We choose to go to the Moon?

Also, what launch vehicle do they propose to utilize?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...05115109990008

Meanwhile, the moon may be harder to get to than it was 30 years ago. For
instance, there are only three remaining Saturn V missiles like the ones that
launched the Apollo capsules. Two were assembled from surplus parts after the
last three Apollo flights were canceled, and one is a test vehicle never
intended to go into space.

Yeah sure leave the saturn 5s sitting out for 30 years in salt air with nesting
birds then wash them up and wish em well/

This reporter is out to lunch

It think its election time feel good to distract us from the war in Iraq

(Hallerb) wrote:

Scott Kozel wrote:

Also, what launch vehicle do they propose to utilize?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...05115109990008

It requires a logonID and password.


Meanwhile, the moon may be harder to get to than it was 30 years ago. For
instance, there are only three remaining Saturn V missiles like the ones that
launched the Apollo capsules. Two were assembled from surplus parts after the
last three Apollo flights were canceled, and one is a test vehicle never
intended to go into space.

Yeah sure leave the saturn 5s sitting out for 30 years in salt air with nesting
birds then wash them up and wish em well/

This reporter is out to lunch

It think its election time feel good to distract us from the war in Iraq

--
Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote in message
...
(Hallerb) wrote:

Scott Kozel wrote:

Also, what launch vehicle do they propose to utilize?

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...05115109990008

It requires a logonID and password.

Would someone who is an AOL member post the text portioin of the article?

Not political debate for me, being British, merely an observation.
Unfortunately, as research has no profit margin, it will always be
Government funded, thus you cannot separate politics from space exploration.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Lynndel Humphreys" wrote in message
...
| The mystique of manned missions to the planets will always remain.
However,
| an automated heavy duty exploration system would be more useful. The
| excitement of manned missions and the can do attitude of the
| Mercury-Gemini-Apollo era is not there,especially the space culture has
| dwindled.
|
| The alternate energy program was squashed by the oil barons. Do you
believe
| the oil cartel barons look fondly on oil independence?
|
| The space program is not petroleum dependent. Go HYDROGEN ECONOMY. or
| natural gas. BUY a hybrid car. Support alternate fuel economic stimulus
| programs. Be active in political debate but not on this newsgroup.
|
|
|
|
|
| -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
| http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
| -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03

"chimera" wrote in message
u.edu...
| Just how much is this return to the moon gonna cost?!
|
| This president is rather cavalier with the monies he spends.

Not his money, and a look at his company track record might be illuminating
on how well he budgets as far as other companies he has run is concerned.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________





---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03

__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
| "Brian Gaff" wrote:
|
| Cynic? moi?
|
| I wasn't aware the definitions of 'cynic' and 'ignorant' had been
| swapped. Thanks for the news.
|
| D.

You know what they say, never arue with ignorant people, as they are doing
the same.

Brian


--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
news | On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 09:40:27 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
| wrote:
|
| because????
|
| Well, maybe cos Bushykins needs a diversion from his war mongering and
his
| transparent agenda for making sure oil supplies are kept cheap.
|
| Maybe you haven't filled your tank lately, but the war had the
| *opposite* effect on gas prices.
|
| Next...
|
| Brian

Which just goes to prove how much he does not understand about the world out
here.

I'm sorry, but I think the man is an idiot who is being run by those who
think they know what they are doing. The same folk who probably advised him
about his failed business activities in the past!

Pity, cos I thought his Father was reasonably smart.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.547 / Virus Database: 340 - Release Date: 02/12/03

On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:10:15 -0000, "Brian Gaff"
wrote:

| Maybe you haven't filled your tank lately, but the war had the
| *opposite* effect on gas prices.

Which just goes to prove how much he does not understand about the world out
here.

No, it goes to prove that "preserving cheap oil" was *not* the
objective of the Iraq War. And guess what... that's exactly what his
supporters have been saying all along.

I'm sorry, but I think the man is an idiot who is being run by those who
think they know what they are doing.

Let's see... The Bush Administration said all along "this isn't about
the oil" and the result of the war was no discernible improvement in
the cost or supply of oil. Yet you still insist that's what the war
was about...

And you claim *Bush* is the idiot? Your credibility is just a tad
stretched here.

Brian

Would someone who is an AOL member post the text portioin of the article?





Select One Fine Writing Padfolios Desk Accessories

America Considers New Mission



By Traci Watson, Dan Vergano and Rick Hampson




Can you fly to the moon on a trial balloon?

Quoting unidentified Bush administration sources, two publications have
reported that the president wants Americans to return to the moon after an
absence of three decades, and perhaps establish a base.

The reports put the moon, which in recent years has been ignored by all save
baying dogs and werewolves, back on the national agenda.

"The moon can be made into a major asset, rather than just providing light at
night," Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., chairman of the House subcommittee on
space and aeronautics, said Thursday.

Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kansas, even talked about a space race between the United
States and China, which put its first astronaut into space this fall.

Bush Eyes Moon Mission


Early reviews of the plan, reported Wednesday by the National Review magazine
and Thursday by the New York Post, were mixed.

"Totally embarrassing," said physicist Robert Park of the American Physical
Society. "Been there, done that."

"Great idea," said Roger Launius, a space historian at the Smithsonian National
Air and Space Museum. "If we are really going to get off this planet and go to
a place like Mars, we've got to learn how to operate in deep space."


One Small Step



NASA/AP


How did we get there the first time? Explore our
moon missions in pictures.
See: Timeline in Motion



The debate over a moon program comes during a difficult time for the space
agency, which has been excoriated for inefficiency and lack of focus since the
space shuttle Columbia disaster in February.

The administration has been reviewing its space mission. On Wednesday, NASA
Administrator Sean O'Keefe said that 2004 would be a "seminal time. ... There's
an effort underway that will focus the administration's view very prominently
on options we can consider," he said. "We are looking at some significant
changes."

But when asked Thursday about the moon, Glenn Mahone, O'Keefe's spokesman, said
the review "is ongoing and will continue."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan denied that a decision had been made.
"Those (moon) reports are not coming out of the White House," he said. "It's
premature to get into any speculation about ... space policy."

The National Review said Bush is expected to make his proposal Dec. 17 in a
speech recognizing the 100th anniversary of the Wright brothers' flight at
Kitty Hawk, N.C.

America's golden age of manned lunar exploration lasted less than four years.
It began with Neil Armstrong's "one small step for man" in 1969 and ended with
the Apollo 17 mission in December 1972.


Man on the Moon




Why go back now? Suddenly, there are more reasons being offered than there are
craters in the Sea of Tranquility.

• National prestige. The Chinese have spoken about plans to land humans on
the moon and to establish a base there.

This has attracted Brownback's attention. "You've got the Chinese and others
making plans to send probes and even humans to the moon," he said Thursday. "I
don't think we want other countries to get ahead of us in this race."

An adviser close to O'Keefe, who asked not to be identified, told USA TODAY
that the Chinese launch and their interest in a manned lunar mission "changed
the equation" for NASA.

But to Park, this is weak logic. "If our goal is to keep up with the Chinese in
technology, God help us."

• A steppingstone to Mars. "I've always favored a return to the moon because
it's three days from Earth, so if you get into trouble, you are only three days
from help," said Howard McCurdy, a space policy expert at American University
in Washington. A moon base, he said, "lays the groundwork for an expedition to
Mars."

The moon's tie-in to a Mars mission has a historical resonance: a Mars mission
was proposed by the first President Bush in 1989 but was rejected as too
expensive at $400 billion.

Some advocates of space exploration, however, are leery of a moon mission. "You
need a milestone on the way to Mars, but that could be an asteroid," said Louis
Friedman of the Planetary Society. "The moon could be a detour."


Should We Go Back?



AP

Buzz Aldrin was the second man to set foot on the moon. He has his own ideas
about what we should do next in space. In His Words

What Do You Think?
· Post | Chat About It


• A lunar telescope. Astronomers would like to see a large telescope on the
moon that would give unparalleled views of space.

But Park says such telescopes could be placed on the moon without landing
people there and be controlled remotely from Earth.

• Mining. The Chinese have expressed interest in mining a cheap form of
helium found on the moon. Harrison Schmitt, a former U.S. senator and
astronaut, says he thinks private companies would pay for moon missions in
hopes of making cheap energy from the helium there.

But Park says it would be cheaper to gather the helium from seawater. As for
other minerals, he says, "At $10,000 a pound to get things into low-Earth
orbit, it wouldn't be economical to mine the moon even if the whole thing were
made of gold."

• Water. The prospect of lunar water was raised in the mid-'90s, when
satellite data suggested polar craters might contain huge amounts of ice. But a
new article in the journal Nature says that radar imaging shows little ice
there.

• Geology. Geologists would like to take lunar core samples to learn more
about the history of the solar system and the formation of the moon. On the
other hand, Apollo astronauts carried 840 pounds of lunar rock back to Earth.

The biggest argument against a revived moon program appears to be its cost,
especially because the government faces a half-trillion-dollar budget deficit
in 2004.

McCurdy said the Apollo mission cost $150 billion to $175 billion in 2003
dollars, and that a new effort would also be costly. But he said that's not
really the point: "In some ways, it's like a yacht. If you have to ask, you
can't afford it."

Meanwhile, the moon may be harder to get to than it was 30 years ago. For
instance, there are only three remaining Saturn V missiles like the ones that
launched the Apollo capsules. Two were assembled from surplus parts after the
last three Apollo flights were canceled, and one is a test vehicle never
intended to go into space.

In the end, the reason to return to the moon may be no more rational than the
one to go there in the first place — that is, to show up the Soviet Union.

"The basic reason for going back," said John Logsdon, a former member of the
Columbia Accident Investigation Board, "is because it's there."

Contributing: Richard Benedetto


© Copyright 2003 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc. All Rights
Reserved.


12-05-03

And you claim *Bush* is the idiot? Your credibility is just a tad
stretched here.

Brian

No Bush is going to be a one termer. He has now mired us in another vietnam
mess. The arabs of been fighting for centuries. What made him think we could
clean it up?

Saddam was a terrible leader. But we need to keep our nose in our own business,
or at minimum have good intelligence. Obviously he had no weapons of mass
destruction, and after his sons died we knew he had no terrorist capabilty
here.

Bush junior just wanted to fix his dads mistake and now we have deaths there
nearly every day.

If bush doesnt get it together he should step aside and not run, give another
republican a chance.

Sad I voted for him he is a war monger