Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  Now, you want to root out the Deniers?  Remember, they don't usually come right out and blurt to the rooftops they are Deniers.  They use code words, too.  To find their own kind.   They pepper their conversation with four or five of (cold, climategate, global warming, computer models, scientific fraud, hockey stick, Navier Stokes equations, tree rings, laws of thermodynamics, ice cores, Medieval Warming Period, Little Ice Age, nuclear power).

You ain't with the program so here is some educating.

Talk down on the nuclear, and only whisper in low, scary tones about the coal.  Never, ever talk about the movement of dirty work and pollution to China.  Praise the Noodle Light.  Pepper your conversation with, always, four of five of (sustainable, renewable, Exxon, Koch, Earth friendly, nature, environment, flooding, drought, climate change, fossil fuel, carbon, etc).  

Then ask for vegan beer.

So he hasn't heard it's now "climate change" not "global warming"?

Guy always was a bit slow.

Question:  IF you are babbling today about global warming, are you a Denial of "climate change"?

Those videos should be taught to school children in class.

Sure you can do that.  You just need to get the materials for the 'massive ship' from the moon.  And that puts you right back at robotic lunar exploitation as the primary and first goal necessary for solar system exploration and colonization.

But this is a self reinforcing cycle - as soon as you think in terms of "massive ships" then you need off-Earth fuel and oxygen generation systems.  That is only possible by decomposing lunar water deposits into h2 and o2.  We don't KNOW HOW to do that.  But the deposits are there, deep in craters within craters where the sun has never shined.   Crater Hermites, by the N. Lunar Pole.

Of course for ANY solar system exploration, if manned, these fuel and oxidizer supplies would be virtually necessary as opposed to lifting them off Earth in rockets.  But for trips of 8-18 months (Mars is 8 months, not 18, if the optimal orbital transfer is chosen) systems like
The Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR) are much preferred.

There has also been development recently of what is best dubbed a "force field" that would surround a spacecraft and protect it from the solar blasts.  Sort of like a miniature Van Allen belt.  

So we can learn to do these things in smart ways, if the research continues.  But we are not really there yet.  From my point of view there is nothing wrong with thinking in terms of 50-100 years for serious Mars exploration.  But that is so long a period of time for computer tech, that we may find our brains in machines on mars and the idea of capsules supporting meatspace being laughed at, long before the capabilities exist to easily get to such places. 

Mars, incidentally cannot support terraforming without first building some kind of planetary radiation shield like the Van Allen belts.  In their absence, O2 strips to ions recombines and is carried off into space.  If Mars were given a 3 psi atmosphere mostly O2, in ten thousand years it would be lost to space.  Very interesting place, for sure, but if we humans go there, we go there with our meatspace cans and suits.

Well, the esteemed scientists of the IPCC are now certifiably stupid.  (We already knew they were crazy.)

If someone ACTUALLY wanted to remove CO2 from the air you'd build a facility at the South Pole, where the air temps are such that chilling air another 20-30 degrees causes the Co2 to drop out as solid.  But they don't.  They want an excuse to tax people in the respective countries and move money to feel good projects ran by their friends.

About time for this again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwTuEqqh0-g

Look, some people just can't help it - they were born with an innate, instinctual need to control other people.  That doesn't mean they are smarter, or more capable at all.  It's just a NEED they have. 

Maybe they could all be forced to work on garbage trucks?  Then they could control garbage...

But how do you actually delete the deleted?

What the hell are you talking about? The moon IS a dead rock, all it is good for is taking shiny metal from the ground.  That's 1/6 G, meaning the moon is where you get materials for outward bound, including your vision of Mars colonization.

Therefore, I can show how the Moon industry is profitable, while by nature of your comments about Mars becoming self sufficient and "Not sending materials back"....

I'm not seeing at all how Mars pays for itself...

Oh, final comment, Mars cannot become "Earth like" through terraforming.  No radiation belts to deflect solar wind, so no long term O2 buildup in the air.

without going  into the details, we can design a shape that will impact the earth at no higher than about 180mph...so "this is not a meteor" is the short answer...

not necessarily....

http://www.lampsacus.com/documents/MARSDIRECTSPACEEXPLORATION.pdf

This is basically impossible.  Everything in space that we put there is extremely fragile and expensive so "war" is uneconomic.  Just something like taking ammo for a tank gun off the Earth and to the Moon is a fantastically difficult and expensive proposition. 

