Forty years ago, the first humans were on their way to land on the only other celestial body man has set foot on. The actual anniversary of the landing takes place on Monday, but I figured it would be a good way to get discussion started.
We haven't been to the moon since 1972, so do you think it's time to go back soon?
is there any reason why we haven't gone back yet?
Quote from: Tom Servo on July 16, 2009, 07:51:38 PM
is there any reason why we haven't gone back yet?
money, lack of interest, no one to compete with.
I say we got to Mars next. 8 months isn't too bad! We could always make our own version of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel with the food paste to pass the time. (stupid reference ftl)
Quote from: Nayrman on July 16, 2009, 07:56:22 PM
money, lack of interest, no one to compete with.
I say we got to Mars next. 8 months isn't too bad! We could always make our own version of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel with the food paste to pass the time. (stupid reference ftl)
NASA wants to build a base on the moon to launch a Mars rocket from there, but wouldn't it be better to use suspended animation? Probably because there would have to be someone/something not in suspended animation to watch the astronauts and equipment.
Quote from: Tupin on July 16, 2009, 08:05:46 PM
NASA wants to build a base on the moon to launch a Mars rocket from there, but wouldn't it be better to use suspended animation? Probably because there would have to be someone/something not in suspended animation to watch the astronauts and equipment.
also it's not really possible to put someone in suspended animation and have them live, at least not yet
What's the point of going to the moon?
It's just a rock.
Quote from: Tsumaru on July 16, 2009, 08:22:40 PM
What's the point of going to the moon?
It's just a rock.
Progress. Also, people can't wait to go into outer place and screw over other planets without fixing their own.
The only reason we haven't is because when you go there, there's no privacy, you either have someone near you or a camera watching you. So you can't fool around. And even if you could, there's no where to flush it. Imagine 8 months without ANY FORM of sexual pleasure whatsoever (besides in your dreams)
there's no real point in visiting the moon. Everything we need to know can be figured out in other ways.
For example, I believe a few weeks ago, a probe was dropped onto the surface of the moon. This probe was designed to crash into the moon at high speed and at a specific place. This dropping would spew up particles into the... let's call it, atmosphere, of the moon. Another lunar module is due to orbit above the crash site some time within the next few months, i believe. This is to check for minerals, but more importantly, to check for water particles.
There's no current point in going to the moon. If we want a moon base, we need a space station big enough to get there from. We don't have that yet. The ISS is about the size of a four bedroom house (iirc).
Yeah, and the ISS will be at full operation just in time to be decommissioned.
Quote from: Nayrman on July 16, 2009, 07:56:22 PM
money, lack of interest, no one to compete with.
I say we got to Mars next. 8 months isn't too bad! We could always make our own version of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel with the food paste to pass the time. (stupid reference ftl)
what was that movie called again? Rocket Man?
Quote from: Tupin on July 16, 2009, 08:52:27 PM
Yeah, and the ISS will be at full operation just in time to be decommissioned.
Worst money sinkhole ever. The US should have never gotten involved and should have simply pressed ahead with its own moon base or Mars exploration.
Quote from: Tsumaru on July 16, 2009, 08:22:40 PM
What's the point of going to the moon?
It's just a rock.
The moon is a stepping stone towards deeper space. We need to learn how to stand up before we can learn how to walk. Or run. Or travel between stars.
The point? We're going to eventually need to leave this planet or be incinerated by the Sun. Or we can just sit here and wait while the government and business gobble up more and more of daily life, watch TV, fap to porn, etc.
The point? Tons of experimental technology developed in the space program has become instrumental to civilian life. (http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml)
The point? We can see how commonplace life and intelligent life are in the universe. If there are other civilizations out there, there's a lot that we can learn from each other.
The point? Space is a tabula rasa; it offers humans the opportunity to better themselves and each other (or continue to intercourse up, but the opportunity is what counts, not the outcome).
The point? Exploration is philosophically appealing.
Quote from: Nayrman on July 16, 2009, 07:56:22 PM
money, lack of interest, no one to compete with.
I say we got to Mars next. 8 months isn't too bad! We could always make our own version of Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel with the food paste to pass the time. (stupid reference ftl)
Quote from: Echo on July 16, 2009, 09:14:31 PM
what was that movie called again? Rocket Man?
Yes.
we will be eventually incinerated by the sun.
in a few million years.
Exactly.
A few million years.
Plus, intergalactic travel is humanly impossible.
Sci-fi and all that poop poisons peoples' minds.
Getting to Mars, and possibly the moons of Jupiter, are the only thing we can really hope for as a race.
Unless, and this is a huge stretch, we fully uncover the Theory of Everything.
Then, we could hypothetically uncover the secret to instantaneous travel, should it truly exist as speculated by the details of the Big Bang.
We could go to the moon, we could live on the moon.
But what is the point.
Unless water is found and greenhouses built, the moon is too uninhabitable to be worthwhile.
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on July 16, 2009, 09:15:40 PM
Worst money sinkhole ever. The US should have never gotten involved and should have simply pressed ahead with its own moon base or Mars exploration.
