Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/19/cayman.islands.earthquake/index.html?hpt=T2

And she's shaking us off like the cooties that we are.

Then we'll keep on advancing technology and colonise Moon and other celestial bodies.IIRC the Moon base will start construction in 2017.Take that Earth,you can't shake us there.
two more

Why would we colonize the moon. It has nothing on value on it that is not easier attained on the earth.

Well, the moon has less gravity, and potentially the raw materials for constructing rocket fuel, which would make it an ideal place for launching long range space ships etc.

Plus something might explode and send Moon Base Alpha flying round the universe at high speed - a different adventure every week!

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would we colonize the moon. It has nothing on value on it that is not easier attained on the earth.

How do you know this?

GG

generalgrog wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would we colonize the moon. It has nothing on value on it that is not easier attained on the earth.

How do you know this?

GG

Forty years of radar imaging telling us the primary makeup of the surface strata of the moon?

Moon will be used as a launching place to places like Mars,Jupiter etc...
It's easier to launch from Moon which has no atmosphere and lower gravity than Earth.

Moon will be used as a launching place to places like Mars,Jupiter etc...

I don't see why when we could construct a perfectly serviceable space station that would then be totally free from gravity. The moon doesn't have anything on it that would make it useful as a waystation for launching interplanetary missions. It's just another gravity well that we would waste fuel on launching from. If we're going to take all that time and effort putting fabricated components into space why would be land them on another celestial body at all?

ShumaGorath wrote:

Moon will be used as a launching place to places like Mars,Jupiter etc...

I don't see why when we could construct a perfectly serviceable space station that would then be totally free from gravity. The moon doesn't have anything on it that would make it useful as a waystation for launching interplanetary missions. It's just another gravity well that we would waste fuel on launching from. If we're going to take all that time and effort putting fabricated components into space why would be land them on another celestial body at all?

Yes,unfortunately,look at this,it could shorten the journey to Jupiter from six years to fourteen months. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket

ShumaGorath wrote:I don't see why when we could construct a perfectly serviceable space station that would then be totally free from gravity. The moon doesn't have anything on it that would make it useful as a waystation for launching interplanetary missions. It's just another gravity well that we would waste fuel on launching from. If we're going to take all that time and effort putting fabricated components into space why would be land them on another celestial body at all?

Well, several points:

1) The fuel on the space station would still have to come from somewhere, and if we are not going to use the moon, that would be Earth, which has a much larger gravity well, so just as expensive as launching the ship from earth in the first place.

2) The moon has recently been found to have trace quantities of water, which is rocket fuel (hydrogen and oxygen)

3) The moon does have raw materials, meaning you can land a processing plant and some mining gear on the moon and build your own stuff, meaning you don't need to launch it from Earth.

And the fusion reactors could prove handy,there are several in existence,but they are too small for sustainable fusion so they are building one which can in USA and they last a lot longer than fission reactors.

ShumaGorath wrote:

generalgrog wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would we colonize the moon. It has nothing on value on it that is not easier attained on the earth.

How do you know this?

GG

Forty years of radar imaging telling us the primary makeup of the surface strata of the moon?

Source?

GG

Like hell I won't go without a fight, Mother Earth.

*Puts on tac gear and chambers a round in his USP .45*

Come and get me bitch.

The most hostile environments on Earth would be far easier to colonise than the moon.

Da Boss wrote:The most hostile environments on Earth would be far easier to colonise than the moon.

Possibly not. You have unlimited power from the sun, only need to defend against a difference of 1atm, and there is little to no geological activity.

As I mentioned above, once you get some kind of mining and manufacturing going, you can pretty much make the moon self sustaining without having to lift everything from the Earth.

Granted, it is a lot harder than settling some places on Earth, but certainly easier and more rewarding than some.

Da Boss wrote:The most hostile environments on Earth would be far easier to colonise than the moon.

Wanna bet? Try it at 5,000 feet under water, then try it on the moon.

I bet it would still be cheaper, and safer. But I can't back that up.

Cheaper maybe. Easier, no way.

It would just be a temporary measure until we built a proper space station, better than the collection of single-wides that is floating around up there right now. What we need is to find Earth-like planets and colonize them. Sexy blue aliens notwithstanding.

warpcrafter wrote:It would just be a temporary measure until we built a proper space station, better than the collection of single-wides that is floating around up there right now. What we need is to find Earth-like planets and colonize them. Sexy blue aliens notwithstanding.

Mars could be terraformed if we could sent a man there and sustain him for many years,but that is currently beyond our capabilities.

IvanTih wrote:Mars could be terraformed if we could sent a man there and sustain him for many years,but that is currently beyond our capabilities.

So one man on Mars will terraform it?

Tyyr wrote:

IvanTih wrote:Mars could be terraformed if we could sent a man there and sustain him for many years,but that is currently beyond our capabilities.

So one man on Mars will terraform it?

No,I meant if we could send thousands people there.
Chuck Norris could be one man who could do it.

Tyyr wrote:So one man on Mars will terraform it?

Only if it was Chuck Norris...

ShumaGorath wrote:Why would we colonize the moon. It has nothing on value on it that is not easier attained on the earth.

Its my luck that I have to end up agreeing with someone like Shuma. Damn you you cynical bastard. There maybe some trace volatiles on it, big deal. Why not concentrate on asteroid mining.

Hmm, if Avatar has taught me anything we need to fine a huge tree and learn to talk to the spirit of the planet.