The moon and Tom Hanks...'we don't need to go back there again.'

The Magic Of The Moon
Tom Hanks Hopes To Recapture Wonderment
At Lunar Triumph


"Once humankind has been some place and found it
entrancing, they always go back," says Hanks, the
film's producer. "I think in the history of the human
race, the moon has been the first place we've gone to
and said, 'OK, we don't need to go back there again.'"

And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml



s

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

....Well, first, you wrote a very deceptive subject line. Tom Hanks
didn't say we don't need to go back there; he's saying that that's what
we, as a people, have been saying about it.

Then:

And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"

However, while this was the end of the quoting of Tom within this story,
I'm sure it wasn't the end of the conversation. I'd like to think it
was meant to be an opener, and that the conversation went on to explore
some of the reasons why. (The CBS article switches to Eugene Cernan for
an answer.)

I'd love to get a more complete transcript of the conversation with
Hanks, though. I've had the impression that he really does want us to
go back, and the opinion of such a mega-celebrity can be influential, so
I'd like to be sure I'm right about that. If anybody knows where to
find a fuller transcript, please let us know!

Thanks,
- Joe

"Jonathan" wrote in message


For all of your continuing entertainment, I've further edited and
hopefully improved upon the following rant, as to what I and others
should care the most about:

Here's a little something extra special for Discovery Communications
and/or GOOGLE/NOVA to ponder their pay-per-infomercial spewing way
through. In other words, if I could pay as well as MI/NSA~NASA, they'd
gladly produce whatever as though it was the one and only holy grail
truth on Earth.

Instead of our going for the absolutely daunting and unavoidably time
comsuming as well as spendy task of our accomplishing the moon itself,
perhaps instead we or perhaps China should simply go for taking the
moon's L1 because, at least that's entirely doable and extremely
valuable as a given space depot and multitasking science platform.

As I've often shared this one befo
If we're ever going to walk upon that physically dark and nasty moon of
ours, that's via gravity tidal energy and a touch of secondary IR/FIR
keeping our environment as so anti-ice-age extra warm, as such we'll
need the following basics for an earthshine illuminated mission that'll
most likely demand some banked bone marrow and possibly a few spare stem
cells in order to survive the mission gauntlet of what walking on our
moon should represent.

In order to accomplish the moon, and continue to live the good life in
order to tell about it, as such they'll need a fully mascon mapped moon,
plus fully modulated (at least 8 bit computer fly-by-wire driven) set of
those fuel consuming reaction thrusters (besides their modulated rated
thrusters, this should only require butt loads of nifty sensors and a
minimum of four extremely fast rad-hard computers), plus incorporating a
few (at least three) powerful momentum reaction wheels, as well as
having sufficient deorbit and down-range energy reserves, and of
something a whole lot better off than a wussy 60:1 ratio of primary
rocket/payload that had nearly a 30% inert GLOW to start off with
(that's not even including whatever spare tonnes of inital ice loading).

Geoffrey A. Landis:
Let me emphasize, the human lander is by far the hardest part of the
Mars mission. A vehicle for getting down to the surface and back up
again is the one piece that we have to develop from scratch.
Everything else is, more or less, stuff we can put together from
pieces that already have been developed.

Geoffrey A. Landis knows the truth, however the rest of you folks that
are out there in Usenet's dumbfounded land of snookered fools and
village idiots, should by now realize there's still no such proven
fly-by-rocket lander as pilot rated and certified as crew safe and sane
for accomplishing our extremely nearby moon, not even in R&D prototype
format. However, there's still time to get in on that NASA contest of
hopefully some smart group of fly-by-rocket wizards demonstrating the
first such prototype fly-by-rocket landers. Unfortunately, thus far
every known and what-if trick in the book hasn't worked out according to
plan, but I do believe we're finely getting close to accomplishing that
critical goal. Perhaps what they need are a few of those smart Jewish
Third Reich rocket scientists, just like they had to work with way back
in them good old mutually perpetrated cold-war days.

BTW; On behalf of a relatively short mission exposure worth of
defending their frail DNA and especially all of that radiation sensitive
Kodak film could have used a minimum of 50 g/cm2 worth of shielding,
though 100 g/cm2 would have been a whole lot safer for keeping their TBI
mission dosage under 50 rads. Their having a personal cache of banked
bone marrow back on Earth as their plan-B would also have been a damn
wise thing to do, especially since the hundreds of rads per EVA should
have been well past their bone marrow's point of no return.

BTW No.2; Since there's no possible argument as to the DR(dynamic
range) of all that Kodak film having easily recorded Venus and our
physically dark moon within the same FOV, therefore in whatever's your
best 3D simulator format, where the heck was Venus as of missions A11,
A14 and A16? (from EVA or from orbit), as obviously it should have
presented itself withing any good number of those frames that included
the lunar horizon or that of having included an unobstructed view of
mother Earth along with Venus.

With regard to space and lunar radiation of the bad kind; What if
anything is stopping or in any way diverting the very same solar and
cosmic energy plus whatever's physical flak from collecting upon and/or
reacting and even penetrating into the moon, as for what otherwise
collects within our magnetosphere's Van Allen belts?

Honest analogy; Shouldn't the gravity and robust substance of the moon
itself sort of outperform our magnetosphere's ability to collect and
hold onto such nasty solar and cosmic stuff?

How the heck can that physically dark, nasty and extremely big old moon
of ours become so NASA/Apollo passive and guano island like, as well as
xenon lamp spectrum illuminated?

In addition to getting directly roasted and otherwise full-spectrum TBI
by the sun and of whatever's cosmic, there's also the secondary IR/FIR
energy that's potentially coming right back at you from as many as each
of those surrounding 3.14e8 m2 can manage to spare, not to mention each
of those square meters having their fair share of local gamma and pesky
hard-X-rays via secondary/recoil to share and share alike, and as for
yourself within that wussy moonsuit to deal with or to die for trying.

At any one time it was technically impossible for such lunar surface
EVAs to have not been continually surrounded by a bare minimum of 3.14e6
m2, and of course from such a nearby orbit there's nothing but the
physically dark and TBI dosage nasty moon to look at for as far as the
DNA/RNA frail eye could see from being at 100+ km off the deck, and
that's one hell of a solar/cosmic plus unavoidably secondary/recoil
worth of TBI exposure to deal with, wouldn't you say?
-

NOM: "The level of cosmic radiation on the moon is barely different from
the radiation at the International Space Station. They seem to manage
space walks there OK."

From what I can learn, they/(ISS or even shuttle crew) actually do NOT
manage very well at all, whereas ISS EVAs tend to be relatively short
and those EVAs still tend to devour into their 50 rad per mission and
subsequently impact upon their career 500 rad dosage limits real fast,
and at that they have to avoid the SAA-05 contour like the worst known
plague. The solar wind that's extensively diverted by those nifty
though lethal Van Allen belts do accomplish a fairly good job of
defending ISS from the otherwise L1 naked trauma of raw solar and cosmic
influx, and besides the ISS itself doesn't exactly represent significant
density or hardly any amount of secondary/recoil square meters compared
to the bare minimum of 3.14e6 m2 that's existing for the moon landing
and EVAs, along with easily receiving as much as 3.14e8 m2 worth of
exposure to all that's reactive and/or radioactive as being entirely
possible.

A deployed ISS/(Clarke Station) at our moon's L1 would actually be as
much as 97.6% solar and otherwise nearly 100% cosmic nailed, but instead
our existing ISS is nearly 50% shielded from whatever's solar or cosmic
via Earth and rather nicely protected by a substantial magnetosphere,
whereas because of Earth's thin but extensive enough atmosphere is
hardly the least bit of a reactive substance like our naked moon that's
covered in heavy meteorite debris and of it's own considerable surface
density that makes for producing secondary/recoil dosage that apparently
isn't the least bit moderated by way of an atmosphere.

http://www.lpi.usra.edu/publications...aryland01b.pdf
This fancy enough "Clarke Station" document that's rather interesting
but otherwise a touch outdated, not to mention more than a little
under-shielded for long term habitat unless incorporating 8+ meters of
water plus having somehow established an artificial magnetosphere, or
perhaps 16+ meters of h2o if w/o magnetosphere that's necessary because
it's parked within 58,000 km from our physically dark and otherwise
highly reactive moon, a moon that's providing the not so DNA friendly
TBI(total body irradiation) dosage worth of gamma and hard-X-rays that
are only a touch worse off by lunar day, is simply a downright deficient
document about sharing upon all of the positive science and
habitat/depot considerations for others utilizing the moon's L1/MEL1.

However, as for any mission command module orbiting our moon from 100 km
isn't exactly playing it DNA/RNA safe, nor more than half the time is it
representing a cool orbit or even all that mascon free of all those
pesky side to side and ups and downs because for its size the moon's
gravity is so irregular (possibly suggesting a badly distorted hallow
core).

There is however a fairly substantial sodium atmosphere that shines only
at 589 nm and reaches out past 9r (not to mention the well populated
comet like sodium trail that's worth some 900,000 km or 518r), but
apparently it's not of sufficient density from 100 km down to the source
of that sodium being the lunar deck, as to significantly moderate the
incoming or outgoing trauma of gamma and hard-X-rays.

Therefore, perhaps just the primary plus secondary IR/FIR that's good
enough to vaporise sodium out of our moon has got to be downright
mission pesky to deal with, especially considering how efficiently our
moon reflects those IR and FIR spectrums, and the matter of fact that it
has to get rid of all of whatever energy it receives, which means that a
good 50% of the solar influx is getting returned to the same sunny half
side of space that a given mission orbiting its command module has to
survive while getting summarily roasted and otherwise TBI traumatised
from both directions, plus a little of whatever's earthshine and of good
old cosmic whatever else to boot.

On behalf of a future lunar environment that's moderating whatever's
incoming as well as unavoidably of secondary/recoil that's outgoing
radiation, what our physically dark and naked moon environment needs
rather badly is an artificially forced atmosphere of almost any sort,
even if it's mostly co2 and a touch Radon toxic.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jonathan" wrote in message


The ongoing notions of utlizing our moon as one of the supposed
"Footsteps to Mars", sorry to say my ass, whereas I'm especially going
naysay postal down on this one, especially since we can't seem to mange
the few and affordable steps on behalf of accomplishing our moon's L1,
much less those rather spendy and somewhat lethal steps upon our naked
moon.

It also seems as though our Old Testament thumping faith based
scientists are simply paranoid about damn near everything that rocks
their status quo good ship LOLLIPOP, including by their own shadows. At
least terraforming our moon or simply digging into that salty sucker for
obtaining a safe underground habitat is technically doable from within
our own back yard of known expertise and resources, and best of all,
with a damn good telescope as monitoring such things from our moon's L1
is how we the badly bleeding taxpayers can manage to keep a close eye
upon where each and every one of our hard earned dollar is going.

Moving our existing ISS off to Venus L2 seems perfectly doable, although
placing ISS at our moon's L1 would likely melt that sucker and otherwise
gamma and hard-X-ray most everything on the spot. It seems our moon's
L1 is not exactly ISS end-user friendly, nor was it the least bit
NASA/Apollo friendly.

Venus L2 is actually a bit on the cool side of such things, whereas our
moon's L1 (roughly 58,000 km away from the moon) is smoking hot and
otherwise downright nasty most of the time, of which ISS simply isn't
thermally suited nor otherwise sufficiently shielded. The nighttime
season of Venus is also a little geothermally hot to the touch, but it's
not technically too hot to manage, especially since there's unlimited
local energy to burn (sort of speak).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

...Well, first, you wrote a very deceptive subject line. Tom Hanks
didn't say we don't need to go back there; he's saying that that's what
we, as a people, have been saying about it.


And then he clearly indicates he agrees with the
public sentiment. And he does more than that.
He essentially is saying that the public came to
that conclusion over 30 years ago. And only last
year he indicates he still needs to see that question
answered. Why? Thirty years in search of a reason
to go back, and we still have little more than
trekkian echoes as justifications. Lewis and Clark
analogies or worse yet...Faith!

Even the Apollo 11 crew, before 12 even lifted off, knew
that the mistake of Apollo was not having a goal with
a proper balance between pure research and
the needs of society.

That theme courses throughout their speech to Congress.

Joint Meeting of the Two Houses of Congress to Receive the
Apollo 11 Astronauts

Congressional Record
Tuesday, September 16, 19
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a11/A11CongressJOD.html


Most people seem to think the notion of addressing the
greater needs of society means reducing Nasa's
budget and giving the difference to social programs.

NOT!

It means a goal that has as it's purpose for being, the
greater needs of society. For instance, the 'alternative'
goal of SSP. It's exceptionally easy to argue that
goal has all kinds of potential benefits to society
and, more importantly, to our largest and most
pressing problems. And it's easy to show it'll produce
new and valuable technology while enabling future
missions of discovery and colonization.

Going back to the moon? And on to Mars?
Why? Because it's our destiny to colonize
and explore they say.

What, like moths to a flame? Like salmon
spawning? What, are we nothing more than
a bunch of f'ing animals acting out on
our instincts?

I'm sorry, but for America's single greatest
scientific project, I want to see the same
scientific methods we use to build the
hardware, used to establish the original goal.

Of course, maybe modern science isn't
up to the task. It's too hard. We should
just..just..just...follow our dicks all the
way to the moon.

'cause that's what we're doing. Greed and
corruption have decided this policy, what
makes the big contractors and the military
get all excited...decided this goal.

This goal maximizes corporate profit and
military use, while ...minimizing the new
technology it will produce. No X-33-like
advances, just back to the future.

Groundhog day!

s

























Then:

And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"

However, while this was the end of the quoting of Tom within this story,
I'm sure it wasn't the end of the conversation. I'd like to think it
was meant to be an opener, and that the conversation went on to explore
some of the reasons why. (The CBS article switches to Eugene Cernan for
an answer.)

I'd love to get a more complete transcript of the conversation with
Hanks, though. I've had the impression that he really does want us to
go back, and the opinion of such a mega-celebrity can be influential, so
I'd like to be sure I'm right about that. If anybody knows where to
find a fuller transcript, please let us know!

Thanks,
- Joe

"Jonathan" wrote in message


I'm sorry, but for America's single greatest
scientific project, I want to see the same
scientific methods we use to build the
hardware, used to establish the original goal.

You mean our mutually perpetrated cold war(s), as that's about all that
has been accomplished at a stagering cost of trillions per decade, of
continuing collateral damage and countless carnage of the innocent.
Sort of makes you real warm and fuzzy proud to be an American, doesn't
it?


Of course, maybe modern science isn't
up to the task. It's too hard. We should
just..just..just...follow our dicks all the
way to the moon.

And yet it's lacky village idiot minion fools exactly like yourself that
still think we've walked on the moon, that are still summarily snookered
and way dumbfounded past the point of no return.


'cause that's what we're doing. Greed and
corruption have decided this policy, what
makes the big contractors and the military
get all excited...decided this goal.

You're just now realizing the dirty tip of our infomercial and
disinformation spewing iceberg that's currently melting rather badly
before our dumbfounded eyes, and that's mostly because of our moon and
otherwise negative human impact upon our frail environment.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:b1268b5f07be0329dc9541cfb81bdfee.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Jonathan" wrote in message


I'm sorry, but for America's single greatest
scientific project, I want to see the same
scientific methods we use to build the
hardware, used to establish the original goal.

You mean our mutually perpetrated cold war(s), as that's about all that
has been accomplished at a stagering cost of trillions per decade, of
continuing collateral damage and countless carnage of the innocent.
Sort of makes you real warm and fuzzy proud to be an American, doesn't
it?


The cold war kinda ended up as a great big battle of
attrition, where the one that ran out of cash first - lost.

Try as they might, the Soviets just couldn't throw money
half as good as America. Where do you think Bill Gates
got the idea of planned obsolescence?
From the US military...that's who!
Ruskies never had a chance.





Of course, maybe modern science isn't
up to the task. It's too hard. We should
just..just..just...follow our dicks all the
way to the moon.

And yet it's lacky village idiot minion fools exactly like yourself that
still think we've walked on the moon, that are still summarily snookered
and way dumbfounded past the point of no return.


There is no objective reality. It doesn't really matter
if we went or not. What matters is what people
think. If they think we went...we went.

If people think rolling around in crap is Utopia.
Then it is! You have to start picturing the world
in the way you want it to be. Not in the way
it was. It's the difference between optimistic
and pessimistic. Happy or sad.

Instead of running away from the past in horror.
Run towards Utopia with contentment.



'cause that's what we're doing. Greed and
corruption have decided this policy, what
makes the big contractors and the military
get all excited...decided this goal.

You're just now realizing the dirty tip of our infomercial and
disinformation spewing iceberg that's currently melting rather badly
before our dumbfounded eyes, and that's mostly because of our moon and
otherwise negative human impact upon our frail environment.


Yep, an ignorance of nature is the main source of human
misery. But the war between humanity and the environment
is much like the cold war between the Soviets and the US.

Humanity just cannot keep up with nature. It's only a matter
of time before the world is returned to a natural state.

The ultimate victory of evolutionary processes is the only
fact in the universe. It is the most probable final state
where all paths eventually converge.

It's the trends, the global patterns, that matter. As they
show the future when taken to their logical limits.


s








-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jonathan" wrote in message
news:tQSvh.3321$ch1.325@bigfe9

The cold war kinda ended up as a great big battle of
attrition, where the one that ran out of cash first - lost.
Humanity lost big-time, and we each managed to rape mother Earth in the
process. Good thing mother Earth has been such a slut of a hore.

The cold-war was a mutually perpetrated sting/ruse of the century, and
we're still paying for it.

Try as they might, the Soviets just couldn't throw money
half as good as America. Where do you think Bill Gates
got the idea of planned obsolescence?
From the US military...that's who!
Ruskies never had a chance.
That's true, we Americans do know how to blow through our loot, as well
as waste energy and human resources like so much toilet paper.


And yet it's lacky village idiot minion fools exactly like yourself that
still think we've walked on the moon, that are still summarily snookered
and way dumbfounded past the point of no return.

There is no objective reality. It doesn't really matter
if we went or not. What matters is what people
think. If they think we went...we went.
Well, I must say that thinking we went and having accomplished whatever
as suggest by our lord NASA is about as good as it gets, doesn't it.


If people think rolling around in crap is Utopia.
Then it is! You have to start picturing the world
in the way you want it to be. Not in the way
it was. It's the difference between optimistic
and pessimistic. Happy or sad.

Instead of running away from the past in horror.
Run towards Utopia with contentment.
We're certainly getting really good at running our dumbfounded selves
full steam ahead, directly into our very own created crapolla, like 911
and so forth.

Our not having a speck of remorse is obviously just as essential for us
as it was for Hitler and a certain Pope that went a touch postal.


Yep, an ignorance of nature is the main source of human
misery. But the war between humanity and the environment
is much like the cold war between the Soviets and the US.

Humanity just cannot keep up with nature. It's only a matter
of time before the world is returned to a natural state.
But first we'll have to pillage and trash before we get rid of that
pesky moon of ours. Such as, relocating that big old nasty sucker
to Earth's L1, and for that little task I have a plan of action that
by rights should work.


The ultimate victory of evolutionary processes is the only
fact in the universe. It is the most probable final state
where all paths eventually converge.

It's the trends, the global patterns, that matter. As they
show the future when taken to their logical limits.

A hocus-pocus future as based almost entirely upon lies, should be
downright interesting, if not somewhat WW-III lethal (again).
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
news:757dce655678d260e54b4e8c4d75cc3c.49644@mygate .mailgate.org...
"Jonathan" wrote in message
news:tQSvh.3321$ch1.325@bigfe9

The cold war kinda ended up as a great big battle of
attrition, where the one that ran out of cash first - lost.
Humanity lost big-time, and we each managed to rape mother Earth in the
process. Good thing mother Earth has been such a slut of a hore.

The cold-war was a mutually perpetrated sting/ruse of the century, and
we're still paying for it.


So did a lot of other people. Especially in all the proxy fights
around the globe. You can see the kind of harm that proxy
wars create in Iraq right now, with the US/Iran proxy war
that's creating most of the sectarian violence in the
last year.



A hocus-pocus future as based almost entirely upon lies, should be
downright interesting, if not somewhat WW-III lethal (again).


Naw, this time the power of the internet means it's the people
that'll be designing the future, and they have to follow us.
You already see the transition in politics, with politicians
that follow the polls to the letter, and respond to every
new trend. When both sides are equally as skilled
at following us, the election should end up as a tie.

It's when these politicians go out and think for themselves
and are convinced they know best, that's when the
blow-outs happen.

Collective wisdom is always the best. And with reality
steadily moving online, our future couldn't be brighter.




-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Jonathan" wrote in message


The power of our denial being in denial. Impressive, isn't it.
-
Brad Guth


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG