The moon landings 40th aniversary!

Today, it's been 40 years since neil armstrong became the first human to set his foot on another world, marking victory for the western world over the east and it's allies. Not only did this mean the start of plans for the colonization of space (NASA and ESA are planning to build a settlement on the moon withing max 50 years), but it also got future generations to become interested in space travel.

But, not everyone believes in the moon landing. Some paranoid conspiracy theorists think it was all a hoax made to boost cold war morale (feel free to dsicuss this).


Backgrounds for your desktop: http://wallpapers.msn.com/sv-se/

More to come

40 years...This is definitely worthy of celebration. We need caek and cookies. Or cookie flavored caek.

Sorry, but I found this picture and was waiting to use it.

And what does that have to do with the moon landing?

nothing. but it is a day of significance today. it'll probably be another 40 years before we go back if the economy stays the way it is.

what would be the point to go back?

nukes.

oh, right.

but most of the countries that have the tech to go to the moon already have enough nukes. i see something wrong with thus.

ummm.... a moon...base....? You know, for science and stuff.... Also, the west would be able to rub it in on the rest of the world (ESA and NASA would probably cooperate on this one)

nukes

from the moon? they could just use satelites, you know. Would be one hell of alot cheaper

but america likes nukes

DW, you seem to be expressing yourself more recently. To what event can we attribute this paradigm?

you consider a one word post to be expressing myself?...hm, interesting

Toa Kaita wrote:I think we have more than enough nukes on Earth. If nukes start being sent to the moon, I'm going to start some kind of letter writing campaign. Which I have been thinking about starting a lot of come to think of it...

They're not stupid. Putting nukes on the moon is a crappy idea, if they wanted to make a space super weapon, they'd use satelites.

I don't know which is the most stupid. Apart from mine, that is.

They wouldn't put nukes on the moon. Its inpractical, as they would have to pay loads to get them up there, loads to maintain them and even more to build the facilities to house and launch them. And then the nukes would blow up in the atmosphere, so they would have to spend loads of money to make them be able to pass the atmosphere, just for a war that isn't likely to happen.

I think a giant death laser or dragon shaped tank are better ideas.

Eh... We're getting WAAAAAY off topic here. Discuss the moon landing, not death lasers.

Yeah, but i think DW kinda steered it that way. Ah well.

As for the landing itself, big whoop, it was going to happen eventualy. It was either going to be russia or america. As for a moon base, NASA is going to start planning it next year.

but we wont be back on the moon until 2020 or later

Well, yeah. But we'll probably be coming back and forth from the moon alot once we've started building the base.

Obviously, or what would happen to the ones there? They woul starve to death!

Not really, there's basic agriculture and they know how to get water from moondust. So they'd do ok as long as the base is built the right way and has all the systems needed.

But until then it will be so much time? Years maybe? And also... although they know how to do that... do you see it as a permanent solution?

Besides, I think we should head on directly to Mars instead of passing by the moon... It's easier to make a good looking habitat on Mars than on Moon...

Are you kidding? The moon base will be useful for thousands of years. Not only will it make building large ships easier because of the nature of the moon, but it'll also be used as a launch pad for further missions in the solar system and deep space. It maybe wont look good, but it'll be useful as hell. And yes, it's a very permanent solution. There are huge areas of moondust up there which can be used as water and building a few farming modules will allow large teams to spend infinite time up there as long as the plants are ok and grow back after being harvested.

Also, there are huge amounts of helium 3 (which could be used as a cheap and clean energy source) and titanium.

and dont forget the mining!

yeah, that's going to take another 20-40 years though i think. but once they've got the mining working, we'll probably not need coal and uranium here in the west anymore.

See that... As far as we know, we're the only life existent in the universe, right? And all that life focused on a small little planet, in the midle of a shotting range isn't that good idea, right? So, we need another, a second planet, an outpost for our life... do you guys follow me until here? Now it's the main part...

