Far Left Group Opposes a Return to the Moon

For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf


--
Mark R. Whittington
http://curmudgeons.blogspot.com
Co-author of Nocturne, a Novel of Suspense
http://www.xlibris.com/nocturne.html
Author of Children of Apollo
http://www.xlibris.com/childrenofapollo.html

For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf



This is an "Apples and Oranges" argument. "Why go to the Moon when we can
educate our children." Well why not go to the Moon? Don't you want your
children to learn about the Moon in science class? Or do you want your children
to ask awkward questions in class such as, why we haven't been back to the Moon
since 1973? Is the answer going to be, so you can be properly educated?
Therefore we must prevent these children from finding out about the Moon lest
they become ignorant.

Tom

On 30 Dec 2003 00:22:18 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf



This is an "Apples and Oranges" argument. "Why go to the Moon when we can
educate our children." Well why not go to the Moon? Don't you want your
children to learn about the Moon in science class? Or do you want your children
to ask awkward questions in class such as, why we haven't been back to the Moon
since 1973? Is the answer going to be, so you can be properly educated?
Therefore we must prevent these children from finding out about the Moon lest
they become ignorant.

Tom

There is also of course the whole inspirational spin-off's that come
from an ambitious space program. How many people who were kids and
teens in the 1960's became interested in science and egineering as a
result of the space race. I think that we can attribute an important
part of the PC revolution in the 70's at NASA's feet, from "inventing
the computer", but from the large number of university graduates
entering the market, as a result of thier interests sparked by the
space program

Kelly McDonald

Mark R. Whittington wrote:
For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf


Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.

If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
sustainable return to space.

Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
and computers.

I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
and encourage good, healthy capitalism.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

"Kelly McDonald" wrote in message
...
On 30 Dec 2003 00:22:18 GMT, (TKalbfus) wrote:

For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf



This is an "Apples and Oranges" argument. "Why go to the Moon when we can
educate our children." Well why not go to the Moon? Don't you want your
children to learn about the Moon in science class? Or do you want your
children
to ask awkward questions in class such as, why we haven't been back to
the Moon
since 1973? Is the answer going to be, so you can be properly educated?
Therefore we must prevent these children from finding out about the Moon
lest
they become ignorant.

Tom

There is also of course the whole inspirational spin-off's that come
from an ambitious space program. How many people who were kids and
teens in the 1960's became interested in science and egineering as a
result of the space race. I think that we can attribute an important
part of the PC revolution in the 70's at NASA's feet, from "inventing
the computer", but from the large number of university graduates
entering the market, as a result of thier interests sparked by the
space program

Kelly McDonald

That is an interesting point, which is why the much maligned "inspire the
youth" arguement is not all that frivolous.

I think that what is proposed in the ad is almost unimaginable cruelty. It
says that we need to deny "the children" the opportunity to explore the
universe and take advantage of the opportunities it offers, In return we are
to subject them to abuse such as only bureaucratic institutions which are
said to be for their benefit, but actually wind up hurting them past repair.

That's what we did in the seventies. An entire generation was denied a
brillient age of exploration such as our race had never seen before.

Never again.

"Hop David" wrote in message
...


Mark R. Whittington wrote:
For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf


Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.

If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
sustainable return to space.

Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
and computers.


I agree 100% and I've proclaimed this many times in this NG. The only
question is: how to do this? I originally envisioned NASA developing a SSTO
RLV which could be 'leased' to the private sector for tourism or other (yet
unknown) uses. But the X-33 program has been canceled (despite the fact that
the main culprit for doing so, the carbon fiber fuel tank was recently
tested with success) so that only leaves ELV's in the short run. Unless NASA
restarts the X-33 program or something similar, we'll have to make do with
safer ELV's. Hybrids are, IMHO, the best choice for this, along with a
capsule type reentry vehicle. They're simple, and safe (although not
necessarily economically viable because they can only carry a limited number
of passengers).

Besides tourism, I haven't yet heard a convincing case for private
investment in space activity. Space 'mining', often touted in the early 70's
and 80's has AFAIK disappeared from the radar screen entirely.

On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 22:32:36 -0700, Hop David
wrote:



Mark R. Whittington wrote:
For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf


Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.

If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
sustainable return to space.

Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
and computers.

Do you really want to see the Micro$oft flag on the Moon?

I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
and encourage good, healthy capitalism.


--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

Hop David wrote:
Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.

That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
When money runs, it is not wasted.


Matti Anttila
--
http://antti.la/

Hop David wrote in message ...
Mark R. Whittington wrote:
For your outrage:

http://www.tompaine.com/images/dynamic/427.pdf


Well, I think a return to the moon may be a waste of money.

If it's another Flags and Footprints exercise, it won't be a
sustainable return to space.

Better to encourage the private sector. Maybe the free market
can do the same thing for space flight that it did for airplanes
and computers.

I don't know if I'm liberal or conservative. But I regard the
above as one of my conservative opinions. Discourage big government
and encourage good, healthy capitalism.

Problem is, in 30+ years since the last landing, no business has yet
to go back on the moon any time soon. I'd say most venture capital
firms shudder when business plans involving the moon, because NASA had
to pour billions on it in the '60s, so they figure that it would be
the same kind of money pit.

For the same reason that no business has established itself on
Antartica yet, there won't be business on the moon anytime soon. If
you set up permanent scientific presence on the Moon, and implement a
solar system-wide space flight cost reduction plan, we might get
launch costs low enough to enable tourism on the Moon, just like in
Antartica. After those first fields are in place, science and tourism,
others would follow.

First, in-situ chemical production, then spacecraft integration and
assembly, then in-situ material processing and associated industries.
Once the number of workers hits a certain level, you begin to have
services for them, like hotels for visiting contractors, supervisors,
temporary workers, scientifics, and even families and tourists, which
attracts even more capital.

Had it not been for the gold rush, California would not be what it is
today. Granted, there's the high-tech industry, but had it not been
for the availability of capitals, I figure that Silicon Valley would
have been located in Boston instead around MIT...

Same goes for most cities in the world. If they are there, it's
because at some point in the past, it was the center of commerce and
trade for a specific region. Sometimes it was for the neighboring
towns and counties, sometimes it was for the whole world. Hong-Kong
and New York are good examples of such role.

We cannot force interest to shift to the Moon. We can only, by our
combined actions, give a nudge to a ball that hopefully will pick up
speed in the right direction.

Matti Anttila wrote:

That will *cost a lot*, but mostly the money will be only recycled,
not *wasted*. Nobody's going to take a LM-sized bunch of 100 $ bills and
leave them to the Moon, but instead the money is used to hire workers
to develop the project. Then it's been spread out via salary money,
which is divided to taxes and consumables by the workers.
When money runs, it is not wasted.

sarcasm

Ah. So if an activity does not consume physical currency, the money
isn't wasted?

I propose the government give me a billion dollars to do with as I see
fit. In return, I promise I will spend every last dollar here on
Earth, and not launch any of the currency into space, or hire
contractors from Zeta Reticuli.

Think of all the jobs this would create! I'd be such a public benefactor.
They should build statues of me.

/sarcasm

In case you didn't notice, you are repeating a particularly stupid bit
of economic illiteracy. Currency is a placeholder that represents
wealth. Real wealth are the things that you can obtain by exchange
with the currency, such as labor, capital, raw materials, and goods
embodying those. Space programs most certainly do consume this
real wealth (proponents will argue that they create more wealth than
is consumed, but this is not relevant to your argument.)

Paul