NASA's Moon base plans

astronomy-chat.net
Promoting astronomy discussion.

Main

Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:38:16
From: Rick Evans
Subject: NASA's Moon base plans

Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
$100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
Moon base is to have a Moon base'?

--
Rick Evans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lat +42° 11' 09"
Lon -71° 04' 32"

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:40:29
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Rick Evans wrote:
> Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
> $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
> Moon base is to have a Moon base'?

Those of you who go along with the people like Mr. Evans, who constantly
criticize the ISS, take note. Now these same people are going after a
moonbase. If there was a plan to go to Mars for a 2-year, 3-day trip I
guarantee you these same people would criticize that too, but on the
basis that we should not bother to go just for a publicity stunt. One
begins to question whether or not these people share the dream of human
spaceflight at all...

The fact is the ISS and moonbase are baby steps toward developing a
capability for humans to be free of the earth. Anyone who truly shares
that dream should be able to see that; as they say, you have to crawl
before you can walk. Remember *that* the next time someone says the ISS
is a huge waste of money and you are tempted to agree with them. You
can't have it both ways; either you support human spaceflight or you
don't. Instead of whining about goals and questioning whether or not we
should do these things now, if you share the dream of human spaceflight
then support it! And then demand that your money be spent efficiently.

"Chris L Peterson" wrote:
> It is important to get ourselves off the Earth, but
> we aren't quite ready

And we never will be ready until we make the effort! The ISS, and a
moonbase are us trying, are us moving forward! Every long journey
begins with a few small steps. I'll never understand how so many
apparently smart people fail to see that!

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 05 Dec 2006 17:45:08
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:40:29 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>"Chris L Peterson" wrote:
>> It is important to get ourselves off the Earth, but
>> we aren't quite ready
>
>And we never will be ready until we make the effort! The ISS, and a
>moonbase are us trying, are us moving forward! Every long journey
>begins with a few small steps. I'll never understand how so many
>apparently smart people fail to see that!

I understand that a long journey begins with a few small steps. What I
don't see is the ISS (or the proposed lunar and martian missions)
providing those steps. They may even be steps in the wrong direction: by
producing so little and costing so much, they ultimately discourage
public support for important exploration. And public support is crucial.

As I said before, I fully support the concept of a strong human presence
in space. But not until it is approached in a very different way than I
see happening now. And certainly not until there is far more money
devoted to space science. With the current limited budgets, I'd stick
with unmanned missions. They unquestionably represent a significant
return on investment.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 10:33:55
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

snip

> can't have it both ways; either you support human spaceflight or you
> don't. Instead of whining about goals and questioning whether or not we
> should do these things now, if you share the dream of human spaceflight
> then support it! And then demand that your money be spent efficiently.

That works for me. Manned spaceflight, without foreseeable economic (ie
profit) or novel scientific return, is just stupid. It only serves pork
barrel interests or as a distraction from more important issues. It
won't pay down our national debt, get us out of Iraq with our dignity
intact, or improve science education in the nations schools.
That unsupportive enough for you Greg?

> "Chris L Peterson" wrote:
>> It is important to get ourselves off the Earth, but
>> we aren't quite ready
>
> And we never will be ready until we make the effort! The ISS, and a
> moonbase are us trying, are us moving forward! Every long journey
> begins with a few small steps. I'll never understand how so many
> apparently smart people fail to see that!

Why try now? The US (I mean, who else are we really talking about?) is
incredibly thinly stretched financially. Manned space exploration
will be an economic black hole well into the future. The Earth can
still sustain humanity for a long time to come. Perhaps not in the late
20th century fashion we're accustomed to, but that's another OT thread.
Probes explore better and cheaper (Magellan did not have probe ships
BTW ;-) )
What's the point?

Shawn

Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:03:17
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Shawn wrote:
> Why try now? The US (I mean, who else are we really talking about?) is
> incredibly thinly stretched financially. Manned space exploration will
> be an economic black hole well into the future.

I'll remind everyone that the total budget for NASA amounts to a small
fraction (0.7%) of the US budget and a tiny fraction of the US economy.
We're talking a few pennies per year per person here, compared to,
say, the large number of dollars spent in Iraq every day.

Americans spend more on popcorn every year. I'd give up my popcorn for
the future. Wouldn't you? NASA costs 14 cents per day for every man,
woman and child in the US.

To people who don't support human spaceflight: fine. I can respect
that. I think it's shortsighted and turning one's back on one of the
very things that makes us human (like art or science) but I can respect
it.

What I have trouble with is people who claim to support human
spaceflight but buy into the misinformation put out by those who don't!
Complaining, for instance, that the ISS has taught us nothing, when
that's simply not true, or complaining that no science is done on the
ISS when it hasn't been finished yet! If you are truly concerned that
support is waning, then now is the time to show your support. From what
I can tell this moonbase is never going to happen. It's all just paper
and that's what we are looking at for the next generation: a paper NASA.

Why?

I say it is because my generation ultimately became jaded and
disillusioned because the instant gratification of 1969 became a long
hard road they are unwilling to truly support. My 8-year-old
understands intuitively why humans must go to space. It's too bad so
many who were blessed to be present when Armstrong and Aldrin walked on
the moon have so utterly forgotten it. Unfortunately, my 8-year-old
does not vote and holds absolutely no sway with his Congressman.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 05 Dec 2006 11:39:18
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> I'll remind everyone that the total budget for NASA amounts to a small
> fraction (0.7%) of the US budget and a tiny fraction of the US economy.
> We're talking a few pennies per year per person here, compared to,
> say, the large number of dollars spent in Iraq every day.
>
> Americans spend more on popcorn every year. I'd give up my popcorn for
> the future. Wouldn't you? NASA costs 14 cents per day for every man,
> woman and child in the US.

I think most of us would be OK with supporting NASA in the abstract.
But there are practical concerns. First of all, just swearing off the
occasional popcorn (I don't happen to spend 14 cents per day on it, but
I'm sure I could find something equivalent) won't do it. Even if the
resulting money went straight to the federal government, Congress still
has to put that money into NASA, not some other project like subsidized
construction. That means that NASA has to make it onto the government's
radar, and that means education and time.

Secondly, lots of us have concerns about how NASA is being run, mostly
in terms of priorities. So even if we could ensure that an extra 14
cents per day could go to NASA, many people wouldn't want to do it,
because it's unclear that the money would be spent in a wise manner.
It's evident that you like the way the money is being spent (on the ISS,
at least), but not everyone feels that way...

I've worked for institutions that got NASA funding. It is not highly
regarded because the NASA bureaucracy in particular seems so darned
inefficient. (Compared to, say, NSF or even DARPA.) That culture must
change if NASA is really to get the most bang possible for its very
limited buck.

> Complaining, for instance, that the ISS has taught us nothing, when
> that's simply not true, or complaining that no science is done on the
> ISS when it hasn't been finished yet!

I don't know about other folks, but I don't complain that the ISS has
taught us nothing, or that there is no science to be done on the ISS.
However, I don't think there is a lot of work that demands the ISS; more
concerning is the apparent lack of any concrete *plan* to do that kind
of work. What I see is claims that we will do that work, but I can't
find anything specific on what that work will be. No project proposals,
no white papers. What is available is description of work that has
already been done, either on the ISS or on other microgravity platforms.
Do you have a pointer to *new* work that requires what the ISS provides?
Such proposals would go a long way to promoting support for the ISS.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:21:49
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Brian Tung wrote:
> I think most of us would be OK with supporting NASA in the abstract.
> But there are practical concerns. First of all, just swearing off the
> occasional popcorn (I don't happen to spend 14 cents per day on it, but
> I'm sure I could find something equivalent) won't do it. Even if the
> resulting money went straight to the federal government, Congress still
> has to put that money into NASA, not some other project like subsidized
> construction. That means that NASA has to make it onto the government's
> radar, and that means education and time.

