Will 'Moon Water' become NASA's WMD fiasco?

Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this. The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there
are signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find
out why the expected water is not there. The chemistry and other processes
which govern our universe are surely important to understand.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J0nathan" wrote in message
...

President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, then ...later
contrived a single, compelling justification for the decision.
Hence the WMD scandal.

The decision to return men to the Moon was also made
years ago, yet to this day NASA struggles to present
persuasive reasons for such an expensive long term program.
They've obviously settled on 'Moon Water' as their
single, compelling justification.

The primary result of LCROSS is already in!

And the result is that it's clear NASA completely misjudged
the surface conditions there. Yet, a colony is long planned for
the site and the hardware is being designed....before
anyone knows if the site is suitable for a colony.
Before they know if there's enough water for a colony.

The 'cart is before the horse'!

In the coming weeks, if the data shows little or no 'Moon Water'
then it'll be as politically devastating to the Moon shot
as the not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Someone stop this train wreck please?

And let's simply go 'back to the future'.
Where justifications flow like...Earth Water.
Space Solar Power!

Jonathan


NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1



s

"Brian Gaff" wrote in message
.. .

Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this.

If this mission was started before Griffin took office, then he's
off the hook for accusations of a self-serving mission, meant
to manufacture justifications for the moon shot.

However....that's not the case.

Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the
NASA on April 14, 2005.
http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html


April 10, 2006
"NASA today announced that a small, 'secondary payload' spacecraft,
to be developed by a team at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
Calif., has been selected to travel to the moon to look for precious water
ice at the lunar south pole in October 2008."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...6/06_21AR.html




The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there are
signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find out
why the expected water is not there.


The initial press release after impact claimed success because
all the hardware seemed to work and they're bound to learn
something as a result. That's fine, but success is whether there's
enough water for a colony. Failure is if there's not enough water for one.
As this is about building a colony...right there...on the south pole, not
about pure research.

What is that threshold? Even in ballpark terms?
They won't say ( I bet) so they can claim success no matter what
and not let it become a setback for the men on the Moon.

I oppose a colony, and a negative result would be ...evidence....
arguing against sending men back to the Moon. At least
for the south pole.

Let the chips fall where they may should be the expectation
if this is about pure science only. But I'm not going to sit here
and say it's OK for them to use double-speak by claiming
success while not finding any water, if they don't end up
finding any. Is this science or not? Do the results matter or not?

I predicted weeks ago they wouldn't find any. And I repeat
that prediction now. Why? Because looking around the
sky at night, I can think of only one place between here and
the flippin' Andromeda galaxy that's more desolate, dryer
and less hospitable than the Moon. Only Mercury would be
a worse place to put a colony within /two thousand light years/
from here for crying out loud.

Elegantly bad decisions have a way of looking bad from just
about any perspective. Which is how I know no matter what
they do the results will stink.

You have to keep in mind, my hobby of complexity science
is all about using the output in order to understand the inputs.
You guys do the opposite. The output with the idea of a moon
colony is so bad, from so many angles, that I know with complete
certainty the input side, the decision making, the motives etc
are all either corrupt or driven by ulterior motives
such as the military.

There can be no other alternatives.

That's how I know before even looking up the dates above
that this mission isn't about curiosity, but about bolstering
the moon shot only. And no matter the actual results they
will claim success for that end. That's how I know they won't
find enough water for a colony before it happens, because
the motives are politically driven, meant to manufacture
justifications. It has to be since the final goal, a colony was
announced before the needed info was gathered.

So whatever they gather must serve the pre-conceived goal.
Not to let the data guide us to the best goal.

The output, a moon colony, has boxed them in to such
an extent they have no other choice. Anyone should be
able to see can see this coming before it even happens.

That's what happens when you arbitrarily create the output
....first. All the inputs have to be massaged to serve that
pre-determined end.

Naturally created goals allow the output to find itself
as the process advances. Corrupt or man-made goals
massage the processes to serve the pre-conceived end.

We can see vividly with the Vision just how badly
corrupt or man-made goals progress. The longer
the term, the worse it gets. As it becomes the result
of piles of massaged and manufactured reasoning
and hardware.


The chemistry and other processes which
govern our universe are surely important to understand.



But emergent creations are far more interesting. Hence
biology is far more compelling than geology.
The game is on Mars with the search for life.
We need to answer that first, before deciding
if colonizing is worthwhile.

Complexity science uses the output as the initial source
of laws and understanding. So, it is life which tells
us how the physical universe works.

Always look to the emergent properties for universal law.
Not the simplest, but the most complex the universe
has to offer, is the proper source of fundamental law.

You guys still live in the Dark Ages ya know, still thinking
the simplest particles and forces, reducing, are the source
of fundamental law.

Pfffftt.

The current world view of science is so backwards, exactly
and completely backwards, as to be almost laughable, if it
weren't so tragic for humanity.



Jonathan

s






Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J0nathan" wrote in message
...

President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, then ...later
contrived a single, compelling justification for the decision.
Hence the WMD scandal.