The moon, although a nice little SHIELD that protected Earth for eons and shall protect for another eons to come, will not always do the job, so sooner or later, we shall be hit by a massive asteroid which would exterminate our civilization... unless, we have another base of life...

The moon isn't a big option, because, like I said... it's a shield, and what does a shield? get's hit so the things that it is protecting isn't... So, sooner or later, our little base would be hit, and then KABOOM! there goes our little moon base... and I said that, because that, even a small asteroid rain, which here on earth makes a great show in our skies, there the show would happen in the moon... and if our base is there, there's a very high chance of being hit...

the other choices are Venus and Mars... Venus wouldn't be because of it's super dense atmosfery and high temperatures(pressures... Mars... it would be the most likely because it has an atmosfere and it's known that it also has water... To make it a little planet like Eart, we only need to make it's atmosfere slightly dense and a little bit more hot... and then we've a second Earth...

And the comment about the ship building... I think that the big ships would be easier to build in open space... not on any tipe of body...

Shooting range? We're not in a shooting range, actually, the chance of getting hit by anything out here is minimal. And we need the moon faaaar more than we need mars right now, we'll have to use the moon as a launch pad to mars. Also, there are HUGE amounts of resources on the moon, resources we can extract and ship down to earth in only a couple of days. Mars takes years to reach, so getting the minerals up there down to earth would take years too. Building a base would take a very looooooong time, as you'd need alot of trips there and back to build it. Also, the ESA and NASA are working on a program that will be able to repell/ destroy asteroids.

Thingy wrote:Shooting range? We're not in a shooting range, actually, the chance of getting hit by anything out here is minimal. And we need the moon faaaar more than we need mars right now, we'll have to use the moon as a launch pad to mars. Also, there are HUGE amounts of resources on the moon, resources we can extract and ship down to earth in only a couple of days. Mars takes years to reach, so getting the minerals up there down to earth would take years too. Building a base would take a very looooooong time, as you'd need alot of trips there and back to build it.

Actually, it'd very likely that we'll be hit by a significantly large asteroid at some point. Remember the dinosaurs? The favourite theory of their extinction is still by meteorite.

And as for Mars v. Moon, why would it take more trips to supply Mars? It would just take longer for those trips.

Thingy wrote:Also, the ESA and NASA are working on a program that will be able to repell/ destroy asteroids.

Nukes.

Nukes would only split it into huge pieces which would be alot more devastating.

And no, it wouldnt take many more trips, it would just take a loooong time to get there and back. So the moon would be done faster. I'm sure we'll build a base on mars sooner or later, but first we have to build one on the moon to make it easier to get to mars.

Yes, it's the favorite theory, and it's probably right. But they werent intelligent, they were just big animals. We're more likely to survive because we're able to either push it away or hide under ground using our technology to survive till it's all clear to go back up and rebuild civilization.

Yes, moon is easier and so on... but how much time would you give your fancy base? 100 years at the best chance, before it would be crushed by even a small meteor rain... and there is harder to knw when they're coming...

And about the defense of earth... I saw this in a movie (yes, a MOVIE, so it might not work) that the nukes placed ahead of the asteroid (and not in the asteroid itself), in enough number, and in a gaseous enviroment would repel the asteroid like if we had a shield... and there we avoided the radiactive fallout...

They could put it underground or something. It would not only shield from heat, cold and radiation, but it would also shield from meteor showers. Either that or they could build a shield or something, but underground sounds easier and more likely. But mars just cant be made for a hundred years or so, sure, we could send someone there in, i dont know, 50 years? But building a base there? That's not going to work. Not only because it takes a long time, but it's also going to cost us some epic amount of cash, and we wouldnt be getting much back because of the time it will take to send machines up there and bring back the stuff we get from there.

why dont we screw the moon and fix the earth

fix earth? you really believe in that global warming propaganda? anyway, we actually need a base because one of these days there isnt gonna be enough room on earth for all these people...

well the world is getting hotter... what we really could use is renewable resources instead of taking everything from the moon.

overpopulation will be a problem, and i have a really long way of telling why the moon wil NOT work for that problem. the governments really need to put a law of 2 children max.

Yes, galaxy, you're right. All the people who have spent years and years to study it, found this huge pile of evidence and the fact that it's getting hotter much faster than it should are wrong, the guy on fox is right.

@ Black. Yeah, good point. But the thing is, we need fuel. And there's fuel up on the moon. Also, i think it's possible to build bigger bases in the not so distant future, making people able to live up there and taking care of the overpopulation that wont be fixed by building bigger and taller houses.

A-BIack_Man wrote:well the world is getting hotter... what we really could use is renewable resources instead of taking everything from the moon.

overpopulation will be a problem, and i have a really long way of telling why the moon wil NOT work for that problem. the governments really need to put a law of 2 children max.

Actually, overpopulation is beginning to stop being a risk... Even though undeveloped countries have top scale birth rates, developed countries' birth rate has been diminishing drastically...

raffitz wrote:

A-BIack_Man wrote:well the world is getting hotter... what we really could use is renewable resources instead of taking everything from the moon.

overpopulation will be a problem, and i have a really long way of telling why the moon wil NOT work for that problem. the governments really need to put a law of 2 children max.

Actually, overpopulation is beginning to stop being a risk... Even though undeveloped countries have top scale birth rates, developed countries' birth rate has been diminishing drastically...

But the undeveloped countries are still making babies like crazy, while at the same time not being able to support their own populations with food.

And they die, meaning, less population. Besides, global population has a lot of elders, who will die as well -> less population... The children born don't make up for the people who die...

Again... the moon would be a very good base for SCIENTIFIC exploration... we could never build a colony up there... it doesn't have enough condition...

But on Mars... we only need to apply a greenhouse effect and plant a few T1 ecossistem and I think we should be able to survive there... without the prolonged need of building isolated habitats, cause, sooner or later, there should exist a good enough habitat to suport a human colony...

You've been playing too much Spore...

Yep... Faaaar too much spore... We cant just send our cute little spaceship there in a second and use the increase atmosphere tool, drop a couple of elephants, a giraffe and a lion then build a colorful little city which will automaticly send spice to earth which we'll sell to the gnorfianxians for spacebucks.

We need the resources up there, and we'll also use it as a way to get to mars and back much faster. We'll also be able to use it as a way to build bigger ships which we'll use to either get the things we mine on the moon or on mars.

raffitz wrote:And they die, meaning, less population. Besides, global population has a lot of elders, who will die as well -> less population... The children born don't make up for the people who die...

I will open up a new topic for this.

Thingy wrote:Yep... Faaaar too much spore... We cant just send our cute little spaceship there in a second and use the increase atmosphere tool, drop a couple of elephants, a giraffe and a lion then build a colorful little city which will automaticly send spice to earth which we'll sell to the gnorfianxians for spacebucks.

In fact... that's the idea... except the part of selling it to anyone... and the speed... the best thing is... estabilish a colony there... use the tactics of enviromnent warm up we use here on Earth a few centuries, and in less than 2 centuries, we could actually estabilish a new planet... like Earth...

And raffitz... how the heck do you know I've been addicted to Spore? (and WRC4 but that's not what matters...)

we're not warming up the earth. thats just stupid propaganda to put a tax on CO2. in fact, the earth is actually cooling down

yeah, right, the over 45º here in summer and so on are not caused by warm up... when the medium temperature was, what? 30º? in 1994? oh, this is even cooling down... and the fact that the english can now cultivate grapes? amazing!

Galaxy-Scarface wrote:we're not warming up the earth. thats just stupid propaganda to put a tax on CO2. in fact, the earth is actually cooling down

You and Alka are the only global warming sceptics on the forum now, I think. So don't feel intimidated when mny people disagree.