Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger · Aug 2, 2004

Mental Avenger said: I have never said, insinuated, alluded to, or otherwise hinted at any such thing [that everything will work out without a hitch!]. Now, please provide links or quotes to support your claim or retract it. orzek claims: Unfortunately yes you have You have made the accusation. Now either provide quotes what prove your accusation, or retract it and apologize. orzek claims: And you have great difficulty in remembering your own posts!! Please post a quote to support that accusation, or retract it and apologize. As to the rest: You continue to fail to understand what I post the first time, or you deliberately misquote, misconstrue and make unsupportable accusations regarding what I have said. Even if I had unlimited time to reiterate each point countless times to fuel your pointless skewing of my comments, I would not do so. I am sure that everyone else here understands exactly what I have posted here. Your failure (or refusal) to understand what I said is neither my responsibility nor my problem. Go misquote someone else, somewhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

orzek · Aug 3, 2004

I haven't got the time to go back through your posts and argue over obvious points. Your position is quite clear from your posts and that is the reason I posted here. I really do not like pedantic posters who think they know it all and when challenged jump up and down asking for quotes and feigning that they have been misconstrued. Frankly you are a bit of a baby aren't you! Asking for quotes is indication that you don't like it when you are challenged. Maybe you should apply your own standards of accuracy and accusations on yourself! After all you had no problems misquoting me on occasions. Live is too short to play with nitpickers with a short memory span. Discussion over!

halman · Aug 3, 2004

Mental_Avenger, I have not been able to get on this board to make a timely reply, but something that you said really surprised me. You claim that Mercury is too hot and barren to ever be of any use. Do you see space only as an alternative to Earth for people to live? Is creating colonies on othere planets the only justification you support for space exploration? Mercury holds more promise than just about any other body in the Solar System! Not as a place to live, but as a source of heavy metals The density of Mercury indicates that the planet is made up primarily of the very valuable heavy metals our technology is so desperate for. From what I know of economics, technology, and history, it is going to be at least 100 years before a colony of humans is established on another world. There may be a continuous human presence on another world long before then, but it will not be considered a 'colony', with young children and schools. There is a continuous presence on the North Slope of Alaska, but it is not considered a 'colony'. If we are going to convince Congress to allocate the money to continue sending humans into space, we have got to present a united front, emphasizing the economic potential of developing resources off-planet. Expecting Congress to support sending a manned mission to Mars to prove the feasibility of creating a colony there is very likely to result in appropriation for space exploration being slashed completely. The last thing that Congress wants at this time is an open-ended commitment of billions of dollars to do something which is not hugely popular. There is a chance that Congress might be willing to support a return to the Moon if there is a possibility that private industry can get involved, and maybe make some money along the way. You may not see any potential on the Moon, but there are people who do, and they want a chance to go there and find ways to turn something useless into somethi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mrmorris · Aug 3, 2004

Excellent post, Halman. After a bevy of verbose postings, a succinct reply is just what was needed. No wasted words. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> *sigh* -- Oh well -- before the edit -- the post was empty.

chew_on_this · Aug 3, 2004

no schlit...

halman · Aug 3, 2004

mrmorris, Oops! I forgot to say "Testing." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 3, 2004

halman says: You claim that Mercury is too hot and barren to ever be of any use. My mistake. Mercury is not just hot, the leeward side dropping to around -183°C. However, the very long day (176 Earth days) exposes the Sunward side of Mercury to 9 times the solar intensity of Earth for too long to have a practical outpost there. The Sunward side reaches 427°C (800° F), hot enough to melt tin. halman says: Do you see space only as an alternative to Earth for people to live? No. However, in order to take advantage of any planet (or Moon), there must be some practical and economic application. Mercury does not appear to have any useful materials near the surface, and anything that might be found would have to be hauled “uphill” to the Earth. halman says: Is creating colonies on othere planets the only justification you support for space exploration? Not at all. As I have said many times, I advocate starting the Mars colony as soon as possible. Other expeditions can follow right behind. As a practical matter, a substantial push for Mars would create the need for the infrastructure that will also benefit other endeavors. halman says: Not as a place to live, but as a source of heavy metals In order to exploit the resources of a planet, it would be necessary to be able to live and work there. halman says: The density of Mercury indicates that the planet is made up primarily of the very valuable heavy metals our technology is so desperate for. AFAIK, the density of Mercury indicates that it is probably made up of about 70% iron. halman says: I also firmly believe that we must begin moving our energy-intensive, heavily polluting industries off-planet a <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Aug 3, 2004

