I'm guessing you've all heard about plans to deliberately crash a space craft into the moon to find water under the surface of the moon, well results show there is water on the moon!
QuoteSpacecraft that crashed into the moon last month kicked up a relatively small plume. But scientists have confirmed the debris contained water ? 25 gallons of it ? making lunar exploration exciting again.
I think its a wonderful discovery! Dreams of living on different planets and moons may be a reality, not in my lifetime or my childrens lifetime, but sometime in the next million or so years. Excellent!
Read more here:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g_WHHFPrQjvdnQhVIvx5o9a-v66AD9BV87LG1
Perhaps less then a million years... I saw this on the news, and it's quite exciting to know. Thank you for sharing. :)
I saw it on the frontpage of msn. It's pretty sweet.
Humans as a race are more innovated then people realize.
I'd say within 150-200 years before people are living on the moon. If that.
I hope we'd be able to visit it in my lifetime, that'd be awesome.
When you take into consideration the EXPONENTIAL rate that technology is advancing, I wouldn't be shocked if it were in our lifetime. Consider this: CDs only came into popularity about 2 decades ago. DVDs became popular within the past 12 years or so. Blu-Ray, within the past 2 years. Hell, look at my old Windows 95. It had 2.5 GB of harddrive space between TWO drives, and we got that in '96, and that was a LOT. A decade and a half later, a computer can easily have over 1 TB of space!
Quote from: Chaos on November 15, 2009, 07:30:10 PM
When you take into consideration the EXPONENTIAL rate that technology is advancing, I wouldn't be shocked if it were in our lifetime. Consider this: CDs only came into popularity about 2 decades ago. DVDs became popular within the past 12 years or so. Blu-Ray, within the past 2 years. Hell, look at my old Windows 95. It had 2.5 GB of harddrive space between TWO drives, and we got that in '96, and that was a LOT. A decade and a half later, a computer can easily have over 1 TB of space!
Yup. I think if you factor in the exponential increase of technology like you mentioned, people living on the moon in 50 years or less isn't out of the question. Don't underestimate the speed of progress.
People only started flying in 1903. Now they're off into space. Would it really be unreasonable to say moon colonization within the next 50 years? Personally, in the state of a global emergancy, I think we could pull it off now if we had to.
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 15, 2009, 07:58:38 PM
People only started flying in 1903. Now they're off into space. Would it really be unreasonable to say moon colonization within the next 50 years? Personally, in the state of a global emergancy, I think we could pull it off now if we had to.
Now we just need another John F. Kennedy!
No, we need a John G. Kennedy. Otherwise, all the new-age and wiccan paganistic radicals will start babbling about, "spirit of a great man, returned from the grave" and so-forth. Essentially the same guy though...
Quote from: Red October on November 15, 2009, 08:00:53 PM
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 15, 2009, 07:58:38 PM
People only started flying in 1903. Now they're off into space. Would it really be unreasonable to say moon colonization within the next 50 years? Personally, in the state of a global emergancy, I think we could pull it off now if we had to.
Now we just need another John F. Kennedy!
Exactly. I think the point is that it would be
possible to start colonizing and/or exploring the moon in the next 50 years, but it's not likely to happen unless people start working towards that goal. Considering there has been no effort to send another manned expedition to the moon for a very long time, it doesn't seem like people care enough. At least not the right people.
Quote from: Lingus on November 18, 2009, 03:30:35 PM
Quote from: Red October on November 15, 2009, 08:00:53 PM
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 15, 2009, 07:58:38 PM
People only started flying in 1903. Now they're off into space. Would it really be unreasonable to say moon colonization within the next 50 years? Personally, in the state of a global emergancy, I think we could pull it off now if we had to.
Now we just need another John F. Kennedy!
Exactly. I think the point is that it would be possible to start colonizing and/or exploring the moon in the next 50 years, but it's not likely to happen unless people start working towards that goal. Considering there has been no effort to send another manned expedition to the moon for a very long time, it doesn't seem like people care enough. At least not the right people.
There been a reason why there hasn't been an attempt to go the moon again. It's just so boring. NASA just can't the audience for such a mission, becuase well... think of this way. After the 3rd time you play a game it gets boring. This is the same as the moon missions, there wasn't enough interest from the world.
space colonizing sounds cool any ware in space. I just don't want to be the one of the first groups. I dont think i could ever be an astronaut.
Within a million years? That's ridiculous. So far we've had about 5000/6000 years or so of recorded human history, and since then we've gone from the most basic agricultral tools to space travel and speed-of-light communication. And, as Chaos said, now that all the people smarter than us can communicate and work together, I'd say if not within our lifetimes, our children's, we'll definitely have colonies on the moon. And within 500 or so years, interplanetary travel doesn't seem unlikely, and the moon might very well have normal people just living their lives on it. (As opposed to strictly astronauts and scientists.)
Assuming that we haven't all killed each other in WW III and IV.
Anyways, interesting, always liked the astronomy stuff.
~aqua
I don't see a WW3 in the near future.
Quote from: Pat on November 18, 2009, 10:01:55 PM
I don't see a WW3 in the near future.
Darnit! My version of Solanum didn't work...Perhaps if I add a little more pnuemonic plag-
Er. Disregard everything above.
How is water on the moon even possible? It's too cold up in outer space. The water would like, freeze.
ummm...yes, clocky, that's what they mean when they say water. Let me teach you about a thing called MATTER so you can show all your second grade buddies how smart you are...
Leguy, be very careful when you start making such predictions. People in the '80s and '70s said that we'd have flying cars and laser beams by 2000...of course, they were people in the 80s and 70s, and any american knows what that means...
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 18, 2009, 10:56:59 PM
ummm...yes, clocky, that's what they mean when they say water. Let me teach you about a thing called MATTER so you can show all your second grade buddies how smart you are...
Leguy, be very careful when you start making such predictions. People in the '80s and '70s said that we'd have flying cars and laser beams by 2000...of course, they were people in the 80s and 70s, and any american knows what that means...
Cept we do have laser beams. Weapon-capable ones, too. We just don't have anything in our technological level that can output enough energy in a small size to make handheld weapons of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
As for flying cars, again, we 'have' them, just not in a practical form. Once again, we lack a good, practical energy source available in small size to power such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_cars
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red shouts "NUCLEAR FUSION!"
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 01:33:46 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red shouts "NUCLEAR FUSION!"
Yeah, that'd be good, except at the moment, it is neither clean, cheap, nor compact.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 02:10:55 AM
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 01:33:46 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red shouts "NUCLEAR FUSION!"
Yeah, that'd be good, except at the moment, it is neither clean, cheap, nor compact.
Nuclear Fusion is clean.
Nuclear Fusion is cheap (to run).
Nuclear Fusion is not compact.
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 02:10:55 AM
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 01:33:46 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red shouts "NUCLEAR FUSION!"
Yeah, that'd be good, except at the moment, it is neither clean, cheap, nor compact.
Nuclear Fusion is clean.
Nuclear Fusion is cheap (to run).
Nuclear Fusion is not compact.
Nuclear Fusion is not clean. It still produces radioactive waste, even if the waste is radioactive for less time than Nuclear Fission.
Durr Hurr, I see what you did there. Nuclear Fusion is NOT cheap. Building a machine to produce Nuclear Fusion would be VERY expensive at the present, meaning using it to power things such as cars is not practical.
And indeed, Nuclear Fusion is NOT compact. As matter of fact, building something to produce Nuclear Fusion COMPACTLY would probably be even more expensive.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 02:35:27 AM
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 02:22:25 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 02:10:55 AM
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 01:33:46 AM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red shouts "NUCLEAR FUSION!"
Yeah, that'd be good, except at the moment, it is neither clean, cheap, nor compact.
Nuclear Fusion is clean.
Nuclear Fusion is cheap (to run).
