...Tom Hanks on going back to the moon....." WHY? "

On Feb 19, 5:37 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Rand Simberg" wrote in message

...

Tell it to the Mormons.

The Mormons settled the Moon? Due tell Rand.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com

Maybe Morton-Thiocol had some left over boosters?

On Feb 19, 5:41 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
The human spirit of exploration is undeniable. We climbed over the
mountain, crossed the ocean, then we went to the Moon. Next is Mars.
We were born in the stars, we are actually made of stars, and we
belong in space. Going to the moon gives our baby species some
experience.

Quaint, but not very meaningful.

By your own definition, we're already in space. So why go someplace else to
be the same place?

And note, you still haven't answered the question put to Hanks, Why go back?
We've been there, done that.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com


Actually if you want to be pragmatic going to the Moon would be
tactically advantageous. But, realistically, it is an ideal and close
area for us to practice what we will do when we finally do go to other
planets. Think of the Moon as you would a bay in which to test new
seafaring vessels. We need to be up there to gain experience for
future exploration.
You're right; we already do exist in space. All the more reason to
get out there and learn more about it.

On Feb 19, 5:08 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
In this interview Tom Hanks suggests the public
quickly decided during Apollo the moon wasn't
worth going back to. And over /thirty years later/
Mr Hanks still believes a reason for returning
has yet to be found.

Yeah, guys, I think I left my keys up there. Might be a good idea to
go back and get them.

Baldin Lee Pramer

On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:37:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Tell it to the Mormons.

The Mormons settled the Moon? Due tell Rand.

You snipped out all context? Do tell, Greg.

"American Jesus" wrote in message
ups.com...

By your own definition, we're already in space. So why go someplace else
to
be the same place?

And note, you still haven't answered the question put to Hanks, Why go
back?
We've been there, done that.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com


Actually if you want to be pragmatic going to the Moon would be
tactically advantageous.

How and to whom?

But, realistically, it is an ideal and close
area for us to practice what we will do when we finally do go to other
planets.

Somewhat, but not a whole lot. The only planet we're going to any time
soon is Mars. Which has different enough characteristics as to make
experience on the Moon less than ideal. Even as little as the atmosphere is
on Mars, it can make a difference in cooling of suits, weather of dust, etc.

It'll most likely be FAR easier to use in situ resources on Mars than on
the Moon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to the Moon. But until the economics
change, don't expect much.




Think of the Moon as you would a bay in which to test new
seafaring vessels. We need to be up there to gain experience for
future exploration.
You're right; we already do exist in space. All the more reason to
get out there and learn more about it.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 01:37:44 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...

Tell it to the Mormons.

The Mormons settled the Moon? Due tell Rand.

You snipped out all context? Do tell, Greg.

You mean about going to the Moon? Yeah.. Ok you're right. That changes
everything you said.

wrote in message
oups.com...

To paraphrase a different and often seen quote here...

'We are presented with the civilization that those who went before us
created.
We either build on that - or we sink back into the inherent chaos of
lower human emotions'.


Some advantages a
- Gives new frontiers for new generations - rather than endless
fighting for old land and dwindling resources.


People fight over land and resources due to their
value and need. The moon is almost entirely made
of basalt and various forms of feldspar.
90% of all volcanic rock on earth is basalt, and
we use it primarily for gravel.
60% of the earth's crust is forms of feldspar, which
we use primarily for ceramics.

It should be noted, most of the more expensive, useful
and sought after minerals and metals on earth are
formed by processes ....of life. A planet with no
or little life would be geologically boring and
unprofitable.

I'm talking about ....rational...ie...real reasons for
going back to the moon. Are you saying we should
go back to the moon in order to lower the price of
....gravel???

Rational means science based. Show me the numbers....


To justify going back in a rational way... please
explain exactly which moon resources/land we are
intending to exploit? And exactly how am I, as a
taxpayer, going to benefit? In dollar terms please.


- Will more rapidly generate new technology and new science.


For instance? This program is nicnamed by Nasa as
"Apollo on steriods". Meaning no new breakthroughs
just redo the old stuff. No new X-33-like reusable rockets.
No single stage to orbit, no big reduction in price to orbit.
Just another great big Saturn 5-like rocket etc etc.


- New resources.

