Moon Base ''Questionable,'' John Glenn Says

[SUBMAN1]

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

[STEED]

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

I GIVE YOU SPACE:1999

[Frame57]

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.

[Stealth Hunter]

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.

[UnderseaLcpl]

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

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

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.

Agree 100%

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Stealth Hunter

A) 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?

B) 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.

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.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

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

:rotfl::rotfl:

-S

[Platapus]

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