Elysian Shadows

Yeah so today I just heard from Arce that America and China are going to get to work with the colonization of the moon. And that they already have all the proper funds for the proper equipments and materials.

Tell if you've found anything about this being so, because I have some doubts that Arce is telling the truth.
Also I couldn't find any sites talking about this.

You're an idiot. That's not what I said at all.

http://www.spacetoday.org/China/ChinaMoonflight.html
http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/in ... opic=11448
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/japa ... nize-moon/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/13/japa ... s/1401438/

There's a shitload more, but I'm not in the mood to find all the articles just for the sake of your moronism.

Essentially, China declares a 3 part space program, followed by a manned mission. People are saying the 1st thing they're going to do when they get there is pop out the American flag (assuming it exists). Also, they plan to investigate a possible resource there, Helium 3, that could possible, if developed further, end our fossil fuel depletion problem.

Then, Japan announces a new 'robot' program where they're going to try to send robots with amazing AI to 'colonize' the moon. They'll be able to learn and adapt to their surroundings, and just from moon to other planets with ease.

So, there's a Japan/Chinese space race going on. And it is assumed that Korea is likely to piggyback off of China just to be cockswagger. At the same tima, NASA announces their plans in response (which, I forgot what they were...Uhh.Yeah.)

Oh, and did you know that with the money we're wasting on Iraq, we could easily have funded 17 manned missions to the moon? 2.4 billion dollars a week is lotsa cash.

Thanks GB to fuck up the economy and our national security. Dumbshit.

I think manned missions to the moon and planets are retarded at this time. With the only exception being sending men there for the first time just to say humans were there. Robots are incredibly more efficient for such things.

JS Lemming wrote:I think manned missions to the moon and planets are retarded at this time. With the only exception being sending men there for the first time just to say humans were there. Robots are incredibly more efficient for such things.

Not really. Robots and AI have only come so far, and communication between Earth and the Moon is terribly laggy. If we could send men there with enough supplies to last them until they could get a colony up and running it'd be a lot better.

"Space may be the final frontier
But it's made in a Hollywood basement"
-RHCP

PLUS::
the little robots they sent up there are probably already starting to conspirisize w/ eachother.

*raises brow* serious business..

DJ wrote:... and communication between Earth and the Moon is terribly laggy.

I don't think 1.35 seconds is that bad. Source

1.35 seconds? O.o;;

*is tempted to check your source link* Uhh...You sure about that? You realize that that's faster than light, correct? Herrrmm...

Which means, no, 1.35 seconds, is NOT bad.

As for manned mission to the moon...I'm curious to see if another person can land there, and whether or not the US really did some 50 years ago. So...Yeah, send people up. It's probably cheaper, and plus if they die, it'll help the population by about (8.3 x 10^9) or something. .

JS Lemming wrote:

DJ wrote:... and communication between Earth and the Moon is terribly laggy.

I don't think 1.35 seconds is that bad. Source

Ahh ha!!! You sly dog you!! You divided 2.7 seconds by two because 1.35 is a smaller #, so when looking at it in one direction, it appears a smaller time. Misleading data!! OhH! Nice onneeeee!!!!!!!1111oneone

The moon is approximately 250,000 miles away from the earth, and radio waves travel at 186,282 miles per second. A signal sent to the moon does not return until 2.7 seconds have elapsed. If two people are engaged in a conversation and one person asks a question, that person cannot expect a reply until at least 5.4 seconds later (the answer must travel to the moon and back, as must the question).

Jsl, lawl! If you're going to post a source to prove your point, maybe it shouldn't go directly against your point? Also, be sure you're presenting your data in a correct manner. xD!!!

*minus 10 pts* Tsk tsk tsk do better on your next assignment young lad!!

So...Yeah, I'd agree with you. 1.35 is NOT a bad lag time...Though that's irrelevant, because 1.35 is HALF the (theoretical) lag time.

Hey what can I say? haha. But really, I looked at it from this perspective. Had I said 2.7 seconds, I would have interpreted that to mean it takes 2.7 seconds for a signal to reach the moon from the earth if I were the reader. Of course, I could have just made life easier and gave an explanation along with the number.... but 1.35 sounded better for my argument, heh heh.

That aside, 2.7 seconds is still not bad. It's not like we're playing a FPS with the robots. Video data would only lag by 1.35 seconds because it only needs to go one way. Issuing commands and seeing the result 3 seconds later sounds perfectly feasible (commands could be strung together). Tie in some AI to handle simpler annoyances lag might cause and you're good to go.

xD, yeah, actually, I agree with you. I just like being an argumentative prick.

Compared to some of those probes and such that're sent to fly by other planets, or even the ones we plan to land on Mars, that lag is nothing. For probes and science sake, not people actually up there trying to make fone calls, the lag exists but is workable.

As for probes v human...How about both? =P