Man Landing on the Moon!!!!!

[south333]

[sub]originally posted by SeaSorburst[/sub]

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??).

Do you have any idea how is spent in the U.S. on cosmetics every year? Too expensive? Pah!

Yeah maybe we should take the money we spend on cosmetics and spend them on grammar and preview!

Please I beg you, stop watching so much sci-fi and loosen that tin foil hat ok?

[Sea_Sorbust]

To that_darn_cat: You wrote:

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 follow 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.

I confess that I knew (or: “correctly guessed”) your point. I am ashamed for not properly identifying sarcasm. Please accept my (non-sarcastic) appologies.

I think that JFK did follow the “path of least resistance” is getting us to the Moon. I think that Nixon (and, in fact, most politicians: they need a majority acceptance!) similarly followed such a path. (I liked Nixon; I voted twice for Nixon to be Pres.; I thought The Watergate Affair was a political farce of near-classical proportions; etc.)

I guess that, overall, I think that “complex social and political reasons” is about the same thing as “follows the path of least resistance”. ( :o )

Alas, I ** do believe **that one does become President by that method. It is very much akin to “consensus” as used in various negotiations—in this case, the negotiation of vote-getting. (Perhaps if we followed the Constitution more closely, we could get Presidents who ignored [transient] polls, consensus, and even majorities!)

Kennedy, I agree with you, got us to the Moon (under some pretty heavy pressure from Sputnik), using his substantial leadership qualities. However, I really and truly want to know why we all-but-stopped space-exploration. I strongly suspect that the real story is a deep, deep one.

To be truthful, I care little about the past except as it helps get us to some “adequate” future.

I, for one, think that we must get to Mars, and soon.

[Sea_Sorbust]

To South333:

The only grammer error that I can find is having dropped the past-tense “ed” on “seemed”. As it turns out, I did carefully use the preview option, which is how I managed to change thought without changing the verb-tense.

As explained in two earlier posts, I chose “cosmetics” as the most useless expenditure of any monies that I could think of (–at least smoking cigarettes is pleasurable!).

[sarcastic mode] I, What a surprise!, am, in fact, aware that the government does not spend much for cosmetics (–they do, however, spend some ). [/sarcastic mode]

I can see no reason for your vitrolic attack but would be pleased for you to explain it to me.

[andros]

I, for one, think that we must get to Mars, and soon.

Why?

[jab1]

*Originally posted by The Bad Astronomer *
**

*Originally posted by tracer *
**Aha! That’s it! The moon IS the Death Star!!
**

Actually, Saturn beat the moon to it. **

(B.A., the link to “Views of the Solar System” at the very bottom of your page doesn’t seem to work.)

[SPOOFE]

On the other hand, I suspect that there would be LOTS of mining prospects on the Moon

Nothing that you can’t find here on Earth in spades. The Apollo missions indicated that the Moon was composed of very similar levels of materials as the Earth is (which spawned the theory that the Moon was once part of the Earth).

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.

And what makes you think that we are even CLOSE to running out of materials? We’ve barely scratched the surface in terms of mining. What we ARE (supposedly) running low on is fossil fuels… and I don’t think you’re going to find much of THAT on the Moon.

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.

Do you have a cite for that?

If we are to “prospect” for resources anywhere in space, now is the time to do it; not when we are getting desperate.

And what makes you think we are anywhere CLOSE to getting desperate?

Look, pal, if you want to base your wacky theories on “Things are getting bad on Earth”, you have to provide some evidence that things are, indeed, bad. In another recent thread about Moon colonisation, it was pointed out that we haven’t even BEGUN to do mining work on the ocean floor… which is much closer to home, and much (relatively) easier to get to. So, why should we spend trillions of dollars to get at materials on the Moon when we know for a fact that we won’t get much payoff?

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!

Well, for one thing, we know that we can’t go sunbathing, or swimming, or out for a casual jog, etc. etc. on the Moon. You seem to assume that there’s some great and mysterious, undiscovered land on the Moon, and the only way to find it is by sending astronauts up there. Methinks you’ve seen Mission to Mars and 2001: A Space Oddysey one time too many.

Why send probes? They are cheaper, easier, and less hazardous. If we lose a probe, no big loss. Probes are more than adequate for what we are doing… which is probing. We’re not on any sort of Holy Grail quest, we’re not looking to colonize anywhere, we have absolutely NO NEED for a lunar mining complex… what you are proposing is utter bunk, science-fiction-wannabe baloney.

[south333]

To South333:

The only grammar error that I can find is having dropped the past-tense “ed” on “seemed”. As it turns out, I did carefully use the preview option, which is how I managed to change thought without changing the verb-tense.

As explained in two earlier posts, I chose “cosmetics” as the most useless expenditure of any monies that I could think of (–at least smoking cigarettes is pleasurable!).

[sarcastic mode] I, What a surprise!, am, in fact, aware that the government does not spend much for cosmetics (–they do, however, spend some ). [/sarcastic mode]

I can see no reason for your vitrolic attack but would be pleased for you to explain it to me.

If my post came off as vitrolic (although I do not know what that means, nor could I find it at dictionary.com) I appologize.

In both of the quotes in my first post, there were grammatical errors. That is why I pointed it out, because you can change it. It just makes it easier to read and understand. (In case your wondering about the error in the cosmetics quote, you forgot a word I believe [I think it should have been much], which confused me for a moment.)

[Sea_Sorbust]

South333 wrote:

If my post came off as vitrolic (although I do not know what that means, nor could I find it at dictionary.com) I appologize.

In both of the quotes in my first post, there were grammatical errors. That is why I pointed it out, because you can change it. It just makes it easier to read and understand. (In case your wondering about the error in the cosmetics quote, you forgot a word I believe [I think it should have been much], which confused me for a moment.)

You couldn’t find it in the dictionary because I spelled it incorrectly. (Now you have caught three errors!!) The real word is “vitriolic”, after “vitriol” which is H[sub]2[/sub]SO[sub]4[/sub], Sulfuric Acid. I have incorrectly spelled “vitriolic” my entire life :rolleyes:. (I would have used the word “misspelled” but I never can spell that correctly, either. )

As to the other errors, you are right, right, right. I was wrong, wrong—and, worse, was pretentious about it.

[Polycarp]

Hell, if he’s right we should have seen a huge population drop and mass extinctions in about 1000 BC (give or take 500 years). I’m talking FAR greater than the Dinosaur extinction or ummm…the other one that wiped out the trilobites.

Could I point out that there have been almost no documented sightings of dragons, wyverns, unicorns, chimeras, behemoths, leviathans, and numerous other forms of wildlife since about 1000 BC?

[tracer]

SPOOFE wrote:

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).

<nitpick>
Columbus was primarily interested in finding a route to China by sailing west. When he made landfall in the New World and noted that the natives didn’t look Chinese, he figured he must have missed China and landed on India, which is why he called the natives “Indians”.
</nitpick>

[SPOOFE]

Columbus was primarily interested in finding a route to China by sailing west. When he made landfall in the New World and noted that the natives didn’t look Chinese, he figured he must have missed China and landed on India, which is why he called the natives “Indians”.

Thank you for the correction. Please mentally change my “tried to sail to India” comment to “tried to sail to East Asia”.

[The_Bad_Astronomer]

*Originally posted by jab1 *
**(B.A., the link to “Views of the Solar System” at the very bottom of your page doesn’t seem to work.) **

Nuts. Well, I found the new link, but then a popup add appeared. So instead of putting in the new link, I deleted it. I won’t stoop that low.

[tracer]

The Bad Astronomer wrote:

Well, I found the new link, but then a popup add appeared.

At least it wasn’t a popup subtract. <rimshot>

[Sea_Sorbust]

*Originally posted by andros *

Originally posted by Sea Sorbust
I, for one, think that we must get to Mars, and soon.

**Why? **

It’s such a long answer to such a short question that,andros, I made it the subject of a new thread: Asteroidal Strikes and the Defence against them

[Sea_Sorbust]

I posted:

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.

to which SPOOFE asked if I had a cite.

I’m afraid that I read it in the WSJ (front page, full column story about oil) within the past month but can’t find the paper. As to the metals: Again a story (not front page, IIRC) from the WSJ, with quotes from Chairman (founder? CEO?) of Anaconda Alum.

That’s the best that I can do. Sorry.

[JonF]

*Originally posted by Sea Sorbust *
I posted:

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.

to which SPOOFE asked if I had a cite.

I’m afraid that I read it in the WSJ (front page, full column story about oil) within the past month but can’t find the paper. As to the metals: Again a story (not front page, IIRC) from the WSJ, with quotes from Chairman (founder? CEO?) of Anaconda Alum.

That’s the best that I can do. Sorry.

Glenn Morton’s Oil Crisis Page may be of interest.

[jab1]

Even if the Earth does run out of petroleum soon, (and I’m not saying it will), what makes anyone think we’ll find any on frickin’ Mars? Petroleum is a fossil fuel. If there was no carbon-based life on Mars in the past (a LOT of life), then there is no petroleum on Mars. And even if there is petroleum on Mars, the cost of bringing it to Earth would be astronomical. It would be far more economical to shift over to hydrogen-fueled vehicles. We could use sea-water for this. We’ll never run out of sea-water.

[carnivorousplant]

How expensive is it to burn fuel to go into a gravity well and bring fuel out of that gravity well?

[jab1]

Look at this old thread about going to Mars. It isn’t easy.

[SPOOFE]

As to the metals: Again a story (not front page, IIRC) from the WSJ, with quotes from Chairman (founder? CEO?) of Anaconda Alum.

But the point is, Mr. Sorbust, the cost of getting into and out of the atmospher/gravity well (as others have pointed out) is astronomical. There is a phrase to describe this sort of behavior - “diminishing returns”. While it may be getting more and more difficult to find new veins of ore here on Earth, it is nowhere NEAR as difficult as it would be finding fresh veins on the Moon, or Mars.

People have been saying we’re running low on supplies for decades. We’ve barely begun to scratch the surface.