Saru Posted June 20, 2013 #1 Share Posted June 20, 2013 House Republicans are contemplating whether to push for a Moon base instead of visiting an asteroid. House Republican leaders want to push for outposts on the moon and Mars — and they want to push NASA's plan to snare an asteroid into the dustbin, according to a discussion draft of their space spending plan. Read more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trancelikestate Posted June 20, 2013 #2 Share Posted June 20, 2013 My votes for the moon base. It'll be the next step towards the colonization of space. This is an exciting concept. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
krypter3 Posted June 20, 2013 #3 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Logic says moon base. If we set up a permanent base on the moon, it would be much easier to launch space missions. They could develop space vessels on the moon and launch them without all the drama of gravity and atmosphere. Once we can launch ships from the moon, then we look for an asteroid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 20, 2013 #4 Share Posted June 20, 2013 It seems liek there are a lot of commercial enterprises looking to set up a moon base so NASA should go after the asteroid since teh moon base concept looks to be going forward regardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marcos anthony toledo Posted June 20, 2013 #5 Share Posted June 20, 2013 How about pooling our resources by entering into coalition with other spacefaring nations to explore space. This would spread the costs and risks making a moon-mars bases more affordable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 20, 2013 #6 Share Posted June 20, 2013 How about pooling our resources by entering into coalition with other spacefaring nations to explore space. This would spread the costs and risks making a moon-mars bases more affordable. I believe NASA has already stated that they would be willing to partner up on a moon mission but did not want to be the lead agency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Papagiorgio Posted June 20, 2013 #7 Share Posted June 20, 2013 How about we give NASA more funding, and they can do both. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Collateral Damage Posted June 20, 2013 #8 Share Posted June 20, 2013 How about we give NASA more funding, and they can do both. You read my mind. Perhaps that 3+Billion/year to Israel should be going to much greater causes... That's just my opinion, though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 20, 2013 #9 Share Posted June 20, 2013 I believe NASA has already stated that they would be willing to partner up on a moon mission but did not want to be the lead agency. there is something wrong with that, if your not the lead you don't control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 20, 2013 #10 Share Posted June 20, 2013 You read my mind. Perhaps that 3+Billion/year to Israel should be going to much greater causes... That's just my opinion, though. How about the three billion to our new enemy, egypt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 20, 2013 #11 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Perhaps that 3+Billion/year to Israel should be going to much greater causes... That's just my opinion, though. How about the three billion to our new enemy, egypt. How about we avoid bring off topic Middle-Eastern politics into this and actually discuss NASA's future. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rolci Posted June 20, 2013 #12 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Since when does the US need permission from the people to build moon bases? There are loads of those already, but of course you and I are not benefiting from that at the moment in too many ways. You want to watch the 2013 Citizen Hearing on UFO disclosure. In case there are still any around that have any remaining shreds of doubt that we already have the tech to travel to the stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bavarian Raven Posted June 20, 2013 #13 Share Posted June 20, 2013 How about we avoid bring off topic Middle-Eastern politics into this and actually discuss NASA's future. If i may voice my 2 cents, i'd say they make a fair point though. That money, if provided to Nasa yearly, could make a world of difference in space exploration imho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 20, 2013 #14 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) Since when does the US need permission from the people to build moon bases? There are loads of those already, but of course you and I are not benefiting from that at the moment in too many ways. You want to watch the 2013 Citizen Hearing on UFO disclosure. In case there are still any around that have any remaining shreds of doubt that we already have the tech to travel to the stars. Come on man! Do you really think we have moon bases? I have my opinion here but it is interesting to see what others think and i could easily change my mind but this stuff, hidden moon bases, just detracts from the conversation. Edited June 20, 2013 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 20, 2013 #15 Share Posted June 20, 2013 (edited) In case there are still any around that have any remaining shreds of doubt that we already have the tech to travel to the stars. There is a section called Extraterrestrial Life & The UFO Phenomenon that should be a big clue as to where to make posts like the one above. Now can we please have on topic discussion. Not the Middle East. Not UFOs, but NASA's asteroid mission and whether it will be/should be cancelled. Edited June 20, 2013 by Waspie_Dwarf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waspie_Dwarf Posted June 20, 2013 #16 Share Posted June 20, 2013 That money, if provided to Nasa yearly, could make a world of difference in space exploration imho. Actually it would increase NASA's budget by only about 16%. Significant but hardly a world of difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 20, 2013 #17 Share Posted June 20, 2013 there is something wrong with that, if your not the lead you don't control. We are partners in several space programs and lead in many more. We have been to the moon and, as I said, i think that commercial interests will be going there soon for myriad reasons so let them. NASA is about breaking new ground, doing things that aren't profitable, at the moment, but worth doing nonetheless and capturing and returning an asteroid is huge in my book. Think of what we could find on these ancient travelers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 20, 2013 #18 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Nasa needs to lead in the research. Most companies won't do a lot of research, unless hey see profit in it. Part of that research needs to be habitates. Another thing to think about. Of all the colonists that came to america, only one group came to stay. Everyone else was coming here t. get rich. They were then going to go back to civilization. Look a what came from that single group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 20, 2013 #19 Share Posted June 20, 2013 Nasa needs to lead in the research. Most companies won't do a lot of research, unless hey see profit in it. Part of that research needs to be habitates. Another thing to think about. Of all the colonists that came to america, only one group came to stay. Everyone else was coming here t. get rich. They were then going to go back to civilization. Look a what came from that single group. A commercial enterprise will be able to design a habitat and getting rich is what America is all about, or used to be. it is a great motivator and most of our progress is directly related to that motive. only recently has getting rich become an insult. Just think of the panspermia theory and what we could discover if an asteroid contained ancient bacteria. How mind boggling would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 21, 2013 #20 Share Posted June 21, 2013 I didn't mean there was anything wrong with profit. I don't know how much tech./profit from all of naa's research. I heard on the show the universe, that we get to the nearest star in 46 years. I don't know if that means right now or in the near future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 21, 2013 #21 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) A commercial enterprise will be able to design a habitat and getting rich is what America is all about, or used to be. it is a great motivator and most of our progress is directly related to that motive. only recently has getting rich become an insult. Just think of the panspermia theory and what we could discover if an asteroid contained ancient bacteria. How mind boggling would that be? Unless that rock came from an impact with earth. Edited June 21, 2013 by danielost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ciriuslea Posted June 21, 2013 #22 Share Posted June 21, 2013 Was the Asteroid capture ever a serious project or just a project put forward so NASA didn't have to fully contemplate the proposal put forward by the Mars Society, this new project, bases on the moon could even use some of the same technology or Ideas developed by the Mars society ? could it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted June 21, 2013 #23 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) Was the Asteroid capture ever a serious project or just a project put forward so NASA didn't have to fully contemplate the proposal put forward by the Mars Society, this new project, bases on the moon could even use some of the same technology or Ideas developed by the Mars society ? could it ? http://www.usatoday....apture/2071635/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_capture Edited June 21, 2013 by Merc14 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danielost Posted June 21, 2013 #24 Share Posted June 21, 2013 We will need to use non-poluting energy sources. Solar could work during the day. A martian day is twenty four hours, almost the same as earth's is. How ever the moons day is about two earth weeks long, meaning its night is about three weeks long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnderOTD Posted June 21, 2013 #25 Share Posted June 21, 2013 (edited) As a previous poster pointed out, if we could perfect the technology first with an established colony on our own satellite, perhaps eventually capturing an asteroid later would be more efficient. We would benefit from such an approach imo. Edited June 21, 2013 by EnderOTD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now