Because they won't fight back...

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

In 1960s, only robots we had were Neil Armstrong, et al. So we sent what we had. The transistor was but less than ten years old. Something extremely rare - a commerical version of a microprocessor that cost about $2000 or something over $15,000 in today’s money (plus support chips). Instruments that could see and remember also did not exist.

Today, instruments routinely see things that man cannot - and record them. Machines measure things that man cannot. Man must visit and leave quickly – machines stay and keep working. By 2010, an army must even have fleets of trucks that drive themselves. Why then is a manned moon base in 2020 so important?

Again, this sounds too much like a decision by those without any grasp of science and without even knowledge of Military Science 101. Political types did not provide facts about going to the moon in 1960. Back then, the president's legacy was not more important than America.

Clearly there will be parts of our space program that require man just as those telescopes on Hawaii and Hubble also require visits from men. But to create a manned moon base only to promote a political agenda or hype emotion - that sounds exactly why we are wasting Americans in Iraq.

If there is a purpose to this manned moon base, then where are those facts - those all so necessary details - the underlying science that will be studied? No details are provided. This is Vietnam, Iraq, and ISS deja vue all over again. Just because Queen Isabella had to send a human to find America means robots still cannot do it better today?

What is the mission? What is the objective? Emotion has no place in such decisions. Emotion creates defeat, death, loss of power, destruction of science, both Vietnam and Iraq, and is even what murdered seven Challenger astronauts and seven Columbia astronauts. Do we call that advancing mankind because we feel good? I smell the legacy of George Jr - America's nominee for worst president - all over this program.

Why did Nixon cancel future space launches? Vietnam war could not be lost on his watch. Logical thought had nothing to do with canceling moon launches. Nixon had priorities that were for his legacy - at the expense of America. But again, first ask why a decision was made.

Do you smell the legacy of a president rather than the advancement of mankind? It happens when we blindly believe a lying president rather than first ask embarrassing questions. For example, what is the science? What is the mission? Questions that both of America's worst presidents ever could not even hope to answer.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights.

Like Tang? Like the transistor and microprocessor? Don't believe that hype. The space program simply consumed technologies that existed in America. You could use that same reasoning to justify the war in Iraq or the actions of bin Laden.

Reality, those technologies existed because they had a purpose previously in society.

We had a tiny camera that took video on the space shuttle arm. What did we have? A portable camcorder. So clearly a light weight video camera came from the space program? Nonsense. The Japan also made those same products and sold them to Americans. But sometimes I hear someone claim the camcorder was due to the Space Shuttle. Those products might appear first in the space program. But the space program did not create the microprocessor, et al.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by busterb

Last night was full moon. Just guessing, but I think someone is a few centemeters short.

out loud laughter! sweet
I so want us to pull it off though.



The point is to get our eggs out of this single basket. Personally I don't have any robot blood in my veins so I advocate getting some of my own kind off planet for the survival of the species.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Somebody doesn't quite understand that the "space elevator" is from surface to low Earth orbit, not to the moon. The savings comes from having this sky-hook get mass to orbit with far less expenditure of energy than pushing it up with a rocket. From LEO, departing from higher in the gravity well takes, well, a lot less gas to do.

[JayMcGee]

ha, somebody hasn't read Phillip Hose Farmer....

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Somebody doesn't quite understand that the "space elevator" is from surface to low Earth orbit, not to the moon.

Well, it's obviously not to the Moon, but it's well past LEO. Unless we want the orbiting end to be constantly expending fuel just to stay in the sky, it's gotta be in geostationary orbit almost 36000 miles out. And that's where the center of mass has to be- half of the weight has to be past that.

[glatt]

Someone's read their Arthur C. Clarke, and someone else hasn't.

[Happy Monkey]

Arthur C. Clarke, Kim Stanley Robinson, and any number of science news items. I'm a big fan of the idea, but people have to realize that this is one hell of a massive object, orders of magnitude more difficult than anything mankind has done before. But instead of a reason not to do it, I'd say that's a reason to try.

UG's LEO elevator would have to be a freestanding tower over 60 miles tall, and that would be an engineering feat even more difficult than the tether.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

The U.S. stuck the first flag in it, it's ours. End of discussion.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality, those technologies existed because they had a purpose previously in society.

tw, you are quite incorrect, you know (well, apparently you don't). I can't rattle off all of the technology that has come directly from the space programme, but I have heard lists of examples given many times. Also, improvements on existing technology to make some new apparatus for space technology is still a valid example of how the space programme has improved our day-to-day lives. You need to cool down and look at this rationally. I am not trying to start an argument with you - I'm not as resilient as Bruce! :p

Just take a breath, and cool down. If you think that projects costing billions of dollars can exist without government support, then you are living in another world. This means that politics always comes into it. I agree with you that it would be better if politics kept out of science, but that is not going to happen in the real world.

Everything about space exploration helps our species and should be encouraged.

As for a moon-base, it must be done & we need to do all we can to keep the military as far from this endeavor as possible.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Just take a breath, and cool down.

Which one posted example after example suggesting that bluesdave has fallen for classic myths. bluesdave - where are your examples? How do you know when not one example is even posted? Where is your proof? Why do you keep posting speculations without even a single supporting example? Bluesdave - I say this with the cold blooded attitude of one holding a gun to your head - or urinating on your bible.

Meanwhile we could build more 'space shuttles' or we could explore space. Which did we do? We can spend billons of dollars - as others advocate for our greater glory. Doing no science building another ISS? Or we can spend $hundreds of millions doing science advocated by innovators; using state of the art technology (especially robotics) to even advance mankind. Let's see. Ten+ useful science missions for same dollars that put people working on useful endeavors – ie all that technology currently exploring Mars. Or do work that only serves a political agenda. Which one do you advocate?

Posted many times previously were examples of science after science trashed only for the glory of that George Jr political agenda. Did you read those many and previous posts? Or do you just know a moon based, instead, is better science?

Based upon facts provided, a moon base apparently is not for science. A moon base for a political agenda? Where did the proposal come from? Scientists? Or from the White House? Little hint. The latter. Previously posted are numerous science experiments already canceled only for this political agenda. Did you read the list?

Which one has a history of doing things only for a political agenda and therefore making decisions we all regret? Too many good reasons why George Jr is nominated for worst American president. I fear this moon base is but another example especially because the idea comes from a leader whose tendencies are so similar to those found in communist governments. Why is working for the glory of a political agenda more important than the nation? As rkzenrage posts:

Everything about space exploration helps our species and should be encouraged

which is why a George Jr legacy memorial moon base is being created at the expense of all those now canceled science missions.

I never said when I thought it should be done, or by whom.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

I never said when I thought it should be done, or by whom.

Don't worry rkzenrage. tw, as much as he rants, never properly reads other people's posts, and usually misquotes them, and misinterprets their intentions.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

Which one posted example after example suggesting that bluesdave has fallen for classic myths. bluesdave - where are your examples? How do you know when not one example is even posted? Where is your proof? Why do you keep posting speculations without even a single supporting example? Bluesdave - I say this with the cold blooded attitude of one holding a gun to your head - or urinating on your bible.

Well bigmouth, here are a few links from NASA covering exactly what I was talking about. Here is your proof:

Benefits of Space Exploration
Warning: use of this page will involve reading.

The Role of the Innovative Partnerships Program

Benefiting From Space Exploration