Is There Any Hope For A Moonbase?

[ronin]

with all that Helium 3 up there i would conveniently say that there will be mining operations on the moon in the future.

[Tonz]

wasn't that element for fuel mentioned by bob lazar (L something 13) taken from the moon surface, used to fuel some energy thingo in the captured craft?

he was ridiculed at the time as the element didn't exist but now apparently it does.

so maybe the mining is this element.

[Tonz]

just flicked the wickpidia for moon base , turns out a very interesting amount of info , most i think has been done.

anyways the pro and cons:


Exploration of the Lunar surface by spacecraft began in 1959 with the Soviet Union's Luna program. Luna 1 missed the Moon, but Luna 2 made a hard landing (impact) into its surface, and became the first artificial object on an extraterrestrial body. The same year, the Luna 3 mission radioed photographs to Earth of the Moon's hitherto unseen far side, marking the beginning of a decade-long series of unmanned Lunar explorations.

Responding to the Soviet program of space exploration, US President John F. Kennedy in 1961 told the U.S. Congress on May 25: "I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth." The same year the Soviet leadership made some of its first public pronouncements about landing a man on the Moon and establishing a Lunar base.

Manned exploration of the lunar surface began in 1968 when the Apollo 8 spacecraft orbited the Moon with three astronauts on board. This was mankind's first direct view of the far side. The following year, the Apollo 11 Lunar module landed two astronauts on the Moon, proving the ability of humans to travel to the Moon, perform scientific research work there, and bring back sample materials.

Additional missions to the Moon continued this exploration phase. In 1969 the Apollo 12 mission landed next to the Surveyor 3 spacecraft, demonstrating precision landing capability. The use of a manned vehicle on the Moon's surface was demonstrated in 1971 with the Lunar Rover during Apollo 15. Apollo 16 made the first landing within the rugged Lunar highlands. However, interest in further exploration of the Moon was beginning to wane among the American public. In 1972 Apollo 17 was the final Apollo Lunar mission, and further planned missions were scrapped at the directive of President Nixon. Instead, focus was turned to the Space Shuttle and manned missions in near Earth orbit.

The Soviet manned lunar programs failed to send a manned mission to the Moon. However, in 1966 Luna 9 was the first probe to achieve a soft landing and return close-up shots of the Lunar surface. Luna 16 in 1970 returned the first Soviet Lunar soil samples, while in 1970 and 1973 during the Lunokhod program two robotic rovers landed on the Moon. Lunokhod 1 explored the Lunar surface for 322 days, and Lunokhod 2 operated on the Moon about four months only but covered a third more distance. 1974 saw the end of the Soviet Moonshot, two years after the last American manned landing. Besides the manned landings, an abandoned Soviet moon program included building the moonbase "Zvezda", which was the first detailed project with developed mockups of expedition vehicles[18] and surface modules.[19]

In the decades following, interest in exploring the Moon faded considerably, and only a few dedicated enthusiasts supported a return. However, evidence of Lunar ice at the poles gathered by NASA's Clementine (1994) and Lunar Prospector (1998) missions rekindled some discussion,[20][21] as did the potential growth of a Chinese space program that contemplated its own mission to the Moon.[22] Subsequent research suggested that there was far less ice present (if any) than had originally been thought, but that there may still be some usable deposits of hydrogen in other forms.[23] However, in September 2009, the Chandrayaan probe, carrying an ISRO instrument, discovered that the Lunar regolith contains 0.1% water by weight, overturning theories that had stood for 40 years.[24]

In 2004, U.S. President George W. Bush called for a plan to return manned missions to the Moon by 2020 (since cancelled – see Constellation program). Propelled by this new initiative, NASA issued a new long-range plan that includes building a base on the Moon as a staging point to Mars. This plan envisions a Lunar outpost at one of the moon's poles by 2024 which, if well-sited, might be able to continually harness solar power; at the poles, temperature changes over the course of a Lunar day are also less extreme,[25] and reserves of water and useful minerals may be found nearby.[25] In addition, the European Space Agency has a plan for a permanently manned Lunar base by 2025.[26][27] Russia has also announced similar plans to send a man to the moon by 2025 and establish a permanent base there several years later.[5]