The 14 cents per day is approximately what is already spent on NASA.
The suggestion was made that human spaceflight is prohibitively
expensive. I was simply trying to separate the facts from the rhetoric.

> Secondly, lots of us have concerns about how NASA is being run, mostly
> in terms of priorities. So even if we could ensure that an extra 14
> cents per day could go to NASA, many people wouldn't want to do it,
> because it's unclear that the money would be spent in a wise manner.
> It's evident that you like the way the money is being spent (on the ISS,
> at least), but not everyone feels that way...

Your points are reasoned and well taken, but I'm not talking to you. ;-)
See the response by Martin Brown on this thread: that's what I'm
addressing. These people are little different from the lunatics around
here, such as those who say we never went to the moon. That may seem
drastic, but I'm serious. Consider: instead of reason and facts they
offer slogans. Instead of engaging in real discourse, they repeat their
pet fallacies again and again, as if somehow saying, "the ISS is a huge
waste of money" or "we can't afford it" or "no science can be done from
the ISS" enough times will make it true. The problem is, they are
winning! People believe them. Sadly, most astronomers are woefully
ignorant about the non-astronomical science and engineering that must be
done. I am one of them. But I am *aware* of my own ignorance! So many
astronomers seem blissfully unaware of how little they know about space
science. Astronomers don't hate the ISS for the right reasons. We hate
the ISS because there is nothing in it for astronomy. It's that simple.
In this atmosphere the proclamations of these naysayers are generally
accepted uncritically. I'm saying, wake up people! Complain about
mismanagement or waste, but support the idea, or we are going to have
nothing to pass on to future generations. The ISS is an essential step;
it may not be sexy but it's our step, and we have a responsibility to
future generations to take that step and make the most of it so they can
build on what we have done.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:28:13
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Brian Tung wrote:

> In fact, I submit that this kind of conflation arises everytime the ISS
> comes up. Opposition to the ISS seems relatively circumscribed--not
> opposition to a space station in the abstract, or even to a NASA-funded
> space station in the abstract, but rather to the ISS as it is currently
> run. Support for the ISS seems much more broadly founded--precisely for
> space stations in the abstract, even for the space program as a whole,
> especially as supporters do not name actual science proposals for the
> ISS. This misalignment in the topic of discussion is why I find these
> debates not only repetitive, but ineffective.

The ISS serves as the #1 example of why NASA is the agency that should
be forbidden from putting people in space, let alone flying to the
Moon. To that extent, is highly relevant, in the same way why we
don't, as a society, allow known murderers to take jobs at day-care
centers. They have no more credibility, having lost it on the white
elephant named "ISS". Toss them some simple work -- graph making, or
fancy computer animation construction, things they are proven to be
good at -- and leave job of "things in space" to others.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:23:26
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

e--------- wrote:
> The ISS serves as the #1 example of why NASA is the agency that should
> be forbidden from putting people in space, let alone flying to the
> Moon. To that extent, is highly relevant, in the same way why we
> don't, as a society, allow known murderers to take jobs at day-care
> centers. They have no more credibility, having lost it on the white
> elephant named "ISS". Toss them some simple work -- graph making, or
> fancy computer animation construction, things they are proven to be
> good at -- and leave job of "things in space" to others.

Skills is only one aspect of space exploration. Even if we take your
assessment as given (and I think it's exaggerated), there's still the
question of infrastructure. Frankly, I would rather improve the way
NASA is run than gut NASA and build up that infrastructure around some
other organization, public or private, because I just think it's less
costly to do it that way.

It seems no more rational to say NASA is irredeemable than to say it's
run A-OK.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 08 Dec 2006 05:44:44
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Brian Tung wrote:

> Skills is only one aspect of space exploration. Even if we take your
> assessment as given (and I think it's exaggerated), there's still the
> question of infrastructure. Frankly, I would rather improve the way
> NASA is run than gut NASA and build up that infrastructure around some
> other organization, public or private, because I just think it's less
> costly to do it that way.

What infrastructure exists is fungible. Look at what happened in
Canada when they cancelled the Avro Arrow project 50 years ago: most
of the engineers, etc, simply packed their bags and started to work for
the US aviation/space industry. The same would happen if NASA was
given the knife. Naturally, it may well be the feeling that
reproducing this result, but with an exodus of talent to India or
China, probably gives US policy makers the willies and may be the main
reason why NASA hasn't been justifiably brutalized by its sponsor,
despite the massive, blatantly obvious, problems. "I love the smell of
bacon in the morning ..."

As for cost: this needs to be integrated on a timeframe appropriate to
the goal. If cost of reorganizing NASA + cost of NASA projects > cost
of building ASAN (to pick a name) + cost of ASAN projects, then
assuming both produce the same output the answer is clear.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 05:26:58
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Martin Brown wrote:

> That is woefully simplistic and completely inaccurate. NASA isn't
> perfect, but don't ever forget that they *did* put a man on the Moon
> with the Apollo program.

The NASA of 40 years ago did that. The agency with the same name today
is simply incapable of the feat within the same timeframe or money.

> And given the right funding they could do so
> again.

If by "Right" you mean "a sufficient amount of", then, yes, of course.
Throw enough money anywhere and something eventually will get done.
However, if some other agency could exist and do the job at 1/10th the
cost, it would make sense to give it to them.

> NASA has some fantastic engineering and scientific resources and
> for the most part it uses them wisely.

You'll get no argument from me that the people at the bottom are as you
describe.

> Most of the planetary exploration projects have delivered their kit on
> time and working.

Even on this, NASA is still something less than desirable: as good as
the returns are, the costs are simply insane.

> The ISS is an unfortunate example of a very high profile project gone
> bad that is too big and too expensive to cancel.

ISS is just the largest, most visible, example of a phenomena that
pervades the agency: monster, hyper-expensive, one-shot missions that
Must Succeed Or Else. No cohesive plan, just a bag of more or less
independent missions that can be scaled back or cancelled at a moments
notice, at the whim of the bean counters.

Look at the two rovers on Mars. It's abundantly clear (from previous
difficulties) that NASA simply lucked out here. But suppose one of
them exploded on the pad during launch? What, 400 million dollars down
the shithole? There would have been much recriminating, finger
pointing, and general soap opera ... but no new rover. But consider if
NASA had built a fleet of these things. When one explodes, NASA says
something like "Damn", makes a brief inspection and wheels the next one
to the launch pad and tries again. Simple economies of scale at work:
rather than putting priceless artifacts onto rockets, one uses the
output of some assembly line somewhere. Some will fail, what of it?

> The problem was that they needed the right amount of funding up front
> and must in future be honest about the true likely cost of any new
> project. Making every possible optimistic assumption on costs and
> ignoring the need for contingencies is not the way to do it. It is
> disastrous both for morale and credibility to keep having massive cost
> overruns and delays.

The "massive cost overruns" are a direct result of the sort of things
they are building, how they relate to one another and (ultimately) the
management structure in place. It's the lack of a plan -- for decades
now -- that has NASA spending, when it should be investing (cf.
'economies of scale'). When failure is not an option, then neither is
true success.

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Date: 05 Dec 2006 13:37:14
From: John Nichols
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net > wrote in message
news:YKddh.1986$g_3.114@trndny02...
> Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
> $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
> Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>
> --
> Rick Evans
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> Lat +42° 11' 09"
> Lon -71° 04' 32"
>
Happens that two NASA engineers from the Lewis-Glenn facility here did a
presentation at our astronomy club in October on the new program. Part of
it is to have a base as a jumping off point for future missions to Mars.
And of course to learn more about the Moon itself as we still have quite a
few questions.

I suspects you already knew that.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 14:14:28
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"John Nichols" <bejay@worldnet.att.net > wrote in message
news:eCedh.428594$QZ1.103677@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:YKddh.1986$g_3.114@trndny02...
>> Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
>> $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
>> Moon base is to have a Moon base'?

> Happens that two NASA engineers from the Lewis-Glenn facility here did a
> presentation at our astronomy club in October on the new program. Part of
> it is to have a base as a jumping off point for future missions to Mars.

Why jump off the Earth with all its manufacturing infrastructure and
human intellectual and labor capital only to stop at the desert
to end all deserts as a jumping off point? Using the Moon to "jump off"
to Mars
is isn't even a good "poor justification". But I guess for the choir
the argument works.

> And of course to learn more about the Moon itself as we still have quite a
> few questions.

That can probably be more than adequately addressed with fleets of
robots with
tons of dough for other R&D endeavors. AI and other robotics spin-offs
are
likely dividends. Me suspects we have made much progress in robotics
since 1969.
And, methinks you already knew that. ;-)

--
Rick Evans
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lat +42° 11' 09"
Lon -71° 04' 32"

Date: 05 Dec 2006 12:52:39
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net > wrote:

>Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
>$100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
>Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>

It, apparently, will be a sort of "proof-of-concept" for bases on
Mars. At least that's how I see: "The habitat will function as a
testbed for technologies that will be needed for future travel to Mars
and beyond".

Eugene L Griessel

If you file it, you will know where it is but never need it.
If you don't file it, you'll need it but never know where it is.

Date: 05 Dec 2006 08:23:31
From: Shawn
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Eugene Griessel wrote:
> "Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net> wrote:
>
>> Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
>> $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
>> Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>>
>
> It, apparently, will be a sort of "proof-of-concept" for bases on
> Mars. At least that's how I see: "The habitat will function as a
> testbed for technologies that will be needed for future travel to Mars
> and beyond".

And why do we want to go to Mars? Don't get me wrong, I think it would
be cool and all, but it wouldn't be of any significant scientific value,
and it would be a major drain on real research as well as the economy in
general. The "Lets go to the Moon" distraction has done its political
duty for W. Lets not get suckered by it, and move on.

Shawn

Date: 05 Dec 2006 15:30:59
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:23:31 -0700, Shawn
<scurryfifewonniyne@fixthenumberscomcast.net > wrote:

>And why do we want to go to Mars? Don't get me wrong, I think it would
>be cool and all, but it wouldn't be of any significant scientific value...

It _could_ be of huge scientific value, but so could a space station.
The latter hasn't been, and I expect you are correct that the former
wouldn't be, either. Not because the concept is flawed, but because the
direction is.

>and it would be a major drain on real research as well as the economy in
>general.

That's the real issue. I'm all for placing more resources into space
exploration, but until we do, the limited funds are best reserved for
unmanned missions. It is important to get ourselves off the Earth, but
we aren't quite ready.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 05 Dec 2006 22:02:33
From: Davoud
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> ...

> That's the real issue. I'm all for placing more resources into space
> exploration, but until we do, the limited funds are best reserved for
> unmanned missions. It is important to get ourselves off the Earth, but
> we aren't quite ready.

Yes. It is premature to plan manned flights to the planets. Among other
things, we need to wait for new rocket technology that can carry as
much -- or more -- mass in scientific instrumentation as it does in
life-support. And we need to find a way to protect astronauts from
radiation. I think that it will be a very long time before a manned
mission to Mars could do as much science as a robotic mission. Science
/is/ the reason for doing this, right?

Davoud

--
usenet *at* davidillig dawt com

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Date: 06 Dec 2006 06:15:31
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Martin Brown" <

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:37:30
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Rick Evans wrote:
> I found it interesting Mr. Crinklaw Dubya-ed "people like Mr. Evans"
> as "you support human spaceflight or you don't". Kinda reminds me of
> the rhetoric used to get us into Iraq at a cost of $200 billion yearly.

And it doesn't surprise me that you intentionally mis-characterized what
I said in hot-button political terms instead of address the facts.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:58:08
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Martin Brown wrote:
[insert sound of a broken record]

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 06 Dec 2006 11:38:23
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Martin Brown" <

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:16:19
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:38:23 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
Griessel) wrote:

>Dunno why. Robots are pricey and scarce and the world is overflowing
>with people - no scarcity there. Besides people can be made very
>cheaply by unskilled labour.

Absolutely true, but there seems to be some objection to using people
for one way trips. Until that prejudice is overcome, manned trips will
continue to be very expensive.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 06 Dec 2006 08:57:25
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 11:38:23 GMT, eugene@dynagen..co..za (Eugene
> Griessel) wrote:
>
>> Dunno why. Robots are pricey and scarce and the world is overflowing
>> with people - no scarcity there. Besides people can be made very
>> cheaply by unskilled labour.
>
> Absolutely true, but there seems to be some objection to using people
> for one way trips. Until that prejudice is overcome, manned trips will
> continue to be very expensive.

I know you are kidding, but I actually think a one way trip to mars
would be the best way to approach it. Do we really want to spend a
large sum of money so that a couple of astronauts can spend a few days
or weeks on the surface? Why not send ahead supplies and most
importantly, items necessary for survival for, say, three couples? It
seems to me that the huge cost of a return trip would be better spent
making a permanent base. I know it sounds like a crazy idea, but I
think it worth considering. And if it's not possible for people to live
permanently on Mars (even mostly underground) then what's the hurry anyhow?

But I don't think we are ready for a mars colony yet. Other people
claim we aren't ready to have a moon base. But how do you get ready?
How do you develop the technology if you don't have a program to do it?
We didn't get manned powered flight by sitting on our hands and
saying, "we just don't have the technology for it yet, we should wait."
People worked hard to achieve it. Others said they were crazy.
People died trying to achieve it. It's so easy to get on a 777 and
forget that it didn't just happen all by itself. A moonbase is
something we can strive for that will help us learn how live in space.
That is the goal of human spaceflight. All this nonsense about science
is just smoke.

The same people who cry that we aren't ready for a moon base moan about
the ISS. So what is the next step then? Sitting on our hands? Think
about it. Thankfully there are still many people who dream and who
don't listen to the naysayers who say to wait for the future to come
rather than strive to build it.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 06 Dec 2006 16:29:57
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:57:25 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>The same people who cry that we aren't ready for a moon base moan about
>the ISS. So what is the next step then? Sitting on our hands? Think
>about it. Thankfully there are still many people who dream and who
>don't listen to the naysayers who say to wait for the future to come
>rather than strive to build it.

I don't think you understand the objections (or pretend not to
understand). On this group, I have seen very little objection to the
concept of manned space exploration, bases on the Moon and Mars, and
other concepts that you are very much in favor of. The main objection
has been that some current programs are consuming vast amounts of money
(or at least, consuming a significant fraction of the money made
available for space science) and delivering very little of use- almost
no scientific data, and not even much in the way of useful development
to be applied to more ambitious manned exploration programs. My point
was that ISS (and very likely the proposed lunar base) may well be
_hindering_ a successful long term program of manned space exploration.

What is the next step? I'd say it starts with a significant
restructuring of NASA, and a clear statement of our long term goals in
space. We shouldn't be worrying about bases on the Moon before we
develop a reasonable launch platform. We shouldn't be mixing resources:
it is foolish that money for remote observation of the Earth, scientific
study of other planets, and manned launch vehicles comes from the same
budget (it may even be foolish that the same agency oversees all these).
Right now, the American space program is practically rudderless. When we
are in that state, the next step is not to proceed with a huge new
program. Yet that seems to be where things are headed, and I think it is
very likely that this will turn into the same sort of boondoggle as the
ISS.