Nuclear Fusion is not compact.
Nuclear Fusion is not clean. It still produces radioactive waste, even if the waste is radioactive for less time than Nuclear Fission.
Durr Hurr, I see what you did there. Nuclear Fusion is NOT cheap. Building a machine to produce Nuclear Fusion would be VERY expensive at the present, meaning using it to power things such as cars is not practical.
And indeed, Nuclear Fusion is NOT compact. As matter of fact, building something to produce Nuclear Fusion COMPACTLY would probably be even more expensive.
Clean - OMG there's a neutron particle it's not clean! Seriously, every energy sources have waste products, all of which are damaging to the environment, whenever it's radioactive or not. The only two considerations to this would be hydroelectricity and solar energy (which comes from the sun... and the sun is powered by NUCLEAR FUSION). Now if everything had to be "clean" energy we will still be in the day where water mills were used. It is true that Nuclear Fusion has some radioactive waste products. But lets compare that to Nuclear Fission. We all know that Fission products takes thousands of years to decay. However Nuclear Fusion's products are smaller (therefore take less time to decay), now this decay process takes about... 150 years to become a safe level. However during this time it's indeed more radioactive than fission products, but is less harmful overall. In a D-T reaction this radioactivity only comes from a rogue neutron from the reaction. Now sciences just need a way to contain this neutron then everything would be fine (until the reaction is decommissioned). If you want everything to be "clean" then your more than welcome to stand outside with a solar panel and save the world by the Energy Crisis.
Cost - Why would we want Nuclear Energy powered cars? Very silly Chaos. Maybe your just too scared to invest the money required to develop this wonderful technology. Or you can just be one of those people who thinks very large cost project is just a bad idea.
Compact - Pfft I agree with you there... No need to shout about it.
Since, ultimately, all of our energy comes from the sun (think about it - water evaporates because of it, which then falls as rain and creates running rivers for dams; it heats the air, causing the air to move around, hence, wind power) I have to imagine that the most efficient way to get energy would be just be directly through solar panels. It's 100% clean, it's safe, and it's the only option that will be available when you're living on an atmosphere-lacking moon. Well, that or nuclear, but nuclear creates quite a bit of waste, as we've discussed before.
Personally, on a similar note, I think a great plan of action for America's economy would be to just put some more focus on solar energy. It'd most likely speed up the development process for a widely-used fully-electric car, which would not only be a great export and economy booster, but it would decrease our dependence on foreign oil - another economy booster. Plus, it's just a lot better for the environment. New jobs would be created, travel deaths would decrease, (I have to imagine cars are a lot less explosive when they no longer contain flammable materials) and so on.
Of course, right now America apparently is building roads instead. And doing stimulus bills for hog farms.
Theres like half of the moon we can fill up with waste and use the rest of the land, no problem, or we could launch it to the sun, I'm sure it likes it.
Solar power isn't cheap really at all, and in compact form doesn't really create enough energy to be all that usefull. The solar panels are extremely expensive to make and install, not to mention maintain. They have to be constantly upkept, and if a piece cracks you have to replace it. Of course, they are making softer materials more like cloth that can collect solar power. But you have the same problem with efficiency. Not to mention, with no sun, you have no power. No power at night, no power during a storm. You would have to have an alternative, or a way of storing excess power (which means tons of batteries, which means not compact.)
Hey, what about cold fussion? Eh??
Well I was with you guys up until 'cold fusion' (or 'fussion', whatever, not sure exactly what you meant to say), anyone care to enlighten me on what this is?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion
I don't freakin know what it is. It's supposed to be clean, efficient energy.
@Lingus: It also supposedly, according to current knowledge, isn't possible. :/
@Red October: Are you retarded? I mean, seriously?
I was talking about ways to POWER FLYING CARS AND LASER BASED FIREARMS. Regardless of how much cleaner it is compared to Nuclear Fission, it doesn't magically make it CLEAN. No matter how you want to twist it, Nuclear Fusion is not cheap to mass produce. Mass production for the purposes of powering energy weapons or flying cars would make those things far too expensive to be practical. And, of course, the fact that it's way too !@#$ing BIG.
