Jump to content

The Ingredients of the Moon


bbrubaker
 Share

Recommended Posts

Gazing at the moon will just never be the same.

 

 

What's the moon made of? NASA mission finds it's nothing so simple as cheese.

 

It remains a place of mystery, for sure. But scientists say they now know that the moon has enough water to potentially quench the thirst of lunar astronauts and even fuel lunar rockets. Plus, it has a cache of familiar organic compounds - methane and ammonia, mercury and even traces of sulfur, iron and silver - that were found hidden away in the moon's deep shadows.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102103666.html?hpid%3Dartslot

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like to speak of our president being wrong, but Obomo is wrong to to cut back on our space program, and leave the moon to Japan and China. Japan has advanced robotiics, and the moon appears the perfect place for robotics to be advanced even further in mining activity. Whatever advances science and technology is worth our effort and the cost. To pull out now and leave this to Japan and China, seems a terrible mistake to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like to speak of our president being wrong, but Obomo is wrong to to cut back on our space program, and leave the moon to Japan and China. Japan has advanced robotiics, and the moon appears the perfect place for robotics to be advanced even further in mining activity. Whatever advances science and technology is worth our effort and the cost. To pull out now and leave this to Japan and China, seems a terrible mistake to me.

 

Yeah but the U.S. is so broke right now fighting pointless wars that I bet Obama's limo coasts down hills to save fuel. I agree the space program is important but not when money is so tight. If Nasa makes a manned mission to mars it will be an incredible feat who cares about the moon we've already been there. Long distance space travel is so much cooler we want our star trek fantasies to become real.

 

And besides the cost of retrieving the minerals on the moon is so prohibitive it would be nothing more than an expensive hobby. to try out new technology that really has no valid purpose to exist anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I read, the current administration's approach to space is to privatize the parts of the industry that would do well as private industry and allow NASA to concentrate on more challenging issues. Is that bad for space developments?

 

As for the moon, I sort of wonder why those rover robots were put on Mars but the only thing they've done for the moon lately is to shoot it. Shouldn't there be some rover robots on the moon examining the traces of water and other substances mentioned in the OP? Or would such rovers be ineffective at that task?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I read, the current administration's approach to space is to privatize the parts of the industry that would do well as private industry and allow NASA to concentrate on more challenging issues. Is that bad for space developments?

 

As for the moon, I sort of wonder why those rover robots were put on Mars but the only thing they've done for the moon lately is to shoot it. Shouldn't there be some rover robots on the moon examining the traces of water and other substances mentioned in the OP? Or would such rovers be ineffective at that task?

 

The way humans treat territory rights, I would think it is very important the US secure a claim to at least part of the moon. I googled moon verses Mars and didn't find a good explanation for choosing Mars over the moon. I thought the arguments for choosing the moon were best. If something went wrong, it be much easier to get help to the moon than Mars, or get people back. But the Mercury on the moon is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way humans treat territory rights, I would think it is very important the US secure a claim to at least part of the moon. I googled moon verses Mars and didn't find a good explanation for choosing Mars over the moon. I thought the arguments for choosing the moon were best. If something went wrong, it be much easier to get help to the moon than Mars, or get people back. But the Mercury on the moon is a problem.

Establishing territory rights implies that anyone is going to just back off and leave someone else to do whatever they want with their part of the moon because it is theirs. More likely, there will be numerous voices expressing various interests, many of them just interested in conserving the moon in its relatively natural state. Still, people will probably be able to agree on certain uses, in which case some specific business ventures may be pursued, such as a vacation resort, scientific laboratory, etc.

 

I think the reason we're talking about sending ppl to Mars instead of the moon is because Mars has some atmosphere a day/night cycle and near-Earth gravitation. There's also plenty of rust to recycle into steel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be pointed out that the space program is a drop in the bucket compared to the military and the wars we are fighting. It's always good politics to use the space program as a whipping boy to convince people you are willing to cut the fat off the budget but the space program is more representative of a hang nail than fat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it should be pointed out that the space program is a drop in the bucket compared to the military and the wars we are fighting. It's always good politics to use the space program as a whipping boy to convince people you are willing to cut the fat off the budget but the space program is more representative of a hang nail than fat.

 

Hum, I was under the impression Star Wars was a military expense. Isn't there a strategic reason for having a base on the moon?

 

Actually, it appears China and possably Russia and Japan are interested in the hellium 3. There isn't a whole lot of it on earth. This means nuclear plants are not practical because the earth resources are too limited. However, the moon has a lot of the stuff. This means energy, and energy means a good economy, and a good economy means a first class military.

 

http://www.dailygala...-moon-heli.html

 

Moontanman, I think you will appreciate this one

 

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

 

It was NASA'a plan for a moon base

Edited by Athena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hum, I was under the impression Star Wars was a military expense. Isn't there a strategic reason for having a base on the moon?

 

Actually, it appears China and possably Russia and Japan are interested in the hellium 3. There isn't a whole lot of it on earth. This means nuclear plants are not practical because the earth resources are too limited. However, the moon has a lot of the stuff. This means energy, and energy means a good economy, and a good economy means a first class military.

 

http://www.dailygala...-moon-heli.html

Moontanman, I think you will appreciate this one

 

http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276

 

It was NASA'a plan for a moon base

 

 

Star Wars really doesn't have anything to do with space travel, it's an out dated concept that was never really financed.

 

Everyone is interested in the helium 3 on the moon in one way or another. I doubt there would be much strategic interest in a moon base. I hope we do not abandon the space program but I am pretty sure it will still be a whipping boy for politicians who want to be noticed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.