• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should the US ReCalim the Moon

Should the US Reclaim the moon?

  • Total voters
    21
MyOwnDrum said:
I think going to the moon, at this point in history, is a waste of resources. I'd rather see a government program, on a grand scale like this, researching and developing future sources of fuel for transportation and electricity. The human race also needs to stop growing in numbers, this is another imperative.
Click to expand...

You want the human race to stop growing? Find don't have any children, that will be a start.

People will continue to breed until a cull is necessary and that is when a major war or disease will break out and bring down the population to the level where things won't be as bad. But please people need to continue reproducing.

And the source for a new fuel might be on the moon but we will never find out because of individuals like you who believe going to the moon is pointless.

And I don't think you have a understanding of what is wrong with the world, but I won't bother telling you because you wouldn't get it.
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
And the source for a new fuel might be on the moon but we will never find out because of individuals like you who believe going to the moon is pointless.
Click to expand...

Helium 3 is on the moon and it has great energy producing potential.
 
Kandahar said:
Ay, there's the rub. You're forgetting that every human who has ever lived is also down here, not up there. :roll:
Click to expand...

You were discussing water, not people. You should at least be able to remain focused on your own statements.

Kandahar said:
The base you are proposing has no reason for existing aside from the water.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

I listed 10 items of military and commercial importance.

Kandahar said:
And the water has no commercial use aside from the base...which makes the whole idea ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You mean water has no value in the exploration and explotation of the Solar System?

Kandahar said:
You just acknowledged a couple posts ago that if we establish a base somewhere on the moon, any other country could still establish one elsewhere.
Click to expand...

Amazing how freedom works, isn't it?

Kandahar said:
The reverse is true as well
Click to expand...

Is it?

Doesn't that depend on who establishes the base and what they're willing to do to maintain their monopoly?

I KNOW the United States would not forbid others access to the moon, history has shown that no other nation can be trusted with that kind of power.
 
USA-1 said:
Helium 3 can also be manufactured right here on earth.
Click to expand...

Helium 3 needs to be made from Tritium. Only about 250kg of tritium has been produced since the 1950s. That's not nearly enough for a reactor.
 
Orius said:
Good for you... you can spot when something is circular. Doesn't change the truth of what I said, which you are refusing to rebut.
Click to expand...

One isn't required to rebut a circular argument. Pointing out it's circularity is negation enough.

Orius said:
If the moon was so important there would already be major operations underway to go there. But it's a low priority, in reality.
Click to expand...

So you repeat your circular argument.

:roll:

Orius said:
They're only unconstitutional because you don't like them, and that's not the subject we're discussing. I suggest you keep your eye on the ball.
Click to expand...

No, they're unconstitutional because they're unconstitutional. Welcome to a discussion where people use words accurately.

Orius said:
What the U.S. does domestically is different than claiming celestial bodies. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges tend to dry out in complete vacuum.

Just tellin' ya.

Orius said:
And if those programs are so unconstitutional, why would you support an even bigger portion of money going into a program to build a base on the moon that only a few will occupy?
Click to expand...

The objection to unconsitutional programs is their illegality, not the quantity of money stolen to run them.

Will have forward missile spotting positions above the artic circle. Since only a handful of men man them, you're arguing that we shouldn't have them, because other programs are unconstitutional.

You really need to work on your logic skills.

Orius said:
It has no practical benefit for the nation.[/

Yes, some people say national defense has no practical benefits for the nation.

Those people are wrong.

Orius said:
Are you suggesting nuclear propulsion to get those weapons back to earth?
Click to expand...

That's still "rocket" propulsion, isn't it?

Orius said:
That sounds like nuclear weapons to me, and that would be illegal under international treaty. Arming space is against the law.
Click to expand...

Oh. Of course. When I said the US should maintain missile launch facilities on the moon, naturally I meant those missiles should only carry a thousand pounds of chemical explosive. What on earth...er off earth else could I have meant?

Orius said:
Types of rocks are assets. Why would we mine the moon when rock and mineral assets are still fairly abundant on earth? The need to mine the moon won't become pressing during Obama's administration, that's for sure.
Click to expand...

