Back to the Dry, Young Moon?

NASA chose to name their new lunar project after Artemis, goddess of the moon — and a number of other things. The spacecraft it is carrying is named after Orion the hunter. It has been fifty years since Gene Cernan of Apollo 17 left the last footprints on the moon.

The goal of the Artemis program is to eventually setting up a lunar base. Quite a few science fiction stories have been written and filmed about those, but there are several serious problems involved that the writers gloss over.

Artemis/Orion launch, NASA / Bill Ingalls (usage does not imply endorsement of site contents)

The Apollo astronauts were up there for days, and NASA wants a permanent station. The moon is outside the protection of Earth's magnetic field, so if the sun got ornery and shot off a flare, the solar wind could be fatal very quickly. There are also temperature extremes, which the Apollo missions minimalized. Light and dark cycles are very long. Another problem remains, and it's a biggie.

Water. Cool, clear water. Actually, secular scientists expect that it would be available tucked away in craters as ice, courtesy of meteorite impacts. That hope is fading fast (see "Lunar Water Cannot Last Billions of Years"). All of their ideas are based on naturalistic assumptions and speculations, including the absurd accretion hypothesis or the lunacy of the impact hypothesis, and billions of years. To read about the problems that seem like deal breakers, fly over to "Moon Is Too Dry for Astronauts." Be sure to head right back here for the next article!

Although not directly a problem for NASA, the age of the moon causes difficulties for them. Since NASA in general (there are exceptions among individuals) is a materialistic organization and in agreement with the secular science industry on things such as the age of the earth/universe, the constant refutations of deep time reveal that secularists have some major difficulties using logic and science.

Keep in mind that they are correct that the earth and moon were formed at about the same time, but they reject how the evidence continually points to recent creation. Secularists also cling to the problematic radiometric dating methods. Even so, it was learned that the moon had volcanic activity more recently than is acceptable to secularists, and rescuing devices along the lines of "this could have happened, maybe" are utilized.

Moon origin stories are not doing so well. What about that magnetic field and the idea of a space crash that formed the moon? For some reason, secularists cannot account for the alleged evolution of the magnetic field during that smash and moon formation activity. The impact is causing quite a tizzy, Lizzie. To learn about the problems, see "Returning to a Young Moon."