Will 'Moon Water' become NASA's WMD fiasco?

On Oct 11, 3:05*am, "J0nathan" wrote:
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message

.. .

Erm given lead times for projects you have to have things like this.

If this mission was started before Griffin took office, then he's
off the hook for accusations of a self-serving mission, meant
to manufacture justifications for the moon shot.

However....that's not the case.

Michael Griffin began his duties as the 11th Administrator of the
NASA on April 14, 2005.http://www.nasa.gov/about/highlights/griffin_bio.html

April 10, 2006
"NASA today announced that a small, 'secondary payload' spacecraft,
to be developed by a team at NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field,
Calif., has been selected to travel to the moon to look for precious water
ice at the lunar south pole in October 2008."http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/2006/06_21AR.html

The key
is what you do with the results. Do you not find it interesting that there are
signatures of water if there is no water than someone will have to find out
why the expected water is not there.

The initial press release after impact claimed success because
all the hardware seemed to work and they're bound to learn
something as a result. That's fine, but success is whether there's
enough water for a colony. Failure is if there's not enough water for one..
As this is about building a colony...right there...on the south pole, not
about pure research.

What is that threshold? Even in ballpark terms?
They won't say ( I bet) so they can claim success no matter what
and not let it become a setback for the men on the Moon.

I oppose a colony, and a negative result would be ...evidence....
arguing against sending men back to the Moon. At least
for the south pole.

Let the chips fall where they may should be the expectation
if this is about pure science only. But I'm not going to sit here
and say it's OK for them to use double-speak by claiming
success while not finding any water, if they don't end up
finding any. Is this science or not? Do the results matter or not?

I predicted weeks ago they wouldn't find any. And I repeat
that prediction now. Why? Because looking around the
sky at night, I can think of only one place between here and
the flippin' Andromeda galaxy that's more desolate, dryer
and less hospitable than the Moon. *Only Mercury would be
a worse place to put a colony within */two thousand light years/
from here for crying out loud.

Elegantly bad decisions have a way of looking bad from just
about any perspective. Which is how I know no matter what
they do the results will stink.

You have to keep in mind, my hobby of complexity science
is all about using the output in order to understand the inputs.
You guys do the opposite. The output with the idea of a moon
colony is so bad, from so many angles, that I know with complete
certainty the input side, the decision making, the motives etc
are all either corrupt or driven by ulterior motives
such as the military.

There can be no other alternatives.

That's how I know before even looking up the dates above
that this mission isn't about curiosity, but about bolstering
the moon shot only. And no matter the actual results they
will claim success for that end. That's how I know they won't
find enough water for a colony before it happens, because
the motives are politically driven, meant to manufacture
justifications. It has to be since the final goal, a colony was
announced before the needed info was gathered.

So whatever they gather must serve the pre-conceived goal.
Not to let the data guide us to the best goal.

The output, a moon colony, *has boxed them in to such
an extent they have no other choice. Anyone should be
able to see can see this coming before it even happens.

That's what happens when you arbitrarily create the output
...first. All the inputs have to be massaged to serve that
pre-determined end.

Naturally created goals allow the output to find itself
as the process advances. Corrupt or man-made goals
massage the processes to serve the pre-conceived end.

We can see vividly with the Vision just how badly
corrupt or man-made goals progress. The longer
the term, the worse it gets. As it becomes the result
of piles of massaged and manufactured reasoning
and hardware.

The chemistry and other processes which
govern our universe are surely important to understand.

But emergent creations are far more interesting. Hence
biology is far more compelling than geology.
The game is on Mars with the search for life.
We need to answer that first, before deciding
if colonizing is worthwhile.

Complexity science uses the output as the initial source
of laws and understanding. So, it is life which tells
us how the physical universe works.

Always look to the emergent properties for universal law.
Not the simplest, but the most complex the universe
has to offer, is the proper source of fundamental law.

You guys still live in the Dark Ages ya know, still thinking
the simplest particles and forces, reducing, are the source
of fundamental law.

Pfffftt.

The current world view of science is so backwards, exactly
and completely backwards, as to be almost laughable, if it
weren't so tragic for humanity.

Jonathan

s

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"J0nathan" wrote in message
...

President Bush decided to invade Iraq first, then ...later
contrived a single, compelling justification for the decision.
Hence the WMD scandal.

The decision to return men to the Moon was also made
years ago, yet to this day NASA struggles to present
persuasive reasons for such an expensive long term program.
They've obviously settled on 'Moon Water' as their
single, compelling justification.

The primary result of LCROSS is already in!

And the result is that it's clear NASA completely misjudged
the surface conditions there. Yet, a colony is long planned for
the site and the hardware is being designed....before
anyone knows if the site is suitable for a colony.
Before they know if there's enough water for a colony.

The 'cart is before the horse'!

In the coming weeks, if the data shows little or no 'Moon Water'
then it'll be as politically devastating to the Moon shot
as the not finding WMD's in Iraq.

Someone stop this train wreck please?