David was interested only a round rock to fit his sling. Is "round" a "type of rock"?

Why would we mine lunar assets?

Gravity.

Orius said:
If it takes more resources to get the rocks off the moon than the rocks are worth, then it's a total waste... unless of course they discover some new, super duper useful material that can only be found on the moon.
Click to expand...

I know! They'll find on a moon a type of aluminum that will take 5/6 less energy to propel to mars than any aluminum found on earth. I'm sure it's there.

Orius said:
A single domesticity cannot hope to colonize space, not even the U.S. It's a pipe dream until we collectively get our priorities in check.
Click to expand...

You mean "until we scrap the stupid evil socialist notion of collectivizing wealth by stealing", don't you?
Click to expand...
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You were discussing water, not people. You should at least be able to remain focused on your own statements.
Click to expand...

Well presumably people are going to use that water somehow. You said that it's useful because it's already up there, which naturally implies that there will be people up there as well. :roll:

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I listed 10 items of military and commercial importance.
Click to expand...

...all of which are associated with maintaining the colony itself, which makes this a circular argument.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
You mean water has no value in the exploration and explotation of the Solar System?
Click to expand...

It has no value if there are no people on the moon.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Amazing how freedom works, isn't it?



Is it?

Doesn't that depend on who establishes the base and what they're willing to do to maintain their monopoly?

I KNOW the United States would not forbid others access to the moon, history has shown that no other nation can be trusted with that kind of power.
Click to expand...

A) If China won't/can't even fight us for Taiwan, they certainly won't/can't fight us because we established a lunar base 2,000 miles away from their lunar base. :roll:

B) This is the height of absurdity. You're speculating about whether or not China will be able to monopolize the moon, when there is not even a single person on the moon today. I suggest you turn off Star Wars and focus on the real world. There are plenty of amazing technological developments that will be economically feasible in the FORESEEABLE future that have the potential to change society. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
Helium 3 needs to be made from Tritium. Only about 250kg of tritium has been produced since the 1950s. That's not nearly enough for a reactor.
Click to expand...

"Helium-3 is present on the moon, but in very small concentration levels, meaning that many hundreds of millions of tons of soil must be processed to extract a ton of helium-3," said Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, a NASA-funded research institution.

This extraction requires heating lunar dust particles to around 1,300 degrees Fahrenheit (700 degrees Celsius), Spudis said.
 
This is a huge mistake. Giving up on our human spaceflight programs is an absolutely terrible idea.
 
USA-1 said:
"Helium-3 is present on the moon, but in very small concentration levels, meaning that many hundreds of millions of tons of soil must be processed to extract a ton of helium-3," said Paul Spudis of the Lunar and Planetary Institute, a NASA-funded research institution.
Click to expand...

So it's pretty much the same as extracting the water from the soil then eh?
 
molten_dragon said:
This is a huge mistake. Giving up on our human spaceflight programs is an absolutely terrible idea.
Click to expand...

Why? The space program is a corporate welfare program that just gives tax dollars to corporations.
 
megaprogman said:
That would be like telling Chris Columbus to wait until Spain fixed all of its problems before setting sail.
Click to expand...

Spain didn't really have many problems in 1492. It has just reconquered Granada and it was a time of high patriotic feelings. As a matter of fact, Columbus took advantage of the good graces of Isabel of Spain to finance his travel. He had been refused various times before by not just Spain but also Portugal. The only "problem" Spain had at that time was gaining control of the huge trading market in Asia at the time. This was a "problem" because another naval power also had its eye on Asia, Portugal. Wait, I'm talking too much. Your analogy is bull****. Learn history.
 
Last edited:
danarhea said:
In the 1960's, the space program created many things of value. I especially liked "Tang". :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

How do you feel about your Teflon coated frying pan?
 
USA-1 said:
Why? The space program is a corporate welfare program that just gives tax dollars to corporations.
Click to expand...

No, the bailout is an example of corporate welfare and so is the fact that the state government of Illinois gives wal-mart 100million dollars to help relieve them of stress, when in reality a corporation like wal-mart does not need that money.
 
Kandahar said:
Well presumably people are going to use that water somehow. You said that it's useful because it's already up there, which naturally implies that there will be people up there as well. :roll:
Click to expand...

Yeah, whatever. Do I really have to do the regression where i point out that it's only useful IF we send people up there, and otherwise play your deliberately obfuscating game?

The fact that there's water there GREATLY increases the ease of exploiting the moon, and makes our entry into the greater solar system that much simpler.

That there is huge mineral and energy wealth to be found and used in the solar system can't be denied, nor can the fact that establishing a permanent human presence on the moon is essential to gaining access to these other resources.

Unless you're willing to accept the concept of a "Spaceship Earth" that never stops in port for replenishment with it's concomitant vision of a restricted humanity and limited future, exploitation of the solar system is essential for a wealthy human future.

Kandahar said:
A) If China won't/can't even fight us for Taiwan, they certainly won't/can't fight us because we established a lunar base 2,000 miles away from their lunar base. :roll:
Click to expand...

China has not yet made it's move against Taiwan, hence it's not possible to say that China won't fight the US if we defend that republic against an Chinese imperialist attack.

China has, on more than one occasion, threatened to use nuclear weapons against the United States over Taiwan, and China is repeatedly testing American resolve by threatening naval ships and US aircraft in international waters and skies.

To say that China "won't/can't" fight the US is foolish in the extreme and it's not how sane nations react to potential threats.

Kandahar said:
B) This is the height of absurdity. You're speculating about whether or not China will be able to monopolize the moon, when there is not even a single person on the moon today. I suggest you turn off Star Wars and focus on the real world. There are plenty of amazing technological developments that will be economically feasible in the FORESEEABLE future that have the potential to change society. :2wave:
Click to expand...

I suggest you stop watching The Clone War, Cartoon Network Edition, and try to pay attention to the real challenges in the modern world presented by very real engineering issues.
 
Ikari said:
So it's pretty much the same as extracting the water from the soil then eh?
Click to expand...

No, if you'd bother to keep up with recent developments.

Plenty of water on the moon on permanently shaded craters around the poles.

How much is yet to be determined, but the LCROSS test kicked up about 25 gallons in the impact plume.
 
Coronado said:
I say just let Richard Branson do it. He will probably end up getting it done at 1/100th the cost.
Click to expand...

Certainly a major overhaul and rejection of the bureaucratic nonsense attitude at NASA has to be performed so the engineers and not the politicians can resume control of what are, after all, engineering issues, not political issues.

But I make the arument that this is a national defense issue, not merely commercial, and as such the US government has a signficant role to play, and a Constitutional duty to fill that role.
 
Teflon doesn't hold a candle to a good, well-seasoned cast iron pan.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
Certainly a major overhaul and rejection of the bureaucratic nonsense attitude at NASA has to be performed so the engineers and not the politicians can resume control of what are, after all, engineering issues, not political issues.

But I make the arument that this is a national defense issue, not merely commercial, and as such the US government has a signficant role to play, and a Constitutional duty to fill that role.
Click to expand...

In light of the sentiment you often endorse, arguing for government intervention... on the moon... is quite stunning. In an attempt to stay consistent, how about we wait until the private sector has the means in which to fully fund the notions expressed in previous posts? You know, let the free market work.

Something tells me if the federal government were to subsidize such an endeavor, you would be one of the first to complain about "intrusion/intervention". ;)
 
Gray_Fox_86 said:
No, the bailout is an example of corporate welfare and so is the fact that the state government of Illinois gives wal-mart 100million dollars to help relieve them of stress, when in reality a corporation like wal-mart does not need that money.
Click to expand...

NASA is taxpayers paying for other people jobs.
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Teflon doesn't hold a candle to a good, well-seasoned cast iron pan.
Click to expand...

Oh man yummy:

fd_chicken17_085_cl.jpg
 
Manc Skipper said:
It's handy for frying stuff. Teflon was invented in the 1930's, what's your point?
Click to expand...

Give me an old cast iron fry pan anyday. Oops. I guess someone just said that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom