Why no man moon missions for almost 40 years?

[danhezee]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>There was no one brain behind the moon mission, and that is the main point.&nbsp; The fact that you and others do not recognize that is sad.&nbsp; The fact that you don't care is tragic.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="2">I think 200 or 300 years into the future...&nbsp; People will either recongize JFK as the man with the plan or that the United States was the first country to put a man on the moon.&nbsp; Kinda like how people know that the British started the 13 colonies.&nbsp; I think once and if we establish a permanment base on the moon poor Niel Armstrong willl become less and less of a household name.</font> </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Royalcolin,&nbsp; I think you are looking at this from too narrow a perspective.&nbsp; Mr. Armstrong owes the world nothing, he risked his life to help expand the frontiers of knowledge and IMHO that is more than enough payback for&nbsp;one man.&nbsp; Also ask yourself if you would want to endure the&nbsp;conditions that fame can place on ones personal life, especially in this day and age where just being well known is paramount to putting oneself in the crosshairs of a lunatic who just wants to be famous at the expense of your life.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by BrianSlee</DIV><br /><br />That's correct. As we recall, Buzz had to pop an annoying "we never landed on the moon" heckler in the snoot! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thank You for your suggestion on writing. I am always willing to learn echoes of "Why cant the English learn how to speak"&nbsp; by Rex Harrison in "My Fair Lady" although I am not English.Posted by royalcolin</DIV><br /><br />Thanx, the spaces really help the readability.</p><p>Although the fact that you are not from the US undermines your complaint (if I recall it correctly) that your taxes paid for Neil's mission!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[royalcolin]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Thanx, the spaces really help the readability.Although the fact that you are not from the US undermines your complaint (if I recall it correctly) that your taxes paid for Neil's mission! <br />Posted by MeteorWayne</DIV><br />I never said my taxes paid for Neil's mission you got me wrong that time.

 

[MeteorWayne]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I never said my taxes paid for Neil's mission you got me wrong that time. <br />Posted by royalcolin</DIV><br /><br />Like I said, I wasn't sure if I recalled it right </p><p>This is what you actually said:</p><p>"Its anyhow sad that the post generation of 1969 cannot have even a glimpse of this heroic man, nor listen to him while he is still around after millions of public money&nbsp;was spent on the mission."</p><p>It may be sad, but it is his choice. The implication is, I think, that he had a duty to become a permanent public figure because the public's (Mine not yours <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-smile.gif" border="0" alt="Smile" title="Smile" />) money was spent. I still disagree. He did his job, VERY well, and that's all he was required to do. Becoming a public figure is a whole different thing. Not all are cut out for it.</p><p>What made him good at his job may indeed be the very fact that he did not crave the spotlight.</p><p>Wayne</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><font color="#ff0000">"And it is just that kind of shallow thinking that trivializes the space program.</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">There was no one brain behind the moon mission, and that is the main point.&nbsp; The fact that you and others do not recognize that is sad.&nbsp; The fact that you don't care is tragic."</font> posted by DrRocket</p><p>Geez...Lighten up dude! Yes there was an army of people who made it possible to go to the moon.&nbsp; I recognize that and appreciate the tremendous teamwork that was required to put together such a monumental undertaking in such a short period of time.&nbsp; But in the end it was Neil, Buzz, and Mike that put it all on the line.&nbsp; If Apollo 11 had crashed on the moon, that army of people would have still been able to go home, tuck themselves into bed and think about the next day and another chance to get it right.&nbsp; The crew of Apollo 11 would have just been dead, no second chance for them.&nbsp; So yes, they fully deserve all of the accolades that have been bestowed upon them and more.&nbsp; And yes, I fully expect that the name Neil Armstrong will live throughout history, along with the names Christopher Columbus, Charles Lindberg, Alan Shepard, Yuri Gregarin, John Glenn, and maybe Chuck Yeager.&nbsp; Buzz might be remembered&hellip;Pete Conrad, forget it.</p><p>Concerning why Mr. Armstrong is not in the "spotlight"...well, he has been from time to time, but sadly no one pays much attention.&nbsp; In addition to the brief time devoted to him in "When We Left Earth", he did a 60 minutes interview a couple of years ago.&nbsp; He also appeared with Buzz and Mike for the 30 anniversary in 1999, (which was largely ignored because it coincided with the death of JFK Jr.)