Im not an intense tinfoiler but I... we all know the governments lie to the people they think they control, from affairs, murder and policies being slipped through.
So to say we cant go back to the moon because of budget is a lie, bacterial life exsits in the frozen continent and the moon has water cycles.
Bacterial cannot be killed at kelvin, all it needs to survive in space is a casing to protect from space rads and it can hibernate.
We have the tech to travel to it, Im positive people are willing to be adventurers and risk life for discovery.
So why dont we go back there! Mars is a suicidal goal until we use non liquid explosive fuels.
If I say it enough it will be adressed
Perhaps you
should be an intense tinfoiler. The
pro-tinfoiler mind-wave broadcasts are getting through your existing headgear and making you believe strange things.
Governments
lie withhold truths for the sake of their current administration aims, but the bigger the truth, and the more people needed to withhold the truth and it will leak.
Take as a model Bletchley Park, kept out of the public gaze, post-WW2 until circa 1974, with 9-12,000 persons having been there, specifically inducted under wartime secrecy rules, and with no information even 'useful' to the public once the more open work at Manchester, Lions' LEO, UNIVAC in the US and the like reinvented the same wheels (better!), with or without those involved having to obfuscate and downplay into obscurity any connections to the wartime Colossus, ENIAC, Z3, etc...
In turn, Apollo, already an open project (the public definitely knew it existed, so quite obviously have had questions to ask about it) with a vast number of public contractors and others (Wiki: "...employed 400,000 people and required the support of over 20,000 industrial firms and universities") and even paring that down to those close enough to a 'secret' to need silencing (perhaps mostly academics, but also control staff needed to cover up for any emergency mission changes/blackouts), we're now talking about people not enrolled under the cover of secrecy, and doubtless a few would have considered that they'd never signed up for this... and are living in a more open culture. Leaky sieve, or what?
For the budget, well, it's no longer the game of one-upmanship against The Big Enemy (now various Big Enemies are doing various things, but aside for Jade Rabbit having belatedly entered the contest for a third-place on the podium there's no part of the game that involves the Moon). It now has to make full and commercial sense, under reasonable due diligence, not just being trumped by ideological fervour with an
incidental side-effect in that (by one famous quote, both overcut and undercut by different analyses) every dollar spent on Apollo resulted in eight dollars of economic benefit.
Bacteria exists in Antarctica (I assume you're saying... FAKEEDIT: yes you are) because it exists on Earth. Also, water exists in all three standard states (to a greater or lesser degree) in the Antarctic in a cycle, albeit a sluggish one. On the Moon, so far we only know about it being overwhelmingly Solid-(sublimes)->Gas. Which is
not a cycle. Certainly not of any use to life-as-we-know-it. Any evidence to the contrary would be far beyond the Apollo program's tentative scrapings. (Did they even get to see ice, at their non-polar latitudes, and limited penetration of the lunar regolith? I don't think they did.)
"Bacterial cannot be killed at kelvin". You mean "zero-degrees kelvin"? Yes/no, depending on other conditions. And of course it's not zero-degrees, anyway, remember; still far from optimal in other regards, though. But they have to
be there, in a viable form, to be killed (or not). So far there's very little evidence that interplanetary microbes-on-a-meteorite life would satisfy viability upon landing on another body, and it's overwhelmingly agreed that environments other than the Moon are required for non-panspermic life generation. Basic molecules might be generated in gas clouds, complex ones
maybe in comets, full blown cells (or some other solution to the problem of encapsulating life-supporting sets of chemical processing plants in a coherent mass) need something a bit more Earthlike (to our current knowledge), which is why recent discoveries of flowing liquid water (reasonably current) and lakes (historic) are interesting.
I'd personally put Pluto (with its seeming active geology and tentative atmosphere - being indicative of subplutonian activity rather than of a viable surface environment, that is) at a higher chance of harbouring some homegrown life-like 'cells' than the Moon, albeit based upon casual and uneducated philosophising regarding New Horizon's survey data.
If 'life' is on the Moon, then a) We put it there; or, b) It got there from somewhere else. In either case, it's likely in exteme hibernation/practically dead. Mostly the latter. And, in either case, sparse enough to be discounted as smeers of sub-trace organic molecules.
There's the tech, yes (but we'd need to build/rebuild some infrastructure) and my hope is that there
are willing adventurers (there certainly seem to be, those who are signing up for the one-way Mars mission, albeit that some might only consider it just 'a bit of fun' that they'll never need to commit to, given how far off the possibility of it going will be).
To 'discover life', however you'd be a fool to send people, in the first instance! They'd contaminate and invalidate whatever they went to look at. We're not even entirely sure about the sterility of our robotic probes, currently (if/when we send something to observe the 'flowing water on Mars', it's going to have to be the most sterile thing we've
ever produced.
And what's this with "non liquid explosive fuels"? Solid boosters? Not really suitable except for expendable (not turn-on-and-offable) thrust. Or are you talking about gasses? Which we tend to use already, albeit often cooled to liquid in a cryogenic manner. Maybe you mean "non-(liquid explosive fuels)", i.e. the likes of an ion-drive. Not ideal. Too developmental, longer transit times (and thus supplies, for manned-missions) and currently not suitable for the high delta-V parts of the mission.
Manned missions have their own issues with 'suicide' (see the one-way Mission To Mars plan, mentioned above), without dwelling on the particularities of the propellant.
And if I say "give me a Ferrari" enough, maybe
that'll be addressed. It would be cheaper, and easier to do, too!
Author
Topic: Space Thread (Read 366781 times)