Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

orzek · Aug 9, 2004

Unfortunately I don't think there is a compelling argument that will satisfy the public or the critics or even congress. I see America as getting too comfortable with what it has presently than venturing out. The only way that will change is either through competition or if you get a leader like JFK who is charismatic and enthusiastic about space and decides to expand into space just because it is there and is the next step. The only country that seems remotely serious is China, but unfortunately they have a long way to catch up. Though if the indecision continues in the west about space then the future I see in space is going to be chinese. Maybe then america might see it as important. It is a shame that most people lack the vision of why space is important.

orzek · Aug 9, 2004

You are such a joker mental. It is a bit rich you calling me a hypocrite. Okay then, tell me your views in a summary because I seem to be confused about your position. Also answer these two simple questions, 1) What books or articles have you read about, concerning a mission to mars. Where does your opinions come from? 2) Also would you support going back to the moon before mars, if it didn’t compromise a mission to mars?

spayss · Aug 9, 2004

Here we are with a couple of humans in LEO and little prospects for much more optimism for a couple decades....and debating the details of Mars. I think some of our grumpiness is over the frustration of not seeing any concrete progress in manned space exploration. It sure be great to have Moon/Mars as a declared goal with a concrete program in which all these issues could be put forth and proven disproven, modified, etc. in the real world of space exploration. Space keeners are getting cranky. That includes me. We're all disappointed and are chomping at the bit to get the ball rolling. We're floundering around eager to put our energy towards some real progress whatever form that might take. Back in the army, the longer we were in barracks the more infights we had but get us on exercise against another platoon or company and we'd be a unified force...drink beer afterwards and sing the platoon song. I'm in favor of returning to the Moon, if for no other reason, it creates a focus ...something to look forward to. A Mars mission, on the table, for the same reason. A goal!

radarredux · Aug 9, 2004

> and the inevitable military bases./i> I have been wondering about this (sort of). One of the important factors in promoting colonization is property rights. Right now there is a prevailing attitude that no nation (or company or individual) should own any aspect of space (e.g., locations and resources on the moon, mars, etc.). How do you attract private capital without being able to secure property rights? How do you guarantee/protect those rights?

radarredux · Aug 9, 2004

> JFK who is charismatic and enthusiastic about space and decides to expand into space just because it is there and is the next step./i> JFK was definitely charismatic, especially when compared with GW Bush, but he was not enthusiastic about space for space or exploration's sake. It was strictly a political, cold war maneuver for him. Likewise, space exploration was really a political space race for most Americans who were stunned by early leads by the Soviets in space combined with multiple geo-political losses around the globe. Apollo never had strong support in the polls, and once the race appeared to be over, support dropped even more. Still, I think the leadership (NASA, Administration, Congress) can do much better. The recent UPI story describing NASA's plan had virtually nothing about colonization or serious science exploration (the typical arguments given in these discussions) -- just a few people on the moon for a few days, and only once a year. It is the old footprints and flags again. The best NASA seems to be able to do is create some short videos with crappy computer animation and a few paintings. No vision is articulated about how NASA is going to foster a new space industry; no vision is articulated about how NASA will bootstrap a colonization program; no vision is articulated about long-term scientific outposts; no vision is articulated about opening up space to a wider audience.

mental_avenger · Aug 9, 2004

RadarDedux, I cannot imagine how anyone could consider “space” (off Earth) as being unclaimable territory (like Antarctica). Earth is less than one billionth of the available territory in this galaxy alone. Ok, so we are talking about our solar system (for now). Still, it only makes sense that it should be first come, first served. As you said, what would be the incentive for private enterprise if it could never own their own property. That goes for the Moon, Mars, asteroids or whatever. That is another good reason to establish a viable colony on Mars as soon as possible. If we delay too long, one day, we may regret letting China take over Mars simply because they got there first en mass. Remember Seward’s Folly? We got Alaska for $15 million because no one thought it would be worth anything. Now……………….. I believe that everywhere off-Earth will be owned by some government, corporation, or individual some day. Like homesteading, each area will probably be claimed by whoever gets there first and establishes a permanent presence there. As they say, space is the Final Frontier, and it will be treated as such. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 9, 2004

orzek, Ok, I will attempt a rational discussion with you one more time. “Going back to the Moon” would make no sense if the only purpose was to just “go back again”, or to “prove we can do it”. That would be a waste time and money, so I would definitely oppose that. If the stated purpose of going to the Moon was as a “test bed” for Mars missions, that would also be a waste of time and money and I would oppose that. If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, I would support that in its proper time. Since no such telescopes currently exist, that would be a ways down the road, and would probably take place after we have already begun establishing a colony on Mars. I would oppose any “feel good” or “symbolism without substance” missions to the Moon. Bottom line, I would oppose any Moon venture that would decrease money for the initial Mars missions or creates a delay for such missions. Since I do not parrot anyone’s views or opinions about missions to Mars, which books or articles I have or have not read is irrelevant. IOW, if you don’t like my opinions, you can blame me, not Zubrin, or Stine, or Wilford, or Asimov, or Hawking, or anyone else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

scottb50 · Aug 9, 2004

Finally, something we agree on! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

mrmorris · Aug 9, 2004

"If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, I would support that in its proper time. Since no such telescopes currently exist, that would be a ways down the road, and would probably take place after we have already begun establishing a colony on Mars. " I don't agree with the slant of the majority of your arguments -- but most of them aren't silly at least. This one is ridiculous on the face of it. Essentially what you've said is that you'd support telescopes on the moon if they already existed, but since they don't exist you don't support them. Having traded posts with you before -- I'm well aware that your first defence would generally be to claim that what you said makes perfect sense, and I'm simply twisting your words. However -- I can't find a way of parsing this statement in such a way that it makes sense. Lunar-based telescopes require no revolutionary technology that we don't have at this time, so why they would be 'a ways down the road' is unclear to me. Certainly it's unclear why they would likely not not occur before a colony on Mars is established.

mental_avenger · Aug 9, 2004

mrmorris claims: Essentially what you've said is that you'd support telescopes on the moon if they already existed, but since they don't exist you don't support them. Nonsense. As usual, you have found a unique way to twist what someone else has said. The way you state it, it IS silly, but that is YOU talking, not me. I see that you have since you decided to deliberately spin the meaning of my comment, you have anticipated that I would call you on it, and I am. ”If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, I would support that in its proper time.” If there were telescopes under construction at this time, that were designed for placement on the Moon, I would support that, even if they were to be placed there before a Mars mission is accomplished. I believe that such telescopes would be a vital part of our move into space for several reasons. 1. Earth Crossing Asteroid detection. This is the most important reason for telescopes on the Moon. I have always supported proactive programs to detect dangerous asteroids. I also support research into finding a way to destroy or divert threatening asteroids. Establishing a viable, self-sustaining colony on Mars is vital, in case we cannot, or do not, develop such technology. 2. Searching for distant Earth type planets. 3. Searching for and detecting possible ET signals. 4. Tracking Mars mission spacecraft to and from Mars. Since such projects would be limited to the telescopes themselves, and support services for those telescopes, this would not interfere with the push for Mars. In fact, as noted, they might assist in Mars activities. In addition, most of the actual operation of the telescopes would be accomplished from Earth, so there would be no need to have a large, expensive presence on the Moon. ” Since no such telescopes currently exist, that would be a ways dow <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

kadetken says: I'm just not clear on what the (societal) return would be on (society's) investment. The biggest and most prevalent would be preservation of mankind in case of a global catastrophe on Earth. That could be a KT type asteroid or comet impact, or global nuclear war. It could also be what Stephen Hawking predicts, an unstoppable, global plague. If any of these events (and possibly others) occur, there will be no time to begin to establish a viable population off-Earth. Mankind will simply vanish from the Universe forever. Now, there are many people who really don’t care whether or not mankind as a species survives. Personally, I would be willing to invest a lot more in the assurance of the survival of mankind, than I would in most of the other proposed projects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Aug 10, 2004