&nbsp; He even did commercials for Chrysler back in the 1970s. Today I doubt that he could get booked on Leno or Letterman, because he is just not that much in demand as a celebrity.&nbsp; </p><p>Buzz&rsquo;s face crops up quite often, usually on Larry King or other interview shows when the topic is something space related, (Unlike Neil, I get the feeling that Buzz is quite the camera hog).&nbsp; But the sad truth is the public does not care that much about Neil Armstrong or any of the Apollo Astronauts.&nbsp; Now if you are willing to shell out about 10 grand I guess he will come to your house and give you a speech in person&hellip;no kidding:</p><p>http://www.sbsb.net/Speakers/NeilArmstrong.html</p><p>But if you really want to know more about Mr. Armstrong, I suggest that you get the book, "First Man" by James R. Hansen, it's an excellent read and it&rsquo;s alot cheaper.<img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-wink.gif" border="0" alt="Wink" title="Wink" /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Well after all is said and done it will finally bow down to the fact that Neil Armstrong was the first man to step onto the moon.I do agree that all at ground control were major players along with Armstrong and rest of the crew,and even going back a little further the guys who started the Space programmes.But in&nbsp;the world we live in unfortunately&nbsp;credit is not given to those whom credit is due and after a period of time all the other&nbsp;contributors will go into oblivion and only Neil Armstrong's name will stand out and remain.If you ask&nbsp; many a body&nbsp;who was the real&nbsp;brain behind the man on the moon mission that person's name will be unknown,and that includes me as well. <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>Well, as far as posterity sake is concerned, you're probably right that Neil will be remembered forever, and the engineers that put him on the moon will remain more obscure.&nbsp; However,t all of us that are old enough to remember the Apollo program also recognize that it was an increadible team effort that made his "small steps" possible, and the "giant leap" was made possible by more than just one man.&nbsp; I think the fact that Neil Armstrong has always been "low key" about his involvement&nbsp; in the program is a testement to the fact that&nbsp; NASA chose exactly the right guy to be the first man to step foot on the moon. &nbsp; Neil fully realized all the contributions from all the engineers that worked on the program, and he never forgot the efforts of those that helped him get there, even if history may eventually forget most of them. </p><p>The moon missions were certainly very expensive, and it consumed much of NASA's budget during the 60's and 70's.&nbsp; I think you might want to study the politics of what was going on during the late 60's and early 70's when these missions were in full swing.&nbsp; After the first few landings, the "novelty" of the achievement wore off, and the real budget battles began.&nbsp; I think NASA has made reasonable and thoughtful choices about how it's spent it's money over the past 40 years, and while moon landings were interesting, there are many interesting things to learn about space and our solar system.&nbsp; I'm personally glad that NASA has been more diversified in it's efforts over the last 40 years.&nbsp; We have programs like Hubble and Spitzer and SOHO and many other programs that have returned fantastic images of space and have also been very worthwhile. &nbsp; </p><p>While I'm sure that there are folks who would try to make some big deal about other nations eventually reaching the moon, NASA has already been there and done that.&nbsp; It has done many other magnificent things as well.&nbsp; I'm sure that there will be commercial and technological advantages to returning to the moon, but I'd personally rather see us spend our time and money figuring out how to put people on Mars, or to build spacesships that are capable of cruising our solar system and remaining in space for extended periods of time. &nbsp;</p><p>I don't think NASA could ever have pleased everyone as far as how it's spent it's limited funds over the last 40 years, but I can tell you that I've had fewer complaints about how they've spent my tax dollars than any other branch of the US government over the past 40 years.&nbsp; &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;I don't think NASA could ever have pleased everyone as far as how it's spent it's limited funds over the last 40 years, but I can tell you that I've had fewer complaints about how they've spent my tax dollars than any other branch of the US government over the past 40 years.&nbsp; &nbsp; <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />Well said mm! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Next year we will be marking the 40th year after man's moon landing.The question the younger generation poses out is why there has been no man moon mission&nbsp;since that period of time?They further add there should have been giant strides in the aspect of&nbsp;space technology&nbsp;during the intervening period,but a follow up of&nbsp;the most fascinating venture that shook the world,the&nbsp;man&nbsp;venturing&nbsp;to the moon&nbsp;surface has been put into cold storage for a long period of time.Another common question they&nbsp;pose is why Neil Armstrong the first human to step onto the moon's surface a worldwide celebrity is never in the spotlight?Sometimes they even wonder whether his exposure to the moon's atmosphere affected him..Could anyone kindly&nbsp;provide the answers so that we can enlighten the up and coming generation,and knowiing the younger set it should be&nbsp;logical answers which they are&nbsp;bound to believe.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by royalcolin</DIV></p><p>What benefit do you expect from having people on the Moon? Why should a single taxpayer dollar be spent to make it happen other than you think it would be cool, or you just think "we should" without any valid argument?</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><font color="#ff0000">"I think the fact that Neil Armstrong has always been "low key" about his involvement&nbsp; in the program is a testement to the fact that&nbsp; NASA chose exactly the right guy to be the first man to step foot on the moon." </font>Posted by michaelmozina</p><p>Actually Neil Armstrong wasn't "chosen" to be the first man on the moon.&nbsp; It was pretty much the luck of the draw.&nbsp; The crews were all assigned well in advance and the prerequisite missions; Apollos 7, 8, 9, and 10 had to work pretty much flawlessly in order for 11 to attempt the first landing. Pete Conrad of Apollo 12 could have easily been the first man on the moon had Apollo 10 not been able to perform a perfect "dress rehearsal" for the landing.</p><p>It was actually quite the miracle that all of that hardware of the previous flights&nbsp;worked to perfection to allow Neil to be the first man on the moon. If there had been say problems with the LM that prevented 11 or 12 from making the first landing, it would have fallen to 13...and we all know what happened there, 13's failure could have meant the end of the lunar missions without ever having achieved the landing (three strikes and you&rsquo;re out?), or it could have fallen to Alan Shepard of Apollo 14 to make the landing...We'll never know.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What benefit do you expect from having people on the Moon? Why should a single taxpayer dollar be spent to make it happen other than you think it would be cool, or you just think "we should" without any valid argument?&nbsp; <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV></p><p>Are you serious Dragon?...I think I detect a wiff of sarcasm in the air regarding that statement. If it were anyone else, some newbie perhaps to SDC making that statement, I would be all over it making comments like "short sighted" and "shallow thinking", but since it's you, I think I&nbsp;should look a little deeper before going off on a rant.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kelvinzero]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>What benefit do you expect from having people on the Moon? Why should a single taxpayer dollar be spent to make it happen other than you think it would be cool, or you just think "we should" without any valid argument?&nbsp; <br />Posted by dragon04</DIV></p><p>let me interpret that as permission to grandstand Here are my reasons why I think we should go back, and this time to maintain a permanent presence.</p><ul><li>Because Im tired of putting things up into space that fall down or drift away&nbsp;the moment we stop pouring money in them. Infrastructure of a base on the moon would just keep growing.</li><li>The key to mastering space is not better rockets but mastering long term life support and ISRU. I think lifesupport with infinite duration is within our reach through artificial biospheres.</li><li>Mastering artificial biospheres are also vital to understanding our own biosphere and how to live within it sustainably.</li><li>Having humans living in alternate biospheres is the best protection against various potential threats to the species such as asteroid collision, a natural virus or something that our technology cooks up over the next few decades.</li><li>Because it would be cool. I dont want to be part of the generation that sat on its asses. I want to be part of a generation that really changed things and for the better. The shift from becoming a species that exists on one planet to multiple is I think the most dramatic change to the definition of life as we know it since life first emerged billions of years ago. and it could happen in our generation if we merely chose it.</li></ul><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /></p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Are you serious Dragon?...I think I detect a wiff of sarcasm in the air regarding that statement. If it were anyone else, some newbie perhaps to SDC making that statement, I would be all over it making comments like "short sighted" and "shallow thinking", but since it's you, I think I&nbsp;should look a little deeper before going off on a rant. <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>So, pretend that the comments came from elsewhere and explain why they are "short sighted" or represent "shallow thinking".