NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
Alan Anderson wrote in
:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled
with ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what
you know that ain't so."

There is no dark side of the moon. Matter of fact, it's all dark.

--
JRF


Don't ask the numb****s of the internet, they don't know.

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:51:26 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."

Yep. No 'decent water supply' has been located.
Only a few hints that SOME water may exist near
the poles ... but how MUCH and how ACCESSIBLE is
totally unknown. That's what bots are for ... send
a few to scout-out the area.

If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it
even worth sending humans there again ?

In article ,
(B1ackwater) wrote:

If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it
even worth sending humans there again ?

Of course. The only problem is HOW they're being sent.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:00:58 -0600, Joe Strout wrote:

In article ,
(B1ackwater) wrote:

If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it
even worth sending humans there again ?

Of course. The only problem is HOW they're being sent.

Better by by warp drive because doing it with chemical
rockets, especially NASA rockets, is ultra-expensive
and quite dangerous.

Now if going to the moon is as easy as catching a flight
to Atlanta ... sure, go back as often as you want, even
if it doesn't accomplish much.

B1ackwater wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:51:26 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."

Yep. No 'decent water supply' has been located.
Only a few hints that SOME water may exist near
the poles ... but how MUCH and how ACCESSIBLE is
totally unknown. That's what bots are for ... send
a few to scout-out the area.

If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it
even worth sending humans there again ?

How much water is there in the orbit that ISS is in? Putting people on
the Moon gives us a chance to test things that are not easily tested
otherwise, whether partial gee mitigates the effects of zero gee, how
people could explore in a vacuum, tele-exploration and construction,
etc.


--
So they are even more frightened than we are, he thought. Why, is this
all that's meant by heroism? And did I do it for the sake of my country?
And was he to blame with his dimple and his blue eyes? How frightened he
was! He thought I was going to kill him. Why should I kill him? My hand
trembled. And they have given me the St. George's Cross. I can't make it
out, I can't make it out! +-Leo Tolstoy, "War and Peace"

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 09:15:53 -0700, "Bill Bonde ('by a commodius vicus
of recirculation')" wrote:



B1ackwater wrote:

On Tue, 20 Sep 2005 00:51:26 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

"abracadabra" wrote:

I know they found at least one decent water supply in a crater filled with
ice on the dark side.

"It's not what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you
know that ain't so."

Yep. No 'decent water supply' has been located.
Only a few hints that SOME water may exist near
the poles ... but how MUCH and how ACCESSIBLE is
totally unknown. That's what bots are for ... send
a few to scout-out the area.

If there's essentially NO water on the moon, is it
even worth sending humans there again ?

How much water is there in the orbit that ISS is in?

Zilch - and the ISS is USELESS.

Putting people on
the Moon gives us a chance to test things that are not easily tested
otherwise, whether partial gee mitigates the effects of zero gee, how
people could explore in a vacuum, tele-exploration and construction,
etc.

Sounds like the long do-little career of MIR and
the space shuttles.

1/6g is gonna be better for you than zero ... though
probably not by much. Don't plan to get pregnant on
the moon. You explore in a vaccuum while wearing a
hard-suit. Designs have been availible for a long
time. Tele-exploration can be done from earth and
so can a lot of construction.

Thing is, a lot of this is either "been there - done that"
or "duh !" quality musings intended to enrich our politicians
favorite aerospace executives. You wanna go to the moon then
FINE - but go there in force with a firm committment and base
upon which to build a growing, permanent, self-sustaining
colony. If we can't do that by 2018 then we don't go to the
moon in 2018 but instead wait until we ARE ready to make a
major commitment. Any half-assed measures in the interim
period to put actual humans on the moon are a terrible waste
of money and resources that COULD be spent on refining
robotic designs and techniques.

"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.

In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.

In sci.space.policy Michael Rhino wrote:
"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.

In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.

I dunno.
Steroids do cause weight growth, lack of balls, irrationality and premature
deaths.

On 20 Sep 2005 10:38:22 GMT, Ian Stirling
wrote:

In sci.space.policy Michael Rhino wrote:
"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
(CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
moon in 2018.

The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.

"Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
headquarters in Washington.

In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.

I dunno.
Steroids do cause weight growth, lack of balls, irrationality and premature
deaths.


But first you get to be the multi-millionare governor
of California ... :-)

Ian Stirling ) wrote:
: In sci.space.policy Michael Rhino wrote:
: "B1ackwater" wrote in message
: ...
: (CNN) -- NASA Administrator Michael Griffin rolled out NASA's plan for
: the future Monday, including new details about the spaceship intended
: to replace the shuttle and a timeline for returning astronauts to the
: moon in 2018.
:
: The design for the new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) looks a lot like
: the Apollo-era spaceship that first took NASA to the moon a generation
: ago. It is a similarity that is not lost on Griffin.
:
: "Think of it as Apollo on steroids," he told reporters at NASA
: headquarters in Washington.
:
: In my mind, Apollo on steroids would require lots of flights -- around 50
: manned flights and 50 heavy lift cargo flights over 20 years. I don't know
: if that is the plan. No single flight can be Apollo on steroids.

: I dunno.
: Steroids do cause weight growth, lack of balls, irrationality and premature
: deaths.

Yeah, with all the negative press about steriods these days in sports,
Griffin choosing those exact words, though true in a sense, were not
wisely chosen, IMO.

We're getting Apollo on steroids in 13 years, Oh, boy!

Eric