...this is incase anyone out there dosn´t know that this space station is intended to mine hydrogen from natural water supposed to lie beneath the moon´s surface - our most blessed treasure of The Creation.What if it will glow red in the sky???
2007-08-30 16:13:29 · 10 answers · asked by Jason C 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
yeah.... where did you find that at? You might want to list your source. it sounds about as likely as the US govt being behind 9/11.
2007-08-30 16:22:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 0⤋
Would you be willing to live how humans did 3,000 years ago? If the answer to this question is no, then you have no right to pass judgment on whoever "they" are. They are only doing this because people like you and me want to live comfortable lives and we are willing to pay a lot of money for it.
I mean, seriously. What do you expect? The population is the largest it has ever been. Our energy demands are higher than they ever were. We are constantly leeching off of everything we come in contact with. Would you be willing to give it all up so that the moon doesn't glow red in the sky? Even if you say yes, good luck trying to convince others.
2007-08-30 16:24:11 · answer #2 · answered by The Prince 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Jason, hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the cosmos. In fact, hydrogen was the first element created in the cosmos, and the sun, which burns hydrogen at its core, at the rate of millions of tons per minute, is what keeps your butt warm so you can spout your nonsense -- which you're perfectly entitled to, of course. The moon, on the other hand, has done its job of stabilizing our planet in relation to its solar orbit and giving earth its seasons. Incidentally, resources doesn't have three 's's. And the moon won't glow red in the sky, as it has no atmosphere, and that would be a hell of a lot of red paint to transport. Also, check the backgrounds of the science-fiction authors you favor. Best Regards, Tom G
2007-08-30 17:42:42 · answer #3 · answered by te144 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I always wondered about this sort of logic. What makes more sense, polluting earth through mineral exploration, or the exploitation of an uninhabited and uninhabitable satellite for the benefits of the inhabitants on earth?
If we can bring minerals from the moon and or the asteroid belts to a station in earth orbit and then safely convey those minerals to earth, who in their right mind would not want to see that happen?
2007-08-30 17:29:26 · answer #4 · answered by trogwolf 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
not when money is involved
even though hydrogen is supposed to be the most available element what happens when that source runs out
what do they intend to do with all this hydrogen
the moon is a quarter of the earth so there wont be much will there
2007-08-30 21:08:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There is nothing sinister about this. If we decide to set up camp on the moon, hydrogen is the fuel to go for.
2007-09-03 05:53:00 · answer #6 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You grasp on reality needs to be checked.
I suggest you sign up for VSO and see how people live without all the benefits of modern progress
2007-08-30 21:02:25 · answer #7 · answered by Steve B 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
We have NO right to be mining other planets!
Whether it's moon rock they're quarrying or whatever.
I agree, we have damaged this planet... now we are planning on doing the same on other planets!
Shame on our leaders.
We DON'T need to do this.
There are much better alternatives!
2007-08-30 22:39:10 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
Oh get a life. boo hoo! this is all fantasy. none of this matter. you will only a brief period and most of will be some form of tension and suffering. why should you give a rats capoot?
2007-08-30 21:56:11 · answer #9 · answered by JIM 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You really, really need to get out more.
2007-09-02 01:16:42 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