/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 68 KB, 475x307, newt-on-the-moon-2.gi.ju.top.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:30:34 2017 No.8681063 [Reply] [Original]

Why haven't we made a moon base yet?

Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:32:43 2017 No.8681066

1: It's extremely expensive and not profitable in any way so nobody wants to pay for it

2: It's politically difficult because no country wants any other country to have control of the moon. It could easily lead to a new world war if one country on their own managed to successfully colonize the moon.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:33:32 2017 No.8681068 because we can't even get a human through the Van Allen radiation belt because its too dangerous no human will ever land on the moon without serious advances in radiation shielding technology, probably centuries away

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:37:36 2017 No.8681075 Money. It takes a lot.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:38:23 2017 No.8681076 >>8681068 That reminds me - And because we have willfully ignorant idiots who would totally freak out and riot if the fantasy nonsense they lived in would be crushed by the reality of building on past achievements.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:39:47 2017 No.8681079 >>8681068 how did they get the laser retro-reflector onto the moon without landing on it? Keep in mind it's been in use by private individuals since 1969 and we didn't really have the ability to put it up their with any automatic systems

Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:50:32 2017 No.8681101
File: 323 KB, 3200x2400, 3vYLQmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8681066
>not profitable
This is the reason we haven't gone any further than the moon since 1971. This is also the reason we're in a large technological stagnation. When you try to reduce everything to making sure investors get more wealth, then nothing will get done.

>>	Anonymous Thu Feb 16 23:55:12 2017 No.8681106 it is already colonized. thats why,, baka

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 00:57:11 2017 No.8681222 Lunar dust.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 01:08:38 2017 No.8681240 >>8681063 >>8681063 India putting 100+ satellites in orbit around venus

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 01:33:37 2017 No.8681278 >>8681079 Didn't the Soviets land a probe with a bunch of instruments shortly after the landings, and then said probe also took a soil sample and came back to Earth?

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 02:58:21 2017 No.8681385 >>8681063 Outer Space Treaty prohibits colonization of celestial bodies by nations. A moon base owned and operated by one nation in space is colonization. I swear /sci/ is dumb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 04:10:36 2017 No.8681454 >>8681068 Wtf? We've already had people on the moon, you know

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 09:44:38 2017 No.8681778 Because Unicron would eat it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 16:30:07 2017 No.8682557 Maybe we are just not told.

>>	Anonymous Fri Feb 17 23:21:50 2017 No.8683492 Because you can only fake a landing so many times

Anonymous Fri Feb 17 23:40:31 2017 No.8683525

>>8681063
We definitely will in my lifetime. It will facilitate interplanetary travel by having a hub where ships can land maybe even have a mall and shit out there. Itd be refueling station for Mars. Like a moon truck stop. It also seems logical to have several manned space stations along the way of Mars for fueling and emergency reasons. Ideally with multiple docks. What matters is the first successful launch out there and the first decade after that deciding politics. From there interest in space will boom and we'll live through a space age will countless companies wanting a piece of that. And such advancements will be made. That's the idea anyhow.

I am working on designing alternate means for breaking orbit. Though I must continue to study to understand the physics behind it all

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 00:14:59 2017 No.8683591 >>8681063 Because we need to there first.

Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:24:23 2017 No.8684086
File: 2.50 MB, 5100x3996, Lockheed_SR-71_Blackbird.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>8681063
People haven't thought about making America great since the 60's. OK, joking aside, it is rather disturbing that the 60's now seem like to peak performance of the West. Sure, we have fast computers and stuff but the speed of development and the optimism was something else. Just read the story behind pic. related.

>>8681075
>Money.
>It takes a lot.
That didn't stop truly enormous figures being spent on banks after the crisis. Trillion is now the new billion, they say.

>>8681278
Two. Lunokhod probes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_programme

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:27:22 2017 No.8684094 >>8681066 >Not Profitable What the fuck?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:50:59 2017 No.8684139 what would be the benefits of that?

>>	Anonymous Sat Feb 18 06:52:08 2017 No.8684143 >>8681454 >implying

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]