Dreams are fine, but there needs to be a little pragmatism, too.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 09:22:46
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:57:25 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> The same people who cry that we aren't ready for a moon base moan about
>> the ISS. So what is the next step then? Sitting on our hands? Think
>> about it. Thankfully there are still many people who dream and who
>> don't listen to the naysayers who say to wait for the future to come
>> rather than strive to build it.
>
> I don't think you understand the objections (or pretend not to
> understand).

So apparently I'm either stupid, or pretending to be. It never even
crossed your mind that I might be right, did it?

> The main objection
> has been that some current programs are consuming vast amounts of money
> (or at least, consuming a significant fraction of the money made
> available for space science) and delivering very little of use- almost
> no scientific data, and not even much in the way of useful development
> to be applied to more ambitious manned exploration programs. My point
> was that ISS (and very likely the proposed lunar base) may well be
> _hindering_ a successful long term program of manned space exploration.

To Chris and anyone else who agrees with you:

I'll try to make this more clear. I hear two claims made again and again:

(1) The ISS has taught us nothing useful about living and working in space

(2) No science can or will ever be done on the ISS

Now, I think these claims are not only false, but extraordinary. As you
know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where is
your evidence? If you are thinking, "well, everyone knows these things"
then read on.

Here's the thing: when the ISS was under review by Congress years ago
there was a big fight over it. The Astronomers formed a coalition to
try to stop it. The reason they tried to stop it was that they realized
that a large-scale human spaceflight project would squeeze them out of
money come budget time every year. This fear was partially true.
Unfortunately the more naive among us actually thought that if, say,
$20B wasn't spent on human spaceflight, then that $20B would be
available for science. If you are at all familiar with the way Congress
appropriates money, you will realize that simply isn't so. Regardless
of human spaceflight, the committees that control the spending are
already spending as much as they are comfortable spending on science.
But what is true is that the ISS created a 600lb gorilla, if you will,
that had to be dealt with every year when budget time came around. The
astronomers put up a big effort to kill the ISS and a lot of things were
said at the time, such as "the ISS is a huge waste of money" and "no
real science will ever be done."

The legacy of those days is that people who usually pride themselves on
thinking critically, such as yourself, have heard or read these words so
many times, and these phrases have been so oft be repeated, that we
simply forgot, as a community, that it was all little more than
political rhetoric.

How many people here read the engineering journals? Can you really tell
me that we somehow built a space station, in concert with the Russians
(and a few other countries), and learned nothing about human
spaceflight? No advances in materials, techniques, power systems, etc?
I find that very hard to believe. People always say that the ISS was
unnecessary because of MIR. But look at what the ISS has done for NASA:
it has allowed the lessons and expertise that the Russians gained to be
transferred and presumably this cooperation has taught the Russians a
thing or two as well. Pooh-pooh that all you like, but if the goal is
learn how to live and work in space, then the coming together of the
expertise of two very different countries is a huge step forward and
worth the cost in itself.

Regardless, I'm not the one making extraordinary claims. As such it
does not fall on me to prove that the ISS has taught us nothing about
living and working in space. That's for you to do. And if you know as
much about these things as most astronomers do, I think you will find
that you are completely ignorant of the advances in space engineering in
the last decade. The great trap is to confuse ones ignorance of
evidence for lack of evidence, and I say that process is most evident! ;-)

As for the science question: that's ridiculous at face value. Of course
there is science to be done! How could you even think otherwise?
Again, just because you can't personally imagine a science experiment on
board the ISS does not mean nobody else can. But with the delays in
construction due to budget restraints (and possibly mismanagement) and
the Shuttle problem, and a two-person crew there doing nothing but
maintain it, it should be obvious that it is not ready for science.
That should be OBVIOUS. I say it's not finished and people have the
gall to tell me that's not an excuse! That's not logic and reason,
that's dogma. In fact, this entire anti-ISS thing in the astronomical
community is nothing more than dogma. And I hate that. You should too.
Stop and ask yourself honestly how it is you know the ISS is
worthless. What is your source of information? Why is it that the
human spaceflight science community sees it very differently? Are they
just a bunch of money grubbing fakers? Of course not. I say, if you
can think for yourself, then do it. Stop repeating the dogma and start
looking into the facts.

> What is the next step? I'd say it starts with a significant
> restructuring of NASA, and a clear statement of our long term goals in
> space. We shouldn't be worrying about bases on the Moon before we
> develop a reasonable launch platform. We shouldn't be mixing resources:
> it is foolish that money for remote observation of the Earth, scientific
> study of other planets, and manned launch vehicles comes from the same
> budget (it may even be foolish that the same agency oversees all these).
> Right now, the American space program is practically rudderless. When we
> are in that state, the next step is not to proceed with a huge new
> program. Yet that seems to be where things are headed, and I think it is
> very likely that this will turn into the same sort of boondoggle as the
> ISS.

Sure, you could separate the funding and that would hopefully heal the
political rift between the human spaceflight community and
astronomy/planetary science, but from the point of view of the country
as a whole it would make little difference.

The whole point of a moon base was to give them a reasonable goal so
they would no longer be rudderless. To criticize that step the guise of
NASA is rudderless is galling. There is a chicken and egg problem here
and it is somewhat intractable. The people who pay the bills for an
expensive new launch system ask two reasonable and simple questions: why
do we need it? and what are we going to use it for? If you can't
answer those questions they just laugh at you. And if you don't know
the answer yourself you end up with a general-purpose design that does
nothing well. That is why no new large-scale launch systems have been
built since the Shuttle.

A moon base is a goal that requires new launch systems. By having a
goal that requires new launch systems we can design these systems to
meet that goal and when a congressman asks what we need it for, well,
there is your answer.

At least that's the theory. I am afraid the reality is that with such
lack of support from the public as we see here, and the enormous cost of
the Bush administrations spending spree (which has yet to come to roost)
there is no real immediate future for manned spaceflight in the US. We
are going to have a paper NASA--a NASA that goes to the moon in computer
animations only--and a big part of the reason for that is the fickle
support we read here.

Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 17:24:49
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Thu, 07 Dec 2006 09:22:46 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
<theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote:

>To Chris and anyone else who agrees with you:
>
>I'll try to make this more clear. I hear two claims made again and again:
>
>(1) The ISS has taught us nothing useful about living and working in space
>
>(2) No science can or will ever be done on the ISS

I did not make those claims. What I said was similar, but different in
important ways:

(1) The ISS has taught us little useful about living and working in
space; in particular, what it has taught us has been bought at far too
high a price.

(2) Very little science has been done in the ISS, and most of that
didn't require the ISS in the first place. There is certainly a vast
amount of important science that can and must be done in space; while
that _could_ happen on the ISS, I see nothing that makes me think it
will happen. I do see the massive shuttle/ISS budget stealing resources
from scientific programs, however. And while I take your point about how
money is appropriated, it simply isn't possible to say what the actual
appropriations would be in the absence of the shuttle/ISS. Unmanned
missions _have_ been canceled because of how NASA internally manages its
budget. I think it is arguable that funding for manned missions and
funding for unmanned missions is quite inter-related.

>Now, I think these claims are not only false, but extraordinary. As you
>know, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. So where is
>your evidence?

It is difficult to provide evidence of absence. I'd argue that _your_
claims that the program has been so productive are the extraordinary
ones. Specifically, what has the ISS taught us that we didn't already
know from earlier missions? What major advances in technology has the
ISS program been responsible for. I'm asking that in all seriousness,
because I really can't come up with much.

Obviously, this has been a huge engineering project. As such, new
devices have been developed and tested in space. I just don't see
anything dramatic; I guess what I see is what I'd call "ordinary"
engineering. Not like the Apollo program, with its vast new areas of
technology that spun off into the private sector. The bottom line is
that I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth from ISS, and that
is my main problem with it.