And let's simply go 'back to the future'.
Where justifications flow like...Earth Water.
Space Solar Power!

Jonathan

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

s

For someone supposedly as intelligent as yourself, why are you so
ignorant or in denial of what the planet Venus has to offer?

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 11, 3:05 am, "J0nathan" wrote:

s

For someone supposedly as intelligent as yourself, why are you so
ignorant or in denial of what the planet Venus has to offer?


It's too hot and too far away.




~ BG

On Oct 19, 6:06*pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Oct 11, 3:05 am, "J0nathan" wrote:

s
For someone supposedly as intelligent as yourself, why are you so
ignorant or in denial of what the planet Venus has to offer?

It's too hot and too far away.

As I thought, you are so technology ignorant or stuck in obfuscation/
exclusion mode of mainstream denial, as to avoiding what the planet
Venus has to offer.

I thought you knew something about science and physics. Sorry, my
mistake.

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Oct 19, 6:06 pm, "jonathan" wrote:

It's too hot and too far away.

As I thought, you are so technology ignorant or stuck in obfuscation/
exclusion mode of mainstream denial, as to avoiding what the planet
Venus has to offer.

I thought you knew something about science and physics. Sorry, my
mistake.

~ BG


I'm here to sell people on the idea of replacing a moon shot
with SSP. So sell me on your ideas about Venus. I haven't
really seen your pitch in any detail.

On Oct 21, 4:32*pm, "not-jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Oct 19, 6:06 pm, "jonathan" wrote:

It's too hot and too far away.
As I thought, you are so technology ignorant or stuck in obfuscation/
exclusion mode of mainstream denial, as to avoiding what the planet
Venus has to offer.
I thought you knew something about science and physics. *Sorry, my
mistake.
*~ BG

I'm here to sell people on the idea of replacing a moon shot
with SSP. So sell me on *your ideas about Venus. I haven't
really seen your pitch in any detail.

This is not a proper topic for this, so I'll start a new topic:

"Why the hell not Venus / Brad Guth"

On Oct 21, 4:32*pm, "not-jonathan" wrote:
"BradGuth" wrote in message

...
On Oct 19, 6:06 pm, "jonathan" wrote:

It's too hot and too far away.
As I thought, you are so technology ignorant or stuck in obfuscation/
exclusion mode of mainstream denial, as to avoiding what the planet
Venus has to offer.
I thought you knew something about science and physics. *Sorry, my
mistake.
*~ BG

I'm here to sell people on the idea of replacing a moon shot
with SSP. So sell me on *your ideas about Venus. I haven't
really seen your pitch in any detail.

First off, there’s nothing wrong with SSP, as it’s an honest motivated
technology concept that needs some fine tuning and otherwise it needs
a fair amount of a public funded opportunity that I’m willing to go
along with a 50/50 investment, of half private matched by half public
loot. Unfortunately, you seem more than a little bogus with your
” and that stealth phony name of “not-jonathan”, not to
mention having posted no apparent topics related to SSP or even as
having contributed to others that have. As we can safely say, you’re
a phony as a three dollar bill, and I’ll bet that you’re Jewish and
Republican to boot.

However, the basic sales pitch for Venus:
The planet Venus is unlike our naked and crystal dry moon, or even
unlike much of Earth that’s energy starved and becoming resource
depleted in any sense of being affordably so, whereas the planet Venus
is on the other hand downright toasty as hell but rather nicely
overloaded with renewable energy as is, and there are relatively few
shortages (including water) that’ll ever need to be imported from
Earth. I have a good hundred zingers that’ll further embellish what
Venus has to offer, though I’m pretty sure that you’re not honestly
interested.

Think of Venus as the ultimate mineral and raw element candy shop of
just about anything you can imagine, along with its very own surplus
of local energy to burn (so to speak). Even though we’ll be at best
second to whomever is already there, it’s certainly nearby and large
enough, as well as geologically active enough for accommodating us and
a few others to mine and share its wealth. But then you’re not really
here to honestly mine or share anything, so what’s the difference?

~ BG

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...

Think of Venus as the ultimate mineral and raw element candy shop of
just about anything you can imagine, along with its very own surplus
of local energy to burn (so to speak).

That's not in dispute. Collecting it and getting it here is the problem.
Any ideas needs to be somewhat practical, at least not go too far
beyond the bounds of possibility. Which is why I oppose the whole
to the Moon and Mars notion. It's such a long long road, how can
you get enough support for something so distant in the future?
Where even our children won't see the results, let alone us?
Stretch an idea too thin, in breaks.

Even though we'll be at best
second to whomever is already there, it's certainly nearby and large
enough, as well as geologically active enough for accommodating us and
a few others to mine and share its wealth. But then you're not really
here to honestly mine or share anything, so what's the difference?


I've been here for several years, saying the same things over and over.
It seems to annoy OM and Pat when I change my handle around
that's all that's about. I think killfiling is juvenile, and I'm treating them
in kind.

~ BG