"Scratching for Water on the Moon"
 

Well, we WERE the first country to put people there...it's practically ours anyway.

If speculation turns fact that President George Bush is supporting a NASA (news - web sites) return to the Moon, he is not alone in wanting to go the lunar distance.

Yeah, his daddy also said in a speech during his term that he supported us getting to Mars. Riiight.

I think that everyone needs to read Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" before being allowed to make any sort of policy on the future colonization and use of our satellite. Mellow people need to be the ones to go there, because they will command the ultimate high ground.

It would be so embarassing to lose a war where the enemy's only weapon was throwing rocks at us.

That's the only thing we did first in space. The Russians beat us to everything else. We had to make some goal we could pull off first. I wish the Russians would have beaten us there too. Then perhaps we'd actually have put a person on Mars by now.

Quzah.

I give it 5 years before the moon is covered with trash and trailer park-esque stations. I give it 15 years until the stations are flanked by McDonalds and Starbucks. Dumbass expansionist politicians!

The only reason the US is interested in it is because China has stated that they're going to put up a moon base. Period.

Quzah.

Why go to Mars? Or anywhere else for that matter.:confused:

Because it's cool?

I have a really tough time describing why I think it is important for us to explore space, but at the risk of sounding like so many low budget sci-fi flicks on television: "It's what we do."

Its human nature to explore and find out what is out there. That, and at the rate we're trashing this place, we'll need to find some other place to live one day. Maybe.

I've heard a lot of people clamoring at their outrage over how much of their precious tax dollars are being pumped into NASA to launch aging vehicles into orbit only to not return a profit each year. Even more are asking if NASA should still exist and why we should even consider sending people into space, anymore. Maybe I'm lost in some foolish dreams or maybe I live too close to the cape (we see anything they send up, even from this side of the state), but I think the space program is still fairly important.

That and you can't ignore that those things are really pretty going up. :) After seeing the launch below from across the intercoastal (Columbia's second to last mission), I can't say that I've ever experienced anything so awe-inspiring.

http://fox.org/~vince/photos/out/launch.jpg

Because we can. And b/c no one tells us that we can't do anything...this IS the United States after all.

I've been in favor of the space program up to this point and can't deny the tremendous strides in technology it's brought. But the benefit of going out further is questionable, especially on my nickel. The older I get, the less beneficial the tostesterone boosts from those launches gets.
The cost of going to Mars or beyond could fix up the Earth real pretty so we wouldn't have to move.:)

I agree that we don't really NEED to be going anywhere, but are you really saying that money could convince the world populace to stop shitting where they eat and preserve this magically "fixed up" new earth? I disagree.

I found it interesting that people's heads explode when they see the numbers in NASA's budget. That number, when compared to the rest of the US budget, is a drop a large pool. Hell, the money we spend on policing other countries is several magnitude greater and at least with space exploration we get more good out of it than another country hating us from screwing stuff up for them.

Shit is very good fertilizer, and it often includes seeds of foods that we like to eat.

Kennedy already answered this in his speech in 1962:

OK, but two wrongs don't make a right. (and to whomever writes 3 rights make a left, fuck you :p) I don't have a problem with the Space Station or most of NASA's budget but going past the moon doesn't make sense to me.

Where's your child-like wonder?

It's all about priorities though. Right now, space exploration, IMO, isn't one of them.

What two wrongs are you pointing out?

I was just saying that most people think NASA consumes an incredible amount of money, but they don't when compared to other government agencies. People threw their arms up when The Hubble Space Telescope failed -- "Oh my GOD. How in hell could anyone build a one-ton mirror and have an error at the edge of .002mm! We should take away their funding and ground the program! They wasted 2.2 billion dollars of our money!" 2.2 billion is nothing when compared to what the gov't spends elsewhere.

And what we've learned in correcting Hubble has been amazing. I think that we stand a lot to gain through space exploration and it isn't always measurable in terms of profit.

...and despite all of this, I actually do have a problem with the ISS, but it is in other countries' treatment of it.

Okay -- lets say we limit NASA to nothing but launching satellites for-profit every year and that they have to support themselves. We'll get ~12 billion dollars back every year.

Just out of curiosity, what would you do with the money? Where would you budget it and make it be put to use?

We can't seem to give NASA the money it really needs right now anyway, so as I see it, there's no sense in half-assing it, especially in light of the Columbia disaster. Let's limit NASA for at least 2 years, put the money saved towards the deficit, and let Congress review the program in the summer of '05.

Yes we could fix up the earth, and then we can all sit around the campfire singing john lennon songs. What background or knowledge do you have to make negative statements concerning space exploration. Exploration is one of the cornerstones of human existence. If you’re going to withhold your “nickel”, then I suggest you learn something before doing so.

Personally, I like the "two Wrights make an airplane" version, but that's just me. Hmm.. where's the shrug smilie?

Well I think there are at least three good reasons for going out there.

1) Lots of raw resources out there. Some day we're going to need them.

2) Room. I don't see the population dropping anytime soon. The urge to procreate is built into our psyche from our much more hazardous past. We're going to need a place for all those people to go.

3) The last is harder to quantify, but the more important. I think that mankind needs a frontier. I think if we don't, the whole human race will be like the old guy that retires and just sits in his rocker. Pretty soon he just dries up and blows away.

You know, I actually agree with this and I think they're kind of taking a similar path at this moment -- no manned launches have left either of the pads since the loss of the Columbia. Its not a bad time to step back and re-think some of the safety procedures.

And just what the fuck makes you think you know what I do or don't know? And since you have yet to contribute anything positive in any thread, You're dismissed, boy.

Simple… your comments

By the way… who said you get to determine what “positive” is

If you asked a majority of the regular posters here, I think they'd say you are, thus far, a negative.

Yep, sorry jimf747. If the majority of people here think you're an asshat, you'll have to leave. "Majority Rules." :rattat:

I don't mind asshats, until they start throwing their lifestyle in my face every 10 minutes. If you’re an asshat, then you are in the population minority here...you don’t get to tell the majority what they should do or what they should think...you only get to ask.

Oh… and you have some idea of what’s negative or positive. It’s a clod like you who is negative… because you posses some ridiculous sense of an elevated self-importance.


What’s wrong… your feelings hurt, You think your worth talking to. … can’t have an argument unless you can call some one names, or is it you only allow people with political views that parallel your own to participate.

Most of the people I talk to here are of differing political viewpoints than myself. However, when said people and I discuss things, we don't make ridiculous assertions and statements without qualifying ourselves or presenting facts. Furthermore, we're mainly a friendly lot...and you started off by being a fuckhead, which doesn't work too well here.

Now if you can't learn to play nicely, then get the fuck out of here. Thus far, you seem to be a piece of shit that has no real value to the Cellar, other than as a punching bag.

You should read your own statements… how can you use the word friendly in the same sentence. I’ll support my argument anytime. And if you want to call me names then you can come to Omonia’s Café on Broadway in Astoria Queens New York on Tuesday nights at 8:00Pm and say them to my face (look for the flight jacket)… put you money where your mouths is slob.

All you've done so far is wax opinion. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is...

The vast majority of my 5900 posts speak for themselves...ask around. You, however, still have much to prove.

And what if I do show up there and call you names...what are you gonna do? Not like I have any real reason to go to Queens on a Tuesday night, but you never know.

First, NASA does not profit from launches. And it is a tough market since the French Arienne is a superiour launch vehicle for most satellites. France all but owns the launching business for reasons summarized at the end.

Second, NASA is chock full of good ideas that simply don't cost much. But this was even a complaint in the late 1980s. NASA's big buck project (space shuttle and then ISS) literally devours most every other science project. As one Greenbelt MD project manager complained to me once, everything must be proposed related to the Space Shuttle or it just does not get considered (let alone approved). Since then, the Challenger exploded meaning that some science was liberated. But ISS is again doing to science what the Space Shuttle did.

Third, there is no problem with defining safety procedures. They are well defined in NASA - and then routinely ignored by top managers that just don't understand the concerns of the little people - as the Columbia disaster report so roundly noted. Furthermore, the reasons for those management attitudes are attributed to NASA management structure. Such managerial procedures are simply illegal in other organizations such as the Nuclear Navy and Air Force.

But again these three points keep coming back to the same problem. We have priorities based upon political agendas - and not upon science. It is why a super collider did not get built. It is why ISS exists. It is why astronauts on Columbia were killed for the same reasons that Challenger exploded. Fundamental objectives should be based upon science. NASA has many good ideas and a paltry budget of something like $8billion.

Hell. A president finds no problem with lying to attack another nation, then lying that it will not cost anything - until we have no problem with another $87billion for a nation that did not want to be liberated. That will be something like $400 billion on one stupid country that was not even a threat to its neighbors. So why is the NASA budget considered so large? Its not. But it is poorly appropriated because polticians - not science - are making the decisions.

That's a really good point -- all the little stuff at NASA and its other organizations probably suffer greatly from the shuttle. Rather sad, because a lot of the little stuff (Mars rover, etc) is incredibly cool.

A president finds no problem with lying to attack another nation, then lying that it will not cost anything - until we have no problem with another $87billion for a nation that did not want to be liberated.

It bugged me that during his campaign he referred to the voters not as "voters", "citizens", or "constituents", but as "taxpayers". Now I understand why.

About "diagonal drilling."

It was the current president's father who reacted to the invasion of Kuwait. When GWB came in, Iraq posed no danger to Kuwait.

addendum to previous post

Saddam only invaded Kuwait because he thought he had assurances that the US would look the other way. He was under no such illusion this time around.

Nah, that's going too far. If all the asshats leave, the board will be an empty ghost town...

(one finger pointed back at myself, of course)

There are many valid points on both sides of the perpetually unwinnable "why explore space?" debate. I think space exploration is a good idea for the same reason all exploration is a good idea... Progress is born by discovery, and discovery is born by exploration. The more we explore, the more we progress.

That said, I think the suggested applications for manned space exploration are often misplaced. There is much that can be discovered without the risk and expense of transporting people to the site... the Mars rover is a wonderful example. This is particularly true as automated exploration machines are made more and more adaptable to the conditions they encounter... the main human trait that is invaluable in exploration is adaptability.

I think NASA is like the US Postal Service... they laid the groundwork, and they'll probably always be around, and may even be the best at some of what they do; but the market is ripe for commercial competitors who have cheaper and better ways of accomplishing some of the same things. And when space travel is commercialized, then it will be profitable, and then space will truly become the frontier rather than an over-expensive exercise in "gee whiz, that's nifty!"

Every time I read The Man Who Sold the Moon, I have to wonder how much companies would pay for promotions related to, say, the first manned trip to Mars. I mean, Fox shells out a couple billion a year for broadcast rights to NFC games from the NFL. How much would they pay to have exclusive video coverage of a trip to Mars?

It's not a media problem. It is which media is being consulted for information. If using tabloids or the local (TV) gossip, then you have not viable media sources. A major difference between 1990 Kuwait and 2003 Iraq is obvious if your media sources are responsible. The former clearly and roundly met the defintion of a smoking gun - which is why virtually the entire world supported a liberation of Kuwait. The latter meets the defintion of an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation. It was conducted in direct opposition to most every world nation because it was justified only by lies - and no smoking gun. Responsible media sources make this difference obvious.

Go back one year to my strongly worded opposition to the latter invasion of Iraq AND to 1990 Cellar where I was appauled how people like Cheney opposed the liberation of Kuwait (thank you Margerat Thatcher for opposing neanderthal conservatives, for enpowered smarter people in the George Sr administration such as Scowcroft, and for putting a backbone into George Sr. Again if using responsible media, then this last sentence makes complete sense).

IOW to understand what has happened in NASA, well, did you read the Columbia murder investigation in www.caib.us ? If I remember, chapters 5 and 6 were 'must reads' for one using responsible media sources. Did you read the interrum resport on the Aug blackout - where First Energy was cited again and again for creating the blackout? The devil is in the details (but then you know First Energy is a problem because all top management are MBAs and lawyers - not a technical person anywhere in management or the Board of Directors. Again, a fact if your media sources are reporting properly.)

Cited in previous posts were opposition to the Iraq invasion based on information now known to have been quite accurate, the misappropriation of funds resulting in ISS and no super collider, and even an example of whether news source are viable. This latter example currently posted in the Internet discussion group on an obsolete technology called Blue Tooth verses a promising future technology called mesh networks. If your media sources have not reported on mesh networks today (and of Wireless hot spots over one year ago), then your problem is not mainstream media. Your problem would be listening to Rush Limbaugh type news reporters. How often do you watch a Ted Koppel town meeting?

Why is the world leader in commercial launching France? Because of neaderthal political decision makers who stifled free market satellite launching in the US - so that another big buck boondoogle could be justified. Of course you know about the Texas based company that tried to launch commercial satellites and was quashed by the "We want a space shuttle" mentality. France's Arienne is the world leader because America foolishly pushed the Space Shuttle - at the expense of all other space exploration. We are simply making the same mistake with ISS. And, I suspect, too many don't even know why France is the world leader.

Progress is born in the minds of the little people - when top management finally decides to empower those little people instead of advocating personal agendas - such as the invasion of Iraq, Iran, and N Korea. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Innovation comes from the little people - and only when those little people are empowered.

Same here. Plus, who is *really* going to benefit from populating another planet (a la "Total Recall")? Hint: Cha-chinggg!

I'm pretty sure the price tag of moving to another planet will cost a mint! Hell, it can cost too damned much to move around here on Earth!! :D

"Come up here and say it to my face!" LOL, haven't heard that line since high school about 17 years ago!! LMAOOO!

At any rate, when you throw shit, expect it to be thrown right back at you.

Put the Haterade down and play nice now. :D

Yeah - it's pretty shitty that sports stars, actors, etc get the HUGE loot while the real heroes (scientists) have to scratch and scrimp and pinch and dirty deal eachother just to get by. This truly is a world that craves nothing more than distraction from itself. We should all just stop breeding!

Should Einstein (or Fermi or Sklar or Newton or Oppenheimer) have been a millionaire for what he accomplished?

I am not saying that they deserve money, I am saying that entertainment is obviously a bigger priority than science. And I think that is indicative of a very hollow and miserable society.

Hollow and miserable? I'd say comfortable and secure. Hell, our homeless people have a better standard of living than half the world. People that are comfortable and secure want to be entertained because they don't have a whole lot to worry about. Arab terrorists? I don't think there is any reason they would want to blow up my house. For most of the people in this country our problems are pretty petty.:)

OC - (can I call you that?)

I agree with everything except the more violent part. Violence has been a constant human companion throughout history.

Bruce -

Not a lot to worry about? How about the fact that everyone's comfort comes at the cost of the environment? It's the complacent attitude evident in your post that I was talking about. So yeah - keep on consuming and looking the other way.

For the same reasons, I'm going with same or possibly even less overall violence, at higher efficiency.

If you think that technology has made us more violent, you're mistaken. Technology has merley made us more aware of the violence thanks to world news and the evening crime report.

Surprisingly little technology was used by the Egyptians to amass millions of slaves to build pyramids. Even less technology was used by the Mongl hordes to brutaly enslave over an entire continent. The Crusades didn't need computers to kill millions of women and children simply because they were not christian.

And if you think that we have become more greedy and more backstabing now than we once were, just read about the Romans (you know the guys who spread christianity).

Actually, it was recently discovered that slaves were not employed in the building of the pyramids.

Well, the real way the pyramids were constructed seems to be discovered every few years. What was this theory?