The decision to return men to the Moon was also made
years ago, yet to this day NASA struggles to present
persuasive reasons for such an expensive long term program.
They've obviously settled on 'Moon Water' as their
single, compelling justification.

The primary result of LCROSS is already in!

And the result is that it's clear NASA completely misjudged
the surface conditions there. Yet, a colony is long planned for
the site and the hardware is being designed....before
anyone knows if the site is suitable for a colony.
Before they know if there's enough water for a colony.

The 'cart is before the horse'!

In the coming weeks, if the data shows little or no 'Moon Water'
then it'll be as politically devastating to the Moon shot
as the not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Someone stop this train wreck please?

And let's simply go 'back to the future'.
Where justifications flow like...Earth Water.
Space Solar Power!

Jonathan


NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1



s

On Oct 11, 6:05*am, "J0nathan" wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

.. .

Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this.

If this mission was started before Griffin took office, then he's
off the hook for accusations of a self-serving mission, meant
to manufacture justifications for the moon shot.

However....that's not the case.

Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the
NASA on April 14, 2005.http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

April 10, 2006
"NASA today announced that a small, 'secondary payload' spacecraft,
to be developed by a team at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
Calif., has been selected to travel to the moon to look for precious water
ice at the lunar south pole in October 2008."http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2006/06_21AR.html

The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there are
signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find out
why the expected water is not there.

The initial press release after impact claimed success because
all the hardware seemed to work and they're bound to learn
something as a result. That's fine, but success is whether there's
enough water for a colony. Failure is if there's not enough water for one..
As this is about building a colony...right there...on the south pole, not
about pure research.

What is that threshold? Even in ballpark terms?
They won't say ( I bet) so they can claim success no matter what
and not let it become a setback for the men on the Moon.

I oppose a colony, and a negative result would be ...evidence....
arguing against sending men back to the Moon. At least
for the south pole.

Let the chips fall where they may should be the expectation
if this is about pure science only. But I'm not going to sit here
and say it's OK for them to use double-speak by claiming
success while not finding any water, if they don't end up
finding any. Is this science or not? Do the results matter or not?

I predicted weeks ago they wouldn't find any. And I repeat
that prediction now. Why? Because looking around the
sky at night, I can think of only one place between here and
the flippin' Andromeda galaxy that's more desolate, dryer
and less hospitable than the Moon. *Only Mercury would be
a worse place to put a colony within */two thousand light years/
from here for crying out loud.

Elegantly bad decisions have a way of looking bad from just
about any perspective. Which is how I know no matter what
they do the results will stink.

You have to keep in mind, my hobby of complexity science
is all about using the output in order to understand the inputs.
You guys do the opposite. The output with the idea of a moon
colony is so bad, from so many angles, that I know with complete
certainty the input side, the decision making, the motives etc
are all either corrupt or driven by ulterior motives
such as the military.

There can be no other alternatives.

That's how I know before even looking up the dates above
that this mission isn't about curiosity, but about bolstering
the moon shot only. And no matter the actual results they
will claim success for that end. That's how I know they won't
find enough water for a colony before it happens, because
the motives are politically driven, meant to manufacture
justifications. It has to be since the final goal, a colony was
announced before the needed info was gathered.

So whatever they gather must serve the pre-conceived goal.
Not to let the data guide us to the best goal.

The output, a moon colony, *has boxed them in to such
an extent they have no other choice. Anyone should be
able to see can see this coming before it even happens.

That's what happens when you arbitrarily create the output
...first. All the inputs have to be massaged to serve that
pre-determined end.

Naturally created goals allow the output to find itself
as the process advances. Corrupt or man-made goals
massage the processes to serve the pre-conceived end.

We can see vividly with the Vision just how badly
corrupt or man-made goals progress. The longer
the term, the worse it gets. As it becomes the result
of piles of massaged and manufactured reasoning
and hardware.

The chemistry and other processes which
govern our universe are surely important to understand.

But emergent creations are far more interesting. Hence
biology is far more compelling than geology.
The game is on Mars with the search for life.
We need to answer that first, before deciding
if colonizing is worthwhile.

Complexity science uses the output as the initial source
of laws and understanding. So, it is life which tells
us how the physical universe works.

Always look to the emergent properties for universal law.
Not the simplest, but the most complex the universe
has to offer, is the proper source of fundamental law.

You guys still live in the Dark Ages ya know, still thinking
the simplest particles and forces, reducing, are the source
of fundamental law.

Pfffftt.

The current world view of science is so backwards, exactly
and completely backwards, as to be almost laughable, if it
weren't so tragic for humanity.

Jonathan

s



Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J0nathan" wrote in message
...

President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, then ...later
contrived a single, compelling justification for the decision.
Hence the WMD scandal.

The decision to return men to the Moon was also made
years ago, yet to this day NASA struggles to present
persuasive reasons for such an expensive long term program.
They've obviously settled on 'Moon Water' as their
single, compelling justification.

The primary result of LCROSS is already in!

And the result is that it's clear NASA completely misjudged
the surface conditions there. Yet, a colony is long planned for
the site and the hardware is being designed....before
anyone knows if the site is suitable for a colony.
Before they know if there's enough water for a colony.

