posted 05-03-2005 08:34 AM               

In my thread about cannibalism he stressed costs etc. The usual, and he has a very valid point. It's just the wrong one.

Look, there are so MANY reasons for returning to the Moon that any one, singled out, can seem fatuous or silly. I think Mr. P just peeled the wrong one from the pile or was being funny.

(As a moderator he's a remarkably cheerful and witty individual, as far as that goes. Imagine having to ride herd on THIS bunch of coconuts 24/7; see how many jokes YOU feel like making!)

But seriously, dude: Why go back to the Moon? Why NOT is the real question.

We can do it and there are exploitable resources there etc etc.

But what about the resources we HAVEN'T discovered? What happens if a way to use H# for a sustainable fusion reaction is found? Think of the impact on Earth that would have. Suppose we could develop better ways of exploiting solar energy? What advances could astronomy, geology, chemistry and even biology make? And yeah, we could use some stuff for jewelry too.

The real reason, I think, is that we're supposed to do this and we've lost sight of that fact. It's the old "Ten Talents" gag.

Almost every probe that crashed on Mars would have been saved if humans had been present. Can you imagine Al Shepard being bamboozled by a metric/inch gaff? There's a good chunk of your $63 billion right there.

Go to Lima Peru, Mexico City, Santiago Chile, etc and look at the cathedrals there. They were built within span of time after Columbus landing at San Salvador that approximates the time frame since Gagarin and approaches that of Apollo 11 to now.

It's to our shame we haven't gotten off the dime. In the future I'm sure high school kids will be pumping out essays on subjects like "What Was Wrong With These People?"

We can't be fooled into accepting cost as a barrier. Sure, we have problems here to solve, but why CAN'T we address these difficulties AND explore Space? Ask the question that way for a change, please.

Our pioneering spirit can't have died this quickly or completely. The men and women who have personally faced the dangers and difficulties of spaceflight are unanimous in saying we need to go forward and NOW.

People will die, missions will fail and unexpected difficulties will present themselves. But we will also discover things beyond our imaginations and find rewards that exceed our dreams.

if we weren't meant to explore we'd all still be squatting in caves crabbing about the wise little Neanderthal kids down the gorge and waiting for a Sabre-Tooth Tiger to drag off Grandpa. At last. (He was nearly 42!)

posted 05-03-2005 12:09 PM               

Yes, yes. And Yes. The economics of it are, as you point out, sustainable, but history tells us that, absent a clear and present danger to U.S. national security, political leaders will be hard-pressed to forge the national consensus required for such programs.

But a good first step would be for the new NASA administrator to begin to an anti-Luddite education program, K through college, explaining why we need a space program. And explain it not in backwards-looking "glory days" historical lessons, but in a post-9/11 21st-century way.

We face a subtle and present danger today, in the loss our S & T base to China and India (see Thomas Friedman, THE WORLD IS FLAT). Not as exciting as Sputnik, but just as real a threat as we cede technological leadership to others.

So, absent a clear and present danger like the kind that got JFK's full attention, after Gagarin flew (and Shepard responded in kind), an exploration program per se will be difficult to sell.

The political and threat landscape post-9/11 is different, and the world unipolar.

posted 05-03-2005 01:28 PM               

It's all selfishness and self-involvement. The scream of "Why Should I...(fill in the blank)" rules these days.

I think every President since Nixon has proposed a mars mission. That's some pretty sorry stuff, having THIRTY YEARS of proposals and no action.

When Bush said it, the usual gang of "opinion makers" belched the same old hot gas and smugly put the idea down. I'm not particularly fond of Bush, but I would have cheered - still would - if he got up on his hind legs and asked "What's so funny?"

Letting the naysayers - starting with Proxmire - frame the debate is a sure way to wind up stuck on this planet like flies on Einbinder.

I guess I'm being fatuous, but it's frustrating to see all the bad reasons - cheapness, timidity, no appetite for challenges, unwillingness to change, distrust of knowledge - carry the day.

posted 05-03-2005 01:44 PM               

You've hit this nail squarely on its head. Politicians usually only act when they perceive an iminent threat. Space exploration can be an end to itself. Spinoffs too numerous to mention, inspiration to young people, national pride, etc. When we return to the Moon, a base should be established for all those things you've both mentioned as well as training for the long duration trip to Mars. I know our students today want to go, will our leaders let them?

posted 05-03-2005 05:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KSCartist:
Duke, Kris, et al:

I know our students today want to go, will our leaders let them?

Tim

---

GREAT POINT!! This is a decision we should leave to the young people!

posted 05-09-2005 11:26 PM               

I will attempt to respond to your comments.

You choose to lable those who want a valid reason(s) for returning to the Moon as selfish, not having a "pioneering spirit", cheap, self-involved, unwilling to change,and distrustful of knowledge. I realize that this is only human nature talking, because it is natural when presented with an opposing opinion to "kill the messenger" and attack the speaker instead of answering the question. I disagree with your characterization of those who want a clear vision of our goals on the Moon. Our pioneering spirit is alive and well. We are willing to spend any amount of money if it is for a legitimate reason.

The United States will undoubtedly return to the Moon some day. Reportedly, the approximate date is 2020. That is an estimate. Considering how long it is taking NASA to return to Earth orbit, that date could be extended. But let's agree that they will eventually return to the Moon, as is our (mankind's) destiny. I will applaud them when that happens.

What we are discussing here is our motivation to return. The many reasons given for a return to the Moon are very valid:
* Stepping stone to a Mars Mission
* Equipment testing
* Observatory on the far side of the Moon
* Exploitable resources
* To regain technological lead from China
* Cooperation in space - world peace
* Many spinoffs
* Because it is there - our destiny

I agree with all of these motivating factors. However, while discussing these factors on the "cannibalism" thread that you mentioned, the Collect Space administration stated that the preliminary plans of NASA are for the CEV moon craft to carry only four astronauts and that the cost would be approximately $64-billion and that one of the goals was moon rocks to make into jewelry on Earth. If they were being facetious, they should have said so. They repeated that they were serious about the moon rock jewelry.

It is not just the enormous cost of this venture that disturbs some US taxpayers, it is the lack of a solid goal. I suggested world peace as a goal. This was quickly attacked as being unrealistic. This is affirmed by the use of only four astronauts on the CEV. There were three on the Apollo missions. Undoubtedly, all four astronauts, at least on the first mission, will all be Americans. I would be very happy to see at least one cosmonaut aboard, but there is no talk of this consideration by NASA. How is this preparing for the eventual Mars mission?

I cannot see how NASA can accomplish any of the above listed goals with such a small crew. Agreed, this is only the first return mission and there may be several more moon missions before the Mars mission in 2040. But how can we accomplish any of our goals with only 4 astronauts?

An observatory on the far side would require many missions in the CEV over many years. Perhaps, the only one of the listed goals that can be achieved in part is the recovery of more moon rocks to add to the 800 pounds that we already have from six previous moon missions. So Collect Space was correct. This is our only realizable goal, at least in the beginning.

You stated that after Columbus there were many great cathedrals built. You suggested that we should build our cathedrals on the Moon. I took this to mean that we should have a "presence" on the Moon by now. This may be true. But there were many reasons why we did not follow through with the Apollo missions. It was not the loss of our pioneering spirit, it was the loss of a realistic goal and leadership. We were involved in a war in Viet Nam and there were many changes in leadership. Each subsequent administration had its own ajenda and it did not include a clear mission to return to the Moon.

