Deep Underground Cave found on the Moon

[Screwdriver]

Simple, 3D print everything using the lunar soil covering the Moon regolith...

That is in fact a viable solution to moon based construction and one that I have seen discussed in depth before. There is plenty of water on the moon of course, locked up in ice typically in deeper craters (or caves??).

<edit> Here you go: https://www.planetary.org/articles/water-on-the-moon-guide

 

[Bki26]

They should build the sea dragon, perfect solution to the payload issue

 

[Screwdriver]

I congratulate you on your confidence and strength of belief. I am less enamoured with your manner which indicates that questioning something you accept - means that individual has to be a dim-witted lunatic, lacking the smarts you possess, and is to be mocked.

I am a sceptic, not a flat-earther. I am somewhat "agnostic" upon the moon landings, as I think there is adequate room for doubt. I remain to be convinced either way & feel it is a positive thing to question & employ independent thought - as there are legitimate questions that have had answers that it is not possible to verify completely.

As for "Radiation" it has been stated that the levels of same on the journey between Earth & Moon that us squashy organics would not tolerate & survive. Given a spacecraft could not be constructed from inches of lead & concrete many feet thick - it's one of many things open to query.

(I have no intention of batting a tennis argument with you btw. I am a sceptic on this, regardless of your opinion upon my sanity or intelligence that arises from that).

You can believe what you like about my motives, I will not be drawn into a debate because I have seen it all before. Bit like cl*m*t* ch*ng* deniers, pick and choose snippets of the actual science and present an opinion based on those data. Similar issue with fake moon landings, flat earth or any perperttual motion machine:.

What they all have in common is their argument relies upon carefully selected data so that their opinion can be presented as science. The easy way to refute it is to merely present the entire edifice of scientific discovery, in other words all of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence which they must carefully ignore.

I have looked at both sides of the argument on all of these topics with an open mind. The moon one is quite compelling at first glance but eventually with all of these issues, when you dig down into the real science, such opinions are easily refuted by the hard evidence to the contrary. As an evidence based commentator, I always side with the science.

I used to enjoy such "debates" because you can really get some carefully crafted insults in, like you managed to do up there. But this is not the forum for such shenanigans and as I suggested earlier, you should be able to work it out for yourself.

 

[Stupoty]

the hatch doors on the space shuttle is based on a rubber or something the same can be said with a space station to seal the hatch doors

double glazed windows and doors have the same seal within reason

so extendables are rather a viable option can be built light weight and insulated and also can be fitted out so they can also carry other stuff within them

even i can fit a double seal within a moving structure the air presure within the structure would further seal the structure itself

The cargo bay was open to space and wasn't sealed, They did have some mobile service unit for doing ISS stuff that was presurised that they could keep in the cargo bay or deploy..

There is some movable antenna or similar on the ISS that pokes through a window and is sealed with just two O rings. is only 15psi deferential I guess.

Stu

 

[GRW]

You can believe what you like about my motives, I will not be drawn into a debate because I have seen it all before. Bit like cl*m*t* ch*ng* deniers, pick and choose snippets of the actual science and present an opinion based on those data. Similar issue with fake moon landings, flat earth or any perperttual motion machine:.

What they all have in common is their argument relies upon carefully selected data so that their opinion can be presented as science. The easy way to refute it is to merely present the entire edifice of scientific discovery, in other words all of the overwhelming preponderance of evidence which they must carefully ignore.

I have looked at both sides of the argument on all of these topics with an open mind. The moon one is quite compelling at first glance but eventually with all of these issues, when you dig down into the real science, such opinions are easily refuted by the hard evidence to the contrary. As an evidence based commentator, I always side with the science.

I used to enjoy such "debates" because you can really get some carefully crafted insults in, like you managed to do up there. But this is not the forum for such shenanigans and as I suggested earlier, you should be able to work it out for yourself.

That's an awful lot of words to not actually say very much.
I might point out the irony of your "carefully crafted insults" retort, when my reply contained an (accurate) point regarding you insulting me (or at least my sceptical opinion).
As for "following the science" the world is awash with scientific statements and conclusions that (surprise!) attest to the veracity of the claims made by the faction funding it & controlling it.

