I was watching Obama's speech on NASA's future just now, and he seems to be deliberately skipping the moon. He wants industry to develop new spacecraft for Earth orbit, and then on to........asteroids......Mars moons....then Mars. And he specifically stated "why go to the moon, we've already been there". Obama said his new plans will save NASA money and be cheaper. Does anyone actually believe it would be cheaper to send people to asteroids or Mars, instead of the much closer Moon ??? even with new more efficient spacecraft ?

Now look at China, which has been rapidly developing their manned space program to eventually land Chinese on the moon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Lunar_Exploration_Program) by the 2020's and build bases there to do research and mine the moons resources. Perhaps even colonize the moon if all goes well; after all it's a very large body.

The moon is obviously much closer than the asteroids, and they've discovered water at it's poles, which is a very valuable resource in space. There's perhaps many more resources under the moons surface. And lastly, the moon is the closest large body for doing various space related research.

With the U.S. debt to China and all the secret meetings with people like Clinton and Geithner; heck Clinton has traveled to China so many times she misewell have her house there.
Do you think it's possible the Obama administration is deliberately skipping the moon to leave it "wide open" for China ? perhaps as some sort of deal ? Perhaps something like a modern day "Louisiana Purchase" on a planetary scale ?

Why can't everyone recognize the obvious? There will be no Moon missions until we experience a quantum leap in technology. The next Moon mission was suppose to take place in 2019/2020. Now that's been scraped with no plans of reinstating the program. So based on these facts, the soonest we can return to the Moon would be 2030. That would be 60 years late sincer the first alleged Moon landing. If we actually landed on the Moon in 1969 it should be child's play for us to do it now.

Why can't everyone recognize the obvious? There will be no Moon missions until we experience a quantum leap in technology. The next Moon mission was suppose to take place in 2019/2020. Now that's been scraped with no plans of reinstating the program. So based on these facts, the soonest we can return to the Moon would be 2030. That would be 60 years late sincer the first alleged Moon landing. If we actually landed on the Moon in 1969 it should be child's play for us to do it now.

I notice that you miss no opportunity to promote your Moon Hoax claim even when it's off topic.

So, again: I challenge you.
Let's make a thread in the Psuedoscience section in which you try to convince, using compelling evidence, that the Moon Landings were faked.
I (and others who wish to join) will either counter argue or show where your claims are In Error.

Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

I notice that you miss no opportunity to promote your Moon Hoax claim even when it's off topic.

So, again: I challenge you.
Let's make a thread in the Psuedoscience section in which you try to convince, using compelling evidence, that the Moon Landings were faked.
I (and others who wish to join) will either counter argue or show where your claims are In Error.

Wanna put your money where your mouth is?

I've already debated that subject adnuaseum on this site. No matter what evidence is presented you'll discard it, so it's a fruitless endeavor. One thing I can say is this, we'll never return there again as long as you and I are living.

I've already debated that subject adnuaseum on this site. No matter what evidence is presented you'll discard it, so it's a fruitless endeavor. One thing I can say is this, we'll never return there again as long as you and I are living.

So you call valid refutation "Discarded."

Perhaps you have not wrapped your mind around the idea that your belief is based on faith.

And no matter how much evidence is presented, you will ignore it.

Claimant: "The shadows don't line up, right!"

{Debunker demonstrates how shadows fall in photography and demonstrates the shadows in Moon Landing Photos are accurate to photography and single source lighting.}

Claimant: "You discarded my evidence!"

Riiiiight... :rolleyes:
Claimant: "It's slow motion!"

{Debunker demonstrates that speeding up actual footage results in movements being unnatural and jerky. Debunker shows footage showing hte Lunar Rover kicking up arcs of dust that fall right back down to the surface rather than hanging in air as it would in an atmosphere}

Claimant: "You discarded my evidence again!"
"Look at these images I've resized and resampled!"

{Debunker demonstrates simple jpg artifact problems}

Claimant: "Stop discarding the evidence! You're ruining my argument!"

:wallbang:

So you call valid refutation "Discarded."

Perhaps you have not wrapped your mind around the idea that your belief is based on faith.

And no matter how much evidence is presented, you will ignore it.

Claimant: "The shadows don't line up, right!"

{Debunker demonstrates how shadows fall in photography and demonstrates the shadows in Moon Landing Photos are accurate to photography and single source lighting.}

Claimant: "You discarded my evidence!"

Riiiiight... :rolleyes:
Claimant: "It's slow motion!"

{Debunker demonstrates that speeding up actual footage results in movements being unnatural and jerky. Debunker shows footage showing hte Lunar Rover kicking up arcs of dust that fall right back down to the surface rather than hanging in air as it would in an atmosphere}

Claimant: "You discarded my evidence again!"
"Look at these images I've resized and resampled!"

{Debunker demonstrates simple jpg artifact problems}

Claimant: "Stop discarding the evidence! You're ruining my argument!"

:wallbang:

You will never see another alleged moon landing as long as you live. That's a fact.

My understanding is that there is not a whole lot to mine on the Moon. In any event, there would be no solid basis for China taking ownership of the whole Moon just because it forms a colony there. They could claim it, but good luck enforcing that.

I thought the moon had He3 that was supposedly a good energy source. Also, wasn't the plan to make a space station, then a moon station and then a orbit of mars and finally land on the planet?

I thought the moon had He3 that was supposedly a good energy source. Also, wasn't the plan to make a space station, then a moon station and then a orbit of mars and finally land on the planet?

This idea is based on the concept that it is easier and less expensive to lift off from the Moon than the much deeper gravity well of Earth.

Ganymede: Thanks for the Fun Facts.

My understanding is that there is not a whole lot to mine on the Moon. In any event, there would be no solid basis for China taking ownership of the whole Moon just because it forms a colony there. They could claim it, but good luck enforcing that.

If they get any real infrastructure set up there, it would be pretty easy to enforce. The Moon is the ultimate "high ground", tactically speaking. If you had real control of it, you'd be a de-facto nuclear power, because you could drop massive rocks down to Earth that hit with all the force of a nuclear warhead (minus the radiation poisoning).

It's mining prospects are Helium3, and a virtually unlimited supply of silicon. Great for making solar panels, and you always get perfect sunlight during the lunar day, what with there being no atmosphere.

If they get any real infrastructure set up there, it would be pretty easy to enforce. The Moon is the ultimate "high ground", tactically speaking. If you had real control of it, you'd be a de-facto nuclear power, because you could drop massive rocks down to Earth that hit with all the force of a nuclear warhead (minus the radiation poisoning).

It's mining prospects are Helium3, and a virtually unlimited supply of silicon. Great for making solar panels, and you always get perfect sunlight during the lunar day, what with there being no atmosphere.

First, if the Chinese set upo a colony there, then so could others. It's a big place and they are not going to have an army in space suits ready to attack a second colony a thousand miles away.

Second silicon is available in virtually unlimited supply in the Earth's crust too, so I am not sure what the Moon is superior for that element. Because China will make use of the mighty soler panel? Because that technology is a proven powerhouse. Making solar sells requires resources not found in abundance on the moon, so you's have to pack all that to get at the plentify lunar silicon...which again is just as plentiful here on Earth.

He3 is a useful thing to collect, for fusion research. That research is, at present, not really a cash cow, though, and the theoreticaly available He3 on the Moon is still very low, so He3 will be collected in miniscule quantities no matter what.

Using the Moon as a weapons platform is an interesting idea, but why is that more of a threat than China building orbital weapons platforms generally (and likely at far lower cost)? Also, paranoid much?

First, if the Chinese set upo a colony there, then so could others. It's a big place and they are not going to have an army in space suits ready to attack a second colony a thousand miles away.


Or they wouldn't even have to worry about it if they already had a deal with the Obama administration.

Chances are, anyone that builds a colony will start at or near the poles where all the water is, so there could be disputes over control of that precious resource on the moon.

Or they wouldn't even have to worry about it if they already had a deal with the Obama administration.


Why would Obama have agreed with the Chinese that they could have the Moon to themselves? Do you think he's just crazy, or <3s communism so much that he gifted it to them?

Besides, Obama won't be President when they set up their colony, and his unannounced (and unlikely) agreement to give thm the Moon won't be binding unless ratified by the Senate.

Why would Obama have agreed with the Chinese that they could have the Moon to themselves? Do you think he's just crazy, or <3s communism so much that he gifted it to them?

Besides, Obama won't be President when they set up their colony, and his unannounced (and unlikely) agreement to give thm the Moon won't be binding unless ratified by the Senate.

I don't necessarily think it's because he's head over heals for Communism, but I think China has a lot more influence over Washington D.C. than most people realize. I wouldn't be surprised if Obama's skipping the moon "because we've already been there" for actually some other reason.

Does anyone actually think it would be cheaper to send men to an asteroid or Mars than it would be to send people to the moon ? I don't think so.
Not to mention, the moon's just 3-4 days away by rocket, an asteroid would take a lot longer, not to mention the astronauts would have to get off the asteroid before it got too far away from the Earth. A trip to Mars requires years round-trip. If a back-up rocket was needed to help astronauts in trouble, it would be far easier sending a rescue mission to the Moon.

This policy change of skipping the moon makes no sense considering what I just mentioned. A deal with China sounds like a plausable theory as to Obama's new policy change.

First, if the Chinese set upo a colony there, then so could others. It's a big place and they are not going to have an army in space suits ready to attack a second colony a thousand miles away.


Granted they probably wouldn't stop other people from entering, but their advantage would be hugely profitable to them, because everyone else would pay them for access to the infrastructure they had already set up.

If they managed to filter any kind of combustible material out of materials on the surface. (Any reversible chemical reaction with high energy release will do), then they could bring some reusable rockets up there, refuel them, and use them as a sort of conveyor belt to get objects out of low Earth orbit and carry them the rest of the way to the Moon. (That's an exponential difference in the amount of fuel and size of rocket needed for Moon or deep space launches.)



Second silicon is available in virtually unlimited supply in the Earth's crust too, so I am not sure what the Moon is superior for that element. Because China will make use of the mighty soler panel? Because that technology is a proven powerhouse. Making solar sells requires resources not found in abundance on the moon, so you's have to pack all that to get at the plentify lunar silicon...which again is just as plentiful here on Earth.


True that it's plentiful in both places. Actually more common on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_VS_Earth_Composition.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_Comp_Graph.png

However, in some ways, it is incredibly easy to process because lunar Regolith responds very strongly to Microwave energy.

http://www.isruinfo.com/docs/microwave_sintering_of_lunar_soil.pdf



He3 is a useful thing to collect, for fusion research. That research is, at present, not really a cash cow, though, and the theoreticaly available He3 on the Moon is still very low, so He3 will be collected in miniscule quantities no matter what.

Also mentioned toward the last part of that article, it's not hard to collect, but also not incredibly well concentrated.



Using the Moon as a weapons platform is an interesting idea, but why is that more of a threat than China building orbital weapons platforms generally (and likely at far lower cost)? Also, paranoid much?

Actually there is a very good reason: The impact velocity of an object dropped from the Moon is quite a lot greater than the impact velocity of an object dropped from Low Earth Orbit. Also, once you've set up enough infrastructure to make one object on the Moon, you could just as easily make hundreds or thousands of them. Launching them one by one from Earth would be considerably more expensive per unit.

Granted they probably wouldn't stop other people from entering, but their advantage would be hugely profitable to them, because everyone else would pay them for access to the infrastructure they had already set up.

If they managed to filter any kind of combustible material out of materials on the surface. (Any reversible chemical reaction with high energy release will do), then they could bring some reusable rockets up there, refuel them, and use them as a sort of conveyor belt to get objects out of low Earth orbit and carry them the rest of the way to the Moon. (That's an exponential difference in the amount of fuel and size of rocket needed for Moon or deep space launches.)



True that it's plentiful in both places. Actually more common on Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_VS_Earth_Composition.JPG

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Moon_Comp_Graph.png

However, in some ways, it is incredibly easy to process because lunar Regolith responds very strongly to Microwave energy.

http://www.isruinfo.com/docs/microwave_sintering_of_lunar_soil.pdf



Also mentioned toward the last part of that article, it's not hard to collect, but also not incredibly well concentrated.



Actually there is a very good reason: The impact velocity of an object dropped from the Moon is quite a lot greater than the impact velocity of an object dropped from Low Earth Orbit. Also, once you've set up enough infrastructure to make one object on the Moon, you could just as easily make hundreds or thousands of them. Launching them one by one from Earth would be considerably more expensive per unit.

All good points I didn't think of.

Seriously though, can anyone think of a real reason why Obama wants to skip the moon ?
This China theory is the only thing I can think of, because his excuse of "we've already been there" is nothing less than a bad joke.

The moon makes FAR more sense to be human's next step in space rather than an asteroid or Mars. The moon is far closer to Earth, it has water at the poles necessary to sustain a base, it would be cheaper to send people to, and it's far closer for any rescue mission that a need might arise for.


Meanwhile for China :

China eclipses its competition in new moon mission (http://shanghaiist.com/2010/02/23/post_23.php)
"2020 could very well be the year of the “Tài Kōng Ren” (太空人 astronaut), as China aims to land its first man on the moon within the next decade. The anticipated lunar landing marks the beginning of a new era in international space exploration and one in which China could lead the pack.

With the Obama administration’s recent decision to pull the plug on NASA’s moon mission program, “Constellation,” the lunar torch has officially been passed and China seems next in line."

China Shifts Space Station Project Into Overdrive (http://www.space.com/news/china-prepares-for-space-station-100415.html)
"China is planning to launch three spacecraft between 2011 and 2016 to form the basis of a manned space station, the director of the Chinese Manned Space Engineering Office (CMSEO) said Wednesday."