The moon is a stepping stone towards deeper space. We need to learn how to stand up before we can learn how to walk. Or run. Or travel between stars.
The point? We're going to eventually need to leave this planet or be incinerated by the Sun. Or we can just sit here and wait while the government and business gobble up more and more of daily life, watch TV, fap to porn, etc.
The point? Tons of experimental technology developed in the space program has become instrumental to civilian life. (http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/en/kids/spinoffs2.shtml)
The point? We can see how commonplace life and intelligent life are in the universe. If there are other civilizations out there, there's a lot that we can learn from each other.
The point? Space is a tabula rasa; it offers humans the opportunity to better themselves and each other (or continue to intercourse up, but the opportunity is what counts, not the outcome).
The point? Exploration is philosophically appealing.
Yes.
uh-oh you got uncle PY all riled up again
get the tranks
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Unless water is found and greenhouses built, the moon is too uninhabitable to be worthwhile.
For regular civilization, yes, it wouldn't be very worthwhile unless it actually has resources.
With its lack of atmosphere, it would be rather useful for space studies I imagine. For one thing, launches from the moon would require less energy than a launch from Earth.
Quote from: Jono2 on July 16, 2009, 10:10:33 PM
we will be eventually incinerated by the sun.
in a few million years.
so let's sit around and mope and leave it for our descendants to fix
as i recall, the baby boomers did a similar thing with our economy, and we're currently reaping all of the benefits of it
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Exactly.
A few million years.
Plus, intergalactic travel is humanly impossible.
It may be. Of course, we'll never know if we don't try.
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Sci-fi and all that poop poisons peoples' minds.
How?
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Getting to Mars, and possibly the moons of Jupiter, are the only thing we can really hope for as a race.
I assume that you're clairvoyant and know precisely how the human race will end and precisely along what lines technology will develop. 50 years ago, computers were the sizes of rooms. Who could have imagined how small and powerful they'd be today? The Apollo 11 CPU clocked at just over 2.0 MHz, 2000 times (once you factor in the dual-core) slower than most low-end processors today. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Timing)
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
We could go to the moon, we could live on the moon.
But what is the point.
Now that you mention it, what's the point of living? Seems awfully boring, maybe I ought to just end it while I'm still ahead.
Quote from: HTA on July 16, 2009, 10:55:03 PM
Unless water is found and greenhouses built, the moon is too uninhabitable to be worthwhile.
See my previous post. The moon is a necessary stepping stone, one that we need to take if we're to learn how to live off of Earth for any extended period. It's three days away and significantly easier to supply, as opposed to Mars, which is six months (at best) away.
except that science is continually evolving. At its current rate, there's no rush to engage in space affairs. The field is expanding every day without a push like there was 40 years ago. Also, the current space program is a complete waste of time and money considering how many other problems there are in the world. We don't need any other planets yet.
Also, interstellar travel is possible, it will just take a long, long time, which will require cryogenics. In a vaccuum, there's very little resistance. If you have the fuel, you can keep accelerating. It's slowing down that's the problem.
Goddarn you guys!
And to whoever said "the moon is just a rock"
Yeah, and if you generalize everything like that, "wats so special about the internet its just electricity really"
>_>
Because physics says we can't.
My point on Sci-fi is making people think "Hey, one day in thousands of years we will have hyper drives and can travel throughout the galaxy!"
This is ridiculous. I've read quite a bit on physics, books written by the leaders of the field, and basically the laws of physics deny interstellar travel.
Jono, you say accelerating is no problem. I say that's wrong, because acceleration creates gravity like forces just as deceleration. To accelerate to speeds that are even a fraction of light speed (which we must reach if space travel is to become practical) would create forces so powerful that the people inside the ship (should the ship survive) would be smashed like pancakes.
Unless you accelerate slowly, but then it would takes years to get to your desired speed and then hundreds of years to reach your destination.
Either we kill our astronauts in acceleration or kill them of old age.
We simply are not fast enough, nor do we have sufficient life spans.
Mars and the moons of Jupiter are close, and therefore accessible. But anything farther is just too far to be reached.
And PY, yes it would be easy to supply the moon and it would help us understand how to live on other planets, but unless we can live off the moon without supplies from Earth there is no point in any further missions. Living on the moon but depending on the Earth is impractical, and the entire point of living on other planets is that one day Earth will be uninhabitable and we won't be getting constant supplies from it.
Considering moving this to Serious Discussion.
Quote from: HTA on July 17, 2009, 09:58:27 AM
Unless you accelerate slowly, but then it would takes years to get to your desired speed and then hundreds of years to reach your destination.
this is the reality of space travel.
HTA, you're going under the assumption that our scientific understanding of the world never changes. Who are you to say that we are incapable of perhaps disproving some of these laws? We can't now, so interstellar space travel is relatively limited, but to completely rule out the possibility is stupid. Science and our understanding of the universe constantly changes and should never be treated as something set in stone.
Quote from: Friendly Hostile on July 17, 2009, 02:03:05 PM
HTA, you're going under the assumption that our scientific understanding of the world never changes. Who are you to say that we are incapable of perhaps disproving some of these laws? We can't now, so interstellar space travel is relatively limited, but to completely rule out the possibility is stupid. Science and our understanding of the universe constantly changes and should never be treated as something set in stone.
