High resolution, pretty amazing.
Recent Comments
 | suzy blah blah on Tree Fort Condemned |
 | anon on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
 | Anonymous on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
| Anonymous on Marijuana vs. Fish |
| Anonymous on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
 | Eric Kirk on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
 | Ernie's Place on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
| Anonymous on Marijuana vs. Fish |
 | Anonymous on Marijuana vs. Fish |
| Eric Kirk on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
| Dave Kirby on Estelle Fennell Event in Benbo… |
| Dave Kirby on Marijuana vs. Fish |
| Eric Kirk on I know a few chess players rea… |
| bross@redding.com on I know a few chess players rea… |
 | Gary Graham Hughes on EPIC Money |
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
January 26, 2012 at 5:48 pm
Andrew Bird
That will be the view from one of Newt’s moon colonies.
January 27, 2012 at 12:05 am
Fantomex
Too bad that, due to massive cynicism on the part of the American public and the human race, as well as the dickishness of Gingrich, this might never happen.
January 27, 2012 at 6:33 am
Fred Mangels
How does Fanomex think moon colonies would benefit us earthlings? Hey, I’m a trekkie and love all things spaceward, but I just don’t see how it would be worth the expense to have people living on the moon.
January 27, 2012 at 7:48 am
Andrew Bird
I agree with Fred. I don’t know what the benefit is of establishing colonies on the moon, weighed against the great expense. When I was a boy back in the late 1960s at the time of the first moon landing, everybody thought that by now space travel would be as common as airline travel. We appeared to be heading in that direction, as pictured in “2000: A Space Odyssey.” But we have not developed the technology to make space travel practical and cost effective. We still use the same basic technology to get into space today as they did in the 1950s.
January 27, 2012 at 8:11 am
Fred Mangels
I’ve always wondered how safe it would be to have people on the moon in the first place? There’s no atmosphere to burn up meteors. It seems to me that it would really suck to have a walnut sized meteor come screaming down at 20,000 miles per hour and smack some guy walking around.
Or an even bigger one hitting a dwelling. I wonder just how much of a danger that really is? No one that’s been on the moon has been hit yet but it may be just a matter of time.
I wonder how many meteorites hit the moon on the average day?
January 27, 2012 at 8:23 am
Bolithio
What if we could establish a huge solar generator? Store the power in batteries and shuttle them back and forth from earth. (The meteor issue could adversely effect that operation…) Ive also thought that since we have so much coal, we could transport it to space and establish power plants there, store the energy and bring it back – with out the pollution. But I realize that’s all crazy talk….
January 27, 2012 at 8:51 am
Steak n Eggs
(Reuters) – Republican presidential contender Newt Gingrich called on Wednesday for a base on the moon and an expanded federal purse for prize money to stimulate private-sector space projects…
Build a railroad from the the earth to the moon to supply coal driven powerplants. Genius!
January 27, 2012 at 9:04 am
Fred Mangels
I suspect you’d use as much or more energy transporting the energy as you’d be able to produce. or at least be able to store and transport.
And I’m not sure I understand why he’s pushing for federal stimulation of private sector space projects? Seems to me private sector space development is doing pretty well already, with Sir Richard Bransoms’(?) company pretty much already developed a private space shuttle.
Aside from tourism, what use will that private space shuttle serve? I appreciate the idea of mining other planets and such but, again, I suspect it wouldn’t be cost effective at this point in time.
January 27, 2012 at 9:40 am
Bolithio
Have you guys seen this:
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1265108249/
Best Movie of 2009 according to me.
January 27, 2012 at 11:19 am
Eric Kirk
Fred – probably it will be leased out to governments wanting to do space experiments and such.
I remember in the 1970s the idea for space-based solar power was that the energy would be conveyed to the surface via microwaves, but I suspect that wouldn’t be any more popular today as then.
January 27, 2012 at 11:53 am
tra
“space-based solar power”
It seems like earth-based, rooftop-based solar power has got to be whole lot more cost-effective. The sun provides free transmission directly to the panels on the rooftop, no need to haul solar-collection equipment all the way out into space.
I guess IF we actually got to the point where rooftop space was getting scarce, and IF the cost of hauling stuff into space, and building and maintaining the arrays there dropped really, really drastically, and IF “beaming” that power back to earth was found to be feasible, then “space-based solar power” might merit some consideration. But I doubt those “IFs” will come to pass anytime soon.
January 27, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Fred Mangels
probably it will be leased out to governments wanting to do space experiments and such.
I would think so, but you have to ask how much that research would really be worth to everyone that’s paying for it?
I’m not against space research at all. I love space stuff, but the costs of having a permanent space station on the moon would seem enormous compared to the satellites we already use. I suspect there wouldn’t be all that big of an advantage to doing on the moon, either.
They’re shutting down the International Space Station, aren’t they? Apparently the powers- that- be don’t even think the ISS is worth continuing for whatever knowledge has been gained.
