Water on the Moon

[PQ]

You guys will never change my mind. I'm doing my best to try and make my point without getting the thread closed. (Not from anamossity, but a point I would like to make) Nobody has been rotten so far and it's kind of fun but I have an argument against that would 'offend' some, so I gotta leave it alone.

[Mr. Wyndham]

"waste of money" is probably one the most sad-funny things I've ever heard NASA called...it's funny that one would attempt to make an argument that spending so little money (comparatively) on such a promising program is too much. It's sad that so many think that way...

I found this link after about 5 minutes of searching...
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Beyond the extensive list above, there's the whole...galactic hazard thing they're good at keeping an eye on....asteroids, comets, black holes, solar flares, spacial radiation, the other planets (which Pluto is not), etc, etc....

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

"waste of money" is probably one the most sad-funny things I've ever heard NASA called...it's funny that one would attempt to make an argument that spending so little money (comparatively) on such a promising program is too much. It's sad that so many think that way...

I found this link after about 5 minutes of searching...
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Nice article. Only read the prelude and scimmed the material. Wonder who is the owner of the domain?

And if it's so important, where is the drive to expand the program. Surely there is a politician out there or an interest group who would try to lobby for more NASA funding?

And Once again, I'm not comparing the NASA budget to the National!!!!!! If this thread were about that, NASA would be very far down my list, believe me. THIS thread is about Moonwater.

But again, I believe what I believe, and I've seen no convincing things in this thread to make me believe we need public money to be spent on MUCH of NASA.

So you guys really believe it's better to invent things by a 'spinoff' or accident? No way.

[PQ]

BTW Dragoneye, spend 5 minutes now searching the opposition. You'll find plenty of legit and counter material.


Edit: I don't trust either.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by PQ

So you guys really believe it's better to invent things by a 'spinoff' or accident? No way.

I believe when you limit your opportunities, you're only hurting yourself.

And I attempted to search of the opposition...but, I couldn't think of what to search for. No idea what to type into google. Secondly, I imagine anything that would come up would be laughable...only because of my predispositions on the subject.

I will digress, and get back on topic: Water on the moon.

To the science-geeks, it provides another way to research the history of the universe. Ice acts a lot like fossils in that it forms in layers, and each layer has something special about it. (it's how we figured out "global warming" is simply a climactic pattern)

To those who don't spend their lives in a laboratory studying samples, but still like to look ahead; it provides concrete evidence that life can be supported on the moon. This has limitless applications. Refueling stations for the shuttle, a lunar space station to compliment the ISS, we could create a short-term life support station for tourists, or even start a colony to relieve the physical land shortage on this planet. It means that there are more minerals, etc up there...and we can mine the dark side of the moon if we wanted to (see a previous post in here about uranium). Since there's no atmosphere up there, we could test dangerous technologies like a full-blown fusion reactor (or something).

To those who don't pay attention to this sort of thing, don't care about it, or don't want to care about it. It means nothing. Absolutely nothing.

[PQ]

I guess I'm just a doggmatic Christian who believes we should trust our Lord and help the weak above all else.

And maybe, instead of saying NASA is a waste of money, I sould just say NASA wastes a lot of money. Either way, I'm not a supporter.

[Mr. Wyndham]

Originally Posted by PQ

I guess I'm just a doggmatic Christian who believes we should trust our Lord and help the weak above all else.

And maybe, instead of saying NASA is a waste of money, I sould just say NASA wastes a lot of money. Either way, I'm not a supporter.

I was beginning to think that might be the reason behind your beliefs.
Not judging, not even commenting...I respect it, and welcome it.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Dragoneye

I was beginning to think that might be the reason behind your beliefs.
Not judging, not even commenting...I respect it, and welcome it.

[mickss]

The biggest reason for returning to the moon is helium-3, a very rare form of helium. If as some suspect there is helium-3 on the moon it could be used for cold fusion reactors and with it, no nuclear waste to deal with or reactor failures, like Three Mile Island.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19296/

[PQ]

Originally Posted by mickss

The biggest reason for returning to the moon is helium-3, a very rare form of helium. If as some suspect there is helium-3 on the moon it could be used for cold fusion reactors and with it, no nuclear waste to deal with or reactor failures, like Three Mile Island.

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/19296/

Might want to read that article again.

Just beneath this.

If fusion power's arrival date has remained constantly 50 years away since 1958, why would helium-3 suddenly make fusion power more feasible?

Thus, whatever materials are used in a deuterium-tritium fusion power plant will have to endure serious punishment. And if that's achievable, when that fusion reactor is eventually decommissioned, there will still be a lot of radioactive waste.

[Zeus]

There you go. Saving lives. lol.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/sate...rediction.html

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Zeus

There you go. Saving lives. lol.

http://news.discovery.com/earth/sate...rediction.html

They could do that with simple sattelites. Not deep space exploration.

And anyway, to cure cancer would save sooooooo many more lives. How bout move the hell out of the hurricane red Zone. And I can say that because I did.

[Zeus]

Originally Posted by PQ

They could do that with simple sattelites. Not deep space exploration.

And anyway, to cure cancer would save sooooooo many more lives. How bout move the hell out of the hurricane red Zone. And I can say that because I did.

Satellites came from NASA.

[PQ]

Originally Posted by Zeus

Satellites came from NASA.

Yup. And aren't very complicated in NASA terms. They are launched all the time. I got no problem with them. They are reletively low cost, and not a waste.

I said, MUCH of NASA is a waste.

Anyway, I have a conflict of interest with most of NASA so this is a fruitless circle.