You mentioned that "people will die and missions will fail." This is true and it should not deter us from our goal. But the Collect Space administration and several others said that we should end a mission if someone dies. I disagreed, but they were emphatic. It IS a very dangerous mission and astronauts may lose their lives. I believe that casualities will be caused by accidents. To end a mission because of such an accident is unrealistic. I mentioned that we would still be building many of our bridges and skyscrapers if we stopped every time someone was killed. However, if the majority opinion prevails, we will have many setbacks in our attempts to explore the Moon and Mars.

You mentioned the commercialization of resources from the Moon. This will happen but not until far into the future. I hope that they do find new minerals on the Moon, but "what if" should not be our primary reason for a return mission to the Moon. []

posted 05-10-2005 06:57 AM               

Please don't wrap yourself with the cloak of martyrdom just yet.

You're making the mistake of confusing society's interests with those of civilization. Society needs conservative approaches and civilization needs coconuts like Cortez who conquered the Aztecs because he was too stupid to realize it was impossible.

It's the "hard-headed business" approach that acts as a brake on progress. People with this mindset can ALWAYS find a million great "why-should-I" reasons not to do something. But these people don't make the leap forward. Cortez burned his ships when he landed in Mexico so the only way to go was forward. He didn't consider how many escudos they were worth.

We need to think this way about going to the Moon and Mars, because if we fall into the "business" head we won't go anywhere. Who moved civilization? Columbus or the accounting firm of Tweedy, Beckwith & Sherman?

Government has a role because of the enormous cost involved. Do you think Buffet, Kerkorian, Trump, Gates etc. are going to pony up? Nuh-uh.

Once we get there I think private industry will begin taking advantage of space in a big way. But first we have to identify and locate the resources on the Moon, Mars and beyond.

I said we've been bamboozled into thinking space exploration and addressing our concerns on Earth are mutually exclusive and they're not. It might not be possible if we keep doing the same dumb things the same dumb ways, but there's money enough.

We don't know what the rewards will be. That's one of the best reasons of all to press forward.

posted 05-10-2005 07:29 AM               

OK, let's say that I agree that we should explore the Moon for resources. How to we return enough resources to Earth to make a trip to the Moon profitable? There is no way we can load enough moon rocks on the LM to make it profitable. What you are suggesting is something that will be accomplished by industry very far into the future.

What I see is four astronauts landing on the Moon for the 7th time doing the same thing that we did six other times. And planting another US flag, but no other flags.

The only way that we would be preparing for a Mars mission would be if we had a much larger international crew and if they stayed on the surface for months, being resupplied from Earth by unmanned supply ships as Progress supplies the ISS. []

posted 05-10-2005 08:36 AM               

I believe the next phase of lunar missions will be about discovering resources and planning their exploitation, not just returning more samples and planting another American flag.

The AAP program was to have begun this 30 years ago.

So: we don't know yet what's there for us and how we'll use it, but the missions are planned to find out. These won't be "touch & go" flights either. The Apollo landings were, I think, supposed to be a beginning, not the goal.

By trying to fit a quantitative measure (money) to a largely qualitative effort you're missing both the point and the real value of the missions.

In order to place observatories, medical facilities, manufacutring sites and bases for further exploration we have to actually go. What we do with what's found after is up to us.

There's no telling. I don't think the Wrights had any idea there would be jets taking people across the ocean in a matter of hours when they first flew. the same process applies to Lunar (and beyond) exploration.

And humans ARE required. Apollo 11 would have crashed, just as an example, if it was automated. So would 10 and (maybe) 14. If those Mars probes from the 1990s had been manned I think they would have been successful. Robots can only take you so far.

posted 05-10-2005 09:52 AM               

You're right that the initial phase of returning to the Moon will be missions relatively limited in scope, but that is because they are intended only as early steps in the Vision for Space Exploration, the goal of which is to establish true human presence in the solar system.

Yes, all the long-term goals you listed are worthy, but some of them will take time to work toward. Kennedy announced the goal of a man on the Moon after one U.S. manned spaceflight, but that didn't mean that we should have skipped directly from Shepard's flight to Apollo 11. There were intermediate steps along the way. The Vision is no different.

