the moon so quickly? If we could land on the moon why wouldn't we explore it to its fullest? Why wouldn't we map it all out and learn everything possible to learn about it? Why wouldn't we try to build something on the moon?

If we really landed on the moon then it is my opinion that our space program has been working backwards vs forwards for the last couple of decades and why would we do that?

But here is my biggest question: Why would the Russians give up? Why would we have a race to the moon and the Russians would just say fine you win now we don't need to bother even going? Wouldn't they still want to get their flag up there too?


Why would you believe the looney conspiracy people about anything?
I love conspiracy theories, especially a good one. They interest me. But I have researched the moon landings pretty thoroughly from both sides.

And I have to say from all my research the idea that we faked the moon landings has a "truer" ring to it than not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom