Arguing about fuel plans is just plain silly. Do you really think the rocket scientists of the world don't know about rocket fuel??? ANYTHING we can use that is on the surface of the Moon is a huge advantage. And, water absolutely IS of major interest for life support and for fuel. Sending tanks of ANYTHING to the moon is a HUGE issue. The weight and volume of what is sent is calculated to the gram and cubic centimeter.
My cynical self says it's a deflection tactic of the Democrats to get us to ignore how crappy things are down here.
I'm not at all sold on sending humans to the Moon. But, assuming that NASA's statement is their full justification is ridiculous. And, JFK's full explanation wasn't any better. At its root it was a cold war move.
Let's remember that it is CONGRESS and various presidents who have wanted to send humans to the moon ... no to Mars ... no the moon ... no to Mars, but to the Moon first. And, when congress decides where NASA is going, it is the law - not something NASA can just reject. If space science were up to NASA, I think they would have a different plan. imho, we could make more science progress without the stupendous costs required for our efforts at keeping humans alive on the trip.
Satellites in space. Lasers are more effective without an atmosphere and the moon doesn't rotate. The same side faces earth all the time and so there will always be an easy target from the moon somewhere around the globe.
How much energy would be required for laser on the Moon to penetrate Earth's atmosphere and do damage on Earth's surface?
Going to the moon a few times briefly using immense resources to show we're better than the soviets isn't the goal here. This is meant as a stepping stone to much loftier goals including a long-term presence on the moon, as well as the mission to Mars. It's exciting because things are finally progressing again in the field of manned spaceflight, after being stagnant for so long. Much like war, spaceflight tends to give us innovations in technologies for everyday use as well as military use and gives me more hope to see a future where people explore space and continue to make exciting new discoveries/technologies. It's like all the benefits of a war without the death and destruction. It's the best thing ever to me, frankly.
Too much. I imagine it would be to target and destroy satellites and Intercontinental missiles that circle the earth.
I would guess that's more likely. But, I'd rather be on the side of working to NOT have space be the next frontier of a multinational weapons race.
Perhaps but I doubt that a laser based on the moon would be able to focus enough energy to damage a satellite or missile
We can get enough energy to slice metal. We also have these types of weapons on ships. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/heres-our-first-look-at-a-helios-laser-armed-navy-destroyer Generally there is a loss of energy as lasers travel through the atmosphere because the collision and absorption of energy by atoms. Distance becomes a problem because of that energy loss. More distance equals more photon/atom collisions. In space there is a vacuum so the laser is going to be insanely more efficient. Less chance of the photon being absorbed. I think the bigger problem is going to be hitting a target from that distance.
You should listen to JFK speech. It was much more than Cold War, but Cold War alone is a good reason. Doing it to send minorities to the moon is just stupid.
We're sending people to the moon, because congress made that the law, which NASA is required to follow. Anyone thinking that NASA decided to go to the moon to demonstrate some commitment to equality is just WAY off the mark. Maybe the big deal is that NASA allowed other races to apply to their astronaut program. Would that be jarring to you?
So now you resort to the racist card. Tell me this - what race am I? What race is my family? Where have I lived? Where did I grow up?
??? You are REALLY sensitive on the race issue. I made NO intimation of what you might think about racial equality, etc. And, I think I made it clear that the "equality" thing could not possibly justify a moon shot. Congress ordered NASA to go to the moon. So, then in that previous post you totally blow THAT issue, too, blaming it on scientists!!
Oh, good LORD! My bet here is that NASA already has to conform to the law made by congress - they have to try to send people to the moon. And, with the money blown on SLS they really don't have much else to be proud of other than that they picked a mixed set of astronauts. That is SAD, not jarring. Do you think they should have searched for something ELSE to be proud of? What would that be???
I'm not sure what all the reasons for going there would be, but it does seem that a certain amount of curiosity is a very human trait. Moving from one part of the Earth to another part must have been a similar kind of experience for the first humans. I say go for it. Been a long time since I've seen folks walking on the moon. Having said that, there does seem to be a bit of a rush to get this mission going. Kind of reminds me of a space shuttle.
I absolutely did not suggest anything related to racism. The original comment was on how NASA emphasized the diversity aspect, even hinting that as being a justification for the mission. I pointed out that nobody would see that as justification for the mission.
