Steam telepítése
belépés
|
nyelv
简体中文 (egyszerűsített kínai)
繁體中文 (hagyományos kínai)
日本語 (japán)
한국어 (koreai)
ไทย (thai)
Български (bolgár)
Čeština (cseh)
Dansk (dán)
Deutsch (német)
English (angol)
Español - España (spanyolországi spanyol)
Español - Latinoamérica (latin-amerikai spanyol)
Ελληνικά (görög)
Français (francia)
Italiano (olasz)
Bahasa Indonesia (indonéz)
Nederlands (holland)
Norsk (norvég)
Polski (lengyel)
Português (portugáliai portugál)
Português - Brasil (brazíliai portugál)
Română (román)
Русский (orosz)
Suomi (finn)
Svenska (svéd)
Türkçe (török)
Tiếng Việt (vietnámi)
Українська (ukrán)
Fordítási probléma jelentése
Yes, now consider the tides in our evolution. Air, no air, air, no air...
Consider the tlit of our axis - stressing life with seasons...
The disequilibrium provided by our moon is important. And so is the stability provided as well. We don't want our axis to spin all wobbly-bobbly.
And yeah, look for exoplanets with a moon.
The Dork Point is the freezing temperature where you don't care what you look like as long as you're warm.
They stopped flying landers and making a big deal out of it because it doesn't impress the public anymore, so it isn't helpful for funding the NASA black budget.
To deceive.
Also because the moon is probably made out of plasma so it can't be landed on.
Because "world hunger" isn't a problem as most people would identify it. It's not an obstacle of technology. It's not an accomplishment we have to push for. There's plenty of space, plenty of resources to grow plenty of food for everyone. In places where there's a hunger issue, their problems aren't from a lack of those things, but almost always corruption and abuse from those in power. Look at how fast Venezuela plummeted with a change of government. Many countries in Africa or Asia you usually see in ads are ran by extremely corrupt governments as well. People send them money, aid, supplies, the people at the top don't allow it to be distributed.
So, completely different set of problems than space travel, which is purely a technological issue, for the most part. And it really won't be long before that technology is within our reach.
The good news is by attempting it again, it forces a wave of innovation that can have untold spinoffs.
https://store.steampowered.com/app/1465470/The_Crust/
-> it was propaganda first and foremost.
science also already got their moonrocks.. so any tests we want to run they still can today.. no need to go take more..
most practical use of space lies in satelites and that does not need one to go quite as far.
the moon can serve other uses : it has a relative high content of deuterium... som once we finally get nuclear fusion reactors.. than that will become economicaly viable.
and with that energy surpluss, and rising costs of metals, due mines on earth running out (the coming resource scarcity).. astroid mining (from the astroid belt) might become economicly viable.
the moon has less gravity and no atmosphere.. so a moonbase, with a space elevator.. where we also construct our mining vessels (so manufacturing capabillity too).. would become viable.
we are just not there yet..
unlike the ISS or Anartica.. there is not so much science experiments that a permanent moonbase could run that could not run (better) on the ISS..
the only reason for a moonbase right now.. would be strategic one.. essentially a military base.. but the "no weapons in space treaty". cancels that option.