• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Newt promises a permanent moonbase by the end of his second term

I want a permanent moonbase soon too, and I want it to house my up-and-coming Legion of Doom (swamps aren't good enough to hide us all)
 
Cleon said:
To an extent, but only to an extent.

When building a factory on Earth, a CE might want to look at air circulation, filters, etc; s/he wouldn't have to worry about where the oxygen itself comes from.

A CE might have to hook up the plumbing to the city's water supply; in cases where the factory's in the middle of nowhere, perhaps some well-digging would be in order. A lunar engineer would have to figure out how to either manufacture water on-site, or ship it in from another planet.
Click to expand...

And yet to me, a Civil Engineer, it's the exact same thing. There are already processes used here on earth to almost completely recycle basic materials such as water. Pauly Shore even made a movie about it. Doing this on the moon would be cutting edge, hi-tech, but it still relies on the same basic principals that govern how things work on the earth. Because gravity is different, civil engineers would have to re-examine every derived formula, chart and graph that we use. There would also need to be some research into experimentally derived formula we use, which is common in fluid dynamics. But something tells me that much of this has already done that.

Recent experiments have proven that there is water on the moon. We can gather it there. It will be an enormously useful resource for creating fuel and oxygen.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Not even in the future? It could alleviate overcrowding here on Earth.
Click to expand...

It'd be far easier to populate Antarctica and Greenland than to use the Moon as a way of alleviating overcrowding here on Earth. It'd probably be a near thing comparing the Moon to the ocean floors for that same purpose.
 
Newtons Bit said:
And yet to me, a Civil Engineer, it's the exact same thing. There are already processes used here on earth to almost completely recycle basic materials such as water. Pauly Shore even made a movie about it. Doing this on the moon would be cutting edge, hi-tech, but it still relies on the same basic principals that govern how things work on the earth. Because gravity is different, civil engineers would have to re-examine every derived formula, chart and graph that we use. There would also need to be some research into experimentally derived formula we use, which is common in fluid dynamics. But something tells me that much of this has already done that.

Recent experiments have proven that there is water on the moon. We can gather it there. It will be an enormously useful resource for creating fuel and oxygen.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My point wasn't that the two were identical. It was more that we have become so accustomed to the results that they are almost invisible to us in our everyday lives. I don't give much thought to how a sewage system functions, I just flush the toilet. However, I am able to do that because at some point, some civil engineer (or more likely a group of them) did give it a lot of thought.
 
Newtons Bit said:
And yet to me, a Civil Engineer, it's the exact same thing. There are already processes used here on earth to almost completely recycle basic materials such as water.
Click to expand...

Not particularly well, though. It remains more theoretical than practical.

Pauly Shore even made a movie about it.
Click to expand...

Well, that settles that, then. ;)

Recent experiments have proven that there is water on the moon. We can gather it there. It will be an enormously useful resource for creating fuel and oxygen.
Click to expand...

Problem is, we don't know exactly how much, whether it's easy to extract, and whether the substantial deposits are near to a good location for Moonbase Alpha.

Also, if we're going the "lunar industry" route, it's worth keeping in mind that air/water/food recycling needs to be implemented on a much larger scale than the Biosphere projects.

As I said before - I'm not saying the challenges make it impossible, only that they make the eight-year window Gingrich wants completely unrealistic.
 
Cleon said:
As I said before - I'm not saying the challenges make it impossible, only that they make the eight-year window Gingrich wants completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Agreed, I was just pointing out that the specific concerns are also concerns on Earth. It is just that we have had several millennia to work out the details.
 
Cleon said:
As I said before - I'm not saying the challenges make it impossible, only that they make the eight-year window Gingrich wants completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...

Especially if more cuts to research grants happen.
 
cwalner said:
Agreed, I was just pointing out that the specific concerns are also concerns on Earth. It is just that we have had several millennia to work out the details.
Click to expand...

Not to mention (relatively) easy availability of the raw materials involved. When people developed sewage systems, they were already living on lakes and rivers; they didn't have to develop their own water source at the same time.
 