I am not opposed to a Moon base. I do, however, have a lot of problems
with how and why this particular project is being taken on. I think it
is a mistake to do it without first making some significant changes in
how the American space program is structured.

Greg, there is no question here of "right" or "wrong". I would never
tell you that your opinion about whether we should engage in the ISS
program is wrong (although I might challenge some of your supporting
facts). This is an area where reasonable people can legitimately
disagree; it is unfair on your part to call those who disagree with you
wrong.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 11:31:31
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Come on, folks, everytime the ISS comes up, we have the same old debate.
Greg thinks it's the right thing to do, Chris and Martin don't. Nothing
new *ever* gets said here. Why do we have to rehash the same old lines?
I'm not trying to shut anybody up--just trying to illustrate the feeling
of "We've been down this road before."

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:47:40
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message news:el9q6j$ao0$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Come on, folks, everytime the ISS comes up, we have the same old debate.
> Greg thinks it's the right thing to do, Chris and Martin don't.
> Nothing new *ever* gets said here.

Well to be fair, Brian, it was my temerity as a
taxpayer and First Amendment beneficiary to question
NASA's moonbase plans in a mildly snarky way that
triggered this battle of keystrokes.

The huge gravity of the debate has simply pulled the
ISS into its sphere of influence. ;)

--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:48:09
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Rick Evans wrote:
> Well to be fair, Brian, it was my temerity as a
> taxpayer and First Amendment beneficiary to question
> NASA's moonbase plans in a mildly snarky way that
> triggered this battle of keystrokes.
>
> The huge gravity of the debate has simply pulled the
> ISS into its sphere of influence. ;)

You walked off the cliff. They didn't have to follow. :)

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 07 Dec 2006 21:02:24
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Brian Tung" <brian@isi.edu > wrote in message news:el9um9$bjr$1@praesepe.isi.edu...
> Rick Evans wrote:
> > Well to be fair, Brian, it was my temerity as a
> > taxpayer and First Amendment beneficiary to question
> > NASA's moonbase plans in a mildly snarky way that
> > triggered this battle of keystrokes.
> >
> > The huge gravity of the debate has simply pulled the
> > ISS into its sphere of influence. ;)
>
> You walked off the cliff. They didn't have to follow. :)
:))) ROTFL

--

Hilton Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Webcam Astroimaging
http://mysite.verizon.net/hiltonevans33050/astroimaging/astroimaging.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------
ChemPen Chemical Structure Software
http://www.chempensoftware.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:44:32
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:31:31 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
wrote:

>Come on, folks, everytime the ISS comes up, we have the same old debate.
>Greg thinks it's the right thing to do, Chris and Martin don't. Nothing
>new *ever* gets said here. Why do we have to rehash the same old lines?
>I'm not trying to shut anybody up--just trying to illustrate the feeling
>of "We've been down this road before."

Well, yes, sort of. This time, however, we are looking at this in light
of an active proposal to set up a permanent Moon base, which does put a
somewhat different spin on things.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:56:11
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Dec 2006 11:31:31 -0800 (PST), brian@isi.edu (Brian Tung)
> wrote:
>
>> Come on, folks, everytime the ISS comes up, we have the same old debate.
>> Greg thinks it's the right thing to do, Chris and Martin don't. Nothing
>> new *ever* gets said here. Why do we have to rehash the same old lines?
>> I'm not trying to shut anybody up--just trying to illustrate the feeling
>> of "We've been down this road before."
>
> Well, yes, sort of. This time, however, we are looking at this in light
> of an active proposal to set up a permanent Moon base, which does put a
> somewhat different spin on things.

Exactly. And I think if people stop and think about it, opposition to a
moon base puts a very interesting light on the question... where is this
road leading to?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 12:47:35
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> > Well, yes, sort of. This time, however, we are looking at this in light
> > of an active proposal to set up a permanent Moon base, which does put a
> > somewhat different spin on things.
>
> Exactly. And I think if people stop and think about it, opposition to a
> moon base puts a very interesting light on the question... where is this
> road leading to?

You and Chris are talking about two related but different things. He is
talking about a particular proposal to set up a permanent moon base; you
are talking about setting up a moon base. Opposition to the former does
not necessarily constitute opposition to the latter.

In fact, I submit that this kind of conflation arises everytime the ISS
comes up. Opposition to the ISS seems relatively circumscribed--not
opposition to a space station in the abstract, or even to a NASA-funded
space station in the abstract, but rather to the ISS as it is currently
run. Support for the ISS seems much more broadly founded--precisely for
space stations in the abstract, even for the space program as a whole,
especially as supporters do not name actual science proposals for the
ISS. This misalignment in the topic of discussion is why I find these
debates not only repetitive, but ineffective.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 07 Dec 2006 13:57:59
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Brian Tung wrote:
> You and Chris are talking about two related but different things. He is
> talking about a particular proposal to set up a permanent moon base; you
> are talking about setting up a moon base. Opposition to the former does
> not necessarily constitute opposition to the latter.

Sorry, but no. I'm making another point entirely, which seems to have
been completely lost on you even though I typed about it a length.

Oh well.

How about this: if you don't like the discussion then why not just stop
reading it?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:17:20
From: Brian Tung
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> Sorry, but no. I'm making another point entirely...

In that case, I didn't mean in the larger conversation. I just meant in
the one paragraph I quoted.

I do think you two are talking about slightly different things even in
the larger picture, though.

> How about this: if you don't like the discussion then why not just stop
> reading it?

That is not the only way to respond to a discussion I don't like (for a
variety of reasons, incidentally--tempers are beginning to flare, people
are beginning to repeat themselves, etc). Another way is to try to
improve the discussion by clarifying certain aspects of it. I do admit
to a certain degree of frustration over the repetitive nature of the
debate, and I don't think "take it or leave it" is really responsive to
that. On the other hand, I think distinguishing support for the ISS
*as currently managed* from support for an international space station
*is* responsive. To the extent that we can separate issues of program
management from issues of the importance of the ISS in a larger
perspective--we can after all improve the former without impacting the
latter in the least--the discussion is better focused and might thereby
move forward.

--
Brian Tung <brian@isi.edu >
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.html

Date: 08 Dec 2006 22:31:43
From: Trane Francks
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On 2006-12-08 02:24 +0900, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> technology that spun off into the private sector. The bottom line is
> that I don't feel like I'm getting my money's worth from ISS, and that
> is my main problem with it.

Sadly, many people, including yourself, blame NASA. From this lad's
perspective, the blame lay squarely with the government you collectively
empowered. Nobody can ultimately blame anybody except the person staring
at them in the mirror holding that toothbrush in the morning.

The ISS _could_ be so much more, but nobody seemingly has had the balls
to make it so. By the time the ISS is completed, the U.S. plans to more
or less withdraw from the party. With that level of commitment from your
government - and it is the government who ultimately calls these shots
by virtue of the funding the American people agree to for such programs
- it's little wonder that Greg's self-fulfilling prophesy is a reality.

> disagree; it is unfair on your part to call those who disagree with you
> wrong.

I'm not so sure, Chris, but I'd be coming at it from a somewhat
different angle than Greg. :)

Honestly, it _pains_ me to agree with such a curmudgeon, but Greg's
points with regard to space exploration reverberate deeply within me. Go
figure. ;)

Ultimately, the problem isn't the ISS or how NASA manages things or any
of that. No, the problem is a country with a fair number of people who
so thoroughly lost the power of critical thinking that Intelligent
Design is nominated for inclusion in science programs. A poster to this
thread was even plonked on the basis of posting a comment to the effect
that the U.S. gov would rather spend money on war than science, which to
me would seem to be the case. I would hardly be surprised if Iraq alone
saw more money in one month than all American science programs combined
for an entire year. And the payback for Iraq is what ... ?

