• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

I firmly believe we need a base on the moon as a preemptive strike against the alien intergalactic federation somewhere within the Milky Way

That or we need it to fight off Galactus
 
You can't fight Galactus. Maybe the Skrulls, but not Galactus.
 
Donal said:
You can't fight Galactus. Maybe the Skrulls, but not Galactus.
Click to expand...


That is why we need the base.... to enable us to fight Galactus.... but don't tell Galactus that.... he might do a preemptive retaliation ..: D
 
Last edited:
The only reason I can think of to have a permanent moon base is to have a permanent presence of moon scientists doing moon science. I.e., the same and only reason to have a permanent base in Antarctica.
 
theprestige said:
The only reason I can think of to have a permanent moon base is to have a permanent presence of moon scientists doing moon science. I.e., the same and only reason to have a permanent base in Antarctica.
Click to expand...

I concur. Ultimately that is going to be the only reason for it, and once it gets easy enough to do, it will get done. A far side radiotelescope would be a wonderful thing.

It will happen after we have fusion energy to the point where you can launch a rocket with it, either directly or via a launch laser.

The commercial space ventures, Elon Musk's commendable sense of adventure aside, are not going to do more than give us slightly cheaper variants on the chemical rockets we have been building since 1940. They will make earth orbit more accessible and will make robot probes to the planets cheaper, but will never make launches cheap enough to build a permanent moon base with less than trillions.
 
I'm also for the plan of etching the Bat Symbol into the moon as well.
 
BenBurch said:
I concur. Ultimately that is going to be the only reason for it, and once it gets easy enough to do, it will get done. A far side radiotelescope would be a wonderful thing.

It will happen after we have fusion energy to the point where you can launch a rocket with it, either directly or via a launch laser.

The commercial space ventures, Elon Musk's commendable sense of adventure aside, are not going to do more than give us slightly cheaper variants on the chemical rockets we have been building since 1940. They will make earth orbit more accessible and will make robot probes to the planets cheaper, but will never make launches cheap enough to build a permanent moon base with less than trillions.
Click to expand...


Newt only proposed that moon base thinking he would appease the Floridians after the Shuttle program cancellation.

OR…..maybe he has some inside information about already existing and viable fusion reactors? :D
 
BenBurch said:
I concur. Ultimately that is going to be the only reason for it, and once it gets easy enough to do, it will get done. A far side radiotelescope would be a wonderful thing.

It will happen after we have fusion energy to the point where you can launch a rocket with it, either directly or via a launch laser.

The commercial space ventures, Elon Musk's commendable sense of adventure aside, are not going to do more than give us slightly cheaper variants on the chemical rockets we have been building since 1940. They will make earth orbit more accessible and will make robot probes to the planets cheaper, but will never make launches cheap enough to build a permanent moon base with less than trillions.
Click to expand...
Well, that's certainly NOT certain from about fourteen different directions.

There is simply nothing wrong with large numbers of chemical rockets being routinely launched if the launches produce profits. It happens, as an example, that He3 mining on the moon may be such an example. However, as you have mentioned, this might not require many (or any) humans. My guess is though it would be a mix of humans and robots.

Suppose that was the case, and the human staff was only 3 - 6. That would in and of itself be an outstanding achievement in pushing the boundaries of space exploration.

It hardly rises to the status of a "colony", of course.
 
theprestige said:
The only reason I can think of to have a permanent moon base is to have a permanent presence of moon scientists doing moon science. I.e., the same and only reason to have a permanent base in Antarctica.
Click to expand...
So Stephen Hawking's reasons don't appeal to you?
 
Muldur said:
Mhaze:

First, we need fusion technology (which we don't have).

Second, we would have to pay the cost of the trip there. As a point of comparison, a single space shuttle launch was ~$450 million

Source

That's $450 million plus each and every time we have to launch a mission either to retrieve the processed fuel, plus each and every supply mission, plus each and every personnel changeout.

The numbers as far as I can see just don't add up, even if we DID have fusion tech (which, again, we do NOT).