For instance, please name them, how much they are worth.
How much they will cost to return to earth and how much I
as a taxpayer will benefit. And when.


- Insurance for the human race - in case something goes wrong on
Terra.


Such as an impact? Perhaps the only plausible reason I can
see. But isn't it true new technology can be used to spot
and divert such things sooner and at a far lower cost?
Aren't we already in the process of doing just that?


- Economical springboard to Mars.


Why go to Mars?


- Relatively cheap. Entire Appolo program cost was $135 billion (in
2006 dollars).
Constrast that to the anticipated $1,000 billion dollar cost for
Iraq.


We'll end up with a shelter for four or six astronauts in the end.
Lockheed will reap great profits. And Nasa will become a national
joke in the process. An example of how to waste money.
And there goes our space faring future, down the tubes
along with our hundred billion dollar 'colony to nowhere'.


Instead we could give that hundred billion to the best
and brightest to take this program to it's limit.
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/publications/sctm/

Which could end our dependence of fossil fuels.
Which could end wars over oil.
Which could be the primary solution to global warming.
And could make America the next energy "Saudi Arabia".
Ensuring American dominance and high standard of
living for another century.

But we've decided...no...Lockheed has decided it's far
easier and more profitable to put a shelter for six on
the moon twenty years from now. And without having
to break any new ground.

How convenient for them.

To be able to milk the taxpayer cow for a couple
of decades building something that is designed
to fix or do ....nothing at all.



s

On Feb 19, 7:07 pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"American Jesus" wrote in message

ups.com...





By your own definition, we're already in space. So why go someplace else
to
be the same place?

And note, you still haven't answered the question put to Hanks, Why go
back?
We've been there, done that.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting
sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com

Actually if you want to be pragmatic going to the Moon would be
tactically advantageous.

How and to whom?


We could put missiles on the moon. I know this is basically science
fiction, so please forgive me for indulging in that.

But, realistically, it is an ideal and close
area for us to practice what we will do when we finally do go to other
planets.

Somewhat, but not a whole lot. The only planet we're going to any time
soon is Mars. Which has different enough characteristics as to make
experience on the Moon less than ideal. Even as little as the atmosphere is
on Mars, it can make a difference in cooling of suits, weather of dust, etc.


We just need experience in space, in general. The Moon is a
convenient place to start. Also, it is much easier to build ships
that might be used for exploration by using the moon. I suppose we
could do it in orbit.
Don't misunderstand me, I am not a guy who thinks we live in the
"Star trek" age. It does however require some significant vision to
even take these first steps. The stuff we're talking about won't
happen for many generations but it has to start somewhere, and the
Einsteins at NASA have given us a good start. If humans ever do reach
another planet, though, it will take the efforts of a lot of different
countries, not just one.

It'll most likely be FAR easier to use in situ resources on Mars than on
the Moon.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for going to the Moon. But until the economics
change, don't expect much.


Yes, I agree with you.


Think of the Moon as you would a bay in which to test new
seafaring vessels. We need to be up there to gain experience for
future exploration.
You're right; we already do exist in space. All the more reason to
get out there and learn more about it.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...

In this interview Tom Hanks suggests the public
quickly decided during Apollo the moon wasn't
worth going back to. And over /thirty years later/
Mr Hanks still believes a reason for returning
has yet to be found.

He's correct, of course, there isn't a rational reason
for going back to the moon.

Not unless we can drop off Bush and all of his family and friends.

Host.

Bert Hyman wrote:
In nk.net "Greg D.
Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"PerfectlyAble" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bert Hyman wrote:
In "Jonathan"
wrote:

He's correct, of course, there isn't a rational reason
for going back to the moon.

Do you think there a rational reason to go to the moon in the first
place?

America was won by people who went to stay, not the
Hanks of the world who return to Europe to enlighten
them about the barbarians in the New World and
couldn't see a reason to stay.

No, America was won by people who wanted among other things, a better
living.

This isn't found on the Moon.

The two of you would seem to be confusing explorers with settlers, and
then forgetting about the "exploiters" who came between.

Explorers go places in hopes of finding things that can be exploited,
not to establish a homestead. The exploiters follow to obtain and market
the things of value that are found. For many places, nothing of value is
ever found, and even if there is something found, there's never any
need for settlers at all.

I want to goto the moon to get away from you two!

;-)


--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN