This statement is odd to me. (Accomplishment with little or no profit is thought of as a "waste of resources"?) First of all there has been "profit" in space technology, and the promise of much more, but secondly, in the broader sense, how many people in history have contributed to human science, culture, and the arts without attaining much profit? Are their accomplishments a waste? (i.e. Better stop listening to Mr. Schubert's 9th Symphony, he didn't make any money from it. (Not that he wouldn't mind being paid!) A lot of famous scientists didn't get a big paycheck when they first developed what became far reaching theories or observations. A waste of resources? I don't think so considering later developments.

The world is such that often you can't accomplish something completely until you actually go and do it. I think among the hoax believers, there is a subgroup who basically believe that the moon landings would be impossible until everything was known about every aspect of the venture, including the moon, space, the technology. It is important to plan and build for every contingency, but if they had to be completely certain about everything, they would still be "planing" the trip. Hoax believers seem to discount the acceptance of risk that all Astronauts have. In the face of clear cut evidence of the authenticity of the Apollo program, hoax believers are ultimately blind to the human spirit.

I wish to comment on two things.

First, our friend here doesn't seem to understand the value or purpose of pure research. He thinks that the only good research is applied research, that is, research directed towards a particular goal and with profit in mind.

Pure research is not done for profit. In fact, it can be very expensive without even the promise of any recompensation for the expense. But that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. The goal of pure research is simple, to discover anything and everything you can about a particular subject (NASA's goals being space and aviation, hence the name). Why? Simply because you never know when it might come in useful. The research isn't done for one specific goal, but simply to build a body of knowledge that can be accessed at any time in the future for any reason.

Is this foolish? In the short term, maybe it seems so. Spending time, money, and effort on a big project that only might be useful. But if you look at it in the long term, such research almost always pays off. Those accessing that data have a step up right at the start. They can save time, money, and energy in their work because it's been done for them. Pure research is done to forstall the need for applied research. The data is almost always useful in some way, if only to show what has been tried before. Think of it as building an infrastructure of knowledge, facilitating research of all kinds.

There's another, almost unseen benefit to pure research. Research done for applied purposes seldom has any use outside of the goal it was done for. Once that goal is satisfied the research stops. But since in pure research you keep going without a specific need in mind, you are free to discover things you never would have known otherwise. In other words, spin-offs. Knowledge gained in one area can often be applied to other areas (and for a profit). Many of the things we take for granted have come about as a direct consequence of NASA research. Medical technology. The jets we use to fly from place to place (NASA aerospace research has helped make flying much safer), computers, materials. You name it. The link given above, http://health.discovery.com/stories/...vinglives.html shows exactly this kind of benefit.

It's only the short-sighted and unimaginative person that fails to see the benefits of pure research. I, for one, thank NASA wholeheartedly for all it's done for my benefit.

<center><hr width="40%"></center>

The second thing I wish to comment on is the ridiculous notion that Apollo could have been faked to distract from Vietnam. Well, first of all, there's nothing an Apollo hoax could have done that the real program couldn't have done also. Real missions would be just as effective as any hoax, without the worry of slipping up and getting caught. So in that regard this provides no justification for claiming it as a motive for a hoax.

But second, I think he has the psychology all wrong. I doubt very highly that people could be easily distracted from the horrors of war by such things. Jim above says as much in his reply. In fact, the sheer contrast between the horrors of war being broadcast every night on one hand and the noble exploration of space on the other would have the effect of bringing both of them into sharp relief. Far from blurring them away, it would bring them both to the forefront. Exactly the opposite effect from what he says they wanted. And I think that since there were people criticizing Apollo while it happened, and I've never read anything that says the Vietnam war was ever forgotten or ignored, there's evidence that this was the case.

Mr. ngant seems to have a very simplistic and antagonistic view of many things. His posts are riddled with anti-government and especially anti-public spending rhetoric. While I can agree with the sentiment to some extent (nobody likes pork-barrel), I just can't agree that it's as bad as all that. One of the purposes of government is to spend moneys on things that people won't or can't do for themselves. Infrastructure, social welfare, military, etc. And basic research is one of them.
_________________
David Hall
"Dave... my mind is going... I can feel it... I can feel it."

<font size="-1">(minor edit)</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: David Hall on 2002-06-24 03:29 ]</font>

I have already read some people's messages, comparing the space agency to the National Institute of Health!!! You mean we have a problem with infectious diseases in outer space? Do I miss the point of the poster?
Yes, you do. The point is that NIH, like NASA, is a research agency, and is given tax dollars to do research.

I may have demonstrated an ignorance of the Van Allen belt,,
Yes, and you have also demonstrated great ignorance about the very nature of space exploration and the space business. You came on here spouting a lot of rhetoric with nothing to back it up except an attitude.

but I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is. The NIH is a sufficient and necessary agency to address the problems related to the heath of the American people.
NIH is a necessary but not sufficient organization to address the issues of Americans' health. There are many other organizations, governmental, public, and private that are involved.

NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.
How would you know? You have clearly demonstrated that you have no knowledge about space exploration or the space business. You demean NASA as a bunch of "welfare cheats" and suggest that Moon samples' worth is measured in their suitability for common building materials. You also disregard, or more likely are completely unaware of, NASA's work in aeronautics, materials science, electronics, and the like.

If you do not want the U.S. to spend tax money for basic research in the form of space exploration, just come out and say so. Spare us the Nazi-JFK-Vietnam-and probably Elvis marginalia. And, please, make some effort to understand the topic before smugly telling us that Apollo was a hoax.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: sts60 on 2002-06-24 09:26 ]</font>

I’m sorry – I just couldn’t hold back any longer.

As others have stated - you obviously weren’t alive or old enough to remember this period in our history. If you had first hand memories of the era you wouldn’t have even thought of making such a statement. Vietnam, Civil Rights, the assignations of MLK Jr. & RFK, the Cold War (fallout drills in the halls and basements of schools), etc. are the topics that defined our lives during those times. My memories of the images of the riots in Chicago at the 1968 Democratic National Convention are almost a vivid as Apollo 11. Yes, the success of Apollo was a diversion from reality, much in the same way as going to a movie in late September 2001, but it did not divert our debate of the other issues of the day. If anything, Apollo was a thorn in the side of the sitting administrations because all of the arguments against spending the money on NASA that are made today started then. As a guess, I think there were more politicians who made out opposing NASA than the ones showing vocal support.

As for the value of NASA – I for one am very happy NASA’s “welfare” spending sped up the research and growth of micro electronics. As I’ve pointed out before else ware on this board, my mom received her first internal pacemaker in 1967, and lived another 24 years thanks to them – long enough to know and hold her youngest grandchild. This may not seem significant to you, but my family sure thinks it was a good thing!

I'll get down off my soap box now.

Before I respond to all the posting being generated from my response, I might direct you to the following links for historical interest:

http://prouty.org/other.html
you can see one of my articles posted there:

http://prouty.org/271.html

Reading my commentary, you can read the political agenda which NASA had against Pres. JFK, tantamount to treason against the Commander-in-Chief!

__________________
Our welfare cheats aren't driving Cadillacs in the ghettos of New York. They are manuevering Space Shuttles through extra-terrestrial junkyards.

So let me get this straight...

NASA had JFK assasinated becasue, after stating we would place a man on the moon by the end of the decade (He's the one that said it, not NASA). He went back and said NASA had to work with the russians, whom JFK wanted to show up by going to the moon in the first place. So NASA had him killed, becasue he wasn't going to the moon, but it was impossible to send men to the moon so they had to fake the whole thing. In a nutshell, they killed JFK so they could fake going to the moon...

Hmmm, yeah gotcha...

OCCAM'S RAZOR PLEASE!!!!