Last edited:
Cleon said:
Not to mention (relatively) easy availability of the raw materials involved. When people developed sewage systems, they were already living on lakes and rivers; they didn't have to develop their own water source at the same time.
Click to expand...

Well, they do have oceans on the moon, Didn't the Eagle land in the Ocean of Tranquility?
:boxedin:
 
Sea of Tranquility

And Newt can have my vote if he ups the ante and promises us Star Destroyers.
 
Cleon said:
Not particularly well, though. It remains more theoretical than practical.
Click to expand...

If by "theoretical" you mean it's been demonstrated successfully in an experiment that lasted over two years, then sure. But that doesn't meet any definition of the word "theoretical" that I'm aware of.

Problem is, we don't know exactly how much, whether it's easy to extract, and whether the substantial deposits are near to a good location for Moonbase Alpha.

Also, if we're going the "lunar industry" route, it's worth keeping in mind that air/water/food recycling needs to be implemented on a much larger scale than the Biosphere projects.

As I said before - I'm not saying the challenges make it impossible, only that they make the eight-year window Gingrich wants completely unrealistic.
Click to expand...

How do your concerns make a moon base unrealistic? The ISS currently operates without having to mine water or gather any resources. It can operate for extended periods without supply. Remember, Gingrich's plan calls for a permanent moon base, not a completely self sufficient colony. The proposed moon base would eventually progress to something larger (otherwise what's the point?). The experiments necessary to determine the feasibility of mining moon water would be conducted from that base.

8 years to put a structure similar to the ISS on the moon isn't unfeasible. It will be difficult, but not impossible. The biggest problem will be developing the rocket systems necessary to get us there and land safely. But we have some good references to work with, given that we were really good at it forty years ago.
 
cwalner said:
Well, they do have oceans on the moon, Didn't the Eagle land in the Ocean of Tranquility?
:boxedin:
Click to expand...

It was filled with wine, but the astronauts drank it all after eating some bites of the moon. It's made of cheese, don'cha know?
 
Donal said:
. . . . Second, yes, the Moon holds little value in and of itself . . . . .
Click to expand...

Newt wants us to go back to the gold standard, so Newt disagrees since he realized that nobody has mined any gold from the moon yet. Since Newt is full of it, he plans to boost America's wealth with projected moon-gold reserves.

Or more likely, Newt is just talking out his butt.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
Where and how has this been proven? I thought all the unmanned interplanetary probes resulted in way more science and data collection [eta: that is, the "best exploration" of the solar system] than the manned programs (including Apollo, Skylab, and the ISS) at a fraction of the cost.

And if you're speaking of science in general, the limitation of human eyes is pretty obvious!

At any rate, Newt's proposal for this endeavor isn't at all credible given his budget/tax proposal: http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/12/news/economy/newt_gingrich_taxes/index.htm
Click to expand...

Sending an actual geologist to the moon proved to be enormously helpful to science. Having trained eyes on the scene is just invaluable.
 
BenBurch said:
Newt wants to go to the Moon in 8 years?

So, I guess that he has become a big-government make-work Liberal then.

Because I know for fact that MY fortunes will improve if we spend the $2-3 Trillion needed to do this. Every engineer who can get a security clearance will be made of GOLD. Boeing will have to open new plants. Washington lobbyists and defense contractors will all be in Fat City. Millions now unemployed will be in good Union jobs with benefits. Good times.

However; Where does he think the $2-3 Trillion will come from???
Click to expand...

Moon Gold.
 
Travis said:
Sending an actual geologist to the moon proved to be enormously helpful to science. Having trained eyes on the scene is just invaluable.
Click to expand...

Sending robot probes throughout the solar system has proven more so for a lot less money.

I still say manned exploration provides a lot less return on the investment. It's waaaaay more expensive.

But again, Newt has no business making any promises of big spending projects when his tax proposal would cut revenues by $1.3 trillion for the year 2013 alone! He'd be too busy drowning the federal government in a bathtub to consider a permanent moon base.
 
I hope this moonbase is one promise he intends to keep, because if Newt wins two terms I'm going to live there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom