Ice on the moon a "game-changer"

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by dar512

At some point in time, the neighbor of your ancestors said the same thing to one of your ancestors before they left for the New World.

Strawman. :p

We're still benefiting from the 60s space program - better electronics, materials etc. We don't know just how much we'd learn from going to the moon -- that's one of the reasons to go.

tw already exploded that myth. And Tang was around before the space program.

The space program is a tiny fraction of the US budget. And it pays off in many ways. I think it's worth it even if the only payoff is the satisfaction of having done it.

Satisfaction? We've already done it, I'm already satisfied.
We've seen enough, and without sending people there, can find out more than we need to know about the moon. The only reason to go back is to exploit it, mine it. But there's nothing there we can't get here... cheaper. There's no environment there, we can't duplicate here... cheaper.
This is nothing but a giant, expensive, dangerous, ego stroking, for a few space geeks.
Don't think so? How many people watched the last half dozen Gemini shots on TV?

[dar512]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Strawman. :p

The word you're looking for is 'analogy'.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

tw already exploded that myth. And Tang was around before the space program.

I must have missed that bit of tw-ism. Yes, both Tang and transistors were around before the space program took off. It was the pressure of the space program that refined them.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

We've seen enough, and without sending people there, can find out more than we need to know about the moon. The only reason to go back is to exploit it, mine it. But there's nothing there we can't get here... cheaper. There's no environment there, we can't duplicate here... cheaper.
This is nothing but a giant, expensive, dangerous, ego stroking, for a few space geeks.

So your next vacation you'll be sending a legobot? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?

I'm not saying the unmanned exploration is useless. But I certainly don't see it as a permanent substitute for on-site exploration.

I think mankind needs a frontier. It would be sad if we gave up on space exploration.

[regular.joe]

Originally Posted by dar512

At some point in time, the neighbor of your ancestors said the same thing to one of your ancestors before they left for the New World.

We're still benefiting from the 60s space program - better electronics, materials etc. We don't know just how much we'd learn from going to the moon -- that's one of the reasons to go.

The space program is a tiny fraction of the US budget. And it pays off in many ways. I think it's worth it even if the only payoff is the satisfaction of having done it.

Yea, I think I remember reading about a similar conversation between Columbus and Queen Isabelle.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

It's only useful in that it indicates there might be more. Even with all the useful things we can do with water on the moon, 24 gallons alone ain't gonna cut it.

24 gallons of water from the 60-foot crater

I think the idea is that if there is that much water in that much area, there will be X amount (lots more) to be used for future missions.

[Shawnee123]

I agree dar! You said it better than I could have. I was thinking along those lines, about pioneers, but couldn't put it into words.

[Shawnee123]

Well, I can tell you who won't be invited to my dome-warming party.

[Shawnee123]

People who can visit me in my moon dome:

Spexx
dar
regular.joe

people who cannot visit me in my moon dome:

tw
bruce
zen

[Shawnee123]

I'm hardly a geek, and I think it's fascinating and worthwhile. Like I said before, it appeals to my imagination, and sense of adventure, and that spirit to discover new things that has advanced the human race in ways never dreamed of in the beginning.

[Clodfobble]

That's just because they haven't let you in on the secret yet--they're paying for it with mammogram money.

[Shawnee123]

Oh no you di'int!

[Shawnee123]

[Flint]

Public Service Announcement: The term "game changer" is on my list of over-used phrases which need to be forcibly eradicated. As is "sea change."

[Elspode]

Although this thread is going the "let's see who's for or against the space program" route, I'd like to stick to the original title. First off, they didn't discover that there was only 24 gallons of water on the Moon, they discovered that approximately 24 gallons of water was contained in the ejecta of the two LCROSS impacts. These were relatively small cratering events, so the amount of ejecta was relatively little. Since there wasn't a hell of a lot of stuff thrown up in the grand scheme of things, the fact that there was 24 gallons of water in it means that not only is there water in that crater, bound up with the lunar material, but there's relatively a lot of it.

Water on the moon means a couple of things. First, it means a source of water for possible human exploration. Second, it means a source of hydrogen for propulsion. The Moon can be a filling station for further exploration of space.

I'm a fan of the space program because of all the fascinating discoveries that have come out of it. The primary purpose of manned exploration is adventure, sure, but it is also true that a lot more science can be done by people than machines. Machines have to have a pretty narrow focus, able to do only a few tasks, and largely unable to respond to problems that arise. However, manned spaceflight is vastly more expensive, because people are fragile.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Water on the moon means a couple of things. First, it means a source of water for possible human exploration. Second, it means a source of hydrogen for propulsion. The Moon can be a filling station for further exploration of space.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. That water means that with massive and extensive extraction equipment and with energy obtained from elsewhere, then some water may be extracted. Therefore an astronaut can have drinking water when he arrives to service machines that are doing science.

Limited water is only in deepest craters (that have no sun). Does not constitute sufficient water for anything major. And does not provide fuel - energy. It simply means frozen water can exist even on low gravity bodies that have no atmosphere. A major discovery along with living creatures that live in boiling sulfuric water. Facts necessary to learn more of god's laws.

Productive science means less men and more machines. Productive space science means NASA's budget should increase to as much as 50% devoted to science without launching humans. Science devoted to science; not to glory. Today we no longer send humans to deepest reaches of the ocean - because it is about science; not glory.

Why are the Martian Rovers so successful? Why is Hubble probably the most successful science tool in over 20 years? Because they are robots. Humans are back on earth. Who are the leaders in robot technology? Japanese. Why? Japanese are doing science for science - not for glory. Just another example of American job losses because too many would rather have glory than science.

Man in space means $80billion wasted on something that did near zero science. No way around that reality. $80billion of innovations that were stifled; that do not exist.

Again, water is not a fuel - does not provide energy. And requires massive energy to extract just enough for drinking water. Machines do not need drinking water. Are more productive in that same environment.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is Hubble probably the most successful science tool in over 20 years? Because they are robots. Humans are back on earth.

I have to admit that I was pretty impressed by how Hubble serviced itself all those times.