Glenn Urges Direct-to-Mars Trip

Geno Z Heinlein writes "Reuters reports that astronaut John Glenn testified March 4 before the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond, saying that Bush's plan 'pulls the rug out from under our scientists' and that 'It just seems to me the direct-to-Mars [route] is the way to go.' Referring to the Moon as an 'enormously complex' Cape Canaveral, Glenn said that NASA might spend all the money getting to the Moon and never get to Mars."

Comments

I fear that's the whole point

[nokilli]

Spending all our money on the moon, that is. The moon has military value. Mars doesn't. If anything should serve as a base between here and Mars it should be ISS (after all it's a big reason we built the thing.) ISS should also be exploited as a place where returning astronauts (or samples) can be studied, safely, without risk to life on Earth (as low as that risk might be.)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[samcentral2000]

How does the moon have military value? I'm no expert, but doesn't it take like six days to go up there? Not to mention the costs. From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[trinitrotoluene]

The only obvious thing I can think is of is the fact that the Moon is high up in Earth's gravity well. So you can shoot a big chunk of rock from the moon and have it hit somewhere on Earth. Then you get lots of destruction with no risk to friendly troops and without resorting to nuclear weapons.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Trigun]

wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?

As opposed to that giant thing orbiting the earth called 'The Moon'? And you can shoot down something like the ISS with less difficulty than blowing up the moon.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[airConditionedGypsy]

The moon is a more stable platform for this type of thing. I can't see the ISS as something that anyone has faith in staying up and functional for a long time. On the other hand, the moon is gonna stay in orbit for a long time.

(yes, I know it's moving away from us at the astounding rate of 3.8 cm/yr)

Google for "earth moon orbit unstable" for more on the decay of the moon's orbit.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Epyn]

well the fact that the same side faces earth at all times would make it more feasible for thing related to earth as opposed to travel. The moon's gravity would make it more wasteful a station than a floating one.
Maybe this has to do with the giant rods of doom from space article that was floating around earlier...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[squiggleslash]

Well, the obvious military use for it is to put a huge number of rockets on it that'll, if fired, cause its orbit to be slowed. Then you'd have the ultimate deterent.

Any tin-pot third-world dictator threatens you, you just threaten to crash the moon into their country. Not only will they not want that, but their neighbours will probably overthrow said dictator on your behalf as the moon crashing into a country is likely to have severe repurcussions for anyone nearby.

I can clearly see Bush's reasoning on this.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Cyclotron_Boy]

You missed a big physics fact. The orbit that the ISS sits in is totally wrong for launching anything. Originally the orbit was to be just off the equator, but in order for the Russians to help and launch from the Cosmodrome in Khazakstan, the orbit was changed to 51 degrees. That meant a change in the mission of the ISS from a "jumping off point to outer space" to an international scientific outpost. Here's a NASA quote: "NASA spokesperson Phil West says the ISS' inclination of 51 degrees was chosen as a compromise to accommodate all of the international partners who will be launching from different latitudes. For example, Russia's launch site in Kazakhstan is further north than the Florida site, making lower inclinations difficult to achieve."
ISS History article
Space Station History

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Baron_Yam]

I used to think the same thing, but then I realized - you'd need a hell of a rail gun to launch a rock at the Earth, and get it to target quickly enough that a superpower wouldn't have time to nuke your ass off the planet. You might think, "Yes, but the Moon rocks wouldn't be nuclear" to which I'd respond - "When you're about to get wiped out anyway, do you care if your enemy's remains glow in the dark?"

It's much easier to maintain your ICBM array locally than to build, maintain, and operate something less effective on the Moon. The Cold War idea of MAD means we don't need a base on the Moon for military purposes.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[HullBreach]

I always thought taking advantage of one of the Lagrange (sp?) points made more sense for this sort of endevor. That way your clear of the earths debris feild (cough...Thanks NASA...Cough) and the opposing gravity/centrifugal force influences effectively cancel eachother out. BTW the moon might not be useful as a platform for weapons, or the garrisoning of troops, but it would provide a handy platform for anti-satilite beam weapons.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Short Circuit]

Unfortunately, the ISS wasn't built to handle stress from collision. Even a docking-gone-bad caused a leak. Imagine what a direct collision on the side would cause.

We've got a long ways to go before we can afford to build the kind of strength we need into space platforms.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[CrazyTalk]

25 years ago it only took 3 days (and less than a decade to develop and test the technology, but thats another story). One problem with a base in orbit is the lack of available raw materials - everything has to be brought up from Earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[mj2k]

The moon would be feasible only if a more stable means of energy production were available to be placed there (solar panels don't count, too expensive and heavy for significant electric power). In Mars there is at least an atomosphere (95% CO2 +1-2% Argon) - this would allow for an open cycle modular gas reactor (some of which that have been proposed would use "spent fuel" as fuel (extracting the plutonium) that could operate on a combined open cycle CO2 + closed cycle Argon cycle that could be quite efficient considering the resident temp on mars is well below zero deg C (delta T accross reactor is directly proportional to effiency and is limited by the material constraints (lower inlet temp = greater delta T). The bottom line is that once you have an established,reliable power source on Mars there is really no need for an interim station because the big cost is transporting stuff outside the earth's gravitational field, not transporting it accross open space. The only way an interim station would help is if it served as some sort of manufacturing plant, but if an effective energy source is available on Mars, the same thing could be accomplished there.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

It's certainly somewhere some mad dictator could, say, stock up pairs of beautiful humans while sending a volley of glass spheres filled with poisonous gas designed to wipe out the entire human race, returning to earth for sexy parties in paradise.

Hmmmm. Where do I sign up?

"No, Mr Bond, I expect you to die...."

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[corbettw]

From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?

That's no moon. That's a space station!

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[R.Caley]

How does the moon have military value?

Strategic deterrant value of the ability to control the international cheese industry. The Swiss and the French would be eating out of your hands for a start.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Aglassis]

You said: " How does the moon have military value? I'm no expert, but doesn't it take like six days to go up there? Not to mention the costs. From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?"

Its like a man on a hill versus a man downslope. On the moon you have the ability to see every point on the Earth in time, but the 'dark side' (of course its not always dark) of the moon is never seen from Earth. It would be possible to stockpile weapons on the 'dark side' and then move them to a suitable base on the other side to attack the Earth. Additionally, if you are trying to defend the dark side, there is a very narrow cone-ring that you'd have to survey. But on the Moon you could easily attack any point on the Earth with a gigantic area that they'd have to defend against. And, of course, I haven't even started to talk about gravitational advantages.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[dillon_rinker]

The problem with MAD, though, is we've lost both the M and the A. Who else can match our arsenal? Who else can deploy an ABM system?

All your other points are excellent.

The point of a moon base, though, would be a resupply base for all your orbital death stars. It's cheaper to get material out of the moon's gravity well than the earth's. It'd take a while to establish the industrial base needed on the moon, though; I'm thinking a permanent manned facility with a population of around 50,000 would be necessary to supply a ring of battle stations in low earth orbit.

"Fear will keep the third world in line...fear of our Orbital Death Lasers!"

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

Pretty simple, really:

a) The moon is easy to defend from Earth-based attacks. It takes a looooot more effort to get something to the Moon from Earth than it does to get something from the Moon to Earth.
b) Anything launched from the Moon can reach any target on the planet, easily enough, using Gravity.
c) The moon has tons of resources for constructing weapons, especially new kinds of nuclear weapons. There's no Greenpeace, no protestors, and no life to destroy, so the Military-Industrial complex can do a looooot of things on the moon that they wouldn't stand a chance doing here on Earth.

This was, incidentally, a hot topic in the 50's and 60's, and I seem to remember more than one sci-fi author getting into a lot of trouble for suggesting that the moon be used militarily in the Cold War ...

A moon base would be the Top of the Hill for the Pentagon. Its very, very difficult to defend against moon-launched attacks ...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[bdeclerc]

Excellent idea, why don't we start with Cuba? ;-)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[darkmeridian]

The Apollo spacecraft made the trip there in three days. Six days is a round trip.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Short Circuit]

Don't thank NASA, thank the corporations that find it cheaper to leave their dead satellites in orbit rather than pay to have them de-orbited. And the federal government for not passing a law that dead US satellites had to be deorbited.

What we need is some numbers as to how much cheap space is really left up there, and point out to congress that once it's gone, the economy will have lost a boosting factor.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[mwood]

Hmmm, the quote's from _Goldfinger_, but the plot seems to be _Moonraker_.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[garyok]

How does the moon have military value?

Rail guns. Low gravity makes shooting them up (then back down) the well pretty feasible. And you can build them pretty much as big as you like with less structural support needed in the moon's low gravity. And if you want superconductivity then you just dig a big pit and stick it in the shade at the bottom (approx 118K out of the sun, or -155 deg C).

And you won't be waiting 3 days for the projectile to hit its target either...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[blue_adept]

Yes, the moon crashing into the earth would cause a catastrophic drop in cheese prices everywhere. The swiss, normally neutral, would be furious.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[jguthrie]

Running out of room in space? Well, Douglas Adams put it fairly well: "Space is really big! You may think it's a long way down the road to the chemists but that's peanuts compared to space."

They're not exactly running out of room where "the corporations" usually put their satellites. Look, geosynchronous orbit is about 40 Mm from the center of the earth. That means that there's about 240 Mm of linear space in geosynchronous orbit. I say "linear" because they all want to be in a circular orbit in the plane of the equator. Since each satellite has to be about 3 degrees from its neighbor because of the beamwidth of the signals being sent to it, that means that there are only about 120 active satellites in geosynchronous orbit at any one time. Of course, there are dead satellites and spares, but each slot is 2000 kilometers wide. That could easily soak up ten satellites or so and they'd still be so far apart that you wouldn't be able to seen one from another. In other words, they're not exactly running out of real estate.

I once read a wonderful cure for insomnia that was a NASA report on the odds of colliding with space junk. The upshot was this: The odds of a significant collision was highest in those orbits closest to the earth. There are two reasons for this. First, even though lower orbits decay so there's a kind of a natural cleaning process, there's a lot more junk close to the earth and the fact that there's less volume near the earth, what with the volume of a thin shell of a particular thickness being roughly proportional to the square of the radius, so the density of stuff is a lot higher. Second, lower orbits tend to be inclined with the equator. That means that the closing speeds tend to be much higher and so the potential damage is much larger.

Now, if space travel to geosynchronous was routine, it seems likely that there would be an effort to salvage dead satellites, which would, in my opinion, be beneficial to many people, but NASA's big thing is that only "steely-eyed missle men" get to fly into space. Ragmen need not apply, so it'll never happen while NASA holds the keys to low earth orbit.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Short Circuit]

It doesn't matter that it'll take a long time to fill the geosynchronous circle.

If you take care of the dead/useless satellites now, it'll be a lot easier and cheaper than it would be to take care of the problem when it starts really getting crowded up there.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Neil]

Yep. Robert Heinlein's novel The Moon is a Harsh Mistress features an excellent description of a lunar colony revolution where the "lunies" break away from Earth by "throwing rocks".

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[DJOrient]

yes - and the moon is an abundant of raw materials - like rocks and cheese

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ifitzgerald]

From a military perspective, wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?

Last time I checked, the moon DOES orbit the earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Insipid Trunculance]

If anything should serve as a base between here and Mars it should be ISS (after all it's a big reason we built the thing.)

I am afraid the orbit of ISS is such that it can neither serve as a Mars launching base nor as an observatory.The ISS is a shiny thing in space whose most useful purpose is to serve as a zero gravity lab.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[goatan]

The Swiss and the French would be eating out of your hands for a start.

of your moon surley?

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[CrazyTalk]

Actually there is quite a lot of useful stuff there - Oxygen, for one, and possible materials for creating rocket fuel.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmm, lets see, doom everyone on earth to imminent death and destruction of the ecosystem...
hmmm, thats not a good idea.

besides, have you checked the thrust requirements?

No, the mayor reason to NOT go for a direct to mars route, is that if it IS done, it will not accomplish anything long term.

We will be in the same shape in 2050 as we are now after the 1960-70s moon landings.

We need a permanent presence off earth. ISS is an outpost, not a settlement. there are no resources to make use of, everything has to be taken there.
On the moon, you have mass and energy. with those two, you can make everything else (just a case of engineering! hehe)

We need to make permanent steps, not fleeting visits.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Daniel Dvorkin]

M: No one else can match our arsenal, but who gives a shit? China, Russia, and probably France and the UK have enough nukes to kill off tens of millions of Americans in one strike. That's really all anyone needs for an effective deterrent.

A: We will never, ever have an anti-missile system that can stop enough incoming ICBM's and/or SLBM's to fend off a massive strike. Period. And if we ever go to war on the assumption that we can, odds are decent that you and everyone you know will die.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[xaaronx]

Indeed. But is it a effective way for one terrestrial nation to attack another? Probably not, in a world where the only nation capable of building this base already has more ICBMs than we know what to do with.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[zero_offset]

You missed a big physics fact.

That should be the name of a new -1 moderation. :)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Warped1]

I first thought of "Signal to Noise" by Eric S. Nylund, actually.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[kalidasa]

I have doubts that a medium-sized rock coming directly from the moon would be picked up until it was too late, unless everyone started actively pinging circumlunar space 24/7.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[tassii]

How does the moon have military value

Read Robert Heinlien's "The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress".

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[garyok]

Doing some sums (and wouldn't it be nice if someone checked them - don't trust me to remember where the decimal point goes...):

1 kg of iron going at 2/3 * c has 2E16J of kinetic energy (about 4.8 megatons of TNT) and will take approx 2s (1.925s by my calculation) to cover the distance from the Moon to Earth. Most 'battlefield' nuclear weapons are about 25 kilotons, so you'd probably only need a mass of about 0.5g (plus whatever you expect to burn up in the atmosphere) to enable a very, very capable artillery battery.

Nuclear reactor + big-ass capacitors + -155 deg C in the shade = superconducting electromagnetic projectile launcher capable of taking out cities. 4-minute warning?! Bwahahahahaha!

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[WindBourne]

1) prevent Astronauts from getting to the ISS and servicing it.
or
2) brilliant pebbles
or
3) simple ground based laser

It is scarey how open to attack we are up there.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. Although they should change the name ICBM for that.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[b-baggins]

Actually, the moon has the best of both worlds (pardon the pun).

Enough gravity to be useful (it's way easier to build things in gravity than not). A large stable base (as in bedrock, anchors for building foundations, etc.), an enormous supply of raw materials, yet a low enough gravity to where getting into orbit is extremely easy.

You want to talk about space elevators? We could build them from the moon with today's technology.

You need space stations? Build them in Lunar orbit. It takes a fraction of the energy, and you can orbit them 10 miles up if you want to.

Folks, the moon makes enormous sense if you want to BE in space. If all you are interested in is SYMBOLIC GESTURES about space, then a dozen Apollo-like trips to Mars is what you want.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ckaminski]

If your enemies only have dozens or hundreds of warheads, you can *INDEED* field a system (at great cost no doubt) that can protect against them. That's why everyone's so pissed at U.S. for backing out of the ABM treaty. To maintain the MAD doctrine will require countries to pour money into nuclear deterrance that they'd rather spend on Internet infrastructure.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Nintendork]

"c) The moon has tons of resources for constructing weapons, especially new kinds of nuclear weapons. There's no Greenpeace, no protestors, and no life to destroy, so the Military-Industrial complex can do a looooot of things on the moon that they wouldn't stand a chance doing here on Earth."

Yeah, those peace mongers won't give a shit what we do to the moon. *rolls eyes*

Anyone that thinks the primary motive for going to the moon is military dominance should put away their UFO cover up books and read a history book instead. Sure, the military is going to take advantage of whatever technologies they can along the way, but I doubt the thought of putting a laser on the moon is what's driving Bush's push for space exploration. Look at what space exploration did for us in our prior space races. Huge economic gains, confidence, nationalism, technological leaps, and other things we need right now to counter all the negativity and cynicism rampant in this country after a heavily debated war. Not to mention Bush would like to build upon his image as a leader even more to help the upcoming elections.

Is it just me or can I already hear a bunch of negative, cynical Bush haters before I even hit the Submit button?

-Lucas

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ttsalo]

That meant a change in the mission of the ISS from a "jumping off point to outer space" to an international scientific outpost.

Couple of degrees smaller inclination wouldn't have been all that much better as a stepping stone anyway, or would it? Florida isn't exactly near the equator either. And the ISS is at a pretty low orbit in any case.

Now that the shuttle fleet is grounded, it sure is nice to be able to resupply the ISS with russian rockets.

--

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

the ISS is worthless as a launching off point. Its orbit is at too high an inclination to be useful (a legacy of the russian involvement) what we need is a new station designed and built specifically to handle cargo and build craft for future trips.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ckaminski]

You wouldn't need to. Just a satellite at the earth-moon lagrange points pinging the moon. Anyone tries to mess with your bird, and you know something's afoot.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[kir]

Ahhh... The Moon is a Harsh Mistress, isn't she.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Eccles]

As opposed to that giant thing orbiting the earth called 'The Moon'?

The moon is a significant gravity well. Once you get there, you're going to have to overcome gravity again, not to mention you have to land slowly enough in the first place. While it may be possible to mine the moon for materials to help enable a launch, or to build a linear accelerator that would do so, a near-zero gravity way station might be better.

I'd like to see if it is possible to redirect and capture a moderate-sized asteroid for this purpose. Said asteroid might itself be selected for having the sorts of raw materials that could be used for spacecraft launching.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[CXI]

How does the moon have military value?

Read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" by Heinlein.

Main points:
1) The moon has a lot of rocks.
2) It's relatively easy in terms of technology and cheap in terms of energy to throw them at any target on Earth.
3) Um, big profit? No, that's not right...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[big-giant-head]

No, the problem is the ISS, it's stupid to build essentally a low to medium orbit Station. It should have been built at L5. To actually build another mars type vessel at the ISS would not work.

The logic is this, you want to build your mars vessel somewhere other than earth, because it would be too expensive to build it on earth and launch it. So you build it space or the moon. ISS was never meant for anything like that. You need a larger facility, optimally ISS SHOULD be about 3 times it current size and sitting at L5.

Because Nasa wasted 20 yrs with nothing but a low orbit taxi we have the ISS.

Not having a large station at L5, the next best thing is the moon. Alot of real-estate, no dangerous spacewalks to build the ship, moon walks would be somewhat dangerous, but not like spacewalks. Now we know the moon has ice and even is a good source for fusionable material to feed the reactor(s).

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

I think he meant the ISS, not the Moon, when he was talking about the disadvantages of an orbital base vs. a lunar base. Obviously, there's plenty of rock on the moon, and given enough energy, you can turn sufficiently diverse rock into anything you might need. The sun provides energy and particles you might use for other things. And you wouldn't have any trouble putting a nuclear reactor on the moon (until the save-the-moon-from-human-exploitation! nuts start to show up).

The point I wanted to make, though, was with the time table. The easiest way to make something cheaper is to lower your expectations. ;)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

Yeah, those peace mongers won't give a shit what we do to the moon. *rolls eyes*

Have you ever heard of Greenpeace protesting about whats going on in Area 51?

No. Because they don't know.

You think that condition is going to get any better when there's a base on the dark side of the moon, protected by "Military Secret" doctrines of the Pentagon?

No.

Anyone that thinks the primary motive for going to the moon is military dominance should put away their UFO cover up books and read a history book instead.

Who said it was a primary reason? I'm only suggesting that there are 'good reasons' for doing so, were one to be militarily inclined.

There are just as many good reasons to have an open colony on the Moon, populated by members of every country on the planet. Hell, maybe "Moon City" would be the ultimate peace weapon, eh? An International, Human Presence of such nature would probably be the best War Deterrent one could create ... but do you think anyone in current power has the balls to attempt such a thing?

Nope. Too busy living their one little life, making historical events for themselves ... swimming in hubris.

As for Bush, I do hate him. I think he's scum, and I think that Americans who support this man are ignorant and, above all, disgustingly decadent in the face of an International reality.

I am slowly formulating the opinion that Ignorant America deserved 9/11, whoever really perpetrated it, for letting Bush hi-jack their government, letting him wreck the Kyoto accords, letting him foist un-fathomable depravity on his subjects in the name of Big Business and Special Interest. 3000 New-Yorkers died. Big Deal. Bush was the worse disaster to happen to the USA.

I've seen worse events than 9/11 occur in smaller states, where the population recovered quickly, and I can list a number of State Systems wherein the populace would never have used such an incident as a justification for futher agressions against ones fellow man like Bush and his CFR friends have done ...

Huge economic gains, confidence, nationalism, technological leaps ...

That's a good thing, is it?

My, how Americans love their television-fed stigma, it seems that it gets them out of bed in the morning. Good for the hubris sores I guess ...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[The_K4]

Nah, just stock up the weapons on the dark side and then rotate the moon! :)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

The moon has military value. Mars doesn't.

Seriously, the moon has much, much less military value than LEO (Low Earth Orbit). What are you going to do? Fire missiles from the moon? They'll take about three days to reach their target! Whereas missles in LEO take about 15 minutes!

Even using the moon for surveillance is much more difficult. You need much larger and better optics to get the same resolution from the moon (about 250,000 miles away) as you need in LEO (only about 100 miles up).

In short, imagining the moon has some sort of special military value is just a paranoid wet dream.

If anything should serve as a base between here and Mars it should be ISS (after all it's a big reason we built the thing.)

Maybe ISS serving as a way station for deep space missions was on somebody's wish list when ISS was designed, but it quite definitely is impractical today.

There are virtually no facilities for returning astronauts. Hell, there's barely enough room for the astronauts that are there now. There's no storage facilities for extra fuel or supplies for a departing or returning deep space mission.

If you look at the ISS, it's very pretty, but it's actually very fragile with immense solar panels and things sticking out all over. The shuttle has a tough time docking with it, and any deep space vehicle is probably going to be much larger than the shuttle.

Not to mention that the ISS is in a highly inclined orbit that makes it very unsuitable for deep space missions to the moon or the solar system.

I'm not sure why your post was rated +5 insightful.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[b-baggins]

Who would use photovoltaic cells? For crying out loud, you make a mirror farm and focus the sun on a point source. You've got two weeks of sunlight in a vaccum in a 1/6th gravity field. You can make tremendously efficient solar power stations on the moon.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[AeroIllini]

wouldn't a base in orbit around earth be more practical?

As opposed to that giant thing orbiting the earth called 'The Moon'?

You seem to be forgetting about orbital distances. The ISS orbits the Earth at an altitude of about 500 km. The moon orbits at an average altitude of 378,000 km. (Analogy: the difference between traveling three miles to the grocery store or from Chicago to Los Angeles.)

Any weapon fired from the moon would have tremendous difficulties. A rocket-based weapon, such as an ICBM (IPBM?), would take 3 to 4 days to reach the Earth. One we fire from Earth could reach its target in a matter of minutes. Any laser-based or beam-based weapon would also have big problems, since the Earth, seen from the moon, only covers about 2 degrees of the sky. Aiming at a target on the Earth would require an instrument of incredibly high precision, and any such sensitive equipment would be exceedingly difficult to set up on the moon.

The moon is not strategic militarily. But I would agree that going to the moon as a jump-off point to Mars is a bit pointless, and it only made sense in the 1950s scifi books. Why leave one gravity well, just to land in another and have to overcome it again? The surface of the moon is every bit as unforgiving as orbit, since there's no insulating atmosphere. True, it has gravity, but that dust gets EVERYWHERE. It would make far more sense to do everything in orbit: build the spacecraft, fuel it, launch it, return it. Just stay out of the gravity well as long as possible.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[jsebrech]

A moon base would be the Top of the Hill for the Pentagon. Its very, very difficult to defend against moon-launched attacks ...

That's the only part of your post I would agree with, but only because any kind of off-planet-originated assault is hard to defend against. A planet is a 3D target, it is near impossible to "shield" the entireness of it.

The only effective defense is to engage your enemy before they reach the planet. Or some kind of star wars like planet-sized energy barrier, if they ever figure that out.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Macgruder]

2 seconds? Dude, the lightspeed delay between earth and the moon is just over 1 second. How the heck are you going to launch a projectile at 50% of c?

At this point, the military believes they can build an EM-cannon that will (in a vacum) give a muzzle velocity of about 2 miles (3.2km) per second. Not counting accelaration, that's 34 hours.

I'll leave it to someone else more motivated than I to calculate the velocity added by the rock 'falling' to the earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Begossi]

Just of think of it this way: the moon is the higher ground.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Kirkaiya]

I hate to be selfish - but if we spend the extra time needed to establish a waystation on the moon for a Mars mission, I'll be dead before I get to actually SEE humans land on Mars - so I'm all for the "direct to Mars" route. And about the Moon having resources - yes, but it would take a decade or two of research before humans on the Moon could begin to make some reasonable contribution to an Earth-Mars trip - it would probably be cheaper to lift material up from earth, assuming a drop in the launch price per kilo (using, say, a Big Dumb Rocket, or a EM cannon/railgun) Anyway - I think it should be obvious that Bush is just playing election-year politics; these are similiar to the promises his father made back in 1991 or 1992, and no mission to Mars has yet been explicitly planned.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[AeroIllini]

Yes, LaGrange points (or libration points, in mathspeak) are valuable interplanetary jump points. They're already far out of the gravity well, so very little energy needs to be expended to go somewhere. They are relatively easy to get to from Earth orbit, if you have the fuel, and they are stable locations, which makes communications much easier.

In fact, they might very well be what we're looking for in terms of getting around the solar system. Read up on the Interplanetary SuperHighway, which is just a series of low-energy corridors connecting all the LaGrange points in the solar system (there are five LaGrange points per two-body system -- we would most likely use Earth-Moon L1, which is directly between the Earth and Moon, as our manned launchpad).

Google's findings for the Interplanetary SuperHighway

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Tablizer]

Any tin-pot third-world dictator threatens you, you just threaten to crash the moon into their country.

Mooning dictators? What have we stooped to?

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

"I'm going to dismiss everyone who disagrees with my view on the situation as negative and cynical, before it happens."

How about the Clinton years? It was then that all the "negative cynics" voted Republican. A lot of those guys were pretty negative, pretty vocal, and pretty stupid.

I'll agree that a lot (probably most) of the Bush-bashers hold their views for the wrong reasons. However, there is plenty to complain about when it comes to Bush. The man's a crook, a liar and a coward, if you ask me.

I have to bight my tongue a lot when it comes to political discussion with friends. It's just a shame how many people are taken for a ride by politicans.

--

Other than that, a lot of these people here are crazy. They're morons. They're trying to talk politics, they're trying to talk science, they're trying to talk warfare. They try to talk Unix and Computer Science, and most of them fail at that, too! And they think they know what they're talking about. I don't have a word for these people. I really wonder why I still read this site when I see some of the posts here. You can really replace them all with monkeys and parrots.

Slashdot reminds us all that it's very easy to be wrong about something. That's an important lesson in life, that I think a lot of people forget.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh....No.

W You cannot use ISS. It was not designed for assembly/base and is not in a high enough orbit. Furthermore, due to the use of Soyuz it is in a rather weird latitude orbit as well, 30 deg. I think.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Clubber Lang]

What's wrong with Cuba??

I was just there... great place! Nice weather, wonderful people, no Americans. ;)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[x0]

You are making the assumption that ABM systems are designed to stop all of the incoming ICBMs. While it may have been sold to the public on that premise, I think there were two more important (and successful) reasons for the ABM research:

1. Stop enough incoming ballistic missiles to make strikes less than a sure thing for some percentage of the number launched.
2. Make the other guy spend more money to make more missiles, including maintaining those missiles, at a higher percentage of the GNP.

In short; Outspend them until they fail.

Seems like it worked to me...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Clubber Lang]

Well... a planetary sheild *has* been done before... we just need to learn from others mistakes and not cave in to plastic surgery threats, or make the combination 12345.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[kwan3217]

Are you sure you are not thinking of Mir?

Anyway, ISS is pretty safe. The small stuff is like bullets, and ISS has a pretty good layer of armor plate on the front facing surfaces. The large stuff is impossible to survive an impact with, using any reasonable amount of armor, but all the large stuff is tracked by the Air Force and the station can steer around it.

There may be a middle range, large enough to be dangerous, but small enough to not be trackable, and this is the dangerous stuff. But, it is worth noting that ISS has been inhabited for almost 4 continuous years, and Mir for over 10 years before that, and in all that time, there has never been a problem except for that docking incident which you wrote about, and that one was an intentional rendezvous and collision anyway. They just intended to impact the docking port, not the hull and solar panels of the ship.

In fact, I believe that there has only been one satellite ever lost due to collision with another object.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[BurritoJ]

How does the moon have military value?

I see that you have never read 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress' by Heinlein.

To summarize... Tossing big hunks of rock into the Earth's gravity well is a great way to get everyone's attention.

Joe

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[drinkypoo]

"In the shade" doesn't help, does it? As I recall the moon's atmosphere is so thin as to be nonexistent, meaning you will have no significant cooling. We don't know anything about temperatures inside the moon that I could find easily, so I don't know if burying will carry heat away or not. Presumably if it's dead, and it radiates more energy than it absorbs, then it will work.

One nice thing about lunar structures is that the lower gravity enables you to build things just not feasible on earth, so you could indeed make such items. The only problem is, you either have to get the mass to the moon in the first place, or spin up manufacturing... Let's worry about just building a little habitat first :)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[hike2]

Interesting, but how exactly is different from Mars? Other than it is farther away. Same logic can be applied to a base on Mars.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Note that I didn't say "all," I said "enough." And my belief -- one that I think is well borne out by the numbers involved -- is that we will never be able to stop enough incoming ICBM's and/or SLBM's launched by any other major power to keep a significant portion of America's population from being killed in a nuclear war. "Outspend them until the fail" is an interesting proposition (and the collapse of the USSR is much, much more complicated than that) but the simple fact is that missiles are cheap and ABM is expensive.

You know, in some other countries, this might not be the case -- consider the great conventional battles of the past, in young men's lives were spent like pennies for a mile or two of ground. But Americans don't fight that way, and never have. (Gettysburg pales in comparision to the Somme, or Stalingrad.) There are governments which would probably regard the loss of a Chicago-size metropolitan center or two, or ten, as an acceptable risk. But traditionally, we don't think that way, and that's a Good Thing. I will be very saddened, and rather disturbed, if this changes.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Piobaire]

Chucking rocks at Earth? Don't let the bugs hear that!!!

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Rasta Prefect]

If anything should serve as a base between here and Mars it should be ISS (after all it's a big reason we built the thing.) ISS should also be exploited as a place where returning astronauts (or samples) can be studied, safely, without risk to life on Earth (as low as that risk might be.)

Unfortuantely, due to political compromises made to bring the Russians on board, the ISS is in an orbit that makes it nearly worthless as a jumping off point.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

Since Mars is so far away, and it takes on the order of months to transit the space between, and Moon is closer, this puts Moon at a more valuable position.

Of course, the energy required to get to Mars is about the same as that required to get to the Moon. In both cases, Earths gravitational field has to be left behind.

In fact, Zubrin has even argued that going to Mars is more beneficial than going to the Moon, since Mars has many resources (such as water) which we can use to do interesting things with ... its just that its so damned far away, and the time between (getting there) is where the difficulty lays.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[prisoner-of-enigma]

You are, of course, ignoring the fantastic cost and complexity involved in building such systems. You could easily spend half a trillion dollars putting a permanently-manned military moonbase in place with such a weapons system, not to mention the ongoing support costs. You would exceed the entire military budget for the entire United States pretty quickly with such a scheme, with very limited results. After all, the Moon cannot alter its orbit like a satellite can. What if your target is on the other side of the planet? Care to wait while the Moon orbits to the correct location?

