For most people, us going to the moon is fact. We know we went. Let's forget about hoaxs for just a moment and ask, "WHEN the hell are we going back?". Ofcourse i'm sure it's a matter of money but you must also consider the sad fact that we probably don't need to go back. And that really is sad because it's not really fair some folks got to go there while the rest of us just get to wish and hope [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img] ....

We've probably done most if not all we can there, atleast for now. But surely we will need to go back one day for "other" reasons. I wasn't alive back in the day but i am now and i would LOOOOVE to witness man walking on the moon LIVE as it happens and with today's technology such as TV cameras that "SHOULD" provide a much better picture for TV than back in '69....

So, can i get an ETA on this, or what? My guess is NASA has been thinking about it. And i reckon they will do it once again but it'll be years down the road unless they already created another craft to get us there. I'm sure they don't plan to use the old technology stuff, although i can't imagine what craft they could come up with to make the landing other than the grand daddy original...

The Chinese are planning to send a man to the Moon by 2010, but I don't know how likely they are to make that deadline, or how likely it is that we'll get to watch if they do.

They will let us, just so they can gloat over it. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_razz.gif[/img] And I wouldn't be surprised once they got there if they claimed the Moon for themselves or at least put up a bigger flag than ours. Here is some good information on it, http://www.astronautix.com/craft/chirbase.htm -Colt

__________________
Be not afraid of any man no matter what his size; when danger threatens, call on me, and I will equalize.

Oh, not even close. Not even close. In 2001, Paul Spudis (staff scientist and deputy director of the Lunar and Planetary Institute in Houston, Texas) said:

"We’ve been to the Moon, which is a world with a land area the size of Africa. But we’ve only visited six spots, and the farthest we’ve roamed was maybe 3 or 4 miles (5 or 6 kilometers). There’s a whole world to explore there and a lot we don’t know."

Imagine landing in Africa in only 6 places travelling only a few miles away from the Africa Lander (AL) in each case. Nobody would then say: "Well, now we have seen all there is to see in Africa. Lets try something else next time."

Things still to do: A pole landing (the moon´s South Pole probably), a landing on the far side of the moon, the creation of astronomical observatories on the far side, the search for minerals - lunar mining, etc. etc. etc.

As a thought experiment, let's just think for a minute about mining the Moon. Let's assume for a moment that the mineral you're interested in is just lay about on the surface. Great big lumps of gold or diamonds just scattered all over, and all you've got to do is stuff it into bags and return to Earth. How much would this exercise cost? I'm betting a lot more than the value of the minerals you're bringing back. If we then add up the cost if we do have to actually dig for the stuff, it just doesn't make sense to mine the Moon.

We shouldn't be going back to the moon until we get our own house in order; until we start growing up and behaving like decent human beings. But I fear Edgar Mitchell may well be right. The United States will probably puff itself out and flex its muscles when the Chinese actually start demonstrating realistic signs of achieving what they have set out to do.

What then if we went there for Helium-3 ... instead of gold and diamonds ?


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Bad_Moon_Rising on 2002-11-28 19:38 ]</font>

And Helium-3 is useful because..? A bit bulky to stuff in a bag too.

For energy purposes. Mankind will probably survive without gold and diamonds, but without energy ... Who knows what the world looks like in 20 or 30 years.

So... you think we should never go back to the Moon, then?

And you will not believe for what reason?

http://wiolawapress.com/moon_/moon_3basecratercut1.gif

http://wiolawapress.com/moon.htm

For the sake of discussion of course and dont take it seriously!

I think we should, but not until we demonstrate a willingness to change our selfish ways. I share the view of others in that space exploration can play a major part in fostering a raised level of consciousness.

It would be a sad day if the United States makes a return trip for less noble reasons, like one-upmanship, etc. It will be even sadder if the world looks on and applauds.

President Kennedy had the right idea:

"Why ... should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of national competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research, construction, and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries -- indeed of all the world -- cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending someday in this decade to the moon not the representatives of a single nation, but the representatives of all of our countries."

<a name="2-11-29.NG"> page 2-11-29.NG aka I don't want to "GO"
What I want is a computer GROUP that works.
I was out to My neices for Turkey day..
yes yes this 486 is actullly her's
I have a 386/20 remember.. WEll? she has a new
whatever 633something or outher as i recall
So I tride her "ME" {Mellenium addition} for
you Astronomey types.. Talk about tiny..
i could just barily see the print ..BOO1
and all that graphics {excessive} boo2
I did get to see http://www.lehappy.com
photo of Corinna in Love {yeahhh} {{Java Uno}} now back to *

Kennedy's vision and idealism required true leadership to bring to reality. Unfortunately, the world has seen very few political leaders with that ability, and based on the pattern, will see even fewer in the future.

We won't "get our house in order" as a species. If anything, during the time when expenditures globally on space exploration have been declining, the world has become increasingly polarized, and the gap between rich and poor is greater than ever. It is, and has always been, man's quest for knowledge that separates us from the rest of the animal world. The rivalries and friction among the world's countries, religions and socio-economic systems are neither helped nor hindered by expenditures on science and discovery. It is naiive to think otherwise.

I don't see the simplistic link between diverted investment in exploration and things getting better on earth. If Apollo had never happened does anyone believe the world would be substantially different today? Where would the $30 billion have gone? In fact, assume it could have gone anywhere you choose and tell us how that redirected expenditure would have made a lick of difference to the world we see today (other than some technological advancements that would have been somewhat later in arriving).

It's easy to dream of a world we'd like to see - think "Imagine" by John Lennon - but imagining and doing are poles apart.

I just don't see what going to the moon - or Mars, or anywhere else has to do with it.

I don't think there is any doubt that Kennedy made many mistakes during his presidency. People have since argued that, contrary to the Camelot vision, he, and he alone, brought us to the brink of nuclear annihilation, and that his actions were nothing short of reckless. But, more recently, with the release of White House tape recordings, it transpires that it was Kennedy who played for time and resisted the unrelenting pressure for war after all, against the advise of almost everyone around him. So we have come full circle.

In any case, I don't think his problem was with leadership. I think, as Sergei Khrushchev points out, the problem was that the "inertia of established conceptions was just too strong," and that some of JFK's plans were just too bold for his day.

To quote Kennedy:

"Let us examine our attitude toward peace itself. Too many of us think it is impossible. Too many think it unreal. But that is dangerous, defeatist belief. It leads to the conclusion that war is inevitable -- that mankind is doomed -- that we are gripped by forces we cannot control.

"We need not accept this view. Our problems are manmade -- therefore, they can be solved by man. And man can be as big as he wants. No problem of human destiny is beyond human beings. Man's reason and spirit have often solved the seemingly unsolvable -- and we believe they can do it again."

http://www.cs.umb.edu/jfklibrary/j061063.htm

I beg to differ. I think space exploration can offer us a perspective that is very precious indeed. If this perspective was afforded the priority it deserves, and propagated properly, then I believe it would help to heal a great many rifts.

As Eugene Rabinowitch once said, "In facing cosmic space, the quarrels and struggles between different factions of humanity appear petty and irrelevant."

Unfortunately, the miracle of Earth seems lost on most people. But then that is because we are such a selfish and ignorant bunch. And I don't mean ignorant in a "Speak for yourself, Karamoon. You are the one who thought NASA staged the manned lunar landings, not us" kind of way. I mean ignorant in a much more fundamental way.

Going back to the moon would probably happen a lot faster if we'd abandon our multi-billion dollar boondoggle...er, "laboratory" in low earth orbit. Who was the Snake-oil seller who duped us into putting that expensive erector set up there in the first place??

__________________
"Is that a laser pointer? Well...that's fantastic! I mean...wow..that's just...GREAT!"
-Donald Rumsfeld before a Nov. 2001 speech
(His enthusiasm was muted, however, when he learned he could not guide a bomb with it.)

Botiemaster wrote:

//I'm sure they don't plan to use the old technology stuff, although i can't imagine what craft they could come up with to make the landing other than the grand daddy original... //

I don't think it COULD use the "old technology stuff" if it wanted to; there's been a tremendous loss of experience-based skills since then, and heavens know if MIT even kept all the old program documentation around (I know IBM threw most of the Skylab stuff out after the missions and before NASA et al. realized they'd have to reactivate the computers to keep it from landing on somebody's head).

Given the advantages in microprocessors and integrated circuits, any new spacecraft would be able to have even smaller computers (and therefore would probably be able to handle some of the things itself that were farmed out to ground control during Apollo). Any spacecraft design would probably reflect that.

Other than that, I don't know what engineering advances or rethinkings have been made that might also affect design -- and if NASA wanted to send people for weeks rather than days, that would mean more design changes.

__________________
Sincerely, Luriko-Ysabeth

"Everything explodes. Everything."
-- Law #11 of Anime Physics

I'm inclined to agree with heliopause. The ISS is very bad idea, as is the space shuttle and NASA focus its resources else where. Oh, Karamoon why don't challenge the Defense Deparment on the issue of putter our house in order. After all, they have over 1 TRILLION dollars unaccounted for(http://abcnews.go.com/sections/2020/...rds021004.html). I think you will come to the conclusion that there is plenty of money for putting our affairs in order and space. Also, it appears as though you think that greed is a very bad motivator for the exporation of space. This would be a grave mistake. Greed is one of the most powerful, no, the most powerful, motive a person can have. Now, I think it would be relatively easy to harness greed in order to explore, and exploit, space.

One more thing Karamoon, would you care to post on the nuclearspace.com forum (http://pub97.ezboard.com/bnuclearspace). We haven't had anyone how opposes nuclear power in space, which I suspect you do, for over a month. And even if you do, we always could use new members.

In my opinion the ISS is not so much a boondoggle as just a superb example of doing everything the wrong way. The US government has been so scared to commit itself to the project that it has never once wholeheartedly supported it. From the beginning it has looked for ways not to saddle itself with the full burden, bringing on a whole host of other nations and the logistical and communicative headaches that go along with it. And now, with everything going (predictably) over budget and behind schedule, they refuse to put in the money and effort needed to get it up and running at full steam. NASA, who I believe never wanted it to turn out this way, is left holding the budget bag, and has had to eek out solutions as best as they can. They've had to reduce crew to a minimum amount, and they've been forced to cancel the "lifeboat" system they planned to develop. It's no wonder things are falling apart when they have their hands so tied. If only we could just get full support to get everything up to speed, then we'd start seeing this thing produce useful output.

So yes, the ISS is a kind of white elephant, but the fault lies in Washington, not NASA.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

<a name="2-12-01.MBa"> page 2-12-01.MBa aka Moon Back
On 2002-12-01 03:29, David Hall wrote: To? 4:29 A.M. PST
.1 I will not be "going Back to the Moon"
4me its the back of the Moon where i'll direct my focus
in spacific the Mesa above King? but anyway
Listen {if you can}{{Ha}} (and remember it was '98)
(( when those Mac's WERE removed )) :: w.c & M.M both
Ok YES,yes its a Com problem well Just call it an ACTIVE radio problem
its very, Very, VERY clear the Go.Mint (FCC) does NOT want low cost communications
thus 2 mile range for FSR {whos deleting WhOs Whta} You know very well WHO . HUb'

it just doesn't make sense to mine the Moon.

It does if you don't plan on bringing it back.
The Moon can be mined for materials to be used to support moon bases or for materials to be used in space.

Tom