NASA Back to Moon by 2018 - But WHY ?

B1ackwater wrote:
abracadabra wrote:

My fear is that
it'll be the Muslims or Chinese who actually get around to colonizing space
while the USA twiddles it's thumbs. What a waste.

I'd bet on the Chinese. Already they're buddying-up with
the Russians and India will eventually join that little
club as well.

I'd bet on the coming world depression bursting the
Chinese bubble to a large extent, the way it did for
the five tigers. Sure they recover; but it takes
time and distracts from toys (which such a project
would be).

I also don't see India and China getting together
except in opposition to the US and the EU. Brazil
and India feels a better fit. I go with Orson Scott
Card in that sense (Shadow series).

Looks as if we're going to be left out in
the cold. Hmmm ... maybe that will be motivational ? Still,
I don't know if you can properly calculate orbits using
'bible math' and 'bible science' ... :-)

Perhaps they could compromise on epicycles.


--


http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt

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:

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.

I think that's the problem. They *could* be; but the
research money simply wouldn't be there, because
politicians wouldn't be able to justify it to their
constituents. I think that scientists generally aren't
liars (from the ones I've met); I fear that naive
enthusiasts can be, thinking along "the means justify
the ends" lines.

If you think that the only way to enlist public support
for a project that is worthwhile is to lie about the
reasons for it, then some people will do so. On a
pragmatic basis, sometimes it's right. If the only
way you get money spent on tele-robotics is to talk
about putting them on the moon, what's the choice?
But it's still a distasteful approach. [This is
politics; duh.]


--


http://homepages.cs.ncl.ac.uk/chris.holt

"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 21:23:23 +0100, "chris.holt"
wrote:

B1ackwater wrote:

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.

I think that's the problem. They *could* be; but the
research money simply wouldn't be there, because
politicians wouldn't be able to justify it to their
constituents.

Well, they *could* if they placed it in a proper context.
Within the context of "colony building" a big push on the
robotics end is one of the first and most logical steps
during the early phase. The other logical action early on
is a large increase in the number of probes.

We NEED to find accessible water and/or hydrated minerals
in fairly large quantities. The whole colonization effort
hinges on this. If the water is found then waves of robots
are needed to do close-up surveys, dig around, possibly drill
deep into moisture deposits and begin to siphon and store
the precious liquid.

If little or no water is found then the moon is only fit for
robots unless we try something exotic like catching and crashing
comets into the polar regions. That's quite a long ways away
with anything resembling todays technology. Indeed, if we ever
do anything like that, it might be more profitible to crash
the comets on mars instead.

I think that scientists generally aren't
liars (from the ones I've met); I fear that naive
enthusiasts can be, thinking along "the means justify
the ends" lines.

There are plenty of 'space enthusiasts', but too many seem
to have a pair of pointed ears in their sock drawer - they
are consumed with the "gee whiz" aspect and totally ignore
practical concerns both technical and fiscal. The moon and
mars probably CAN be made into successful colonies, but only
if things are done in the right order with the proper goals
firmly in mind.

"Re-exploration" by humans isn't the proper goal. Been there,
done that. "Colonization" is the paradigm around which all
efforts should orbit. It's not the same as "exploration".
Explorations are quickies, non-committal, with no real plan
to pay back the investors. Go, see, return, hope someone pays
the bills. Colonizers go to stay, to survive, to thrive.

If you think that the only way to enlist public support
for a project that is worthwhile is to lie about the
reasons for it, then some people will do so.

There are politics involved - therefore there will be plenty
of lies and distortions along the way. It's a given.

Trouble is that you can only raise false hopes JUST so
high before reality comes down like the proverbial 16
ton weight. Then you've got a demoralized, disillusioned,
hostile public and you won't get a penny of space research
money from them for many years. Lies must be balanced by
at least some tangible signs of progress towards some
laudable goal.

On a
pragmatic basis, sometimes it's right. If the only
way you get money spent on tele-robotics is to talk
about putting them on the moon, what's the choice?
But it's still a distasteful approach. [This is
politics; duh.]

Hey, tele-bots and autonomous bots will be useful EVERYWHERE.
That's no fib. The 'spin offs' from moon-bot research will
be plentiful and highly profitible. Meanwhile, we've just
GOT to have the things for the moon - it's a terrible environment
for people so bots will have to do almost all of the dirty work.

Tele-bots are by far the easiest. The technology is already there
and the moon is plenty close to use telepresence guided from
earth (get engineering grads to PAY a small fee to run lunar
earth-movers, drill rigs and excavators - more addictive than
video games).

Semi-autonomous and fully autonomous bots worthy of being sent
to the moon are still at least a decade away even IF we pour a
lot of money into the effort. Two or three decades if we're
slackers. Really 'smart' bots ... no sign of them yet at all.

The leap from understanding neurons to understanding how to
make a 'mind' hasn't been made. Even our e-bugs are terribly
crude and limited. Try swatting that pesky mosquito that
keeps humming in your ear at night ... that's about 0.01
cubic millimeters of brain tissue and it can thwart a human
beings attempts to squash it, find food, fly around in the
air without bumping into things and make more little bugs.

For the moon, I think we're gonna have to start with
"swarm intelligence" models ... e-ants ... if we expect
any useful autonomous work done. How many of which
behavioral rules does it take to see an 'anthill' take
shape ? Worthy research.

"B1ackwater" wrote in message
...
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.

According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

Ray

Ray wrote:

According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

We're not fools, Ray. We remember things they said that didn't
come true, and that they knew wouldn't come true.

Moreover, we recognize the enormous gulf between what they actually
are planning to do, and the establishment of a colony.

What, aside from wishful thinking, makes you believe them?

Paul

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:39:41 GMT, "Ray" wrote:

According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

The odds of NASA aiming to make a colony is indeed quite slim. As a
"colony", by my definition, is a self-sustaining base where you do not
aim to bring the people back.

The only way to look at this is what will happen once NASA removes
their Moon funding, when they move on to Mars no doubt. Their ISS on
the Moon would soon close, but a real colony would live on.

Since it would be of benefit to have services, like construction, on
the Moon at many points in the future, then working on building a
colony is the only goal that there should be.

The future on the Moon is under the ground. NASA won't be in the
colony business until they build their first tunnel.

To be honest then NASA seems more Flags and Footprints. So this Moon
project is just an unfortunate step so that they can one day do their
Flags and Footprints thing on Mars.

So at the end of all this you will have what?

Cardman.

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:39:41 GMT, "Ray" wrote:

According to NASA's website, they are committed to setting up a colony
on the moon, but many people here don't believe them.

The odds of NASA aiming to make a colony is indeed quite slim. As a
"colony", by my definition, is a self-sustaining base where you do not
aim to bring the people back.

The only way to look at this is what will happen once NASA removes
their Moon funding, when they move on to Mars no doubt. Their ISS on
the Moon would soon close, but a real colony would live on.

Since it would be of benefit to have services, like construction, on
the Moon at many points in the future, then working on building a
colony is the only goal that there should be.

The future on the Moon is under the ground. NASA won't be in the
colony business until they build their first tunnel.

To be honest then NASA seems more Flags and Footprints. So this Moon
project is just an unfortunate step so that they can one day do their
Flags and Footprints thing on Mars.

So at the end of all this you will have what?

Cardman.

We will have more experience traveling to other planets.
Ray

In article ,
(B1ackwater) wrote:

We NEED to find accessible water and/or hydrated minerals
in fairly large quantities. The whole colonization effort
hinges on this. ...
If little or no water is found then the moon is only fit for
robots unless we try something exotic like catching and crashing
comets into the polar regions.

I disagree. You can have a viable moon base (and eventually, colony)
while importing hydrogen. Lots of very successful places import large
amounts of vital substances (look at the U.S. and, say, oil). Moreover,
the hydrogen needed for things like growing food and drinking can be
almost completely recycled in a closed-loop system; it doesn't have to
be a consumable. So to a first approximation, you only need to import
more as the colony grows.

"Re-exploration" by humans isn't the proper goal. Been there,
done that. "Colonization" is the paradigm around which all
efforts should orbit. It's not the same as "exploration".

Agreed, it's not the same, but it's not the right focus either.
"Colonization" is too nebulous and long-term. The correct focus would
be "exploitation," i.e., making use of the Moon in as many practical
ways as we can. That means radio telescopes on the far side, as many
hotels and tourist spots as the market can bear, propellant production
for use in cislunar space, material mining & refining for the production
of large orbital structures (like solar power satellites), and whatever
else anybody can think of and find a reasonably profitable angle on.

In the process, we'd naturally develop infrastructure (relay satellites,
fuel depots, space tugs, etc.), and eventually, people working at these
sites would stay longer, bring their spouses along, have kids, and start
thinking of themselves as a colony. But you don't go for colonization
right off the bat; that's just a non-starter.

I agree, though, that "exploration" for its own sake is rather pointless.

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