Hippie Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 I recently heard an interview with Chris Kraft (former NASA mission control flight director) where he was saying he doubts we could put a man on the moon today. He commented the gov't moves too slow these days to allow funds appropriation, 'it would be bogged down in a sea of red tape'. Furthermore, Gene Krantz (another flight director) says we no longer hold a complete blue print of the saturn-5 rocket. To me, that is a sorry state of affairs. Why are we so short-sighted these days, what happened? Matt In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 Back then there was a sense of purpose in *everything*, and a willingness to invest time & resources in great causes. And you see the parallel in the music of the time. Back then, everything seemed possible.... Today's purpose is no further than the quarterly bottom line. If we can't tell stockholders every three months that we are making them a profit, the plug is pulled - no project is deemed worthy if it doesn't generate instant massive return on investment. That too is reflected in the music of our day. Sadly. [quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b]I recently heard an interview with Chris Kraft (former NASA mission control flight director) where he was saying he doubts we could put a man on the moon today. He commented the gov't moves too slow these days to allow funds appropriation, 'it would be bogged down in a sea of red tape'. Furthermore, Gene Krantz (another flight director) says we no longer hold a complete blue print of the saturn-5 rocket. To me, that is a sorry state of affairs. Why are we so short-sighted these days, what happened? Matt[/b][/quote] I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 Well I think the problem would be in convincing the public (ie the people who would foot the bill) that there is a legitimate reason to do it. I think that back in the day the biggest reason to do it was to see if it could be done. Well now , it's already been done... why do it again? Kris My Band: http://www.fullblackout.com UPDATED!!! Fairly regularly these days... http://www.logcabinmusic.com updated 11/9/04 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tedster Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 I dunno, Kris..people keep climbing Everest. Some of them have been up there a few times. I do agree that money for that type of thing should be spent on an as-needed basis, which is pretty low priority these days. We have higher priorities here on ol' terra firma without jaunting off in odd directions of space. There will come a time when manned exploration of other remote areas is called for, but not yet. "Cisco Kid, was a friend of mine" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coyote Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 Agreed that we ought not go to the moon just to go there. So how about this: A series of telescopes/interferometers across the surface of the Moon. You think we're getting cool images and new knowledge from Hubble - wait til you see what comes from a virtual 5 kilometer scope thru unobstructed (nonexistent) skies! Such a device would allow us to see actual planets orbiting other stars. A staging base for manned journeys to Mars. Perhaps there are resources on the Moon which could be used toward such a venture - we'll never know based on the few hundred lbs of rock hauled back by the astronauts thirty years ago. It requires a real geologic survey. A base for comet/asteroid study. One day, one of those things *will* hit Earth. It might behoove us to know well in advance, in order to have a chance to do something about it. I see much more value in these possibilities than in that preposterous International Space Station we're currently tossing billions of $$ at. I used to think I was Libertarian. Until I saw their platform; now I know I'm no more Libertarian than I am RepubliCrat or neoCON or Liberal or Socialist. This ain't no track meet; this is football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie Posted June 17, 2002 Author Share Posted June 17, 2002 Why is it that we must either do one thing or the other (go to Mars or feed the hungry, for instance) why can't we do both? In the peak spending of NASA in the 60's, the total annual amount spent on space was about .35% of our nat'l income (not even 1%!) Plus, the newly developed technologies spun-off from the program were a large part of the healthy economy we enjoyed in the 90's. It seems like a good return on the investment. In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roto Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Kris: [b]Well I think the problem would be in convincing the public (ie the people who would foot the bill) that there is a legitimate reason to do it. I think that back in the day the biggest reason to do it was to see if it could be done. Well now , it's already been done... why do it again?[/b][/quote]Well from what I read last week about China planning to go to the moon and start mining, I would expect the United States to try to beat them to the punch. If China is really planning to start a space program and land on the moon we could have another space race. Politicians love that stuff. According to [url=http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/05/20/china.space/index.html]CNN[/url] , China's goal is 2010. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve LeBlanc Posted June 17, 2002 Share Posted June 17, 2002 Yeah we could go to the moon again but what about the Alien Base on the dark side? ;) http://www.youtube.com/notesleb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dylan Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 It's funny you should start this thread, as I just visited the Air & Space Museum in D.C. last week. It was very cool to visit this place as it had the Apollo II and tons of other amazing aircraft like the X-15 on display. My brother was commenting on how NASA really hasn't done dick since we put a man on the moon. I don't know about you guys, but I would love to visit space someday. Why is it that only astronauts and the super rich should have that privilege? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progfusion74 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 I would beg to differ. While a manned mission to the moon was a great achievement, it was as much a race to one up the Soviets. Scientifically, the Hubble telescope, the space shuttle, voyager are way more important that sending someone to the moon again, which wouldn't serve any good purpose. I would trade a more powerful Hubble for 10 manned missions to the moon any day. That said I agree on the bearocracy that NASA and science in general faces. http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisDude Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 coyote said: [quote] A staging base for manned journeys to Mars. Perhaps there are resources on the Moon which could be used toward such a venture [/quote]I'm not an expert on this, but the presence of usable water is what it boils down to (no pun intended). From water, we can make fuel (hydrogen) and air (oxygen), not to mention the fact we need to drink water. The energy needed to escape the moon's surface also is much less than what is needed to escape earth's. I don't think a serious manned mission to mars is feasible until they develop the single stage rocket to economically jump that first hurdle. Why do we need to send people anyways? Just to say we did it? Machines would be way more efficient... oh well, maybe we'll get some help from Hollywood. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progfusion74 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Don't we need to invent warp drive first :D http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b]Why is it that we must either do one thing or the other (go to Mars or feed the hungry, for instance) why can't we do both? [/b][/quote]that's what Mars Bars are for. :) -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henchman Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 I don't see the big deal about the space station. That's more of a waste of money in my mind. I think it would be smarter to try and build some permanent bases on the moon first. And then start launching stuff from the moon instead. Way more fuel efficient if you ask me. IMDB Credit list President George Washington: "The government of the United States is in no sense founded on the Christian Religion." President Abraham Lincoln: "The Bible is not my book, nor Christianity my religion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chip McDonald Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by coyote: [b]One day, one of those things *will* hit Earth. It might behoove us to know well in advance, in order to have a chance to do something about it. [/b][/quote]If for no other reason than that we need humans off the planet. We have no contingency plan for such a thing, it's absurd. NASA: I remember going to Cape Canaveral when I was about 6 back around '73. Everything there was new, bustling. *Cutting edge*, congruent with what humans were capable of at the time. The feeling was "this is the place where humans are pushing forward, [i]we[/i] as a species are moving forward. Went back around '90. Dilapidated. Everything covered in rust, dust or dirt. Things left "forgotten". No spirit. No pride. That was very educational. People younger than the far end of Gen-X have no experience with the tail end of what was America during it's hey-day, when things were positive and moving forward. The optimism of Clarke/Kubrick's _2001_ is a vibe that people younger than about 33 have no experience with. What's important is that I saw the contrast of the transition. NASA was the shiny pearl of the U.S.. I saw a very similar thing with Disney World; once an icon of America in a state of Perpetual Ascension, now just a relic of bygone hopes and dreams *taken for granted*. That contrast is lost apparently on everyone: older people don't see it missing, younger people never saw it, people on the cusp - my age - are too busy trying to survive to bother recollecting remembering the feeling of expectations regarding the space program. Which is important, because I think the only thing "beyond" what was the space program as a BIG CONCEPTUAL IDEA is [b]The United States of America[/b]. People either have the notion that the U.S. has some sort of immunity to having a Rome-like demise, or lack the empathy to care at all. Both situations are dangerous mindsets IMO, but again hearken to deep problems the U.S. doesn't realize it's facing yet. Ok, THAT was my last post of the day... Guitar Lessons in Augusta Georgia: www.chipmcdonald.com Eccentric blog: https://chipmcdonaldblog.blogspot.com/ / "big ass windbag" - Bruce Swedien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thisDude Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 Chip MacDonald said: [quote] If for no other reason than that we need humans off the planet. We have no contingency plan for such a thing, it's absurd. [/quote]I don't remember where I read it, but there is a contingency plan proposed by some scientists for a mass exodus to a moon of Jupiter called Io (I think). I wonder what criteria will be used to decide which genes live on? :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wewus432 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 The ONLY reason we went to the moon was to beat the Russians. If not for the cold war it NEVER would have happened so soon. Hardly anyone gave a rat's ass about space exploration. It was all about beating the Russians and bragging rights. Ha Ha we went to the moon and you didn't. Kind of ridiculous if you think about it. But then again them getting beat so many times may have been what led to the end of the cold war. Somebody had to lose. Glad it wasn't us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]The ONLY reason we went to the moon was to beat the Russians. If not for the cold war it NEVER would have happened so soon. Hardly anyone gave a rat's ass about space exploration. It was all about beating the Russians and bragging rights. Ha Ha we went to the moon and you didn't. Kind of ridiculous if you think about it. But then again them getting beat so many times may have been what led to the end of the cold war. Somebody had to lose. Glad it wasn't us.