I'll probably get thumped royally for my thoughts on this, but the
overriding sense I have is that the problem isn't the ISS or the moon
base or the Shuttle. The problem is a lack of commitment to the sciences
that could make these pay back in droves. And, I daresay, a sad lack of
romance with regard to space exploration and a dream of simply making it
happen no matter what.

As of September 21, 2006, the total U.S. government debt was $8.500
trillion (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._public_debt >). A few bucks
more for science would hardly make a difference to the economy, but
would mean a whole lot to science itself.

My apologies if my views or the way I've expressed them have offended
anybody. That is certainly not my intention.

trane
--
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Trane Francks trane@gol.com Tokyo, Japan
// Practice random kindness and senseless acts of beauty.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 23:25:41
From: Sergio Briganti
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net > ha scritto:

>Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
>$100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
>Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>
>--
>Rick Evans
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>Lat +42° 11' 09"
>Lon -71° 04' 32"

I think the reason is: "that way we will spend a lot of public
money, giving it to high tech companies, instead of financing the
production of weapons, since we cannot invent new wars without
further risks".

So, let's go invading the Moon.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 16:51:54
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Welcome to my killfile...

PLONK!!!

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21
"Sergio Briganti" <briganti.sergio@holmail.com > wrote in message
news:457750bf.2948109@news.tiscali.it...
> "Rick Evans" <dontspamme@nospam.net> ha scritto:
>
>>Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
>>$100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
>>Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>>
>>--
>>Rick Evans
>>----------------------------------------------------------------
>>Lat +42° 11' 09"
>>Lon -71° 04' 32"
>
> I think the reason is: "that way we will spend a lot of public
> money, giving it to high tech companies, instead of financing the
> production of weapons, since we cannot invent new wars without
> further risks".
>
> So, let's go invading the Moon.
>
>
>
>
>

Date: 06 Dec 2006 22:15:24
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Jan Owen wrote:
> Welcome to my killfile...
>
> PLONK!!!

You killfile people just because you don't agree with their opinions now?

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:47:21
From: Pieter Litchfield
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Cloudcroft! I love Cloudcroft. Ate BBQ and stayed in a cabin colony there
once....
Went to Sunspot too.

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:82f38$4577a362$4212a5ee$31512@TULAROSA.NET...
> Jan Owen wrote:
>> Welcome to my killfile...
>>
>> PLONK!!!
>
> You killfile people just because you don't agree with their opinions now?
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 07:16:13
From: Jan Owen
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:82f38$4577a362$4212a5ee$31512@TULAROSA.NET...
> Jan Owen wrote:
>> Welcome to my killfile...
>>
>> PLONK!!!
>
> You killfile people just because you don't agree with their opinions now?
>
> --
> Greg Crinklaw
> Astronomical Software Developer
> Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)
>
> SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
> Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
> Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html
>
> To reply take out your eye

You bet!

It lets me read SAA without all the political BS and trolling...

But, no worries!!! YOU can still read all that stuff if you want (or ignore
it - that's YOUR choice)... It's only missing from MY PC....

--
Jan Owen

To reach me directly, remove the Z, if one appears in my e-mail address...
Latitude: 33.6
Longitude: -112.3
http://community.webshots.com/user/janowen21

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:28:23
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Jan Owen wrote:
> "Greg Crinklaw" <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:82f38$4577a362$4212a5ee$31512@TULAROSA.NET...
>> Jan Owen wrote:
>>> Welcome to my killfile...
>>>
>>> PLONK!!!
>> You killfile people just because you don't agree with their opinions now?
>
> You bet!
>
> It lets me read SAA without all the political BS and trolling...
>
> But, no worries!!! YOU can still read all that stuff if you want (or ignore
> it - that's YOUR choice)... It's only missing from MY PC....

As someone who has been criticized for over-using my kill file (and
anything else you can imagine, come to think of it) I'm in no place to
disagree with you. It was a public PLONKing of someone you weren't
having an argument with though... not sure why it needed to be public.
I was just surprised because I didn't think the poster said anything
all that bad. After all, the thread itself is political in nature. But
no big deal--I was just curious.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 06 Dec 2006 14:32:31
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw blathers on:

> See the response by Martin Brown on this thread: that's what I'm
> addressing. These people are little different from the lunatics around
> here, such as those who say we never went to the moon. That may seem
> drastic, but I'm serious.

If you are serious about this, then I conclude you are a demented
fruitcake. And the facts would sadly be in support of this conclusion.

> Consider: instead of reason and facts they offer slogans.

And you aren't. Right.

> Instead of engaging in real discourse, they repeat their
> pet fallacies again and again, as if somehow saying, "the ISS is a huge
> waste of money" or "we can't afford it" or "no science can be done from
> the ISS" enough times will make it true. The problem is, they are
> winning! People believe them.

Then prove them wrong. Where is the evidence that ISS has done any
real science worthy of the name? To date, the entire project has
served more as congressional pork barrel than anything else.

> Sadly, most astronomers are woefully ignorant about the non-astronomical
> science and engineering that must be done. I am one of them. But I am
> *aware* of my own ignorance!

So you admit to being ignorant of facts which you assert to be true.
Curiously, it turns out the English language has words for people like
you...

> So many astronomers seem blissfully unaware of how little they know about space
> science. Astronomers don't hate the ISS for the right reasons. We hate
> the ISS because there is nothing in it for astronomy. It's that simple.

In addition to your ignorance of ISS science results, you are also
ignorant of the arguments against it. If anything, the latter are a
more serious matter, since one can only assume you've actually read
them ... and now choose to misrepresent them.

> In this atmosphere the proclamations of these naysayers are generally
> accepted uncritically. I'm saying, wake up people! Complain about
> mismanagement or waste, but support the idea, or we are going to have
> nothing to pass on to future generations. The ISS is an essential step;
> it may not be sexy but it's our step, and we have a responsibility to
> future generations to take that step and make the most of it so they can
> build on what we have done.

The ISS is a massive, huge, probably the current premier example of
government waste and inefficiency. You can google up many references
on this. Had there been even one significant result out of the white
elephant, one might be able to scrape up some itty bitty amount of
support for it. Maybe. Certainly not enough to justify its continued
existance.

But your inability to document these science results has not occurred,
and likely never will occur. This begs the question: why throw money
into a black hole? (Are you in there catching some of it?) Why be
deliberately inefficient? You babble about 14 cents a day,
deliberately attempting to underplay this wholesale waste of economic
resources by comparing it to popcorn. The central issue is not the
absolute cost -- everyone knows it will be expensive -- but the fact
that current bang-for-the-buck is seriously, incredibly, almost
indescribably, small. Imagine some epsilon, and I can give you a delta
that is smaller: that is how good the ISS is, and generally how well
NASA is doing managing your manned space program, and space research as
a whole.

If the USG was serious about getting people into space, people on the
Moon, and such, it could be done quite quickly and efficiently.
Multiple decade time-lines are just plain idiotic, given what we know
now -- this kind of nonsense is just a guarenteed income program for
the Usual Suspects who suckle at NASA's tits.

Various people have ideas, but the simplest one is to:

1. Shut down NASA - hang out management and its contractor lackies to
dry extensively in the hot sun. Criminal charges? We can always
dream.

2. Have George Dumbya Bush waltz into the press room and announce that
the USG will purchase a fully functioning manned base located on the
Moon for (I dunno) 30 billion dollars inside 10 years. "We don't care
how it gets there, but we'll buy it if the builders are willing to
sell."

The X-Prize model of innovation and development: proven to work.

NASA: a demonstrable failure.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:45:13
From: AM
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

eawckyegcy@yahoo.com wrote:

> NASA: a demonstrable failure.
>

I've been saying that for years.....

If their management of the shuttle program is any
example, it's even worse that that. It's almost as
if their culture of management is out of touch with
reality.