__________________

"Ignorance has caused more calamity then malignity" H.G. Well



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Rift on 2002-06-25 05:28 ]</font>

Straighter:
BS

ngant17

A few comments on some aspects of your commentary:

“Moreover, a former head of NASA's moon flight program, Dr. B. Holmes, publically stated in an ABC television interview in Sept. 1963 that a Soviet-American mission to the moon would be, "a very costly, very inefficient, probably a very dangerous way to execute the program." “

Holmes was already critical of NASA for its decision to use Lunar Orbit Rendezvous for Apollo. I think we can see here a man who was critical of any expedient decision which might endanger lives.

“The Russians had officially withdrawn from the 'space race' in Oct, 1963. It is important to know this because a lot of the 1960's rightwing propaganda must be exposed for what it really was all along, a big lie.“

Yet despite this the Soviets went on through the 60s to develop a lunar lander in the form of Zond, and sent spacecraft intended to be man-rated in the future around the Moon in the period 1968 to 1970.

“It would have been impossible to justify a war against communism on the ground in 1964 if we were already peacefully co-existing with them in outer space.”

There is no reasonable way to draw this conclusion. Countries with common interests in some areas will often compete bitterly in others. For example, the Australian Prime Minister strongly supports the USA in the War on Terrorism while at the same time he heavily criticises US farm subsidies which hurt Australian farmers.

“If the foot-dragging by NASA to cooperate with the Russians had continued long enough, Pres. Kennedy may not have have signed off on the NASA appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 1964 when it would have been submitted to his desk in Dec., 1963.”

Speculation. Mr Gant has no idea what Kennedy may have done.

“Just as he [Johnson] committed American ground troops to SE Asia, which was never Pres. Kennedy's intent.”

Yet most professional historians of Kennedy’s presidency say that either he was committed to a war in Vietnam or was undecided. The idea that Kennedy was unequivocally committed to pulling out of Vietnam is unsupported by the evidence. Remember, this was the man who was President at the time of the Bay of Pigs, the building of the Berlin Wall and the Cuban Missile Crisis.

“Apollo 13 failed for technical reasons…”

So you accept that the other landings took place?

“…and 3 were cancelled by Pres. Nixon during the political crisis(Watergate) that followed the 1972 elections.”

My understanding is that NASA cancelled Apollos 18 to 20, and did so during 1970.

“…a reactionary NASA engineer, Thomas Canning.”

What qualifications must an engineer have to be classified as reactionary?

“Strangely, NASA claims it has no records on him, because he worked as an 'independent contractor'.”

Presumably on the same basis that they wouldn’t have records for all of the other hundreds of thousands of employees of private companies which were contracted to NASA.

It’s nice to see that another person is prepared to voice his opinions and stick up for people who are not swayed by everything that NASA claim.

It's not a matter of being "swayed" by what NASA claims. NASA makes very specific claims that can be tested by people who have the appropriate skill and education. Your claims, in contrast, are just vague accusations which aren't even consistent with themselves, much less with scientific fact.

Cosmic Dave replies: So what’s the difference between wasting resources (money) on looking at what man ‘allegedly’ left on the Moon and wasting money on the ISS or Space Shuttle?

Because those enterprises have value that can be recognized by reasonable people. The point remains: why should anyone go to great additional lengths to supply a very small, fanatical portion of the population with evidence they are likely to sidestep?

If the Hubble telescope has the capability to capture objects in deep space, then I’m sure it would have no problem capturing good pictures on the Moon which is considerably closer to home!

This has already been explained to you. Either learn about optics so you can discuss the topic intelligently, or admit that you have no basis for your argument.

Well, this camera has an excellent lens that can take pictures of that building 3 miles away but cannot focus on the shop over the road.

False analogy. It's like saying, "This camera can take a picture of that mountain ten miles away, but it can't take a picture of a fly's eyeball across the street."

That just doesn’t add up!

That's because you don't understand optics, while we do.

NASA hasn’t got to answer to anyone so their data and information could be rather biased!

No. People use NASA's data to perform for-profit engineering. Other scientists use NASA's data to confirm or provide the foundation for their own research. You and Mr. Gant harbor an odd fantasy that NASA can simply say what it wants about space data and no one would be the wiser. On the contrary, anyone who attempted to use that (fabricated) data would very quickly be the wiser. NASA does not have a monopoly on space knowledgfe.

Ever heard of meteorites?

Of course. And the reasons why meteorites will not suffice have already been given. Please deal with them.

NASA had a real problem with Tito going into space and even tried to tell Russia what to do.

No. NASA had a problem with Mr. Tito going to the space station, not merely into space. Russia is only one of several partners in the ISS and cannot unilaterally decide which potentially unqualified people could visit a station under construction.

Surely the same question could be asked about the many Kennedy conspiracy programs and even the film 'JFK'.

Surely it could, but you're evading the question. Please answer it.

Sheesh your dealing with Government here so why do you trust them so much when they can lie through their teeths about many other things

First of all, I do not trust the government. Instead I verify their claims and believe accordingly. NASA has provided plenty of data to allow those with appropriate skill to verify their accomplishments.

You, on the other hand, simply trust your conspiracy theorist authors without lifting a single finger to verify their claims. As soon as you get in trouble, you defer all explanation to Bennett and Percy. Well, I have spokent to Bennett and Percy at length and I am convinced they don't know much of anything about real space science or the factors involving Apollo.

To discuss the abstract notion of your argument, one can only generalize and therefore reliably presume a lie if the entity in question always lies. In short, if someone always tells the truth, you presume he's telling the truth in any one case. If he always lies, you presume he's lying in any given case. But if he tells the truth in some cases, but lies in others, you cannot generalize. You cannot reliably assume he is either lying or telling the truth. Your argument is, essentially, "The government has lied before, therefore they are lying in this particular case."

No. Since generalization in this case is unreliable, you must provide specific evidence that the government is lying in this specific case. No JFK, no cow lips, no Trilateral Commission, no face on Mars. That's all irrelevant. If you argue that NASA falsified the moon landings, you cannot weasel out of a proof by waving your hands vaguely at government untrustworthiness. You must provide a specific argument that NASA falsified the moon landings. And you haven't done that.

Firstly, lets take your word for it and say that the Hubble cannot possibly take pictures of the Apollo artifacts on the Moon.

Scientific fact is not a matter of having one's "word" taken. Go ask anyone of your acquaintance who is qualified in optics.

There is absolutely nothing stopping NASA sending a satellite with the same camera equipment that exists in spy satellites and take the pictures! This would be quite a cheap option too.

You're not an engineer or a mission planner. Your opinion on what is cheap and easy is irrelevant. Further, why should any effort and expense be undertaken in order to satisfy a fringe of the population that is likely to disregard the evidence anyway?

Can you adequately provide medical proof that says that the thickness of the Apollo craft would have sufficiently shielded the astronauts from vast amounts of radiation as not to cause any adverse effects?

Yes, but there's no need to just yet. You're the one claiming the radiation was so lethal, therefore you are the one required to provide a quantitative argument in favor of it. You have not done so. To make such an argument implies that you have performed some sort of computation to convince yourself that passage through the Van Allen belts in an Apollo spaceship would be lethal. I would like to see that computation. If you have not performed it, then you have no basis for your claim.

I concede that I do not have the knowledge to comment any further on the AGC and until such time as to having that knowledge, I will not make further judgement

Thank you for the frank admission. It actually makes you more reasonable this way. And I will provide you with any information on the AGC that you require, that I am able to find. Simply ask for what you want to know.

The Moon rock samples, which you allege can be told apart from meteorites could have been collected by a probe

Yes, but at greater difficulty than a manned landing. The Russians returned a mere ten ounces of material using technology of the 1970s. And no large samples. Apollo return core samples, bulk samples, documented samples, football-sized samples. That would be very much harder to do with unmanned spacecraft than with manned samples.

The Moon rock arguement does not prove that Man went to the Moon in the slightest.

It proves that the samples were obtained from the moon, not from pieces of the moon that fell to earth. That means someone or something had to go get them. You argue it was something, but that's a harder proposition than someone.

Remember, it must be easier to fake the moon landings than to actually do them in order for your argument to be credible.

It all boils down to a simple question of economics and priorities.

Economics, yes. Priorities, no. You make the mistake of assuming that national fiscal policy works like your personal budget. It doesn't.

$25 billion dollars would have built a lot of hospitals and schools ...

True, but you imply that the money spent on Apollo would have been spent that way if it had not been spent on Apollo. National finance is not a matter of slicing up a fixed amount of money to apportion to various worthy or less worth causes. It is a matter of the public funding what they want to fund, to the extent they wish to fund it.

The Apollo lunar program was an incredible waste of social resources in comparison to what could have been accomplished for people here on Earth.

No. The "robbing Peter to pay Paul" analogy is inapplicable. Further, it has been shown economically that every dollar spent on space and space research returns seven hard dollars within ten years in commercial application and public benefit.

I would also argue (again) that there is no such thing as a private enterprise in the space business

You have asserted this several times, but you simply ignore the many examples of for-profit space operations. You will not prove your point simply by repeating it ad nauseam. There is very much profit, in fact, in the space industry whether you acknolwedge it or not.

Since this seems to be the backbone of your argument that space is a waste, you would do well to provide more than just wishful assertion to support it.

...otherwise NASA would have been privatized a long time ago.

No. You simply assume that NASA is responsible for everything that happens in space. As has already been explained to you numerous times, there are companies such as Boeing, TRW, Hughes, and their subcontractors who provide for-profit space solutions for a variety of tasks. They make a profit. Then there is NASA, which conducts long-term research.

Most scientific research of any value in the U.S. is funded by the government. That includes your "quality of life" research. The research (say, e.g., pharmaceutical research) done by private companies is done for the benefit of the private company that intends to profit from it. It doesn't benefit the population as a whole.

NASA knows it can’t support itself, so it has to go begging for money from Congress all the time.

Just like all those other government agencies that provide services directly to the public. Why are you so stuck on the notion of profit?

I do ask them to tell me how they capitalize the cost of putting these
“cost-effective” satellites into orbit.

You seem to have all the answers. You tell me.

No one wants to bear the costs of
sending the darn thing into orbit, except the welfare recipients at NASA.

NASA does not launch commercial satellites at public expense! What kind of fantasy world are you living in? The customer who buys the satellite pays for the costs of launching it. Back when this was done on the space shuttle, the private companies paid the government an appropriate launch fee to the tune of $10,000 per pound.

Today there is lots of competition in the launch vehicle and launch site market. You are simply turning a blind eye to it, apparently because you don't want your "wasteful NASA" bubble burst. All I can say is that you are probably the least informed person on the subject of commercial space launches I have ever met.

As for the political implications of Apollo, it was once suggested that the publicity of Apollo missions were being
used to divert the public's attention from the war in Vietnam. This is not my original assertion.

Fine, but it's still a poor assertion. In general, the same people who supported the war in Vietnam supported Apollo. And the same people who objected to Vietnam objected to Apollo. Further, the Apollo challenge was issued in 1961 when the war in Vietnam was perceived to be going well.

I won’t spoil the ending for you, except to say that it turns out that the man isn’t so crazy after all.

Oh, well, if a Hollywood movie suggests it, then it must obviously be true. You do realize the difference between fact and fiction, don't you?

I know at least two people who died from melanoma, which is a form of skin cancer that comes from getting sun-burned from the sunlight here in Earth.

Sorry to hear that, but what does that have to do with the Van Allen belts?

What does your quantitative data actually mean when we are already at a serious health risk ...

It means we know the causes of melanoma and the response of biological organisms to continuous long-term exposure to ultraviolet electromagnetic waves, and we also know the effects of high-energy particles on those same biological organisms after short-term exposure. And we know precisely and quantitatively what's different about them.

Unfortunately you don't seem to know this. And this is why you come off sounding like a nut when you try to talk about radiation.

... and the Van Allen belt where there isn’t any any ozone to protect
us?

But there's a perfectly good spacecraft, and a carefully planned trajectory.

Do you really think I am going to believe that wearing a hat made out of aluminum foil is going to protect me from atomic/cosmic radioactive particles?

What you believe is irrelevant. What you can prove is what's interesting. You claim the radiation in space, specifically in the Van Allen belts, is invariably lethal. But you have provided no argument to prove this, only ignorant references to irrelevant examples and lots and lots of handwaving.

I am not convinced. I want quantitative data.

Why are we scared of a nuclear war then?
The Sun is just a gigantic nuclear explosion that will continue for the next 10 or 20 billion years

If you knew anything about radiation -- what it is, what produces it, how to measure it, and how to measure its effects on things -- you could discuss intelligently the difference between the sun and a nuclear explosion. But since you don't seem to want to know anything about it, there's little use pointing out the obvious differences.

so since radiation is so harmless

For the second time, it is not our contention that radiation is "harmless". We contend, rather, that various means were employed to reduce the exposure of the Apollo astronauts to a safe level. Why do you keep rewriting our arguments?

You can experiment for yourself by putting a cockroach in your microwave and observing how long it takes to kill it.

You have discussed nuclear explosions, which cause biological damage at some ranges chiefly through x-rays and gamma rays. You have discussed the sun, whose danger to space travel is chiefly by means of energetic particles. You have now introduced the concept of microwaves, which aren't even ionizing radiation.

You're all over the map again. I assure you we are not convinced by vague, handwaving arguments completely devoid of understanding or quantitative rigor. You are talking to people who are, in some cases, experts in radiation and will want from you an expert argument.

I will acknowlege my ignorance of the radiation hazards in the Van Allen belt.

Thank you, and you should also withdraw your assertion that the Van Allen radiation is lethal until you can substantiate it. And since that forms the major pillar of your anti-Apollo argument, I'd say your conclusions were quite premature.

The data which was previously posted, mentioning the Soviet Proton 3 satellite and the "80 MeV" energies of electron flux, are basically meaningless to me.

But that's exactly the sort of thing you have to be very conversant with before you argue that certain things are impossible. You weren't and you got bitten. Bennett and Percy can't talk about this stuff. They have no clue what kinds or how much radiation is in the Van Allen belts.

You could have also supplied me with what would consist of a Letal Dose (LD) of such electron flux energies in the VA belt, and also how much time it would take to absord such a LD. For humans, of course.

I already gave you the human lethal dose (LD 50/30). It's 350-400 rems. LD 50/30 is the statistical frame of reference. Since there are numerous factors that affect how radiation affects you and how long those effects take to arise, you have to place limits. This limit is the amount of absorbed radiation that would be fatal to 50% of the population within 30 days.

The Aulis 'moon hoax' video could be one of those myths, but it has made a dramatic effect on me.

Fair enough. It was intended to. It was intended to fool people who didn't really have much knowledge or understanding of space-related sciences. There's no shame in being in that category. Most people lack the specific knowledge to see through the Aulis garbage.

But the video and the accompanying book make very astounding claims. And they supply very little evidence which actually supports those claims. And what they provide is scientifically bogus. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof -- not circular reasoning and handwaving.

Because it presented the arugument in straightforward terms, simple but powerful arguments.

But that's the problem. It oversimplifies complicated topics. Optics and heat transfer (which govern the diffuse interreflection of light) are reasonably straightforward subjects, but to fully examine them in the context of actual photographs is complicated and tedious. Bennett and Percy don't provide that level of examination. They simplify away all the nasty (but necessary) detail. Unfortunately what they have left is not useful to examine actual photographs.

I am happy that we are getting to the truth from a different perspective than what NASA is presenting.

Why are you so sure it's the truth? The stuff coming from Aulis is not any kind of legitimate alternative view of history and technology. It's a sensationalist, one-sided, fairly ignorant treatise that I have come to believe was intended to deceive its viewers/readers. It's not too difficult to show just how hard Bennett and Percy want their view of history promoted, regardless of where the facts actually point. You forget I have dealt with them and can bear witness to their duplicity.

One truism which I think I have correctly presented, and least no one has challenged me on that, is that space exploration is a waste of resources.

You've stated your opinion, but I wouldn't call that a "truism". You simply are naive about the benefits of pure research.

I can buy 1000 lbs. of concrete mix, add water to it, and make the same thing, for a total cost of under $50.00.

Very true, but the point is not that will ever need to go to the moon to get cement for use on earth. We have an essentially unlimited supply of materials for concrete on earth. Concrete in the strict sense is simply an aggregate bound together with a cement. Any solid material will work for an aggregate, and we use several kinds of cement: bitumin and Portland cement being the most common.

The latter is simply common minerals baked in a kiln until the water is gone. Then the resulting "clinker" is ground into cement. When water is added, the chemical process takes place that the kiln had previously reversed. Cement is simply cheap glue.

Why is it so significant that lunar surface material makes a natural cement? It means that when we finally get around to constructing permanent buildings on the moon, we won't have to haul Portland cement all the way up to the moon. We can simply use the materials there. It will never be necessary to obtain cement materials on the moon for use on earth.

The only value the moon rocks have is so that a few space geologists can study and analyze it ad infinitum. And get those juicey state-subsidized paychecks for doing such 'work', though I use the term quite loosely.

You really are a one-trick pony, aren't you? Do you have any other arguments besides deploring the terrible waste of government spending?

I think I can understand what a socially-useful government agency is.

But the NIH is not fiscally solvent. It is not required to turn a profit. Yet its research requires large amounts of public funding. If the NIH were required to operate as a solvent and self-sufficient unit, it would fold instantly. And not everything that NIH funds is immediately intended to alleviate specific human suffering. Much of it is what is termed "pure research" aimed at expanding understanding without attempting to solve any particular problem.

So in short, no, I don't think you know what the NIH does or whether it's a "socially useful" organization.

NASA is an insufficient and unnecessary agency to address the problems related to the exploration of outer space.

No. You're simply restating your opinion that NASA (and space exploration in general) is not a useful or worthy occupation. We have already replied that we do not agree with your interpretation. You must support it or withdraw it.

NASA didn't want the Russians to go along for the ride, because it knew that a lunar mission with the Soviets would expose its own hippocracy.

So sez you. How about a different explanation? NASA didn't want to share its vital technology with people perceived to be the enemies of the United States? You don't have to buy into that explanation, but you have to deal with it as a possibility.

No one wants to discuss that thread [alleging that Apollo was designed to distract the public from Vietnam]. It would lend credence to the possibility that a hoax was going on with Apollo.

Not at all.

First, I explained that in a broader analysis the notion that Apollo was intended as a distraction doesn't really jive with history. One columnist's opinion is not proof. But by 1971 Apollo was already more than 10 years old. The war in Vietnam didn't start going badly until the Tet Offensive, long after Apollo's course had been set.

Second, Apollo's potential for distraction does not sufficiently support an argument for a hoax. The public would be distracted equally by a hoax as by genuine landings. And the advantage of genuine landings is that they wouldn't be exposed and thus burst the public's bubble.

Is it not possible for the government to defraud the American people?

It is, but not for long. But that's a red herring anyway. The question is not whether it's possible, but whether it was actually done in this case. You must provide specific proof, not general handwaving.

That the government has lied in the past is beyond argument. That the government wil lie in the future is likely. That the government lied specifically in the case of Apollo is something that can be tested historically. You haven't done it yet. You've just offered these largely irrelevant handwaving rants.