A Chinese space scientist has said that the People's Republic of China could be capable of landing a human on the Moon by 2022 (see Chinese Lunar Exploration Program),[28] and Japan and India also have plans for a Lunar base by 2030.[29] Neither of these plans involves permanent residents on the Moon. Instead they call for sortie missions, in some cases followed by extended expeditions to the Lunar base by rotating crew members, as is currently done for the International Space Station.

NASA’s LCROSS/LRO mission had been scheduled to launch in October 2008.[30] The launch was delayed until 18 June 2009,[31] resulting in LCROSS's impact with the Moon at 11:30 UT on 9 October 2009.[32][33] The purpose is preparing for future Lunar exploration.

Water discovered on Moon[edit]
Main article: Lunar water
On September 24, 2009 NASA announced the discovery of water on the Moon. The discovery was made by three instruments on board Chandrayaan-1. These were the ISRO's Moon Impact Probe (MIP), the Moon Mineralogy Mapper (M3) and Mini-Sar, belonging to NASA.[34]

On November 13, 2009 NASA announced that the LCROSS mission had discovered large quantities of water ice on the Moon around the LCROSS impact site at Cabeus. Robert Zubrin, president of the Mars Society, relativized the term 'large': "The 30 m crater ejected by the probe contained 10 million kilograms of regolith. Within this ejecta, an estimated 100 kg of water was detected. That represents a proportion of ten parts per million, which is a lower water concentration than that found in the soil of the driest deserts of the Earth. In contrast, we have found continent sized regions on Mars, which are 600,000 parts per million, or 60% water by weight."[35] Although the Moon is very dry on the whole, the spot where the LCROSS impacter hit was chosen for a high concentration of water ice. Dr. Zubrin's computations are not a sound basis for estimating the percentage of water in the regolith at that site. Researchers with expertise in that area estimated that the regolith at the impact site contained 5.6 ± 2.9% water ice, and also noted the presence of other volatile substances. Hydrocarbons, material containing sulfur, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, methane and ammonia were present.[36]

In March 2010, NASA reported that the findings of its mini-SAR radar aboard Chandrayaan-1 were consistent with ice deposits at the Moon's north pole. It is estimated there is at least 600 million tons of ice at the north pole in sheets of relatively pure ice at least a couple of meters thick.[37]

In March 2014, researchers who had previously published reports on possible abundance of water on the Moon, reported new findings that refined their predictions substantially lower.[38]

Advantages and disadvantages[edit]

This article contains a pro and con list, which is sometimes inappropriate. Please help improve it by integrating both sides into a more neutral presentation, or remove this template if you feel that such a list is appropriate for this article. (November 2012)
For more details on this topic, see space colonization.
Placing a colony on a natural body would provide an ample source of material for construction and other uses in space, including shielding from cosmic radiation. The energy required to send objects from the Moon to space is much less than from Earth to space. This could allow the Moon to serve as a source of construction materials within cis-lunar space. Rockets launched from the Moon would require less locally produced propellant than rockets launched from Earth. Some proposals include using electric acceleration devices (mass drivers) to propel objects off the Moon without building rockets. Others have proposed momentum exchange tethers (see below). Furthermore, the Moon does have some gravity, which experience to date indicates may be vital for fetal development and long-term human health.[39][40] Whether the Moon's gravity (roughly one sixth of Earth's) is adequate for this purpose, however, is uncertain.

In addition, the Moon is the closest large body in the Solar System to Earth. While some Earth-crosser asteroids occasionally pass closer, the Moon's distance is consistently within a small range close to 384,400 km. This proximity has several benefits:

A lunar base could be a site for launching rockets with locally-manufactured fuel to distant planets such as Mars. Launching rockets from the Moon would be easier than from Earth because the Moon's gravity is lower, requiring a lower escape velocity. A lower escape velocity would require less propellant, but there is no guarantee that less propellant would cost less money than that required to launch from Earth.
The energy required to send objects from Earth to the Moon is lower than for most other bodies.
Transit time is short. The Apollo astronauts made the trip in three days and future technologies could improve on this time.
The short transit time would also allow emergency supplies to quickly reach a Moon colony from Earth, or allow a human crew to evacuate relatively quickly from the Moon to Earth in case of emergency. This could be an important consideration when establishing the first human colony.
If the Moon were colonized then it could be tested if humans can survive in low gravity. Those results could be utilized for a viable Mars colony as well.
The round trip communication delay to Earth is less than three seconds, allowing near-normal voice and video conversation, and allowing some kinds of remote control of machines from Earth that are not possible for any other celestial body. The delay for other Solar System bodies is minutes or hours; for example, round trip communication time between Earth and Mars ranges from about eight to forty minutes. This, again, could be particularly valuable in an early colony, where life-threatening problems requiring Earth's assistance could occur.
On the Lunar near side, the Earth appears large and is always visible as an object 60 times brighter than the Moon appears from Earth, unlike more distant locations where the Earth would be seen merely as a star-like object, much as the planets appear from Earth. As a result, a Lunar colony might feel less remote to humans living there.
A Lunar base would provide an excellent site for any kind of observatory.[4] In the near-vacuum of the Moon's atmosphere, there is practically no atmospheric diffraction. Observations could be made continuously, provided that during the lunar day an optical telescope would be shaded from the Sun and from surrounding glare, and that it would not be pointed too close to the Sun or to the horizon. It would be possible to maintain constant observations on a specific target with a few such observatories at different longitudes. The Moon's geological inactivity and its infrastructural remoteness bring about an unusual mechanical calmness, which would be advantageous particularly regarding the erection of interferometric telescopes, even at relatively high frequencies such as visible light.[41] NASA scientists have done developmental work toward manufacturing telescope mirrors using lunar material.[42] Building observatory facilities on the Moon from lunar materials allows many of the benefits of space based facilities without the need to launch these into space.
A farm at the Lunar North Pole could provide eight hours of sunlight per day during the local summer by rotating crops in and out of the sunlight which is continuous for the entire summer. A beneficial temperature, radiation protection, insects for pollination, and all other plant needs could be artificially provided during the local summer for a cost. One estimate suggested a 0.5 hectare space farm could feed 100 people.[43]
With fewer rockets launched from Earth, there would be less contribution to global warming through the burning of rocket fuel.
There are several disadvantages to the Moon as a colony site:

