Ed,
re >I naturally assumed you were suggesting that the administration had exactly those
concerns. My mistake, perhaps, but partly yours too.<
You mistakenly assumed I knew what the President is thinking based on absolutely nothing. Your mistake, your unfounded assumption. You do like to jump to conclusions based on little more than how you feel. Your ignorance of space policy and the history of space policy is all too obvious. You have a right to your opinion, you do not have a right to assert as true what is in fact nothing but your opinion.
re >I'll repeat. The moon is too far away to be used militarily. If you think there is a real
threat of this you owe it to our government to explain your thesis in detail so that we
may appropriately prepare for the worse. Maybe you can explain to us here exactly
how China will use the moon to destroy us.<
Again, your assertion is meaningless. I can think of several ways the Moon could be used militarily. The fact that you can't tells us everything about your limited imagination and nothing about the potential threat. Fortunately there are lots of experts in the Pentagon and elsewhere who do have imaginations and have thought of many ways which an unfriendly power could use the Moon militarily. One example... use a mass driver to throw chunks of rock or just dust filled tin cans at whatever target on Earth you want. Now will you quit stupidly asserting that the Moon has no military value? I doubt it.
re >I think it is a
better idea to build huge underground mines here on Earth and keep them fully
stocked with people and supplies.<
Do you get to pick who gets in? Building enough shelter to protect SIX BILLION people would cost so much more than going to the Moon and Mars and building an servicible system to stop an asteroid that your idea is obviously absurd. Even if enough shelter could be built you would still be leaving everything else, all the whales, all the birds, all the gorillas, all of the rainforests, to be destroyed. Climbing out of a hole to see a devastated world is better than being dead but I would rather avert the blow than hide from it. Instead of going out and solving a problem you propose literally hiding under a rock. Yeah that'll work.
re>Nuclear fusion, if it is possible, will utilize deuterium and tritiuim, isotopes of
hydrogen which are readily available from sea water here on Earth. You keep
talking about helium on the moon, or maybe it was hydrogen...you weren't sure.<
Again asserting as fact something which is at best your uninformed opinion, hydrogen isotopes are currently the fuels used in experiments but fusion will not be limited to them. That you would claim such proves again that you are commenting on issues which you have obviously spent little or no time researching. Ignorant opinion is worth nothing. By the way every time you look at the Sun you see proof that fusion works, when the Sun gets done fusing hydrogen atoms together to make mostly helium, it will start fusing helium atoms to make heavier elements. I have no doubt that eventually man will figure out how to duplicate that process in containment.
The fact that I am not positive that it is helium does not change the fact that several papers have been published discussing the use of it as fusion fuel and its probable superiority to hydrogen isotopes. Can you spell "nitpick". |
