Eugene Cernan wants to go back to the past

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
In a recent editorial opinion, Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on
the moon, says that we should commit America to 'Return to the Moon'.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...06_cernan.html

(snip)

Screw you Mr. Cernan. We don't want to go back. We want to go forward,
into the future. It's a shame that we have to drag the other half of
America into that promising and optimistic future kicking and screaming.


Who might be this mysterious 'we' of whom you speak? (If it's in the
editorial [or royal] sense, please say so.)

You've not asked *my* opinion.

Which happens to be: "Return to the Moon? Yes. Do it in the *way* we
seem about to do it? No."

I hope Gene's listening.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

Frank Glover wrote:
Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:
In a recent editorial opinion, Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on
the moon, says that we should commit America to 'Return to the Moon'.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...06_cernan.html


(snip)

Screw you Mr. Cernan. We don't want to go back. We want to go forward,
into the future. It's a shame that we have to drag the other half of
America into that promising and optimistic future kicking and screaming.


Who might be this mysterious 'we' of whom you speak?

The rational half of America, those of us who think that a 10 trillion
dollar national debt, and utter dependence upon foreign oil, is probably
inadvisable, if not inexcusable, global warming is caused by hydrocarbon
combustion and is probably a real bad idea, attacking Iraq was a VERY
BAD idea, and investing all of our resources into weapons will not get
space colonized and the problems of a planet solved in a positive way.

We know who you are. You are not one of us.

In simple terms that an idiot like you can understand :

Yer either fer US er yer agin US. Yer agin US.

(If it's in the
editorial [or royal] sense, please say so.)

In a response to an opinion editorial sense.

You've not asked *my* opinion.

I don't need to ask, you're free to give it, whether we want it or not.

Which happens to be: "Return to the Moon? Yes. Do it in the *way* we
seem about to do it? No."

I disagree with you and the esteemed Mr. Cernan, hence my response.

I hope Gene's listening.

I'm sure he is. He wrote an editorial, what did you expect?

I happen to think that sending a geriatric former astronaut into space
for a public joyride, is a good investment of government resources, just
like sending a 40 year old fighter jock back to the moon isn't either.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

Frank Glover wrote:

Thomas Lee Elifritz wrote:

In a recent editorial opinion, Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on
the moon, says that we should commit America to 'Return to the Moon'.

http://www.thehill.com/thehill/expor...06_cernan.html




(snip)

Screw you Mr. Cernan. We don't want to go back. We want to go
forward, into the future. It's a shame that we have to drag the other
half of America into that promising and optimistic future kicking and
screaming.



Who might be this mysterious 'we' of whom you speak?


The rational half of America,


Yes, well, I'm still looking for that rational half. I seem not to
have found it here.


those of us who think that a 10 trillion
dollar national debt, and utter dependence upon foreign oil, is probably
inadvisable, if not inexcusable, global warming is caused by hydrocarbon
combustion and is probably a real bad idea, attacking Iraq was a VERY
BAD idea,


There are many people who might agree with you to that point...


and investing all of our resources into weapons will not get
space colonized and the problems of a planet solved in a positive way.


...but many of them don't give a damn about space colonization. (and
wouldn't know Gene Cernan if you threw him at them)


We know who you are. You are not one of us.


(LOL!) You know not squat about me.


In simple terms that an idiot like you can understand :

Yer either fer US er yer agin US. Yer agin US.


I'm for and against a great many things. One of the things I'm
against is someone who pretends to speak for some invisible majority or
'US.'

And the sooner we get space flight to the point where you don't
*need* some sort of 'majority support,' the better.


(If it's in the

editorial [or royal] sense, please say so.)


In a response to an opinion editorial sense.

You've not asked *my* opinion.


I don't need to ask, you're free to give it, whether we want it or not.


Yeah. Ain't freedom of speech grand? But it does help to know what
you're talking about.


Which happens to be: "Return to the Moon? Yes. Do it in the *way*
we seem about to do it? No."


I disagree with you and the esteemed Mr. Cernan, hence my response.

I hope Gene's listening.


I'm sure he is. He wrote an editorial, what did you expect?


I was referring to this posting. (Not that I have any illusions thar
Gene lurks this newsgroup.)


I happen to think that sending a geriatric former astronaut into space
for a public joyride, is a good investment of government resources, just
like sending a 40 year old fighter jock back to the moon isn't either.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org


Hmm. Okay. And your choice would be...?

Go ahead. I could use another laugh.

--

Frank

You know what to remove to reply...

Check out my web page: http://www.geocities.com/stardolphin1/link2.htm

"To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would be to limit the
human spirit."
- Stephen Hawking

On Sat, 23 Sep 2006 02:39:18 GMT, Frank Glover
wrote:

Yes, well, I'm still looking for that rational half. I seem not to
have found it here.

....Frank, let me start you on the path to finding rationality. It's
got one really easy step: put Fuhrer Elfritz in your killfile and out
of our misery. You'll be happy that you did, and the rest of us will
really be grateful for your doing so. It's the rational thing to do.

OM
--
]=====================================[
] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [
] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [
] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [
]=====================================[

Frank Glover wrote:

Hmm. Okay. And your choice would be...?