The long lunar night would impede reliance on solar power and require a colony to be designed that could withstand large temperature extremes. An exception to this restriction are the so-called "peaks of eternal light" located at the Lunar north pole that are constantly bathed in sunlight. The rim of Shackleton Crater, towards the Lunar south pole, also has a near-constant solar illumination. Other areas near the poles that get light most of the time could be linked in a power grid.
The Moon is highly depleted in volatile elements, such as nitrogen and hydrogen. Carbon, which forms volatile oxides, is also depleted. A number of robot probes including Lunar Prospector gathered evidence of hydrogen generally in the Moon's crust consistent with what would be expected from solar wind, and higher concentrations near the poles.[44] There had been some disagreement whether the hydrogen must necessarily be in the form of water. The mission of the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) proved in 2009 that there is water on the Moon.[45] This water exists in ice form perhaps mixed in small crystals in the regolith in a colder landscape than people have ever mined. Other volatiles containing carbon and nitrogen were found in the same cold trap as ice.[36] If no sufficient means is found for recovering these volatiles on the Moon, they would need to be imported from some other source to support life and industrial processes. Volatiles would need to be stringently recycled. This would limit the colony's rate of growth and keep it dependent on imports. The transportation cost of importing volatiles from Earth could be reduced by constructing the upper stage of supply ships using materials high in volatiles, such as carbon fiber and plastics. The 2006 announcement by the Keck Observatory that the binary Trojan asteroid 617 Patroclus,[46] and possibly large numbers of other Trojan objects in Jupiter's orbit, are likely composed of water ice, with a layer of dust, and the hypothesized large amounts of water ice on the closer, main-belt asteroid 1 Ceres, suggest that importing volatiles from this region via the Interplanetary Transport Network may be practical in the not-so-distant future. However, these possibilities are dependent on complicated and expensive resource utilization from the mid to outer Solar System, which is not likely to become available to a Moon colony for a significant period of time.
It is uncertain whether the low (one-sixth g) gravity on the Moon is strong enough to prevent detrimental effects to human health in the long term. Exposure to weightlessness over month-long periods has been demonstrated to cause deterioration of physiological systems, such as loss of bone and muscle mass and a depressed immune system. Similar effects could occur in a low-gravity environment, although virtually all research into the health effects of low gravity has been limited to zero gravity.
The lack of a substantial atmosphere for insulation results in temperature extremes and makes the Moon's surface conditions somewhat like a deep space vacuum. It also leaves the Lunar surface exposed to half as much radiation as in interplanetary space (with the other half blocked by the moon itself underneath the colony), raising the issues of the health threat from cosmic rays and the risk of proton exposure from the solar wind, especially since two-thirds[citation needed] of the Moon's orbit is outside the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere. Lunar rubble can protect living quarters from cosmic rays.[47] Shielding against solar flares during expeditions outside is more problematic.
When the moon passes through the magnetotail of the earth, the plasma sheet whips across its surface. Electrons crash into the moon and are released again by UV photons on the day side but build up voltages on the dark side.[48] This causes a negative charge build up from −200 V to −1000 V. See Magnetic field of the Moon.
The lack of an atmosphere increases the chances of the colony being hit by meteor. Even small pebbles and dust (micrometeoroids) have the potential to damage or destroy insufficiently protected structures.
Moon dust is an extremely abrasive glassy substance formed by micrometeorites and unrounded due to the lack of weathering. It sticks to everything and can damage equipment, and it may be toxic.[49]
Growing crops on the Moon faces many difficult challenges due to the long lunar night (354 hours), extreme variation in surface temperature, exposure to solar flares, nitrogen-poor soil, and lack of insects for pollination. Due to the lack of any atmosphere on the Moon, plants would need to be grown in sealed chambers, though experiments have shown that plants can thrive at pressures much lower than those on Earth.[50] The use of electric lighting to compensate for the 354-hour night might be difficult: a single acre of plants on Earth enjoys a peak 4 megawatts of sunlight power at noon. Experiments conducted by the Soviet space program in the 1970s suggest it is possible to grow conventional crops with the 354-hour light, 354-hour dark cycle.[51] A variety of concepts for lunar agriculture have been proposed,[52] including the use of minimal artificial light to maintain plants during the night and the use of fast growing crops that might be started as seedlings with artificial light and be harvestable at the end of one Lunar day.[53]
One of the less obvious difficulties lies not with the Moon itself but rather with the political and national interests of the nations engaged in colonization. Assuming that colonization efforts were able to overcome the difficulties outlined above – there would likely be issues regarding the rights of nations and their colonies to exploit resources on the lunar surface, to stake territorial claims and other issues of sovereignty which would have to be agreed upon before one or more nations established a permanent presence on the moon. The ongoing negotiations and debate regarding the Antarctic is a good case study for prospective lunar colonization efforts in that it highlights the numerous pitfalls of developing/inhabiting a location that is subject to the claims of multiple sovereign nations.