[/b][/quote]Ridiculous? When Russia's 'Luna 2' brought back the first pictures taken of the far side of the moon, Kruechev said, 'Tonight, America sleeps under a Russian moon', that was reason enough to go. In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wewus432 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 What are you saying my hippie brother? Is that not a ridiculous statement Kruechev made? Nobody owns the moon. Yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by TheWewus: [b]What are you saying my hippie brother? Is that not a ridiculous statement Kruechev made? Nobody owns the moon. Yet.[/b][/quote]Wewus, yes, 'ridiculous statement...' now when hindsight is always 20-20. But, at the time & in the context of the cold war the Kruechev statement was a real stinger. There was fear the first nation making it to the moon would attempt to claim it as their own. This was before the nations with a space program agreed 'no national borders were to be placed on newly discovered moons and planets..' in '67?, I believe. -Anyway, notice how 'old glory' was tossed up there within the 1st 20 minutes of the moonwalk. ha! In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BP3 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Hippie: [b] -Anyway, notice how 'old glory' was tossed up there within the 1st 20 minutes of the moonwalk. ha![/b][/quote]Yeah, they blew the shit out of the flag when they took off to go back to the command module. Any future Mars trip with humans will most likely have a testing phase that will include the moon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. Gauss Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 <> yep, if any part of the computer systems involved are windows-based, i'd say those astronauts are toast! -d. gauss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hippie Posted June 18, 2002 Author Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]<> yep, if any part of the computer systems involved are windows-based, i'd say those astronauts are toast! -d. gauss[/b][/quote]the original Mecury capsule design did not contain any 'windows' for the astronauts. :D In two days, it won't matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progfusion74 Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by d gauss: [b]<> yep, if any part of the computer systems involved are windows-based, i'd say those astronauts are toast! -d. gauss[/b][/quote]I am pretty sure any such systems will be UNIX-based :D http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koolkid Posted June 18, 2002 Share Posted June 18, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]I dunno, Kris..people keep climbing Everest. Some of them have been up there a few times. I do agree that money for that type of thing should be spent on an as-needed basis, which is pretty low priority these days. We have higher priorities here on ol' terra firma without jaunting off in odd directions of space. There will come a time when manned exploration of other remote areas is called for, but not yet.[/b][/quote]it doesnt cost a billion dolars to climb everest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botch. Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 While escaping the Moon's gravity is much less of a challenge than Earth's, it still makes no sense to launch a mission from the Moon, as you still have to get the fuel to the Moon in the first place (its pretty much guaranteed there's no gas or even water on the Moon, as Cheney has shown no interest :D ). Once that fuel load is in orbit, it will take much less energy and mission complexity to head straight to Mars from there. Landing the fuel on the Moon, loading it into another ship, then expending some of it just to overcome the Moon's gravitational pull makes no sense. We may not need rockets soon anyway. Anyone else see the report yesterday that Australian scientists have successfully disassembled a laser beam with data on it, converted it to (I assume) visible light (CNN's talking heads said "...converted it to photons.. :rolleyes: ) sent it a short distance, then recompiled it into laser, with the data intact? That's COOL! It's still a few years away from an actual "Beam me up, Scottie" but did you think 20 years ago you'd be running a 24/96 multitrack studio...on your lap?!? Botch "Eccentric language often is symptomatic of peculiar thinking" - George Will www.puddlestone.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
offramp Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 I've often wondered why we didn't pursue moon work, as well; doing it and then stopping is rather arrogant, to me, as if to say "Well, WE know all there is to know about the moon, now, so nobody needs to go there." I want to put a studio up there. "What is this, this, 'noise floor' of which you speak?" I've upped my standards; now, up yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
progfusion74 Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 [quote]Originally posted by Tedster: [b]I dunno, Kris..people keep climbing Everest. Some of them have been up there a few times. [/b][/quote]People climb everest as a physical challenge, not for scientific pursuit ... and as someone mentioned .. not too much money involved. http://www.indiegrooves.com/dnm/images/dnm_small.gif My Blog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
topper74 Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Here's the address about the guys that built the Teleportation system. Pretty interesting article. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20020617/od_uk_nm/oukoe_science_australia_teleporting_1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bucktunes Posted June 19, 2002 Share Posted June 19, 2002 Well of course, you all know that we never [i]really[/i] went to the moon in `69. It was all staged and faked out at Area 51! Government conspiracy, you know! :rolleyes: :p :D BTW, in case anyone reading this has emoticons disabled; That last paragraph is [i]sarcastic![/i] :D Peace all, Steve ><> Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.