You have been an outspoken advocate of safety in spaceflight on these boards; incremental development with initially limited crews are an important part of that.

As initially revealed, the Vision would include participation by international partners; the fact that such involvement has not been formalized is basically just a symptom of the fact that the Vision itself is still in development.

It's worth noting, though, that ESA, JAXA and RSA have all begun developing their own exploration plans; certainly it's not the place of the U.S. to try and force other nations to participate in our plan if they prefer to pursue their own.

posted 05-10-2005 10:30 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
[B]

What we are discussing here is our motivation to return. The many reasons given for a return to the Moon are very valid:
* Stepping stone to a Mars Mission
* Equipment testing
* Observatory on the far side of the Moon
* Exploitable resources
* To regain technological lead from China
* Cooperation in space - world peace
* Many spinoffs
* Because it is there - our destiny

I agree with all of these motivating factors. However, while discussing these factors on the "cannibalism" thread that you mentioned, the Collect Space administration stated that the preliminary plans of NASA are for the CEV moon craft to carry only four astronauts and that the cost would be approximately $64-billion and that one of the goals was moon rocks to make into jewelry on Earth. If they were being facetious, they should have said so. They repeated that they were serious about the moon rock jewelry.
[]

B]

---

Bill:

This is getting so wearisome. You call for intelligent discussion and discourse, yet hang on to this tired old saw of moon rocks/jewelry simply to make a juvenile point. Your first para above even outlines reasons to go, then you turn 180 and mention "collectSpace Administration" (which is Robert Pearlman BTW - he does have a name).

He has said many times thats NOT the sole reason to go, simply one reason as has NASA repeatedly. You always fail to see the big picture and attempt to hang on to something so miniscule.

Why do you insist on hanging on to this if not to attempt to make a point and embarrass? Even you yourself say "ONE OF THE GOALS".

Obviously the list of stated goals are not enough for you - thats fine. But fortunately for our Nation and many others, they didn't listen to just you.

It is getting wearisome. If you want to have an intelligent discourse please, leave the point making out.

Thank you,

posted 05-10-2005 11:36 PM               

I agree with what you said. You said this much better than I did. The proposed CEV has room for only four astronauts. This vehicle is proposed for our use in exploring the Moon beginning in 2020. Perhaps there will be a larger version built or perhaps they will be launched to the Moon close together so that there are two crews on the surface. Or, perhaps the lander will also be manned during the trip to the Moon. That may allow for 6 astronauts overall.

What I wanted to see is a proposal to begin work on the Moon and the beginnings of a colony - something different, not what we had done six times 1969-1972.

posted 05-13-2005 06:41 PM               

My apologies, but you are approaching total incomprehensiblity.

posted 05-13-2005 11:30 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by KC Stoever:
Astro Bill,

My apologies, but you are approaching total incomprehensiblity.

---

posted 05-13-2005 11:34 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Albatron,

Please explain what you meant by "leave the point making out." Isn't that the point of having a discussion? Bill

---

Mr. Bill:

You are correct Sir, I should have said make your point, without trying to MAKE a point of sarcasm and ridicule by being so simplistic in what you have to say. Capiche?

You know full well the reasons for going to the Moon are WAY beyond jewelry but you hang on to that tired old saw, trying to ridicule someones statement. Taking it OUT of context, and, over simplifying to a degree the true meaning is lost.

Hopefully this explains it to where YOU can understand. And to the rest of the Board, if I am not making this easy enough to understand please let me know. Seems like everyone else got it.

So please Mr. Bill, give it a rest. You should retract any and all statements regarding moon jewelry.

posted 05-14-2005 06:53 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Mike,

we should be able to launch a similar amount []

---

You mean we should launch a similar NUMBER.

posted 05-14-2005 10:29 AM               

Good catch (number not amount).

posted 05-14-2005 10:32 AM               

You are correct Duke. Sorry for the error. And I do look forward to the many Moon landings that will take place in 15 years or so, although it sounds like I am against them. I will relish every moment of them.

I should mention that I have been a writer of articles on space and space philately for many years (over 30). This is not to say that although I proofread my material that I do not make mistakes. I do make my share of mistakes. I would write a lengthy article (such as my article on the mission to Pluto - New Horizons). I would spend weeks collecting and reading research material on the subject. The article contained 27 references when it was finally published in the Astrophile of the Space Unit. The only comment that I received on this lengthy article was that it contained one typographical error.

Some people feel compelled to tell me this, although Duke is correct in pointing out this mistake. My ex-wife had a knack for finding such errors easily. She once found a typo on one of the monuments at the Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown. She pointed it out and the director said that he would leave it like it is because it would be too expensive to have it corrected.

posted 05-14-2005 11:06 AM               

Naturally, I said "You mean hit me well, George", and it was off to the races. He was serious and people watching him chase me would have intervened if they hadn't been too busy laughing. Or so they said.

So, I'm sticking my neck out here. We WASTE more every year than a Lunar/Martian program would cost. We're busy pouring $82 billion into the sand (again) this year but yodeling like girls over less than that in program costs. It doesn't make sense, and it only has internal logic if the Luddite thing is considered.

It's like everything else our generation gets its paws on: weak, selfish, timid, emotional. Phooey on the "NIMBY" and "Why Should I??" (emphasis on "I", of course) crowd.

We have to do this ground-up and stop waiting for Congress to grow a set. Half these poops believe Jesus rode dinosaurs anyhow. Asking them to fund actual science is like asking a donkey to fly. Ignorance may be bliss (and America is WAY happy these days), but that doesn't make it folly to be wise.

I don't care if we need to hold fundraisers or Bake Sales - we already do that to fund children's cancer treatment. As humans we HAVE to go to the planets and stars. We will, too, as humans. The only question is if America has the guts.

And if some people don't want to kick in they can stay here. Plus they can't look at the pictures or be "thrilled" either. Those are the rules.

Anyhow, I think we gotta go back in a big way, soon, with or without partners.

I'll probably get yelled at for this, especially the "Jesus rode a dinosaur" part. But you asked! (And I know that's a fragment)

posted 05-14-2005 11:20 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by albatron@aol.com:
Mr. Bill:

You are correct Sir, I should have said make your point, without trying to MAKE a point of sarcasm and ridicule by being so simplistic in what you have to say. Capiche?

You know full well the reasons for going to the Moon are WAY beyond jewelry but you hang on to that tired old saw, trying to ridicule someones statement. Taking it OUT of context, and, over simplifying to a degree the true meaning is lost.

Hopefully this explains it to where YOU can understand. And to the rest of the Board, if I am not making this easy enough to understand please let me know. Seems like everyone else got it.

So please Mr. Bill, give it a rest. You should retract any and all statements regarding moon jewelry.

Al (albatron)

---

Albatron,

You are asking the wrong person to make a retraction of all comments regarding moon rock jewelry. This was the brainchild of none other than Mr. Pearlman. He has yet to reveal his source for this statement (unless I missed it). I actually work in the jewelry industry in NYC and I have never heard of any speculation that moon rocks could be used for jewelry. It was not my idea. I was only commenting on his statement on the matter of moon rock jewelry.

As I have mentioned many times now, the term "Moon Rocks" is being used by me to represent ALL of the activities that the small crew of US astronauts will perform while they are on the Moon in the future. I know that there are other things that they will study: genealogy, astronomy, radiation, future landing sites, etc. It is only that Moon Rocks will be the only solid matter that they will return to Earth, to add to the 800 pounds that they already have (plus those that Russia returned by robot).

While on the subject of the moon rock jewelry, I should mention that NASA guards every gram of the 800 pounds of moon rocks that it has. They lend some to museums and research labs, but they retain ownership. Case in point - the recent awards to astronauts that contain small moon rocks in lucite displays. If I read the NASA release correctly on this site, NASA retains ownership of the moon rock that it just awarded to the astronaut. Is that correct Mr. Pearlman? That is OK because it confirms my point that NASA guards the moon rocks that it has. How then, Mr. Pearlman, do you expect them to make jewelry from them (or future moon rocks) and sell them to the public? Or were you pulling our collective chain? Al, if you are looking for a retraction of all comments relating to moon rock jewelry, you should address your request to Robert Pearlman, c/o CollectSpace.com.

This leads me to ask another question on this posting - sorry! One astronaut has correctly (in my opinion) decided to leave his recently awarded encased moon rock in a museum. What are the others doing with their awards? If they take them home (an award of inestimable value) are they responsible for their safety? The same question applies to moon rocks in museums and research labs. NASA retains ownership, but how can someone who has a moon rock properly protect it from fire or theft or any other disaster - or just loss?

Also, and this must be asked, if NASA retains ownership, is the award to be returned to NASA upon the death of the astronaut? Or, does the estate of the astronaut have a claim on the award - can it be mentioned in a will and inherited by his descendants?

The theft of moon rocks has been the subject of several plots on TV dramas. I recall an episode of "Monk" in which a moon rock was stolen by the curator of a museum. I know that this was fiction, but are any of the moon rocks missing? I know that there is missing plutonium from Russia and other countries, but what about moon rocks? []

posted 05-14-2005 11:43 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
This was the brainchild of none other than Mr. Pearlman. He has yet to reveal his source for this statement (unless I missed it).

---

My reference to moon rocks as jewelry was just one example of why private industry might choose to partially underwrite a return to the Moon. In other words - should that not be clear enough - they would foot part of the bill in return for moon rock samples to be used commercially, whether for private research or for resale. (And by the way, the most famous of all jewelers in New York was actively but quietly seeking a moon rock several years ago for the ultimate Valentine's Day creation. Of course, they were disappointed when they learned they could not have one.)

quote:

---

One astronaut has correctly (in my opinion) decided to leave his recently awarded encased moon rock in a museum.

---

posted 05-14-2005 11:44 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:
Al, if you are looking for a retraction of all comments relating to moon rock jewelry, you should address your request to Robert Pearlman, c/o CollectSpace.com.

---

There. Can't get much plainer than that. I finally realized you have to be direct in responding to your postings Sir, instead of making suggestions which fly way above your location.

Hoping your weekend is a great one so far, I remain,

Very Truly Yours,

Al (albatron)

posted 05-14-2005 11:46 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
[B] Bill you are truly testing my patience. B]

---

Ill give YOU an amen Mr. Pearlman (collectspace admin).

Cheers,

Al (albatron)

posted 05-14-2005 12:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by albatron@aol.com:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Astro Bill:
[b]Al, if you are looking for a retraction of all comments relating to moon rock jewelry, you should address your request to Robert Pearlman, c/o CollectSpace.com.

---

There. Can't get much plainer than that. I finally realized you have to be direct in responding to your postings Sir, instead of making suggestions which fly way above your location.

Hoping your weekend is a great one so far, I remain,

Very Truly Yours,

Al (albatron)

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited May 14, 2005).][/B][/QUOTE]

___________________________________________

Thank you both for your comments. Actually, Al, this weekend started out very badly as I left my apartment for work on Friday the 13th. I was "struck" by a car (actually a modern pickup truck with a very high and very wide front bumber). I was crossing 37th St. in the crosswalk with several other pedestrians and a young drived failed to give us the right of way as is the law in NYC. We then had an argument and he left the scene without leaving his name and other required details. I did not have the presence of mind to get his plate number. I seem to be OK. Thanks for the many discussions that we have had. Sorry if I misunderstood everything that you had to say. Adios amigo. Bill