Hey, I am lilzozo, and i would like some help with my debate topic for this year. I am a decent debater, but need some other types of evidence. My topic is: The United States Federal Government should substantially increase funding for colonization Beyond earth's mesosphere.
I currently am using a mars colony aff for my debate. If anyone could give some advice, or post a link to a good site, i would be grateful.
i recently saw on discovery channel or national geograph. that nasa is seriusly thinking about colonizing the moon for 2 reasons. 1 was as a 1st small step towards a colonazition futher away. and 2 because there is some type of fuel on the moon that barly exists on earth ("more rare then diamonds" this fuel can be used in nuclear reactors instead of a component that we put in then now. and then the process will give 100% "green" energy. not even waste.
i'm looking for the sources. but on the nasa site they have LOTS of news about it. but not all are about what i mean. some are just student presentations.
that nasa is seriusly thinking about colonizing the moon for 2 reasons.
A shame that our government was stupid enough to think that a space program could be privately funded.
But if/when NASA starts getting funded by the government again, I hope that's what we try. I also heard on the History Channel that they might also be planning a terraforming project (this was before the last shuttle launch) to make the planet actually habitable.
Well thanks for your help. The fuel you are thinking of is helium-3. It is a gas deep in the moons craters that powers fusion reactors on earth and also can be used as a fuel. It is like a substitute for oil. Inevitably, we will run out of oil soon. The problem that I have with that is that the moon has low gravity, and would be at the point where it would be common for colonists to have bone and muscle loss. Also, this gravity is very weak, so it would be difficult to thicken the atmosphere, and to get a firm foothold. My problem with helium-3 is that we can not gather too much, without using extensive digging and mining processes. This might be a bit too destructive for the moon. Thank you for your help anyways though.
your right that it costs extensive digging. but i don't think it can destroy the moon. i think colonizing the moon befor mars is good. the moon is alot closer to home if something go's wrong somehow. and mars is imposible yet because it will cost more fuel to get there and back then we have fuel on earth. we need to work on beter energy sources befor we are able.
Are you referring to the Moon or Mars? One is not a planet.
Also terraforming costs far too much to be a viable option even for the private industry at this time. And that's for the moon, for Mars, I would think that we have to get someone there first.
"A shame that our government was stupid enough to think that a space program could be privately funded.
But if/when NASA starts getting funded by the government again, I hope that's what we try. I also heard on the History Channel that they might also be planning a terraforming project (this was before the last shuttle launch) to make the planet actually habitable."
I myself should think that it would be a bit more sufficient to form a mars colony. Geodesic domes could be our best bet. The matierials required to bring over to mars for this would only be a few good cultures of various metals and plastics. The rest of the matierials can be gathered on mars, thnks to its composition similar to earth's. Also, if we can settle in mars, we could make enough manufacturing industries to potentially thicken its atmosphere, developing an ozone layer. With this same plan, we coud develop a strong, synthetic global warming. Using this, we could have a solar radiation sheild, and a habitable temperature for mars.
"your right that it costs extensive digging. but i don't think it can destroy the moon. i think colonizing the moon befor mars is good. the moon is alot closer to home if something go's wrong somehow. and mars is imposible yet because it will cost more fuel to get there and back then we have fuel on earth. we need to work on beter energy sources befor we are able."
Also, on mars there is a potential fuel benefit. Even though earth and mars are the same size, mars has much more fuel and minerals hidden in all of its land. also, We are in the middle of an economical crisis. Having this would be expensive, but would pay for itself sooner than the moon. Due to its mineral composition, mars is abundant with precious stones and metals, ranging from diamonds to gold to platinum. Within a few months, the economy would have skyrocketed, and it would still be rising.
I myself should think that it would be a bit more sufficient to form a mars colony. Geodesic domes could be our best bet. The matierials required to bring over to mars for this would only be a few good cultures of various metals and plastics. The rest of the matierials can be gathered on mars, thnks to its composition similar to earth's. Also, if we can settle in mars, we could make enough manufacturing industries to potentially thicken its atmosphere, developing an ozone layer. With this same plan, we coud develop a strong, synthetic global warming. Using this, we could have a solar radiation sheild, and a habitable temperature for mars.
It takes about 200 days to get to mars. We would need to be able to have 200 days worth of food for the crew, and we need to bring enough supplies and materials for them when they get there. Then if they're succesful in the landing and the building of the station, they still need a way to get back. I definitly think we should try the moon first so that we're ready for mars. We haven't even gotten people on mars yet. So I don't think starting a colony is a good idea. Thats kindof like suggesting that we start a colony while on our first trip to the moon. Its too much for us to expect success. There will probably be a factor we're leaving out and that could destroy a very expensive misson.
Within a few months, the economy would have skyrocketed, and it would still be rising.
Again, its very hard to do this. Enough fuel for the journey, then they need to make sure they have enough to escape mars's gavitaional pull. They need to be in the right direction when they start, bringing back tons of metal won't really be easy. I definitly think baby steps are the key here.
plz. post them here when youve got them. i would like to see them aswell. =)
I would too. I mean if NASA thinks they're ready, and can explain then sure. Go for it. But I really don't want a disaster. It would be very discouraing, and they could lose funding.
