Moon Base ''Questionable,'' John Glenn Says
 

ANother cock up from NASA? All of its former Astronauts can't even see the value in what NASA is doing anymore. This is the second former Astronaut to trump on a NASA's plans in a week!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...Moon073108.xml

-S

HUMBUG............

I GIVE YOU SPACE:1999

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAt60HrSkzI

It seems as though there was an "I can do" spirit in NASA back 40 years ago or so. Now they are of the "I cannot do" mind set and want more money for doing jack squat. You do what we would call a "bottom blow down" and get rid of them and put people in there who will lead the program once again.

Well a moon base is entirely possible. Would it take a long time? Hell yes. Would it be risky? Definitely. Is it IMpossible? Not in the least.

I've got a manual downstairs from the 1980s that a family friend gave to me. He worked for NASA, and the manual itself details plans for building a base on Mars. He took it from the dumpster outback (a base on Mars by 2010 was not at all plausible, as I'm guessing the government found out; NASA itself only helped with the idea, but the government was responsible for posing the question).

If I get time this week, I'll dig through and try to find it. I'll post scans of it if I do. I'll probably go through tomorrow. Be warned, I've got a lot of junk down there.

When has something being enormously expensive and ineffective ever stood in the way of government?

Ineffective? Are you aware of how much potential a moon base would have for the advancement of science and for the advancement of space colonization?

If we intend to move deeper and deeper and explore the solar system (let alone the galaxy), then we're going to have to start somewhere, and the first step is establishing a base out there on a place other than Earth. The moon, being the closest thing to us, is the first logical place to start.

:rotfl::rotfl:

-S

As much as it pains me to agree with anything John Glenn says, I can see his point.

If the objective under consideration is whether "placing a base on the moon to facilitate human exploration of outer space" is the best solution, I would have to agree.

An orbiting station would probably be the best way to assemble a spacecraft for interplanetary travel.

The problem is that the orbiting station has to be in the "right" orbit to facilitate travel. Not just any orbit will do. So since the moon is orbiting the earth (or more precisely both are orbiting each other) the question should be "is the moon in the orbit that makes it easier to travel to other planets?"

If the answer is no, which I expect, then building an earth orbiting station in the proper orbit would be the most feasible.

ps for further reading, I can highly recommend the book "Understanding Space"
http://www.astrobooks.com/index.asp?...OD&ProdID=1020

Agree 100%

The concentration should be Mars, not the moon. The moon can come later. Mars now has proven resources that will allow colinization without the need of basic materials from Earth. The moon however will need to be supported.

This is the problem. Mars is the next step. Breaking free of Mars gravity is also an easy thing to do.

-S

A) In today's world, no.
B) Let's start when it is economically viable. NASA is not a good start. Neither is any other government space agency. When colonizing the moon or any planet or any extraterrestrial body becomes profitable, it's fine. But as long as said government agencies can't send people to the moon or whatever without it costing billions of dollars that we will never recoup by any government initiative, no it is not good.

Private industry will reach into space when the time is right. We can pursue space exploration without needlessly draining finite resources. When they do reach into space they will need to be monitored and regulated to some degree. That is the job of their customers and to a lesser extent; the government.

Private industry has a knack for filling a niche when it is most appropriate. As long as competition is preserved and government and industry do not collude, private ventures can be much more efficient than government in any enterprise. Consider it a "go with the flow" approach if you will. By contrast, government is a hammer, a hammer that often does not understand what it is hammering at. The very nature of private enterprise is that it cannot exist in a competitive market without being efficient. Please, spare me any arguments about monopolies. In an educated society where public opinion is the most potent political force and the market is truly free, monopolies cannot exist in the form we recognize them in. Said monopoly would be dissolved at the hands of angry customers, laborers, and political activists by a truly democratic vote.

Of course,we do not live in an "educated" society. We live in a government educated society, where people expect "big brother" to look after them.

I know you did not mention it, but to forestall the inevitable argument that government will smehow properly distribute GDP tax revenue appropriately, I will say what I often say to liberals and big-government activists; where are the saints that you will get to run this government and its' programs? How will they be different from ordinary people who occasionally (and in some cases, consistently) resort to despicable methods to further their own advancement at the cost of others' advancement, livelihood, and even lives?
It cannot be done. One cannot control human nature any more than one can control nature itself, for the time being. The key is to harness humanity's destructive nature and turn it into a force that promotes order. Free and fair trade, regulation by the consumer and the market. No one willingly takes part in a harmful exchange of ideas or goods. I admit I do not have all the answers, but we have the solution, we just need to find a way to arrive at it, and government is not the answer.