"War" can't exist on the Moon or other planets.  More importantly there is no reason for it.  The Moon is somewhat homogenous in it's top ten meters composition.  Lots of room there for anyone that wants to stake a claim.  There will be breakthroughs, but not through enemy lines - they will be technical breakthroughs and achievements through vision and application of science and engineering.

Well, FYI, that is roughly the plot of one of the best of Heinlien's book "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress".

The technical question is of two parts (A) trajectory verification during the orbital transfer from the Moon and (B) issues of unanticipated and improper heatshield breakup in-atmosphere causing unanticipated deviations during re entry. 

There are people called engineers that routinely work and solve these types of questions, lol...

No.  This is a simple matter of selecting the projectile shape, then coating it with the proper ablative material.  For return from Moon, re entry would be some 36,000 mph.  Coating would be done with fused moon dust, four inches should be adequate.  We are talking here about "unguided projectiles" that have no navigational or computer system, literally just a titanium cylinder coated with the ablative.  Or for helium3, a simple pressure vessel holding say 1 kg of the helium.

In the case of the h3, it would definitely be cost efficient to use robotic return to earth spacecraft.

But manned lunar bases to do the work would not be cost efficient.

Who said it was useful or necessary to transport it back to earth?

If that was useful, you'd do it by using a railgun to shoot projectiles at earth, and recover them after they hit the ground at ~ 180 mph.  Or the ocean.  This is extremely cheap.  On the Moon there is all the power one wants from solar, 4x more intense than Earth.  Available for some 300 hours continuous, then twilight or dark for 420 hours or so.

The details on lunar railgun have been mostly worked out.  Building that railgun would be a fairly big job.  I am not familiar with the details, but assume it would use superconducting magnets.

The largest market for lunar raw materials would be off earth applications.  Satellites at higher orbits, possibly the L4 and L5 points, equipment and structures for asteroid exploration and or capture, etc.  Which in turn clearly shows that the opportunity for profitable off earth commercial activity is the Moon, and in turn that is enabling to further presence in the Solar System.

Almost all lunar "raw materials" can be conceptualized as 3d printer output these days.  We're not talking traditional sheet or rod metal or traditional metal forming techniques.  They are not practical for space or the Moon or Mars.  In turn this leads to a plausible conclusion:  Our exploration of the solar systems rests on a foundation of adequate materials technology - nanotech, 3d printing are examples - to enable the building of machinery, supplies and equipment off planet largely by robots.  This is only now moving into the realm of what we can envision.  

The techy term for this has been ISRU, in situ resource utilization.

You are trying to reframe the argument.  You are basically saying "Yeah BUT...THEY ALL DO IT!"

Bullshit.

NSA not only lied to the American people, they went and forced these major companies to also lie to us under their phoney court orders.

Helium 3 is now used as a cyro refrigerant, and has a value way way WAY higher than say gold.   It could now be mined on the moon and shot back to Earth and be profitable.   It's future value is in fuel for fusion reactors.  This mining process would have to be automated and robotic to be practical.

There is more titanium OR aluminum in the top several meters of depth of an average square kilometer of the Moon's surface than is mined on the entire Earth each year currently.  Also of course iron.

These surface metals are relatively easy to purify, although the process is very different than what is used on Earth.    They are in oxide form typically.  Many other useful elements and materials.  However the Moon is very poor in C, N, and "volatiles".  As an example, it would be difficult to make plastics on the Moon.

Really the best way to think of the Moon is as one gigantic materials mine....also as a place where operations that have to be done in vacuum, would be extremely easy.  examples, vapor deposition or ion sputtering.

Apollo 18 is a pretty good movie.

Moon, about the guy that gets replaced every three years, not so good.

But hey, don't forget the classics - Destination Moon rocks, and it's on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsisGSBlQqo

Most people in Europe seem to be easily brainwashed by the media propaganda.

Just look at how they lined up to see the Savior Obama in 2008.

Most of the people in the US can differentiate the truth from media propaganda.  Just look at their reaction to Savior Obama's rants about invading Syria.