Moon base for Mars Landing?

This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

Lastly, there is no point to a Moon base. It's a waste of money. Go to
Mars; that's where the real science is.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/
sciencetoday/2009/0709/1224250305962.html

"The Constellation programme assumes that the overall goal is to build a
base on the moon, says Edwards. “What we are looking at is a sustained
human presence, to do real science up there. It is really a stepping
stone,� she adds, with the moon potentially serving as a staging post for
a manned attempt on Mars."

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Microsoft Windows

Marvin the Martian wrote:

This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

NASA: If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us
out? Not A Space Agency excluded the obvious answer because it was
not recyclable. NASA is fresh out of Nazis to make it work. They've
got managers now, not engineers. Lots of girls and minorities, too.
NASA puts the "no" in innovation (after studies).

The new Constellation lifters will emulsify human cargo into crimson
tapioca according to engineering models. Werner von Braun had
Fahrvergnügen when his rockets flew. NASA has "verkackt"
("be****ted").

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.
[snip]

Sure you can - if money is no object and you don't mind contaminating
the moon's clean vacuum with atmosphere for a few centuries. Consider
Dolittle's raid on Tokyo that required carrying aviation fuel over the
top of the world with astounding inefficiency; Vietnamese hauling
artillery skyward at Diem Bien Phu. What is publicity worth to you in
human lives lost directly and through confiscation of personal wealth?

Lastly, there is no point to a Moon base. It's a waste of money. Go to
Mars; that's where the real science is.

Go to Mars and get fried by cosmic radiation. Mir and ISS FUBAR
incidence of radiation cataracts - merely for being above the yard of
lead shielding equivalent fof the atmosphere - is 95%. Wanna fly
outside the magnetosphere, too? You will close your eyes and see
Cerenkov rings texting the cooking of your brain, ditto gonads, bone
marrow, thyroid and, of course, the lenses of your eyes into radiation
cataracts. Will there be a combat ophthalmologist on board?

Mars is crap. Go to Pacoima or Darkest Oakland, or down the Nairobi
Highway in Southern California, or through urban Washington, DC.
Unexplored and terrifying yet rich with primitive lifeforms.

If NASA gave a rat's ass about Man In Space it would add some long
fibers to the Space Scuttle's external fuel tank so it wouldn't spall
chunks of Space Scuttle-destroying foam during liftoff. Uncle Al
suggests NASA loft a few tonnes of surplus ball bearings to make a
nice light show on re-entry, like Space Scuttle Challenger did but at
lower cost/sparkle.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Jul 8, 4:39*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

* *I am not advocating going to the moon. But... it would be a good
* *place to build the things that are expected to be needed on the
* *moon. And the rescue time is 3+ days.

It is not practical and the longer we wait the less likely we have the
resources required. This is as dumb as Hawking saying we are going to
migrate to space to survive. I say we will never have the resources.

Mitch Raemsch

Sam Wormley wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10
years to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

And with 1960s budgets.

"Uncle Al" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:

This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

NASA: If stupidity got us into this mess, why can't stupidity get us
out? Not A Space Agency excluded the obvious answer because it was
not recyclable. NASA is fresh out of Nazis to make it work. They've
got managers now, not engineers. Lots of girls and minorities, too.
NASA puts the "no" in innovation (after studies).

The new Constellation lifters will emulsify human cargo into crimson
tapioca according to engineering models. Werner von Braun had
Fahrvergnügen when his rockets flew. NASA has "verkackt"
("be****ted").

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.
[snip]

Sure you can - if money is no object and you don't mind contaminating
the moon's clean vacuum with atmosphere for a few centuries. Consider
Dolittle's raid on Tokyo that required carrying aviation fuel over the
top of the world with astounding inefficiency; Vietnamese hauling
artillery skyward at Diem Bien Phu. What is publicity worth to you in
human lives lost directly and through confiscation of personal wealth?

Lastly, there is no point to a Moon base. It's a waste of money. Go to
Mars; that's where the real science is.

Go to Mars and get fried by cosmic radiation. Mir and ISS FUBAR
incidence of radiation cataracts - merely for being above the yard of
lead shielding equivalent fof the atmosphere - is 95%. Wanna fly
outside the magnetosphere, too? You will close your eyes and see
Cerenkov rings texting the cooking of your brain, ditto gonads, bone
marrow, thyroid and, of course, the lenses of your eyes into radiation
cataracts. Will there be a combat ophthalmologist on board?

Mars is crap. Go to Pacoima or Darkest Oakland, or down the Nairobi
Highway in Southern California, or through urban Washington, DC.
Unexplored and terrifying yet rich with primitive lifeforms.

If NASA gave a rat's ass about Man In Space it would add some long
fibers to the Space Scuttle's external fuel tank so it wouldn't spall
chunks of Space Scuttle-destroying foam during liftoff. Uncle Al
suggests NASA loft a few tonnes of surplus ball bearings to make a
nice light show on re-entry, like Space Scuttle Challenger did but at
lower cost/sparkle.

high carbon steel balls would be bueatiful!



--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

They had a virtually unlimited budget to do so. The motto was, "Waste
anything but time". This was the height of the Cold War and the point was
to show that the US could beat the USSR (the Godless Commies) to the moon.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

The funding today is far less than what it was in the 60's. Also, NASA's
chosen architecture is to build not one, but two brand new launch vehicles
in which to go back to the moon. This won't be cheap or fast.

Secondly, there is no way that you can use the moon as a base to go to
Mars.

I wouldn't say "no way", but I'd say it's extremely unlikely that a moon
base would be helpful in launching a Mars mission.

Lastly, there is no point to a Moon base. It's a waste of money. Go to
Mars; that's where the real science is.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/
sciencetoday/2009/0709/1224250305962.html

"The Constellation programme assumes that the overall goal is to build a
base on the moon, says Edwards. "What we are looking at is a sustained
human presence, to do real science up there. It is really a stepping
stone," she adds, with the moon potentially serving as a staging post for
a manned attempt on Mars."

Obviously you're a Mars fanboy, so I'm not going to comment on this
assertion.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Hipupchuck" wrote in message
...
A moon base would be a smart investment for future space exploration.

Why?

NASA should build it's headquarters there. It's handy.

In what way is it handy? The bottom of gravity wells are never as "handy"
as being out of them when it comes to exploration of the solar system.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

"Mumra" wrote in message
...

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Microsoft Windows

You forgot the smiley.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
"Mumra" wrote in message
...

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news
This is utterly stupid. First of all, the NASA plan is to take over 10
years to go back to the moon. It took the 1960's NASA less than 10 years
to do it the first time with 1960s technology.

So, they need LONGER to do what was done half a century ago?!

Microsoft Windows

You forgot the smiley.

No, no he didn't.