NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf



s

jonathan wrote:
Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf


Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material
that would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I
suspect that shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than
putting the necessary equipment onto the moon.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:
Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of
returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only
meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf


Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material
that would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I
suspect that shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than
putting the necessary equipment onto the moon.

Personally I'm more interested in what happens when statistical
cratering rate anomalies meet unanticipated hydrated and icy bodies.

Sylvia.

"kT" wrote in message
...
Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:
Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of
returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing
more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only
meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf


Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material
that would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I
suspect that shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than
putting the necessary equipment onto the moon.

Personally I'm more interested in what happens when statistical cratering
rate anomalies meet unanticipated hydrated and icy bodies.

I think everyone is worried about that.

.... tHe_PC_JelLlLy BeAn!! .! !!! . wrote in message
...

"kT" wrote in message

Personally I'm more interested in what happens when statistical cratering
rate anomalies meet unanticipated hydrated and icy bodies.


I think everyone is worried about that.



It's the stuff of nightmares.

kT wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:
Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of
returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing
more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only
meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf


Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material
that would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I
suspect that shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than
putting the necessary equipment onto the moon.

Personally I'm more interested in what happens when statistical
cratering rate anomalies meet unanticipated hydrated and icy bodies.


Yes, clearly that's a worry. No doubt about it. But one has to be
willing to address more than one problem at a time.

Sylvia.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material that
would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I suspect that
shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than putting the necessary
equipment onto the moon.


Thanks for replying. I would think the same thing. That any mining
would come at the very end of a long and expensive train of hardware.
A couple of generations.

Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.
The logical progression that ...first we must move into space
and then we can find a way to 'save the world' so to speak
is fine. I agree with that intuition and logic completely.

But I try to look at this from the political perspective, as in
how best to sell such a program to the public.

Trying to sell a...long ..costly program where the benefits come in
the distant future and can only be /vaguely imagined/ now is a tough sell.
In that way you maximize the perceived expense and difficulty, while
minimizing the tangible benefits in the eyes of the public and Congress.
No one can see that far into the future to say what benefits exactly
will follow.And everyone can see just how expensive and difficult it will be.

That is the very /worst way/ possible to make a case for exploiting space.
If that is the very worst way, then the reverse must be the very best.
So, instead of moving into space in order to 'save the world'.
We should 'save the world' in order to move into space.

And now you maximize the tangible benefits, while minimizing the
difficulty in the public's eye.

So the question merely becomes, how can NASA 'save the world'?
The elephants in the room for the near future of humanity are clearly
climate change and fossil fuels. How can you connect NASA with
those two global anxieties? Space Solar Power is a path to
simultaneouslly solving both.

But more importantly, Space Solar Power requires all the things that
will allow the exploitation of space. A vibrant commercial launch
industry, space ports and especially low cost to orbit. All that
basic infrastructure must come first. Before SSP can become
reality. And only a world-saving goal can justify all that infrastructure.
And by then who knows what form exactly the Space Solar Power
might become, that doesn't matter. What matters in the committment
to solve those problems through space.

NASA must create a goal to Save the World, not leave it behind.

Who on this planet would not benefit from a program which
promises to establish a trend of an endless supply of ever cheaper
and cleaner energy? Left, right, green or military? Domestic or foreign?
All on the planet would benefit, perhaps the third world the most.
Everyone would immediately be able to imagine the tangible
benefits, maximizing the support. And since the concept of SSP
is simple to convey, and the technology is also familiar to the
public, it minimizes the /perceived/ difficulty and expense.

The current goal of colonizing has almost zero support. It's time
to think this through from a different perspective. As I believe
next year will be a golden opportunity. I believe the hurricanes
will return next year ( I live in Miami) and with it the calls
for action on global warming should intensify.

When that kind of public uproar happens, whoever
comes up with the solution, gets the money.

Timing is everything.


Jonathan



Sylvia.



Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


s

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material that
would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I suspect that
shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than putting the necessary
equipment onto the moon.


Thanks for replying. I would think the same thing. That any mining
would come at the very end of a long and expensive train of hardware.
A couple of generations.

Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.

Now, well, I'm not so sure about that.

If we established self-sufficient colonies in space, then that would
obviate the eggs in one basket situation we have now, where a major
planatory disaster could wipe out the human race.

But the contentious question is, would that matter? After all, said
colonies would do nothing to mitigate the suffering that would occur
during the disaster. All the colonies would do would be to continue the
existence of the race. But is that so important? If the human race were
to be completely wiped out, there would, by definition, be no one left
to suffer the consquences. So beyond the pain and suffering involved the
the process, which would happen anyway, there is no down side to human
extinction.

A particular question is, if survival of the human race is deemed
important, what price should be put on it? How much is the taxpayer
willing to pay to ensure the race's survival? My guess would be, not
that much.

Sylvia.

On Sep 25, 9:16*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
.. .

Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material that
would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I suspect that
shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than putting the necessary
equipment onto the moon.

Thanks for replying. I would think the same thing. That any mining
would come at the very end of a long and expensive train of hardware.
A couple of generations.

Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.

Now, well, I'm not so sure about that.

If we established self-sufficient colonies in space, then that would
obviate the eggs in one basket situation we have now, where a major
planatory disaster could wipe out the human race.

But the contentious question is, would that matter? After all, said
colonies would do nothing to mitigate the suffering that would occur
during the disaster. All the colonies would do would be to continue the
existence of the race. But is that so important? If the human race were
to be completely wiped out, there would, by definition, be no one left
to suffer the consquences. So beyond the pain and suffering involved the
the process, which would happen anyway, there is no down side to human
extinction.

A particular question is, if survival of the human race is deemed
important, what price should be put on it? How much is the taxpayer
willing to pay to ensure the race's survival? My guess would be, not
that much.

Sylvia.

No, but they sure do like to pay a lot to wipe it out!

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:


Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.

Now, well, I'm not so sure about that.

If we established self-sufficient colonies in space, then that would obviate
the eggs in one basket situation we have now, where a major planatory disaster
could wipe out the human race.

But the contentious question is, would that matter? After all, said colonies
would do nothing to mitigate the suffering that would occur during the
disaster. All the colonies would do would be to continue the existence of the
race. But is that so important? If the human race were to be completely wiped
out, there would, by definition, be no one left to suffer the consquences. So
beyond the pain and suffering involved the the process, which would happen
anyway, there is no down side to human extinction.


Ya, if the planet became uninhabitable, then I feel the same way
about colonies, what's the point? Without the Earth I don't see how
they could last long.



A particular question is, if survival of the human race is deemed important,
what price should be put on it? How much is the taxpayer willing to pay to
ensure the race's survival? My guess would be, not that much.

Which is why I go on and on about the absurdity of going to the Moon.
And want to see NASA dedicated to saving the Earth, not moving
away from it. I feel that a Space Solar Power program like that began
before Bush is the best way to gain more public support and larger
budgets. A program that could potentially solve two of the greatest
global threats, fossil fuel shortages and climate change, could gather
a lot of support if presented property. Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a trend
of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over time?

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1






Sylvia.