Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MaximumZero]

Vacuum Energy would be nice.

[KaelGotDwarves]

I don't understand Newt's appeal.

He's not Romney.

[Sirus]

What I meant is that people living on a moon base (or some other hostile environment) are not going to be able to rely on things like frequent deliveries or running power lines from the nearest hydroelectric dam. They'd need to produce their own power (without relying on fuel shipments), grow their own food (to supplement diets), recycle water and air, maybe even make their own. Point is, this isn't stuff you try to do on the fly. You need preparation and testing done on Earth, and the techniques we learn could improve life down here as well as up there.

Education: The problem is that many schools already do not get enough funding. If schools could afford things like science labs and decent computers (instead of barely being able to buy enough paper), students would be more interested in learning and pursue those science-y careers you were talking about. We can't build a moon base using a bunch of fast-food workers, so education comes first (maybe with some reforms to solve those problems you alluded to).

Economy: I fail to see how sinking billions of dollars into something like a moon base will fix our own economy. Unless you anticipate being one of the lucky colonists, you'll still have to deal with the massive debt and constant budget cuts. Making sure we don't collapse and become a third-world country is priority numero uno.

I will grant you the science and knowledge point, because you're right; the space race greatly expanded our technological abilities and helped a lot of people all over the world begin to dream big.

[jester]

I think the other thing to remember is:  you aint gonna get a moonbase.  The idea of people living full time on the moon in 8 years time is a pipedream, we dont even have people living in orbit anymore.  More likely its a way for Newt to pour a big pile of money into a few companies

[Sheb]

Sirus, I guess the whole R&D part is part of the Moon Base plan. The plan to colonize the moon isn't to send a bunch of guys with spades, picks and a wagon.

Well, maybe Newt's plan is (that's why he think he can do it in 8 years?) but he's insane anyway.

[mainiac]

Economy: I fail to see how sinking billions of dollars into something like a moon base will fix our own economy. Unless you anticipate being one of the lucky colonists, you'll still have to deal with the massive debt and constant budget cuts. Making sure we don't collapse and become a third-world country is priority numero uno.

If you are experiencing depression economic and interest rates have been stuck at the zero bound for the past three years then anything that spends money in the short term is good actually.  Moon base probably isn't ideal as it takes too long.  But if we spent two trillion dollars digging a ginormous hole and then spent another two trillion dollars filling it in that would return the economy to full employment.  That in turn would greatly improve our countries finances because tax revenues would rise and spending on things like unemployment benefits would fall.  If we had full employment and let the Bush tax cuts expire we'd have debt start shrinking as a percentage of GDP.

[GlyphGryph]

And the Moon Base would create economic pressure for skilled science, technology, and manufacturing jobs, making those jobs more appealing. Also, all the support jobs that go with those.

Moon base probably isn't ideal as it takes too long.

Getting prepared for the moon base would actually probably involve a heck of a lot more jobs than the moon base itself, especially if we're going to do it in 8 years.

[RedKing]

There's one facet of a moonbase that intersects with conservative conceptions of America very well: it would give us a frontier again. One school of American history (one that frequently touts American exceptionalism) posits that America was at its best, its most productive and most democratic when it still had a frontier to settle. It meant opportunity available to the poor back East. Rather than forming a permanent underclass in the big Eastern cities, millions of them packed up and headed west to make homesteads on all that open land. That notion of being able to strike out on your own and carve out your own little patch from the wilderness by hard work and your wits is part and parcel of "the American Dream". Of course, it really hasn't worked like that since about the 1940s, if not earlier.

I could see a lot of people voluntarily migrating to the Moon if there were jobs a-plenty and/or the Moon was determined to be rich in valuable minerals. Wouldn't be the first time large population movements have been triggered by a gold rush.

But anyways....no riot last night. Florida, I am disappoint. Aren't you the same state that made it legal to shoot first if you "feel threatened"? Where was that kind of tinfoil-crazy last night?

It'll be interesting to see how the polls digest the debate, especially with no clear "winner".

[Montague]

There's one facet of a moonbase that intersects with conservative conceptions of America very well: it would give us a frontier again. One school of American history (one that frequently touts American exceptionalism) posits that America was at its best, its most productive and most democratic when it still had a frontier to settle. It meant opportunity available to the poor back East. Rather than forming a permanent underclass in the big Eastern cities, millions of them packed up and headed west to make homesteads on all that open land. That notion of being able to strike out on your own and carve out your own little patch from the wilderness by hard work and your wits is part and parcel of "the American Dream". Of course, it really hasn't worked like that since about the 1940s, if not earlier.

I could see a lot of people voluntarily migrating to the Moon if there were jobs a-plenty and/or the Moon was determined to be rich in valuable minerals. Wouldn't be the first time large population movements have been triggered by a gold rush.

Sorry, moonbases still suck. If we wanted a new frontier, it'd be more lucrative and easier to build colonies on the ocean floor in international water. The landmass in the arctic. The treaties preventing economic activity in Anarctica will end soon. There are also plenty of untouched places in national territory as well, like Siberia and hell, Afghanistan. We could build cities or colonies deep underground for less expense and asspain then a moonbase. All better ideas.

[RedKing]

I think you're ignoring the power of the popular imagination. If you asked someone, "Would you rather be a colonist on the Moon, or a colonist in Antarctica?" moon base is going to win hands-down.

[GlyphGryph]

We should probably move this to the moonbase thread.

[mainiac]

Sorry, moonbases still suck. If we wanted a new frontier, it'd be more lucrative and easier to build colonies on the ocean floor in international water. The landmass in the arctic. The treaties preventing economic activity in Anarctica will end soon. There are also plenty of untouched places in national territory as well, like Siberia and hell, Afghanistan. We could build cities or colonies deep underground for less expense and asspain then a moonbase. All better ideas.

There are no resources in those locations.  If there is no return on investment it's not a frontier, it's a wasteland.

[RedKing]

Agreed. Less moonbase, more moonbat.

And speaking of moonbats, Gingrich still has about a 3-point lead in national polls, but Florida is slipping away from him. Yesterday's poll releases both show Romney re-establishing a 9-point lead in Florida. Expect Gingrich's SuperPAC to unleash an absolute barrage of anti-Romney ads over the weekend.

[mainiac]

How recent are those national polls?  Maybe they just aren't recent enough to show the same decline as Florida.

[RedKing]

How recent are those national polls?  Maybe they just aren't recent enough to show the same decline as Florida.

It's an aggregate spread. Honestly, it'd be higher than that except it's factoring in a somewhat out-of-date CBS poll from 1/12-1/16 that showed Romney up by 7 nationally. All the recent (1/24-25) snapshot polls put Gingrich at 6-9 points above Romney. But then, nationally people haven't been subjected to the ad blitz like Floridians have. So it's only the most salient bits that are going to influence them. Might see a lot more movement nationally if Romney wins Florida and wins big.