Way to complete miss the point of my post so you could have your fan-wank of Nuclear Fusion. Unfortunately, it only meets 1 criteria.
-Effective
-NOT Cheap
-NOT Clean
-NOT Compact
That's not to say it wouldn't be a good power plant, but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE !@#$ING TALKING ABOUT, IS IT?
Also, for your education:
Solar Power
-NOT Effective
-NOT Cheap
-Clean
-NOT Compact
Durr hurr, shut the !@#$ up now, before you further embarrass yourself.
EDIT: And incidentally, I'm talking about with our current level of tech. That's not to say that Nuclear Fusion couldn't be made smaller, or produced cheaper, or made to be cleaner eventually. That's not to say Solar Power couldn't be made more effective, or cheaper, or more compact. Computers used to be the size of a room and had about the capabilities of a calculator. However, at the moment, we have NO energy source that can fulfill all those requirements, and thus can not be used for technological breakthroughs that I described, which makes them completely IRRELEVANT to the topic at hand.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 03:09:54 PM... but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE !@#$ING TALKING ABOUT, IS IT?
Did I ever quote the part that mentions "Cars" and "Laser Beams". So I was never discussing about them.
Also on Cold Fusion...
Quote from: WikiCold fusion refers to nuclear fusion of atoms at conditions close to room temperature, in contrast to the conditions of well-understood fusion reactions such as those inside stars and high energy experiments.
It still produces the rouge neutron that makes Chaos very angry.
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 03:42:10 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 03:09:54 PM... but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE !@#$ING TALKING ABOUT, IS IT?
Did I ever quote the part that mentions "Cars" and "Laser Beams". So I was never discussing about them.
Also on Cold Fusion...
Quote from: WikiCold fusion refers to nuclear fusion of atoms at conditions close to room temperature, in contrast to the conditions of well-understood fusion reactions such as those inside stars and high energy experiments.
It still produces the rouge neutron that makes Chaos very angry.
In other words, you openly admit to being completely off-topic. Get the !@#$ out.
EDIT: You know what, forget I said anything. I feel ashamed. After all this time spent talking with Snakeman, you'd think I'd have been able to detect a fat !@#$ing troll squatting under their bridge. I should have known no one could have been that !@#$ing stupid to actually think Nuclear Fusion was viable or in any way related to the topic. Silly me. I resolve to do better from now on. I won't feed the troll anymore. Sorry everyone.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 03:47:56 PM
Quote from: Red October on November 19, 2009, 03:42:10 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 03:09:54 PM... but THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE !@#$ING TALKING ABOUT, IS IT?
Did I ever quote the part that mentions "Cars" and "Laser Beams". So I was never discussing about them.
Also on Cold Fusion...
Quote from: WikiCold fusion refers to nuclear fusion of atoms at conditions close to room temperature, in contrast to the conditions of well-understood fusion reactions such as those inside stars and high energy experiments.
It still produces the rouge neutron that makes Chaos very angry.
In other words, you openly admit to being completely off-topic. Get the !@#$ out.
I fail to see how Flying Cars and Laser Beams have to with anything about Water on the Moon, either.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 18, 2009, 10:56:59 PM
ummm...yes, clocky, that's what they mean when they say water. Let me teach you about a thing called MATTER so you can show all your second grade buddies how smart you are...
Leguy, be very careful when you start making such predictions. People in the '80s and '70s said that we'd have flying cars and laser beams by 2000...of course, they were people in the 80s and 70s, and any american knows what that means...
Cept we do have laser beams. Weapon-capable ones, too. We just don't have anything in our technological level that can output enough energy in a small size to make handheld weapons of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directed-energy_weapon
As for flying cars, again, we 'have' them, just not in a practical form. Once again, we lack a good, practical energy source available in small size to power such a thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_cars
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Red... maybe try reading the topic? Sure, it isn't directly related to the original post, but at least Chaos was responding to something in particular rather than going entirely off topic just for the sake of it. It's acceptable to take the topic in a different direction if that's the way the thread of conversation is heading. It's not acceptable to disregard a specific detail of someone's post just to go on a rant about something that doesn't tie back into the conversation.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 03:09:54 PM
@Lingus: It also supposedly, according to current knowledge, isn't possible. :/
I know. I was joking about that suggestion.
Quote from: Chaos on November 19, 2009, 12:23:25 AM
Honestly, if and when anyone discovers a way to generate energy cheaply, cleanly, compactly, and effectively, there will be a massive WAVE of technological breakthroughs, and that person will become a VERY rich person.
Yeah i know right. But maybe we don't really need a way to generate it but maybe a way to store it.
Well... we do have a way to store it compactly. They're called batteries. Of course, they aren't very efficient. Batteries that run for 100 years would be nice. Obviously, if you had a similarly compact device that generates power rather than stores it, it would be a MUCH better option.
On a slightly off-topic note, I've noticed that a lot of movies tend to attribute crystals with having magical energy powers. (A quote that I still remember from Toy Story is Buzz Lightyear's when he first "arrives on earth": "Has your planet discovered Crystallic fusion yet, or are you still using fossil fuels?" To which Woody replies. "Well, we've got double A's.")
But it would be funny if someone actually discovered some crystal that could power a city for a century. Of course this is completely improbable, but it would nonetheless be humorous.
Quote from: LeGuy on November 19, 2009, 07:23:31 PM
On a slightly off-topic note, I've noticed that a lot of movies tend to attribute crystals with having magical energy powers. (A quote that I still remember from Toy Story is Buzz Lightyears when he first "arrives on earth: "Has your planet discovered Crystallic fusion yet, or are you still using fossil fuels?" To which Woody replies. "Well, we've got double A's.)
But it would be funny if someone actually discovered some crystal that could power a city for a century. Of course this is completely improbable, but it would nonetheless be humorous.
Yeah, I think that probably originated from the Sci-Fi practice of "Let's make up something that sounds half way plausible", haha.
Quote from: Lingus on November 19, 2009, 06:02:56 PM
Well... we do have a way to store it compactly. They're called batteries. Of course, they aren't very efficient. Batteries that run for 100 years would be nice. Obviously, if you had a similarly compact device that generates power rather than stores it, it would be a MUCH better option.
yeah that would be better but i just i think making a super battery seem more possible. Been hearing cool stuff about these super capacitors. Think about it if we could store all the power from a lightning bolt. But i guess that would not help much on the moon.
The moon does not have an atmosphere so i guess solar cells with batters will probably be the way they do it at first.
Late response, but give SO a topic and, boy, do they run with it! :
Quote from: Pat on November 19, 2009, 11:23:00 AM
or we could launch it to the sun
50 years ago:
Guy1: What do we do with this crap that doesn't decompose?
Guy2: Just stick it in the ground, we'll never run out of space.
Guy1: Hey, yeah! Let's call these landfills!
Personally I don't see an issue with it, but it is logical that those itty bitty things could add up (though I don't see the world lasting much longer, in WW III the Olmecs will cream us all!).
~Aqua
There was a Futurama episode that dealt with that. They had sent out a giant ball of trash into space a number of years ago (like 100) and it was orbiting back around to hit earth. That would be an issue... Of course, if it actually hit the sun I see absolutely no problem with that. The only thing I can think of would be the trash fueling the sun and it burning hotter causing the earth to get hotter and the sun burning out sooner... but I sincerely doubt even the vast amount of trash that we create would cause even a miniscule dent in that respect.
Quote from: ARTgames on November 19, 2009, 07:58:05 PM
Quote from: Lingus on November 19, 2009, 06:02:56 PM
Well... we do have a way to store it compactly. They're called batteries. Of course, they aren't very efficient. Batteries that run for 100 years would be nice. Obviously, if you had a similarly compact device that generates power rather than stores it, it would be a MUCH better option.
yeah that would be better but i just i think making a super battery seem more possible. Been hearing cool stuff about these super capacitors. Think about it if we could store all the power from a lightning bolt. But i guess that would not help much on the moon.
The moon does not have an atmosphere so i guess solar cells with batters will probably be the way they do it at first.
It's possible. I'm not sure if that's really the case though. Creating really efficient and compact power cells isn't necessarily more likely to happen than creating a really efficient and compact power source. Of course, that's based on almost no understanding of how that works.
I will say (and I believe this was mentioned this elsewhere in this forum) that they already have wireless electricity. You could be using a device with literally no power source attached to it. It would work completely by wireless electricity. So long as you the device is in range of the source it will work. Pair that with simple rechargable batteries and you would have theoretically limitless power on a handheld device (theoretical because it would depend on your ability to be in range of a power source). Of course, this doesn't deal with the issue of a clean and renewable power source. It just takes care of the compactness.
Place Solar Panels across the Earth, and make the wireless electricity system big enough to engulf the entire planet! :D
Anyway, I think throwing our garbage into the sun would be a HORRIBLY bad idea. Not because of any real worry about it doing harm to it, but because it would effectively be REMOVING resources from our planet. We only have a limited amount of material available in our planet, and if we're tossing used pieces into the sun, we're going to run out eventually. Recycling what we use is pretty much the only option in the long run. Melt down the metal, plastics, glass, etc. and reform it.
QuoteI will say (and I believe this was mentioned this elsewhere in this forum) that they already have wireless electricity.
Yeah i was the one who posted the topic about it. : P
Any ways i agree with the rest of your post and chaos's.
Quote from: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 06:18:08 PM
Place Solar Panels across the Earth, and make the wireless electricity system big enough to engulf the entire planet! :D
Might cause a bit of global warming? I'd imagine that solar panels would be extremely effective at absorbing energy from the sun. Which means very little heat would be reflected back off of the planet... I don't know if that's how it works, but I imagine it would be the opposite of the "snowball earth" effect.
Agreed on the whole recycling materials thing.
It's funny, this topic is kind of about us using our resources here on earth better versus looking to other places to expand to (like the moon) and use more and more resources. It makes a lot of sense. I honestly think before we head off to the stars we should figure out how to make earth sustainable... indefinitely. I think the more we expand, the more we will use that as an excuse to consume more and more resources rather than try to use less resources more effectively. Maybe, in the long run, it's a good thing no one is focusing on space travel yet.
Quote from: Lingus on November 20, 2009, 08:51:48 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 06:18:08 PM
Place Solar Panels across the Earth, and make the wireless electricity system big enough to engulf the entire planet! :D
Might cause a bit of global warming? I'd imagine that solar panels would be extremely effective at absorbing energy from the sun. Which means very little heat would be reflected back off of the planet... I don't know if that's how it works, but I imagine it would be the opposite of the "snowball earth" effect.
I'd hate to have to try and find broken ones and find people who are willing to go out and fix them :o
Quote from: Lingus on November 20, 2009, 08:51:48 PMI think the more we expand, the more we will use that as an excuse to consume more and more resources rather than try to use less resources more effectively.
The conclusion is that we need to reduce the population. This is why we need another world war.
Quote from: Red October on November 20, 2009, 10:35:44 PM
Quote from: Lingus on November 20, 2009, 08:51:48 PMI think the more we expand, the more we will use that as an excuse to consume more and more resources rather than try to use less resources more effectively.
The conclusion is that we need to reduce the population. This is why we need another world war.
I say we kill off Canada, then move all the Mexicans into Canada. All problems solved.
Quote
I say we kill off Canada, then move all the Mexicans into Canada. All problems solved.
Why move the Mexicans? Let's just use Canada for building more mansions for politicians!
Let's just kill the politicians. :3
Quote from: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 11:50:33 PM
Let's just kill the politicians. :3
Are you crazy? Think about all the things they do for us! They pass bills for more taxes, and pass bills for more taxes, and then they...pass some more bills. For more taxes.
Did I mention taxes?
Quote from: LeGuy on November 20, 2009, 11:53:10 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 11:50:33 PM
Let's just kill the politicians. :3
Are you crazy? Think about all the things they do for us! They pass bills for more axes, and pass bills for more axes, and then they...pass some more bills. For more axes.
Did I mention axes?
Fixed. Yes, all politicians are axe wielding puppets.
Quote from: LeGuy on November 20, 2009, 11:53:10 PM
Quote from: Chaos on November 20, 2009, 11:50:33 PM
Let's just kill the politicians. :3
Are you crazy? Think about all the things they do for us! They pass bills for more taxes, and pass bills for more taxes, and then they...pass some more bills. For more taxes.
Did I mention taxes?
Don't forget the part about using taxpayer money for hookers.
Just wow. This topic has gone off the deep end on this page. >_<
Man to be living on the Moon from 2024
QuoteHuman beings are to go back to the Moon within the next 15 years and this time they will stay, according to ambitious plans to establish a lunar base announced by Nasa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article661173.ece
Found this while i looking around the net. I don't know how credible this site is is but it look like an ok article.
Do they have any solutions to the temperature difference or lack of oxygen yet?
No, they were planning to just, "hope for the best!" and "If at first we don't succeed, we'll try, try again!"
Just take your favorite flower with you and you'll have all the oxygen you need. You could use blankets to stay warm...
...
Okay i honestly don't know much about this, lol. But I'm interested in these areas for some reason. Every time it comes up I have to do some research, and find out that blue polar bears live on mars.
You can not always trust wikipedia :P
Quote from: ARTgames on November 21, 2009, 08:11:39 AM
Just wow. This topic has gone off the deep end on this page. >_<
Man to be living on the Moon from 2024
QuoteHuman beings are to go back to the Moon within the next 15 years and this time they will stay, according to ambitious plans to establish a lunar base announced by Nasa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article661173.ece
Found this while i looking around the net. I don't know how credible this site is is but it look like an ok article.
Lol seriously. Sorta went crazy there for a bit.
This seems interesting. I would be interested to see more detail. Maybe the article has it, but I'd also like to see something directly from NASA about it. It makes sense considering this new finding. If there's water, they could potentially establish a viable base. Of course, there's a lot of other stuff to think about. Such as oxygen. As far as I know there's not a very good way of creating oxygen other than with plants, and I don't know how much plant material would be needed to create enough oxygen. Would the base be filled with plants for it to work?
Well cant they have a space station but just on the moon. How do they do it up there already?
Quote from: Lingus on November 21, 2009, 09:06:39 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 21, 2009, 08:11:39 AM
Just wow. This topic has gone off the deep end on this page. >_<
Man to be living on the Moon from 2024
QuoteHuman beings are to go back to the Moon within the next 15 years and this time they will stay, according to ambitious plans to establish a lunar base announced by Nasa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article661173.ece
Found this while i looking around the net. I don't know how credible this site is is but it look like an ok article.
Lol seriously. Sorta went crazy there for a bit.
This seems interesting. I would be interested to see more detail. Maybe the article has it, but I'd also like to see something directly from NASA about it. It makes sense considering this new finding. If there's water, they could potentially establish a viable base. Of course, there's a lot of other stuff to think about. Such as oxygen. As far as I know there's not a very good way of creating oxygen other than with plants, and I don't know how much plant material would be needed to create enough oxygen. Would the base be filled with plants for it to work?
I remember reading in some school book that one big oak could give oxygen to an entire school class. (like 20 children that is)
I say we just kill off every single one of ya, and everyone else on earth, except for me, and every single hot chick with big boobs so that way I can repopulate through procreation.
