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

On Oct 28, 6:06 pm, Neil Gerace wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:42 am, Paul Foley wrote:

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.

30 years ago, in 1977, the US would have found it utterly
impossible :-)

That's the whole truth and nothing but the truth. (utterly impossible,
even as of today it is not human DNA friendly, nor do we have a viable
lander)
- Brad Guth -

Joe Strout wrote:

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.


When he first arrived he stated that he did drugs, and that he intended
to post things he really didn't really belive in to see how people
reacted to them.
In short, he looks upon himself as the researcher and the people in the
newsgroups he posts to as something like mice running around in his maze.

Pat

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:11:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:

"robert casey" wrote in message
...
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.

From Space Command Stategic Statememt for '07

"Americans have come to rely on the unhindered use of
space-they will demand no less in the future. To protect
the space domain and deliver effects, Air Force Space Command
is pursuing investments in an array of capabilities. The United
States is committed to supporting the peaceful use of space
by all; however, prudence demands we ensure our Nation, Allies
and coalition partners have unobstructed access to space
capabilities."

"We know we will be challenged in the future-both by those who wish
to do us harm and by our own resource limitations. It no longer takes a
sophisticated adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

"We have a duty to secure the entire space domain.not just for
our own military.but for our Nation and for the benefit of the
free world. To do this, we must focus our efforts on two
objectives - improved space situational awareness and
enhanced command and control. First, we must achieve true
space situational awareness.the ability to not only track
and catalog any object, but also to determine its capabilities,
purpose and intent. Only when we've obtained a clear picture
of the entire space environment will we fully realize our
second objective - enhanced command and control over
space assets.
http://www.afspc.af.mil/shared/media...070412-128.pdf


Conspicuously absent from your citation, is any mention whatsoever
of the Moon.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:23:24 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


"Frank Glover" wrote in message
.. .


Yes. A case might be made for some kinds of backup communications
relays (in the event that most other near-Earth milsatcoms are taken
out)there,at the Moon is a not-easily destroyed platform. But only if
you already had the infrastructure for other reasons. It's not
justifiable by itself.


And since the Chinese asat test showed just about anything
in orbit is vulnerable, how does that change the equation?
If we're denied orbital assets, where else could we place
such intelligence gathering capabilities? It's obvious
the moon is not only a much more secure than orbit
but it defines the 'high ground' too.

Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon.
Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the
missile defense stuff, on Jupiter.


--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...


Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon.
Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the
missile defense stuff, on Jupiter.


A very weak response. I expected better.

If a head of state, Putin, publicly states that
they intend to discuss with the US future
arrangements for a missile defense base
on the moon, that is perfectly good evidence
of our intentions. Combine that with our
very aggressive stated policy on space, and
my conclusion is rather well founded.

Yours is based on what...exactly? That the
moon is really really far away?







--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 28 Nov 2007 20:11:04 -0500, "Jonathan"
wrote:


Conspicuously absent from your citation, is any mention whatsoever
of the Moon.


If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese
asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the
statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated
adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"?

The moon is the logical alternative. You know I'm right.





--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-951-9107 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese
asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the
statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated
adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"?

The moon is the logical alternative.


Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather
too far away...

"robert casey" wrote in message
...

If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese
asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the
statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated
adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"?

The moon is the logical alternative.


Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather
too far away...



Putin mentioned possible missile defense bases
on the moon. Here's a quote by the NY Times from
a couple of years ago.

"Last March, Luan Enjie, director of the China National
Aerospace Administration, described the Moon as
''the focal point wherein future aerospace powers
contend for strategic resources.''


Do I need to explain what stategic means? And these
quotes were from before the Chinese asat test. When
we still thought we could defend our orbital assets.


''The Moon is a beachhead,'' said Alice Slater, director
of the Global Resource Action Center for the Environment,
a private group in New York. ''It's the high ground from
which they want to control space'' she said of the
Bush administration."
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...C0A9629C8B 63



And if you think I'm equally nuts for claiming we
intend to militarize space, read this quote from
the horses mouth...and this was before Bush.
Before 9/11 and before the Chinese asat test
and before our new aggresive space policy.


"As General Joseph Ashy, then commander in chief
of the US Space Command, put it in 1996: 'It's politically
sensitive, but it's going to happen. Some people don't
want to hear this, and it sure isn't in vogue, but --
absolutely -- we're going to fight in space. We're going
to fight from space and we're going to fight into space.
' Ashy spoke of 'space control,' the US military's term
for controlling space, and space force application,' its
definition for dominating Earth from space. Said General Ashy:
'We'll expand into these two missions because they will
become increasingly important. We will engage terrestrial
targets someday -- ships, airplanes, land targets -- from space.
We will engage targets in space, from space.'"
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._71634855/pg_5



What do you guys need, a picture of a room full of
generals pointing to a picture of the moon? With the
caption reading.....place military base here?


This is not a hard case to make.


s

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007 18:23:06 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:

And since the Chinese asat test showed just about anything
in orbit is vulnerable, how does that change the equation?
If we're denied orbital assets, where else could we place
such intelligence gathering capabilities? It's obvious
the moon is not only a much more secure than orbit
but it defines the 'high ground' too.

Yes, but Jupiter is far more secure, and "higher", than the Moon.
Obviously, we must put all our space assets, particularly the
missile defense stuff, on Jupiter.

It's all a ruse, I tell you! We're not going back to the Moon at all,
that's just a smokescreen for...

OUR SECRET PRISON ON MARS!

We're going to round up all those innocent Muslim jihadists and send
them on big LockMart spaceships that will take them to the
LockMart-run prison at Olympus Mons. China and India know what we're
up to, so they're sending their own spy satellites to Mars (you don't
really think all this money is being spent just to go BACK to the MOON
do you?) to get better intel.

Yes! It's obviously TRUE! What's wrong with all of you that you just
can't see THE TRUTH? All your arguments that prisons on Earth are a
lot cheaper are just BALONEY!

Here's are links that prove it...

"http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-08-31-nasa-lockheed-moon_x.htm"

"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5918-2004Dec16.html"

Brian :-)

On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, robert casey wrote:
If our priority is better observation and tracking, and the Chinese
asat test shows earth orbit is not a very safe place, as the
statement indicated with " It no longer takes a sophisticated
adversary to impact space and ground systems..."

Then what is the alternative to "space and ground"?

The moon is the logical alternative.

Yes, the Moon would be hard to take out with an ASAT, but it's rather
too far away...

China has infact proven pin-point impactors are entirely doable, and
there's nothing stopping an impactor from including that nifty H-Bomb,
or something worse. Perhaps we ott to be nicer to China, or else.
- Brad Guth -