Sorry, it's neither practical nor feasible to do anything like what you're describing, not when a tenth of that same money can be spent Earthside in the development of other weapon systems that would be more effective, cheaper, and easier to deploy and maintain. It's a nice conspiracy theory for the tinfoil beanie crowd, though.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[t0ny]

The problem with the ISS is that, from its placement on in orbit, its not really in a position to be of any real value.

Someone will have to look up the article, but I was reading something which basically said in terms of space travel, the ISS is worthless. Its position was only chosen because it is convient for Russia, rather than being chosen as a stepping stone off the planet.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[eofpi]

It doesn't even make much sense to build the thing in orbit. Especially not for the first few exploratory missions. Orbital construction costs are still exorbitantly expensive. In a few decades, when it's significantly cheaper, it might make sense. But it doesn't right now.

In his book The Case For Mars, Dr. Robert Zubrin explains his plan for Mars exploration, called Mars Direct. Zubrin does a much better job of explaining it than I could, so I'll just say this: he figures that getting to Mars is doable with a low-earth-orbit mass of 70-100 tons. This is in the same range as the Saturn V's heavy lift capabilities, so it's achievable using common rocketry knowledge.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[HullBreach]

L5 is on the dark side of the moon right? I saw a chart of these things once and havent found one again since.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that there are reasons a gravity well can be advantageous. Instead of weapons based on the moon, how about surveillance based on the moon? Light/radio/microwave travels plenty fast so the time to travel isn't a problem, and neither is gravity. Lack of visual resolution at the distance may be a problem, but not for some applications (again, radio and microwave). There's a whole lot of crap in orbit and every day there's more. All it takes is a grain of sand moving at a few hundred miles an hour to take out a very expensive spy satellite. The moon's gravity well takes care of the debris problem (well, except the BIG ones). Put a spy station on the moon, turn it on, leave it on. No decaying orbit, no damage due to debris, just the power requirements to take care of. Sounds better than low Earth orbit to me.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

If the moon were to impact the earth, the event would release enough energy to liquify the surface of the Earth. Mutually assured destruction indeed...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

the "alan parsons project" is the code name.

does it have a "friggen laser beam"? it aint cool unless....

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[objwiz]

Electronic and visual spying maybe....the same side of the moon is always facing the earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[teval]

Question is.. why pay so much money to make a base on the moon simply to shoot down space stations? Why not invest in something worthwile? like going to Mars.

Very few countries have access to space, and even fewer can field sattelites on their own. To destroy a sattelite you can probably use a much (orders of magnitude) cheaper Atlas or Redstone missle if it really becomes a problem. You can do the same with space stations, it takes very little to make something like that collapse under pressure (a few perforations here and there)

I don't think there's much of a military use for the moon. What use it could serve is to in a way claim the moon under the banner of the US.
Being the first there could guarantee a huge chunk of it (prime realeastate). From what I remember the moon is in the same situation as Antarctica, which would make that a valid point.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[hesiod]

I am going to pray for you tonight, in hopes that your rabid anti-American ignorance & FUD/lies clear up soon. And I'm an atheist.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[WalksOnDirt]

A lunar space elevator would be different than one for Earth. It would be about 60,000 kilometers long and go through the Lagrange point between the Earth and the Moon.

See http://www.treitel.org/Richard/rass/stalk05.html

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

"No, the mayor reason to NOT go"

Interesting mix of English and Spanish?

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Anyone that thinks the primary motive for going to the moon is military dominance should put away their UFO cover up books and read a history book instead.

I think it's YOU who needs to read history books. Anyone with any understanding of politics and history would know that past imperialism (by Britain for example) was driven by similar strategy. Namely, expand and capture land/resources. Britain, France, and others ventured far away from their homeland to what is called Middle East now, Asia, and AFrica to contain their opponents (their opponents being each other).

The new imperialism, taken on by USA after the collapse of British colonialism, is no different. USA would gain strategic advantage with the moon.

Modern US imperialist policy and British imperialist policy are quite similar. The policy documents are almost as if written by the same people (this shouldn't be surprising given that the imperialists who control USA look up to British imperialists as their role models). The euphamism preached by the imperialists just uses different language. The point is the same. Instead of Britain invading others to "educate the savages", USA is invading others to "bring democracy". Similar to how the British attempted to conquer whole of Asia and failed, USA is attempting to conquer space--and will fail.

It is funny how you ask others to go and check history when in fact, it is you who needs to check the history books... You imply the present policies are without precedent; I claim otherwise. The only difference is that we are talking about space. Two hundread years ago, invading Africa and Asia would have been thought unlikely, just like how conquering space is dissmissed by many as too hard, too unrealistic, and so forth.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Performer Guy]

No, because launching from a suitable orbit is much less complex and risky than launching from the bottom of Moon's gravity well, with all that hard "ground" stuff below you waiting for your failure. A Mars mission would require a huge vehicle (probably vehicles). You're talking about a massive ammount of supplies, fuel etc and a complex mission. Landing all that hardware on the Moon only to take off again is just dumb.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Performer Guy]

OK, I'll bite, what makes you so sure the energy will be released on impact? This would be essential for your theoretical weapon to work (although it is a practical impossibility anyway).

The chances are you'd wind up with a very deep rather small hole, a loud bang and some fireworks.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Moofie]

Nonsense.

We like the moon.

Cuz it is close to us.

We like the MOOOOOOOOOON!

But not as much as a spoon.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Zordak]

The problem with MAD, though, is we've lost both the M and the A. Who else can match our arsenal?

Umm, Russia? Yes, "End of the Cold War" notwithstanding, at last count, they actually have MORE ground-based warheads than we do (though fewer sea-based warheads). Furthermore, they recently announced that they have developed a new delivery vehicle that is capable of penetrating our ABM defense systems (sorry, no link, since I didn't get that info off the internet. Google if you want). Now, I know that they're theoretically supposed to be our friends now and all, but the truth is, they could turn on a dime and go the other way. And if you're interested in knowing what would happen once we all start firing, check out The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. It's considered the definitive unclassified reference on Nuclear Weapons effects.

Bottom line: We should still be plenty scared of our Russian friends. Which is just as well. MAD has worked as a deterrent for the past 50 years. As long as we are all scared of each other, nobody is crazy enough to pull the trigger.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Tackhead]

> I have doubts that a medium-sized rock coming directly from the moon would be picked up until it was too late, unless everyone started actively pinging circumlunar space 24/7.

And there's no need to do so unless you know there's a lunar weapons base. Lunar weapons bases are pretty hard to hide. If nothing else, the infrared signature of any lunar complex large enough to house a mass driver capable of hurling big hunks of metal towards Earth would be pretty unmistakable, even from the ground.

Too bad, really. I'd love to see a brand-new boxcar-sized meteorite land - with total plausible deniability - on top of an football-sized meteorite in a certain location in the Middle East.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[CriX]

No kidding it doesn't have an atmosphere, that's the whole point. When there's no air to create an ambient temperature the only thing that matters is if you're in the sunlight or in the shade. If you're in the shade then it's gonna be a lot easier to maintain extremely cold superconducter temperatures.

But it doesn't matter cuz the idea of accelerating 1kg of material to .75c with a moon based railgun is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! .75c is an INSANE amount of speed.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[good soldier svejk]

In short; Outspend them until they fail.

Seems like it worked to me...

Not really. Soviet military budget growth was moderate, about 4-7% anually, from 1965-1975. Then it dropped dramatically to about 2% between 1977-1982. After 1982 it hovered between 1-2%. From 1977 on there was no growth at all in spending on new weapons.

The Reagan administration's massive increases in military spending had no impact on Soviet spending at all. They tied their military budget growth rate to their GDP growth. When economic growth slowed, so did military spending increases.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Zordak]

Furthermore, they recently announced that they have developed a new delivery vehicle that is capable of penetrating our ABM defense systems

Apologies for a tense goof. :s/have developed/are developing

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

China, Russia, and probably France and the UK have enough nukes to kill off tens of millions of Americans in one strike. That's really all anyone needs for an effective deterrent

"Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed. But, I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, TOPS. Uh, depending on the breaks." George C. Scott (General Turgidson), "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

Why leave one gravity well, just to land in another and have to overcome it again?

The point is to make a base on the moon so that they will only have to leave 1 gravity well, the moons. Last time I checked something like 85% of the weight for the Space Shuttle launch was fuel. The moon has a lot less gravity than earth so I'm guessing it would take a lot less fuel to break out. And as for the dust, did you ever even watch the moon landings?? Did enormous clouds of dust fly up with Armstrong jumped down to the ground? The reason large dust clouds happen on earth is that there is an atmosphere, and that is what is pushing the dust around. If you have a pile of dust and go 10 feet away and blow towards it, your breath is not the actual breath touching the dust causing it to move, you are just pushing air that is pushing more air, etc until it hits the dust. It sounds like you listened to that FOX "scientist" about the moon or something. Go do some reading and learn something.
P.S. I applogize for the run on sentences, language arts was never my strong suit.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

b) Anything launched from the Moon can reach any target on the planet, easily enough, using Gravity.

Assuming it doesn't burn up upon re-entry. Given what happend to Columbia, I don't think I would call it easy.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[David Hume]

The problem with MAD, though, is we've lost both the M and the A. Who else can match our arsenal?

If "we" have AD on "them," why do "we" care if "they" don't have AD on "us?" In other words, as long as "we" have second strike AD on "them," why do "we" care about M?

My question is not rhetorical. I know at least some of the proposed responses (e.g., the use it or lose it scenario), but it is a legitimate question. If "we" have second strike AD on "them," under what circumstances would "they" be better off launching a preemptive strike on "us?" The usual answer is when "they" are 100% convinced that "we" are going to launch a first strike at "them." But how realistic is that? Especially when the alternative of compromise -- perhaps on "our" terms, but certainly better than "their" assured destruction.

As for missle defense, one proposed model or doctrine of nuclear weapons theory (among others) I used to teach my tenth graders was as follows. One may want to be able to deter that which one cannot defend against, and defend against that which one cannot deter. One must also realistically ask whether the ability to defend adversely impacts the ability to deter.

I think the Bush administration has adopted the above doctrine -- whether it knows it or not. The administration's concern is that certain actors cannot be deterred. Critics of the doctrine believe that any ability to defend underminds deterrence, or at least the mutualness of deterrence, which they believes endangers us all.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Short Circuit]

I'm not so much thinking about orbital debris as I am about physical activities involving massive objects. Like assembling an interplanetary rocket you couldn't boost whole into space.

If you're going to start building large craft, you begin to run into all sorts of risks. Some of those risks can be mitigated by better (more expensive) construction. A light material that holds up well under constant pressure isn't going to be preferable to a heavier material that can take bangs and scrapes of low velocity, but high inerta.

And then there's the risk that human life will be lost. But the public is going to have to learn to live with that risk, if we're ever going to go anywhere with our species. I don't ever recall reading a SF novel in which those "in the know" regarded space travel as completely safe. Most of them compared the dangers to the risks faced by sefarers in the colonial days.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Moofie]

OK, you understand that the moon has its own gravity, right? I mean, you have to throw things REALLY REALLY REALLY HARD to get things off the moon to hit Earth, right?

I think you're straining this well-understood military strategy far beyond its breaking point.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[WNight]

Look at the ABM treaty from another point of view. Not as a powerful country trying to get more powerful, but as a scared person looking for protection.

Imagine the world now as a collection of unstable people locked in a room with guns. Some people have bigger guns, and some smaller, but everyone is able to mortally wound anyone else. One person (country) is trying to put on a bullet-proof vest to avoid living in fear.

You're only looking at the short term, that they'll be armed and invulnerable and can then rule the room. (Not really true, even the best ABM system would have limits.) The long-term is that as people play nice and stop shooting each other they'll be encouraged and helped to build their own bullet-proof vests and everyone will be safe. (Against that threat anyways.)

If you think that the USA wants to do this in order to take over, ask yourself if they've showed any signs of this? Every time they go into a poor country to chase a dictator it costs them billions of dollars a day for little potential gain. They've tried to get the UN to help put a democratic system in Iraq, which should indicate that they aren't installing a puppet dictator who'll give them oil.

The truth of the matter is that the USA is old and tired. They'd just as soon build a really big force field around themselves (and maybe the Bahamas and Canada) and pretent the rest of the world doesn't exist. If they don't go into Afghanistan they get accused of being uncaring about the plight of women and religious minorities. If they do go in they get accused of wanting to kill "poor brown people". They're accused of being the great satan either way. The last thing they want is to rule the world. (That's Canada - they're the ones to watch, tricksedy devils...)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[3vi1]

I think I'd rather have an underground base on the moon. The problem with space stations is that space junk goes through them like BB's through a tin can - and the junk's just getting worse. I also can't see assembling an interplanetary rocket anywhere near a space station. ONE incident and your *entire* investment goes up in a silent bang (well probably not too silent for the people that get to hear explosive decompression and all). An underground moon base could be a huge bunker, impervious to exploding fragments from a failed launch.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[shotfeel]

... its just that its so damned far away, and the time between (getting there) is where the difficulty lays.

I think that point really needs to be emphasized. Its no big deal for an unmanned probe, but for a manned mission you have to consider everything from the very concrete need for food and water, to the less concrete physical and psychological fitness of the crew during such an expedition.

There's a big difference between a two-week trip to the moon with continuous real-time communication and the ability to abort and return to the earth in hours vs. two months with long delays in communication and days required to return the astronauts in case of emergency. Its a whole new level of "being out there".

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[rk]

The formula for escape velocity is Ev = sqrt((2*G*m)/r). Given the moon's mass and radius, we have to be certain your hypothetical rail gun has enough oomph to even achieve escape velocity.

In MKS, G is 6.67e-11 m^3/kg-s^2, the mass of the moon is 7.349e22 kg and the radius is 1.736e6 m. Plug and chug gives us about 2.4 km/sec from the moon's surface. So, it would be feasible as long as the direction of launch is within about 41 degrees of zenith (acos(theta) = (V/Ev)).

The problem of accurately striking the earth remains a three-body problem, though it's easier to approximate since the projectile mass is insignificant next to the mass of the earth and moon. There is no neat numerical answer to flight time, since there are a variety of paths that could be used to reach the earth, in addition to some trajectories that would never get you to earth. You could also put things into lunar orbit, earth orbit, or leave the earth-moon system entirely. The escape velocity of earth at the moon's perigee is about 1.4 km/s.

So, no matter how motivated one could be, the correct answer to your problem is "not enough information to answer".

Just to put the kinetic strike weapon concept to bed for now, accurate strikes would be a difficult problem to solve at best, especially since there's no mid-course correction available. Vagaries of the system's gravitation, perturbation by other celestial bodies, and atmospheric contact would all work together to increase the uncertainty of the problem.

Now, that railgun has some real potential to launch guided spacecraft cheaply (well, once the cost of construction has been amortized!), but as an unguided weapons platform, it's not too useful. Now, if you *could* accelerate something to .5c like the grandparent post suggested, you're onto something.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

Thanks. I'll be sure to listen in.

Keep it short, though ...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

Not if we do it really slowly and gently...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[rk]

You cannot likely orbit something 10 miles above the lunar surface. Tidal stress on the orbiting body would likely render it apart, unless it was made of some really tough material.

Also, your margin of error is nonexistent if you pick up some unexpected impulse. It would be insane to live on something orbiting 10 miles over the moon.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Begossi]

I understand it pretty well. It's all about escape velocity.

From http://www.bartleby.com/65/es/escapeve.html:

"Escape velocity depends on the mass of the larger body and the distance of the smaller body from its center, being proportional to the square root of the ratio of these two quantities. The velocity of escape from the earth at its surface is about 7 mi (11.3 km) per sec, or 25,000 mi per hr; from the moon's surface it is 1.5 mi (2.4 km) per sec."

So... we can say that throwing anything from the moon to the earth is almost 5 times easier than the other way around. No wonder the couple Apollo landing missions didn't need a Saturn V for the trip back, uh?
---

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Begossi]

I'd also suggest you take a look at some of Heinlein's works ;) He goes a long way explainning how 'easy' it could be to pretty much throw rocks from Moon to Earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Moofie]

The reason that hills are good, is because they are higher in the gravity well than the low ground.

The moon has its own gravity well, so the analogy is flawed.

I do have a passing familiarity with the notion of escape velocity, thank you.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Idarubicin]

1 kg of iron going at 2/3 * c has 2E16J of kinetic energy (about 4.8 megatons of TNT) and will take approx 2s (1.925s by my calculation) to cover the distance from the Moon to Earth. Most 'battlefield' nuclear weapons are about 25 kilotons, so you'd probably only need a mass of about 0.5g (plus whatever you expect to burn up in the atmosphere) to enable a very, very capable artillery battery.

Apologies to the parent; I'm going to be a bit brutal...

You were going to get this 25 kT of energy to put into the system from where? And you're going to give it to the projectile how?

Two thirds of the speed of light is pretty damn quick. You'll get a few miles per second of that from falling down the gravity well, but that leaves you short by two hundred thousand kilometers (~120,000 mi.) per second.

Let's assume that your launcher is a linear accelerator a hundred miles long, built on the moon. If we assume a roughly linear acceleration, our rock will spend 0.001 second from rest to launch. On average over each mile of the launcher, you need to transfer to a half gram of material the energy equivalent of 250 tons of TNT, and you need to do it in ten microseconds. Roughly, that's ten to the sixteenth watts flowing, delivering ten to the eleventh joules.

Using as-yet-undeveloped capacitors with diamond dielectric, you might get an energy storage density of 2.5E4 J/kg. To store 1E11 J comes out to 4E6 kg, or four thousand tons of capacitor. (Existing technology is probably about an order of magnitude worse.) Per mile of accelerator. I haven't worked out the mechanical stresses on the accelerator imposed by Newton's third law, but you can bet they'd be brutal, too.

So...to store the energy to fire once will require four hundred thousand tons of capacitors. At best. To charge them, let's say we have a good-sized nuclear power plant churning out 2000 MW. To collect 1E13 joules will take 5000 seconds, or about ninety minutes...assuming no losses.

What does that give us? A weapon located inconveniently on the Moon that costs a fortune to build and maintain, and can fire a 25 kT 'bomb' once every hour and a half. Oh, and it's useless at least twelve hours per day when the targets are on the opposite side of the Earth.

By the way, did you think any country is going to stand by and let any other country build one of these things? Yeah, I know--it's a fun idea...but totally impractical unless we have some real engineering miracles. And you'd probably be better off militarily building smaller versions for use on the battlefield.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

The highest velocity you can expect of a single shot rail gun within well anyone's life time and probably ever is about 14km/s, and that with a projectile with no moving parts. And you'd have to lift a whole foundry, and machine tool operation to the moon to build it, at which point you could do much more interesting things.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[mamba-mamba]

This was the scenario in _The Moon is a Harsh Mistress_ by Robert A. Heinlein.

Just thought I'd throw that in to the mix.

MM
--

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[mamba-mamba]

I am slowly formulating the opinion that Ignorant America deserved 9/11, whoever really perpetrated it, for letting Bush hi-jack their government, letting him wreck the Kyoto accords, letting him foist un-fathomable depravity on his subjects in the name of Big Business and Special Interest. 3000 New-Yorkers died. Big Deal. Bush was the worse disaster to happen to the USA.

You are either trolling or your hatred of Bush has caused you to lose all traces of human empathy. I encourage you to re-read what you wrote and see whether it truly reflects your opinion. If it does, then something is seriously wrong with you. (I'm not talking about the anti-Bush stuff, but the way you say that the US deserved the September 11 attack and the way you discount the suffering of 3000 victims and their loved ones.)

MM
--

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[LionMage]

If anything should serve as a base between here and Mars it should be ISS (after all it's a big reason we built the thing.)

The problem is, the ISS was all about compromise to allow various countries to participate meaningfully... which meant that ultimately, the ISS isn't really good for any one thing. The ISS was originally justified as a waypoint for a mission to Mars, but changes were made to the planned orbit for the ISS to accommodate the Russians (if memory serves) which made it unsuitable for that mission. Thus, it's no longer even a consideration for a Mars mission.

The ISS has turned into an expensive boondoggle, and since money has gotten tight, the astronauts stationed there spend all their time with maintenance, and have nothing left over to do real science with.

I'm all for international cooperation in space travel and exploration, but frankly, the ISS suffers from too much international politics.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

I suppose that Bill Clinton's *wink wink* towards big business wasn't the cause of the corporate scandals today. I also suppose the Bush's aggressive uncovering of said scandals that occurred under Clinton's watch was a move to boost big business.

I also suppose no one hated the USA until Bush was voted into office. On a side note, someone mentioned counting the votes, recounting the votes, and recounting the recounts. Funny thing is Bush was on top of every count and recount. I suppose Clinton's bombing of Bin Laden's training grounds didn't piss of Bin Laden. I suppose Clinton turning down the offer of a Muslim country to hand over Bin Laden had no effect on 9/11.

Wake up and smell the coffee. Whether you are an American or not Bush has worked wonders for the world. 2 dictators are gone. A known terrorist is on the run. 2 huge corporate scandals were uncovered (3 if you count Martha Stewart). I believe it was the European economy that fell well before the US market. I believe it is the US market that has rebounded and not Europe. Why Bush is blasted on jobs when the job loss started with Clinton is beyond me. Especially when the largest job losses were due to the corporate scandals. Oh that's right, he should have looked the other way too and continued to let big business steal from the average joe. Bush has kept this world out of depression let alone the US. Give credit where it is due and jump off the blind wagon for once.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Bourbonium]

Were you around when our manned moon missions were launced in the 1960's and 1970's? Apollo 8 took three days to get to Luna, and three days to return. Six days round trip. The missions that landed took longer because the landing crew spent about 18-24 hours on the lunar surface.

And the whole point of going to the moon was for military, rather than scientific, purposes. A base in orbit would have to be periodically boosted to maintain that orbit (remember when Mir tumbled back to Earth because Russia could no longer affort to maintain it), whereas the moon is pretty much stable, and isn't likely to come crashing down on us. But use a mass driver to throw rocks from the moon back to Earth, and you've got a very cheap, very destructive weapon on your hands.

Your next reading assignment is Robert A. Heinlein's "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress."

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ahdeoz]

Then we need to pull the rug out from under the ISS, because it's not doing what it was meant to do. All it will ever amount to is a few beaurocrats waving to kids forced to watch their broadcasts at school.

Surely John Glenn realizes that his own orbital forays were just a waste of time and money when the real objective then was to get to the moon. Not to mention the completely pointless Gemini program.

And besides, we've already been there. It's not like any of the scientists who actually knew how to build a rocket to get to the moon are still alive.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Unregistered]

Lasers. If we have another cold war, it will move into space as both sides will put up antiballistic missile satellites which then would have to be defended. Whoever controlls the moon can use laser weapons (only thing practical, but apparently, they have some that could be effective at that range) against orbital (satellite and missile) targets.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ckaminski]

I don't think I disagree with you. My ultimate hope is that the U.S. ABM initiative would turn into a giant planet-covering ABM shield that would protect the entire planet. No American wants the threat of MAD overshadowing life on this planet (except the diabolical ones who want to push the button, but we'll ignore that they exist for the moment).

Someone has to take the slap in the face, if we're going to get it for invading afghanistan, we might as well cut a few treaties for the sake of the planet.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[patternjuggler]

In short; Outspend them until they fail.

So you're saying that the U.S. has an infinite economic resource to spend on ABM technology, while its military rivals don't. But if every percentage increase costs a hundred or a thousand times what countering technology that would nullify that percentage would cost- then who exactly is going to overspend until they fail?

I think that missile intercepting technology is very interesting and useful, the current approach (deployment without testing) seems extremely stupid, and basing future military planning and foreign policy on the expectation that such a system will work even some percentage of the time could be disasterous.

There's the blue sky suggestion that there could be an international ABM effort- I would add that the money to pay for it could come from disarming some of our WMDs (costs like 30 billion yearly or so to keep all 10K ICBMs or whatever we have operating), and the sharing of technology would be contingent on other countries having reciprocal WMD reductions... I'll stop with the fantasy for now.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ahdeoz]

Your brain is so fucking slow that you're just now formulating your opinion? I knew what your opinion (and those of those like you) was on September 11, 2001.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[ahdeoz]

So? The hindus, muslims, ghanans, sioux, french, communists, jews, nazis, and killer bees from africa all did the exact same thing. *Someone* is going to take over. The question is, who do want to run the show.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Pooua]

You cannot likely orbit something 10 miles above the lunar surface. Tidal stress on the orbiting body would likely render it apart, unless it was made of some really tough material.

It's too bad that you didn't warn us about that *before* we tried orbiting some small space vehicle a few miles about the lunar surface!

Actually, tidal forces would only prevent dust particles from forming a large solid body. The forces are not enough to tear a small metal ship apart (otherwise, neither MIR nor the ISS would be able to survive, as they are both within Earth's Roche Limit, and tidal forces from Earth are stronger than those from Moon).

"The Roche Limit is the orbital distance at which a satellite with no tensile strength (a liquid satellite) will begin to be tidally torn apart by the body it is orbiting."

http://lhs.lexingtonma.org/Teachers/Trainor/emsys/ emsys.htm

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[rk]

Truth, but the original post was talking about a space station, which in my mind I was envisioning a BIG station (you know, the kind they said we'd be vacationing on in the year 2000), but you're absolutely right that a smaller object is under no threat whatsoever.

I was not being sufficiently clear in my explanation. Sorry for that.

I think my second point is still relevant, though. :-)

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Wolfrider]

"That's the kind of combination an IDIOT would have on his luggage!"

http://imdb.com/title/tt0094012/

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

Wow, how prescient of you. Maybe you could've used that skill to prevent the horrible travesty which was 9/11, and which your gov't has used as a carte blanche excuse to commit yet more war crimes ... but then, that would've required taking a little responsibility, wouldn't it, and well ... I guess you've not got much of that super-power skill left ...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[torpor]

I think its a far worse crime to use the deaths of these people, horrific and un-just as it was, as a continued justification for any further activity which requires or promotes the hunting and killing of other human beings.

I'd feel a whole hell of a lot more compassion for 3,000 dead Americans, if I'd ever seen compassion from the thousands of Americans that I know for the 10's of thousands of dead Iraqi's that American leaders are responsible for killing, and for whom nobody is building any stupid fucking memorial ...

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[AP31R0N]

@ Isn't it illegal to have offense weapons in space? We could have gotten away with "star wars" as a way to defend ourselves, but i'm pretty sure that building attack systems in space is right out.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

See... that's the difference between you and me. You subscribe to a Darwinist view; I don't. I believe we can build a peaceful world. You obviously gave up on peace a long time ago.

Why can't we prevent someone--anyone--from taking over the world?

I believe people like you are on your last breath. Imperialism is dying. Your life and your whole meaning behind existence is under threat. Enjoy it while it lasts. It will become more and more difficult for one entity to take over the world--and I'm glad for that. You obviously are still living in the past.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[falconfighter]

Isn't the Moon 1/6 of a G? Hardly Jupiter there, buddy.
It would be even more hazardous to my knowledge because if you screwed up even a few dozen feet per second redirecting the asteroid, the cumulative effect would be disasterous for Earth unless we were fast enough on the draw to stop it. Not to mention, how do we get to the Asteriod belt with enough force to pick an asteroid and push it into Earth orbit if we can't even get off the moon because (according to you) the gravity is "too heavy"
On side note, have you been playing Homeworld (asteroid redirection) or Hardwar (linear accelerator) or what?

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[AeroIllini]

The moon has a lot less gravity than earth so I'm guessing it would take a lot less fuel to break out.

That's right, you're guessing. Don't bother to look up facts or anything.

It sounds like you listened to that FOX "scientist" about the moon or something. Go do some reading and learn something.

OK, how about a Bachelor's Degree in Aerospace Engineering? Is that enough reading for you?

And as for the dust, did you ever even watch the moon landings?? Did enormous clouds of dust fly up with Armstrong jumped down to the ground?

The amount of thrust needed to break out of the gravity well has nothing to do with the amount of dust blown up from the ground. If you don't know what you're talking about, just stop talking.

Real facts, for those of you who don't look them up:

• When breaking out of the Earth's gravity well, you are indeed only breaking out of the Earth's gravity well. Not the Earth's and the Moon's.
• The moon's gravity is 1/6th that of the Earth's. From a kinetic energy standpoint (so we can compare apples to apples) it's 22 times harder to escape the Earth's pull than it is to escape the moon's pull. That doesn't mean it will require 22 times more fuel, since that would depend on the rocket design.
• The Shuttle's total mass is 85% fuel. (That one you got right.) The boosters use a solid fuel and the main engines are burning liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen at a 6:1 O/F ratio. That means at liftoff, the shuttle is carrying about 1.4 million lbs (650,000 kg) of oxygen, a substance which is readily available in the atmosphere the shuttle is flying through. Rocket liftoff from Earth is highly inefficient, but that's a topic for another post.

A moon base right now doesn't make any sense. It costs far too much money to get materials off the planet. Let's focus on getting inexpensive, reliable access to space* before we plan to set up camp on the moon. The purpose of a moon base is to get Bush reelected. I guarantee he'll scale back or cut the program if he's elected again.

*Obligitory joke: "I like my space access like I like my women: cheap and easy." **ducks**

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[AeroIllini]

L5 is on the dark side of the moon right?

Nope. L5 trails the minor body on its orbit by 60 degrees.

http://www.physics.montana.edu/faculty/cornish/lag range.html

<PICK type="nit">
There is no dark side of the moon. Only a far side. (That's why we have new moons -- the sun is shining on the part we can't see.)
</PICK>

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Eccles]

Isn't the Moon 1/6 of a G? Hardly Jupiter there, buddy.

No, but given how much rocket we need just to put someone in orbit, making it even more energy-expensive is not a great idea.

if you screwed up even a few dozen feet per second redirecting the asteroid, the cumulative effect would be disasterous for Earth unless we were fast enough on the draw to stop it.

Presumably one would put it in a very distant orbit, then slowly brake it into a slower one.

Not to mention, how do we get to the Asteriod belt

We don't. The idea would be to capture one of the many NEOs (Near Earth Asteroids) that periodically gain attention from coming close to the earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[i8a4re]

What about as a listening post? We could build one hell of an array of dishes up there. It can see almost half the earth, and it loiters for a very very long time. Granted, it also takes about 14 days to see the entire earth.

Re:I fear that's the whole point

[Anonymous Coward]

The argument that the Moon is some sort of "high ground" to bombard Earth with, or a "last redoubt" for ultimate retaliation was used a lot in the 1950s. Its just wrong. First up the Moon isn't in the Earth's gravity well. The centre of gravity of the Earth-Moon system is actually beneath the Earth's crust (as the Earth is 81.3 times more massive than the Moon), any projectile leaving the Moon's surface has to have the Moon's escape velocity and it it would to be aimed directly at Earth to strike Earth otherwise it would just proceed off into space. Now any lunar launched missile would take three days to reach the Earth, so it can't be used as a first strike weapon but only as a "spoilsport" weapon AFTER the enemy has already blasted the US. It makes more sense to position weapons in Earth orbit which can be called down onto terrestrial targets with far greater accuracy , more surprise, and at a far cheaper cost. What "troops" are going to be hanging around in the same location for days waiting for a Lunar Strike ? An orbiting rock/bomb in low Earth orbit can past over a given point every hour depending on the target's East-West orientation, whilst a lunar missile would take days to get to the target. Also, the Moon orbits every 27 or so days, so for hours at a time your target might be on the other side of the planet !

Goals

[FTL]

Most people seem to agree that going to the Moon is a silly thing to do if your goal is to get to Mars. But I don't think that's the goal here. I think the goal is to go to the Moon. The word "Mars" doesn't even appear in the executive order. Bush just added the "and at some point on to Mars" to the end of his speech to keep the Mars camp happy.

Frankly I don't care where we go, Moon, Mars or asteroids. Let's just get off this rock.