&nbsp; I think you will find it difficult to justify a moon mission, or almost any undertaking in the name solely of increasing scientific knowledge without resorting to an assumption that an increase in knowledge has value in and of itself.&nbsp; While I personally value scientific progress for its own sake, I think it is not irrational to take a contrary view and wish to see a justification for the expenditure of resources in more concrete terms.</p><p>So, if you have a purely rational and concrete argument for a moon mission or for any other purely scientific endeavor please present it.&nbsp; Please do not try to make that argument in terms of "spin offs" -- as that is an argument for pursuing the spin offs directly and diverting resources from that which merely fosters ancilliary products.</p><p>Failing to produce such an argument, you are, like the rest of us, stuck with the position that the pursuit of knowledge is a worthy endeavor in its own right that requires no further justification.&nbsp;In short, that is simply an opinion and a personal value.&nbsp; Contrary opinions and values may be equally valid.&nbsp; And those contrary opinions are indeed valid when you demand the resources from those who hold them to support&nbsp; your own objectives.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So, pretend that the comments came from elsewhere and explain why they are "short sighted" or represent "shallow thinking".&nbsp; I think you will find it difficult to justify a moon mission, or almost any undertaking in the name solely of increasing scientific knowledge without resorting to an assumption that an increase in knowledge has value in and of itself.&nbsp; While I personally value scientific progress for its own sake, I think it is not irrational to take a contrary view and wish to see a justification for the expenditure of resources in more concrete terms.So, if you have a purely rational and concrete argument for a moon mission or for any other purely scientific endeavor please present it.&nbsp; Please do not try to make that argument in terms of "spin offs" -- as that is an argument for pursuing the spin offs directly and diverting resources from that which merely fosters ancilliary products.Failing to produce such an argument, you are, like the rest of us, stuck with the position that the pursuit of knowledge is a worthy endeavor in its own right that requires no further justification.&nbsp;In short, that is simply an opinion and a personal value.&nbsp; Contrary opinions and values may be equally valid.&nbsp; And those contrary opinions are indeed valid when you demand the resources from those who hold them to support&nbsp; your own objectives. <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />Okay, how about this...Ultimately the survival of the human race will depend on it. If we (humans) don't eventually become a multi-planet species we will become extinct. Some asteroid, or super volcano, or some catastrophic concoction of our own making will wipe us out. It is as simple as that, and it is not conjecture, or speculation, or conspiracy stuff, it is a certainty.&nbsp; </p><p>Humanity will eventually become extinct if it chooses to remain solely attached to the earth throughout its entire existence.&nbsp; Spreading the population around to other independent locales will greatly enhance the probability of survival. And yes, a supernova going off in the celestial neighborhood may still do the job. But the chances of getting wiped out by some rogue asteroid, volcano, or nuclear "accident" would be greatly diminished.</p><p>The continued existence of humanity is worth the investment of a few tax dollars...don't you think?<br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Okay, how about this...Ultimately the survival of the human race will depend on it. If we (humans) don't eventually become a multi-planet species we will become extinct. Some asteroid, or super volcano, or some catastrophic concoction of our own making will wipe us out. It is as simple as that, and it is not conjecture, or speculation, or conspiracy stuff, it is a certainty.&nbsp; Humanity will eventually become extinct if it chooses to remain solely attached to the earth throughout its entire existence.&nbsp; Spreading the population around to other independent locales will greatly enhance the probability of survival. And yes, a supernova going off in the celestial neighborhood may still do the job. But the chances of getting wiped out by some rogue asteroid, volcano, or nuclear "accident" would be greatly diminished.The continued existence of humanity is worth the investment of a few tax dollars...don't you think?&nbsp; <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>You failed to show how going to the moon materially contributes to survival.&nbsp; You made an unsubstantiated assumption that some unnamed future catastrophe would wipe out mankind.&nbsp; You failed to demonstrate any credible scenario in which&nbsp;mankind could colonize any other planet.&nbsp; You made no connection between expenditure of funds in the current time frame with colonization of other planets in any clear future time frame.&nbsp; You made no clear case that investing dollars in a space program at this point would not in fact detract from other work necessary to preserve the species from more imminent dangers that we seem to be creating ourselves.</p><p>So, no you did not make your case and you are still stuck with a personal judgment that such an expenditure of funds in pursuit of knowledge is a worthy end in and of itself.</p><p>I still basically agree that the space program is a good thing.&nbsp; But I totally disagree that a contrary opinion is not valid.&nbsp; Your argument is emotionally appealing but lacking in hard facts and logic.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p>I didn't know you wanted me to write you a book.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">You failed to show how going to the moon materially contributes to survival.</font></p><p>Going to the moon is just the first step in learning to colonize other worlds.&nbsp; Colonization of other worlds is the key to ensuring the continued existence of humanity.&nbsp; If I own two houses and one burns down, I am not homeless...get it?</p><p><font color="#ff0000">You made an unsubstantiated assumption that some unnamed future catastrophe would wipe out mankind.</font></p><p>Read the latest headlines if you don't think it possible that humans could be wiped out on a global scale</p><p><font color="#ff0000">You failed to demonstrate any credible scenario in which mankind could colonize any other planet.</font></p><p>And we never will if we don't get started and get past this argument that there is no value in going to other planets.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">You made no connection between expenditure of funds in the current time frame with colonization of other planets in any clear future time frame.</font></p><p>???????&nbsp; Please interpret this one. Do you want me to make you a spreadsheet for showing precise allocation of funds until other planets are colonized?...Please, I'm good, but not that good.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">You made no clear case that investing dollars in a space program at this point would not in fact detract from other work necessary to preserve the species from more imminent dangers that we seem to be creating ourselves.</font></p><p>What other work?&nbsp; Specifics please. What can we do on a global scale to preserve the species from all of the possible myriad catastrophes that may or will befall the earth in the next 10,000 years or next week?</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Your argument is emotionally appealing but lacking in hard facts and logic.</font> </p><p>No, your argument is the one lacking the hard facts and logic.&nbsp; I think you are just shocked that I was able to knock your argument out of the park and you are having trouble defending your position. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>..+&nbsp; I think you are just shocked that I was able to knock your argument out of the park and you are having trouble defending your position. <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>I haven't been shocked in a long time and this is no exception.&nbsp; You unforunately didn't knock anything out of the park, or even get to first base.&nbsp; Nice bunt attempt though.</p><p>You still need to provide a specific acheiveable plan with a specific schedule and a specific budget and to compare that plan and goals against other equally pressing issues including environmental issues that may have more immediate consequences.&nbsp; Your arguments thus far are non-specific and particularly non-quantitative in nature -- i.e. totally emotional.</p><p>Again it is not that I disagree that we ought to have a space program.&nbsp; What I disagree with is your statement that your opinion is obviously correct, and no contrary opinion is worthy of consideration.&nbsp; The plain fact is that these issues are sufficiently complex that alternate viewpoints have validity.&nbsp; Even if we do not adopt those alternate perspectives, we ought to acknowledge that they carry weight.&nbsp; What is short-sighted is failing to recognize that the other side may have a point.</p><p>The plain fact is that extraterrestrial threats to the survival of man, while they exist, are of unknown likelihood in any specific time frame and potential countermeasures are not well-defined.&nbsp; We simply do not know what to do, how long it might take to implement any effective action or what it would cost.&nbsp; It is therefore quite debatable as to whether in the forseeable it is better to concentrate resources on more&nbsp;immediate problems with more immediate solutions.&nbsp; It could well be that by waiting a bit we would have more effective technology from which to begin to explore long-term solutions to long-term problems.&nbsp; The issue is not whether this perspective is correct, but simply whether it deserves consideration.&nbsp; Dismissing it out of hand simply demonstrates a lack of recognition of the uncertainties involved in the definition and solution of the issues involved, and what risks can be responsibly taken.&nbsp; One thing is certain, we do not have the resources to immediately attack every problem that has been recognzied and to do so would guarantee that none of those problems would be solved.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I didn't know you wanted me to write you a book.You failed to show how going to the moon materially contributes to survival.Going to the moon is just the first step in learning to colonize other worlds.&nbsp; Colonization of other worlds is the key to ensuring the continued existence of humanity.&nbsp; ...Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>Since you seem to be having a hard time getting to gist of the issue, perhaps this can help.</p><p>The question on the table is not whether there may be benefit to manned space exploration in general or to a moon mission in particular.&nbsp; The question on the table is whether there is reason to respect and objectively evaluate a position that there may be higher priority efforts worthy of the available resources, rather than to dismiss such a position out of hand as either "short sighted" or "shallow thinking".&nbsp; The question ultimately is one of thoughtfulness and awareness of all of the issues involved in the expenditure of a significant amount of resources.</p><p>In order to support your position that only your position is worthy of consideration you need to:</p><p>1.&nbsp; Provide a list of all important issues facing mankind, their potential impact, the time frame in which that impact might occur, possible solutions, the likely cost to develop and implement those solutions and the time frame in which it could be done.</p><p>2.&nbsp; Provide for your specific plan for colonization of other worlds, the specific threats to which the plan is a solution, the time frame and likelihood of occurrence of those threats, the specific means by which your plan averts the problems over time,&nbsp; the costs associated with development and implementation of the technology, a time-phased plan to develop the technology and to implement it, and specific criteria for success and the likelihood of achieving them.</p><p>3.&nbsp; Compare the threats and likelihood of averting them&nbsp;according to your plan with the threats and likelihood of averting them for all other&nbsp;issues and the expected return on the investment.&nbsp; Also evaluate the potential, given the availability of limited resources for failing to avert a more immediate and more likely threat by pursuing your specific plan and not pursuing a competing plan.</p><p>Or you might concede that the issues facing us are sufficiently complex and challenging that alternate viewpoints might possibly have some merit.<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><font color="#ff0000">Provide for your specific plan for colonization of other worlds, the specific threats to which the plan is a solution, the time frame and likelihood of occurrence of those threats, the specific means by which your plan averts the problems over time,&nbsp; the costs associated with development and implementation of the technology, a time-phased plan to develop the technology and to implement it, and specific criteria for success and the likelihood of achieving them.</font></p><p>Okay, and while I'm at it do you want me to cure cancer and the common cold? </p><p>The original question on the table, "What is the justification for going to the moon", I answered in very concrete and specific terms. Now you want to move the goal posts by insisting that I provide you with specifics down to the cost per square meter for colonizing another planet.&nbsp; Well, I am not going to waste any more time answering your contrived and thinly disguised attempts to&nbsp;side step&nbsp;the issue by insisting that all details be addressed before any valid conclusions can be reached.&nbsp; </p><p>You are also either being disingenuous or, are just plain ignorant of the facts&nbsp;in requiring me to justify my answer by producing a list of threats facing mankind. Do your own research, there are plenty of potential global catastrophes to pick from, (not all extraterrestrial), and each and every one could be studied and cost analyzed until the end of time, literally.&nbsp; </p><p>Your argument to me sounds like a case of, &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t just do something, sit there"...if we study a problem long enough maybe it will go away...sorry my friend, Armageddon day will come for humanity eventually, and no matter how much you study it, as long as we are solely invested in the one planet earth we will become extinct...no more time to study then.&nbsp; But if we are a multi-planet species we have a chance to survive, this is not a difficult concept.</p><p><font color="#ff0000">The plain fact is that extraterrestrial threats to the survival of man, while they exist, are of unknown likelihood in any specific time frame and potential countermeasures are not well-defined.</font></p><p>You are obviously not addressing what I actually said, you are just making some generic argument to justify your own bias and predetermined conclusions and opinions. Extraterrestrial threats were only one of the possible threats I mentioned, there are others with equal if not higher probabilities of occurrence, but you conveniently left these out of your last diatribe of arbitrary and irrelevant requirements you want me to provide to validate my argument in your mind. </p><p><font color="#ff0000">What I disagree with is your statement that your opinion is obviously correct, and no contrary opinion is worthy of consideration.</font></p><p>Show me where I said that. I don&rsquo;t think I made this specific statement.&nbsp; Again, you are not addressing what I actually said you are just generalizing and arguing against a predetermined mindset of your own making.&nbsp; Therefore any further discussion with you on this topic is obviously wasted effort on my part.</p><p>BTW, I did knock it out of the park, but you were so busy moving the goal posts so far into left field that in your mind it only seemed like a bunt.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[azorean5000]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Provide for your specific plan for colonization of other worlds, the specific threats to which the plan is a solution, the time frame and likelihood of occurrence of those threats, the specific means by which your plan averts the problems over time,&nbsp; the costs associated with development and implementation of the technology, a time-phased plan to develop the technology and to implement it, and specific criteria for success and the likelihood of achieving them.Okay, and while I'm at it do you want me to cure cancer and the common cold? The original question on the table, "What is the justification for going to the moon", I answered in very concrete and specific terms. Now you want to move the goal posts by insisting that I provide you with specifics down to the cost per square meter for colonizing another planet.&nbsp; Well, I am not going to waste any more time answering your contrived and thinly disguised attempts to&nbsp;side step&nbsp;the issue by insisting that all details be addressed before any valid conclusions can be reached.&nbsp; You are also either being disingenuous or, are just plain ignorant of the facts&nbsp;in requiring me to justify my answer by producing a list of threats facing mankind. Do your own research, there are plenty of potential global catastrophes to pick from, (not all extraterrestrial), and each and every one could be studied and cost analyzed until the end of time, literally.&nbsp; Your argument to me sounds like a case of, &ldquo;Don&rsquo;t just do something, sit there"...if we study a problem long enough maybe it will go away...sorry my friend, Armageddon day will come for humanity eventually, and no matter how much you study it, as long as we are solely invested in the one planet earth we will become extinct...no more time to study then.&nbsp; But if we are a multi-planet species we have a chance to survive, this is not a difficult concept.The plain fact is that extraterrestrial threats to the survival of man, while they exist, are of unknown likelihood in any specific time frame and potential countermeasures are not well-defined.You are obviously not addressing what I actually said, you are just making some generic argument to justify your own bias and predetermined conclusions and opinions. Extraterrestrial threats were only one of the possible threats I mentioned, there are others with equal if not higher probabilities of occurrence, but you conveniently left these out of your last diatribe of arbitrary and irrelevant requirements you want me to provide to validate my argument in your mind. What I disagree with is your statement that your opinion is obviously correct, and no contrary opinion is worthy of consideration.Show me where I said that. I don&rsquo;t think I made this specific statement.&nbsp; Again, you are not addressing what I actually said you are just generalizing and arguing against a predetermined mindset of your own making.&nbsp; Therefore any further discussion with you on this topic is obviously wasted effort on my part.BTW, I did knock it out of the park, but you were so busy moving the goal posts so far into left field that in your mind it only seemed like a bunt. <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>hey onesmallstep, dont you have anything of concrete to show?</p><p>&nbsp;If humans cant survive on earth, they sure wont survive in the moon, or mars, or venus, or any other planet in a radius of many light-years, (if that). </p><p>So much for that "spread humanity in other planets".<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>&nbsp;hey onesmallstep, dont you have anything of concrete to show? Posted by azorean5000</DIV></p><p>Here ya go:</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p><br /><img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/4/11/34982ae3-5509-470b-bba2-2fb46a72b794.Medium.jpg" alt="" /><br /><br />http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Forums/#</p><p>Hope this helps!</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>... I did knock it out of the park, but you were so busy moving the goal posts so far into left field that in your mind it only seemed like a bunt. <br />Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>Sonny, you weren't even in the park.&nbsp; You have missed the entire issue, which is not whether there is merit in a moon program but whether one recognizes that there might possibly be valid alternate viewpoints and priorities. Dismissing alternate points of view out of hand without considering the arguments for and against them is a prime example of being short-sighted.&nbsp; In other words, you are the one being short-sighted not to mention closed-minded.&nbsp; <br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Sonny, you weren't even in the park.&nbsp; You have missed the entire issue, which is not whether there is merit in a moon program but whether one recognizes that there might possibly be valid alternate viewpoints and priorities. Dismissing alternate points of view out of hand without considering the arguments for and against them is a prime example of being short-sighted.&nbsp; In other words, you are the one being short-sighted not to mention closed-minded.&nbsp; <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV><br /><br />It only looks like I missed the issue to you because from your viewpoint there in the cheap seats, you can&rsquo;t see it. </p><p>So what are your alternatives, I don&rsquo;t recall seeing any specific alternative points of view that you have put forward.&nbsp; All you have done is make ridiculous demands of me to justify my position.&nbsp;&nbsp; Let&rsquo;s see some of your alternate ideas for the ensured long-term survival of humanity that does not involve colonizing other planets.&nbsp; But since you have now resorted to name calling, I will just assume you don&rsquo;t really have anything to offer. As I suspected you are all bluster, no muster.&nbsp; So I&rsquo;ll take being called shortsighted and close-minded from one who has nothing to offer except convoluted criticism, as very high praise indeed.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>It only looks like I missed the issue to you because from your viewpoint there in the cheap seats, you can&rsquo;t see it....Posted by onesmallstep</DIV></p><p>Gee, I always thought that the view was not half bad.&nbsp; I have been involved in the design and analysis of the rockets, led preparation of major launch&nbsp;vehicle proposals, managed programs, &nbsp;worked on and led teams that diagnosed and solved problems, participated as a member of executive Gold Team reviews to decide on launch readiness, been present in the control rooms for major launches, managed corporate IR&D budgets and directed research and development efforts, ....</p><p>And the only point that I have made in this thread, which you seem to have missed in its entirety, is that those people who believe that the funds that could be used for a moon mission might be better utilized, ought to be at&nbsp;least heard out and their arguments evaluated critically rather than being dismissed out of hand.&nbsp; I did not say that they were correct, but only that their viewpoint deserves a fair and objective evaluation.&nbsp; Such an evaluation includes laying out <strong>all</strong> relevant facts and options and then and only then considering the merits and making a decision.</p><p>If you are not able to at least listen to opposing viewpoints and to evaluate the arguments on the objective merits, then you will not make it in the technical world.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[onesmallstep]

<p>Sir, I don't care if you built the space shuttle singlehandedly out of rubber bands and paper clips.&nbsp; Your resume is irrelevant to this discussion.&nbsp; In fact, any focus on specific rockets, nuts, bolts, or any hardware is irrelevant.&nbsp; This is more of a philosophical discussion than anything else...Perhaps this is where you and I have been miss-communicating all along.&nbsp; I don't propose that we spend the entire federal budget launching an all out effort to get to the moon by next week.&nbsp; </p><p>In my mind we are talking about a long term, big picture philosophy of where humanity needs to go in the next few hundred years. I realize that we can not colonize other planets with the meager technological resources we have at our disposal right now.&nbsp; It will take decades, perhaps centuries to achieve this. That is why your hammering me to provide specific details seemed so silly.</p><p>We are at a point now, analogously, of perhaps where Lewis and Clark were 200 years ago in the development of the western portion of North America.&nbsp; If an average person from the early 1800s had been shown a picture of modern day Los Angeles, their reaction may have been; "that's impossible, it will never happen, it's too difficult and expensive to transport all of that material over such long distances, who's going to pay for all of that?"&nbsp; </p><p>The development of the west did happen, but only after technology caught up to allow economical transportation of sufficient goods, materials, and personnel to allow such development; namely the railroad.&nbsp; So perhaps Apollo was just the Lewis and Clark era of lunar exploration. A better transportation system will definitely be needed for any serious colonization effort. But rest assured it will happen eventually, I just hope any future global catastrophes will permit us such a leisurely time-table. </p><p>BTW, I have been working as an engineer for nearly 30 years, thanks to you I now know I will never make it in this field and should start looking for another profession.&nbsp; </p><p><br /><br />&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>