"”If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, I would support that in its proper time.” If there were telescopes under construction at this time, that were designed for placement on the Moon, I would support that, even if they were to be placed there before a Mars mission is accomplished." Using the same logic, there are no 'plans' to colonize Mars nor equipment under construction. Yet you are fervently pushing such. Many would (and have) said that it's not yet time for a colony on Mars -- but this has no effect on your leanings. Lunar observatories can easily be built using current technologies and manufacturing processes. To push for the Mars colony *now* -- when there are definitely technologies to be developed to do this properly -- and claim that you'll support lunar observatories 'in their proper time' is ludicrous. It's a constant theme in your counterposts when someone challenges your statements for you to claim that someone has misquoted you, failed to understand what was perfectly clear, or has taken your quote out of context. In this thread alone (besides the current instance), you have done so with RadarRedux here, halman here and here Orzek here (among many), and Arobie http://uplink.space.com/</safety_wrapper

meteo · Aug 10, 2004

Could we find earth size planets with Earth based inferometers? The Keck Interferometer is estimated to image jupiter/uranus size images when it goes online next year. Can adaptive optics and inferometers image Earth size planets within the near future, I'm assuming they can. I think a lunar telescope would obviously be better, but how much better.

mrmorris · Aug 10, 2004

"I think a lunar telescope would obviously be better, but how much better." Much better. The resolving power of an interferometer array is that of the distance between the telescopes. The arrangement and number of telescopes can differ, but essentially two 3-meter telescopes placed 50 miles apart would have a resolving power equivalent to a telescope with a 50-mile wide mirror. It wouldn't have the light-gathering capability of a mirror that size -- but it would be able to provide a considerably better resolution. In terms of searching for extrasolar planets -- the main problem is that the sun about which they orbit is so much brighter than the planets themselves, that we're unable to resolve the light reflected from planets. The separate images from the multiple telescopes can be used to 'cancel' out the light from the sun such that the reflected light from the planets becomes resolvable. Radio interferometers are currently in widespread use on Earth. However -- radio waves are much longer than light waves, which makes radio interferometes much easier to build and much more tolerant of changes in diatance between the telescopes in the array. Seismic activity on earth (in addition to the atmosphere) makes widely-spread optical interferometers difficult to achieve. The lunar surface is perfect in both respects, as seismic activity is minimal and the atmosphere is essentially non-existent. BTW -- it's the problems with changes in distance between the telescopes which makes orbital interferometers difficult. The *exact* distance between the two scopes much be known, and must stay unchanged during the time that light is being gathered from the distant object.

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

mrmorris says: Using the same logic, there are no 'plans' to colonize Mars nor equipment under construction. Yet you are fervently pushing such. You just can’t help yourself, you simply MUST do you utmost to take comments out of context and twist and spin their meanings in order to create a controversy for you to refute. You are a real piece of work. mrmorris says: It's a constant theme in your counterposts when someone challenges your statements for you to claim that someone has misquoted you, failed to understand what was perfectly clear, or has taken your quote out of context. So far, that has been the case each time. It appears that like you, orzek especially is going to great lengths to attempt to twist the meanings of my posts to say what he wishes I had said. mrmorris says: Mental -- if this many people are 'misunderstanding' what you're trying to get across, then ipso facto -- you're not being clear. Wrong again. I have been very clear. I am not responsible for those like you who deliberately twist words to create an imaginary controversy where there was none. mrmorris says: In this thread alone (besides the current instance), you have done so with RadarRedux here, halman here and here Orzek here (among many), and Arobie here. OK, here is your chance to back up your false accusations. To make it easy for you, here is the sequence: Orzek said: ”People who argue for mars directly make too many assumptions that everything will work out without a hitch! “ Mental Avenger replied: ”Would you like to point out those people, I have never heard from them or about them before. Please provide links or quotes. “ RadarRedux said: ”I think it is implicit in the discussions, “ and Orzek said: ”Oh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

Eddie, Thank you for your quite correct summary of my opinions, you got it exactly right. Personally, I don’t think that these guys are actually having trouble understanding the meanings of my comments, but rather that they are deliberately twisting the meanings in order to create a strawman argument to battle. That is because they are unable to refute my comments as they stand. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

arobie · Aug 10, 2004

"It's a constant theme in your counterposts when someone challenges your statements for you to claim that someone has misquoted you, failed to understand what was perfectly clear, or has taken your quote out of context. In this thread alone (besides the current instance), you have done so with RadarRedux here, halman here and here Orzek here (among many), and Arobie here." By that I don't think mrmorris was trying to say that our "accusations" were correct. He was trying to make a point. His point was that we are misunderstanding you. I don't know about them, but I honestly was misunderstanding you. Every time we misunderstood you, you told us that you were clear and to re-read your posts. Well I had already read them, then I always reread before replying. Then after you told me to reread, I did. Well...That didn't help. Either you weren't being very clear, or we are all to dumb to understand you. Either way you could have just once and for all explained you opinions and views much like CrazyEddie did for you, and that would have ended it. You left us to figure out you views based on the arguement, and what was being said. You left us to piece all that together. Well if you expect us to do that, expect your views not to be figured out correctly.

mrmorris · Aug 10, 2004

"you simply MUST do you utmost to take comments out of context and twist and spin their meanings in order to create a controversy for you to refute." What *context*?!?! Taking something out of context means that there was text surrounding the quoted portion which changed its meaning. If someone were to say "I have no sympathy for the 'I hate animals' crowd" -- and that person were later quoted as saying: 'I hate animals' -- then the statement was pulled out of context. Where is the text in your post that changes the meaning of your statement that you'd support lunar observatories if there were plans? The full text dealing with lunar observatories is as follows: "” Since no such telescopes currently exist, that would be a ways down the road, and would probably take place after we have already begun establishing a colony on Mars.” Unfortunately, it appears that there are no plans for such telescopes at this time. Instead, the plans that seem to be brewing are of the “let’s prove we can go back to the Moon” variety, which, as I have pointed out, are a waste of time and money. " You say there are no *plans* for a lunar telescope currently -- or at least none that you feel are more than an excuse to return to the moon. However -- by the same token there are no *plans* at any level of detail for a colony on Mars. Of the two options -- the plan that would be missing the most details is one for colonizing Mars. If NASA issued an RFP for a Lunar telescope tomorrow -- there'd be a couple dozen proposals posthaste. The best would be done in great detail and use existing technology. A similar RFP for a colony on Mars would have a whole heckuva lot of grey areas -- and 'once we develop X and Y' hedges built in. So I say again -- arguing against supporting a lunar observatory because there are no plans for such is ridiculous if you're going to simultan

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

Arobie, Ok, I understand your point of view. Apparently you did not read enough of my posts to see the other space-related ventures I have supported besides Mars. Please see my new “I Support” and “Do Not Support” Reference Thread in Missions and Launches which should prevent further misunderstandings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

arobie · Aug 10, 2004

Mental_Avenger, Thank you for creating that thread. That clears up alot of our misunderstandings and will help alot.

meteo · Aug 10, 2004

I was aware of all the benefits of a lunar inferometer seismic, ect. I was wondering considering earth based adaptive/optics becoming doable in like the last 10-15 years has made the lunar telescope dated. Keep in mind though that temperature sheilding, taking this stuff to the moon ect would be difficult I don't know how doable 50mi would be. 10's of meters joining the two kecks has been difficult but I think part of that is the adaptive optics. Does anyone know how much mass in the keck joining equipment is inferometry and how much is adaptive optics. SInce the moon telescope wouldn't require adaptive optics. I was thinking 100's of meters to 1 mile being the upper bound for the moon.

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

What *context*?!?! Taking something out of context means that there was text surrounding the quoted portion which changed its meaning. Not necessarily, and this is yet another example of your attempt to spin things to create controversy where there was none. “Context” may well mean the paragraph or post that the comment was made in. OFTEN, “context” includes to the original question that the comment is responding to. Mental Avenger: If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, I would support that in its proper time. Since no such telescopes currently exist, that would be a ways down the road, and would probably take place after we have already begun establishing a colony on Mars. mrmorris claims: Essentially what you've said is that you'd support telescopes on the moon if they already existed, but since they don't exist you don't support them. You have a very serious reading problem. Just for you, I will dissect my comment and explain each portion. If there were plans to set up large telescopes on the Moon, There may be plans, but I am not aware of any at this time. Therefore I said “if” there are plans….)(I can hardly support “plans” that do not exist, although I can support the concept of building Lunar telescopes) I would support(actively support, not to be confused with “not oppose”) that(the plans and the telescopes themselves) in it’s proper time(whether those plans were made before, during, or after manned Mars missions) Since no suchlarge telescopes on the Moon) currently exist(as far as I know) th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mental_avenger · Aug 10, 2004

mrmorris claims: MA -- I didn't make any accusations. What I said was '...if this many people are 'misunderstanding' what you're trying to get across, then ipso facto -- you're not being clear". Accusation by mrmorris: It's a constant theme in your counterposts when someone challenges your statements for you to claim that someone has misquoted you, failed to understand what was perfectly clear, or has taken your quote out of context. The accusation is false. The ONLY time I claim that someone has misquoted me or taken my comment out of context is when they actually DO so. I have been challenged many times without that being the case. In fact, the misquote/out of context is relatively rare overall. In addition, your “ipso facto” claim is also false, because, as I have shown, some of these responses were not “misunderstandings”, but rather deliberate spins. At least two of them were attempts to attribute a specific statement to me that I never made. When challenged, the accuser failed to produce the claimed quote. I have no idea why you have continued to attempt to make some irrelevant, foolish point of a rather straightforward comment that I made. However, I do not intend to waste any more time on it. If you wish to continue to argue your meaningless nonsense, you will have to argue with yourself from now on. mieæ pewien mi³y dzieñ do widzenia! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space. </div>

mrmorris · Aug 10, 2004

"Keep in mind though that temperature sheilding, taking this stuff to the moon ect would be difficult I don't know how doable 50mi would be." I don't know why you're proposing an upper bound and why it might have to do with heat shielding. A lunar optical telescope intended for an interferometer would be very similar to space-based telescopes. Obviously many subsystems would be different but I don't see where heat shielding enters the picture. So long as the positions are known precisely -- there should *be* no upper bound. I've read proposals (highly theoretical, of course) for space-based interferometers (SBI) in 180 degree opposing high-earth orbits around the earth which essentially give an interferometer with an effective diameter of thousands of miles, and others for earth trailing orbits that can have effective diameters of millions of miles. Problems in precicely determining positions of SBI elements mean that these likely won't be viable for decades. However -- the positioning of Lunar-based scopes should be relatively easy. Once they've been set down and the positions precicely determined -- it shouldn't matter how far apart they are for the most part. I say 'for the most part' because there are other considerations -- among them the rotation and curvature of the moon. While the interferometers are on the 'sunlit' side -- observations will be curtailed to a greater or lesser degree. If the scopes were 180 degrees opposed on the moon -- the curvature would seriously limit what two scopes could point at and ensure that one scope at least is in daylight most of the time. However -- I'm unaware of why 50 miles or even 150 miles would be an issue.

orzek · Aug 10, 2004

Okay mental here is my response to your list I DO NOT SUPPORT (in no particular order, and not limited to

1. Going back to the Moon just so we can “prove we can do it” or just “to go back again” agree 2. Any “feel good” or “symbolism without substance” missions to the Moon. agree 3. Lunar mining intended for export to Earth. disagree 4. Using the Moon (instead of Earth or LEO) to “test” equipment for Mars or any other destination. disagree 5. Manned missions to the Jovian or Saturnian moons (until and unless we discover a relevant and practical reason to do so.) disagree 6. Construction of space travel “Infrastructure” on the Moon before the traffic warrants it. disagree 7. Mining asteroids for export of materials to Earth. disagree 8. “Moving” asteroids into Earth orbit for mining. disagree I SUPPORT (in no particular order, and not limited to: ) 1. Manned missions to Mars. agree 2. Establishing viable colonies on Mars as soon as we can. agree 3. Large telescopes on the Moon. agree but this contradicts the above first few points. How are large telescopes going to be built on the moon if you have no large scale manned presence there? 4. Thorough testing of space equipment in appropriate locations on Earth, such as Devon Island, Antarctica, and locations in South America. agree but disagree if that is sufficient. Because Earth is no substitute 5. Threatening Asteroid or Comet d

Lots of talk lately concerning the moon

orzek

Guest

orzek

Guest

spayss

Guest

radarredux

Guest

radarredux

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

scottb50

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

meteo

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

arobie

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

arobie

Guest

meteo

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mental_avenger

Guest

mrmorris

Guest

orzek

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page