Mental_Avenger, What reason do you give for maintaining that all of our efforts in space should focus on Mars? Or is this all because you object to the president saying that we should go to the Moon to prepare for going to Mars. If the president had said that we should go to the Moon, would you object? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 4, 2004

What reason do you give for maintaining that all of our efforts in space should focus on Mars? I did not say that, or anything like it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 4, 2004

orzek says: I haven't got the time to go back through your posts and argue over obvious points. If the points were so obvious, why do you continue to get them wrong? orzek says: Your position is quite clear from your posts and that is the reason I posted here. Then why have you repeatedly claimed I said things that I clearly did not say, and attribute philosophies to me that are not supported by my own posts? I know exactly what I have posted, and I know why I posted it, and I know my philosophy behind it. orzek says: Asking for quotes is indication that you don't like it when you are challenged. Not at all. It is quite reasonable to challenge someone to accept accountability for false statements that they have posted about what I said. orzek says: After all you had no problems misquoting me on occasions. Really? Show me where I did that and I will review it. If I misquoted you, I will correct it. It appears that you may have accumulated some pre-conceived notions about what “Mars people” think, and have begun to apply that stereotyping to anyone who gets in your sights, without bothering to actually listen to what they are saying. In addition, you appear to be the one who seems to think they “know it all” in regards to the space expansion issue. Your posts show a naïve, popular-misconception-driven, biased view of the problems involved, swinging from wide-eyed optimism in some cases, to close-eyed pessimism in others. Your Pollyanna view of the Moon, and your Scrooge view of Mars are out of touch with the realities of the overall picture. Whatever. BTW, don’t bother to reply. This post was for the edification of others who may have been misled by your misquotes, misconstrued paraphrasing, and misinterpretati <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Aug 4, 2004

Mental_Avenger, Do you support a return of humans to the Moon with the intent of learning how to live and work there, for the purpose of identifying useful resources on the Moon? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

orzek · Aug 4, 2004

In addition, you appear to be the one who seems to think they “know it all” in regards to the space expansion issue. Your posts show a naïve, popular-misconception-driven, biased view of the problems involved, swinging from wide-eyed optimism in some cases, to close-eyed pessimism in others. Your Pollyanna view of the Moon, and your Scrooge view of Mars are out of touch with the realities of the overall picture. Whatever You seem to think I misquote you yet you have no problem misquoting me. Don't get me wrong /* ad-homimen deleted */, I have plenty of support for Mars but I don't constrain my self just to Mars. I have no problem with mars advocates except fanatics like you. I want a balanced approach to space exploration which includes the moon, mars LEO and the asteroids. And I'll say it again YOU NEED TO GO THE MOON IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A LONG TERM COLONISATION TO MARS SUCCESSFUL. Why is that so difficult for people to understand?

orzek · Aug 4, 2004

Why bother asking him? He doesn't think there is anything of value up there. Mars is his life dream. Don't press him on the issue otherwise he might get mental with you!

halman · Aug 4, 2004

Orzek, My impression of the "Mars and Only Mars" folks is that they want very badly to go to Mars themselves, and therefore see any spending on any project other than Mars as a threat to their dream. I cannot attribute their attitudes to anything else, because developing Low Earth orbit and the Moon in no way, shape, or form threatens the possibility of eventually going to Mars. My great fear is that focusing all of our effort on Mars could delay the development our abilities in space for decades, as a result of spending large sums of money merely to land a few people on Mars for a few months and then bring them back, just as the Apollo program set back space exploration by a couple of decades. I do not see any oppurtunities for private enterprise on Mars in the forseeable future, unless the United States, Europe, Russia, China, and Japan all commited the equivalant of wartime budgets to the space program with the unified goal of developing a human presence on Mars. I will leave it to the reader to estimate the likelyhood of THAT happening. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 5, 2004