Meanwhile, here's my promised list (not all inclusive) of what just 1 billion dollars can buy (numbers chosen for clarity of example):

1 million month's rent (or 1 year's rent for 83,333 families) @ $1000/month

1000 homes purchased outright @ $100,000 each

10 million weeks of food assistance @ $100/week

10 million months of energy assistance @ $100/month

5 million month's of health insurance premiums @ $200/month

400,000 basic transportation cars for low income people @ 2,500/car

I ask (again), which of you space program advocates is going to look little Johnny and Suzie Sixpack in the eye and tell them they can't eat tonight because the money that COULD provide them food is being spent on a wasteful, entirely speculative and unnecessary lunar colony?

Space activities beyond launching needful satellites and an asteroid watch program are a luxury item we cannot afford and should not spend money on at this time.
Click to expand...

Personally, I would much rather pay for a moon base than pay your rent and buy you a car.
 
theprestige said:
The only reason I can think of to have a permanent moon base is to have a permanent presence of moon scientists doing moon science. I.e., the same and only reason to have a permanent base in Antarctica.
Click to expand...


I would think one could build some truly huge telescopes in that low lunar gravity.
 
What is wrong with a moon base?

How much would it cost?

Wouldn't it be less than the 100 billion dollars that Obama basically threw in the gutter?

I doubt anyone here has the scientific background to say it would be a BAD idea. Can anyone give a link to writing denouncing it scientifically?

I think the Libs were all praising Kennedy when I first wanted to go to the moon. But now a right-winger is suggesting a perm base you all join hands and blindly say it is stupid or not worth the cost. Typical.
 
Last edited:
Bill Thompson said:
What is wrong with a moon base?
Click to expand...
Cost vs. return on investment. There are also many technological obstacles that have yet to be overcome. My main objection was putting a ridiculously short deadline on the project for political purposes.

Bill Thompson said:
How much would it cost?

Wouldn't it be less than the 100 billion dollars that Obama basically threw in the gutter?
Click to expand...
Our current estimate is 3 Trillion dollars. You should read the rest of the thread.

Bill Thompson said:
I doubt anyone here has the scientific background to say it would be a BAD idea. Can anyone give a link to writing denouncing it scientifically?
Click to expand...
Several have been discussed here. Read the thread and Google anything you want clarified.

Bill Thompson said:
I think the Libs were all praising Kennedy when I first wanted to go to the moon. But now a right-winger is suggesting a perm base you all join hands and blindly say it is stupid or not worth the cost. Typical.
Click to expand...
George W. Bush had plans to build a moon base and scrapped the idea because it was too expensive with little or no return on the investment. Kennedy's space race was a cold war publicity stunt done in a time of relative prosperity. I'm not against the idea in general. I just think it is wrong to do it for political reasons and that it is going to take much longer than two of our political cycles to achieve.

You haven't even read the thread and you accuse us of blindly denouncing Newt's plan. Typical.
 
Last edited:
This is a bit of a derail, but probably doesn't warrant its own thread.

The Tennessee campaign co-director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign said in a recent radio interview that AIDS in humans came from "one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men."

Not surprisingly, the statement got a Pants on Fire from PolitiFact.

-Bri
 
Bri said:
This is a bit of a derail, but probably doesn't warrant its own thread.

The Tennessee campaign co-director for Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign said in a recent radio interview that AIDS in humans came from "one guy screwing a monkey, if I recall correctly, and then having sex with men."

Not surprisingly, the statement got a Pants on Fire from PolitiFact.

-Bri
Click to expand...
Now I really have got to compliment you on that "bit of a derail". We're talking about technical and economic feasibility of a moon base, and you want to talk about guys screwing monkeys and other guys and aids and who knows what else.

Reminds me of my complaint a while back that "every JREF thread turned into a discussion about gays". Well, dude you better watch out or we'll just round up all your gays and ... hey I tell you what, we'll send them to the moon. With no monkeys. Now WHO said we couldn't have a moonbase?

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom