Political bias in the media

[Parkbandit]

I was reading about how NASA might be going back to the moon to establish a moon base and realized how utterly bias this article was.

NASA has struggled for decades with strategic uncertainty, and there's nothing like a partisan transition in the White House to discombobulate everyone. There will surely be a new administrator, and new ambitions, and disfavored programs, with associated budget cuts (Earth Science is a likely target).


Right this minute, though, no one seems to know what's going to happen with America's civilian space agency. The chaotic Trump transition operation has yet to send a delegation to NASA headquarters. NASA's in-house transition team is standing by, and you can imagine that people are getting a bit jittery. There are deadlines to meet. Everything's in a holding pattern.


In the spirit of promiscuous speculation, we will float this notion: The moon is back!


With Donald Trump as president-elect, moon-colony-loving Newt Gingrich hovering close at hand, and Republicans controlling both houses of Congress, NASA may soon be told to get ready to do what it already did back in the 1960s and '70s — put people on the moon, this time to stay.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2016/11/18/with-trump-gingrich-and-gop-calling-the-shots-nasa-may-go-back-to-the-moon/

It was still interesting and I do think we should move to a moon base first before sending people to Mars.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I honestly don't get why we're messing with the moon. It's barren, it's interesting from a technical point of view because it was blasted away from the earth via impact during our pre-primordial ooze stage, but it doesn't do us much good to establish anything there. In my opinion money kicked to Nasa would be best spent on installing a space elevator, exploring Titan for life, and getting the ball rolling on putting the seeds down for colonizing Mars.

[Gelston]

I honestly don't get why we're messing with the moon. It's barren, it's interesting from a technical point of view because it was blasted away from the earth via impact during our pre-primordial ooze stage, but it doesn't do us much good to establish anything there. In my opinion money kicked to Nasa would be best spent on installing a space elevator, exploring Titan for life, and getting the ball rolling on putting the seeds down for colonizing Mars.

It is a test bed for colonizing Mars and we need to build a giant laser on it to stop the alien invaders.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

It is a test bed for colonizing Mars and we need to build a giant laser on it to stop the alien invaders.

Let's just get some sharks with some frickin lasers on their heads and call it a day.

[Parkbandit]

I honestly don't get why we're messing with the moon. It's barren, it's interesting from a technical point of view because it was blasted away from the earth via impact during our pre-primordial ooze stage, but it doesn't do us much good to establish anything there. In my opinion money kicked to Nasa would be best spent on installing a space elevator, exploring Titan for life, and getting the ball rolling on putting the seeds down for colonizing Mars.

There are many reasons to establish a moon colony, Helium3 is probably the most lucrative. But it's easier (and far less expensive) to put a base on the moon than it would be to put one on Mars. Work out all the testing/glitches on a "planet" that is extremely close to us before attempting it on one that is very far away from us.

[~Rocktar~]

Let's just get some sharks with some frickin lasers on their heads and call it a day.

Would you settle for some ill tempered mutated sea bass?

But really, the moon is a massive strategic advantage and I am super surprised that that we have not already put a base there for spying, signals intel and maybe a nice rail cannon to rock people we don't like. Nothing like a 10 ton nickel iron door knocker from orbit to deal with your enemies minus the radioactive fallout and uninhabitable territory afterward to put a chill on assholes around the world.

[Gelston]

Would you settle for some ill tempered mutated sea bass?

But really, the moon is a massive strategic advantage and I am super surprised that that we have not already put a base there for spying, signals intel and maybe a nice rail cannon to rock people we don't like. Nothing like a 10 ton nickel iron door knocker from orbit to deal with your enemies minus the radioactive fallout and uninhabitable territory afterward to put a chill on assholes around the world.

Who says we haven't. Pft, you suck at Government conspiracies.

[Back]

I agree with the moon base idea. We should conquer that before running off to Mars. It could be the second station out from the International Space Station.