orzek claims: You seem to think I misquote you yet you have no problem misquoting me. There you go again with a false and unsupported insinuation. It is clear that you misquoted, or at least falsely paraphrased, what I said. That is in the record. Now you (essentially) accuse me of misquoting you, but provide no evidence of where that took place. I never knowingly misquote anyone. Since I do not recall misquoting you in this thread, and you refuse to show what you think is a misquote, the logical conclusion is that you are lying. orzek claims: Why is that so difficult for people to understand? That question cannot have a definitive answer, because that question, when modified by the sentence that precedes it, contains the Logical Fallacy of Insufficient or Suppressed evidence. That is, it assumes that the statement in all caps is true. More properly, you might have phrased the question: “Why don’t you agree with my unsupported opinion?” <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 5, 2004

orzek says: Why bother asking him? He doesn't think there is anything of value up there. That is not true. AFAIK, I have never said that, and I certainly have never said that here. orzek says: Mars is his life dream. Another false statement. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 5, 2004

halman says: Do you support a return of humans to the Moon with the intent of learning how to live and work there, for the purpose of identifying useful resources on the Moon? Not exactly. I think that we should return to the Moon and begin to explore it in detail. Since actually living on the Moon would be uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous, I think that initial surveys be performed with robotic rovers. This would be a good job for Big Al. When and if significant resources are discovered, and when space travel has developed to the point where Moon resources would be economically viable, then we should set about developing Moon resources. One day there may actually be a significant human presence on the Moon, but that will not come soon. Also, it is reasonable to conclude that any resources that are developed on the Moon would be used off-Earth. While it is true that producing materials on the Moon will eventually be cheaper than producing them on Earth AND boosting them into space, I don’t think Moon production will ever be able to compete on Earth, with the same items produced on Earth. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 5, 2004

halman says: My impression of the "Mars and Only Mars" folks is that they want very badly to go to Mars themselves, and therefore see any spending on any project other than Mars as a threat to their dream. First of all, that does not include me, because I believe other areas also must be developed. I just don’t believe that those other areas necessarily need to be developed first. Secondly, I am too old to consider going to Mars myself. halman says: I cannot attribute their attitudes to anything else, because developing Low Earth orbit and the Moon in no way, shape, or form threatens the possibility of eventually going to Mars. Before you can understand their attitudes, you have to understand their motivations. As long as you continue to exaggerate your interpretation of the attitudes of others, until they no longer reflect the actual attitudes of those people, you will continue to misunderstand their motives. My great fear is that focusing all of our effort on Mars could delay the development [of] our abilities in space for decades, Simply developing and using the hardware to travel to Mars efficiently will BE “development of our abilities in space”. as a result of spending large sums of money merely to land a few people on Mars for a few months and then bring them back I do not think that is an appropriate way to approach it either. We should send people to Mars who want to stay and build a new colony there. There will be no shortage of qualified applicants. The Mars traffic will provide the economic incentive to develop support infrastructure, first in LEO, then later on the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

halman · Aug 5, 2004

Mental_Avenger, This is fascinating! You state that you believe that the Moon would be a good job for AI. (Artificial Intelligence, I presume. {I was taught that one should never use abbreviations until one has spelled out the words to be abbreviated.}) I have long held the opinion that MARS would be an excellent proving ground for Artificial Intelligence. When you say that "actually living on the Moon would be uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous," what are you comparing that to? From what I have learned about Mars, the initial living conditions there would be essentially identical to the living conditions on the Moon. Are you saying that humans should not be living off-planet until there are substantial economic gains to make it worthwhile? Or are you saying that there is something about Mars which justifies placing humans in an "uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous" living situation? Especially when any persons living on Mars will, at minimum, be several months away from any assistance from Earth? Would it not be more logical to learn how to survive in an alien environment closer to home? Would it not be more logical to learn to survive in an environment which represents the conditions most typically found in space? If we develop methods of surviving on the Moon, they will keep us alive on Mars, a large asteroid, and, possibly, even one of the moons of Jupiter. We can always adapt our strategies to local conditions AFTER we have gotten to know the local conditions. You seem insistant that there is currently no indication that there are resources on the Moon worth developing, and, even if it turns out that there are, space travel is not advanced enough to make it economically viable to go about developing them. Advancing space travel technology is one of the primary goals of returning to the Moon. Learning how to get back and forth from somewhere else is fundamental to ANY hope of expanding off of this <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 5, 2004

Halman, From the previous discussion on SDC “Designing a Mission to Mars”, BIG AL was the designation for a large SUV sized rover, capable of traveling long distances and analyzing the soil, including drilling perhaps a dozen meters into the surface. Big Al would not be autonomous, but would initially be remotely controlled from Earth. Big Al’s job would be to locate a suitable location for the first colony. Later, Big Al could be remotely controlled from Mars orbit, and eventually from the surface, to scout other areas on the surface of Mars. This would hopefully reduce the amount of surface time wasted in non-productive exploration. halman says: When you say that "actually living on the Moon would be uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous," what are you comparing that to? From what I have learned about Mars, the initial living conditions there would be essentially identical to the living conditions on the Moon Living quarters on the Moon and on Mars would be very similar, with the main difference being gravity. Due to the extremes in temperature, the higher radiation, and the hazard of micro-meteors, surface time on the Moon would be uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous compared to Mars. I see no reason for people to be present on the Moon during the exploration phase considering that remote control from Earth is virtually real-time. halman asks: Are you saying that humans should not be living off-planet until there are substantial economic gains to make it worthwhile? Ah ha, a trick question. I am saying that humans should not be living off-Earth until it is necessary. That is why I advocate Big Al to find a suitable site for the first colony on Mars. halman asks: Or are you saying that there is something about Mars which justifies placing humans in an "uncomfortable, expensive, and dangerous" livin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

crossovermaniac · Aug 5, 2004

halman: the Moon would not make a good place to prepare for a mission to Mars. The environments are completely different. Mars has a day-to-night cycle approximately the same as Earth's while the Moon has 28 day long cycles. Mars has a thin atmosphere while the moon doesn't. Testing equipment on the Moon for Mars won't do. Mars has dust storms and seasonal changes while the Moon has no weather. And Mars' gravity is twice that of the moon. Earth would be a better place. You have weather, an atmosphere (although it's one hundred times thicker), and if a structure is strong enough to stand in Earth's gravity, then it's definitely rigid enough to be used on Mars. Mentalavenger: I don't see how the Moon is much more dangerous than Mars. If there are any differences, it's not going to make a difference. Both places require life support, radiation shielding, and supplies of food and water. Mars does have an atmosphere to provide a little bit of protection from radiation and micrometeors, but not much. It's sort of like saying it's more dangerous to be shot in the head with a .45 caliber slug than to be shot in the head with a Saturday night special. Although the .45 will do more damage, you're dead either way. In fact, the moon is actually safer because, if something does go wrong, you're only three days from home as opposed to having to wait years for a launch window and travel time between Mars and Earth. Sorry to nitpick.

orzek · Aug 5, 2004

Halman My impression of the "Mars and Only Mars" folks is that they want very badly to go to Mars themselves, and therefore see any spending on any project other than Mars as a threat to their dream. I cannot attribute their attitudes to anything else, because developing Low Earth orbit and the Moon in no way, shape, or form threatens the possibility of eventually going to Mars. My great fear is that focusing all of our effort on Mars could delay the development our abilities in space for decades, as a result of spending large sums of money merely to land a few people on Mars for a few months and then bring them back, just as the Apollo program set back space exploration by a couple of decades. I do not see any oppurtunities for private enterprise on Mars in the forseeable future, unless the United States, Europe, Russia, China, and Japan all commited the equivalant of wartime budgets to the space program with the unified goal of developing a human presence on Mars. I will leave it to the reader to estimate the likelyhood of THAT happening. I agree, but also to add that a Mars mission on its own carries alot of risk with it. If something goes wrong, it might end any manned human missions beyond orbit. Even though mankind has the ability to go to mars since the 70s/80s it is still a huge undertaking and despite the "mars and only mars" advocates saying to the contrary you need to, lets say practise with something easier and nearby like returning to the moon. Mental_avenger like most like him miss the point in returning to the moon, they make comparisions that are irrelevant at this time but instead matter only when man has already settled on mars. My view is that space exploration should be progressive because it is more common sense and more successful. Building upon ones successes is easier than throwing yourself at the deep end.

mental_avenger · Aug 6, 2004

orzek says: I agree, but also to add that a Mars mission on its own carries alot of risk with it. Of course it does. But there are a lot of people willing to take that risk, not with the lives of others, but with their own. orzek says: If something goes wrong, it might end any manned human missions beyond orbit. I doubt that. The reason shuttle missions are canceled when a shuttle goes down is so that it can be determined if the problem is something that will affect the rest of the shuttles in the fleet. It does not affect any of the other space programs or launches of the US, and certainly does not affect other countries’ space programs and launches. BTW, you guys keep using the “Mars and Mars only” label, but I do not know of a single person who would fit that category. Since you have just referred to “Mars and Mars only advocates” as saying something, please provide some quotes or links to these mythical people so the rest of us will know who they are. orzek says: Mental_avenger like most like him miss the point in returning to the moon, I “get” your point alright, I just don’t happen to agree with it. they make comparisions that are irrelevant at this time but instead matter only when man has already settled on mars. Only as you see it. I made appropriate comparisons for each phase, and the comparisons I made are relevant to each phase. orek says: My view is that space exploration should be progressive because it is more common sense and more successful. Building upon ones successes is easier than throwing yourself at the deep end. Space exploration is and has been progressive. However, like driving through mud, there are places where slowing down too much will <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

arobie · Aug 6, 2004

About the Mars and Mars only people, you seem to be a Mars and Mars only person. You only seem to only want a colony on Mars. No Moon, no Mercury, (and correct me if I'm wrong) no Jovian moons. You seem to only want a Mars colony from this vision. I don't support building a colony first. Like most I support infrastructure first. Not the kind of highway (ways to get there) infrastructure, the kind of infrasture that will create money. Mines on the moon and so on. You seem to think that we don't have the technology or methods to do it efficiently. I don't know whether that is true or not, and if it is true, that's what we should work on. I think we need to create ways to mine, to make money. We need to start to make the space effort self-supporting. When it is self supporting with it's own money, thats when everything will become more feasible, Thats when our presence in space begins to blossom. Thats when colonies will become easier and more feasible. That is what I think one of our most important goals in this vision is, to create infrastructure in space, not the hihgway kind, the money making kind. One other thing, if you respond to me (which I hope you will), instead of copying and pasteing from my post and responding to those pieces, will you respond to me like I have to you?

halman · Aug 6, 2004

Mental_Avenger, In spite of tremendous advances in telemetry, the ability to 'sense' an environment is still a very long way off. The current generation of Martian rovers do not use full color cameras, they have cameras tuned to certain wavelengths, which reduces the band-width required to transmit video information. Unless a specific color band is filtered for, it will not be seen. I use this example to illustrate the limitations of 'telepresence', remote sensing of evironments. Although we can learn a great deal about a place through remote sensing, it is still not possible to have a complete picture. When we begin to develop other worlds, having people "on the spot" will make a big difference in how succesful our attempts will be. Trying to build a mine on the Moon by remote control is likely to be far more expensive than haveing a team of engineers there doing the work. Once it is established, up and running with a period of problem-free operation, then it can be operated by remote control. As far as the question of remoteness in being able to assist a party on another world, I am not talking about a catastrophic disaster. If you are driving your car, and the water pump goes out, where are you most likely to find another water pump, in the Mojave Desert, 100 miles from any town, or in Barstow, which is also in the Mojave Desert? Discovering that there is a problem with a piece of equipment which you do not have a back-up for means waiting several months for a replacement on Mars, a few days on the Moon. This is not a matter of 'rescue', but of support. Also, there HAS been personnel changes in Antarctica during the winter there. An Air Force National Guard plane from my state helped get a doctor with breast cancer out a couple of years ago. In the case of developing life-support technology, there is no way of telling what might be needed. Having a supply line several months long requires that adequate supplies for <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

mental_avenger

Guest

orzek

Guest

halman

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

chew_on_this

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

halman

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

crossovermaniac

Guest

orzek

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

arobie

Guest

halman

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page