Go ahead. I could use another laugh.

Until which time we have 10 meter ETs available in low earth orbit,
human rate the Delta IV Medium with a six person capsule, for delivery
of six port docking adapters to five meter Mitsubishi hydrogen tanks.
Inflate a four meter hotel room inside the hydrogen tank, and return.

If Mr. Big can do it with Lockheed, I can do it with Boeing.

We all can do it with the ISS.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 20:34:35 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:59:28 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

We want to go back to the moon almost as much as we want your version of
Vietnam.

Speak for yourself, dickhead.

So you actively desire war. Ok, no wonder space isn't being colonized.

Moron.

We have no idea even what is going on at the lunar poles, and
we've just discovered that we have an extraordinary fifth planet Ceres,
that apparently is composed of one quarter water, and we haven't got the
faintest idea what the surface looks like. It has 1/30 the gravity of
Earth, and makes a far better and much more technologically challenging
destination than the moon.

You are stupid, Elifritz. That's your whole problem. Stupidity.

Why, because I dissent against throwing away expensive hardware?

No, because you oppose going to the moon even if it doesn't mean
throwing away expensive hardware.

It's like you're telling Louis Bleriot not to bother flying across the
English Channel, because crossing the Atlantic Ocean "makes a far
better and much more technologically challenging" flight. Though
true enough, it's just stupid. You do what's feasible, what does the
job cheaply and reliably, and what _pays_, not what is most
technologically challenging. That was the stupidity of the Shuttle
design.

Thus we will return to the moon with SRBs as our primary boost stage for
manned space flight.

SRBs are neither cheap nor reliable, and I have said they were a
stupid idea from the day they were announced.

NASA really has you convinced they will colonize
the moon, beyond any conceivable rational that I'm presently aware of.

NASA is NASA, the moon is the moon. Try not to get them confused.

And Mars has two moons that are composed of
carbonaceous materials, that are only ten or so miles across, with a
spectacular view of Mars. From Mars, hundreds of asteroids in the 100 to
200 kilometer diameter range are accessible to eventual exploration.

As above. How much easier do you think it would it be to go to Mars
and the asteroids if there was an industrial settlement on the moon
stocking a supply depot at L5 with all the LOX and fuel you could use?

Actually, I was actually thinking about a rational space colonization
infrastructure in LEO and GEO, and then just migrating the components to
wherever they are required, presumably Phobos for shielding, and Ceres
for water. Of course, that requires a rational launch architecture,
something that ESAS most definitely is *NOT*.

Indeed. But a rational launch architecture does not require ignoring
a huge, close, and convenient source of raw materials in favor of
leaps into the unknown.

-- Roy L

wrote in :


Actually, I was actually thinking about a rational space colonization
infrastructure in LEO and GEO, and then just migrating the components to
wherever they are required, presumably Phobos for shielding, and Ceres
for water. Of course, that requires a rational launch architecture,
something that ESAS most definitely is *NOT*.

Indeed. But a rational launch architecture does not require ignoring
a huge, close, and convenient source of raw materials in favor of
leaps into the unknown.

-- Roy L

If you want huge, close and convenient, you're standing on it.

All you need to do is protect the life-support systems from the
murder-suicide wackos that are all about and you get to explore the only
planet in the known universe with actual life on it. If you can't pass
that test, you are far too nuts to be allowed past the chainlink fence at
any launch sites, and security has shoot-to-kill rules of engagement in
effect.

Got it? Good. Now get to it.

Oh, yeah... Nobody who hasn't lived in an apartment building passes the
psych tests. If you hate closeness to people, don't apply because there
are no openings for you.

I thought you said 'war hero'. There are no heroes in war, only fools.


I just finished reading a book titled "Flags of Our Fathers" and I must
disagree with your statement above, there are heros of war, many, they
are made from everyday people like you and me.

http://snipurl.com/wozg wrote:

wrote in :


Actually, I was actually thinking about a rational space colonization
infrastructure in LEO and GEO, and then just migrating the components to
wherever they are required, presumably Phobos for shielding, and Ceres
for water. Of course, that requires a rational launch architecture,
something that ESAS most definitely is *NOT*.
Indeed. But a rational launch architecture does not require ignoring
a huge, close, and convenient source of raw materials in favor of
leaps into the unknown.

The moon is not an insignificant gravity well, and as far as we know,
contains no readily available water. What I'm proposing, is a rational
lunar, Phobos and Ceres mapping program, as a prelude to exploration.

The goal is 2 year space flights and closed ecological life support.
That just doesn't seem like any great leap into the unknown to me.

In fact, with a functioning ISS and STS, it's just around the corner.

If you want huge, close and convenient, you're standing on it.

No ****. Plenty of water on the planet Earth.

Too bad we aren't launching much of it.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

wrote:

I thought you said 'war hero'. There are no heroes in war, only fools.


I just finished reading a book titled "Flags of Our Fathers" and I must
disagree with your statement above, there are heros of war, many, they
are made from everyday people like you and me.

In addition to making lots of dead animals and people, and blowing up
the landscape, destroying all the infrastructure. That's so heroic.

You are a fool too, I see.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org