[~Rocktar~]

Who says we haven't. Pft, you suck at Government conspiracies.

It's true, I have been too busy working and paying my bills to protest a democratic election or keep up on the latest in nouveau conspiracy theories. Sorry.

[Gelston]

It's true, I have been too busy working and paying my bills to protest a democratic election or keep up on the latest in nouveau conspiracy theories. Sorry.

Not even a new conspiracy theory. It has been around since at least the 60s.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There are many reasons to establish a moon colony, Helium3 is probably the most lucrative. But it's easier (and far less expensive) to put a base on the moon than it would be to put one on Mars. Work out all the testing/glitches on a "planet" that is extremely close to us before attempting it on one that is very far away from us.

That makes sense.

[Warriorbird]

Of all Newt Gingrich's pet issues this is one of the ones I find the least objectionable.

[kutter]

There is a very real reason to go to the moon to get to Mars though, since its gravity is so much less. I would have to look it up again but sending an object into deep space requires a lot of energy something like 90% of its mass is fuel that is consumed in the first few minutes. That formula changes dramatically with the gravity of the moon only being roughly 18% of earth.

People are the most fragile things we launch into space so building a ship on the moon makes sense since you can send the pieces there on trajectories with something like a rail launch system no human could ever survive and then assemble and launch with a ship that does not need so much fuel so it can carry far more payload.

[Gelston]

There is a very real reason to go to the moon to get to Mars though, since its gravity is so much less. I would have to look it up again but sending an object into deep space requires a lot of energy something like 90% of its mass is fuel that is consumed in the first few minutes. That formula changes dramatically with the gravity of the moon only being roughly 18% of earth.

People are the most fragile things we launch into space so building a ship on the moon makes sense since you can send the pieces there on trajectories with something like a rail launch system no human could ever survive and then assemble and launch with a ship that does not need so much fuel so it can carry far more payload.

According to to this one movie we'll blow up the moon to make space condos.

[Androidpk]

small research outposts/mining on the moon, colonization of Mars

[Shaps]

If we don't establish something on the moon first, how do we ever expect warp drive, lightsabers, teleportation, deep space mining, an alien discoveries to occur. Figured you'd have all learned something by now from The Star Trek and The Star Wars.

[Androidpk]

Maybe we already have an established military/research facility under the ground on the moon, breeding and cloning super soldiers

[Shaps]

Maybe we already have an established military/research facility under the ground on the moon, breeding and cloning super soldiers

Why Soldiers? I'm thinking they're making super spiders and other animal types that we can outfit with nano-robotics to enhance their abilities.

[Stumplicker]

According to to this one movie we'll blow up the moon to make space condos.

Two movies. And much more importantly, a piece of classic English literature published in 1895 responsible for everything from Back to the Future to Dr. Who. Show a little respect!

[Latrinsorm]

I was reading about how NASA might be going back to the moon to establish a moon base and realized how utterly bias this article was.Which part of the article is biased, and in which direction?
There are many reasons to establish a moon colony, Helium3 is probably the most lucrative. But it's easier (and far less expensive) to put a base on the moon than it would be to put one on Mars. Work out all the testing/glitches on a "planet" that is extremely close to us before attempting it on one that is very far away from us.The moon presents significantly more severe challenges than Mars, though. The quantitative difference between gravity/atmosphere alone is enormous. Think of the difference between maintaining cabin pressure in a car vs. a plane vs. a spacecraft.
If we don't establish something on the moon first, how do we ever expect warp drive, lightsabers, teleportation, deep space mining, an alien discoveries to occur. Figured you'd have all learned something by now from The Star Trek and The Star Wars.In Star Trek canon warp drive came before lunar bases. QED

More like Q ED am I right folks?

[Androidpk]

Why Soldiers? I'm thinking they're making super spiders and other animal types that we can outfit with nano-robotics to enhance their abilities.

Would you trust a spider with a laser cannon?