..New Space-Race to the Moon..History is (Tragically) Repeating Itself

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:23:05 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

Hey, hey! Calm down! Moon is TOO FAR to launch a missile. It is not
practical. Missiles or any weapons installed on the Moon is simply a
stupid idea.


Who said anything about launching missiles from the moon???
What do our military satellites in orbit do for the most part?
Fire weapons, or observe and target etc?

Observe from the moon? Look at the best Earth-based images of the
moon. That sort of resolution is useless, militarily, and that
resolution comes from huge observatories on Earth far in excess of
anything humans will be able to build on the moon in the next 50
years. There is no military rationale for a base on the moon. None.
Zip. Nada. No matter how many "Bush is Evil" and "China is about to
take over the world" nutjobs try to say there is.

Everyone is going to the moon because it is relatively cheap and easy
to do, and has a quick payoff. Three or four days, and your probe is
there. Politicans are happy.

Sorry, Jonathan. I have to agree with the crowd here. You've totally
lost it. Step away from the computer. Put down the Loony Conspiracy
Theory book. Stop drinking the Military Industrial Complex Is Out To
Get Us koolaid. Turn off the Art Bell Show. Go outside, walk around
the block a few times. Go see a movie. Let your brain filter out all
that crap that's in there. :-)

Brian

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:19:29 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
Joe Strout wrote:
:
:Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
:at Jonathan's postings too?
:

It's just you. Jonathan pegged most people's loon meters long, long
ago...


Only because you're mind is unable to grasp the concepts
I'm talking about. You do know everything I say is from
established courses taught at almost every respectable
university in the world. You DO KNOW THAT RIGHT?

Because ridiculing science because you can't understand it
is generally the domain of the religious and ignorant.

Which are you?





--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine


ROFL! Your post sounds like it was written by a sterotypical
conspiracy freak.

Maybe you could give us a rational explanation of the so-called
connection between returning to the moon and missile defense?

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 12:57:46 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


Sorry, but this project is Lockheeds show, it's their baby.
And Lockheed IS the military industrial complex.
Why are such simple facts and reasoning beyond you?

Just friendly advice, Jonathan:
Take a break. You've gone completely bonkers.

Come back in a week or two when your sanity has returned.

Brian

"macruzq" wrote in message
ps.com...
Hey, hey! Calm down! Moon is TOO FAR to launch a missile. It is not
practical. Missiles or any weapons installed on the Moon is simply a
stupid idea.

Even a full-up Atlas V couldn't push New Horizons any faster than a 6 hour
trip to the moon. Since flight time for a nuclear bomb is at most on the
order of a half-hour, "Jonathan" just proves once again he's a kid with
access to his mommie's computer.

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 07:19:29 -0500, "Jonathan"
Because ridiculing science because you can't understand it
is generally the domain of the religious and ignorant.

You clearly don't understand the science- so which are *you*?

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

Is it just me, or is everyone else's kook meter starting to swing harder
at Jonathan's postings too?

Which is it? If you disagree with my characterization
of our space policy, how so, and why?

Because, Jonathan, the Moon is useless for missile defense. Absolutely
useless. Has no use for it whatsoever. None. To think that it does
displays such a deeply profound ignorance that one hardly knows where to
begin to correct it.

Now, a merely ignorant but otherwise reasonable person might post a
query like, "Hey, could it be the superpowers are planning on using the
Moon for missile defense?" At which point we'd all politely reply "No,
Newbie, the Moon is much too far away; kinetic countermeasures launched
from there would miss their targets by half a day or more, and optical
ones would have far too much spread to be effective." At which point,
the reasonable newbie would say "Oh, I see, thanks for the explanation."

But you didn't do this. Instead, you posted alarmist nonsense about
MISSILE DEFENSE (caps original), and when rebuttals are put forth, you
ignore them and reply with insults, irrelevant news quotes, and dark
hints of conspiracies.

It's a bit sad to see, because you weren't always like this. Brad Guth,
as far as I've been aware of him, has always been a nutball. But you
were a reasonable newbie a couple years ago, with a simple passion for
space solar power, which in itself is not unreasonable. But now you've
gone off the deep end, alas.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

The Moon's a lousy place to park your nuke bomb missiles. It's a lot
quicker, cheaper and more convenient to use submarines as nuke launching
platforms. Submarines are easily hidden, and they rarely break radio
silence, and they can be ordered (the subs receive only) to sail to the
enemy's coastal areas and take out a few cities or mil targets. You can
buy a lot of submarines for the cost of a few Moon missions.

robert casey wrote:

The Moon's a lousy place to park your nuke bomb missiles

Nukes are old technology, they should be bannned. There are much "Greener"
weapons, to .... wipe .... a .... ... few ... . ...... ...
billion ........or ... so ...... . .. . . .. ..... . .....

You have to decide at some point, R U A peaceful person?

Jonathan wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

I can see why India might like to send astronauts to the moon. For
them, it would be a big deal to demonstrate that they are as
technologically advanced as the US was 30 years ago.

The same reason applies to China. Plus, they've got to find something
to spend all those billions on that we've been sending them in exchange
for keeping the shelves filled at Toys-R-Us and Circuit City.

You'd think the Japanese would have more sense.

I wouldn't expect George Bush to have any sense, hence his "vision".



"To the moon, Alice. Right to the moon!"
--Ralph Kramden

On Oct 27, 8:35 pm, Matt wrote:
On Oct 27, 9:59 pm, BradGuth wrote:





On Oct 27, 8:42 pm, macruzq wrote:

On Oct 27, 10:06 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

First Bush and his Vision to the moon, then Japan, India
and now China all gearing up to go back to the moon.

WHY?

The same reason for Apollo, we were in a ....military...race
with the Soviets. The Cold War. Now....the reason everyone
is going back to the moon???

MISSILE DEFENSE.

So, I guess after another FIFTY GODDAMMED YEARS
we'll end up with nothing more to show than the last
FIFTY YEARS IN SPACE.

Lots of really cool..very..expensive weapons we'll probably
never use. And a bunch of completely useless hardware
lying about on the moon.

Just like the ISS, the Grand Accomplishment of the last
FIFTY YEARS in space.

What a ****ing... excuse my lanquage, but it's so incredibly
infuriating to think about, no other word will do....
..what a ****ing waste.

Hey, hey! Calm down! Moon is TOO FAR to launch a missile. It is not
practical. Missiles or any weapons installed on the Moon is simply a
stupid idea.

But as easily deployed from the moon's L1 isn't exactly half bad.
- Brad Guth -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Interceptor missiles launched from the moon or L1 would take hours to
reach near-Earth space - that's hopelessly too slow to affect a
ballistic missile attack from one point on Earth to another. Lasers or
other directed energy beams would spread too much at that range. No
one will put offensive missiles in such places, either: the enormous
effort of hauling the things up there is worthless given that a war
using Earth-based ballistic missiles will be over before missiles
needing (at best) hours to reach Earth can have any effect.

I agree, but a tethered platform of those nifty gigaWatt laser cannons
could rather easily be established to reach within 2r of Earth, and in
space there's not all that much beam divergence. Besides, a swarm of
nuclear warheads as incoming from the moon's L1 would be next to
impossible to divert or kill off any sufficient number before it's too
late, especially since many of those items could be of dirt cheap
phony decoys (perhaps made in China or India).

Actually, the fly-by-rocket task of getting loads of nifty stuff into
the moon's L1 orbit isn't all that spendy, especially if you're not in
any hurry for getting stuff there in the first place.
- Brad Guth -