[Healthy Skeptic]

OK, I am now going to get 'Back on Topic'.
NASA claims that they don't know how to re-create the 'Heat-Shield' material for re-entry because they have 'lost' the 'formula'.
Yet, GET THIS, the Apollo 11 Capsule that 'supposedly' went to the Moon and Back has been displayed at The Smithsonian since 1970 - and is still there.
SURELY, with today's technology they could do a 'scraping' of the 'Heat Shield' and have it analyzed using a Mass Spectrometer to determine it's composition???
Also, they claim that they have 'lost the technology' of the Saturn 5 Rockets, YET they are prepared to make a revision of the J2 Second Stage of it for Future Missions.
HUH?? They have still got the 'specs' for the 'Second Stage' of the Saturn 5 Rocket, but have 'lost' the 'rest of it'???
I don't know about you, but to me 'something stinks'!!
With Love,
HS

[Tonz]

After jettisoning the LM, the Apollo spacecraft was ready to return home. NASA used the SM's propulsion system to insert the spacecraft into a transearth injection (TEI), which means Apollo would be heading back to Earth in a trajectory that allowed for a controlled descent into the Pacific Ocean.
To prepare for the return trip, the astronauts had to retrieve the launch couch and reinstall it for landing. Just before re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere, the astronauts jettis*oned the service module from the command module. The CM then adjusted its attitude -- or orientation respective to the Earth's surface -- using its thrusters so that the base of the module faced towards the Earth's surface.
The temperature on the CM's surface climbed up to 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, but the heat shields protected the inner structure of the CM. The heat shield was ablative, which means that it was designed to melt and erode away from the CM as it heated up. From the ground, it would look as if the CM had caught on fire during its descent. In reality, the ablative covering is what kept the astronauts inside the CM safe -- the material diverted heat away as it vaporized.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/apollo-spacecraft7.htm

The first use for the material came in 1962 when Lockheed developed a 32-inch-diameter radome for the Apollo spacecraft; it was made from a filament-wound shell and a lightweight layer of internal insulation cast from short silica fibers. But the Apollo design changed, and the radome never flew.1

However, the experience led to the development of a fibrous mat that had a controlled porosity and microstructure called Lockheat®. The mat was impregnated with organic fillers such as methyl methacylate (Plexiglas) to achieve a structural quality. These composites were not ablative—they did not char to provide protection. Instead Lockheat evaporated, producing an outward flow of cool gas. Lockheed investigated a number of fibers—silica, alumina, and boria—during the Lockheat development effort. By 1965, this had led to the development of LI-1500, the first of what became the Shuttle tiles. This material was 89 percent porous, had a density of 15 pounds per cubic foot, appeared to be truly reusable, and was capable of surviving repeated cycles to 2,500 degrees Fahrenheit. A test sample was flown on the Air Force Pacemaker reentry test vehicle during 1968, reaching 2,300 °F with no apparent problems.2

Lockheed decided to continue the development of the silica RSI but would produce the material in two different densities to protect different heating regimes—9 pounds per cubic foot (designated LI-900) and 22 pounds per cubic foot (LI-2200). The ceramic consisted of silica fibers bound together and sintered with other silica fibers, and then glaze-coated by a reaction-cured glass consisting of silica, boron oxide, and silicon tetraboride. Since this mixture was not waterproof, a silicon polymer was coated over the undersurface (i.e., non-glazed) side. This material was very brittle, with a low coefficient of linear thermal expansion, and therefore Lockheed could not cover an entire vehicle with it. Rather, the material would have to be installed in the form of small tiles, generally 6-by-6-inch squares. The tiles would have small gaps between them (averaging about 0.01 inch) to permit relative motion and allow for the deformation of the metal structure under them due to thermal effects. A second concern was the movement of the metal skin directly under an individual tile; since a tile would still crack under this loading, engineers decided to isolate the skin from the tile by bonding the tile to a felt pad, then bonding the felt pad to the skin. Both of these bonds were done with a room-temperature vulcanizing (RTV) adhesive.3

In their Phase C response, Rockwell had proposed using mullite tiles made from aluminum silicate instead of the Lockheed-developed tiles because the technology was better understood and more mature. But the mullite tiles were heavier and potentially not as durable. Given the progress Lockheed had made subsequently, Rockwell and NASA asked the Battelle Memorial Institute to evaluate both candidate systems—an evaluation that the Lockheed product won. But the Lockheed material was not appropriate for all applications. Very high-temperature areas of the orbiter—the nose cap and wing leading edges—would use a reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) material originally developed by LTV for the Dyna-Soar program. The RCC would provide protection above 2,700 °F, yet it would keep the aluminum structure of the orbiter comfortably below its 350 °F maximum. Tiles were used for the entire underside of the vehicle and for most of the fuselage sides and vertical stabilizer. Black tiles could protect up to 2,300 °F, while white tiles protected up to 1,200 °F. Flexible reusable surface insulation (FRSI) protected areas not expected to exceed 750 °F.4

Interestingly, NASA and Rockwell originally believed that the leeward side (top) of the vehicle would not require any thermal protection. But in March 1975, the Air Force Flight Dynamics Laboratory conducted a briefing for Space Shuttle engineers on the classified results of the ASSET, PRIME, and boost-glide reentry vehicle (BGRV) programs that indicated that leeward-side heating was a serious consideration. The thermal environment was not particularly severe, but it easily exceeded the 350 °F capability of the aluminum skin. FRSI blankets were subsequently baselined for this area.

But in the meantime, another problem had developed—with the tiles themselves. As flight profiles were refined and aero-loads better understood, engineers began to question whether the tiles could survive the punishment. By mid-1979, it had become obvious that in certain areas the tiles "did not have sufficient strength to survive the tensile loads of a single mission." NASA immediately began a massive search for a solution that eventually involved outside blue-ribbon panels, government agencies, academia, and most of the aerospace industry. As LeRoy Day recalled, “. . . there [was] a case [the tile crisis] where not enough engineering work, probably, was done early enough in the program to understand the detail—the mechanical properties—of this strange material that we were using . . .” 5

The final solution to the tile problem (at least this one) involved strengthening the bond between the tiles and the felt strain-isolation pads (SIP). Analysis indicated that although each individual component—a tile, the SIP under the tile, and the two layers of adhesives—had satisfactory tensile strength, when combined as a system, the components lost about 50 percent of their combined strength. This was largely attributed to stiff spots in the SIP (caused by needling) that allowed the system strength to decline as far as 6 psi instead of the baseline 13 psi. In October 1979, NASA decided on a “densification” process that involved filling voids between fibers at the inner moldline (the part next to the SIP pad) with a special slurry mixture consisting of Ludox (a colloidal silica made by DuPont) and a mixture of silica and water. Since the tiles had been waterproofed during manufacture, the process began by applying isopropyl alcohol to dissolve the water-proofing, then painting the back of the tile with the Ludox. After air-drying for 24 hours, the tiles were baked in an oven at 150 °F for two hours. After a visual and weight check, each tile was re-waterproofed using Dow-Corning’s standard Z-6070 product (methyltrimethoxysilane). The densified layer acted as a “plate” on the bottom of the tile, eliminating the effect of the local stiff spots in the SIP, to bring the total system strength back up to 13 psi.6

http://history.nasa.gov/sts1/pages/tps.html

this tec has a long history and lots of documentation about it , even pageants for the heat tiles and other systems so it doesn,t sound lost to me.!
baloney macaroni.
come on nasa we are grown ups now

[Healthy Skeptic]

this tec has a long history and lots of documentation about it , even pageants for the heat tiles and other systems so it doesn,t sound lost to me.!
baloney macaroni.
come on nasa we are grown ups now

It's Very Sad Isn't it??
There are many 'conspiracy theories' why NASA doesn't want to go back to the Moon.........
......The 'aliens' told us not to return......We never actually landed on the Moon............etc..etc...etc.........
My belief is that we actually did land on the Moon (With a little help from our ET 'friends') but the 'Moon' photographs were 'faked'.
If you are as 'old' as I am, then you would remember the 'grainy and fuzzy' Black and White TV pictures of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon.
Of course, the Public wanted 'Great Colour Photos' of this 'Historic' moment and the Astronauts 'exploits' on the Moon. The cameras the Astronauts had were not capable of taking the photos which we saw in our Newspapers - I saw a documentary with the 'designer' of the Astronauts 'Moon Cameras'. The photos that we saw, according to him, were 'impossible'. If you like I can elaborate why.
But 'Such Is Life'!!
I suppose it's NASA's job to keep the '95 percentile' happy with their 'explanations' of the Universe.
With Love To You All,
HS

[Tonz]

It's Very Sad Isn't it??
There are many 'conspiracy theories' why NASA doesn't want to go back to the Moon.........
......The 'aliens' told us not to return......We never actually landed on the Moon............etc..etc...etc.........
My belief is that we actually did land on the Moon (With a little help from our ET 'friends') but the 'Moon' photographs were 'faked'.
If you are as 'old' as I am, then you would remember the 'grainy and fuzzy' Black and White TV pictures of Neil Armstrong stepping on the Moon.
Of course, the Public wanted 'Great Colour Photos' of this 'Historic' moment and the Astronauts 'exploits' on the Moon. The cameras the Astronauts had were not capable of taking the photos which we saw in our Newspapers - I saw a documentary with the 'designer' of the Astronauts 'Moon Cameras'. The photos that we saw, according to him, were 'impossible'. If you like I can elaborate why.
But 'Such Is Life'!!
I suppose it's NASA's job to keep the '95 percentile' happy with their 'explanations' of the Universe.

Yes i remember watching a few vids on the cameras abilities at the time ,HS, vidios well worth presenting and my own conclusions also agree with yours that if we did get to the moon, we got there with help, there is a huge amount of info about how the radiation was dealt with by nasa ,none of it makes sense,We are tought one thing but nasa does another then they justify it without any further sense.Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

SPACE THE FINAL FRONTIER!

It seems that the moon is as far as we can hope for according to nasa , and that is impossible now . If we did do this with the Apollo missions i wish we had went to mars instead ,as at least we would have had help to get there . Now we obviously do not have that help any more. The game has changed .We are now led to believe that With more tec we have become less able to advance outside our orbit .

People in general are so very occupied with there daily struggle to survive or entertainment to pass there time away, that they are unable to acknowledge the importance of space exploration.The importance is a social , psychological and a global understanding of who we are and of own awareness,and also of our unlimited abilities. ''To achieve is so much greater than to dream of.''

Our understandings of our solar system is for me the only way to understand our evolution and to understand each other, without it ,it is as if we destined to live in a huge cage ,one that is not respected by all due to the encagement itself.

If there are dolphins born in captivity and live a fish tank for generation after generation , do you think they will stay unaggressive for ever!.No i don't believe they would ,they would become frustrated ,territorial ,paranoid and eventually aggressive just like us.I do believe we are trapped in a situation , a fish tank if you like,governed by someone or something to limit us .Within this physiology we take a few steps forward only to realize later that we have been pushing ourselves back, back into an everlasting blindness of ourselves.

NASA LIES......

We know within that we are so much more than this.We can never trust anything from nasa .
It is at times funny to listen to the rubbish they feed society with ,but society one day will close nasa , and no longer fund it.
As not even the general public will be able eat it any more.
That will create two possible realities ;


1/The general public will loose interest completely of space exploration and i think that will create another cage upon a cage that will eventually create more aggression for the possession of all possible territories.


2/The closer of nasa will create the opportunity for other space centres to advance more freely as there efforts will not be under the sole ideas of nasa .truth has a chance , and new tec can be applied. a new space future for human kind, would mean a new human kind.