Because of our gravity, the moon will be a cheaper launching point. Thus, saving future NASA assets. They'll ship parts there and have people assemble them there. It's basically expanding NASA, another facility. This makes sense to me.
I'm having trouble here, will you help me out? They estimate the heat of the Universe at 1000 trillion degrees Celsius in a picosecond, nanosecond (or other fraction of a second). What body was hotter before that second to heat the universe to that degree? Or am I looking at that the wrong way...
I thought I read somewhere we have enough to heat a cup coffee.
I'd suspect that if a facility found groundbreaking ways to make a lot, it would be kept top secret.
Unfortunately, as great as the Moon is to watch, most astronomers call that light pollution. I saw a Moon halo myself the other night, similar to a Sun halo.
More fuel:Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
Here we go! Let's play hardball...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany
Do astronomers at the 3,000 dollar level become degenerates, in a way, with their huge optics? Once you have seen Hubble's and other huge observatories pictures, I'd think you'd never be satisfied. I plan on buying a $3,000 scope before I pass.
I watched a video about the Moon's fate. Eventually it will reach orbit stability, I believe that's what they said. When that happens our planet will wobble feverishly. Then the moon will eventually meet the Sun when it's near its own end of life.
Sorry, should've uploaded that from the beginning. I zoomed out as far I could to give some perspective. Specifically, I just wanted get some perspective about the middle. http://img446.imageshack.us/img446/9670/capture48200631255pm2vf.png Here is what the read-me says.