None of us are in a position to prove nor disprove a great many "scientific facts" in this (& many other) events. This provides ample room to question and ponder upon the reality v the claims.
IMO having a healthy portion of scepticism is not any guaranteed indicator of stupidity or naivety.

 

[Screwdriver]

That's an awful lot of words to not actually say very much.

Precis: I am not insulting your intelligence by refusing to engage, I am telling you I have seen the entirety of your argument which relies upon ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Interestingly you go on to suggest it's ok to ignore some of what you imply is "so called" "scientific evidence" which is of course exactly why such arguments are pointless. Either you can see ALL of the evidence for yourself or you can't/don't want to. I don't mind either way, it's up to you.

None of us are in a position to prove nor disprove a great many "scientific facts" in this (& many other) events. This provides ample room to question and ponder upon the reality v the claims.

I rest my case.

IMO having a healthy portion of scepticism is not any guaranteed indicator of stupidity or naivety.

Indeed. You should try that yourself.

 

[gaz1]

i would still base it on a container build with that option you can use booster rockets to get it into space

both the space station and a land based space station reference could be used

the center part is sealed with doors in the shape of an octogon whilst the second option would allow access via the outer sealed unit to the other unit joined up together in the middle

doors to seal each bay extending them is the hardest part its either screwed based or its a scissor jack option though id use a drill operated scissor jack as theres a possibility the scissor reference would vibrate itself apart

an expanding ladder scissor jack would be a good reference small and portable with 2-3 of them on the same design would be handy as we already know we can use drills in space

the last sealed bay is for everything being stored within it

poles could be used to strengthen the unit into an octogan shape easily enough

the unit within the structure is the doors seals between the units 4 of them so gives 2 ways for access between the units one unit fails theres another access to the space hub

the second pic gives access between 2 units joined so has further safety access in case its needed




briton will never be in the space race unless it joins up with europe

they will only be 3 of them

usa, russia, china and they will be the super powers within space

 

[Ross365]

This thread has not gone at all where I thought it would. Taking the new pictures of "Caves" on face value, they mean that there is now something on the Moon that has value and something that could be taken possession of. Possession of a base on the Moon is something that the Chinese and the Americans will want to have, if only to keep the other side from having it. The Military on both sides will want it (them), that's what raised the $24billion (1960's money) to put Neil Armstrong on the Moon in 1969.

Given the Trump-Republicans intense dislike of the Chinese, you'd have to say that we'll be heading even faster towards a real Cold-War. If push came to shove on getting Moon bases, I could see the Chinese and the Russians working together. If the future already looked scary, I think it might be even scarier now.

 

[GRW]

Precis: I am not insulting your intelligence by refusing to engage, I am telling you I have seen the entirety of your argument which relies upon ignoring the overwhelming preponderance of evidence.

Interestingly you go on to suggest it's ok to ignore some of what you imply is "so called" "scientific evidence" which is of course exactly why such arguments are pointless. Either you can see ALL of the evidence for yourself or you can't/don't want to. I don't mind either way, it's up to you.



I rest my case.



Indeed. You should try that yourself.

It depends a great deal upon the veracity & reliability of "evidence" (& given history's lessons upon the reliability etc of "government" & "industry" (I.e. it is shall we say - variable in quality & accuracy)
You say (correctly) that a great deal of the "they never went's" is and will be - bunkum. However, (given that you do not have unlimited access to NASA & The Pentagon any more than I do, & that there ARE elements that cannot be proven unequivocally by you) - you're opinion ultimately rests upon you accepting certain elements from NASA / US Govt - upon trust and/or possibility/probability .... & not upon absolute certainty (or at least a certainty that is based purely upon iron-clad data).
Unless of course you were hiding in the cupboard on-board when Neil Armstrong & Buzz Aldrin launched - otherwise you are simply not in a position to claim what you position as a high-ground Definite, instead of a Probability.
You are relying upon taking a superior stance and a confident manner - to imply that your take on it is iron-clad (& a condescending attitude to my scepticism). Which means that you cannot (with credibility) insist that you are right, and that my "not sure" scepticism makes me an object for dismissal.