You should leave some males so you don't have to go incest.
Something tells me he wouldn't mind.
Quote from: Scotty on November 22, 2009, 07:17:11 AM
I say we just kill off every single one of ya, and everyone else on earth, except for me, and every single hot chick with big boobs so that way I can repopulate through procreation.
But what if you become sterile? :o Then you'll have doomed the whole human race!
Quote from: Lingus on November 21, 2009, 09:06:39 PM
Quote from: ARTgames on November 21, 2009, 08:11:39 AM
Just wow. This topic has gone off the deep end on this page. >_<
Man to be living on the Moon from 2024
QuoteHuman beings are to go back to the Moon within the next 15 years and this time they will stay, according to ambitious plans to establish a lunar base announced by Nasa.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article661173.ece
Found this while i looking around the net. I don't know how credible this site is is but it look like an ok article.
Lol seriously. Sorta went crazy there for a bit.
This seems interesting. I would be interested to see more detail. Maybe the article has it, but I'd also like to see something directly from NASA about it. It makes sense considering this new finding. If there's water, they could potentially establish a viable base. Of course, there's a lot of other stuff to think about. Such as oxygen. As far as I know there's not a very good way of creating oxygen other than with plants, and I don't know how much plant material would be needed to create enough oxygen. Would the base be filled with plants for it to work?
Yes, plants would be a very good plan. But of course, we'd need some gas anyways, because all our CO2 might not be enough. But the moon base plan sounds pretty viable. With our exponentially accelerating rate of gaining knowledge, we're going to accomplish a lot in the next ten years.
The base would need a ridiculous amount of plants.
Think about this. All the trees in the world count for around 10% of oxygen.
What supplys most is the alegea and stuff like that.
Quote from: Titan on November 22, 2009, 06:00:29 PM
The base would need a ridiculous amount of plants.
Think about this. All the trees in the world count for around 10% of oxygen.
What supplys most is the alegea and stuff like that.
Exactly. What would support a moon colony would be a lot of scientists and an orchard of apple trees, or some other plant.
Another issue is that plants need water too- if you run out of water, you choose to die due to lack or water, or suffocate to the plants. :|
~Aqua
Quote from: Aqua on November 22, 2009, 06:11:03 PM
Another issue is that plants need water too- if you run out of water, you choose to die due to lack or water, or suffocate to the plants. :|
~Aqua
topic title "Water on the moon".
We can melt ice at room temp. And i don't think if they made a space place on the moon that its going to be under 32F. Any wase once we get all the water we need to run the place we can just recycle it.
People once thought there was infinite natural gas, oil resources. Do we now? Consider that with the Moon's water.
:|
The Day after Tomorrow: dah Moon
~Aqua
Wen we use natural gas/oil we turn it into co2 and heat. When we use water it goes threw a cycle. Well they both go threw cycles its just one takes a hell of a lot longer.
If the place is locked up and has no big holes into space then they should be fine.
If they decided to plant a large amount of trees, they would need a hell of a lot of dirt, cause im pretty sure the soil on the moon wouldnt give the tree the nutrients it needs....
Quote from: ARTgames on November 21, 2009, 09:35:06 PM
Well cant they have a space station but just on the moon. How do they do it up there already?
Good point. I'm not sure. I would imagine they would have to supply oxygen somehow.
They would have to bring soil. The entire living population would have to be in one of those epic scifi "biodomes" because the moon's temperature is far too extreme to support life. The problem with "recycling water" is this. Plants USE the individual molecules of water in photosynthesis to produce oxygen. The formula for photosynthesis being: 6CO2 + 6H2O -> C6H12O6 + 6O2.
Quote from: Jackabomb on November 23, 2009, 11:21:24 PMThey would have to bring soil.
Why? Plants don't need soil to grow in. They just need a media to grow in. They also need a way to get vital nutrients that a plant requires, such as N, P, K etc, this can be achieved by adding nutrients to the water. See; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroculture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroculture) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydroponics)