Today: Iraq

[Bob]

I think the idea is to set up the production plants on the Moon. Then the stuff launched from the Moon is simply material that was already there. Of course, setting up an industrial complex on the Moon that is sufficiently advanced to make spacecraft might take more than a few weeks

I was thinking that it might be something like that. Thing is, we don't really know what resources are easily extractable from the moon - undoubtedly some things would still have to be brought up.



The other concern I see is that (ok, it would take a while) but if we go extracting bits of the moon, it has a lower mass. Lower mass = lower gravity between the Moon and Earth = something getting badly messed up.

Ok, so it would take ages to remove enough stuff to make a difference - but has it been considered? When we dig resources up on Earth, it stays on Earth and just gets moved about. But if each spacecraft weighed (say) 5 tons and you moved 100 of those from the moon... Wait, no, this line of argument is silly, you'd have to launch far more than that to make a difference on the 7.35e22 kg that the moon weighs (source). Ignore me.

Also, would you rather be looking up at our current, white, moon with a few grey speckles of craters, or something eesembling the death star all covered in refineries and smelting works, and mines. Is it right for man to make a mess of the moon just because we want to get more minerals?

-Bob

[Drasca]

Actually, the "simple" answer to avoiding the f'ugly aspect of keeping the visible side pretty is....

Mine on the "Dark side (to the earth)" of the moon. Recall Earth only sees one side of its satellite moon due to rotation of moon and orbit being in synch. Just setup shop on the unseen side! Like all the science fiction alien invasions. Since it is Earth invading the moon, we'd definitely be the aliens invading... the moon! (So maybe not mars)

[kandrathe]

I agree it is as feasible as any moon base to make it an armed encampment. I think it is impractical and unneccesary to use the moon as a weapons platform targeting Earth. The threat of nuclear annihilation in less than 15 minutes is the current reality of stealthy sub launched weapons. The expense of trying to lift all that weight to the moon, the difficulty in setting it up, protecting it from being used against us, the vulnerability of the missiles in transit, and many other reasons just makes it seem extremely impractical. And, the current world political climate doesn't really call for the heavy hammer of nuclear weapons.

Don't say it will never happen.

I feel pretty comfortable saying it won't happen in our lifetimes.

I have a much more optimistic prognosis for the world than ray guns from the moon keeping the vassles in line. What the masses of the world are coming to realize as evidenced by protests at G5 summits, and other international economic forums, is that there is vast inequity currently in who controls the reigns of production. In the US, we worry about cheap labor eroding away all of our jobs (including those that require advanced degrees). In other nations, people feel that their resources are being stripped away to manufacture products which they themselves cannot afford, only to entertain the worlds elite (mostly in the US and Europe). I feel most of our current problems (terrorism, gulf wars, central africa) are either a squabble over controlling resources, or in response to this inequity.

[Doc]

I agree with you Kandrathe. It's not practical.

But being practical and being functional has little to do with it. Establishment now and "claiming territory" allows a foundation for future use. It could be laser death rays coming from the Moon or a big flashing red and blue sign that says "Drink Pepsi the Choice of the Lunar Generation" flashing on the Moon.

I remember a lot of folks saying when I was but a boy "It won't happen in our lifetimes." And you know what, most of them were dead wrong.

As for entirely practical defense issues, and not for Earth bombardment, there was an interesting piece wrote by NASA back in about 1994 or so which talked of using the Moon as a defense system to protect the Earth against asteroids and the like. How practical any of that is, I have no idea. That sort of stuff is beyond me, but the NASA Nerds seemed to think it was a good idea and begged for government funding for it. (And it was promptly shot down)

More and more reasons are coming along to turn the Moon into a Death Star.

As Durandal would say, "Allow me to introduce you to the wonders of orbital bombardment."

[whyBish]

Btw, how likely do you think it is that if a terrorist is ever able to take over another plane over the US, that they would stay in the air for another 10 minutes before being shot down?

You mean like last week on the news (So it must be true ;) ) that drunk guy that flew around a couple of nuclear reactors before coming in to land? :P

[--Pete]

Hi,

Personally I think rather than waste a huge amount of money and time convincing people nuclear power is safe, we ought to convince them to use less energy.

Then shut off your computer. It's not necessary, and it's burning the power I need for my TV.

--Pete

[kandrathe]

Thankfully a Cesna is not a threat. Now, give me a 747 Jumbo full laden with fuel but even then studies show it would still fail.

[kandrathe]

:D If it happens in my lifetime. I will personally bag a crow and cook it up in memory of you, Doc.

[Guest]

Youre frabricating a stance for me. Not unexspected from you though.
You tend to always call names that have nothing to do with their comments when they show a flaw in your grand perception.

You know a huge amount of facts, but I dont think your terribly good at putting them together.





I never said we need to use no energy, I said less. And I didnt even venture to make value judgments on what are reasonable uses.

The here are some obvious ways to use less energy that would have the least impact on our quality of live that I can think of. But of course they are just my opinions
-smaller fuel effiecent cars.
-use rail for more transportation and perhaps freight(would require large changes in out infrastructure to do the frieght again)
-less and smarter airconditioning
-mandate effiecent light bulbs

None of that would signifigantly lower anyones quality of life. It would make some businesses less profitable intially, but in the long run an economy adapts to systemic changes.

[kandrathe]

And, if I cut enough do you think it will stem this tide?

Automobile Sales in China

[Doc]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...pace_weapons_dc

Do you like your crow with mustard or ketchup?

Interesting bit about bleeding the Moon dry as an energy source. Awfully interesting stuff. And we want a monopoly on that for sure. Going to take a lot of guns to hold and secure that monopoly.

[Nadreck]

That article mentions arming space, not arming the moon.

Also about Helium 3 on the moon, I read an analysis about that in a book ("Mining the Sky") that was generally enthusiastic about getting resources from space (as you can no doubt guess from the title). Basically, the chances of lunar helium-3 harvesting ever being profitable looked slim to nil even if there was already a base on the moon to use. However, the book did provide an interesting case for it being potentially profitable to get Helium-3 from the atmospheres of outer planets such as Uranus.

[Nystul]

I don't see these two efforts being mutually exclusive. Raising public awareness on the issue of conservation is a good thing, but no amount of conservation is enough to shut down the traditional power plants. Nuclear power should be part of the solution.

The absurdity is that the groups who most strongly lobby for the U.S. to do better at complying with emissions standards and cut down on fossile fuel comsumption come from the same political frame of mind as those who destroyed the future of nuclear power in the U.S. decades ago. They want to choose 'none of the above' to a question that needs a real answer.

The thing about conservation promotion is that it's easy to convince people that conservation is a good thing, but it's very hard to convince people and businesses to make any specific sacrifices in order to conserve energy. With nuclear energy, just convincing the public that it's a good idea would go a long ways.

[ShadowHM]

The thing about conservation promotion is that it's easy to convince people that conservation is a good thing, but it's very hard to convince people and businesses to make any specific sacrifices in order to conserve energy.

Making people pay realistic fees for it would go a long way toward 'encouraging' conservation.

Replacement cost fee schedules would be a start. Getting government legislation out of the fee structures would be an Good Thing™ too.

New York State gets most of its electricity from Hydro Quebec, which, in turn gets most of its electricity from two huge hydroelectric projects - one in Newfoundland, which got screwed over for the payments scheduled over the 40 (?) year contract. The balance comes from a project that flooded an area larger than many U.S. states.

There are no more places to get electricity that don't cost hugely in terms that the public are starting to understand. (Maybe, sorta) There are a handful of 'wild' rivers on the continent, and there is a desire to protect them. The pollution costs of coal are high, and the cost of compliance with a reasonable level of 'scrubbing' is also very high. Setting the cost of current fees for electrical power at 'replacement' costs would make sure that Johhny and Jane Q. Public get the message.

However.....

In my own province of Ontario, the government now (again) regulates electricity costs to make sure that we, the people, don't have to pay too much for it. This is contrary to an election promise, but what government is able to withstand the 'oh gawd - it hurts' message being screamed at them by all manner of voting constituents?

I know for a fact that several very promising wind generation projects just went on hold when the regulation re-appeared. (I am not trying to claim that wind generation is the answer to the problem, I just want to make it clear that we buy our electricity for much less than 'replacement cost' in any form.)

[kandrathe]

The only mention of the moon was this bit;

"I think the new initiative is driven by a desire to beat the Chinese to the moon," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense and space policy research group

I'll save my sporting until it is a reality and not just a reporters misinterpretation of Rummy. He's not the easiest guy to understand, unless you know all the known knowns. But, if that is his pipe dream, it is a far cry from reality (unless all sensibility has left the congress).

[kandrathe]

We have coal fired plants, NG fired plants, some wind & solar farms, some nuclear, and many small hydro plants. But, unfortunately the bulk of our power comes from coal fired plants. The companies here are deregulated and so are starting to have more control over setting rates at profitable levels. Source: Xcel: Power Generation

In my area (which is currently very, very cold. -19C is our high today. ) we have any number of electricity and home energy conservation programs. And, I believe the majority of people participate in them. If you look at the home of 2004, you would find the electricity producing and consuming devices more efficient than predecessors, but there are also more of them. TV's for instance are 30-40% more efficient, but now the average home has 3 or more TV's rather than just one. So unless people curb their purchases, and return to more conservative living I don't see efficiency tips alone as an answer. What will make a difference is the price of electricity, but that is not popular here as it is anti-progressive and could harm the economy.

I do believe that the single largest contribution to a healthy economy is cheap, abundent energy. Secondary, are raw materials(or purpose) and trained labor.

Another difficulty here is that we have just the beginnings of any type of viable mass transit. In the past decade our economy has boomed, and the suburban populations have swelled which has clogged the roads with increasing numbers of vehicles. The only answer I see to the automobile problem is for the transformation of the automobile to alternative fuel sources, such as fuel cells.

[Guest]

Energy costs are to cheap over all.

It probably should be progressivly taxed, with everyone haveing a base exemption.

[--Pete]

Hi,

It takes intelligence to appreciate irony.

--Pete

[Zenda]

"Then shut off your computer. It's not necessary, and it's burning the power I need for my TV."

Maybe he does shut off his computer from time to time. I admit its a very un-American thing to switch TVs and such off, but you never know, do you?

"So, dial power consumption back? Sacrificing the manufacture of your TV, your Car? Down to say what level? Zero?"

Haven't we heard enough slippery-slope tactics this last year? With over 2/3 of the worlds energy production being used by 1/3 of its population, a remark like that surely must come from someone in the lucky group. Noone said you have to shut down your own cars, TVs or computers (even if many 'civilised' people have several of each). But do you need all those neon lights in the streets? If everyone had the same high energy consumption as we have, the world would have to produce twice as much. Every country, including the socalled 'evil Islamic' ones, would need its own nuclear plants. Seeing how both fossile and uranium-based nuclear power will last only for several decades at the current pace (or did we forget uranium is a rare element?), that would give quite a problem.

Luckily, there are people who know we can find more durable sources of energy, if we put some effort in it. Let's just hope such people don't despair because they are ridiculed for it, and accused of destroying the future of nuclear power (which seems to have survived the attack well enough) and causing the current shortages (it must be those demonstrations, using up so much power).

To get back on topic ...

I hope there are only few Americans who don't see Bush' announcement as a way to gain votes. But it looks as if there are many who think this is not going to work. Ambitious plans like this are always welcomed by investors and the industry (even if there is not going to be an actual manned flight), and that in turn makes shareholders happy. And American voters are shareholders, for the most part. You can be sure that Bush, or at least one of his advisors, is aware of this. Don't underestimate your politicians again, in their ability to gain your favor.

[Guest]

Irony is clever, most of your digs are simple.


And if you really want to break it down by definitions you werent actually ironic. Irony is a constrast between the actual and the implied.

It only appeared to be irony if your manufactured stance you gave me exsisted.

But dont worry - irony confuses many people Pete.