January 27, 2012 at 8:08 pm
moviedad
I seem to remember Carl Sagan back in the day talking about the Moon as a great “Staging-Area” for exploration and colonization of bodies within our solar system and beyond.
But with what we know now, it seems like one of the ice-moons would be a better fit, since we could convert the water to hydrogen.
C’mon guys, whatever we spend on civilian space is a damn-sight better than the trillions we’re spending on killing people.
January 28, 2012 at 6:37 am
Fred Mangels
whatever we spend on civilian space is a damn-sight better than the trillions we’re spending on killing people.
The problem, moviedad, is you’re assuming we’re going to spend the money on one at the exclusion of the other.
Almost like Ron Paul pointed out when asked about choosing between a flat income tax or a national sales tax. To paraphrase: “The problem, given a choice between and national sales tax or a flat income tax, is we’ll likely end up with both.”.
January 28, 2012 at 6:39 pm
Bitter
Imagine how much energy (and money) would be saved if the whole stupid outer space fantasy was scrapped. I
The idea as I hear it now is finding another planet like earth to plunder, or for the rich to move to since this one is getting ruined by human insanity.
Forget about space travel, boys. Go outside and look at the river before it’s gone.
It is always wise to ask who benefits.
January 28, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Eric Kirk
It is always wise to ask who benefits.
I guess it is, but I think we have to discuss the scope of what constitutes “benefit.” I will support the “whole stupid outer space fantasy” simply because I am curious as to what is out there. I could make the argument for material and spiritual benefit of space exploration, but if you aren’t curious about the realms beyond, then there isn’t too much to argue about, except that I suppose you have a point that you shouldn’t have to pay to satisfy my curiosity. On the other hand, there are probably programs we pay for which are of more importance to you than me.
January 29, 2012 at 6:33 am
Fred Mangels
I like to think of outer space as our destiny. However, the distances involved make it almost ridiculous to seriously consider right now.
The nearest stars to our solar system are light years away. It would take thousands of years to reach them. You’d have to develop some kind of “warp drive” technology (and I think that is possible) to go outside the solar system.
We’re nowhere near there, yet, but I don’t think we’d need a base on the moon to develop that technology.
January 29, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Eric Kirk
No, but we’ve acquired an immense level of knowledge from Hubble, simply by moving a telescope outside of the extremely limiting and distorting atmosphere. We’ve learned from the probes we’ve sent to the moon and Mars, and to the edge of the solar system. In fact, I’d be happy if we scrapped manned missions for the time being, as I think we’ve had ample opportunity to conduct the science of living in outer space with the space shuttle and prior missions. If the ship doesn’t have to devote so much space and weight to life support systems, it can focus much more on data gathering on numerous levels.
January 29, 2012 at 6:56 pm
moviedad
Every time someone looks at the picture of the Earth the seed of subversion against greed and warfare is planted. If we want to survive, we’d damn well better increase our fantasy until we’re able to knock aside any planet-killing asteroids and comets coming our way.
Space exploration is in reality; Earth exploration. It’s so, so sad that human greed has caused so much myopic violence and waste when we could be creating new and wonderful machines for exploring and learning.
Instead we have savage insanity….I’ll take the fantasy pal, any day.
January 30, 2012 at 8:06 am
Bolithio
100% with you MD.
January 30, 2012 at 1:11 pm
Anonymous
bolithio, who works for the logging companies, says: “100% with you MD.”
How thoughtful of Bolithio. He is an advocate of the utopian fantasies, except when they involve such doable activity as a complete end to clearcutting in Humboldt, etc., of course. Not even within Bolithio’s realm to advocate such activity. Bolithio’s fantasy isn’t so fantastic.
The atmosphere around the blue marble is so thin, we’re literally being choked to death in an otherwise balanced aquarium stripped of its vegetation and replaced with surface heaters and particulate polluters.
January 30, 2012 at 1:12 pm
Anonymous
6:39, I agree completely.
January 30, 2012 at 5:00 pm
Bolithio
Ah…anonymous; I don’t work for a logging co.!!!
January 30, 2012 at 6:21 pm
Eric Kirk
moviedad – there’s a story of that first photo of the Earth. It happened on something like the 17th Apollo mission when an astronaut looked up and just felt inspired to take the photo. Why it took 17 missions for someone to get around to that I don’t know. But many people did not look at the world the same way again. And now it’s on a banner.
January 31, 2012 at 11:04 am
Anonymous
Bolithio, who works for logging companies, says: “Ah…anonymous; I don’t work for a logging co.!!!”
That’s not very honest of you, Bolithio. Playing a game of semantics and whatnot. One might even go so far as to say you’re blatantly lying. How about some disclosure?
January 31, 2012 at 11:05 am
Anonymous
…additionally, my statements above about your bogus ideology apply absolutely.