It's good that you are looking at your state of understanding and realizing that you don't understand what you need to in order to evaluate the relative credibility of moon hoax theories. But you need to set aside your anti-government bias and realize that the question of whether Apollo was faked or not is a question of scientific and historical fact, not innuendo, and irrespective of your feelings toward NASA and the government.

ngant,

If you don't believe NASA provides any benefits to humanity, check out the following article.

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/news/releases/2002/J02-68.html

In particular the part on the solar powered refrigerator.

Among inventors being honored is Michael K. Ewert, for a patent on a solar-powered refrigeration system. It uses internal thermal storage and innovative control techniques. “What’s different and new about ours is that we eliminated the need for a battery, by using thermal storage,” said Ewert, who holds a master’s in mechanical engineering from the University of Texas at Austin and has been at JSC for about 12 years.

The idea initially was focused on providing cooling for a lunar base. “It could also be used in low Earth orbit and on Mars,” Ewert said. The refrigeration system automatically runs faster when the sun is higher and brighter.

Eliminating a battery and related equipment does away with a big maintenance item, Ewert said. He believes that mass production would make the solar-powered refrigerator more competitive price-wise. Indeed, one company is producing them now under license from NASA.

The company, SunDanze Refrigeration Inc. of Sparks, Nev., says the battery-free solar-powered refrigerator is designed for areas with at least five hours of sunlight a day. It can, the company says, keep contents cold for up to seven days during cloudy weather.

Ewert believes the technology could have wide application on Earth, because about 2 billion of the planet’s people do not have electricity. The Department of Energy is investigating the technology for refrigerated transport applications.

Have a nice day

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: jrkeller on 2002-06-26 09:38 ]</font>

I agree with alot what ngant17 has to say I'm afraid.

He's right in saying that the Space missions are a total waste of money. Several of you have posted the URLs to experiments and things that have been made from NASA research, but I haven't seen one single thing that warrants the Shuttle or ISS to be in orbit. The solar fridge could be made here on Earth, and incidently probably wouldnt work over here in the UK very well because of our lousy weather.

I was interested in the comparisons that somebody made between your health service and space exploration. The two could not be farther from each other in relation to money well spent. Some of you seem to be implying that you begrudge paying for health care, but I can assure you that if I was on the floor suffering from a heart attack or had cancer(as my father did - and died from), I would much rather see my money spent on health care rather than space travel which is not benefitting anyone here on Earth other than a few fat cat bosses raking in the money.

If you really sit back and think about it, you'll realise that most diseases here on Earth are actually curable by using natural means. ie: snakebites are cured with snake venom and headaches are cured by aspirin which is made naturally. Why man has to go into space to find a cure beats me. Why are we exactly bothering to explore space anyway when there is thousands of miles of Earth still undiscovered. We haven't even travelled to the bottom of our own oceans yet!

Some of the arguments on here are rather two faced. For instance on the one hand someone tells me that you couldn't gather more than a few ounces of moon rock with a space probe and yet in the very same thread someone else says: 'There is a lot of money in the raw metals in asteroids, as an example.' How do you suppose that NASA will get these raw metals back to Earth if they cannot use a probe to do so?

Someone else commented: 'NASA's "useless" space exploration has led to such advances as communications satellites, fiber-optic networks, water purification systems, advanced ceramics, digital watches, cordless tools, CAT scans and MRIs. There is no ER or ICU in the world that does not owe it's success to the space program's medical telemetry developments.'

So NASA actually took an MRI machine into space and worked on it until it was finished? No my friend, all these developments were created on Earth.

I thought that satellites were invented by Arther C. Clarke and not NASA anyway?

Oh yes almost forgot....

Didn't Col. Corso say that lasers, fibre optics, digital watches etc were created after back engineering the Roswell debris?

Of course NASA would have learnt from that data.

Just a thought.... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]