The 'cart is before the horse'!

In the coming weeks, if the data shows little or no 'Moon Water'
then it'll be as politically devastating to the Moon shot
as the not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Someone stop this train wreck please?

And let's simply go 'back to the future'.
Where justifications flow like...Earth Water.
Space Solar Power!

Jonathan

NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

s- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -



You clearly are ignorant of the concept of scientific research.

Not every experiment results in a "Eureka" finding.

"Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names" wrote in message
...


You clearly are ignorant of the concept of scientific research.

Not every experiment results in a "Eureka" finding.


Thanks for replying. I'm coming at this from a political perspective.
It seems politics, and their interference with science, are poorly
understood in NASA these days. Or accepted. Either way...

I'm simply holding them to their own words when they originally
announced this mission. Which were....

"If we find substantial amounts of water ice there, it could be used
by astronauts who later visit the moon to make rocket fuel,"
Christensen added."
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/new...6/06_21AR.html


Substantial meaning what exactly? Will traces now be enough?
Without knowing that threshold in advance, the result don't mean
anything with respect to building a colony. I'm not saying any result
won't be interesting. But this is about a colony, and if there's enough
water there to use for a colony.

My hobby tells me they won't find any. For the simple reason
it's the military that wants a colony on the south pole, as that's
the ideal place to observe/track Earth and various flying objects
around the Earth. So someone somewhere is insisting NASA
....find...reasons for a colony there on the south pole.

They put the cart before the horse, they want certain results, and the
chances of the results being what they....WANT....are slim.
It is the flippin' dry desolate Moon were talking about after all.

The notion of searching for water there really isn't sane.
It's just lunacy. When looking at the Solar System wrt water.
One would point to ONLY TWO PLACES where we shouldn't
even bother looking, save them for last at least.
The Moon would be one of them.

If it wasn't for the terribly weak political support for a Moon
colony, they wouldn't even be bothering with this whole
'Moon Water Mining' foolishness at all.

It has 'Hail Mary' written all over it. Betting against a Hail Mary
isn't exactly a stretch.


Jonathan

s

You clearly are ignorant of the concept of scientific research.

Not every experiment results in a "Eureka" finding.


Yep. Sometimes it is just fun to watch stuff blow up.

Brian Gaff wrote:
Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this. The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there
are signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find
out why the expected water is not there. The chemistry and other processes
which govern our universe are surely important to understand.

If they want to figure this out, they way to do it isn't to keep
crashing things into polar craters, but design some sort of small,
single purpose lander and have it check out the soil in the target crater.
It would be easily within our capabilities to design something like
this, particularly if it could withstand a fairly rough landing like the
early Soviet Moon landers could; signals from the lander could be sent
up to a small orbiter that carried it into polar lunar orbit before it
descended. Power for the lander could be via a small RTG, or even
batteries if only a very limited lifespan was desired.
If NASA was really that interested in settling the lunar ice question
one way or another, that's the way to do it, rather than our current
"maybe yes - maybe no" approach.
But their current approach seems more about getting funding for future
work by keeping the question open.
Same goes for life on Mars...send a _really_ high-powered microscope
there and have a peek at some soil samples for either present life or
microfossils.

Pat

Dave Heil wrote:

You clearly are ignorant of the concept of scientific research.

Not every experiment results in a "Eureka" finding.


Yep. Sometimes it is just fun to watch stuff blow up.

'cept it seems that the recent mission didn't even give us that. Just a
few pixels of extra brightness.

Sylvia.

what WMD fiasco are you referring to?

On Oct 11, 1:34*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this. The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there
are signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find
out why the expected water is not there. The chemistry and other processes
which govern our universe are surely important to understand.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!"J0nathan" wrote in message

...



President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, then ...later
contrived a single, compelling justification for the decision.
Hence the WMD scandal.

The decision to return men to the Moon was also made
years ago, yet to this day NASA struggles to present
persuasive reasons for such an expensive long term program.
They've obviously settled on 'Moon Water' as their
single, compelling justification.

The primary result of LCROSS is already in!

And the result is that it's clear NASA completely misjudged
the surface conditions there. Yet, a colony is long planned for
the site and the hardware is being designed....before
anyone knows if the site is suitable for a colony.
Before they know if there's enough water for a colony.

The 'cart is before the horse'!

In the coming weeks, if the data shows little or no 'Moon Water'
then it'll be as politically devastating to the Moon shot
as the not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Someone stop this train wreck please?

And let's simply go 'back to the future'.
Where justifications flow like...Earth Water.
Space Solar Power!

Jonathan

NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

s



Science isn't like religion. The absence of evidence is also evidence,
so to speak. Scientists propose theories and then test them. If the
test disprove the theory, then the scientists go back to the
chalkboard and start again. Science is the pursuit of truth, not the
shoring up of dogma.

On Oct 12, 4:29*am, "vict0r" wrote:
what WMD fiasco are you referring to?


Are you serious? Don't your remember back in 2002/2003 when Bush,
Cheney and the news media--another proof that the news isn't liberal
anymore--kept pushing the war on Iraq with claims that Hussein had
Weapons of Mass Destruction?