I'm kind of on both sides of the moonbase issue.

On one hand I think we need to get to mars as soon as possible. For Spirit and Exploration

However, On the other hand we are facing something I like to call an "Energy Crisis" and if He3 is needed then the moon needs to be priority. Thankfully it seems Pb11 is winning out for now.

Glenn was just cargo. Both times.

Shuttle Pilots.... Now that's an Astronaut.:yep: :rock:

Private industry would never do a 1960's space programm, would never found a series of high tech observatories or "Hubble" type in-orbit telescopes or do a space shuttle programm. And with the exception of telecommunication satellites I don't think there is anything else that is of interest in the short or mid term for the private industry to pursue in space. Sub-contracting to NASA or other state fund agencies is of course a nice spin off too.

Private industry will be a major part when there is an "economic" reason for going out there. It will probably dominate the second phase of space faring IF there is a good chance to make a profit out of it. Advancement of science, etc is OK as long as the "bulk" of the investement is done by someone else (usually the state).

Sorry guys the opening phase of space expolration is a national or international thingy. And we still are in this phase.

You will always by proud about America's role in space exploration and science. Always!
(and always is alot of time! :D )
Things as the space programm leave deep inprints in a nations culture, history and character. Never underestimate these effects either nationally or internationally!

Nice points. I personally don't value space exploration for cultural achievement value. It seems to me like they are forcing space exploration before its' time. There is no reason that the opening phase of space travel HAS to be a national or international effort (other than that it already is).
As much as I value science and learning, my main reason for not supporting state initiatives in space is that I don't want to pay for them.
When people support NASA, or any state agencies' agenda, politicians implement these programs. Of course, they cost money, which is raised by taxation. (not explaining something you already know, just building a point)
Of course, since I have to pay taxes, you are in effect forcing me and people like me to pay for this stuff. By the same-token we have to pay for "attractive" spinoffs and subcontracting. That money still comes from taxes. With private industry, you can choose to invest or choose not to invest. You vote with your money for the most effective system.

With government initiatives you don't have a say in how they are run.Yes, you can indirectly exert pressure by pressuring your representatives and senators, and in turn they can cast votes and make bills that may or may not pass to affect the agency in question.
However, it often seems like things need to be too far out of control before people manage to change things via "democratic" process. Just seems inefficient and wasteful to me.

Typically, people are shocked when I say things like "the moon landings were a waste of time". I can understand that. If I was talking to myself just a few years ago, my former self would think my current self was an idiot. (maybe that means I'm getting dumber:hmm: )

However, just for the sake of clarification, I maintain that the moon landings were a waste because the American Government never made one dollar of profit from them. It cost us billions, we got some rocks and put a mirror there so we now can check the distance between the moon and earth. If you had all those billions of dollars, would you spend it on that?
Then we get into the "Space Race". People say "You would have let the Russians beat us!? What's wrong with you!!!?

Well, yeah. I would rather laugh at the Russians spending all that effort and money to get to the moon only to come back with rocks. I would rather see those billions left in the wallets of taxpayers and industry, where it can improve our economy and create jobs and revenue.

Lastly I will point out the vast disparity in effeciency between NASA and companies like Virgin Galactic. The average cost of launching a Space Shuttle is $450 million dollars. Read -450million dollars in investment. occasionally this is offset by fees companies pay to launch communication sattelites which, as far as I know, are always sent up in different launch craft. Which incurs additional costs.

Virgin Galactic already has $30 million dollars in bookings for their flights. I'm having a hard time pinning down the figures but the Chairman of Virgin Galactic has said that he plans to invest $25million to get the company running. That's $5million in profit and they haven't even started operations.

Best of all, even if VG fails, it doesn't cost us a dime. Whether NASA fails or succeeds we lose money. We have the potential to make money by investing in VG, as opposed to being forced to lose it with no refunds with NASA.

Now, after all that, can you still tell me you would support NASA and willingly force me to support it? Consider the economic slide in the country and the fact the the national debt limit was recently raised to 10.6 trillion or somewhere around there.

There is merit in your argument, and I am oversimplifying the issue a bit ( I tend to do that), but that's my stance.