There are those who are absolutely certain of the existence of "God" (as they determine/perceive God). However, that's a certainty based upon Belief, not upon absolute, incontrovertible evidence.

It would have been best all around if you'd not implied I was some kind of imbecile for daring to question in the first place tbh

 

[cheb]

Next up for discussion, Evolution. Darwin's theory is only a theory, otherwise it would be called Darwin's Fact.

I think the Russians might have chipped in i the they though the USofA was trying to pull a fast one in the middle of the Space Race and the Cold War.

Personally I don't think NASA got people to the moon. They asked Stanley Kubrick to make a realistic film and he so insisted on authenticity he got people to the moon.

 

[Screwdriver]

This thread has not gone at all where I thought it would. Taking the new pictures of "Caves" on face value, they mean that there is now something on the Moon that has value and something that could be taken possession of. Possession of a base on the Moon is something that the Chinese and the Americans will want to have, if only to keep the other side from having it. The Military on both sides will want it (them), that's what raised the $24billion (1960's money) to put Neil Armstrong on the Moon in 1969.

Given the Trump-Republicans intense dislike of the Chinese, you'd have to say that we'll be heading even faster towards a real Cold-War. If push came to shove on getting Moon bases, I could see the Chinese and the Russians working together. If the future already looked scary, I think it might be even scarier now.

There is (or was) an international agreement not to weaponise space, so obviously the USA, Russia and China have been desperate to get there first. It was Trump who started the Space Force and frankly, not a moment too soon. He might even get Musk on his side regards building either a moon based or orbital space station despite Musk being very much against the weaponisation of anything.

I'm having a "classic SciFi" book binge currently and just finished reading "The Moon is a harsh mistress" Robert A. Heinlein. An excellent read with some amazingly prescient action including A.I. and some very well thought through implications for humans living in 1/6th Earths' gravity.

 

[Screwdriver]

It would have been best all around if you'd not implied I was some kind of imbecile for daring to question in the first place tbh

It would have been even better if you read carefully what I actually wrote which is that my opinion was formed from "the overwhelming preponderance of evidence".

I suggest you Google that phrase in the context of a science based argument. It is not one I made up and negates the entirety of your commentary above.

 

[Onoff]

There was somewhere a half serious study done on the real world efficacy of Space 1999 Eagle Lander design. The real scientists concluded that the designers had pretty much envisioned a very workable space transport platform.

 

[Onoff]

@GRW & @Screwdriver come on lads, let's keep it lighthearted. It's not rocket science...

 

[Screwdriver]

@GRW & @Screwdriver come on lads, let's keep it lighthearted. It's not rocket science...

I am at my nicest and most well behaved, in quite a good mood too (see my YouTube post!). I can see where this goes which is why I refuse to engage in the pseudo science of the moon landing deniers. As a huge space fan though, I cannot allow such comments to go unchallenged.

So it's not rocket science but it does put me between a rock and a hard place. I remain totally relaxed about the whole thing.

<yeah I know, the temptation to find a Beeblebrox quote is overwhelming - I have a garden to attend to so it can wait...>

 

[cheb]

My favourite Beeblebrox quote is 'If there's anything out there more important than me I want it hunted down and I want it killed.'

 

[Onoff]

I can see where this goes which is why I refuse to engage in the pseudo science of the moon landing deniers.

All I'm saying is Capricorn One...

 

[optima21]

with all the junk that will be up in space lets go back to the late 1970's and there was salvage 1, where a scrap yard owner built a spaceship to collect scrap from space.

 

[Screwdriver]

My favourite Beeblebrox quote is “If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.”

Not quite the sentiment I was looking for!

 

[Onoff]

with all the junk that will be up in space lets go back to the late 1970's and there was salvage 1, where a scrap yard owner built a spaceship to collect scrap from space.

My night's viewing sorted!