Not building the X 20 Dyna Soar long long ago should
have been a wake up call. We went from an ordered,
measured approach, to a bean counter approach.
And what do ya know ? We spent more and got less.....

And I agree 100%. The X Plane prize model is an excellent
example of competition doing what it does best.

--
AM

http://sctuser.home.comcast.net

OS X 10.3.9

Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:00:24
From: Eugene Griessel
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

AM <sctuser@comcast.net > wrote:

>Not building the X 20 Dyna Soar long long ago should
>have been a wake up call. We went from an ordered,
>measured approach, to a bean counter approach.
>And what do ya know ? We spent more and got less.....

It all those high salaries for the accountant bean counters......
They don't produce anything, don't seem to prevent fraud, etc. So I
wonder why they are there in the first place.....

Eugene L Griessel

The obscure is very often taken for the profound.

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:59:10
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

> Rick Evans wrote:
> > I found it interesting Mr. Crinklaw Dubya-ed "people like Mr. Evans"
> > as "you support human spaceflight or you don't". Kinda reminds me of
> > the rhetoric used to get us into Iraq at a cost of $200 billion yearly.
>
> And it doesn't surprise me that you intentionally mis-characterized what
> I said in hot-button political terms instead of address the facts.

Nor does it surprise me that you are unable to provide any of the
citations Martin Brown asked for. Everyone else knows the answer:
they don't exist. Perhaps Mr. Evans is unwilling to address facts, but
you are in no position to criticize others on that particular matter.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 06:54:21
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

<eawckyegcy@yahoo.com > wrote in message news:1165442350.311743.166450@f1g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>
> > Rick Evans wrote:
> > > I found it interesting Mr. Crinklaw Dubya-ed "people like Mr. Evans"
> > > as "you support human spaceflight or you don't". Kinda reminds me of
> > > the rhetoric used to get us into Iraq at a cost of $200 billion yearly.
> >
> > And it doesn't surprise me that you intentionally mis-characterized what
> > I said in hot-button political terms instead of address the facts.
>
> they don't exist. Perhaps Mr. Evans is unwilling to address facts, but
> you are in no position to criticize others on that particular matter.

I don't know what "facts" Mr. Crinklaw or you suggest I'm ignoring.
However, I did state that spending billions on fusion R&D would be better
spent than foot printing the Moon and Mars. I called it a matter of
priorities. Six plus billion humans on the Earth using increasing
energy is a fact and a new powerful energy source could address this
problem.

I also noted my support for a manned mission to fix the Hubble despite
his 'for human spaceflight or against human spaceflight' rhetoric.
Of course he chose to ignore that fact by accusing me of ignoring
facts.

Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"

Date: 06 Dec 2006 13:10:05
From: www.spaceboot.eu
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Chris L Peterson wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Dec 2006 08:57:25 -0700, Greg Crinklaw
> <theskyhoundyoureye@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Right now, the American space program is practically rudderless. When we
> are in that state, the next step is not to proceed with a huge new
> program. Yet that seems to be where things are headed, and I think it is
> very likely that this will turn into the same sort of boondoggle as the
> ISS.
>

Isn't it very likely, almost certain, that the next president will just
dump the project in order to fill the hole left by the Iraq adventure?

Date: 06 Dec 2006 21:37:49
From: Chris L Peterson
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

On 6 Dec 2006 13:10:05 -0800, "www.spaceboot.eu"
<andyhenospam@skynet.be > wrote:

>Isn't it very likely, almost certain, that the next president will just
>dump the project in order to fill the hole left by the Iraq adventure?

Who knows? The next one could be intelligent, and have some interest in
things like advancing knowledge. Probably not likely, but it's possible.

_________________________________________________

Chris L Peterson
Cloudbait Observatory
http://www.cloudbait.com

Date: 07 Dec 2006 08:52:38
From: Tom Polakis
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:
> To Chris and anyone else who agrees with you:
>
> I'll try to make this more clear. I hear two claims made again and again:
>
> (1) The ISS has taught us nothing useful about living and working in space
>
> (2) No science can or will ever be done on the ISS
>
> Now, I think these claims are not only false, but extraordinary...

You make some good points, Greg, but I think both extraordinary claims
you list above may be overstating the case for many of us who object to
the level of ISS funding.

Change them to:

(1) The ISS has taught us little useful information about living and
working in space relative to the amount of funding.

(2) No significant science has been done on the ISS. (Note past tense.
Very good science *can* be done; there is just very little evidence
that it will be done, and no evidence that it has been done.)

Tom

Date: 07 Dec 2006 19:29:53
From: lal_truckee
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Date: 07 Dec 2006 10:44:09
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Tom Polakis wrote:
> Greg Crinklaw wrote:
>> To Chris and anyone else who agrees with you:
>>
>> I'll try to make this more clear. I hear two claims made again and again:
>>
>> (1) The ISS has taught us nothing useful about living and working in space
>>
>> (2) No science can or will ever be done on the ISS
>>
>> Now, I think these claims are not only false, but extraordinary...
>
> You make some good points, Greg, but I think both extraordinary claims
> you list above may be overstating the case for many of us who object to
> the level of ISS funding.
>
> Change them to:
>
> (1) The ISS has taught us little useful information about living and
> working in space relative to the amount of funding.
>
> (2) No significant science has been done on the ISS. (Note past tense.
> Very good science *can* be done; there is just very little evidence
> that it will be done, and no evidence that it has been done.)

What you describe above is a loss of confidence in NASA. I personally
think that loss of confidence says more about people and their
impatience than it does about NASA. Even if NASA has earned this lack
of confidence, should we not demand that the space station be finished
and managed properly rather than claim it is an unnecessary waste of
money? It's easy to jump off the sinking ship. But it's a lot harder
to try to save it. I fear that the rallying call of, "the ISS is a huge
waste of money" is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Certainly, if
after all the money that has been spent, were we to abandon it then how
else could it be anything but a waste of money? If the Bush plan to
abandon the station after it is completed comes to pass there will be no
science done.

If we continue this course of action by abandoning the plans for a moon
base on the same grounds, then have we not basically given up on human
spaceflight? I mean, the same naysayers who complained we were "stuck
in low earth orbit" are now turning their negative attention to the moon
base, saying that it too is a waste of resources. What I'm saying is
that this should be a red flag. There are people out there who don't
believe we should be sending humans to space. We must be careful not to
ally ourselves with them just because we are impatient with the slow
pace of progress. That would be rather ironic. You heard Martin: he
claims we should just wait until the technology to do these things
magically comes to us in the night. Yet that technology will never come
if we stop trying to solve the problem. It is the western culture of
pushing the limits and not being deterred by failures or hardships along
the way that develops the technology in the first place.

I think the going has gotten tough and the road has become long; we need
to keep slogging, or people are going to look back and wonder how we
could have come so far so fast only to stop now. Please, if we are to
fail, let us be fail after we have tried our best, not because we hung
our heads and quit.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 07 Dec 2006 16:30:10
From: Rich
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Rick Evans wrote:
> Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
> $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
> Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
>

Raise some money by scrapping the ISS, and crash land the rest into the
Gobi desert
so the Chinese can reprocess it into junk you can buy at Walmart.

Date: 08 Dec 2006 11:21:20
From: Rick Evans
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1165537809.669800.317880@l12g2000cwl.googlegroups.com...
>
> Rick Evans wrote:
> > Shouldn't they have to explain the purpose of this
> > $100 billion Moondoggle besides 'The purpose of the
> > Moon base is to have a Moon base'?
> >
>
> Raise some money by scrapping the ISS, and crash land the rest into the
> Gobi desert

No thanks. The Gobi desert is a rich source of dinosaur
fossils. It contributes to science.

--
Rick Evans
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lon -71° 04' 35.3"
Lat +42° 11' 06.7"

Date: 07 Dec 2006 15:13:56
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

lal_truckee wrote:

> Even the HST produced little or no significant science while under
> construction.

HA HA HA. The HST was grounded for a number of years because NASA
managed to destroy Challenger. Remember? Oh yeah, and when they
actually got the thing into orbit, it turned out to have big optical
problems. Remember that one? And then, finally, when it was
performing to task, it went on to succeed beyond the wildest dreams of
even NASA itself ... and for that nasty crime against humanity, NASA
put it on death-row instead of repairing it. Isn't it great?

And need I mention that for the cost of one ISS, many, many, HST's
could be built? Economies of scale, my man. Look it up.

But ignoring all of that, frankly, the plain benefit of putting a
telescope in space is obvious even to a small child. Yet there is no
apparent benefit to the ISS. Even NASA and its army of bean counters
and policy pushers can't come up with a cogent rationale that
withstands more than a few moments of analysis.

Date: 07 Dec 2006 14:58:59
From:
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Greg Crinklaw wrote:

> What you describe above is a loss of confidence in NASA. I personally
> think that loss of confidence says more about people and their
> impatience than it does about NASA. Even if NASA has earned this lack
> of confidence, should we not demand that the space station be finished
> and managed properly rather than claim it is an unnecessary waste of
> money? It's easy to jump off the sinking ship. But it's a lot harder
> to try to save it.

When the ship has been broadsided by a salvo of torpedos, when the
flight deck is in flames, and the more missiles are inbound, it's time
to abandon ship. Feel free to stick around if you like, but everyone
else with a working brain is "outa there".

> I fear that the rallying call of, "the ISS is a huge
> waste of money" is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Certainly, if
> after all the money that has been spent, were we to abandon it then how
> else could it be anything but a waste of money? If the Bush plan to
> abandon the station after it is completed comes to pass there will be no
> science done.

The prophecy was pre-ordained by the structure of NASA, not the snarky
comments directed at it. And if simply criticizing the agency causes
it to fail, this speaks huge volumes about its engineering and
managerial capabilties all on its own, don't you think? (If you
think).

> If we continue this course of action by abandoning the plans for a moon
> base on the same grounds, then have we not basically given up on human
> spaceflight? I mean, the same naysayers who complained we were "stuck
> in low earth orbit" are now turning their negative attention to the moon
> base, saying that it too is a waste of resources. What I'm saying is
> that this should be a red flag. There are people out there who don't
> believe we should be sending humans to space. We must be careful not to
> ally ourselves with them just because we are impatient with the slow
> pace of progress. That would be rather ironic. You heard Martin: he
> claims we should just wait until the technology to do these things
> magically comes to us in the night. Yet that technology will never come
> if we stop trying to solve the problem. It is the western culture of
> pushing the limits and not being deterred by failures or hardships along
> the way that develops the technology in the first place.

We can slave for 20 years at extreme expense and maybe, under the
current NASA regime, get a few people on Moon and back. Or we can
shit-can NASA and open up the business to interested parties. Chances
are excellent that the job will be done faster, more robustly, and
probably for a hell of a lot less. Work smart, not hard: you can
stupidly hand-print the works of Shakespeare with a pencil onto paper,
or you can take the time to build a laser printer and print Shakespeare
and a huge amount else in the same period of time -- and for less
money.

A logic that is apparently lost on the "rah rah NASA" crowd.

> I think the going has gotten tough and the road has become long; we need
> to keep slogging, or people are going to look back and wonder how we
> could have come so far so fast only to stop now. Please, if we are to
> fail, let us be fail after we have tried our best, not because we hung
> our heads and quit.

You bought into NASA's bullshit and now it's letting _you_ down. Boo
hoo, sucker. Why not step aside and let the truly interested give it a
try? Or are you as afraid of success as NASA is?

Date: 07 Dec 2006 13:12:05
From: www.spaceboot.eu
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Building a moon base from scratch with resources that need to be
launched from Earth does not make sense. Not now, not in any near
future. Earth is an enormous gravity well. According to figures in the
above thread you're lucky if you can get 5% of your lift-off weight
to the moon. Then you still have to land, and have enough weight left
to do something useful on the surface, like build your base, solar
panels, farm, mines, recycling plants, factories, ... Once the base is
established, what will you do there?? Science again, I suppose, IF
there's any time left?

Nasa said the two key reasons for establishing a base were to prepare
for a manned mission for Mars - and ultimately the expansion of human
civilization to other planets.

To me this is only one reason, expansion of human civilization. Sounds
very lofty. Anyway: I'm not convinced. If the key reason for the moon
base is to prepare for a Mars base, then what is the reason to build a
Mars base? I think the whole idea was a publicity stunt to divert
attention from the Iraq adventure. In the near future, probably when
the next president of the US has to draft a budget of some sort, the
whole NASA human exploration project will be scrapped in favor of
filling the hole left by the Iraq war.

In this thread some people claim the reason for (human?) space
exploration is to do science. I must strongly object! Unmanned
spaceflight today is a business, big bucks are made in telecoms, GPS
navigation, ... Manned spaceflight should also become an economically
viable industry before it can hope to have any serious impact on life
on Earth. Pure science was never really profitable, was it? If humanity
is to spread out into space, it's not going to do it for science, nor
for honour. It will have to do it for the resources, for the
opportunities space provides.

The easiest accessible resources are to be found not on the moon, but
in the asteroid belt. Therefore it would make a lot more sense to head
out there and see how we can start mining these rocks and manufacture
new vessels/stations in situ. No science, just hardcore mining and
engineering and some research for the stuff you don't grasp just yet
(like the radiation problem). Once you get your mining and
manufacturing space based, then it makes sense to spread out further
from there, like to the moon and Mars, Europa, the Oort cloud, ...
Building a moon base NOW would just dump you in another gravity well,
like Earth's, only smaller.

As a necessary preparation a vessel needs to be developed that supports
a crew on a long term mission, read 'artificial gravity' and
'abundant power'. You also need to work on new construction
techniques in a zero-G, high radiation environment, knowing you'll be
working out of LEO, read 'robotics'. More info in the other articles on
http://www.spaceboot.eu. ;-)

The most vehement advocates of the ISS and the new plans for a moon
base (do the two even have dependencies, is there a master plan?) seem
to be so hard-headed because if they loose any of these projects, human
spaceflight would be dead. Maybe these people can be convinced if new
and more coherent goals are proposed:

- Build a small crew transport shuttle
- Build a really big, simple, unmanned space truck (launcher)
- Using these tools, construct a simple habitat in LEO that has
artificial gravity and provides abundant (nuclear) power
- Research and practice tele-operated drones to do your extra-vehicular
activities
- Research how to best cope with deep space radiation
- Build some more of the same habitats, and use them as farms, comms,
factories, ... Differentiate.
- Send this small fleet off into the depths of the asteroid belt to do
the same with local resources.
- While not out of space & resources: continue.

Date:
From: Martin Brown
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Date: 08 Dec 2006 08:46:59
From: Greg Crinklaw
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

Martin Brown wrote:
>> I think the going has gotten tough and the road has become long; we
need
>> to keep slogging, or people are going to look back and wonder how we
>> could have come so far so fast only to stop now. Please, if we are to
>> fail, let us be fail after we have tried our best, not because we hung
>> our heads and quit.
>
> I am not advocating quitting. And it is disingenuous of you to try and
> claim that I am.

No, I think you have made yourself quite clear on this. You do want to
quit, you just don't want to be seen to be saying it directly. Your
reasoning for doing so is deeply flawed and naive.

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools: http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html
Observing: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html
Comets: http://www.skyhound.com/sh/comets.html

To reply take out your eye

Date: 09 Dec 2006 01:28:16
From: Joe D
Subject: Re: NASA's Moon base plans

"Martin Brown" <