# Man Landing on the Moon!!!!! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 21, 2001, 10:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316 "2001-08-21T10:01:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/81 "2001-08-24T01:12:56Z")
One more thing… > [@](#): > > Nonetheless, explorations are explorations and when Magellan (and others) left to explore, who knew what they would find? But they also had evidence that they WOULD find SOMETHING. For example, Columbus had evidence that said he could find India if he sailed West (he believed the circumference of the Earth was smaller than it really was). Magellan had evidence that suggested that he, too, could sail to India (and, additionally, back to Europe), which was, of course, Columbus’s voyage. Those two explorative endeavors were NOT the result of somebody sitting around, thinking, “Hey, there might be a cache of weaponry just sitting out there!” They were NOT the result of whimsical thinking. They were NOT the result of lack of evidence. They were the result of People With Money wanting to get More Money, i.e. a better trade route with India (which would have resulted in LOTS of money). They had evidence that such a route existed, and they planned their journey accordingly. P.S.- Columbus did NOT set out to prove the world was round… ---
**Author:** ![The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/f05b48/32.png) [@The\_Bad\_Astronomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Bad_Astronomer)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/82 "2001-08-24T04:18:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by tracer \* > \*\*Aha! That’s it! The moon **IS** the Death Star!! > \*\* Actually, [Saturn beat the moon to it](http://www.badastronomy.com/bitesize/mimas.html). ---
**Author:** ![pldennison](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9fc29f/32.png) [@pldennison](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pldennison)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/83 "2001-08-24T13:10:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sea Sorbust \* > **Why, oh WHY, don’t we have a Moon Base? > . . . How, I must ask, do you know that there is nothing that needs to be explored? That there is nothing useful enough to justify establishing a Moon Base?** Um, we proved pretty successfully with the Bio-Dome experiments that we can’t even live well for very long in a self-contained environment _here on Earth_. The Mir cosmonauts faced disaster several times, and we have to constantly resupply the ISS, which is in LEO. The logistics involved in creating, building, supplying and maintaining a lunar base a quarter of a million miles away would never, ever get the support of the American people. > [@](#): > > Do _you_ have any idea how is spent in the U.S. on _ **cosmetics** _ every year? Too expensive? Pah! That money spent on the cosmetics industry is money earned on the sale of products by the cosmetics industry. NASA is taxpayer supported. Nice try. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/84 "2001-08-24T13:13:13Z")
tracer: > [@](#): > > Heck, we don’t need long-lost technology for that. We already have weapons of mass destruction. Ya can’t get much more massively-destructive than a hydrogen bomb! Oh yeah you can. One could imagine gravity weapons, extremely high powered laser weapons, antimatter weapons, extreme biological weapons, planet killers, sun killers, solar system killers, and a slew of others. All far-fetched (like the whole damn topic), but we wouldn’t know till we got there. Do we really want to risk someone else finding the biggest baddest weapon humanity has ever seen? MAYBE Nasa is doing this, and that’s why they started the moon rumors. “Yeah, go ahead and argue whether we ever got to the moon, meanwhile, we’ll be mining mars for weapons.” Either way, it’s unlikely as hell, but not impossible. DaLovin’ Dj “Just cause your paranoid doesn’t mean there not out to get you.” ---
**Author:** ![that\_darn\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@that\_darn\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/that_darn_cat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/85 "2001-08-24T13:13:41Z")
> [@](#): > > **To that\_darn\_cat:** > > 1.) The Russians were **never** “beaten”, as you say. They had (prior to the defunctedness of the USSR) achieved some pretty substantial things. Really? Name one important Soviet mission after Apollo-Soyuz other than Mir? Mir, I grant you was an important step in space exploration. But the Russians could barely keep the thing in the sky, and only did so as long as they did out of national pride. Our space exploration has been largely converted to commercial uses (satellite launch and maintenance), with most exploration these done by “better, cheaper, more” probes. A design philosophy that might have something to do with those lost Martian probes BTW. I say the Russians started the space “circus” with Sputnik, Laika, and Yuri Gegarin, and gave up when we reached the moon, for 2 reasons. 1, finacially, the cold War was costing them buckets of rubles, and 2 all the readily reachable landmarks had already been reached. > [@](#): > > With a Moon Base, the American public would **NEVER** “have lost interest”! False. By Apollo 13 the public had already lost interest. It was been there, done that and couldn’t even get primtime coverage on tv. > [@](#): > > Who, on the other hand, can maintain a whole lot of interest in a bunch of space probes–particularly when their products are years in the future? I actually agree with this, although probes are important, it is manned space travel that grabs the public imagination. > [@](#): > > 2.) First explorations are always expensive–in men, in cash, in equipage. They, however, lay the groundwork for the future. True, however most of the benefits of the space program have been relatively intangible thus far, being primarly in the areas of materials science and satellite communications. Important, but not sexy. > [@](#): > > 3.) Nixon?!? Nixon was a lawyer and, as such, took the “path of least resistance”. JFK was a lawyer too, and he was the impetous behind the Moon shot. > [@](#): > > the pointing-finger of “sabotage” after the Challenger **disaster**? (YOU say “accident”; I say that we will never know.) The Challenger “accident” set us back hugely. A possiblity of sabotage would have equally-hugely stiffened the resolve of the American public! bleh > [@](#): > > 4.) Many people believe, _MOST ESPECIALLY if we really did land on the Moon_, that we should have skipped an orbital station and directly made a Moon Base. (With maybe an orbital station in the future.) I will NOT contend that the public interest is lukewarm BY DELIBERATE DESIGN, but neither will I dismiss that possibility! :eek: You do realize that most of the delta-v required to reach the moon is used up escaping the Earths atmospehere? That means that a space craft that weant directly from the Earth to the moon would be limited in size by the largest booster we could build. That was the Saturn V, yes is could have been improved, but it was disposable. By having a resuable shuttle and space station we could build a much larger craft _in orbit_ and send it to the moon. That way the fuel consumption is spread out over several missions, is easier, cheaper and safer than lighting one big candle and praying, the way we did for Apollo. > [@](#): > > It’s time, I say, to face reality! I think I shall face up to the reality that my words are probably wasted. ---
**Author:** ![that\_darn\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@that\_darn\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/that_darn_cat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/86 "2001-08-24T13:17:04Z")
BTW, that last post may have put my “newbie” status in jeporady. I better run back to Mindless-Pointless. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/87 "2001-08-24T13:42:18Z")
I think we should start a program for the moon like the one proposed for Mars where we start sending unmanned supply crates and stuff. You can use cheaper rockets and just drop the stuff on the moon so when we DO go back we got some stuff there to wrok with like tools, habitats, generators. Just put the stuff up there piecemeal and when we’ve got enough stuff waiting, go ahead and send some people up there to put it together. You could do it over 5 or 6 years and I think it could be kept to resonable costs (although with Nasa, maybe I’m wrong). I am definately of the opinion there should always be someone in space, someone on the moon, and someone on mars. 1 outta 3 aint so good. Goddamit will one of you folks figure out how to make it cheaper to get out of earths gravity well!!! DaLovin’Dj ---
**Author:** ![andros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e480ec/32.png) [@andros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/andros)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/88 "2001-08-24T16:04:37Z")
. . . is he gone? ---
**Author:** ![that\_darn\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@that\_darn\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/that_darn_cat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 4:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/89 "2001-08-24T16:24:35Z")
Mayhaps Think we scared him off? ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/90 "2001-08-24T17:39:43Z")
And what have they got to do with Saturn’s Mimas? 😕 ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/91 "2001-08-24T17:54:54Z")
[sarcasm] Let us all just cycle: Home, Work, McCheat’s| Home, Work, McCheat’s| Home, etc. Then we would _never_ have to worry about hard problems. [/sarcasm] ( :rolleyes: ) > [@](#): > > I have a very simple question for you: Why can’t you admit that you’re very, very wrong? I don’t want to admit that I’m very, very wrong because I think that I am very, very right!! * * * > [@](#): > > _Sea Sorbust wrote earlier:_ > As to the amount spent on cosmetics (as an example:–I picked the most useless expenditure that I could think of), I agree that it has very little to do with spending on exploratory stuff. I merely was using it as an illustration. * * * (Thanks for the hint on the “sacrasm” symbol, Ser Monster. 🙂 ) ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/92 "2001-08-24T18:01:46Z")
> [@](#): > > Seriously? Yes. That picture that came out back in the day sure as hell did look like a face. And then a bunch of probes disappeared on the way to Mars. I started thinking . . . > > Suppose Nasa did find proof of an ancient civilization on Mars. Say they released this info. Obviously, there would be an instant rush by all nations with the capability to get there as fast as possible and check it out. Now: > > What are the possible artifacts they could find? Architecture, art, fossils, and maybe (the kicker) weapons. First, chances are (very) good that “The Face” is a geological formation. Second, you are wise (in my opinion) to think about “too many” probes disappearing or otherwise meeting bad fates. You would be even wiser were you to know that **almost everybody** who has been sending robot-explorers to Mars have had similar problems. Finally, I was talking about “within the past couple of decades”, not about archeological-time! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/93 "2001-08-24T18:14:16Z")
From your earlier post: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Sea Sorbust wrote: Your NASA reasoning demonstrates NOTHING except that NASA needed to provide some reasoning. > > Hmmmmm. I see. Finding an answer to a question demonstrates nothing except that somebody wanted to provide an answer to it. Well, that’s true as far as it goes, I guess, and it certainly does make it easier to ignore any answers that you don’t happen to like. Not at all: Sometimes you just have to provide justification/reasoning. Sometimes in those sometimes, the reasoning is **real** ; other times, its just something you have to do to keep complaints down (or to get funding, etc). The fact that NASA provided reasoning means nothing, _in itself_. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/94 "2001-08-24T18:18:00Z")
You wrote: > [@](#): > > Heck, we don’t need long-lost technology for that. We already have weapons of mass destruction. Ya can’t get much more massively-destructive than a hydrogen bomb! I reply: **Oh, yes you can!** Think about it! :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 6:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/95 "2001-08-24T18:25:41Z")
My apologies: My last reply was trite, almost silly. We started **serious** weapon-making only about 200 years ago, with the cannon. (One cannon ball or one blast of grape-shot, many deaths.) Two hundred years. Science and technology, (all of which is yeilding “weapons grade material” in the form of ideas and abilities), is advancing **very** quickly. NOW I think that I’ve replied to your charge. ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/96 "2001-08-24T18:44:15Z")
Sea Sorbust (–me–) had asked “Why is there no Moon Base?” **SPOOFE** responded: > [@](#): > > Too expensive and too dangerous without enough gain. Tell me, sir, what gain is there to have for a Moon Base? Mining? We’re getting all we need, so far, on Earth. Trade? Nobody to trade with. Scientific discovery? Any discovery, again, wouldn’t be worth the cost. I admit that I am not a _big_ fan of a Moon Base. (Mars! We need to go to Mars. “Better sooner than later!”) On the other hand, I suspect that there would be LOTS of mining prospects on the Moon (although asteroids might prove to be a better investiment: no lift-off cost). You are missing, I suspect, an important aspect of an industrialized civilization: When you run out of materials, it’s _way_ too late to talk about venturing extra-Terrestrial to go exploring for new sources. You believe that “we’re getting all we need…on Earth”. While that’s true, even the oil guys (and most of the metal guys) say that it’s becomming harder and harder to find new sources. It’s also becomming harder and harder **to get/mine** those resources. If we are to “prospect” for resources anywhere in space, **now** is the time to do it; not when we are getting desperate. As to what else is on the Moon (or Mars, or Eros, or Toutatis, or Callisto, or . . . ): **That** is exactly my point. We don’t know! Probes can only tell us so much; and that, not _very_ much! Even modern geophysical explorations (here on Earth) require HUMAN work-crews—and not from a remote distance! 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/97 "2001-08-24T19:05:09Z")
You wrote: > [@](#): > > Um, we proved pretty successfully with the Bio-Dome experiments that we can’t even live well for very long in a self-contained environment here on Earth. The Mir cosmonauts faced disaster several times, and we have to constantly resupply the ISS, which is in LEO. We didn’t do a very good job on the Bio-Dome experiments. Everyone seem to admit that it was more publicity than real-life. On the other hand, we **did do** Mir and we **are doing** the ISS. Bio-dome, I think, **did** live self-contained except for extraneous luxuries (or did they??). You also wrote: > [@](#): > > The logistics involved in creating, building, supplying and maintaining a lunar base a quarter of a million miles away would never, ever get the support of the American people The first goal in any of this will be to operate **self sufficiently**. We must aim for that. Even the Moon might be able to produce most-all of real requirements: Working/building materials, water (and, thus, O[sub]2[/sub] 😉 ), shelter from most-all asteroids, etc. Mars _should_ **easily** be able to do that. (Self sufficient asteroids might be a different thing—unless there are enough smallish ice-asteroids to satisfy water/air needs.) 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Reeder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Reeder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reeder)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/98 "2001-08-24T19:21:53Z")
If given the choice of supporting a moon base or this asinine anti missle stuff Duhbya is shoving down our throats. My choice would be a moon base. ---
**Author:** ![Sea\_Sorbust](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Sea\_Sorbust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sea_Sorbust)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/99 "2001-08-24T19:22:03Z")
🙂 **To that\_darn\_cat:** You wrote: > [@](#): > > “…with most exploration these done by “better, cheaper, more” probes. A design philosophy that might have something to do with those lost Martian probes BTW.” You might be interested to know (Alas! I don’t have the reference.) that **almost everyone** has had similar “unfortunate” experiences with Mars missions----even those who were not operating under the “better, cheaper, more” philosophy! :o Also: > [@](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > _From an earlier Sea Sorbust post:_ > > 3.) Nixon?!? Nixon was a lawyer and, as such, took the “path of least resistance”. > > JFK was a lawyer too, and he was the impetous behind the Moon shot. In truth: JFK was **indeed** a lawyer, too. But what’s your point? ---
**Author:** ![that\_darn\_cat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/59ef9b/32.png) [@that\_darn\_cat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/that_darn_cat)\ **Post date:** [August 24, 2001, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316/100 "2001-08-24T19:37:02Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sea Sorbust \* > Also > > In truth: JFK was **indeed** a lawyer, too. But what’s your point? \*\* My point was that JFK, like Nixon, was a lawyer and did not follow the “path of least resistance” as you say Nixon did. His leadership was the reason we went to the Moon when we did rather than playing it safe, like NASA originally planned. Nixon did what he did (whether you like him or not) for complex social and political reasons, not becuase he followed the path of least resistance. One does not become president by following the path of least resistance. Hech, one doesn’t even become a lawyer that way. In other words, I’m pointing out a logical fallacy on your part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/man-landing-on-the-moon/77316.md?page=6)