This is basically what I wanted to say. Scientists and "leaders of the scientific field of physics" once thought breaking the sound barrier was physically impossible, and they were wrong.
Quote from: PsychoYoshi on July 16, 2009, 09:15:40 PM
Worst money sinkhole ever. The US should have never gotten involved and should have simply pressed ahead with its own moon base or Mars exploration.
not entirely, it showed countries that have bad history with each other can work together for a common goal
Quote from: Kilroy has a cheap suit on July 17, 2009, 05:12:11 PM
This is basically what I wanted to say. Scientists and "leaders of the scientific field of physics" once thought breaking the sound barrier was physically impossible, and they were wrong.
but there was never any scientific proof saying that it was impossible.
Thread was moved before post confirmed.
Sweet.
And guys, the 3 laws of motion are what hinders space flight.
Not some unproven, far flung theory of quantum physics.
Acceleration = G-forces
Distance to travel = hundreds of years.
Oh, and FH, it seems odd that an agnostic (or atheist, not sure which you are if either, and if you are religious I apologize) to believe that some day we will discover some amazing technology that will redefine physics even though all evidence points to the contrary. Don't you make assumptions and theories from facts? Isn't that why religion is so bad, because people who are religious make similar theories based on no factual evidence?
I prefer to stick with what we know as the truth when we are speaking about science.
flight
our trip to the moon
the internet
nanotechnology
cures for what were massively devestating diseases
automobiles
nuclear power
the submarine
satellites
primary artificial intelligence
cloaking devices
all just recently (within the last 120 years). There's no reason that this should suddenly halt. If more interest was put into the space program, more advancement in the field would be achieved. In our lifetimes, there will be primary settlements on mars. You know this. We have about 60 years to live, probably more. At the rate we're expanding, it is inevitable.
Quote from: HTA on July 17, 2009, 09:58:50 PMOh, and FH, it seems odd that an agnostic (or atheist, not sure which you are if either, and if you are religious I apologize) to believe that some day we will discover some amazing technology that will redefine physics even though all evidence points to the contrary. Don't you make assumptions and theories from facts? Isn't that why religion is so bad, because people who are religious make similar theories based on no factual evidence?
The problem with religion is that followers believe whatever the religion is about blindly and make no effort to prove otherwise.
However, Science is all about pushing the limits, going beyond what was thought possible. You
have to think that it's possible, otherwise it will never happen.
Can't we harvest moon rocks or something, there has to be something of value on the moon.
Quote from: Mutilator<Seven> on July 18, 2009, 10:25:38 AM
Can't we harvest moon rocks or something, there has to be something of value on the moon.
Moon rocks are intercourse ing rocks. There's nothing different about them.
Quote from: Kilroy has a cheap suit on July 18, 2009, 11:18:57 AM
Moon rocks are intercourse ing rocks. There's nothing different about them.
They're made of moon! D:
Interestingly enough, I was listening to a radio show with someone interviewing people about travelling to the moon and such.
Quote from: HTA on July 17, 2009, 09:58:50 PM
Oh, and FH, it seems odd that an agnostic (or atheist, not sure which you are if either, and if you are religious I apologize) to believe that some day we will discover some amazing technology that will redefine physics even though all evidence points to the contrary. Don't you make assumptions and theories from facts? Isn't that why religion is so bad, because people who are religious make similar theories based on no factual evidence?
I prefer to stick with what we know as the truth when we are speaking about science.
Since you feel the need to cram words down my intercourse ing throat, let's get something straight:
I never said it will happen, I never said I believed that it will. What I said was that science does change and even some of our scientific fundamentals are capable of someday being proven false given that the right discoveries are made to disprove them. It's how the gosh darn scientific theory works. I don't believe in any gods for one simple reason: there is absolutely no scientific evidence to completely prove their existence. If science was able to prove, without a doubt, that any god existed, I would accept then that a god of some form exists. But current science points heavily to pretty much all of the theistic religions to being wrong or just making poop up. Which is why I refuse to believe any god exists.
However, I never, ever, rule out what humanity is able to learn and discover. I never treat any thing studied in science as this is forever true and will always be true forever and ever and ever and ever. Because guess what: poop changes. All the intercourse ing time. Which is something religion really really doesn't get. Religions are based on traditions and old beliefs, which is something that leaves little room for change, and change that does occur requires massive amounts of effort and arguing and debating. The scientific community does rely on treating its discoveries as fact and truth. The glory behind it though is that the scientific community admits it's wrong and changes how it views thing when new information and technology comes to light.
So for the tl;dr
I'm leaving open the possibility that we will find a way to travel great distances, since science changes all the intercourse ing time. However, unlike religion, I don't treat these theories as truth or fact, only a possibility. Also HTA better learn to intercourse ing keep discussion of atheism and religion out of topics that have absolutely no intercourse ing connection to them because I am so darn tired of every post about anything leading to this gosh darn discussion. Religionfags and athiestfags just shut the intercourse up already.