Re:Goals

[Trigun]

Ahh, asteroids. Personally I think that that's the way to go. Hollow out one of those, make it livable, self sufficient, then whip the fucker out into the blackness. Send hundreds out in all directions, and humanity can spread like cancer!

Re:Goals

[Bushcat]

Frankly I don't care where we go, Moon, Mars or asteroids. Let's just get off this rock.

Absolutely. We should send robots all over, but we should send humans, too, because it does us good to listen to people who have "been there, done that". I have a greater affinity for our fellow humans who have stood on the Moon, than for the manufactured tools we have sent there. When Armstrong stepped onto the Moon, I thought "gee, I could have been there." Now, I think "gee, my kids or my grandchildren could do that", and it's a nice thought.

I think, as a species, we're designed to go look for ourselves.

Re:Goals

[cybermace5]

And I totally agree with that. I would much rather see money used for some lasting, useful space infrastructure than blow all the cash on a one-shot firecracker to put a bootprint in red dirt.

Let's try for some logical progression here. The giant leap was when a man first set foot on something other than Earth. Now let's start walking. There are no lasting benefits right now from a massive Mars bootprint operation, let's go there when it's cheaper and we have some practical Moon colony experience to build on.

Re:Goals

[Dinosaur Neil]

Hey, someone else noticed! Bush never really said "We're" going to Mars", only that "Someday we might go to the moon and, from there, we could conceivably go on to Mars..."

What really vexes me about all this is that, if we are going to use the moon as a launching platform for exploring the rest of the solar system, in order to be even vaguely practical and/or cost effective we would have to buiild an infrastructure on the moon that would be capable of building the entire exploratory vessel from scratch using native lunar materials. To build such a craft on Earth, then transport it to the moon for launch to Mars would significantly multiply the costs. The Dubya's plan is kinda like saying "We could drive directly from Detroit to LA, but instead let's drive from Detroit to Atlanta, spend a decade building an automobile plant there, then build the car that will get us to LA." Huh?

Re:Goals

[malsdavis]

I would rather see a large base/settlement built on the moon and then a later trip launched to mars rather than simply a trip to mars.

If we look at the apollo missions, although they were cool in that they went to a heavenly body and all, the actual contribution to science and the benefits to us these days of those missions was little for the money spent.

I think a mission to mars would be similar in that although there is prestige in getting there, what would be the major benefit to us earthlings?

A permanently inhabited base on the moon however would be the first step to unlocking the many benefits it can provide to mankind.

If they made it so I could go play superman-golf on the moon it would be even better!

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

another reason for going to the moon would be to test equipment that you would use on mars in a place that is a lot closer to earth and thus if something went wrong there would be a possible rescue coming for you eventually.

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

So, do you have, like, even a clue as to what one of these "many benefits" might be?

Re:Goals

[mwood]

Indeed, if the goal is to do science on Mars then Moon missions just waste time and money. Why not just go to Mars, poke around, go home, done?

But there are other, perhaps better reasons to establish a permanent presence on the Moon and a regular transport pipeline between here and there. Eventually the same reasons will drive a buildout of solid infrastructure to all of the useful places in the solar system. It's a lot slower and more costly but it's also a lot more sensible.

Think of two ways to stand a mile in the air. One way is to manufacture an I-beam about a mile long, weld rungs to it, and stand it on end. Not very stable or permanent or safe. The other way is to manufacture a thundering lot of I-beams in normal sizes and fit them together into an Eiffel-Tower-like structure, then add elevators. I know which one *I'd* feel safer ascending, and which one I'd expect to still be standing ten, or a hundred, years later.

Re:Goals

[JWW]

I personally believe that if we can't make it back to the Moon and establish a base there that we will NEVER get to Mars.

The moon needs to be the proving ground for the technology needed to get to Mars.

This weapons platform gibberish is just the rantings of Bush haters.

If you really want NASA to succeed it needs long range plans like Bush's proposal. AND it needs the opposition party not to fight them. The timelines for going to Mars are so long that political machinations need to be kept out of the equation or Mars exploration just becomes something to kill off the next time the opposition party takes office.

Re:Goals

[AKAImBatman]

I think what Bush has in mind is nuclear propulsion. Various tree hugging organizations will do whatever they can to stop the launch of a nuclear craft from Earth, but they can't say anything if it's launched from the moon. The primary advantage of a nuclear craft is the surplus of energy. No matter your orbital inclination, you still have enough power for a short (3-8 months depending on the craft) flight to Mars. Of course, some types of craft could be lowered into the gravity well and launched on a more normal trajectory. However, if Bush is considering something extremely powerful like an Orion, he's got to launch it from high orbit. Otherwise the EMP could wreak havoc with our orbital infrastructure.

Some excellent engine choices from low to high:

NERVA - 800-1000 Isp
Gas Core Nuclear Rocket - 2000-5000 Isp
Nuclear Salt Water Rocket - 4500-10000 Isp
Orion - 10000-100000 Isp
M2P2 Orion - >10000 ???

Orions are particularly interesting because of their ability to scale, and be made of traditional building materials instead of composites. (read: Steel) Since the efficiency of Orions climb as the size of the craft does (Thermonuclear H-Bombs give a better bang for the same mass as an Atomic warhead). The largest Orion calculated possible with 1960's technology is 8 million tons. A moving city in space!

Re:Goals

[nologin]

Mars is a nice goal, but there is no sense in trying to send a manned mission there without verifying first that such a mission is feasible.

The moon will have to be that proving ground. We already know that we can make it there. The question for the near future is whether or not an operation can be sustained there for a suitable time period.

The problem with Mars is that there is only a small window from which a manned mission can launch. This window occurs only once every 18 months.

If some problem occurs and it is several months away from the next launch window, the men and women on that mission have to live with that problem. If the problem is life-threatening, those people are as good as dead.

The moon is a good first step because it stays at a relatively constant distance from Earth. If a problem occurs on the moon, a launch could be made to assist them at anytime. It is a less risky proposition to start.

I believe that when a manned mission can operate independantly on the moon for a period of two years, Mars will be a reachable and sustainable goal.

Re:Goals

[Geno Z Heinlein]

Ahh, asteroids. Personally I think that that's the way to go. Hollow out one of those, make it livable, self sufficient, then whip the fucker out into the blackness. Send hundreds out in all directions, and humanity can spread like cancer!

You forgot to say, "Mister Anderson".

Re:Goals

[demachina]

Easy solution. DON'T follow the Apollo mission profile when you go to mars. A profile where you are expending a massive effort to do a round trip with the dubious returns of a short stay on Mars, bracketed by a massively long, expensive, dangerous, debilitating trip there and back.

Instead start launching large cargo containers with water, food, nuclear reactors, habitats, bulldozers and rovers. Use the same craft to transport this cargo you will use to fly astronauts there. When the cargo ships are arriving reliably and there is a critical mass of resources on the surface launch people as colonists, not astronauts, on a one way mission to Mars. It will be a lot easier to fly people on a one way flight than it will be to do a round trip. The ROI will be immense on a colonizing mission versus miniscule on a short stay round trip. You could send real geologists who would spend a life time exploring the planet and would have a motivator in they are trying to find the resource to free themselves from cargo flights from earth. You also wouldn't need to continue expensive manned flights from earth if and when a self sustaining colony is established. Mars is better for a colony than the moon because gravity is higher, its not a hard vacuam, and it probably has a lot more resources than the moon. It is only marginally worse than what the scientists living at Antarctica experience (the four added problems being radiation, no air, limited water availability, and long expensive supply runs).

The technology spinoffs form a Mars colony would probably be huge because you would, for example, need to establish a society with zero dependence on fossil fuels and you would need significant advances in food production and manufacturing.

The human race desperately needs a frontier colony with a fresh start. A colony where we might try to lose a lot of the economic and social baggage all the nations on Earth currently carry. The 20th century was the first one where mankind stopped having frontiers on Earth and that is not a positive change.

Moderators probably should mark this redundant because I post the same thing everytime a Mars thread comes up.

Re:Goals

[Geno Z Heinlein]

The moon needs to be the proving ground for the technology needed to get to Mars.

The technological sense of going to directly to Mars is that the fuel costs are lower and self-sustainability is orders of magnitude sooner than on the Moon.

The psychological sense of it is that Mars will become "real" to people on Earth the fastest; people will be living and working on Mars. Once that happens, you spend a lot less time answering questions like, "How can you breathe there?" and "Why would you want to go there?" and more time answering questions like, "What kinds of jobs are there?" and "How much will I get paid?" We want to go to Mars because it's tremendously cool to go new places, but nothing gets us there faster than getting non-enthusiasts to see that it's a real place that they can actually go to, not some abstract science project.

Personally, I suspect that once there's even the smallest permanent presence on Mars, space travel and settlement will explode, not just to Luna and Mars, but to LEO, L-4 and -5, and the asteroids in really short order. You won't have to be a visonary to see the value of it; it'll be obvious to anyone.

Re:Goals

[ckaminski]

Holy shit, what an idea!!!

PGA Tour 2015 @ Tranquilty base. Be there to see Tiger Jr. (youngest PGA champ ever) knock one all the way back to earth!

Re:Goals

[maomoondog]

I personally believe that if we can't make it back to the Moon and establish a base there that we will NEVER get to Mars.

The moon needs to be the proving ground for the technology needed to get to Mars.

Obviously, many of the challenges involved reaching Mars are enormously different from those reaching the moon. Huge differences of distance, gravity, atmosphere, etc. A small subset of obstacles will be shared between both missions. Setting your sights low is a good way to get there.

If you really want NASA to succeed it needs long range plans like Bush's proposal. AND it needs the opposition party not to fight them. The timelines for going to Mars are so long that political machinations need to be kept out of the equation or Mars exploration just becomes something to kill off the next time the opposition party takes office.

The whole point of an opposition party is to refine and improve a plan by poking holes in the original. They should never shut up, especially when the administration is doing something "really really important". As far as fears that the whole thing will get cancelled... well, despite what he would have you believe, there is a difference between completely supporting every aspect of the President's plan and being completely against it.

Re:Goals

[jsebrech]

The cost of going to mars is not significantly higher than going to the moon. Yes, the trip to the moon is shorter, but it still long enough that you can't provide "emergency escape" functionality. The "life support during the trip to mars" question is not all that relevant, since we have years of experience doing that thing on the space stations, and you need to be doing that in any mars- or moonbase anyway. Once on the moon you need to truck in most of your resources (water, oxygen, ...), while these are abundantly available on mars. Long-distance transportation, a necessity if you're going to do scientific research (the only reason for leaving earth in the first place), is also much easier to achieve on mars. The climate allows you to use airplanes (though they need to be considerably lighter than their earthbound equivalents). The moons total lack of atmosphere means the only way to leave the planet surface is by using a rocket, for which you need rocket fuel, which needs to be flown in from earth.

I don't get why anyone would prefer a moon mission over mars. We know enough about the moon to know we don't want to go there. Mars is the really interesting place science-wise. And mars could be a huge experimental playground for terraforming, something we will need to learn sooner or later if we intend to colonize planets in other solar systems (once we invent FTL travel).

Re:Goals

[dpilot]

Earlier this year we had yet another close call from an asteroid. Yet again, the close call turned out not to be a big issue. Most likely, we won't get a significant hit in my lifetime, or my childrens', or even theirs. But it's also just as likely to happen this month as it is 5000 years from now.

At this point, we've learned enough to know that it's stupid to completely ignore the possiblity of an asteroid strike, SOMEDAY. By probabilities, we also know that it's stupid to invest major cash NOW in an asteroid-stopping venture.

Enter multi-use technology. The technology for a moon base is pretty indistinguishable from the technology used to deflect asteroids. In fact, they may be the same, because one approach might be to launch (many) rocks from an EM cannon on the moon to 'transfer momentum' to an asteroid and change its orbit. Another obvious approach is to put a mass-driver on the asteroid, throwing chunks of its own mass. The practical aspects of this path also look a bit like contstructing a moon base. You probably don't land an object on the asteroid, either manned or unmanned, and then leave. It's really a mining operation.

Then there's the question of whether we could establish anything on Moon, Mars, or orbit that could survive massive political/environmental upheaval on Earth. That's more orders of magnitude away.

I just wish they'd get a Space Elevator built before I'm too old/frail/poor to ride it.

Re:Goals

[DataCannibal]

"Let's just get off this rock."

Onto what ? ...er... another rock ?

Re:Goals

[GorkMork]

"If you really want NASA to succeed it needs long range plans like Bush's proposal. AND it needs the opposition party not to fight them. The timelines for going to Mars are so long that political machinations need to be kept out of the equation or Mars exploration just becomes something to kill off the next time the opposition party takes office" Bush's proposal is simply an election year ploy, and an attempt to distract the public from all of the problems that have "coincidentally" happened during his Presidency. He will dump just enough money into it to appear that he is doing something for the greater good of mankind, but ultimately I think it is just a waste of everyone's time. What Glenn is trying to explain is that if Nasa has to change gears at this point, all of our previous investments in the ISS (which are considerable) will be lost - with a mission to Mars (or the moon) so far in the future I don't think that we need to do anything that rash. Especially if Glenn is correct and the cost savings is only a few million dollars (I think he said 2.5). As for the point about "wasting time on putting a boot print on Mars" - that is silly, the biggest reason we want to go to mars is not for a boot print, but to get some real samples and establish whether there was life/or could possibly have been life on that planet. With all of the new findings about liquid water being present in the past, this becomes even more exciting. Time on the moon is simply wasted time when it comes to answering one of the most compelling questions of our times - are we alone?

Re:Goals

[Endive4Ever]

It sounds like all he can think of is 'Space Food Sticks.'

It's sad, isn't it?

Re:Goals

[0123456]

"A profile where you are expending a massive effort to do a round trip with the dubious returns of a short stay on Mars, bracketed by a massively long, expensive, dangerous, debilitating trip there and back."

Uh, you don't have the _option_ of "a short stay on Mars". By the time you get there you're probably looking at a minimum of a six month stay just waiting for the planets to be in the right position to get back. This is one of the reasons why a trip to Mars and back is so difficult, you _have_ to spend several years making the trip, with current rocket technologies.

Re:Goals

[Endive4Ever]

Neither of your two 'standing a mile in the air' ideas sound practical. Clearly, though, the one you favor would be much more expensive to implement, far more complex, with more possible points of failure.

But I'm picking on your ill-thought-out hypothetical example. The 'meat' of your message is probably a better thing to examine.

What does said 'regular transport pipeline' between the Earth and Moon carry? Transport lines never, ever, thrive all on their own. If there's nothing to carry on them, they're expensive and aren't maintained. There's a limited market for $1,000,000 day trips to the moon. Is it going to be funded by Moon rock sales on eBay?

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

we cetainly do need a fronteer society, but would you be able to get anyone to go when they know that if there is a problem with a supply run (the odds of there being a problem on the trip is larger than one would like) then you are dead, unless we can find deep ground water and a cave system that we can excavate for the colony to live in while they bio-dome it and rappid trasit to the colony from earth.

I say, work on getting us into orbit faster, then work on getting a massive ion drive so that we can get the right amount of thrust in space and sustain it for the trip there and back. estimates are that a trip to mars in such a situation would take 6 weeks if you accelerate constantly with the thrust of a rocket half way and then decelerate equally.

all we need to do is perfect scram jet technology, then the cost of getting to orbit will be small. once that is accomplished, out high voltage ion drive run by a nuclear reactor can be turned on and the 30 pounds of fuel can be inserted into the drive. and off we go.

of course we will need something much more sustaining to get to Jupiter and such, but taking the same approach, Jupiter is only 9 moths away.

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

if at some point we find a way to do half light speed travel, we would go anywhere in the solar system with the outer rim being a few days trip. in such a case, we would populate every place in the system and make a huge array of space stations for mining and such. then living in the Oort cloud would be no more difficult than living on a rock in the middle of the Pacific because there is a radar base there. supply ships come and go every week or so.

the problem is coming up with a propulsion system that will move that much mass at that speed with out running out of fuel quickly.

perhaps if we can figure out a way to expand space behind the ship and contract it in front, then we can use that to propel us and we would just have to manage the fusion generators in order to keep power to the equipment.

Re:Goals

[SB9876]

The problem with launching nuke rockets from the moon is that you still have to loft the components including the fission core to the moon from Earth. I suppose that there's probably uranium deposits on the moon but finding them and exploiting them is going to be a long, hard process.

If you're going to loft NERVA engines from Earth, you might as well just fire 'em up in LEO.

As for Orion, the big problem I see is that the EMP effect is going to propagate for thousands of miles. IIRC, cold war calculations showed that one multi-megaton nuke in low orbit could wipe out most of N. America in one hit. I think you'd have to be a loooong way out before firing up an Orion drive which kinda makes it useless for getting to Mars since you've already expended most of your energy to get there by that point. Orion's a great way to get to Alpha Centauri but I think it's best to sit on that particular drive tech until we're ready to tackle interstellar travel.

Personally, I think that a combination of M2P2 and ion drive driven by a nuclear reactor is the best bet for travel inside the solar system. IIRC, M2P2 gets an ISP of something like 60,000. (no, that's not a typo, I saw that in a NASA study of the drive system) The only problem is that you can't tack against the solar wind so you can't get angular velocity - the ion drive is still needed for that. Plus, you get the bonus that M2P2 creates an artificial magnetosphere which dramatically cuts down on the amount of radiation hitting the spacecraft.

Plus the fact that the M2P2 drive is about the size of a coffee can and could be built by a motivated high school student doesn't hurt either.

Also, try doing a search on dusty magnetic sails - there have been some studies of using fine dust caught up in the magnetic field lines to catch light pressure as well as the solar wind. The predicted performance of those drives is simply insane.

Ah, here's a link: http://www.spacetransportation.com/ast/presentatio ns/3j_sheld.pdf

Every 1% change in albedo gives you a 50-fold increase in thrust. The link above gives figures for a 300lb probe - assuming that it's 1/3 'propellant', 1/3 magdrive and power source and 1/3 payload. 36 days to Mars, 72 days to Jupiter, 7.4 months to Pluto. These drives actually make interstellar travel to other stars feasible.

Plus, you don't have to worry about playing catch with nuclear explosions...

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

if we can get .5 c travel I will be happy. that means we will have entered into a type I civilization since the entire solar system is with in a few days travel and we can begin colonizing and exploiting it.

just think, all the heavy metals needed would be in the asteroid belt and it would only be an hour away,

Re:Goals

[crayz]

[b]just think, all the heavy metals needed would be in the asteroid belt and it would only be an hour away[/b]

At what level of acceleration/deceleration?

Re:Goals

[mwood]

People. Materials. Manufactured goods. That "permanent presence" is not a dozen astronauts living in an airtight Quonset hut; it's a bunch of communities forming a self-supporting society. It'll take generations, but I'm convinced that it will happen.

The early European settlers in the Americas didn't bring 21st-century Baltimore or Buenos Aires with them, rolled up *really* small and packed belowdeck. They brought a few essentials, but mostly they brought themselves and the will to make what they needed. The cost was frightful, but there's always a market for "a heap of unexploited resources and the chance to see what I can make of them".

An entire uninhabited world is a pretty big heap of resources.

The same thing could indeed be done "direct to Mars". But the Moon's a lot closer, we already know we can get there, we already know what we'll find, and the kind of *sustained* contact needed to build a functioning society is a lot cheaper when the distance is less. You could also think of a lunar colony as a pilot project for real interplanetary expeditions.

Back to the "standing a mile high" ideas: the big beam has only one point of failure: it falls over every time you let go. The tower has many points of failure, but the failure of one or even a dozen won't bring it down (if it's designed right). It costs a lot more because it's *worth* a lot more: it'll survive long enough to recover its cost. And the tower's complexity is what buys you that fail-soft property. Complexity and expense are not bad things, as long as you get something worth at least what you paid.

Re:Goals

[demachina]

First off recycyling water, air and everything else should be a top priority. The Russian's are pretty good at it already and it makes a lot more sense than the ISS approach where you are constantly resupplying water.. I think the goal is to land a few large water tanks as part of the supply build up, then couple that with recycling so you have a large margin of safety for water and air. Certainly finding on planet water would be a top priority. I imagine the search would go faster with people, on planet with a drilling rig and long distance rovers than it will with the current glacial pace off robotic exploration.

I think you are being extremely optimistic about the potential for a scram jet being developed to the point it will be cheap and reliable. NASA's last attempt with Lockheed was a pathetic attempt where they tried risky composites for the Hydrogen tank, they failed, politicians killed it before they'd flown anything. I would also presume by a SCRAM jet you are banking on a reusable vehicle and it remains to be seen if you are going to build a reusable vehicle that will be cheap and reliable. You still have to solve thermal protection, atmospheric loads, reentry stresses and how much time and money its going to refurbish a reusable vehicle.

Ion/nuclear propulsion always sounds great on paper but at the last Mars conference I saw on CSPAN Zubrin was pretty adamant that everyone banking on it to yeild miracles is out of touch with reality, or actually he crucified the one clueless politician who pronounced it as the answer with no understanding of the issues involved.

Expendable chemical rockets, as unsexy as they are, are probably still a better bet for space exploration until someone actually builds something better, versus promising something better, like the Shuttle, that in the end proves to be inferior. Me personally I would love to see NASA take the shuttle SRB and ET stack and make it in to a heavy cargo lifter. In this scenario the ET would be a cargo container with just enough fuel and engine to lift it in to orbit after the SRB's cut out. Hopefully they could also replace the SRB fuel with something cheaper and easier to produce and less toxic, like the paraffin Stanford is working on. The knock against the SRB's is they are dangerous for man launches but they would be GREAT for launching heavy unmanned cargo's if they weren't saddled with the shuttle's carcass. The big plus to this is you have a heavy cargo lifter with very little new R&D expense.

Re:Goals

[AKAImBatman]

I think the point would be to build most of the components on the moon. That way, you wouldn't have to ship anything.

As for Orion, the big problem I see is that the EMP effect is going to propagate for thousands of miles. IIRC, cold war calculations showed that one multi-megaton nuke in low orbit could wipe out most of N. America in one hit.

Thus the need to launch from *high* orbit. :-) Besides, you've got the perfect shield up there. Launch from behind the moon, and you'll have no difficulties.

One argument I should probably bring up, is that Orion charges are not the same as weapons grade warheads. A lot of research went into shaping the nuclear charge so that most of the energy was directed toward the pusher plate (or toward the M2P2 field in recent designs). Many have argued that the EMP from such a blast would be negligible.

Personally, I think that a combination of M2P2 and ion drive driven by a nuclear reactor is the best bet for travel inside the solar system. IIRC, M2P2 gets an ISP of something like 60,000.

*cough*thrust*cough*

You're missing thrust. It's great if you have an Isp of 60,000, but without the necessary thrust, your humans are going to be rubbery, radioactive toast by the time they get anywhere. If we wanted to get somewhere slow, we can already do it with existing chemical rockets. (Although Ion drives have far more powered range.) The whole point of using nuclear drives is to get somewhere fast, but with energy to spare. NERVA and GCNR systems could easily take us to Mars in a reasonable amount of time. NSWR and Orion drives can take us just about anywhere in the solar system in a reasonable amount of time. Depending on the configuration, they can even do it with gravity!

Orion's a great way to get to Alpha Centauri but I think it's best to sit on that particular drive tech until we're ready to tackle interstellar travel.

Ummm... no. A self-propelled Orion couldn't reach Alpha Centauri inside a lifetime. There are only two viable proposals I've seen for that:

1. A "railway" Orion. Pulse charges are launched (probably via mass driver) from a renewable source (such as an asteroid) along the path of the Orion to intercept the Orion at the appropriate time. This way, the Orion can be under constant thrust the entire way.

2. Build a Nuclear Salt Water Rocket with 90% rich solution. Given large enough tanks, it should be able to achieve abour .03c.

Both of these proposals would mean trips anywhere from 20-60 years. If you wish to talk about generational ships, then an 8 million ton Orion may be a valid choice. Otherwise, we need a better space infrastructure before we start talking about interstellar trips.

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

what exactly was the problem with the ion drive?

I know the one being used now has almost no thrust, but I heard that if you increse the power sent to the drive via a nuclear reactor, you get a very good thrust from it.

also, on the topic of reactors, would the old Air Force experiment with a nuclear rocket be reproducable with a clean fussion reaction?

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

if you can travel at .5 c, and it takes light aproximatly 30 minutes or so to get the the asteroid belt, that makes it 1 hour at .5 light speed (.5 c)

Re:Goals

[demachina]

I don't recall exactly the argument Zubrin made at the Mars conference earlier this year but I think it was Ion drives were orders of magnitude short on power to move the large cargo's necessary to go to Mars while chemical is already there albeit slow.

One of the politco speakers at the Mars conference said Ion was ther answer to everything Mars and Zubrin filleted him over it in favor of chemical rockets. I imagine Zubrin's studied the issues more than the politico had. The politico was just saying "ion drive" because it sounded cool.

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

probably. but was Zubrin talking about the ion drives of today or the ion drives of the future?

today, I agree that it has almost no thrust, but because of the constant acceleration, the ion drive that we have out in space right now it the fastest man made machine ever made.

but if given enough on board power and the appropriate fuel load (one of the good things about the ion drive is that it does not need oxygen for propultion) we should be able to get a nice thrust out of it.

and even if that fails, if we went back to the orion project (the USAF Nuclear propeled rocket) then we could use that to move through space and get more propulsive endurence than chemical rockets with the same thrust and far less fuel.

Re:Goals

[cybermace5]

That's pure idiocy. The person you were replying to mention ACCELERATION and DECELERATION. These are important.

If you accelerated halfway and decelerated halfway to reach 500,000,000km in an hour, that would be an acceleration of around 80,000 m/s^2. By comparison, gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2. A 150-pound person would have a force exerted on them of about 600 tons. Any passengers would be a nicely centrifuged sediment and liquid layer on the wall of the ship. You'll have difficulty designing any robots to survive 8,000 G's also.

This is why the most important component of a Starfleet vessel is a shield behind which the laws of physics do not apply.

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, one of the profiles NASA is looking at is 6 months there, 2-3 weeks on surface, and 6 months back. If you stay longer than 2-3 weeks you need to stay a year and a half to get a minimum energy path again.

Re:Goals

[Tailhook]

they can't say anything if it's launched from the moon

That's pretty darn naive. "They" do what's done as much for political reasons as any real concern for the environment. They will have zero difficulty inventing a plethora of reasons to oppose nuclear anything, anywhere. You will be told how incompetent, greedy American corporations are threatening the survival of the planet for nuclear profit. Bank on it.

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

Solar sails require zero reaction mass and do not run down. They have very little thrust per sail area, but microgravity is an ideal place to build very lightweight sail structures. For anything long-term (say round-trip cargo carriers to Mars orbit) a heavy-cargo transit time of a few years isn't bad, and for advanced designs, beating the 6 month Hohmann transfer is also possible using sails.

Re:Goals

[AKAImBatman]

The power of wackos comes entirely from how many people they can get to believe their lines of horse shit. If they can't come up with an even half-way plausable excuse to worry about moon launches, then they'll have a hard time exerting political pressure. Most of the Cassini pressure was from the off chance that the rocket might explode and rain down death and destruction. (Never mind that the RTG is practically indestructable, or that Plutonium is an Alpha emitter and wouldn't hurt a fly.)

I'm sure they'll try something truly stupid, like the moon may fall out of its orbit. However, the more outlandish their excuse, the fewer people who will buy it.

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

And so it is that we meet once more. I cannot understand why you continue to post to Slashdot when the writing is on the wall, so to speak: In the battle of words and wits with me, YOU HAVE LOST.

Score:
Me:100 You:0

I have tried to enlighten you with the details of why you are a filure and a complete wretch, but my lessons have apparently gone unheeded. Why you persist in keeping your intellect at such a low timbre is beyond me. But I digress. We were speaking of your inadequacies as a substandard human being. Working with you is like trying to walk through a sea of molten taffy. It's slow, lots of junk sticks to everything and it's dickless (much like you are).

So, with a heavy and humble heart, I request of you that you resign from any further postings on Slashdot as NOBODY FUCKING CARES about you you pompous ass.

Scalli0n

Re:Goals

[AKAImBatman]

> And so it is that we meet once more.

You killed my brother. Prepare to die!

I mean really, stuff a sock in it. You're not baiting anyone. You should get out a little more, find a girlfriend. Maybe settle down and have a few rugrats. Trust me, rugrats are far more interesting than trolling on Slashdot. Then maybe, just maybe, you'll find out what being happy is all about.

Re:Goals

[profjohn]

Here's a hot idea: a mission to colonize Earth! Take all the tons of money that Bush wants to pour into sounding something like a compassionate-conservative JFK ripoff, and invest it in providing enough food and clean drinking water for every human on earth. Heck, GW could even start with the US, and spend the money making sure nobody there starves of freezes to death. Homes for the homeless, food for the hungry, that sort of thing. Hey, maybe healthcare for everyone? Which would have a greater impact on our quality of life? Sending a few folks to "colonize" Mars, or assuring every person of a quality life here on Earth? BTW - Colonizing Mars with a few containers of junk and a few people? You are talking about a place that is not suitable for life, whereas we have one right here that COULD BE suitable for life... Just a thought.

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

good point. I was not thinking about that.

actualy, in star trek, they have inertial dampeners. their sheild has nothing to do with it.

Re:Goals

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh dear. You really are upset aren't you little man. Well do not worry. It's OK to have an intellect that is smaller than your miniscule penis. Even though it will limit you from interacting with great minds such as my own, it's not your fault. But you must keep in mind that you really have little authority to say anything on any subject since you will be taxing your mental faculties beyond their limits. This is not a good thing for simple beings such as yourself.

As far as getting a girlfriend, I don't think my wife would be too happy with that. As far as getting a few rug rats, trust me, I have what I need. As far as "trolling" or "baiting", I am not. Sir, you must understand that I am only trying to make you aware of your obvious limitations so that you can prevent any further embrassment by exposing yourself as even more of a mental midget than you already have. This is an act of kindness on my part. Generosity with no bounds. For it is not for my benefit that I do this, but yours. Consider it merciful.

I could be like any other Slashdotter and resort to ad-hominem attacks wth no substance, but instead I am being honest with you and informing you that you are, in fact, with limited intellectual capacities.

So with this burden I must request that you cease and desist your foolish campaign to smear yourself with the retard brush publicly. It only serves to make you look the fool.

Regards,
Scalli0n

Re:Goals

[cybermace5]

Correct, this shield is never mentioned, but behind it things such as "intertial dampeners" can exist.

Re:Goals

[AKAImBatman]

Then please give your wife my sincerest condolences. Tell her that there are help centers for women in abusive relationships, and that emotional and verbal abuse is just as bad as physical abuse.

Good day to you, sir.

Re:Goals

[the_2nd_coming]

the sheild is just used to deflect debry as they move through the universe.

inertial dampeners can exist everywhere in the universe. their existence is not based on "special physics" since reletive to their location (inside the ship) the physics of GR hold.

your reasoning is tantamount to claiming that shocks in a car only work because they exist behind the frame and side panels.

inertial dampeners create a feild around the ship, and the frame of refrence for everything inside the ship is the space contained inside the feild. the propultion systems propel that entire frame of refrence so to the people inside the ship do not experience the momentum of their masses when accelerating and decelerating.

there is no law of physics that say it is impossable, and to be able to move swiftly through space, such a device will have to be created. until then, we will be limited to gradual acceleration and deceleration, but by the time we have the energy to move a large space craft at .5 c, we will have enough energy to perhaps make worm hole jump gates a plausable tool. in such a case, we coul se such devices up in key areas and travel throgh out the solar system would be very easy.

Re:Goals

[cybermace5]

Look, it was a joke. You killed it, backed up, and ran over it again.

I don't get Glenn

[glassesmonkey]

(Disclaimer: I don't think Nasa Lewis should have been changed Nasa Glenn)

Isn't it obvious why $800billion of stuff sitting on the moon is better than $800billion of stuff sitting on Mars?

Re:I don't get Glenn

[prgrmr]

Isn't it obvious why $800billion of stuff sitting on the moon is better than $800billion of stuff sitting on Mars?

No, it's not. Military-related paranoia aside, the potential for long-term residency is far better on Mars because of the higher gravity and existing atmosphere--even if it's not breathable, it still provides some protection from solar radiation.

Re:I don't get Glenn

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't it obvious why $800billion of stuff sitting on the moon is better than $800billion of stuff sitting on Mars?

Nope? Could you explain where the difference is? I don't think Martians steal your "stuff" worth $800 billion? Neither will they use it to destroy your country.

Re:I don't get Glenn

[Anonymous Coward]

we are all descended from martians, i saw it on the site with the face and the "19", so you're wrong about stealing!

Re:I don't get Glenn

[WindBourne]

The moon will never be more than just a base.
What water there is, will not be recycled and will be used up with each and every moon launch.
It will never have an atmosphere.
It will never have a lake, or an Ocean.


Mars can be settled.
It has an atmosphere. Yes, it is thin, but it can be thickened.
It has had an ocean, or a lake.
It most likely has supported life and may still be doing so.


Glenn is more interested in the long terms need of mankind. Personally, I would like to see us send about 4 one-way trips to Mars with about 10 people on each. If we send at least 32 people, they can establish a colony there until we are able to do it cheap. By having these people there, it will encourage future generations to keep moving forward.

And it would be nice to establish a small base on the south pole of the moon, but I suspect that we can no longer afford it. But what a great platform for an observatory and think of the h3.

Re:I don't get Glenn

[Anonymous Coward]

the potential for long-term residency is far better on Mars because of the higher gravity and existing atmosphere--even if it's not breathable, it still provides some protection from solar radiation.

Yes -- but long term dwelling places on the Moon or Mars will probably be underground or semi-buried anyway, for precisely that reason. A few feet of dust gives more protection than the thin atomosphere of Mars.

Re:I don't get Glenn

[prisoner-of-enigma]

No, it's not. Military-related paranoia aside, the potential for long-term residency is far better on Mars because of the higher gravity and existing atmosphere--even if it's not breathable, it still provides some protection from solar radiation.

So does about a meter of lunar soil, or have you forgotten that fact? As for the Martian atmosphere, it's so thin that it might well be considered a total vacuum with the exception of being useful for aerobraking. It's not breathable, and unprotected exposure to it would incapacitate a human pretty quickly -- just like the moon. The higher gravity is also negligible, except that it makes launching spacecraft more difficult from Mars than the Moon.

About the only thing Mars really has going for it (environmentally, that is) is the temperature. While it gets pretty cold on Mars, it rarely gets fantastically hot. In full lunar sunshine with no atmosphere to help convection, things get pretty hot without shielding. This is easily fixable by burying habitats in lunar soil, however, so it would only apply to things that have to rove around or stick up out of the ground (communications antennas, airlocks, rovers, spacesuits, etc.)

Re:I don't get Glenn

[Pooua]

Glenn is more interested in the long terms need of mankind.

I wish I could believe that. However, his actions over the last few decades are those of a cynical manipulator of the political system. He is just a politician, seeking the advancement of his party and himself. In this case, that means opposing President Bush's space inititive because it came from a political opponent.

There is nothing in the news stories that would indicate that I am incorrect in my assessment of Mr. Glen, or offer a significant reason for Mr. Glenn to oppose President Bush on this matter.

I have been an advocate of space exploration a long time before I heard of John Glenn or George Bush. In all that time--ALL OF IT!--our Moon was considered an important resource, much lamented for our failure to spend more time on it. Now, President Bush suggests doing what so many scientists have been screaming for these last few decades, and suddenly the Moon is undesirable. That tells me this opposition is cynical manipulation, not an honest, sincere assessment of our best interests.

What happened to all those decades of proposals to put observatories on Moon? In 1984, the University of New Mexico's Physics and Astronomy Department even displayed a model of a radio observatory seriously proposed by several scientists. There has been such a push to return to Moon that more than one space agency has launched probes to Moon recently. Even China has announced hopes of establishing a manned base on Moon. All of this is welcomed, until President Bush becomes an advocate. This, too, suggests cynical manipulation is the driving force of the opposition.

It will be much easier to launch heavy ships from Moon's gravity than from Earth's gravity. There is inherent value in having a Moon base. There is also a lesson to be learned in the Gemini program, in which short distance test runs taught us a lot about getting to our final destination.

I believe John Glenn's opposition is simply a political move aimed at undermining a Republican president.

Re:I don't get Glenn

[WindBourne]

Actually, most scientists/engineers say to not go to the moon and then on to mars. We would have to ship far too much to the moon and the costs would be enormous. Once we get cargo into space, the cost of moving them to the moon or to mars is only slightly different.

Instead, most accept Robert Zuberins' numbers and arguments that it is far cheaper and safer to go to mars directly from earth. Mr. Glenn was not arguing against going to the moon, only against going to the moon, and launching from there to mars.

John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go moon

[baryon351]

So. why doesn't John Glenn want the rest of us to go to the moon? what's he hiding? WHAT DO THEY KNOW IS UP THERE.

whoops. ignore I said any of that. tinfoil hat slipped

How about telling the truth, Glenn?

[DmitriA]

"He said cutting the research component of the space station program would save only about $2.5 million."

The ISS budget is not 2.5 million, but 2.5 BILLION! Plus there is an additional ~3 BILLION that is spent on shuttle launches that service ISS. He of all people should know that...

Re:How about telling the truth, Glenn?

[Anonymous Coward]

_What_ shuttle launches? They don't launch anymore. ISS is currently services exclusively by Russians.

Re:How about telling the truth, Glenn?

[prgrmr]

The ISS budget is not 2.5 million, but 2.5 BILLION!

Glenn wasn't talking about the complete ISS budget, just the science portion that's projected to be cut.

Re:How about telling the truth, Glenn?

[0123456]

So less than 0.1% of the ISS budget goes to actual, real, useful science? Yeah, that sounds about right.

Re:How about telling the truth, Glenn?

[HanzoSpam]

Glenn, a retired Democratic senator from Ohio

That might go a longer way in explaining Glenn's agenda than his previous career as an astronaut.

Bush's Moon Plan is a 'shock and awe' tactic:

[Neuropol]

A moon base is just a way to get people thinking about votes.

Re:Bush's Moon Plan is a 'shock and awe' tactic:

[Anonymous Coward]

And, as always, the bash Bush posts get modded up. Free thinkers of Slashdot unite!

Re:Bush's Moon Plan is a 'shock and awe' tactic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Did it ever occur to you that Bush might in fact be an asshole and deserves to be bashed?

Re:Bush's Moon Plan is a 'shock and awe' tactic:

[Anonymous Coward]

iam sure people said the same about Hitler

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." -- Hermann Goering, Nazi leader, at the Nuremberg Trials, April 18, 1946.

seems like its working in USA just like it did in Germany, but then those who forget history are doomed to repeat it

Re:Bush's Moon Plan is a 'shock and awe' tactic:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, and why not? Nazi Germany wasn't strong enough to take over the world. But with the US armed forces, it could actually work! Why shouldn't we try it?

I grow weary...

[Savage Conan]

...of people treating John Glenn as if he were some expert in space travel. He was sent to space but never had a damn thing to do with the scientific planning that was necessary to get there. To me he is no more an expert than those monkeys they sent up in flight suits.

Re:I grow weary...

[Omega1045]

Wow, that is a really uniformed opinion. All of the early astronauts participated (to a greater or lesser extent) in the actual engineering and planning of the missions. Please note that in addition to being a pilot, Glenn is an engineer. I found the below facts just from a simple Google search:

From His NASA Bio Page

He attended Muskingum College in New Concord and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering.....

When astronauts were given special assignments to ensure pilot input into the design and development of spacecraft, Glenn specialized in cockpit layout and control functioning, including some of the early designs for the Apollo Project.

Re:I grow weary...

[Savage Conan]

Just because he is an Engineer doesn't mean shit. As I stated he still had nothing to do with the planning of getting from here to there. Cockpit layout is nice but it doesn't help you solve problems like fuel, food, easily getting raw materials from here to there without having to get off our high g planet. Face it was nothing more than a flyboy.

Re:I grow weary...

[Bushcat]

You don't need him. You need people who are prepared to send people like him. Suppose there were 10,000 flight-ready astronauts sitting around right now. No-one's going to send them. There's no infrastructure to do it, and there's no will to do it. He doesn't have to be an expert in anything, he just has to want to be there, and encourage other people to be there. Exploration always used to be about loonies at the edge, who failed frequently and succeeded sometimes. Now it's about sensible people, who never fail because they never tried, and I think we'll be poorer because of that.

Re:I grow weary...

[Anonymous Coward]

He was still working day-in-day-out with the top people at NASA. He was probably friends with plenty of engineers, scientists, etc. from the old days.

Only, unlike those scientists and engineers, he is a public figure. He can speak and it will get posted (for instance) on Slashdot.

Suppose he is/was "nothing more than a flyboy".

Maybe now he's "nothing more than a mouthpiece"...but he might very well be the mouthpiece of people with very informed opinions. Just a thought. It might be worthwhile to hear him out.

Besides, he probably knows more about all of those things you've listed than *you* do...engineer or not.

Re:I grow weary...

[nicodemus05]

I agree that when he was sent into space he was basically a fighter jock, and had nothing to do with the scientific planning that went on. However, he did stay involved in space exploration even after he stopped flying, and I think that he's picked up a thing or two since then. His advocacy has been important to NASA, and he is probably the most recognized public figure to stand up for them.

Re:I grow weary...

[spiritu]

Oh come now. John Glenn was a Democrat his whole political life. He served in the Senate as a Democrat from 1975-1999, and ran for President unsuccessfully as a Democrat in 1984.

His testimony is widely interpreted as bashing George Bush, especially by fellow Bush bashers. His subject position is hardly that of an apolitical former astronaut. It is rather that of a long-time politico who has a large interest in seeing his party win in the next election. By exploiting his position as a former astronaut in order to denigrate the President's plan, he can achieve success in his goal of supporting a party he has been an official in, and important part of since 1975.

As such, I hardly take his testimony as impartial. It is anything but.

Hero Gone Politician

[iammrjvo]

John Glenn lost all credibility with me when, as a US senator, he pulled that garbage line about "exploring the effects of age on space travel" as an excuse to get NASA to launch him back to space.

He was once part of a band of heros. Now he's just another politician.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't John Glenn one of the Keating 5 ?
(savings & loan scandal)
Talk about the WRONG stuff ...

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[YetAnotherAnonymousC]

Amen. This is just more of the usual "criticize the other side" partisan bickering.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Bushcat]

He was once part of a band of heros. Now he's just another politician.

It's easier to knock people down than to build them up. I'm happy with the concept of "once a hero, always a hero". If nothing else, he showed that old people can go back into space. That may be relevant in a few decades when our robot-obsessed console explorers tell us "gee, we'd like to send real people, but we don't have any anymore."

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Bendebecker]

Better than Gus Grisom who is now just another speck of dust in Cape Caneveral. At least they got a much better actor to play him then that dude they got to play Glenn. I think we have to remember, this dude and the others had the guts to get on top of a rocket that could possibly explode and to go into space knowing the probablity of dying was only slightly lower than the probablity of sucess. But they all did it anyway. They had guts, something the modern space program is completely lacking. Scientists are great to send into space, what with triple phds and stuff, but they don't seem willing to take the risks normal ppl would. Remember the geeks in high school who had so little guts that they were scared shitless of even talking to a girl. Now we got them in space. We need to get the ppl who had the guts back up there to takes the risks.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[prgrmr]

He participated in 83 science experiments over 9 days while up in the shuttle. (That's an average of 9.2 experiments per day, for those having trouble with the math as well as with history).

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[PMuse]

John Glenn lost all credibility with me when, as a US senator, he pulled that garbage line about "exploring the effects of age on space travel" as an excuse to get NASA to launch him back to space.

Yes, of course it was an excuse. Can you blame him for wanting to see space just one more time? Can you blame him for wanting to experience space in something a little less confining than than the Friendship 7 Mercury capsule? Can you blame him for wanting to spend more time up there than the ~5 hours of his 1962 flight?

Well, I suspect that some here can blame him, but I can't. After a lifetime of government service, one ticket on a shuttle flight was as fitting a reward as we could have given the man. And, as other posters have pointed out, he made himself a real part of that crew and did real work while he was up there. I'll never earn a reward like that, but I can't begrudge it to anyone who does.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[kalidasa]

Funny thing is, a Republican senator did it first. And he wasn't an experienced astronaut.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[GPLDAN]

A much better actor? Fred Ward is a better actor than Ed Harris? Are you joking? What are you, 12 years old?

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[GPLDAN]

Glenn has done more for the service of his country than Bush could ever dream of. He was a decorated Marine. In all physical tests, his scores were much better than any other of the Mercury astronauts. Bush had his daddy sent him to the country club squadron of the Air National Guard, and he couldn't even bother to show up for service in Alabama.

It doesn't suprise me that some GOP lackey boy would take a cheap shot at Glenn. Expect the same with Kerry. The Bushies have something to hide, so they go on the attack.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Dusabre]

After a lifetime of government service, one ticket on a shuttle flight was as fitting a reward as we could have given the man.

How much did that ticket cost? 20 million. Shit, I think he could have been given another medal, a million and let somebody who has never been in space up to enjoy the experience. And do some real work. A 70 year old geronaut was about as useful on the mission as I would be. Selfish old man.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Dun Malg]

He participated in 83 science experiments over 9 days while up in the shuttle. (That's an average of 9.2 experiments per day, for those having trouble with the math as well as with history).

So what? The tests were pointless because, as the linked story says:

Glenn, 77 at the time and the oldest person ever sent into space, was so healthy and the mission so short that the results weren't much different from tests done on men and women half his age.

Then is goes on to quote Glenn saying we need to send more old folks up to get more varied test results, but that'll never happen. NASA won't send anyone up who isn't in excellent physical health because they don't want the risk.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[WindBourne]

First off, remember that Gus is not a speck of dust there; He sufficated there, not blown up

But you are very correct about getting on top of rockets. It was very gutsy back then to not only go up on a rocket, but to go to somewhere that we did not know what was there (There be monsters here). Today we spend a lot of money to put in back-up systems to try and save the crew. The truth is that almost all of it actually adds to the danger. It lowers the payload capacity. We, as a nation, seem unwilling to take risks. Personally, I do see all the astronauts as heros, but more so for the true explorers; Those that are first.

But I differ about the geeks vs. "gusy" ppl. The ppl going up are simply the best and the brightist and they are well chosen (well, not really, I think it should be me :) ). That includes the first set of astronauts. They were geeks, one and all. Talk to john or any of the others

The real issue is not who is going up, but the politicians who are afraid of voters. It would be much better if all politicians (esp. the presidents at the times of these accidents) would simply explain that accidents will happen and we must go on. Instead, they turn it into a political bowl.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

We're talking about Glenn here, not Bush. The point is that it's somewhat hypocritical for him to extol the virtues of scientific research, when just a few years ago he himself was selected for a Shuttle mission for what many feel were purely PR reasons.

And if someone wanted to take cheap political shots at Sen. Glenn, they'd talk about the Keating Five.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[kisak]

This is just more of the usual "criticize the other side" partisan bickering.

Well, except one partisan is a president desperate to get re-elected even though his record is less than impressive, while the other partisan is an engineer, US senator, and astronaut who has worked closely with NASA for many years.

The partisan bickering is part of democracy, but that is not an argument not too listen to the arguments and what the politicians are saying. Especially when the arguments are from such a relevant source as senator Glenn, even though he is a democrat and all.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Dun Malg]

Funny thing is, a Republican senator did it first. And he wasn't an experienced astronaut.

He was an experienced pilot in the navy and air force, though. And he went up as a payload specialist on a shuttle satellite launch mission, not as a test subject for a bogus scientific experiment. Studying the effects of space on old folks? If the old folks are healthy enough for NASA to let 'em go up, the effects are nada.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[spaceyhackerlady]

John Glenn lost all credibility with me when, as a US senator, he pulled that garbage line about "exploring the effects of age on space travel" as an excuse to get NASA to launch him back to space.

Can't say I blame him. I I could pull some strings for a shuttle ride, I would. Wouldn't you?

I thought it was totally dumb, but also totally understandable.

...laura

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[prgrmr]

So what? The tests were pointless because, as the linked story says:

Glenn, 77 at the time and the oldest person ever sent into space, was so healthy and the mission so short that the results weren't much different from tests done on men and women half his age.

Not pointless at all. The obvious conclusion it that the deletrious effects to health can be mitigated in an older person simply by that person living a healthy lifestyle. In other words, the effects of space travel on an older person need not be any more negative than they are on a younger person. This actually reinforces the health requirements NASA imposes on its astronauts.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but WHY Glenn? If NASA was truly interested in studying the effects of space travel on the elderly, they would have picked someone with more space experience and better qualifications than Glenn. Matter-of-fact, they could have picked almost *any* astronaut retired or not and they would have been a better test subject.

Two alternate astronauts immediately come to mind, John Young and Story Musgrave. Both men spent decades working in and with the astronaut corps. They certainly were much better qualified and have made invaluable contributions to the space program. Musgrave's last mission, STS-80, was made at the age of 61 just one year prior to Glenn getting his ticket.

Yep, NASA is going to conduct geriatric research in space on a *single* subject who hasn't been space qualified for 30+ years. Sure makes for great P.R. but does nothing for science.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[OldSchoolNapster]

Yes, but WHY Glenn? If NASA was truly interested in studying the effects of space travel on the elderly, they would have picked someone with more space experience and better qualifications than Glenn. Matter-of-fact, they could have picked almost *any* astronaut retired or not and they would have been a better test subject.

Im sure that someone who once piloted a spacecraft by himselfis qualified to serve as passenger on another spacecraft.
Mission Successful. First American in orbit. Total time weightless 4 hours 48min 27sec.

Re:Hero Gone Politician

[Anonymous Coward]

It wasn't a reward for a lifetime of public service, it was a reward for his help in obstructing some Senate hearings that could have proven very uncomfortable for the Clintons.

China

[ultraexactzz]

Though Mr. Glenn's arguments are sound, they fail to take into account one of the most pressing reasons for a permanent moon base - China intends to build one in the next 12 years. Though it smacks of the Cold War, could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?

Re:China

[Jotaigna]

Well, unless the US has claimed the moon to themselves, there is no reason for them not to allow the chinese to do that. I imagine the future of the moon as the antartica`s, where many nations have their bases and no one lives there permanently but all include them in their territorial maps. On this line of thought, the moon will be protected and preserved as the antarctica is or its natural resources(im shure they'll find some) will be mined to the point of swiss cheese moon?.

Re:China

[Mascot]

That reminds me of a Futurama episode I saw recently (season 2 episode, but new to me). Paraphrasing since I have crap memory.

Fry "The president of the world? What's he to us, thus is the United States!"

Leela "Fry, the United States is part of the world"

Fry "Really? Wow, the future really is different"

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

Though it smacks of the Cold War, could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?

Damn right!!!

We in america are strong! We don't allow communists, biased europeans or gays to steal our dream and our hard earned pride!

Re:China

[pragma_x]

Actually, it does make some sense that a Communist power might achieve this before, say, the US. In the US there are only two ways that truely great things happen: A Federal Mandate of some kind or widespread commercial capitalism and competition. As has been demonstrated numerous times before, the US government has positioned itself such that it is the only entity that gets to go into space from US soil. This pretty much eliminates the possibility of private enterprise carrying the torch. So if the president's plan fails to muster enough money to get this job done: nothing happens. IMO, China's communist government, has a little more flexibility when it comes to targeting arbitrary goals like damming the Yang-tse or setting up a permanent moon base. As long as the *government* has a clear idea of what it wants to accomplish, it can say 'to hell' with anyone under them who disagrees. I may be wrong about this, so anyone else have any facts to back this up or refute this? (thnx)

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it does make some sense that a Communist power might achieve this before, say, the US. In the US there are only two ways that truely great things happen: A Federal Mandate of some kind or widespread commercial capitalism and competition. As has been demonstrated numerous times before, the US government has positioned itself such that it is the only entity that gets to go into space from US soil. This pretty much eliminates the possibility of private enterprise carrying the torch.

The X-Prize says "hi". Google it.

So if the president's plan fails to muster enough money to get this job done: nothing happens.

until the next term when another president comes in with a new plan.

Re:China

[CKW]

> Though Mr. Glenn's arguments are sound, they fail to take into account one of the most pressing reasons for a permanent moon base - China intends to build one in the next 12 years. Though it smacks of the Cold War...

Exactly!!! This is a perfect opportunity to do to the Chinese Communists what we did to the Russian Communists. Run their economy ragged in a technological race that they can not beat us at.

No war, no fuss, no muss - just 1.5 billion chinese peasants pissed at their communist overlords for wasting money on a moon base instead of letting them spend their money on consumer goods.

Bye bye Chinese Communists.

> could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?

What's that going to get them?

SERIOUSLY.., - what's that going to get them?

Re:China

[julesh]

> could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?

What's that going to get them?

SERIOUSLY.., - what's that going to get them?

Unlimited access to all of the moon's mineral wealth which, when combined with its low gravity, provides an easier way of building useful large scale space structures than transporting the material from Earth?

Re:China

[orim]

And if the Chinese get there first, what exactly will happen? Will there we hordes of roving Chinese in our streets, raping our dogs and killing our women? Oh please, lead me on that acid journey where this is a bad thing.

Hell, at this point I say: wait for them to get there first. From the point of business (my business view is limited to the last decade or so), it's rarely the first company that succeeds in a market. Look at all the telecoms - they all wasted their money building the infrastructure, quite a few went under.

So they're gonna be the first to get there, so what? We'll see what they've done, adapt the process to do it in half the time/cost/whatever... and do it better.

Re:China

[Begossi]

I think thats exactly the point. There isno guaranteer whatsoever that the US will beat China in some arms-race-to-the-moon. As was explainned above, the US seems much more tied down to bureaucracy and regulations than it used to be back in the 50s and 60s. There seems to be much less political room for maneuver, so to speak, and much less money to throw around. I also believe the recent talks about the US going back to space/moon are pretty much electoral garbage. I hope not: Im a space enthusiast myself. But knowing what little I know about politics... well, it seems pretty unlikely anything real will come out of this. Manned space exploration requires an enourmous investment from the State, and a serious commitment of more than just 4 (or even 8) years. Both seem unlikely for the US as it is nowadays. Unless innitiatives like the X-Prize are incredibly sucessfull beyond all expectations, we may only see *real* Manned Space Programs again when China reaches the required level of home-made technology. But I may be just wrong, of course. Hope so.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

"I, for one, do not wish to go to bed by the light of a Communist moon."

-- The Lyndon Johnson character in the The Right Stuff

Re:China

[Begossi]

go go line breaks. Sorry about that. Feel free to place paragraphs, in your mind, as you see fit.

Re:China

[fenix down]

Jesus Christ. I really don't get this freakish harping over the goddamn X-Prize. Holy shit! It's like a Mercury mission, only as an end result rather than a test flight for a real goal. Up to three minutes of weightlessness! That's almost as much as a Vomit Comet flight! Wait, not really, but hell, sign me the fuck up anyway!

I could understand if they were opening up some profitable market that would encourage actual space projects, but no, they're selling $10,000 rollercoaster rides. Great, we're just skipping the whole "useful" stage and going right to where we abandon the technology except for novelty rides and cruises. Ok, so it's worth the money to keep John Carmack from making any more games, but do we really have to pretend it's useful for anything else?

Re:China

[genner]

The only problem with this theory is that a lot of the compnents of said U.S. plan would most likely be manufactured in China, and programmed in India.

Re:China

[Tablizer]

Will there we hordes of roving Chinese in our streets, raping our dogs and killing our women?

More likely making soup out of them :-P

Re:China

[mikesmind]

Cold war or not, the U.S. in a race with China. It's a race on many fronts, not just space exporation and exploitation. It's about ideologies, economics, innovation, national pride, military might, among others.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

...could the president really allow a (communist) foreign power unlimited access to the moon?

user: ultraexactzz
email: zz@livejournal.com
blog: http://zz.livejournal.com/
website: http://www.geocities.com/ultraexactzz/

..and now... GO!.. and destroy this suckers life!!!

Re:China

[mamba-mamba]

Didn't you see the movie _Seabiscuit_? We have to let China get out in the lead for a year or so in the moon base race. Then the US will mobilize its awsome productive capacity and we'll be back in the lead in no time.

[please don't mod this insightful; I'm going more for funny.]

MM
--

Re:China

[danila]

It would be much better if over the next 5 or so years he (fortunately not he, but his successor) could persuade the Chinese to join the international efforts. The competition between the superpowers is just stupid at this point. We need to grow up, it's the 21st century already.

Re:China

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, dummy, we quote Simpsons episodes here!

The moon is a silly waystation

[-dsr-]

For serious manned space missions, the moon is not a particularly good waystation. What's needed is a serious long-term space station for interplanetary vehicle construction, industrial micro-gravity operations, and scientific research. (This implies a two-part station, incidentally, with a rotating section for living quarters and office space and a stationary section for labs, factories and docks.)

The moon is a gravity well. It may be shallower than the Earth, but it still takes a lot of energy to slow descents and then escape again. Eventually it may be a useful source of material resources, but there's nothing particularly attractive about it now.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

no doubt... look what happened in Space:1999.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[stevelinton]

I think the "useful source of material resources" is kind of key. Using a space station for interplanetary vehicle construction means that the vehicle, the station, the scaffolding, the blast shield in csae the fuel goes up, etc. all have to be hauled up from Earth, at huge cost.

With a moonbase, you have space, a stable framework, and ample supplies aluminium silicate dirt, from which you might be able to refine something useful. Even if you can't, you can pile it up to provide bracing, shielding and the like.

If you just want to dock three or four pieces of Mars mission together you might as well just do it, in LEO with no station. If you really want to start building, you want to be somewhere with some ground to lean on.

Of course if Earth->orbit costs come down by a couple of orders of magnitude, for instance with an elevator, then it's a different game entirely, but I think we're probably 20-30 years away from that, if we're lucky.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[-dsr-]

I think the "useful source of material resources" is kind of key. Using a space station for interplanetary vehicle construction means that the vehicle, the station, the scaffolding, the blast shield in csae the fuel goes up, etc. all have to be hauled up from Earth, at huge cost.

"Blast shield in case the fuel goes up"? There's no oxidising (or reducing, for that matter) atmosphere in space. If you have the sense of a gopher, you'll keep your oxidizer on one side and the fuel safely away from that.

That said, while the moon is a potential resource site, you need a fully equipped base to exploit it. That's a goal that should come after a major space station, not before.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Dark Lord Seth]

Nothing particulary attractive? I dare to disagree. I am not an astrophysicist but the moon would make a lovely observatory. No atmosphere to distort the image, plenty of space to build whatever the hell you want which includes arrays of telescopes and the dark side is conveniently pointed away from the sun. The light side of the sun would make a good place to put up a few solar array farms to produce quite ludicrous amounts of energy because the light side is always aimed at the sun. ( surprisingly! )

Not to mention the fact that it's simply easier to construct stuff on the moon and if you keep the living areas on the dark side, you will also end up quite a bit cheaper because you simply don't need much radiation shielding. As for spaceship construction and military usage, I don't envision the moon as something worth allot that way. It's possible though. But the moon sure has potential for energy gathering, science, storage and disposal. ( Put mass driver on moon, put nuclear waste in mass driver, aim mass driver at the Sun, launch waste. )

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

"What's needed is a serious long-term space station for interplanetary vehicle construction, industrial micro-gravity operations, and scientific research."

Three aims that are obviously incompatible: micro-gravity in particular needs sustained micro-gravity, and being attached to a shipyard is not a good way to achieve that.

Nor is a space station much of a benefit for long distance spaceflight, you'll do just as well to dock the pieces in orbit and forget the station. A reusable tug to collect the pieces from low orbit and deliver them to the right place would be beneficial on the other hand: no need to carry docking and maneuvering capability on every piece of your spacecraft, just fuel to refuel the tug, which can be carried seperately in the upper stage of the launch vehicle.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[-dsr-]

I can see you aren't an astrophysicist. The dark side of the moon is called that because it faces away from the Earth, not from the Sun. It gets the same semi-lunar worth of daytime as the near side.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

"Using a space station for interplanetary vehicle construction means that the vehicle, the station, the scaffolding, the blast shield in csae the fuel goes up, etc. all have to be hauled up from Earth, at huge cost."

Whereas using the moon for spacecraft construction means that millions of tons of hardware, supplies and thousands of people have to be shipped all the way to the moon at even huger cost, to build your spacecraft. And this is supposed to be better?

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, no... The 'Dark' and 'Light' side are named relatively to earth. The 'Light' side is always facing earth and the 'Dark' always faces away. Both sides of the moon are then alternately facing the sun and facing away. If it were as you say, then the features of the moon would change with each revolution around the earth, but no, they are always the same.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

aren't certain rocket fuels that currently are in use self oxidizing? for instance the russian's affinity for hydrogen peroxide fuel comes to mind. if i recal hydrogen peroxide is self oxidizing and so needs no additional oxidizer.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[leonardluen]

no...technically he is correct...the dark side of the moon is always facing away from the sun...just like the dark side of the earth is always facing away from the sun...

it just so happens that the dark side of the moon!=the far side of the moon

more importantly is that the far side of the moon is facing away from the earth, which produces more radio signals than the sun, thus interfering with radio astronomy.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[MCZapf]

There is no "dark side" of the moon. There is a side that is always pointed away from the Earth. But it sees sunlight just as often as the other side. During a new moon, for example, the far side of the moon is getting all the sunlight.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[demachina]

This post is ridiculous. First off you will need a 3 part facility to do what you're talking about. You aren't going to be doing an serious micro-gravity industrial operations in the same station where you have large numbers of people, factories and docks. You would have to have a free floating or otherwise very well isolated zero G module otherwise your zero G manufacturing would be trashed every time someone uses a jack hammer in the factory.

Its also completely absurd to think you are going to build space craft in space. It would be enourmously expensive because you would have to support a huge number of people on the space station and everytime you need a new part or a tool it would have to be flown from earth at a massive cost, or manufactured in space from materials on the moon or asteroid also at mammoth expense. Maybe if there was a space elevator or a truly reusable SSTO craft so launch costs were ridiculously low this plan might be slightly more viable, but you still have to compare the probable costs of an aerospace worked on earth to one in space and realize its not economicly viable to manufacture big things in space. You might do it if you are building a big structure that had to be built in space, because its big or fragile, but it would still be better to design modular craft on earth, launch them and then dock and connect the modules in space.

Everyone needs to realize space stations are sitting in a vacuam. They have no resources you dont fly there, and it currently costs a fortune, as in a wrench will cost more than its weight in gold, to get in to space.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[julesh]

No - the point is that much of the material can actually come from the moon rather than being shipped up from Earth at all.

Also, once you've reached orbit, getting to the moon will only add another 50% or so to the cost, if my figures are right, and a lot of that 50% is recoverable when you travel onwards, as it is maintained in the form of kinetic energy... the loss from going to the moon is likely to be only around 10-20%, I think.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[julesh]

Of course if Earth->orbit costs come down by a couple of orders of magnitude, for instance with an elevator, then it's a different game entirely, but I think we're probably 20-30 years away from that, if we're lucky.

I'm not sure about this, but would it be viable to construct a space elevator on the moon? Lunar gravity is much lower, so the elevator wouldn't need to be anywhere near as big, and its own weight to support would be lower. The only question is whether the economics of it would be viable. Also, is geo-stationary (selino-stationary?) orbit possible around the moon?

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly why would it make any sense to have a space station before a fully-equipped moon base? Instead of a fully-equipped moon base, you propose building a fully-equipped not-moon base. As many posters have already pointed out, a space station can't do anything well that some other solution can do more cheaply and better. Well, except for tourism, maybe. But I don't see the Ritz or the Hilton lining up for space hotels, do you?

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

While the whole dark side concept is a common fallacy, you could still put a useful optical observatory on the moon. For one, you could expect half a month of uninterrupted observation time. :) For another, there are locations on the moon where you can expect perpetual darkness, like at the bottom of certain craters (the lack of atmosphere means you don't have light scattering in).

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

" No - the point is that much of the material can actually come from the moon rather than being shipped up from Earth at all."

So you're claiming that spacecraft parts just naturally occur on the moon? You can just step out of the airlock and pick up rocket engines and computers that are sitting there waiting for us?

Back in reality-land, raw materials are utterly worthless for spaceflight without factories to turn them into spaceships. Do you have any idea how much hardware and how many people are involved in going from rocks to spaceships? _ALL_ of that would have to be shipped to the moon, simply to avoid the cost of sending maybe a thousand tons of spaceship directly into orbit from Earth. That's insane.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

"Also, once you've reached orbit, getting to the moon will only add another 50% or so to the cost,"

Oh, and the generally accepted figure is more like 2x the cost of LEO launch to get to GEO, and 4x the cost to the moon, at least with conventional rockets.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[Anonymous Coward]

A stationary orbit is possible around any rotating body (or non-rotating, for that matter, although that's equivalent to just sitting on the surface). The moon is no exception.

One of the questions would be why you would want a lunar space elevator. Sure, it'd be helpful for the moon, but launch costs on the moon are lower already (no atmosphere + lower gravity = use a rail gun, rockets are also cheap). The nice thing about a space elevator on Earth is that it solves our launch cost dilemma on Earth. We'll still need a safe, cheap launch platform here, even if we have a thriving colony on the moon.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[aonaran]

Do you have any idea how much hardware and how many people are involved in going from rocks to spaceships? _ALL_ of that would have to be shipped to the moon, simply to avoid the cost of sending maybe a thousand tons of spaceship directly into orbit from Earth. That's insane.

That depends on what the ultimate goal is. If the ultimate goal is just to be a waystation then you're probably right. If the ultimate goal is to work toward colonization of other planets then building factories on the moon is not insane, just hugely more time consuming than utilizing existing factories here on Earth, but the long term (50-100 years or more) benefit of trying to build factories on the moon would probably be a lot more significant than a quick and easy trip to Mars... for that matter if we really want to save money and speed things up why not just launch from Earth? It's already a proven launch point and has all the factories in place. If all we want to do is put bootprints on Mars lets do it from here and skip the whole waypoint non-sense.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

"If the ultimate goal is to work toward colonization of other planets then building factories on the moon is not insane,"

Well, obviously that's true in the long-term sense: but it's certainly not possible with forseeable NASA budgets, and definitely a non-starter in terms of reducing the cost of near-term trips to Mars.

Also, colonising other planets is silly in itself: there's little point to colonising them when you can build self-contained habitats in free space much more easily than you can terraform planets, and you avoid the whole gravity well thing.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[aonaran]

If you can build a self contained habitat in space you can build one on the moon and the moon provides it's own gravity. (while much lower gravity than we are used to, at least it's free gravity)

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[0123456]

The moon's gravity is high enough to be problematic getting there and getting away, but too low to be very useful in maintaining muscle strength. Also, 'Space 1999' aside, the moon can't be flown around the solar system anywhere near as easily as a 100,000 person space habitat with a fusion pulse rocket on the back if you get bored with your current location.

Re:The moon is a silly waystation

[simonm]

Of course if Earth->orbit costs come down by a couple of orders of magnitude, for instance with an elevator, then it's a different game entirely, but I think we're probably 20-30 years away from that, if we're lucky.

Trust me, we're not that lucky.

Humans.-- dix days

[way2trivial]

Who's to say the value is purely for human related travel..

how many people ride in a scud?

If the US is short on cash...

[CrackedButter]

what better time to join up with the other countries of the world and create starfleet early.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

because the USA has decided not to be a team player ?

International law ? pah
United Nations ? pah
International Criminal court ? pah
Human rights ? Guantanmo bay ? pah
Kyoto, ABM treaty ? pah

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're aware that the UN was started by the US, right? And that we're its primary financer? And that the building is like...in NYC? Doesn't mean we have to agree with them all the time. Nor does it mean we have to listen to the french freaks when they're just defending their own iraqi interests. You're aware they, with Russia and England, are the ones that made the middle east problem...right? At least England is taking responsibility...they only hate the US there because of cold-war era propaganda from the USSR. Learn some history, might do ya some good.

now...Kyoto...well, that's a different story. Its all hypocracy anyway. The plane flights to Egypt do terrible damage to the atmosphere. Maybe they should meet online instead, so they can be taken seriously. The promoters of it care for nothing other than widening the trade deficits in the US, bleeding us dry until we collapse. All about jealousy.

History. Awareness. They are your friends.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[smchris]

what better time to join up with the other countries of the world and create starfleet early.

Not the way the 21st century is working out so far. Other countries must join with us in subjugation to our benevolence. Because we're the good-doers who love freedom.

Wasn't the 21st century, the genetic wars?

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

you're aware that the UN was started by the US, right? And that we're its primary financer? And that the building is like...in NYC?

And you're aware that this all means crap as long as you don't play by the rules? If you choose to ignore the UN whenever you see fit, why not forget about it and dismantle it? Countries can meet whenever they like with whoever they like and do whatever they want. Why have all those councils and votings if no one does what is decided there anyway?

Its all hypocracy anyway.

Get a clue. Go to high school, you uneducated trailer trash piece of shit. You might actually learn something besides flag waving and masturbating on Bush propaganda. See, if you were only polluting and ruining your own country, I'd say let the idiots drown in their own shit. But unfortunately, your actions have consequences for the whole planet.

The promoters of it care for nothing other than widening the trade deficits in the US, bleeding us dry until we collapse. All about jealousy.

Never mind. You're going down someday anyway. Nothing is forever.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[CrackedButter]

Oh yeah, we HAVE to be really ignorant first and create clones and such, THEN we do the moon THEN we have WW3 THEN first contact happens...the future is getting brighter everyday/

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're aware that this all means crap as long as you don't play by the rules? If you choose to ignore the UN whenever you see fit, why not forget about it and dismantle it? Countries can meet whenever they like with whoever they like and do whatever they want. Why have all those councils and votings if no one does what is decided there anyway? The european countries are ignoring the goodwill of the UN, and not doing what is for the good of the world but themselves. Clearly Russia and France were only trying to protect their financial interests in Iraq. Europe and the rest of the world view the US as the main threat to them now that they are the only super power left. Russia and France were the ones truely betraying the UN, not the US.

Get a clue. Go to high school, you uneducated trailer trash piece of shit.

Perhaps you are the one in need of an education so you can understand that someone with a different view on the world than yours doesn't make them a "uneducated trailer trash piece of shit" as you so elequantly put it. On the subject of Kyoto, plenty of european countries haven't lived up to the terms of it even though they signed it. While the US needs to do a better job on the environment, you can't expect them to do it all at once and cripple their economy.

You might actually learn something besides flag waving and masturbating on Bush propaganda.

You might actually learn something if you realized that just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are an extremist. Plenty of centerists didn't think US should have gotten into Kyoto either.

See, if you were only polluting and ruining your own country, I'd say let the idiots drown in their own shit. But unfortunately, your actions have consequences for the whole planet.

There is absolutly no proof of the theories of global warming, plenty of scientists can't even decide if we are just coming out of, or heading into an ice age. Like I said before, I agree the US needs to regulate business to help the environment, your views are the extreme ones here not mine, and not the parent posters.

Never mind. You're going down someday anyway. Nothing is forever.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that europe has had twards the US lately. It's simply build out of jealousy and fear. While the US ISNT the type of country that would try to take over the world, or wield is power unfairly, the world still fear only having one super power (the US) running unchecked. It really is a shame though, because instead of the unity the world could have had after the cold war, there has been nothing but bickering and petty jealousy. If this keeps up, the general population in the US is going to elect someone with a true isolationist policy. The general population as is thinks the US gives out too much forign aid, and gets involved too much overseas. There is a growning number of people who just want the US to stay to themselves. What most people want is the next time there is a earthquake in Iran, genocide in europe, plauge in Africa, or some crazy fucker blowing shit up in the middle east and countries look to us for help, for the US to say "FUCK YOU!".

The US spends more in foriegn aid than any other country. Despite the propaganda you see on the internet, nobody gives more than we do. in 2002 we spend 12.4 BILLION dollars on foreign aid. As a US Citizen, I'll gladly take that back to fix Social Security or to institute a national heath care system.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

And you're aware that this all means crap as long as you don't play by the rules? If you choose to ignore the UN whenever you see fit, why not forget about it and dismantle it? Countries can meet whenever they like with whoever they like and do whatever they want. Why have all those councils and votings if no one does what is decided there anyway? The european countries are ignoring the goodwill of the UN, and not doing what is for the good of the world but themselves. Clearly Russia and France were only trying to protect their financial interests in Iraq. Europe and the rest of the world view the US as the main threat to them now that they are the only super power left. Russia and France were the ones truely betraying the UN, not the US.

Get a clue. Go to high school, you uneducated trailer trash piece of shit.

Perhaps you are the one in need of an education so you can understand that someone with a different view on the world than yours doesn't make them a "uneducated trailer trash piece of shit" as you so elequantly put it. On the subject of Kyoto, plenty of european countries haven't lived up to the terms of it even though they signed it. While the US needs to do a better job on the environment, you can't expect them to do it all at once and cripple their economy.

You might actually learn something besides flag waving and masturbating on Bush propaganda.

You might actually learn something if you realized that just because someone doesn't agree with you, it doesn't mean they are an extremist. Plenty of centerists didn't think US should have gotten into Kyoto either.

See, if you were only polluting and ruining your own country, I'd say let the idiots drown in their own shit. But unfortunately, your actions have consequences for the whole planet.

There is absolutly no proof of the theories of global warming, plenty of scientists can't even decide if we are just coming out of, or heading into an ice age. Like I said before, I agree the US needs to regulate business to help the environment, your views are the extreme ones here not mine, and not the parent posters.

Never mind. You're going down someday anyway. Nothing is forever.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that europe has had twards the US lately. It's simply build out of jealousy and fear. While the US ISNT the type of country that would try to take over the world, or wield is power unfairly, the world still fear only having one super power (the US) running unchecked. It really is a shame though, because instead of the unity the world could have had after the cold war, there has been nothing but bickering and petty jealousy. If this keeps up, the general population in the US is going to elect someone with a true isolationist policy. The general population as is thinks the US gives out too much forign aid, and gets involved too much overseas. There is a growning number of people who just want the US to stay to themselves. What most people want is the next time there is a earthquake in Iran, genocide in europe, plauge in Africa, or some crazy fucker blowing shit up in the middle east and countries look to us for help, for the US to say "FUCK YOU!".

The US spends more in foriegn aid than any other country. Despite the propaganda you see on the internet, nobody gives more than we do. in 2002 we spend 12.4 BILLION dollars on foreign aid. As a US Citizen, I'll gladly take that back to fix Social Security or to institute a national heath care system.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

While the US ISNT the type of country that would try to take over the world, or wield its power unfairly

huh ? been hibernating for the past 50 years ?

The US spends more in foriegn aid than any other country

Come on...US foreign aid only happens if it makes US companies richer, or improves it's global military position. On what planet do you live ?

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[quax]

At this point I'd gladly accept an isolationist US administration over the current one.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly Russia and France were only trying to protect their financial interests in Iraq.

Sure, it's not like the US is interested in Iraqi oil. Right.

Perhaps you are the one in need of an education so you can understand that someone with a different view on the world than yours doesn't make them a "uneducated trailer trash piece of shit" as you so elequantly put it.

Having an attitude that basically is nothing but ignorance isn't something you find in a lot of well-educated and smart people.

On the subject of Kyoto, plenty of european countries haven't lived up to the terms of it even though they signed it.

They didn't fully meet the specs, but they're at least doing their best instead of not just ignoring everything but even denying obvious facts.

There is absolutly no proof of the theories of global warming, plenty of scientists can't even decide if we are just coming out of, or heading into an ice age.

That's typical US bullshit. After all, there are people in your country who refuse to believe in evolution and rather choose to believe that earth was created as described in the Bible (so called "creationists"). It's exactly the same with global warming. You ignore the evidence and believe whatever is convenient for you. And by the way, global warming isn't the only effect you'll get by destroying the environment.

The US spends more in foriegn aid than any other country. Despite the propaganda you see on the internet, nobody gives more than we do

This again shows what a fucking moron you are. You have to use RELATIVE numbers, not ABSOLUTE ones. It's like saying that Italian people drive better because there are fewer car accidents over they year in Italy than in the US. It doesn't take into account that Italy is much smaller than the US. Talking about percentages (foreign aid per capita for example), the money you spend in foreign aid is a JOKE compared to other countries.

And about the US becoming isolationist... it's not going to happen because you couldn't afford it. It would mean giving up control over the world, which in turn would mean losing power in the long run. Get a clue. The US is not involved in so many places all over the world because its government is so damn nice. It's about power. Carrot and stick policies.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gee, that's so informative. See you in metamod, clueless retard.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure, it's not like the US is interested in Iraqi oil. Right.

Iraqi oil before the sanctions made up about 10% of US oil imports. If the US were interested in oil, going after the Saudi's would be the thing to do. The US went into Iraq because of 9/11 jitters. If you don't believe that, and you want to believe the propaganada the leftists throw at you about how the US needs Iraqi oil, go for it.

Having an attitude that basically is nothing but ignorance isn't something you find in a lot of well-educated and smart people.

Huh?

They didn't fully meet the specs, but they're at least doing their best instead of not just ignoring everything but even denying obvious facts.

they are doing the same thing the US is, protecting their economy.

plenty of scientists can't even decide if we are just coming out of, or heading into an ice age. That's typical US bullshit.

Google it if you don't believe it. The statement "plenty of scientists can't even decide if we are just coming out of, or heading into an ice age" is the truth.

After all, there are people in your country who refuse to believe in evolution and rather choose to believe that earth was created as described in the Bible (so called "creationists").

There are plenty of people, in plenty of countries that believe all kinds of wacky things due to religion. There aren't many(any) religious books based on scientific fact. Using the bible to make a generalization about the US population just shows your ignorance and the weakness of your argument.

It's exactly the same with global warming. You ignore the evidence and believe whatever is convenient for you.

Nobody is ignoring it, it's balancing the trade off between your economy and the enviornment which every country is struggling with.

And by the way, global warming isn't the only effect you'll get by destroying the environment.

WOW REALLY? I would have never known that living in the US. You are so enlightened.

This again shows what a fucking moron you are. You have to use RELATIVE numbers, not ABSOLUTE ones. It's like saying that Italian people drive better because there are fewer car accidents over they year in Italy than in the US. It doesn't take into account that Italy is much smaller than the US. Talking about percentages (foreign aid per capita for example), the money you spend in foreign aid is a JOKE compared to other countries.

Of course other countries can talk nice about the percentages. They don't have our GNP, and their tax rates are so high that their governement can AFFORD to spend more on forign aid. Plus they don't have to deal with the messy issues of national defense on the scale we do, or have to deal with babysitting the world. The fact remains, we give out more money in forign aid than any other country. 12 billion dollars is 12 billion dollars.

And about the US becoming isolationist... it's not going to happen because you couldn't afford it. It would mean giving up control over the world, which in turn would mean losing power in the long run. Get a clue. The US is not involved in so many places all over the world because its government is so damn nice. It's about power. Carrot and stick policies.

No really, you need to pick up a history book and get a clue. The US was an isolationalist country, which is the way the founders wanted it. We got dragged into WW1 and WW2 kicking and screaming. After WW2, the US used foriegn aid as a tool to contain communism. Since WW2 the media bitches about how the US didn't get in fast enough to stop Hitler from killing the Jews. The US doesn't need to run around the world and give foreign aid to function. Our military, and our economy are enough to keep us protected, and I think people are going to start realizing that we don't have to be the worlds nanny.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

huh ? been hibernating for the past 50 years ?

When was the last time the US invaded a country and stole it's land or resources?

Come on...US foreign aid only happens if it makes US companies richer, or improves it's global military position. On what planet do you live ?

Oh yes, sending billions of dollars to Africa to help combat AIDS is really making companies richer, and is helping our military. Please explain how foriegn aid to africa does either of the things you mentioned. Is Africa going to teach our army how to use spears or something?

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

Iraqi oil before the sanctions made up about 10% of US oil imports. If the US were interested in oil, going after the Saudi's would be the thing to do.

That is irrelevant. The US isn't interested in being dependent on the Saudis. Since it would be hard to come up with an excuse to invade them (compared with Iraq, where it was relatively easy), getting control over the Iraqi oil fields was the next logical step.

The US went into Iraq because of 9/11 jitters

If you really believe that the US needed to invade Iraq because of security reasons and don't just say it because you need an argument here, you're really one of the dumbest, most brainwashed persons on the planet. Congratulations!

Of course other countries can talk nice about the percentages. They don't have our GNP, and their tax rates are so high that their governement can AFFORD to spend more on forign aid. Plus they don't have to deal with the messy issues of national defense on the scale we do, or have to deal with babysitting the world. The fact remains, we give out more money in forign aid than any other country. 12 billion dollars is 12 billion dollars.

BS. You don't need to have an army as large as you do. You don't need to babysit anyone. You choose to do it. Not because it's necessary, but because it's advantageous for you.

No really, you need to pick up a history book and get a clue. The US was an isolationalist country, which is the way the founders wanted it.

Who cares about the situation before WW2? You need to put down your fucking history books and open your eyes to see the realities of today's world. Fact is that you took the chance and now have your hands everywhere. Fuck what the founders of the US wanted. They were idealists and would be rotating in their graves if they knew about Bush.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

When was the last time the US invaded a country and stole it's land or resources?

Last year.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is irrelevant. The US isn't interested in being dependent on the Saudis. Since it would be hard to come up with an excuse to invade them (compared with Iraq, where it was relatively easy), getting control over the Iraqi oil fields was the next logical step.

Ok, well as soon as the US starts getting free oil from Iraq, then you can start bitching. Otherwise take off your tin foil hat, if you look at the facts it's obvious that America didn't take Iraq for oil because they aren't getting any oil out of the deal. Do you think whatever government that pops up in Iraq is going to sell oil at half price to the US or something? Really, you are the brainwashed one. If you really believe that the US needed to invade Iraq because of security reasons and don't just say it because you need an argument here, you're really one of the dumbest, most brainwashed persons on the planet. Congratulations!

No, the US didn't need to. The climate of the country is what sent them there. Iraq was allowing terrorists to train in their country. They were paying rewards to suicide bombers families. If they funded, or helped terrorist strike in the US, the US citizens would have had Bush's head.

BS. You don't need to have an army as large as you do.

Yes we do. Through history it has proven to be a good investment.

You don't need to babysit anyone. You choose to do it. Not because it's necessary, but because it's advantageous for you.

Again, this is part of the leftist, european "America is evil" press. Of course there is some value in being the worlds Nanny, but America is put under great pressure from the United Nations and individual countries to fix whatever goes wrong in the world. Anytime something goes bad it's "Why didn't the US get there sooner". Check out some of the press bitching about Hati recently.

Who cares about the situation before WW2?

The American people.

You need to put down your fucking history books and open your eyes to see the realities of today's world.

You need to open up your eyes to see the reality of where today's world is headed. The mood of the US population is changing twards isolationalism, and if it does in a few election cycles it will be shown in who gets into office.

Fact is that you took the chance and now have your hands everywhere.

what chance are you talking about?

Fuck what the founders of the US wanted. They were idealists and would be rotating in their graves if they knew about Bush.

More left wing drivel about how Bush is "Evil". Please, I'm a centerist and I can see this bullshit propaganda for what it's worth. If the founding fathers of the US could see it today, they would probably be amazed the Union has lasted as long as it has. If you think the founding fathers would be against things like the patriot act to fight terroism, look into what a citizens rights should be during a time of war or invasion.

You accuse me of being brainwashed, yet you ignore the cold hard facts of America's lack of dependancy on Iraqi oil, America's foreign aid policy. Someone who is in denial even when presented with cold hard facts in numbers is truely brainwashed.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[ratsnapple tea]

"Yet, given the track record of the current administration a [Bill] Gates lead government couldn't be worse."

Say what you want about his company, but as a philanthropist the guy is actively involved in some of the most worthy causes on the planet, with the billions to back it up.

By contrast, the current administration's lip service to stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa (they oppose condom use?!) is a joke, a fucking sad joke.

Cheers.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll see them too, don't worry I'll mod them informative. You eurotrash don't run the meta-modding system.

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[quax]

You make my day. Posting on slashdor I fill more often than not that I may as well send my comments to /dev/null.

And here you actually quote something that I wrote quite some time ago. Is this just some freaky mal-function of slashcode or did you repost an older comment?

Re:If the US is short on cash...

[ratsnapple tea]

I'll never tell... :-)

right on

[Shooter6947]

Glenn is exactly right. If you want to go to Mars, go to Mars! If you want to go to the moon to do science, then fine, but ya ain't gonna learn ANYTHING on the Moon that would help you get to Mars. Okay, maybe practice keeping space-suits clean from the nasty fine dust.

Re:right on

[LaCosaNostradamus]

If Glenn is thinking "will $5 billion get you a moonbase and Mars mission?", then he's right.

If Glenn is thinking "will $5 billion get you a Mars mission and sustained Human presence in space?", then he's dead wrong.

As I implied here in this current topic, you can't sustain operations just from the Earth. It's far too costly to haul everything you'd need and desire up that 1g gravity well and through that 40-mile blanket of air.

Earth's future as a long-term source for space operations will be small, specific cargoes like people, nuclear material, medicines, complicated equipment, etc. For bulk manufacturing, you'd have to make use of the Moon and asteroidal bodies (including comets, for their volatiles).

Political Motivation for the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

George W Bush's scientific advisors have been urging him to go to the Moon first, as a stepping-stone to Mars. The politics are only just hotting up. More soon.

Moon having "military value"

[zoney_ie]

Is there any kind of International treaties governing use of the Moon? I'm thinking particularly of the situation with the Antarctic here. There certainly should be some kind of International agreement that it's "common ground".

If not, I suggest ESA had better at least mount some similar type of mission to NASA, making sure that there is more than one "presence" on the moon.

Yeah, OK, it's just a ball of rock - but it's a tad upsetting to think someone else might single-handedly "claim" the entirity of that pretty disc in the sky.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like Antarctica you cannot own the moon.

And just like Antarctica you can have a base there and thereby stop others from having a base on top of yours. Just like the US base on the very south pole itself.

And there is one particularly strategically important point on the moon. I wrote about it in detail on an earlier thread and got it modded to zero so I am not wasting more time on it. Look for it.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[xtal]

Is there any kind of International treaties governing use of the Moon? I'm thinking particularly of the situation with the Antarctic here. There certainly should be some kind of International agreement that it's "common ground".


Kinda like the ABM treaty?

*cough*

I've never been accused of being an optimist, but for some reason I don't think international agreements not to militarize space are going to mean a whole lot in the next 15 years unfortunately. The ABM treaty issue is being hotly debated in Canada and will be an issue in the next election. (US Plans call for ABM sites in Canada, leading to space-based weaponry)

Re:Moon having "military value"

[joshmccormack]

Here's a page that describes the international treaty covering Antarctica:
http://www.antarcticanz.govt.nz/Pages /Internationa l/ATCM.msa

Here's part of it:

" The key elements of the treaty are:

1. Antarctica is to be used for peaceful purposes only. All military activities are banned, although military personnel can be used to support scientific programmes in such things as transportation of people, and equipment to Antarctica
2. There is freedom of scientific investigations and discoveries. Scientific plans, information and staff are regularly exchanged. This scientific cooperation has been genuinely successful among the treaty nations. The Cape Roberts Drilling Project is an example of successful collaborative scientific work.
3. All political claims for territory are frozen for the duration of the treaty and no new claims or enlargements can be made
4. Nuclear explosions or dumping of nuclear waste in Antarctica is banned
5. All stations/bases and equipment are open to inspection be observers appointed by Antarctic Treaty nations."

Re:Moon having "military value"

[krytron_switch]

1. Install mass driver on lunar surface.

2. Drop large rocks down the gravity well onto the heads of your enemies.

3. ???

4. Profit!

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Chess_the_cat]

There is a UN treaty banning the militarization of space. I'm pretty sure the US signed on as well.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[torpor]

Since when has the U.S. given a fuck about International Treaties?

If it did, Rumsfeld & Cheney would be sitting in a Belgian prison right about now, with the child molestors, where they belong ...

Re:Moon having "military value"

[sahonen]

it's a tad upsetting to think someone else might single-handedly "claim" the entirity of that pretty disc in the sky.

Someone already has. There is an international agreement that nobody can own the moon or any other celestial body, but this guy claims there is a loophole that allows individuals to claim celestial property, so he up and claimed most of the solar system and started selling it an acre at a time. I'd love to see how he manages to enforce it when people actually land on the moon and start setting up operations, however.

"You can't do that there, I own that!"
"Oh yeah? Well, you're down there. We're up here. Try and stop us."

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know the rules of claiming land? You find land, put a flag up and it belongs to your country. That's the way it's worked forever.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[MichaelGCD]

Yes, the moon is the 51st state.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[XaosTX]

I have just filed for a patent for the process of developing military superiority by placing my weapons higher than everyone else's. btw, anyone here ever read Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein?

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought the 51st state was Canada?

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Anonymous Coward]

THats why we fund terrorism against the US; to get them to wise up.

Support your local Al Quaida cell today.

I for one just made a 20,000 USD donation, fuck bush.

Bite me. And no I dont give a rats ass what they believe, they are simply a tool I use to strike back.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[MichaelGCD]

What about Iraq and Afghanistan?

Re:Moon having "military value"

[b-baggins]

That would be the treat the US followed beyond its requirements to do so, even to the point of formally announcing its intent to withdraw according to the terms specifically outlined in the treaty, even though the government with which the treaty was signed no longer existed?

That's the ABM treaty you are talking about, right?

Re:Moon having "military value"

[CrystalFalcon]

Is there any kind of International treaties governing use of the Moon?

Who cares? This is America. We have more, bigger, and badder weapons than anybody else. Particularly, we have more weapons than international treaties, which we eat for breakfast anyway these days. American tax dollars should care for American interests.

So... The moon? <Arwen>If you want it, *draws sword* come and CLAIM it!</Arwen>

Re:Moon having "military value"

[xtal]

even though the government with which the treaty was signed no longer existed?

There is always a difference between the spirit and letter of the law. The intent of the ABM treaty was to stop nuclear prolifertion and hold the status quo of power. While the Soviet Union has been dissolved, Russia and it's friends still have ICBMs in silos - and if their effectiveness is reduced, alternatives WILL be found. Nations do not have friends.

The agreement to not militarize space is supposed to represent a understanding amoung nations that our conflicts here on this planet should not exend elsewhere. Perhaps this is a naive view of the world, but I'd like to think that others might share it. The USA is in a position to militarize and dominate the theatre of space; At least until the LGM decide to show off their superiority in weapons.

Never forget, that this is a slippery slope - once it starts, it -will- end with nuclear weapons in space pointing down on us. I don't want to have to explain to my kids that there has to be MIRV orbital warheads aimed at the planet because we're really miserable to each other. Space is the last hope left for man working together as a species, and once it is gone, I fear it is gone forever.

It is likely the inevitable outcome of the USA's emerging world dominance. It will accellerate the development of (american) space initiatives. The USA will be making many moves in the next 10-20 years to solidify it's military power before world oil reserves become a problem. Having a monopoly on the heavy hydrogen reserves on the moon may be a justification down the road as well. Alas, I am an engineer, and not a military strategist.

My $0.02cdn.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Nutria]

Since when has the U.S. given a fuck about International Treaties? If it did, Rumsfeld & Cheney would be sitting in a Belgian prison right about now, with the child molestors, where they belong ...

What the hell are you talking about? The ABM Treaty? If so, you need to stop smoking crack and mainlining at the same time....

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Anonymous Coward]

They're just territories, kinda like Canada.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[torpor]

Both Cheney and Rumsfeld have been called before the World Court for War Crimes committed during Gulf War One, and the US has refused to enforce International Law regarding the conduct of War in not handing them over for trial.

Its not surprising that you know nothing about the War Crime charges currently standing in International Court against US' government executives. The US currently doesn't recognize the very Treaties it has signed to create such a Court in the first place ... thus ...

(I would suggest you take your interest in drugs and apply them to a little literacy.)

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Nutria]

I thought the 51st state was Canada?

No, England is 51. Canada is 52-63.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[prisoner-of-enigma]

There is an old saying: "possession is nine-tenths of the law." Regardless of treaty, if any nation puts a base on the Moon, they're going to (at the very least) claim rights to the ground that base sits on. Likely they'll claim a significant area around it as well as a "buffer zone" for further base expansion/exploration. If any other nation opposes such a claim, they have two choices: (a) sputter, fume, foam at the mouth, give long speeches in the U.N., pass worthless resolutions with no teeth, and ultimately do nothing, or (b) do something to forcibly remove the opposing base.

However, keep in mind that whoever puts a base there first has a significant strategic advantage. It's a helluva lot easier to prevent your opponent from building a moonbase if you've got your own base to launch attacks from. Any such attack on a pre-existing moonbase would have to come from Earth, meaning that any moonbase would have at least a three-day warning to take action of its own.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Nutria]

I don't care what the WCWC does or want, since I trust international organisations like this, the ICC and the UN about as far as I can spit into a gale.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[Endive4Ever]

Which International Court do you refer to?

There are so many. As many, actually, as any ad-hoc group of angry people choose to drum up.

(I would suggest you take your interest in fantasy World Government and apply them to a little reality)

Re:Moon having "military value"

[demachina]

As of a few weeks ago Putin, as part of his campaign to return Russia to what is effectively a one party state, and to its status as a superpower indicated Russia is going to develop manuevering warheads precisely to defeat the U.S. ABM's. ABM's are a lot easier to defeat with countermeasures than they are to make work reliably and it does have to work 100%.

He was also going start an ABM program of his own and Russia does still have the engineering talent to do it. Russia is strapped for cash but it does have huge oil reserves it can use to fund this.

At the same Russia indicated it was going to develop a six man successor to the Soyuz capsule so it can bring the ISS crew up to the point it might actually do something useful just as the U.S. abandons it. It kind of appears like Russia will inherit a very expensive space station on the cheap and I wager with their pragmatic approach to space, versus the U.S. wasteful approach, they might just do something with it.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[torpor]

Umm... the -reason- the 'World Government' is such a fantasy (though how you think you know what I fantasize about, I have no clue...) is because countries like America (actually, only the U.S. now, oh, and its underlings U.K. and Australia of course) refuse to recognize them and play ball with the rest of the International Community. America is a Thug.

The reason this Thug refuses to participate in International Justice is because it has committed crimes for which it knows it is guilty. Funny how Justice isn't truly blind, eh?

It was fine for US Generals to have their day at Nuremberg, but for an American to stand trial in Belgium, well ... thats different...

Re:Moon having "military value"

[torpor]

Well, trust is a valuable thing. I hope you find it someday, I really do.

Because it takes trust to make peace, and I hope you learn to make peace, as well.

Re:Moon having "military value"

[mbbac]

Couldn't you have at least linked us?

Re:John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go mo

[airConditionedGypsy]

:) The "relocated" Martians.

Did John Glenn go to the moon? I don't think so...

He was the first American to orbit the Earth.

But then again, I wasn't alive then, so what do I know?

Wouldn't it depend...

[QuickSilver_999]

a lot on the type of vehicle to be used? If we start looking at NERVA rockets and such, the moon would be a much better place to launch them from than Florida. A standard chem rocket to get to the moon, then something nuclear to get to mars.

Or, if the rocket is refuelable, you use a tank getting to the moon, escaping the 1G gravity well, then you refuel and use a lot less fuel getting out of moon's gravity field (isn't it 1/6th of earth?). This puts you in orbit for Mars with a whole lot of fuel left in a tank of the same size, right?

Re:Wouldn't it depend...

[FraggedSquid]

And we all know what can happen when you put nukes on the moon. Space 1999

Re:Wouldn't it depend...

[elwinc]

Or, if the rocket is refuelable, you use a tank getting to the moon, escaping the 1G gravity well, then you refuel and use a lot less fuel getting out of moon's gravity field (isn't it 1/6th of earth?). This puts you in orbit for Mars with a whole lot of fuel left in a tank of the same size, right?

Depends. Are you gonna drill and find rocket fuel on the moon, or do you have to land that fuel tank on the moon? Ain't no atmospheric braking when you bring stuff to the moon. Decelerating all the way down into a gravity well, even a shallow one, is mighty expensive.

As for nuclear powered rockets (or is that "nukular"?), I agree, launching them from the moon is better than from Florida, but launching them from space is better still. Unless you can manufacture fuel on the moon, there's no compelling reason to stop there.

Re:Wouldn't it depend...

[QuickSilver_999]

Point.

I guess a lot of that would depend on what is up there. We really don't know much about the moon at all, since we only had a few quick visits. A permanent base would allow for better research in resources on Luna. But I would bet we'll probably find at least iron ore up there. Perhaps titanium as well. Maybe uranium. No one really knows.

Re:Wouldn't it depend...

[SB9876]

IIRC, ion drives have the potential to outperform even NERVA type rockets. The fuel usage of those things is so low that there's no real reason to refuel.

As for refuelling at the moon, I've got another post around here somewhere where I go through the delta V's involved. It turns out that it takes as much fuel to get to lunar orbit as it does to go to Mars to begin with so refuelling really makes no sense. I guess that trip time tp Mars could be cut down a bit by being able to burn harder on the way to Mars but then you have to burn off that speed when you get to Mars, making for a much more dangerous aerobrake maneuver. (or using a lot of that lunar fuel to slow down)

GW Bush: A man in search of a mission

[nysus]

We choose to have parades because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. --GW Bush

Bush has got to be the worst cheerleader for the cause. He likes to talk up his strong leadership qualities but what it really means is strong-arming policy decisions. That's just not enough to push a space mission of this magnitude through. We need someone who truly understands and has internalized the need to explore space and isn't repeating words put in his mouth.

Re:GW Bush: A man in search of a mission

[PMuse]

Bush has got to be the worst cheerleader for the cause.

If he believed in it, he would fund it. A committed leader would have set a goal, given a timeline, and stated that we would spend whatever money and effort it takes to reach the goal. A believer in having a space program would not cut the funding to the work we've already begun in space on the promise that maybe, years from now, there might be some money for a Mars trip.

How bitter that the Mars rovers have succeeded so well, only to see the opportunity to pursue still greater goals being squandered!

Re:GW Bush: A man in search of a mission

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The best leadership is by example, and uses the methods of persuasion.

Like we joked in college in '91, is seems that Bush Sr. thought that a 500LB bomb should be called a "persuader" in the media. His tyrannical bastard of a son is only continuing the family philosophy.

Re:GW Bush: A man in search of a mission

[dinog]

If he believed in it, he would fund it.

Quick note about silly consitutional matters : The president cannot "fund" anything. The US Constitution expressly gives that power (funding) to Congress alone. Given that, perhaps you should write your congress-critter and ask them to fund any space ambitions.

Of course the president could divert existing funds to a space program, but such a plan as this would require more funding that could easily be diverted.

Finally, many think such a program will not be funded, and normally I would concur, but China is now looking at a similar program and this, from a government standpoint, is the greatest motivation. Too bad that kind of motivation leads to flag and footprint missions....

Dean G.

Re:GW Bush: A man in search of a mission

[PMuse]

The president cannot "fund" anything. The US Constitution expressly gives that power (funding) to Congress alone. Given that, perhaps you should write your congress-critter...

Indeed, I should. So should we all. In addition, I believe the president should ask the congress-critters to fund it. They will, one hopes, pay more attention to what he says than to what I say.

Plus, he has ready-made opportunities to do this. As I suspect you know, the U.S. budget process begins each year with the executive submitting his budget proposals to congress, where the respective budget committees debate them, negotiate them into bills, pass the bills through the houses, reconcile them into one, submit it to the executive, and then hope he doesn't veto it. (Somewhat oversimplified, but close enough for the moment.) In many respects, the budget is a congressional bill like any other -- i.e., it has the usual executive involvement. All of which leads to this: the executive "funds" something by proposing funding for it to congress. To announce a space initiative and then not to propose adequate funding is something of a hollow gesture.

Of course, the power to lay and collect taxes resides in congress (Art. I, Sec. 8) and such bills begin in the House of Representatives (Art. I, Sec. 7). However, the budget isn't a tax bill, and even tax bills require the usual executive interaction: signature, veto, or override. So they're not all that different.

Oh Come on...

[DelawareBoy]

Just because the man made it to the moon does *not* mean he is an authority on the economic / social / political needs to make a manned trip to Mars. I use the American Economy every day.. I don't get asked to testify before congress, etc., on economic matters.. -DB in 2004

Re:Oh Come on...

[superdan2k]

Um, John Glenn never went to the moon. His only flights were on Friendship 7 (as part of the Mercury program) and on STS-95.

Re:Oh Come on...

[prgrmr]

Just because the man made it to the moon

Glenn never went to the moon. NASA wouldn't let him go, they didn't want to risk losing their hero.

does *not* mean he is an authority on the economic / social / political needs to make a manned trip to Mars

Having served in the US Senate, I'm sure he's much more of an authority on those matters than you would belive.

Re:Oh Come on...

[Anonymous Coward]

John Glenn never went to the moon. He went on one suborbital flight and then was put in a glass case so he could be paraded as a national hero. He got another flight in a shuttle a few years back when people needed to be reminded that the US has the space program.

Re:Oh Come on...

[mwood]

"suborbital flight".

Uh, no. Glenn did three orbits before they got worried about his heat shield and cut the mission short. Prior to that decision he said the ship was "go for at least seven orbits", IIRC.

Re:Oh Come on...

[DelawareBoy]

Doh!.. Thanks for the correction.. Although I think the argument is still valid..

Re:Oh Come on...

[superdan2k]

I would argue against you very strongly on that. An astronaut, despite the jokes is more than just "spam in a can"... They need to be aware of every nuance of the vehicle they travel in, as everything up to the point where they were flying the Shuttle on a regular basis was a wholly unique vehicle. Furthermore, as they are regularly paraded around to the media, etc., they need to be well-versed and act as PR for NASA -- thus they need to be able to speak with authority on planning, the future of the agency, etc.

It's not like astronauts are trained chimps. Most of these guys have a Masters, PhD, or MD degree, many of them multiples. The ones with Bachelor's degrees are just as well-versed as their better-educated counterparts.

And truth be told, Senator Glenn is probably basing his argument off of Robert Zubrin's excellent treatise on the subject, The Case for Mars . Give it a read if you haven't yet. A large number of people inside and outside NASA view it as an ideal manned mission program.

Mars...

[TheKidWho]

Why go to mars in the first place? Its not like there is some ancient alien technology on mars... or is there??? Not to mention, it sure as hell isnt going to fix the problems we have on earth... how about instead we devote more of the money into propulsion systems research?

Re:Mars...

[bsartist]

Why go to mars in the first place?

Because it's there.

Re:Mars...

[TheKidWho]

by that same reasoning, we should take a trip to the center of the sun...

Re:Mars...

[bsartist]

You're right - we should. Obviously, we can't do it until our technology is up to the task, but once it is - why not?

Re:Mars...

[TheKidWho]

Silly... We have to do it within the next 20 years or else the sun will blow up and we can never go again... just like mars!!

Moon would make better sense...

[Vexler]

...only because it can then be used as a strategic platform to launch whatever we would need to explore the other planets in our system. We could establish a base on the moon, and then ship parts there to be assembled on-site, and launch at our discretion. Considering the fundamental fact that the moon has about one-sixth of the gravitational pull of the Earth, numerous logistical details (fuel, distance needed to travel, transport, etc.) would be easier to handle (not easy, but easier).

Re:Moon would make better sense...

[bc90021]

No, no, no. It is actually *more* wasteful to go to the moon on a trip to Mars... for a really great source of info, check out The Mars Society, and read Robert Zubrin's book, _The Case For Mars_.

Re:Moon would make better sense...

[virg_mattes]

> It is actually *more* wasteful to go to the moon on a trip to Mars...

This is the crux of the problem, in terms of the Mars Society's arguments against a Moon base. They seem to position all of their arguments in terms of Mars exploration (not surprisingly) and so they see a Moon base as nothing more than an inefficient stepping-stone to Mars. But while the Mars mission craft is being built on the Moon, other stuff important to space exploration can also be happening, like the assembly of a dark-side telescope array and a thousand other lower profile projects.

See, folks, it's not all about Mars. Being on the Moon has its own benefits.

Virg

There are some reasons to go to the moon

[Pedrito]

First of all, I completely disagree with the Bush agenda. However, there is at least one compelling reason to go back to the moon, and that's to put a radio telescope on the far side.

One of the big problems with radio astronomy is noise interference from Earth and the many satellites we have in orbit. The nearest zone free of this interference would be the far side of the moon.

Building a radio telescope on the moon would likely require a full-time manned base for handling repairs and maintenance. One of the disadvantages of having a radio telescope on the moon is that radio astronomy has been advancing along with other technological areas and upgrades would be needed periodically in addition to repairs.

I think Radio Astronomy would benefit enormously from such a project, but I doubt that's on the Bush agenda...

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[zx75]

Before doing anything like building a manned base on the far side of the moon... or even an unmanned radio telescope for that matter, is to create a series of 'stationary' communication satellites in moon orbit for communication.

The very idea of being free from interference, also prevents us from retrieving data due to the giant piece of rock in the way.

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[Maljin Jolt]

The very idea of being free from interference, also prevents us from retrieving data due to the giant piece of rock in the way.

Do not underestimate a bandwith of a truck full loaded with memory cards.

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[zx75]

But bandwidth isn't eveything. Shuttling communication back and forth in such a way would not only be expensive, but inconvienient if such a radio telescope was manned.

In a case like this, as with the mars probes, is not that we can move large amounts of data in a short period of time, but that we can remain in constant touch.

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The Moon would act as a great shield, true. But your baseline would only be the Lunar diameter. Making radio 'scopes and positioning them around Earth orbit would also be a worthwhile project.

Myself, I'm jonesing for placing a large optical scope at the solar focus position, which is about 3 times farther from the Sun as our farthest probe (Pioneer 11?). The massive amplification power at the focus (provided by the Sun's mass bending an enormous volume of light around itself) should provide incredible visible observations ... perhaps resolution of individual planets in other systems. {pant, pant}

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think telescopes are on the Bush agenda. The Hubble is a great telescope and they don't even want to keep that one working.

Re:There are some reasons to go to the moon

[CaptainAvatar]

Yes, it'd be a bugger of a time pointing the damn thing though. "OK, next target is Sgr A* ... please wait 350 years while we move the mirror to a new orbit."

Of couse you could just do a drift scan and pick up whatever happens to float across the field of view ...

It is not about science

[Maljin Jolt]

It is about military. Putting stuff on the Moon has much more strategic value than putting stuff on Mars. From the Moon point of view, you have all Earth's communication sattelites on the palm.

And about the modern veaponry, the scalar translator having Moon-Earth parallax would have been much much more accurate then anything you can build on Earth only.

One question: why?

[PingKing]

This talk of trips to the moon and Mars makes me ask: why?

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

The answer is, of course, nothing. Robots are even better suited because, well, they can be specially built to be suited.

Bush announcing these plans felt, to me, like he was announcing a return to the Cold War. Then, and now, space travel exists merely so nations can demonstrate that their country is the most advanced.

Re:One question: why?

[Atrahasis]

This talk of trips to the moon and Mars makes me ask: why?

Because man always has and always will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth.

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?"

Experience it first hand. Describe being there in a qualitative as well as a quantitative manner. In short, FEEL what its like to be there. If you fly a kite, you can hardly say you flew, can you? Similarly, putting a robot on the moon or Mars does not justify the statement that man has been there.

Robots are even better suited because, well, they can be specially built to be suited.

No, robots are actually LESS well suited becuase they MUST be built to suit. Being specialised is not a good trait when you are unsure of the circumstances in which you might find yourself. The ability to adapt to changing circumstance is not one that the field of robotics has yet mastered. Thankfully nature has done the work for us, and we are natural adaptors.

Re:One question: why?

[turgid]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Take Bibles and spread the Good News?

Re:One question: why?

[kolbeinn]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Well for one they can die a horrible death from hunger or asphyxiation, give me a few minutes and I will think of a few more things.

Re:One question: why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Live.

Re:One question: why?

[gosh_d]

For the most part, you're right that robots/rovers are better suited and certainly cheaper than humans in space. You fail to address the serious problem of obtaining adequate funding for these missions, though. Frankly, the public finds humans in space far "sexier" than their metal counter-parts. Without public interest, no politician will support allocating the necessary money. Though theoretically less efficient, manned-missions get the support they need (and all too often even they don't manage to).

Re:One question: why?

[Autonomous Crowhard]

Uh, could you have Spirit or Opportunity wipe the dust off the solar collectors please? Oh, I'm sorry... Did we not think of that?

That's what robots can't do. They can't adapt the way we can. If anything ever goes wrong that we didn't think about, the robot is screwed.

Let's not forget that just a couple pounds of pressure could have opened Galileo's high-gain antenna and we would have gotten an amazing amount more information than we did.

Re:One question: why?

[Clomer]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Robots are, by their very nature, very limited. They can only perform as directed by the mission controllers back on Earth. The communication lag, and other factors, puts a serious hamper on how much actual science they can perform.

A human field geologist would be able to accomplish more in 2 days than Spirit or Opportunity will accomplish in their entire mission.

Re:One question: why?

[Gabrill]

Because man always has and always will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth. And I suppose you've personally walked from New York to London? The seaweed is always greener/ in somebody elses lake-Sebastian.

Re:One question: why?

[kisak]

We've run out of horizons on Earth.

The deep oceans are still unmapped areas of the earth, with unknown resources and inhabitants. Can probably think of other also, but it does not take away the reason to explore space.

Re:One question: why?

[J05H]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Fuck. Raise kids, build things, fix broken robots. Write code, jerry-rig flaky experiments, build new societies. Create poetry about the places we've been. Did I mention that robots can't fuck?

there are plenty of things that robots can't do that all come naturally to us. Bush may only be talking about a develpment plan and modest re-arranging of NASA (desperately needed, IMHO). The real goal of space exploration must be the opening of the new frontier for all.

AD ASTRA!

Josh

Re:One question: why?

[tumbaumba]

...will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth.

There are plenty of horizons available right here on Earth. Ocean exploration is one. Controlled nuclear fusion, etc. etc. Going to Mars would be cool indeed, but there are no shortage of challenges on Earth.

Experience it first hand.

My real question is why I, as a taxpayer, have to pay for *your* trip to the Mars? I really want convincing reasons to bank roll *your* trip. Perhaps you already know main counterarguments like first providing food and health-care for all. The real danger I see is brining all our Earthly squabbles into space.

Re:One question: why?

[io333]

What can people on the moon or Mars do that a robot can't?

Stick their hand in the dirt and see if it's wet or not.

Re:One question: why?

[danila]

We've run out of horizons on Earth.
What do you mean by "horizons"? I think it would be much more fitting to us as 21st century people to change the Earth into a hospitable place for every human being, not to "explore" Mars, like we are a bunch of illiterate Vikings.

We don't need territory that much any more and your stone age preconceptions about optimal strategies are no longer as useful as they used to be.

Re:One question: why?

[vinlud]

Because man always has and always will seek to further his horizons. We've run out of horizons on Earth

Concerning geography you are right.

However we still have a *lot* to learn how to live with eachother on this planet. Although I'm a space and tech fanatic I think it's stupid how people are talking here about space races and military control. Hello? We're all humans, borders and nations are things invented by humans to kill eachother, isn't that vastly ironic? Maybe we should teach ourself to forget those things first, to learn some real human values before we create a second 'failed' earth somewhere else.

Re:One question: why?

[Atrahasis]

like we are a bunch of illiterate Vikings

You obviously know very little about Vikings.

We don't need territory that much any more and your stone age preconceptions about optimal strategies are no longer as useful as they used to be. I never said anything about territory. My comments were about human ambition and our natural urge to further ourselves. If your preconceptions see any exploration as expansionist, I cannot help that.

Re:One question: why?

[danila]

I know enough about Vikings to conclude that they were mostly pirates, who relied primarily on oral tradition to pass their sagas to next generation. Apparently, most of them were, in fact, illiterate, although some knew the runic script.

You said that we've run out of horizons on Earth. It logically follows that to further ourselves we need to expand to new territories, i.e. Mars. If you implied anything else, you clearly failed to communicate that.

Re:One question: why?

[Atrahasis]

Exploring new territories does not mean expanding to new territories. Exploration is not expansion. With regards to horizons, either you're being obtuse, or you do not understand metaphor. As for Vikings, the image of the pillaging invader from the North is nice and all, but in reality they were colonists and traders who were happily integrated into society. The church didn't like them (well, their religion) much, and much of their image is due to that influence. As to their literacy, they were probably as literate as anyone else at that time.

Re:One question: why?

[danila]

Exploring new territories does not mean expanding to new territories.
So far in our history it always meant it. With a few exceptions, such as Mariana Trench and Antarctica.

I understand your metaphor, but my opinion is that there are more horizons here on Earth. You clearly said that you don't see any, while I think that building a fair society where every person can live peacefully and happily in a comparative material prosperity is one such horizon, much more important than anything we can find on Mars (other than Cydonia with tons of alien artefacts).

As for Vikings, they were pirates, in fact. Actually, the distinction between traders and pirates is a pretty recent one.

As to their literacy, they were probably as literate as anyone else at that time.
Which is pretty damn illiterate by our modern standards. I am not singling them out as some "Nordic demons", but they are a great example of what is wrong with us, modern humans.

Re:One question: why?

[Atrahasis]

So you're saying that because in the past, exploration meant expansion, that in the future that will continue to be true?

My metaphor wasn't intended to stretch to abstract notions like "world peace". Man has a strong urge to expand his PHYSICAL horizons.

The distinction between trader and pirate is not recent. It has only recently become widely accepted as people have become better educated, but they always were traders and settlers more predominantly than pirates. Just because people chose to believe a different story doesn't make the truth any less true.

The literacy of the times can be the only measure of the literacy of any people in that time. Calling them illiterate implies some weakness or inferiority on their part - a sense of inferiority which is not justified.

Re:One question: why?

[danila]

Atrahasis, I think I understand your metaphor quite well. But, first of all, most people advocating Mars exploration do not have a clear understanding of what to do there, relying on their "instincts" of expansion. And, second, even if we pretend that Mars exploration is only concerned with finding answers and stuff, like Arctica and Antarctica, there is little point in going to Mars, other than just raise a flag there. Yes, I understand that there is a lot of science to be done, but it is very minor, compared with the effort needed today. I argued that we can further the human progress much more if we spend these resources here to reach the very specific goals, such as world peace. The fact that man has the urge to expand his physical horisons stems directly from our animal past. We are genetically programmed to acquire new territory (this is the basis of our behaviour, of course there are additional levels of complexity).

As for Vikings, my main point was that they were quite aggressive explorers. You choose to use the word "colonists", but to colonise a new place you need (to put it bluntly) to kill the natives, just like the English colonists later did... The details are irrelevant, what matters is that their motivation to expand is a bit out of date today. Same for the illiteracy. It was allright for their time, but today we would not respect a person as illiterate as they were. And we should have just as little respect to someone motivated primarily by territorial expansion.

Re:One question: why?

[Atrahasis]

You cannot simply pump resources into a goal such as "world peace" and expect it to come about. If and when world peace happens, it will be because of some scientific or social revolution, and not because someone saved a few billion dollars/pounds on a space mission.

My point is that the Vikings DIDN'T kill the natives. If they had, I wouldn't be here. Yes, they liked a good rape and pillage, but no, that wasn't their main occupation, and their image is due to bad PR and the distaste of the Church. They weren't conquerors - they weren't out to expand their empire. They were assimilated into the society's they encountered; they didn't overthrow them.
How can you say you would not respect someone who is illiterate? Literacy is a product of education; of social status. I find it sour that someone so apparently bent on world peace and the equality of man would judge someone simply because they didn't have access to a college education.

Re:One question: why?

[CaptainAvatar]

With respect to Vikings, I submit that both sides are right. Most Vikings were indeed peaceful farmers, traders and even colonists. A few Vikings - the ones most people think of when they use the word - were violent raiders, rapists and pillagers, who attacked and plundered many isolated coastal areas in northern Europe and beyond. I don't see how the bad name of those people derives from "bad PR"; they did afterall do those things. But what is unfortunate is that the rest of the Vikings were tarred with the same brush.

Re:One question: why?

[danila]

What invention do we need for world peace? A feeling-projection device from Lem's books that would force everyone to feel what everyone else feels? Ignoring sci-fi for a second, I think we have everything in place. It's just that the leaders should concentrate on building the framework for global cooperation, for realising that problems of every country are our common problems. We don't need technology for that, we only need better understanding and ethics. And better leaders, of course... You say that a social revolution is needed - I totally agree. The realisation that we need to spend resources on making Earth a better place would actually be that revolution (or evolution).

As for Vikings, I am not calling them evil. As CaptainAvatar noted, they did, in fact commit all the acts that are attributed to them, but of course, not every Viking did it. Still, a large fraction (but not the majority) of Vikings was driven by the desire to conquer new territories. People from other nations did it too, Vikings simply were the most prominent at some point. Such actions had a point then, but right now it would be (it is) a bad strategy.

As for the literacy, I am kind of an arrogant elitist. :) I want peace, but I don't think people are currently equal and thus should have equal rights (e.g., most people should not have a right to vote). I don't think the majority of people are worthy even a conversation with me (i.e. a few minutes of my time). I am not saying that all people without college education are stupid, I am simply saying that if a person today has an education of a Viking warrior, generally I would have little respect for them. I may like them, like I would like a puppy (if they are cute, attractive or funny), but I would not respect them. Unfortunately, this applies to many people, for example, to students I am trying to teach... :(((

Ohio constituents

[amightywind]

Bush's plan 'pulls the rug out from under our scientists' and that 'It just seems to me the direct-to-Mars [route] is the way to go...

Which translated means Lewis Reasearch Center in Ohio has entrenched interests in the Space Station and stands to loose funding in the short term with President Bush's initiative. What Senator Glenn doesn't make clear is how a direct Mars effort can be funded concurrently with Shuttle/IIS. It can't.

Re:Ohio constituents

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Dare I say it, could the Democratic Senator Glenn be playing election-year politics by speaking out against a Republican space plan?

Nah, couldn't be. That would just be crass and pedantic, now, wouldn't it?

Also Robert Zubrins argument

[dan dan the dna man]

In "The Case for Mars". Moon bases and space stations increase cost and complicate missions and crucially will push back the date by which we get there. Direct to Mars is clearly the best approach but who is going to convince Nasa? Or Bush?!

Re:Also Robert Zubrins argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Direct to Mars is clearly the best approach but who is going to convince Nasa? Or Bush?!

Since it's your tax dollars, you and me. Look to the Mars Society and their Political Task Force to get active.

Cost comparison

[Turd Rippleton]

I think it would be a lot cheaper to conduct a mission from earth than the moon. Think about it, how much money will it take to construct a platform on the moon? Ship materials? Fuel? How much time will this actually take?
Considering the answers above, utilizing the time and materials needed to deploy a mission from the moon will be better spent conducting a mission from earth.
That being said, the moon has become a political tool and could provoke another cold war... this time with china (they are planning on building a moon base).

~Turd

Tinfoil hat firmly in place

[Unknown Kadath]

From the Moon, you can drop Big Rocks on Earth. Having the gravitational high ground is a good thing if you're planning a war where space is a theater. True, you can essentially do the same from a station in orbit (they were called Thor shots in Shadowrun, I think), but that puts your platform within reach of Earth-based weaponry. Still, I wouldn't want to be the engineer in charge of designing a system for launching rocks off the Moon and getting them to hit the right place on Earth. Don't want to accidentally wipe out Kansas with a couple million kilojoules of kinetic energy.

This is all coming out of full-on paranoia-mode thinking, of course. It's complicated, conspiratorial, and completely lacking in evidence. Rampant uninformed speculation is what the Comments section is all about, though.

-Carolyn

But a great nuclear platform

[Bendebecker]

Will it defeat MAD though? I mean, if you shot them straight down onto a city rather than across the country, would the satelites be able to pick them up in time?

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[stevelinton]

Anything you fire from the moon basically takes three days to arrive. You have loads of time to target and disable it.If you want to sneak in, you fire from close -- Cuba, say, or a submarine lurking at the edge of the continental shelf.

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[visgoth]

Its "easy" to knock out a few things sent down from the Moon. However, if you already have a battery of mass drivers built, it would be easy to send overwhelming swarms of projectiles down. Also, said projectiles do not have to be fragile devices like a MIRV. All they need to have is mass, so somthing as archaic as a couple ton cannonball would do the job nicely.

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[mwood]

Who told you that all space vehicles travel at the same speed? "Three days from Moon to Earth" is only true at one speed. To a radio wave (or a giant death-dealing laser, for that matter), the Moon is only 1.3 seconds away.

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[JavaLord]

Will it defeat MAD though?

I've seen MAD mentioned a lot in this thread, but I wonder if people realize that MAD still only exists between the US and Russia. Most people think China is somehow involved, but they only have 20 nukes that can reach the US. It would take about 150 to destroy US command and control and 1/4th of the population.

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[Bendebecker]

Mutally Assured Destruction works with china because if they fired them, we would have to fire back. Even if it was only 20 nukes that hit us, the couple hundred (if not couple thousand) we would have to fire back would be enough to take care of enough of us to the point were it would be as good as being destroyed. Remember, the wind travels west to east so nuking China would make Korea, Japan, and a good portion of the west coast dangerous if not uninhabitable from the fallout alone. That is excluding the environmental effects of so many detonations at once and their residul effects. If we went to nuclear war, as countries both we and the chinese would be eliminated. The chinese would fall in a nuclear fire, we would fall from the tremendous damage afterwards. And even MAD doesn't govern us, the political climate of the last decades is basically scared shitless of even small scale nuclear war. As for US and russia - if we went to war with them, bothe of us plus the rest of the world would be rendered uninhabitable (assuming large scale attacks.)

Re:But a great nuclear platform

[JavaLord]

If we went to nuclear war, as countries both we and the chinese would be eliminated.

No, we wouldn't.

The chinese would fall in a nuclear fire, we would fall from the tremendous damage afterwards

No, we wouldn't. Although it would take a large amount of nukes to destroy China's command and control (somewhere around 340). It would take about 400 to cause a nuclear winter assuming a US/Russia war. A US/China war would probably need more to cause a nuclear winter, because the US's nukes are smaller tacticle nukes. Some scientists don't even believe the nuclear winter theory

And even MAD doesn't govern us, the political climate of the last decades is basically scared shitless of even small scale nuclear war.

Agreed, any leader caught up in such a thing wouldn't be a leader for long.

As for US and russia - if we went to war with them, bothe of us plus the rest of the world would be rendered uninhabitable (assuming large scal

Definatly. With over 10,000 nukes combined a US/Russia Nuclear war truely means MAD for the whole world. A Chinese/American Nuclear war doesn't though.

That doesn't mean anyone wants to start one. :)

Method of exploration should be

[nattt]

A space station in earth orbit, where you can get fueld up for a powered journey to the moon. In moon orbit, another space station that has a shuttle down to the moon, where cheap solar energy is farmed, and used to fuel the stations, the shuttle, and to put together enough fuel for sending a fuel barge to mars.

The fuel barge docks with a small station in mars orbit. This is reserve fuel to get you home.

Now you take a powered journey to mars from moon orbit. You use the fuel from the fuel barge to return to earth.

You go powered all the way. This is the future of space travel, not the current coasting, taking years to arrive anywhere, but it needs a moonbase where fuel can be manufactured.

Re:Method of exploration should be

[0123456]

And what kind of fuel, exactly, are you going to manufacture on the moon from 'solar energy'? Most of the chemicals used in the kind of fuels a Mars flight would probably use (if it's not using a nuclear or solar-powered ion engine) _do not exist_ on the moon.

Re:Method of exploration should be

[wizard992]

Just a quick question, exactly what fuel would this be?

You mention "where cheap solar energy is farmed". AFAIK, We do not currently have magical reactionless thrusters that can make use of stored solar energy, or any other energy for that matter, or anything that appears in scifi novels where people flot around the galaxy like birds. The current level of technology available to us requires a thrust agent to get something moving.

So how exactly would a solar energy farm/station help us actually move materiel to Mars?

The Real Point of the Bush Plan

[ChuckDivine]

The real point of the Bush policy changes is to promote reform at NASA. Terminate the shuttle program -- and redirect resources to achieving lower costs to orbit. Terminate ISS -- it's not turning out to be a real benefit for science or much of anything else.

I can easily support a manned mission to Mars. But it must be part of a space effort that is more broad based than the current work is. To achieve that, we're going to have change the way we do things. The spectacular project that sometimes succeeds, sometimes doesn't, offers little hope for this style of action.

NASA's predecessor, NACA, helped make revolutionary progress in aeronautics by sticking to technology development and working with nascent aeronautical companies to develop real airplanes that could be used for a wide range of activities by a wide range of organizations. We need the same kind of work from NASA.

Re:The Real Point of the Bush Plan

[Anonymous Coward]

The concern is, though, that after terminating both the shuttle and the ISS, with no real replacement lined up, that we just end up terminating NASA instead. That's my biggest fear: NASA will cut everything to get the funding for the planning stages of this, then when it's time to implement it, the funding dries up. NASA is then left as a shell of it's former self, and is absorbed into one of the defense agencies, who would be the only ones who would care about whatever was left.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think that's the most likely long-term result of the Bush plan. Congress will never authorize hundreds of billions of dollars for the trip to Mars, and if NASA drops everything to plan for it, they'll have to try to start all of those dropped programs over again once their funding is denied. Of course, now that they don't have any active programs, it'll be real easy for Congress to slash their budget to nothing, since they would no longer have a justification for their own existence.

Mark my words, and I hope I'm wrong: if we go through with this, NASA will be an empty shell in 10 years.

Zubrin's Mars Society seems to be doing well ...

[torpor]

I remember, a few years ago (5?) that the various Mars programs being fronted by the U.S. government were in direct opposition to the way Zubrin and his Mars Society were proposing we do it - with the "Mars Direct Program".

Now, it seems that there are a significant number of Washington players who are getting behind the scientific thinking that Zubrin's program has produced for us ... and thats good news.

When I think about where we are currently at, evaluating the Mars situation, and where we've come as a result of an independent organization, it warms my heart. The Mars Society have done a lot to get humans thinking about going to Mars properly, and finally it seems like their momentum is having a great effect.

Space Elevator

[cflorio]

If they would just fund research on the Space Elevator They could have both the Moon and Mars!

Re:Space Elevator

[Kris Magnusson]

This idea always comes up when there is a /. discussion that has anything to do with space.

The facts are that a space elevator is decades away at best, not just for materials sciences deficiencies but because of political indifference.

Nothing against the poster, but we might as well stop talking about it for now as the answer to all space transportation problems.

............... kris

AND....

[CodePyro]

All of the sudden everyone is an expert on space travel...do these people really understand the complexities of traveling to space, landing on celestial objects and coming back to earth...or do they just dream up ideas and expect that scientist are smart enoug to do it....they might as well set deadlines for traveling to the nearest star , creating worm holes and instantaneous transportation.....

Re:AND....

[joshua.robinson]

This is /. isn't it... of course we are all experts on space flight, we did grow up on star trek so that qualifies us right?

Re:AND....

[Anonymous Coward]

so that is what is holding up transporters?! you say, we just needed to give them lazy scientists a deadline? how about next tuesday?

He's completely wrong

[bigjnsa500]

I respect Glenn, but he is completely wrong. Going to Mars we need lots of water, air and rocket fuel. The Moon has a huge supply of Helium3 which we already know can be converted to a fuel.

I support that Mars fanatic's way of going there. First send an unmanned supply ship that will land with all the equipment to make air and water. Then something like a year later, send the crew so when they get there, they already have a liveable platform and enough H20 and oxygen to live.

Re:He's completely wrong

[SB9876]

With all due respect, what are you smoking?

Mars has native sources for water, oxygen and fuel. The atmospheric CO2 can be used to generate all of the above. Furthermore, the radiation shielding and temperature control issues of operating on Mars are far less challenging than on the Moon.

The Moon lacks a source of carbon for making rocket fuels, has a 28 day day/night cycle making the growing of plants impractical and sufers from massive temperature differentials that put enourmous amounts of stress on the structures there.

He3 is a potential fusion fuel but we can't use it until we've developed fusion reactors which is still at LEAST 10 years out. The ITER won't be completed until then and even assuming that it generates net power, it's the size of a football stadium. How exactly do you propose to put something like that on a spaceship or on the Moon? Not to mention the fact that Mars has enormous quantities of deuterium, another fusion fuel.

The moon is a great place to put an observatory but really is not where we should be going first.

Eventually.

[Raven42rac]

I agree with Mr. Glenn, but I do not believe that we have enough expertise built up on the idiosyncrasies of the Martian atmosphere or the planet itself. We have been having a educational, albeit difficult experience with unmanned rovers on Mars' surface. We had to h4x0r the rovers! I would not want to have to h4x0r an actual shuttle. We also now know we need wiper blades on the solar panels of any vehicle that would potentially be sent to Mars, on account of the dust. I think it would be more prudent to send crews back to the moon, get that down, then maybe stretch to Mars. Any manned Mars mission before we are absolutely ready for one is suicide for the astronauts aboard. The amount of time/fuel it would take to get to Mars for a manned, fully loaded shuttle, complete with life support systems, testing equipment, rovers, etc, would be astronomical (pun intended).

Re:Eventually.

[Geno Z Heinlein]

We also now know we need wiper blades on the solar panels of any vehicle that would potentially be sent to Mars, on account of the dust.

Or a guy with a broom.

Alternate agenda?

[i81b4u]

Sounds to me like Glenn would like to see the Mars trip in his lifetime (whatever is left of it). I'm sure that if it occurs he would try to pass some legislation to allow examination of long term space flight on the elderly.....and of course he would just happen to mention that he would be the prime candidate for this.

Re:Alternate agenda?

[Anonymous Coward]

seriously now, wouldn't you if you were glenn?

Re:Alternate agenda?

[Basil Ganglia]

Glenn is probably is used to wearing that diaper by now...

Re:John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go mo

[QEDog]

what's he hiding? WHAT DO THEY KNOW IS UP THERE.

It is called TMA-1, is just a magnetic anomaly, not a big deal.

Re:MODS ON FUCKING CRAck!!

[Anonymous Coward]

But you suck more troll

"hotting"

[torpor]

There is no such word, partner. The proper spelling is "heating".

Just because you hear your dumb-ass string-based illiterate President use it on the TeeVee, doesn't mean its common language, or correct ...

Re:"hotting"

[Anonymous Coward]

I see you are irony-impaired. Do you get concessions for that?

Re:"hotting"

[Anonymous Coward]

> There is no such word, partner. The proper spelling is "heating"

Not everyone who posts on Slashdot is American. 'Hotting' would be a British expression, and is used in different ways in commonwealth countries.

Incidently, if you want to make good tea you have to 'hot the pot' first by filling with hot water and then draining it. This ensures that the tea doesn't cool too rapidly and become bitter.

Glenn has a point,, but the moon should be 1st

[spidergoat2]

We should prcatice setting up a manned installation on the moon first. It's the perfect technology testing area. If problems develop, people could be rescued, or, supplies and repair equipmnent could be somewhat quickly shuttled to the moon. Face it, Mars is a long way from a 7-11. There's only going to be one chance to get it right. If a Mars mission is successful, there will be plenty of return trips. If it's a disaster, funding will be cut and it'll be decades before anyone tries again. Small steps, but quicker steps.

Re:Glenn has a point,, but the moon should be 1st

[0123456]

"We should prcatice setting up a manned installation on the moon first. It's the perfect technology testing area."

Except it's not. For one thing the moon has no significant atmosphere at all while Mars has a small atmosphere, and that's a major difference in itself. Equally, AFAIR Mars gravity is twice as high, so anything designed for use on the moon will be underengineered on Mars, while anything designed for use on Mars will be overengineered for the moon.

Space Elevators

[mbone]

If you really want to make the USA into a Space Faring Nation again, we should put our money into space elevators.

In just 2 decades, this idea has gone from being impossible to far-out to design studies.

By comparison, the ISS is a waste and the Moon would be an expensive diversion. Space elevators would really open the solar system up for human - not just robot - exploration.

Re:Space Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

"We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our _national_ spirit" doesnt sound like GWB wants to open up space like an elevator would.

Re:Space Elevators

[stand]

By comparison, the ISS is a waste and the Moon would be an expensive diversion. Space elevators would really open the solar system up for human - not just robot - exploration.

Actually...by comparison, ISS and the Moon would be pocket change.

Re:Space Elevators

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing about a space elevator is that it'll probably be built with or without government assistance. People will keep working on carbon nanotubes, just for the other benefits, and eventually we'll get a space elevator-strength material without any additional investment (probably in the near future, too).

Once that's done, it's just a matter of rustling up a few million for initial seed development, and by then it might be time to start talking about public funding. You'll notice that we aren't currently working on building a commercial fusion power plant (the ITER is still only an experimental design that might not even achieve breakeven), despite fusion power being "just around the corner" for the last 50 years.

Meanwhile, we shouldn't wait around. The space elevator can only get us into orbit, in any case; we'll still need to work on designing craft to take us beyond. A spacecraft is more than just a big rocket. You have to design avionics, life support systems, etc., all of which takes time. Ditto with any eventual lunar habitation modules. There's no real reason why we can't fund both on parallel tracks; the cost per year shouldn't be more than $2-5 billion for both programs combined.

Hero's make speeches. Politicians make Policy.

[purduephotog]

And a Politician that's a Hero is a man I wouldn't otherwise respect.

1) Glenn has name-recognition.
2) Name-recognition translates to Power.
3) Power can move mountains.

The goals are lofty, but the fact he states them gives it more credence than anyone else.

John Glenn/Bill Clinton/Space Shuttle

[Anonymous Coward]

John Glenn saved Cliton from conviction in return for a ride on the Space Shuttle.

That's pretty much all I have to know about him.

Military Value

[jwthompson2]

The military value is in creating a "death star" by placing a giant "laser" on the moon and deploying two units to run the facility...moon unit alpha and moon unit zappa....

Re:Military Value

[Anonymous Coward]

That's Miss Moon Unit Zappa to you, mate.

Yes, I know it's an Austin Powers reference, but I'm making a reference to the reference that the original reference was making. See?

Re:mod parent down

[prgrmr]

Glenn has alread said he doesn't think he should be sent back into space.

Or how about not...

[dada21]

Where is Bush, or Congress, or the Senate, or any federal elected or unelected official granted any power to do this in the Constitution? This is complete cronyism focused on a few priviledged companies who are close to those elected. Anyone who doesn't vote NO on this idea is just as guilty.

I have a business to run here, actually two. I have bills to pay, right here in the Chicago area. I have some great ideas that I'd like to risk my money on, in order to help myself and my family. I have some long term things to purchase that will make my life better. I could care less about Mars or the Moon or higher orbits. None of that affects me, except in a negative way.

These tyrants (Bush, Clinton, Gore, Kerry, whatever Statist is focused on by the media) want to take YOUR money and give it to their friends. Don't believe it if you think they will do exactly what you want them to do with Mars. It will be immensely over budget. It goes directly against the Constitution's limit on federal government's powers. It will continue the slippery slope towards more lost freedom.

I'm sick of it. My money is MY MONEY. Your money is YOUR MONEY. The feds have no power to spend it unless we continue to allow Statists in office. None of them care for you, your family, your community, or your morals and values.

This is bad for capitalism, and bad for almost every citizen except for those few who directly work for a company involved in this scheme.

Re:Or how about not...

[virg_mattes]

>I have a business to run here, actually two. I have bills to pay, right here in the Chicago area. I have some great ideas that I'd like to risk my money on, in order to help myself and my family. I have some long term things to purchase that will make my life better. I could care less about Mars or the Moon or higher orbits. None of that affects me, except in a negative way.

None of it affects you? Wow, how do you run two businesses without using a telephone?

See, the benefits of the space program are all around you. You just don't recognize them. Does knowing about the weather help you in your everyday life? Do professional fire suppression systems or computers "affect" you except in a negative way? You paint with a very wide brush, and all that says about you is that your perspective is limited.

Virg

Earth to Glenn

[velo_mike]

Which pocket should this come out of?

Since we're $7 trillion and change in the hole already, do we have any business even talking about this? We ran $500 billion over budget last year, a new record. Want to see if we can break that? How about this for a novel idea: stop spending money on these little adventures and charging it off til the future, sooner or later the future will arrive...

Re:Earth to Glenn

[smchris]

Which pocket should this come out of?

The Chinese and Europe, same as always. From what I understand, they are buying up the treasury notes that support our debt. While Dubya's playing war commander, the movie he is starring in is being paid for by selling off the country.

Now, if everyone in the U.S. could just skip out on the debt. Maybe -- Mars?

Moon is a Waste on Way to Mars

[schnarff]

As other people here have said...if your goal is to get to Mars, the Moon is a complete waste of time. The resources necessary to build a lunar-launching facility be enormously draining. More importantly, all the people who say "but it's so much easier to launch stuff from the Moon!" forget one key point: we're decades or more away from being able to build the necessary parts from scratch on the Moon. That means that, at some point, these parts will have to be launched from Earth to the Moon. Considering that the Delta-V required to get from Earth to the Moon and then from the Moon to Mars is greater than Earth to Mars, why should we stop by the Moon at all?

Re:One question: why? because...

[adzoox]

Is a digital camera or a DVD better than your eyes? Would you rather be at the Duke basketball game or watch it on TV?

Can you look at a mountain range on a video or in a picture and see it context to your height, surroundings, atmosphere?

The answers to all thos questions and more is no.

Manned missions are important to the entire human race as accomplishment and to be cliche, "To seek out new life and new information" - Experience moves the human race forward - Robots confine us to to the earth - limit our boundaries. Both are useful - but one is only a step for the other - each is an enhancement to the knowledge gathering.

...This ain't one of them

[amightywind]

Radio Astronomy is an interesting field but can it possibly be worth the untold $100G that would be spent to build a lunar antenna farm just to be free of noise? What science returns are we missing due to noise? Arguably, not much. If noise free environment is really needed I would suggest that a free flying telescope, similar in mission design to SIRTF, would make a lot more sense.

Because you believe it?

[zeux]

Because you really think that NASA will go to the moon or Mars like Bush said?

Because you really think the Congress will let him do that with a half trillion deficit?

Well, it's election year guys. NASA will go nowhere, the Congress will never vote for it and one year from now we won't even talk about it.

Re:Because you believe it?

[velo_mike]

Because you really think the Congress will let him do that with a half trillion deficit?

You're kidding right? You do understand that congress votes to approve the budget and the bastards managed to work their own pet projects.

Science Fiction Classics as Reality Indicators

[stuffduff]

In the majority of Science Fiction movies, there is either a fly-by or stop at a Moonbase. Several others have a large orbital Space Station that is the start of the trip. Of the few which are direct, one is a missed moon shot.

The point is that a strong space culture, technologically advanced and experienced is percieved as having a greater chance of success. Skipping these intermediate steps IMHO will produce a more fragile attempt, focused on what we want to accomplish; but not as prepared for the unknowns. We reached the moon largely due to carefully thought out 'staged' successes. The consequence of a single catastrophic failure of an over-extended Mars mission would IMHO be far more devistating and could possibly lead to a single point of failure for the whole space program.

Re:Science Fiction Classics as Reality Indicators

[smchris]

I don't know if science fiction movies are our best predictor of the future, but I agree with your the basic idea. Direct-to-Mars might have a big psychological pay off if it succeeds. But if it fails, the impact could set back planetary exploration farther than taking the slow approach would have achieved.

I suppose the opposite argument is that the U.S. space program is withering and if we don't do something sexy, it'll die anyway.

The more I think about it -- orbiting honeymoon motel for the rich and the inevitable reality series that would accompany it. Sex is the pioneer drive for all technologies. The government can buy it out eventually as an R and R base for L5 staff.

Politics

[Chris Y Taylor]

And in other news, Democratic Senators find any excuse to criticise the sitting Republican President during an election year.

Re:Politics

[Anonymous Coward]

has it occured to you that people who disagree might not be Democrats or Liberals ?

or don't they teach common sense in USA schools thesedays ?

Re:Politics

[Chris Y Taylor]

"people" might not be Democrats.

Considering that John Glenn served in the Senate as a Democrat for about a quarter century, I think it is safe to say that he is.

As for common sense... no, they generally don't teach that in the schools. You have to learn that out in the real world.

Re:Politics

[SB9876]

Ummmm, yeah.

And Republican Senators look for any excuse to criticize the sitting Democratic President during an election year too. Since when is this news?

Just how does something like this get modded Insightful?!

Oh, yeah, it's Slashdot, nevermind...

Re:Politics

[Chris Y Taylor]

It is not news that politicians play politics. But everyone else around here is talking about it as if it were NOT politics.

There are pros and cons to going to the Moon again prior to Mars. We had a big debate about it at the last World Space Congress; and the Lunatics won out over the Zubrinites. There are still people out there who prefer Mars direct, but only the most rabid Martians would claim that there aren't also good reasons for going back to the moon 1st.

So why does Glenn now say that the new plan to go to the Moon again before Mars will "pull the rug out from under our scientists?" Is Glenn a rabid Mars Direct fan? Probably not, or else he would have said something right after Bush's speech. But now it is election season, and as a loyal Democrat he is doing his part for the party. Because he is a former biological test specimen for the space program, he seems to have more credibility than just an average ex-Senator would. I'm not suggesting it is some great insight; but a lot of other people here don't seem to make the connection.

laser defense, duh.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of you are speaking nonsense. I'm going to say something that *seems* to be nonsense, but isn't.

It wouldn't be hard to put together a field of collectors that then shoots a laser at a target. Hell, with a few well-placed sat's in orbit acting as mirrors, you could do hit anywhere on earth.

While I realize that you could mostly do this from sats themselves, you then have to worry about other sats. Starting from the moon though, you're way away from missles.

And talk about a secure computing facility! Having your NOC on a privately owned island is one thing...but on the *moon*? ;)

posted AC since I modded. :P

Re:Lunar Leisure Living

[A55M0NKEY]

But I wanna evolve into a Morlok....

ISS is an albatross

[Gr8Apes]

ISS is largely useless, and probably will remain so for use as a true space based way station. A true way station needs to be in a higher orbit, so that excess fuel isn't consumed getting there and leaving (ie, moon/mars/other shuttle service - required for any type of permanent base). Actually, putting such a base on the moon might not be such a bad idea, but the moon should only be a jumping off point.

The moon actually could serve to nullify some of the dangers of more efficient drives or issues with nuclear reactors in space, although it doesn't solve the actual getting the nuclear material to the moon.... It would, however, be a great place to dump spent fuel. No environmental hazards if it's far enough away from peopel. Oh wait, wasn't that done already? Space 1999 comes to mind.... ;)

I can see clearly now

[Analogy Man]

The origin of this song should be obvious. It has been stuck in my head for 3+ years now:

I can see clearly now my brain is gone.

I will blow-up all obstacles in my way.

Gone all the logic and thought that made me blind

It's going to be a bright, (bright) bright (bright) sun shiny day

this just in

[ColonBlow]

Here is a sound bite from his testimony:

GlennTestimony.wav

Can the science

[gr8_phk]

Assuming you want to inhabit a place, the first thing you need to do is establish a permanent presence. Build a base on the moon. Don't send scientists. Send mining and construction equipment. Get the inhabitants to tunnel out areas to support more people - build stuff. Get the place established as a viable and growing place for people to stay. The scientists will follow along with everyone else. Some company will build a hangar there for building spacecraft. Why does everyone always want to jump to the end-game without doing the necessary but boring stuff first? Oh right... it's boring.

Re:He's completely wrong - Helium 3?

[PhaseChange]

Well, yes and no. There's probably lots of helium 3 on the moon, and it can probably be extracted from lunar soil. He-3 makes a great fuel for fusion reactors.

One minor sticking point: There are no fusion reactors at the moment.

Issues

[NickRuisi]

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I've spent a fair amount of time as a virtual astronaut using the Oribiter Space Flight Simulator, and I can't help but to ask "Why The Moon?"

It already takes a lot of energy to climb out of Earth's gravity well. Granted, on the moon, it takes less to achieve orbit, but why decend into a gravity well at all unless theres a good reason? The ideal place to launch into transfer orbits (in the Earth-Moon system) is LEO. Right now, it costs an arm & a leg to get things into LEO. In addition to that, Hohmann transfers, while energy efficient are painfully slow. If a spacecraft could ride 1 G of accelleration for extended periods of time, journeys around the solar system could be measured in weeks, not decades.

If I were the President, my priorities would be:

• Fund space elevator research, and other low-cost LEO launch technologies
• Propulsion systems
• "Living off the land" technologies for other locations in the Solar System.
• Search for extrasolar earth-like planets
• Unmanned interstellar probe technologies

However, due to the nature of the government in the US, the office of chief executive can only be held for 8 years. I have serious doubts as to wether or not the US can commit to any kind of timeline longer than that in this day and age. It's a shame really.

Argh!!!!

[HarveyBirdman]

Glen should know better. That last trip into space at age 95 must have loosened some neurons.

We have the perfect example of what happens when you do big, decade long PR maneuvers in space: Apollo.

Yeah, we got to the Moon (and people who believe it was a hoax can all go hop on a +6 lance), but that was followed by a complete blowout and no followup.

Steady, logical, incremental steps are what we need. Well designed, expandable, modular orbital stations. Get some industry going. Solar panel farms. Zero gee manufacturing. Tourism. Establish something at L4/L5- maybe various manned observatories. Really look into the space elevator concept. Lunar bases (another good location for observatories- easier to work on). THEN we can go to Mars.

If we had started that back in the 1950's like some advocated back then, we'd already *have* lunar bases and probably a Mars mission underway right now. Martin Landau might have really been able to be on the Moon in 1999.

Re:Argh!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Glenn was 77 during that shuttle trip.
But if we are going to send a senior citizen to mars, lets send Bush, it was his idea, please let's send him.

Re:Argh!!!!

[HarveyBirdman]

Glenn was 77 during that shuttle trip.

I know. It was a joke. Not a very good one, but I though 95 would be obvious.

But if we are going to send a senior citizen to mars, lets send Bush, it was his idea, please let's send him.

Whatever. Doesn't the ideology ever tire you out? I've absolutely no use for any member of the Bush clan, but I could, without much effort, compile a list of a hundred people more deserving of hate and bile in this world.

Re:Argh!!!!

[raytracer]

Glen should know better. That last trip into space at age 95 must have loosened some neurons.

Glenn was born in 1921, which makes him 83 now.

The Emperor Has No Spacesuit

[Chief Technovelgist]

There is no reason to go to the Moon if your goal is Mars. The Moon has little in the way of useful resources; no metal for building spacecraft, no easily obtainable fuel. Why would you gather everything you need on Earth, lift it out of our gravity well, drop it into the Moon's gravity well, then lift it back out again?

The Bush proposal demonstrates that he (Bush) does everything for political value; Bush doesn't ask scientists about science policy (see the recent news story about this) just like he doesn't ask experts from all sides about economic policy. Especially if he might get a dissenting vote.

That's how he comes up with patent nonsense like using the Moon as a way to get to Mars. Finally, someone with some experience exposes this nonsensical fraud for what it is.

Re:The Emperor Has No Spacesuit

[MtViewGuy]

You've got to be kidding.

Samples of moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions show large amounts of aluminum, titanium, and several other metallic elements that could be used to build spaceship components easily.

Besides, by having a Moon base, we could set up laboratories and living facilities there to support missions to Mars, including safe testing of soil and rock samples returned from Mars.

Re:The Emperor Has No Spacesuit

[0123456]

"Samples of moon rocks brought back by the Apollo missions show large amounts of aluminum, titanium, and several other metallic elements that could be used to build spaceship components easily."

_Easily_? You can just fly up there and build a spaceship from moon rocks?

The original poster was wrong in claiming that there are no raw materials, but it's, frankly, idiotic to claim that we can build entire complex spacecraft on the moon more easily than we can launch them from Earth. The cost of sending a whole factory infrastructure and thousands of people to man it to the Moon would be immense: probably at least tens of trillions of dollars.

Re:The Emperor Has No Spacesuit

[Chief Technovelgist]

Sorry, I should have been more clear about what I meant by "useful resources." Maybe I should have said "reliable resources that are usable with technology that we actually have."

It's true, the surface of the moon has lots of minerals, including interesting metal ores. (Keep in mind of course that our practical knowledge - actual samples - of the composition of the surface of the moon is largely derived from 6 short visits.) However, as far as I know, the moon did not have the same kind of "geological" history as the Earth (water flow, plate tectonics, vulcanism and many more) and therefore does not have the same kind of concentrated mineral deposits, where it is possible to extract minerals in a known, economical way. There is a lot of speculation about what lies under the surface, but we haven't spent enough time there to know for sure. We have a small number of surface samples that are promising, but again our samples are limited.

All of the proposals I've ever seen to extract these resources from the moon seem to involve creating an entirely new constellation of skills and technologies for every phase of metal and fuel production. And remember, all of this work and development must be done in a very harsh environment - low gravity, vacuum, very fine dust, temperature extremes from +100 to -170 Celsius. Not to mention doing all of this very far from home. And then you need to learn how to build every last component of your spacecraft in the same environment.

Personally, I'm all in favor of exploring, building and doing science and engineering on the moon. But if your goal is Mars, why spend the time building an industrialized society on the moon? Because that is what it would take to build spacecraft on the moon. And isn't Bush just fooling himself (and us) by implying that we just need to go to the moon, build a base, and then start shooting for Mars?

OH BOY!

[ShadowRage]

here come the moon wars!

Americans, get your toy lightsabers, and the chinese will get their 5 dollar cheaply built light guns that make 5 different noises every time the triggers are pulled!

fun for the whole family!

actually, that'd be pretty funny to watch
a buncha people in space suits hitting each other with toy lightsabers.

Goto Moon, GET NUKED!

[jkat54]

Van Allen radiation belts two belts (sometimes considered as a single belt of varying intensity) of radiation outside the earth's atmosphere, extending from c.400 to c.40,000 mi (c.650-c.65,000 km) above the earth. Their existence was confirmed from information secured by launching the first U.S. earth satellite, Explorer I, sent up during the International Geophysical Year of 1957-58. The belts were named for James A. Van Allen, the American astrophysicist who first predicted the belts and then was first to interpret the findings of the Explorer satellite. The region of external belts has been given the name of magnetosphere to distinguish it from the atmosphere . The charged particles of which the belts are composed circulate along the earth's magnetic lines of force extending from the area above the equator to the N Pole, to the S Pole, and circles back to the equator. These particles are believed to originate in periodic solar flares. Carried by the solar wind, they become trapped by the earth's magnetic field and are responsible for the aurora borealis seen at polar regions. A part of a belt dips into the upper region of the atmosphere over the southern Atlantic Ocean to form the southern Atlantic Anomaly. This can present a dangerous hazard to satellites orbiting the earth. Herbert Friedman, in his book Sun and Earth, describes Van Allen's global survey of cosmic-ray intensity: "The results from Explorer I, launched on January 31, 1958, were so puzzling that instrument malfunction was suspected. High levels of radiation intensity appeared interspersed with dead gaps ... Explorer III succeeded fully, and most important, it carried a tape recorder. Simulation tests with intense X rays in the laboratory showed that the dead gaps represented periods when the Geiger counter in space had been choked by radiation of intensities a thousand times greater than the instrument was designed to detect. As Van Allen's colleague Ernie Ray exclaimed in disbelief: 'All space must be radioactive!'." Herbert Friedman later explains that "Of all the energy brought to the magnetosphere by the solar wind, only about 0.1 percent manages to cross the magnetic barrier." The April 28, 1997 HST Update: Recommisioning Status Report states that the Van Allen radiation belts, between 200 and 500 miles high, "act as a thin, protective skin for Earth, trapping charged particles before they bombard our planet and harm us."

Re:Goto Moon, GET NUKED!

[SB9876]

Well, since we did send people to the moon, this obviously wasn't a showstopper. However, the cumulative radiation in the Van Allen belts is a concern for astronauts that are parked in orbit for any extended time. Just crossing them isn't that bad.

On this topic, Tethers unlimited has proposed putting a conductive tether up into the lower Van Allen belt to basically drain the charged partices out of it. I'm not sure if their physics are completely correct (they are a well regarded company with NASA contracts, though) but they predict being able to pull the radiation out of the lower Van Allen belt in about 2 years. Note that this leaves the magnetic particle trap unaffected so the shielding effect is unchanged - it just reduces the total radiatin dose stuff in orbit will recieve.

huh?

[thung226]

The terrorists were Saudis? Let's go to Iraq!

We just landed on Mars? Let's go to the moon!

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[SmackCrackandPot]

Surely it would be easier to build a space elevator on the moon than it would be on the Earth?
Especially since gravity on the moon is 1/5th that of Earth's?

Woozle-wozzle.

[JMZero]

The moon may have been a military resource in the 60's, but it's hardly one now.

Soldier 1: "We're taking fire from that alley!"
Soldier 2: "Quick, deploy the moon missiles!"

It's hard to argue that the US has any problems controlling the top of the hill these days. ICBM's still work. US planes have operated pretty much undeterred for a long time. And MAD, on the other hand, is less viable than ever as a strategy (given enemy psychology).

The moon has tons of resources for constructing weapons, especially new kinds of nuclear weapons

That's silly. Constructing weapons would be a ludicrously costly, stupid thing to do on the moon. New kind of nuclear weapons? The old kinds work perfectly well, thank you - they are perfectly capable of supplying any kind of abomination the military might demand of them, even if they must be dropped out of a plane rather than launched from the moon.

The US military needs more precise ways to blow small things up that they can't see - not bigger ways to blow big things up that they can see from the moon.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[torpor]

It's hard to argue that the US has any problems controlling the top of the hill these days.

Well, wasn't 9/11 supposed to be an example of just how poor the US is controlling its hill? Isn't that the point?

Because if it isn't, it sure sounds to me like your runaway President and all his lackeys are using the 'we lost the hill, lets take it again' argument to beat up a whole lotta foreigners ...

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[b-baggins]

OK. A little lesson on military strategy.

The American military today is worried about pinpoint precision precisely BECAUSE we have the ability to wipe out any nation on the planet if we need to, and they know it, so they attack us in different ways (a lot of it pscyhological, which, after listening to many of the people on slashdot, they seem to be doing quite well at).

That psychological aspect is a vital part of any war (read some Sun Tzu). A strong US Military (or more likely allied presence, since Britain, Poland, Australia, and other US allies will be up there, too) will have a VERY powerful psychological effect against our enemies. Just KNOWING we could drop a rock on, say, Syria, would do a lot to keep that country in line in the smaller things. Esp. when we can create a nuclear explosion without the nasty radioactive fallout.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[swb]

And MAD, on the other hand, is less viable than ever as a strategy (given enemy psychology).

It's not less viable as a strategy, it's just that we've been unwilling to scale its targeting beyond the nation state.

If we told the muslim world that attacks against the US like 9/11 would result in the assured destruction of the arab or muslim world, we wouldn't have attacks against us by those people. Terrorists and other rogue elements in the arab and muslim world are not immune to pressure from their own kind, since many of them are secretly supported by other more visible members of their communities.

These people know that if we choose to escalate this war into total warfare against the larger target (the Arab world, for example) that they cannot win and in fact, face the a high risk of losing their entire civilization.

The problem we have, though, is that we are unwilling to see this conflict as what it is -- a clash of civilizations -- and therefore we aren't able to scale our possible military responses accordingly.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[Free_Meson]

If we told the muslim world that attacks against the US like 9/11 would result in the assured destruction of the arab or muslim world, we wouldn't have attacks against us by those people. Terrorists and other rogue elements in the arab and muslim world are not immune to pressure from their own kind, since many of them are secretly supported by other more visible members of their communities.

These people know that if we choose to escalate this war into total warfare against the larger target (the Arab world, for example) that they cannot win and in fact, face the a high risk of losing their entire civilization.

You, sir, are an idiot. Such a threat of obliteration would be impossible to carry out, and it assumes that the muslim civilisation is somehow monolithic -- it isn't. There are plenty of muslims living in the caves of afghanistan, for example, who would prefer to see the rest of the muslim world destroyed because they believe that these "other muslims" are defiling the religion. There are plenty of groups that have political conflicts with specific groups who happen to be muslim and would gladly launch a fake attack against the U.S. in an effort to obliterate their enemies.

More importantly, though, the "muslim civilisation" is intertwined with our own. If I had a slightly better arm I could throw a rock and hit a nearby mosque with a 100 car parking lot that overflows at worship times every day. These people had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in 2001, but you'd have them, and perhaps me, killed because they share some religious beliefs? Should we threaten to kill all people of Scottish descent because of McVeigh?

The "muslim world" is also heavily populated by non-muslims. One of my roommates in prep school had family working in Saudi Arabia. Egypt and Lebanon have strong secular presences, not to mention countries like Bosnia, Georgia, or Azerbijan. In other words, your statements are stupid because there would be no way to attack the "muslim civilisation" with nukes without taking out a substantial other population that you care about.

You either aren't thinking, or have some sort of repressed racial hatred. These guys were terrorists first and muslims second -- Islam was their excuse to commit terrorism, and their goal was the act of terrorism itself, not the furthering of Islam. Terrorism is about frustration, not political activism, and threatening to destroy someone's home and culture will only increase that frustration. These people were brainwashed into killing themselves in the hopes of bringing down the U.S. because they hated the U.S., not because they thought that their actions would help Islam. They no doubt thought the latter as well, but that's not adequate motivation for suicide.

Just sit back and think a bit before you spout off about wiping out more than a billion people. If the terrorists had just happened to be Irish, or Japanese, or Puerto Rican, or whatever your nationality/ethnicity, would you so quickly embrace the obliteration of that race/ethnicity/culture/etc?

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[hesiod]

> If we told the muslim world that attacks against the US like 9/11 would result in the assured destruction of the arab or muslim world, we wouldn't have attacks against us by those people.

I hope you are trolling and aren't a fucking moron.

If we did that, they would hate us more. They know damned well we could not get away with something lik that, and we know it too. Besides, there is no nation responsible for the WTC attack. It was individuals -- we can't carpet bomb the whole damned Middle East because of some whack jobs!

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[OwnedByTwoCats]

If we told the muslim world that attacks against the US like 9/11 would result in the assured destruction of the arab or muslim world, we wouldn't have attacks against us by those people.

I disagree. Announcing such a policy of genocide against a sixth of the world's population would get the USA rightly branded an outlaw nation.

That you see threatening genocide as a solution tells the world something about your state of bigotry.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Just KNOWING we could drop a rock on, say, Syria, would do a lot to keep that country in line in the smaller things.

How does that exactly work given that the terrorists are not allied with any country?

Esp. when we can create a nuclear explosion without the nasty radioactive fallout.

This is totally irrelevant to terrroists, who has no home bases of any sort.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

These people know that if we choose to escalate this war into total warfare against the larger target (the Arab world, for example) that they cannot win and in fact, face the a high risk of losing their entire civilization.

Actually it's the opposite. Groups like Al-Qaeda would LIKE to have a clash. Usama bin Laden has been trying to set traps for USA to fall into (in particuarl, force USA to invade Saudi Arabia and hence start a holy war).

It serves the interest of small groups, like Al-Qaeda, to escalate the war.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[b-baggins]

What do you mean terrorists are not allied with any country and have no home bases of any sort?

How do they get training camps? How do they get weapons? How do they get funding?

The truth is, terrorists are the COVERT armies of any number of nations who like what the terrorists do, but want to be able to keep their involvement at a distance.

Thus you have Afghanistan housing terrorists. Iraq offering training facilities and money. Iran providing haven. Syria smuggling weapons, etc.

Terrorists can only be effective WHEN they have alliances with various nations.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[ahdeoz]

idiot trumps retard every time.

Re:Woozle-wozzle.

[addaon]

Yes, but a strong US military feeding off the vitality of its citizens is likely to make even more enemies within our own borders.

Lots of issues to be resolved though.

[MtViewGuy]

If we are talking about a trip to Mars like Zubrin's Mars Direct concept, there are still considerable engineering challenges to make it work.

We have to consider the following:

1. How do we launch such a spacecraft into Earth orbit in the first place? Should it mostly assembled on the ground (e.g., using technology derived from the Space Shuttle) or be assembled in space?

2. What kind of propulsion system do we use? Chemical rockets mean we'll need a pretty big spacecraft (and the flight time will be six to nine months), and nuclear rockets (which could reduce the time to six weeks) are still not completely proven technology.

3. How do we accommodate 5-7 astronauts on the spacecraft? That means we'll need a fairly good amount of space inside the spacecraft for food and potable water if the trip is going to take six to nine months or proper shielding against radiation on a nuclear-powered spacecraft. We also have to consider how space will be needed for a full-scale science lab and stowage space for manned rover vehicles.

4. Can we get full assurances we can extract water from the Martian soil, which would drastically simply living on Mars and provide a source of fuel for the return trip?

The Moon is important

[dlevitan]

I think one of the big advantages of building a base on the moon first is just to build up the space industry. The moon is a lot more accessible than Mars - it's only 3 days away and we have all the technology to get there already. Why is this important? The majority of space exploration is currently done by the government. But what happens if the US opens a base on the moon, provides landing/launching facilities and invites companies to make it a tourist attraction. Suddenly we have not only the government spending money on the moon but also individual companies. The government can charge them taxes on the moon and this way finance further expansion on the moon and beyond.

What does this give us? A bunch of companies dedicated to building space vessels and a new generation of people who expect to be able to get into space. If the US spends the initial money to get to the moon, 10 years afterwards we might have a thriving colony on the moon. Not only will commercialization decrease costs, it'll also make space travel a reality for more people, who will then demand more opportunities and before you know it we'll have colonies established on mars and beyond.

Good practical reasons to establish a lunar base

[jguthrie]

I happened to sit in the audience on a panel at ConDFW whose topic was "Man on Mars by 2030?" or some such. At that session, it was pointed out that NASA is a political beast by its very nature, (and how can it be otherwise as NASA is an arm of the US government, itself one of the most political of beasts,) and does what it does for political reasons. That's why they haven't managed to get anyone out of low earth orbit in 32 years. There's been no goal that a politician has had that requires NASA to do that.

In fact, my opinion is that essentially no progress has been made in spaceflight in those 32 years. After all, it doesn't matter to me if a very select few gets to occasionally ride into space because I want to go, and I think that there are lots of people like me. Our interest in space is derived, not from a desire to read about or watch the exploits of a Glenn or an Armstrong, but to go ourselves. However, it appears as if the folks at NASA don't want that. They still view flying in space as being something only for the, well, few that they've selected. I'd like to see that change. Establishing a lunar base gives us the possibility of seeing that change.

There are a number of companies that have been established to exploit space commercially. However, none have really been successful so far. The primary reason is that the income from that exploitation has been uncertain at best. NASA now has the opportunity to change that. If they were to call for a request for bid on, say, five contracts: For providing transfer of personnel from the earth's surface to low earth orbit, for providing transfer of cargo from the earth's surface to low earth orbit, for providing transfer of personnel from low earth orbit to the lunar surface, for providing transfer of cargo from low earth orbit to the lunar surface, and for the construction of a lunar base, this would be the sort of guaranteed income needed to get commercial space ventures really going.

And once those contractors become established, they're going to look around for other ways to make money. One of those ways will be tourism.

In fact, in order to do business those contractors will have to build just the infrastructure you need to send human explorers off to the other planets. It is the establishment of the infrastructure that makes the cost of launching a Mars mission from a lunar base larger than going the Mars direct route. If NASA can get others to build the infrastructure instead, then the numbers look a lot better for launching from the moon or from a space station than for Mars direct.

USAF and the Moon

[rjh]

The moon has tons of resources for constructing weapons, especially new kinds of nuclear weapons

The surface of the moon is overwhelmingly composed of worthless and/or low-value materials. You're not going to find anything there that'll be useful for a nuke. The surface of the moon is awash in helium-3, which is very useful for fusion power, but is not all that useful for nuclear weapons.

While your first two points are bang-on right, your third point sounds like a paranoid Nader rant against the "military-industrial complex". It undercuts the other two points, which, as I just said, are exactly correct.

Its very, very difficult to defend against moon-launched attacks ...

No harder than defending against an ICBM, mostly.

The reason why the Air Force was, at one time, making plans to put nuclear silos on the moon has nothing to do with how devastating lunar-based attacks can be. Instead, the moon would be the ultimate defensive weapon.

How long does it take a nuclear missile to arrive on Earth after it's been launched from the Moon? A few days at the very least. So what happens if you do a launch from the moon? Everybody else sees you launch and turns your country into rubble days before the missile arrives.

That's why the Moon is useless offensively. And that's why the Moon is useful defensively. Because even if America were to be totally wiped out in a nuclear first-strike, the lunar silos would still be safe for a minimum of a couple of days while the ICBMs launched from Earth were en route to it. And in those couple of days, the lunar silos could mount a pisser of a counterattack.

Mutually Assured Destruction, or MAD. While I'm no fan of plans to militarize the Moon, I have to say in some way I'm vaguely pleased that the Air Force was considering turning the Moon into the ultimate defensive weapon, one which would be utterly worthless for offense.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

On the moon, you can test the crap out of whatever you want, and nobody will get upset. There's no delicate ecosystem to be rampaged by your killer virus, were it to escape, and you've got tons and tons and tons of vast, empty spaces in which to test your new 'smaller, lighter, cleaner' nukes without upsetting world governments (presumably).

While your first two points are bang-on right, your third point sounds like a paranoid Nader rant against the "military-industrial complex". It undercuts the other two points, which, as I just said, are exactly correct.

Well, you're being reactionary and wanting to defeat my argument before even thinking about it really. What resources do you think I might have meant?

As for MAD, I don't think you understand it as well as you might feel you do ... the Moon gives the USAF a pretty big place within which to safely develop -extremely- dangerous weapons. This would not be a 'deterrent' policy, but an overt "we are there, we're going to use that resource to make mega-weapons in sanctity, and there's not much you can do to stop us".

I can think of a few world governments who would consider such a program entirely offensive. But its no surprise to me that an American couldn't see this simple fact ...

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> I can think of a few world governments who would consider such a program entirely offensive.

Yes, and they are idiots. You do realize that the moon is worthless as an offensive base? That is would take DAYS for even the first wave of attacks to start, once launched? If an attack were launched from the moon, there would be more than ample time for another country to reduce the U.S.'s largest cities to rubble, with enough time to knock back a few with the friends at the pub before the nukes landed? For two straight days? That's a lot of drinking.

> But its no surprise to me that an American couldn't see this simple fact ...

But it's no surprise to me that ignorant foreigners couldn't see these simple facts and instead assume anything the American military does is to attack his country. Ooooh, AmeriKKKa is evil, so is everything they do *wank wank*. Piss off.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[stripe]

For military uses, the moon can be utilized as a base for offensive purposes. There is no need for nukes. Earth's gravity well will work just as well. Build a large electromagnetic rail gun and fire off large chunks of moon rock at the earth. You can destroy large cities and have minimal radioactive fallout. (I would say none except that a some things have a little radioactivity especially military targets). For the grunt in the street the moon can be used to build smart crowbars cannister sattelites that are shot into LEO from the moon. Basically its a hunk of finned metal with a guidance chip. Grunt calls in a target sattelite drops a crowbar on it. Inert non-explosive but with enough power to take out a tank or small city block depending on its size.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[Anonymous Coward]

Read what he said.

He wasn't talking about using the moon as an offensive weapon in the regard you are thinking (attacks launched from it), but instead offensive in its research/development capabilities.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> offensive in its research/development capabilities.

Huh? Then it is the RESEARCH that is offensive to his tastes. The research can be done on Earth, but it would be harder. If they are going to be doing research that is dangerous, isn't it better that it's done away from here where fewer people (read: civilians) can be hurt. I find it offensive that someone would rather endanger the populace than use a safer place far away.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

You do realize that the moon is worthless as an offensive base? That is would take DAYS for even the first wave of attacks to start, once launched?

Assuming of course you're talking about missiles and not directed energy weapons, which incidentally in space would be ultra-easy to make considering that there's a near-infinite supply of energy to be directed ...

We simply must -not- weaponize space. That is all. And those of you with the power to vote in America had better make sure your country doesn't do it.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

Wouldn't it be better to have weapons only in places where, if a madman (such as the kind the US is capable of producing just as well as any -other- country on Earth, and is no 'holier' than any other in this regard) were to gain control over it, there would still be a -fighting- chance for humanity to prevent massive disaster?

Put weapons in space, and you put the life of the entire species in the hands of a very, very, very, very, very, very few. That's too close to madness.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> a madman (such as the kind the US is capable of producing just as well as any -other- country on Earth

This doesn't take away from your point, but the U.S. certainly is less likely to be ruled by a "mad man." Since we elect our leaders & have the opportunity to remove them, a true mad man would not last long. (No cheap shots at Bush -- he may be a moron, but I don't think he's insane)

> Put weapons in space, and you put the life of the entire species in the hands of a very, very, very, very, very, very few

As opposed to now, where we have... the same thing, only with nuclear weapons that can be delivered quicker from here.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[rjh]

The minor matter of it being a few days trip from the Moon to the Earth, as well as any attack being immediately visible ("Hey, Sergei, there's a huge spike in the Moon's EM emissions--the Americans are up to something!", to say nothing of radar and amateur astronomers) precludes it from being useful offensively. An attack which takes literally days to arrive is worthless when an ICBM counterattack would take only half an hour to arrive.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[rjh]

considering that there's a near-infinite supply of energy to be directed ...

Right. All we have to do is discover fusion first, and then we have to figure out an efficient and totally automated way of mining He-3 from lunar regolith (we're talking grams of He-3 per ton mined), then we have to build a very large base, then we have to... etc.

Your statement is somewhat akin to saying "it's easy to create a universe: first, you have to become God..." You're assuming the very thing you're trying to demonstrate the existence of: amassing enormous power on the Moon is easy only if you've already solved the problem.

We simply must -not- weaponize space. That is all. And those of you with the power to vote in America had better make sure your country doesn't do it.

We simply must weaponize space.

Look, I'm sorry if it offends your sensibilities, but like Thomas Sowell said, "reality is that which doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."

Space will be commercialized. It will be weaponized. It will be developed. It will be colonized.

History shows us that there has never been a natural resource that has not sooner or later had some crafty person figure out how to make use of it. Not one resource--not ever--has been an exception to this rule. Reality says we need to believe space will be the exact same, even moreso, given the spectacular amount of wealth waiting for us out there. (You ever seen the numbers for the amount of precious metals in a good-sized asteroid? One single good-sized asteroid, brought back to Earth, would have so much precious metals in it that it would collapse the world economy.)

History also tells us that natural resources are always in contention. Or, put bluntly, people fight wars over natural resources. It's been this way from time immemorial. (And please stow any cheap responses about "yeah, Bush has proved this".)

Space is going to be no different. There's natural resources out there, those natural resources are going to be utilized, and wars are going to be fought over them.

"We simply must not weaponize space!" is great as a moral statement. Unfortunately, it totally fails the Santayana test.

You are failing to pay any attention to the lessons of history.

History tells us people who don't learn from history the first time get to pay the tuition all over again.

I am not interested in the "we must not weaponize space!" taboo. It's balderdash, trivial tripe, easily refuted by history.

The question I'm interested in is "how does one morally and ethically weaponize space, under what civilian controls, under what laws, and under what political systems?"

Re:USAF and the Moon

[ahdeoz]

Of course ray-guns are easier to make in space! We have the plethora of examples from science fiction to draw from. However, the number of space-tachyo-neutrin-trek-babble eapons used on earth, even in movies, comic books, and tv shows combined is vastly more limiting.

Why must we -not- weaponize space simply? Having the power to vote in America, I am deliberately abstaining from participating in the process.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

No, I was talking about the Sun, an infinite energy source, which could power energy weapons like ... oh, I dunno, a microwave emitter or some such thing ... something easy, yet super-effective if you can point it at the entire planet from an un-reachable location such as the moon.

We must not weaponize space, simply because if we do so we can never gurantee that they will not be used. By us, or future generations. Or current Presidential Mad-men and their gangs of thugs...

And their use would be devastating to the one planet in space we know for sure contains life. So, we simply must not weaponize space.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

Right. All we have to do is discover fusion first, and then we have to figure out an efficient and totally automated way of mining He-3 from lunar regolith (we're talking grams of He-3 per ton mined), then we have to build a very large base, then we have to... etc.


Umm, hello you idiot, I was talking about the Sun. You know, that big round glowy hurty thing that your Mom keeps telling you not to look at directly?

History also tells us that natural resources are always in contention. Or, put bluntly, people fight wars over natural resources. It's been this way from time immemorial. (And please stow any cheap responses about "yeah, Bush has proved this".)


Yeah, okay, so we've got this big planet, and it represents the sum total of all humanities resources, as well as all humanity. So, we're going to build a bloody big weapon and point it at this planet, and use it to threaten all the people on this planet with annihilation.

Yeah, thats smart. Has HISTORY TAUGHT YOU CLUELESS ROBOTS NOTHING?

I'll give you a clue: You cannot be responsible for the objects you build, today. They will be used in ways you did not intend, in the future, by future generations.

Just because you won't be there to witness it, does not mean that you need to contribute to the activity willingly.

Putting weapons in space DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT SOME FUTURE MAD SOCIETY WON'T USE THEM.

Today, its 12 suit-case nukes. In 100 years, it could very well be the keys to the microwave array, Moonbase Yankee Charlie Tango.

As for your fatalistic 'it must be done simply because it will be done', if things are so willingly done in this universe, why don't we willingly find a way to Make Peace without requiring the invention of weapons?

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

... the U.S. certainly is less likely to be ruled by a "mad man." ...

Sorry, but no. The current evidence at hand is that Bush is completely insane on the subject of Iraq, hunting terrorists, and using American Military Might un-justly. Nobody has done anything to stop him, they are all living under shells. Americans don't even care that he's illiterate. He went to war on a bed of lies, and the American People let him. Will the American People ever accept responsibility for the actions of their mad-men elect, or will they simply just change the pitch to "prove he's not mad"?

As for whether the American People (I assume thats what you mean by 'we', and that you're not actually a member of an Electoral College, who does vote for the President) still 'elects their leaders', I think the jury is pretty hung on that point. Bush stole Florida. That should not have happened, and I know more Americans who rationally think that than I do who don't, and consider that it was 'the system, working properly, as the system was designed'.

Sorry. Your armour has chinks. An American is no greater in this regard than any other human being alive on this planet today, each as equally responsible for the conditions of their lives as any other...

Re:USAF and the Moon

[rjh]

Umm, hello you idiot, I was talking about the Sun. You know, that big round glowy hurty thing that your Mom keeps telling you not to look at directly?

So was I. Where do you think the He-3 comes from?

It's actually going to be cheaper to mine the lunar regolith for He-3 than it would be to ship square kilometer upon square kilometer of solar cells to the Moon. (Why can't you build the solar cells on the moon? Well, first, the Moon lacks the raw materials... second, the Moon lacks the industrial infrastructure necessary to build sophisticated solar cells... third, the Moon lacks the power required to run an industrial infrastructure...)

You're still begging the question. We can't get immense power out of the Moon until we figure out how to put immense power on the Moon. This can be an immense, trillion-dollar investment in fuel required to put solar cells on the Moon... this can be an immense, trillion-dollar investment in mining technology and fusion research to develop lunar He-3 fusion... this can be, basically, anything: but the "anything" is guaranteed to be incredibly, spectacularly, tax-payer-refusingly expensive.

HISTORY TAUGHT YOU CLUELESS ROBOTS NOTHING?

A lot more than it's taught you, I daresay.

Putting weapons in space DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT SOME FUTURE MAD SOCIETY WON'T USE THEM.

No. But it does guarantee that when some madman decides he wants to use them, that we'll have the tools necessary to make sure he doesn't live long enough to use them.

You are not going to be able to remove war from the human psyche. It exists. It's the mad demon of human nature which haunts us for as long as human beings exist. The rational response to this is not to say "let's get rid of all weapons", because that only affects the people who are moral and civilized enough to not want to develop weapons in the first place. It does nothing to prevent madmen from attempting madness, or building new and evil ways to wreck lives and communities.

The rational response to this is to say "evil exists: given that, how must we prepare for it?"

The obvious response is to make sure we're ready for it when it happens. That means militaries. That means rough men with guns who are ready to do violence on your behalf the instant somebody tries to burn down your home, rape your family and steal your heirlooms.

Anything else is simply not a realistic assessment of history. Thus it has been: thus it will continue to be.

Because, frankly, I'm not smart enough to figure out some universal solution that will make evil simply not exist.

And I know that you aren't, either.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[rjh]

After reading this last, the only thing I can say is that you're sufficiently deranged as to make further discussion fruitless.

There are a lot of good points you could've made with the war in Iraq, the 2000 election, etc.: but you've squandered them by going for simplistic sound-bite answers instead of demonstrating that you have any appreciation for the other side of the issue.

There's a lot of things Bush has done which deserve criticism. I'm a Republican and I'm not going to vote for Bush in the next election--that should tell you something about how critical I am of him.

But you're not criticizing. Criticizing requires an honest assessment of the issue from all sides, and then praising what is praiseworthy and deriding what merits derision.

What you're doing is one-note saysaying. If I want that, I'll read Molly Ivins. Much like you, she's a one-note naysayer. Unlike you, she's quite entertaining to read.

(Wow. A Republican who likes Molly Ivins? Who reads Camille Paglia? Who reads New Republic? Who'd've thought? But this is what you need to do if you're going to be a critic.)

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

You are not going to be able to remove war from the human psyche. It exists. It's the mad demon of human nature which haunts us for as long as human beings exist. The rational response to this is not to say "let's get rid of all weapons", because that only affects the people who are moral and civilized enough to not want to develop weapons in the first place. It does nothing to prevent madmen from attempting madness, or building new and evil ways to wreck lives and communities.


What the fuck does the human 'psyche' have to do with anything? Mankind willingly makes war. It doesn't "haunt" him, it is a categorical function of mans desires.

Which, he has proven again and again, countless thousands and hundreds and millions of times, that he is capable of free will in peace. Lots of great monuments, exchanges of goods, acts of courage and bravery; more than has ever been counted.

Do these count for nothing in any equation of the 'human psyche', or do you only take parts of the universe that happen to result in a complete lack of free will and control when someone talks psychology? I have no clue.

All I know is that if those hundreds of high-power cruise missiles, tanks, boats, helicopters and planes were taking food surplus, last years '.99c store leftovers' from Orange County, to Somalia or some such place, instead of bombing the absolute fuck out of an entire population already teetering on the edge of utter insanity at the hands of 'World Dictators', then maybe the world would be a more peaceful place.

But no. We have to have the Motherfucking Cowboys and their guns. Because you know, there's a baddie out there, a demon called the 'human psyche'.

What crap. I'm sick of people who make weapons, or excuses for weapons. That's all there is to it.

Make more things that keep people alive and happy and able to participate with each other in grand activities, maybe, for a change, eh smartie? More of that, less depleted uranium and projectile injuries in 4 year olds ... please?

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

After reading this last, the only thing I can say is that you're sufficiently deranged as to make further discussion fruitless.

Thanks. Its nice to know about your interest in fruit.

But you're not criticizing. Criticizing requires an honest assessment of the issue from all sides, and then praising what is praiseworthy and deriding what merits

You're right, I'm not criticizing. This might upset you, but I'm beyond being 'critical' of Bush and the Republican Holy Order, and have moved way past that into "Accusal" territory. I believe Americans must face the fact that were all national secrets revealed, the existing administration would be facing criminal charges.

Whether they are going to do so remains to be seen. I'm hopeful at least for my American friends, they all seem to be pretty pissed as well. Its dis-heartening to imagine that the majority, however, seem to think Bush is doing a 'good job' in the face of all that American hardship ...

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> I think the jury is pretty hung on that point

Umm, no, it isn't. The electoral college has worked successfully for years, so your "jury" is completely imaginary.

> I know more Americans who rationally think that than I do who don't,

Umm, I've realized that you are a troll, but tis couldn't have anything to do with the fact that you are more likely to know people who AGREE WITH YOU. Jeez, man. You talk about Bush being a liar and then say he's illiterate. You mention the electoral college, then say he stole the election? Christ, man, do you ever think about wdhat you are saying, or do you just bash anything you don't agree with? I bet you consider yourself a very open-minded individual, yet you spread lies like it's going out of style. Get a grip, there is no evidence Bush is insane, it's like me saying Clinton was a Gigolo.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> all that American hardship ...

Are you fucking kidding me? AMERICAN HARDSHIP? WOW, I wish I had read this before replying to your other post. I would not have bothered, I didn't realize you were a damn lunatic! The poorest Americans have it better than the middle class in many countries. And we like it that way. Posh, hardship.

Here's you: (you)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Here's reality: (Far from where you are)

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

Are you fucking kidding me?

Here's a word, kid. Buy yourself some brain cells and read that post again...

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

You mention the electoral college, then say he stole the election?

The Electoral College doesn't work the way you think it does.

Yours is a republic, not a democracy.

Republics are not safe from arrest of power.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> The Electoral College doesn't work the way you think it does.

So you are assuming what I know? You don't even fucking live here, I know what the Electoral College is. Electors (set # for each state) are appointed. The citizens vote for a candidate, and the one who gets the most votes is supposed to get the Elector's votes. Some states (Michigan) can split the Electorate votes by % of votes each candidate got. The Electors do not have to follow the actual voters "suggestion," but if they didn't, chances are pretty good that he would be out of a job the next time.

That explanation enough for you?

I know it's a republic -- like a Representational Democracy.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> Here's a word, kid [sarcasm]
> > majority, however, seem to think Bush is doing a 'good job' in the face of all that American hardship

You seem to have a hard time with good sarcasm then. If you were using sarcasm, that means there is no American hardship, of course. If there is none, why the hell would we NOT think he is doing a good job?

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

Very interesting. So how did Bush steal the election then?

Re:USAF and the Moon

[torpor]

All I'm saying, is that 9/11 wasn't 'hardship'. Americans live a very pampered life, compared to some. GWBush shouldn't be getting away with such blatant use of 9/11 to get what he, and his New Holy Order, want to do with US military resources, in the name of 'damage to the US, and hardship on Americans'.

It is a ploy unworthy of respect.

Re:USAF and the Moon

[hesiod]

> So how did Bush steal the election then?

Ah, good question. He didn't.

Re:He's completely wrong - Helium 3?

[0123456]

"One minor sticking point: There are no fusion reactors at the moment."

But everyone knows that fusion reactors are only about twenty years away. I mean, they've been only twenty years away for about fifty years now, so it would be hard not to know that.

Moon base

[Insipid Trunculance]

While a moon base is a good place for launching things cheaply it costs a lot more energy to land something on moon than on earth.

On earth all we need to do is to place a robust heat shield and let the atmosphere do the job but on the moon we need to reduce the velocity using fuel all the way.

Moon does have an atmosphere but it sabout a million times less dense than our own.

So a moon base will be more or less one way.

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[majorero]

Now this is an excellent point. Except the docking collar for the space elevator would probably be more difficult to construct on the moon because of the lack of oceans. Most space elevator plans call for a floating docking collar/station to minimize the variouses stresses on the docking collar itself.

Yes PLEASE! We NEED another COLD War

[mrnick]

The end of the cold war came about because of Russia could not afford it anymore. But, the ending of the cold war hurt the American economy. I was hoping that we could some how get into a cold war with the french but if China is planning on building a moon base then America better beat them to it. Just think of all the jobs it will create.

Heck, sign me up to be a network analyst for the moon base once they get it built.

Nick Powers

A Short Consideration of Physics

[virg_mattes]

> "Blast shield in case the fuel goes up"? There's no oxidising (or reducing, for that matter) atmosphere in space. If you have the sense of a gopher, you'll keep your oxidizer on one side and the fuel safely away from that.

Fuel doesn't need an oxidizer to cause explosive damage. It's reasonable that you're going to be storing the fuels under pressure (the only exception to this is solid fuels, because even liquid fuels will evaporate if there's no atmosphere). The safety of no oxidizing atmosphere becomes the danger of no drag when a tank ruptures and the rapidly-vaporizing fuel pops it like a balloon. The shrapnel from such a rupture would run out in all directions, unimpeded by any atmospheric drag that would slow the parts down, so when they reach and impact other parts of the station, they'll have essentially the same energy as they had right near the blast. Therefore, some sort of shield is still necessary to protect the rest of the station from being peppered with high-velocity debris.

Virg

Shut up John Glenn

[!Xabbu]

Ya gotta respect the guy for obvious reasons but he's doing nothing more then politicing(sp).

On the surface, Bushy boys plan is sound. Setup a moon base (so we can also start harvesing its riches), build up to a mars flight and away we go. Its the timeline that sucks... stuff like this isn't supposed to go quickly.. patience...

Astronaut Michael Collins says the same thing

[SnappingTurtle]

Collins (best known as CMP for Apollo 11) said the same thing in a book he wrote in the 1980's. When I first read it, I thought it was a pretty radical idea to bypass the moon, but it seems the radical has become accepted by many members of the space community.

"Frikkin" laser?

[sapped]

How does the moon have military value?

That's obvious. You can build a "frikkin" laser there and proceed to hold the world to ransom for a million dollars.

Re:mod parent down

[i81b4u]

However.....he also states on his going into space at the end of the article - "I don't think I should," he said. "If they are going to send somebody else up in this age bracket, they should pick somebody else so we get a database that starts to expand beyond me.
"But if NASA said they've been going through the data and they would like me to go up again and run some more research on me and would I be willing to go -- yeah, I'd be down there tomorrow morning."
Today, Glenn divides his time between Ohio and Washington. He heads the John Glenn Institute For Public Service and Public Policy at Ohio State University and serves on a NASA advisory committee."
So...as a typical politician...he is well versed at waffling.

Muh?

[JMZero]

Well, wasn't 9/11 supposed to be an example of just how poor the US is controlling its hill? Isn't that the point?

If we define "top of the hill" as "the ability to know if terrorists are controlling your planes intent on smashing them into buildings" - then yes, the US has trouble controlling the top of the hill.

If we define "top of the hill" as "the ability to target and hit things all over the battlefield" like any normal person would, then your post reads like the nonsense it is.

And if anyone is claiming the US no longer has "top of the hill" in this sense, they're retarded. The US's problems are with controlling the "alleys", the "bunkers", and in very few cases the "beaches" - but "hill" has been well covered since about 1989 (when there was still two hills).

Keep it straight, man.

Re:Muh?

[torpor]

I think you're about to discover that the Pentagon committed a gross failure by allowing those planes to hit their targets.

They could've taken them out, they had fighters scrambled, but they didn't. Why?

To me, that's a failure to keep your hill safe from moles.

Re:Muh?

[SB9876]

I'm not a military aviator so this might be bunk...

I agree that not having jets scrambled really reflects poorly upon the Pentagon's ability to handle emergencies. However, I'm not sure that having those jets airborne would have made a difference.

I think the primary reason is that it's hard to intercept passenger planes if you aren't expecting them and don't know their final destination. Remember that 757's and 767's can cruise at about 600 mph for hours on end. A military fighter is designed for extremely high speed bursts but can't sustain that speed. IIRC, full military thrust is subsonic for everything but the new F-22 which isn't deployed yet. An F-15 at full military thrust runs out of fuel in something less than half an hour and is really not moving any faster than the target. To really intercept the planes, they would have to have been on afterburner and that's just a few minutes before fuel's depleted.

Jet interceptors work great if you're expecting an attack and know approximately where it's going to come from so that you can properly deploy your interceptors - eg: from the enemy's airbases. Here we had a sudden attack by planes that are blending into the rest of the commercial air traffic with unknown destinations. It's very hard to be able to scramble an effective fighter response to that kind of attack, especially in the timeframe that we had to deal with.

Re:Muh?

[torpor]

I agree that not having jets scrambled really reflects poorly upon the Pentagon's ability to handle emergencies

Umm.. jets were scrambled, and in position to intercept, they were told to stand down.

Just wait for the 9/11 Commission report. I'm willing to be very wrong, but I think its not going to be pretty.

Glenn just wants the Moon again???

[Autonomous Crowhard]

Oh great... So he wants us to run off to Mars, plant our flag, say "yay", come back, kill the program, and go back to underfunded hell like LEO. Gee... Just like we did with the moon.

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"If it did, Rumsfeld & Cheney would be sitting in a Belgian prison right about now"

I don't think some Phlegm has jurisdiction over much of anything outside of that little pissant country.

Belgium indeed. You can kiss my shiny black ass.

Re:Why?

[torpor]

Admit it, you don't even know where Belgium is, do you?

Re:Why?

[Endive4Ever]

Actually, far more of us know where Belgium is than need to.

It's a pretty irrelevant place in the larger scheme of things.

Re:Why?

[ambisinistral]

If I recall my geography & history -- previous to the US stationing troops in Europe to police the warmongers of that continent -- that's the little country Germany drove through every couple of decades to get France to surrender yet again.

Re:Why?

[torpor]

You wouldn't be saying that if you'd ever been called to the World Court for any particular reason.

Its unwise to live so ignorantly.

Re:John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go mo

[WindBourne]

But then again, I wasn't alive then, so what do I know?

I was alive for it. And yes, you are right.

waystation != mfg. center

[LaCosaNostradamus]

The Earth is very fortunate to have the Moon. The only better things for space manufacturing are asteroidal moons and even a rubble ring (like Saturn has).

A waystation is generally better served in an orbit, yes, but the Moon is a currently unparalleled manufacturing site for space development. It has only 1/6g; is abundant in sunlight, oxygen, aluminum, silicon and iron (with calcium, titanium and other traces); has no atmosphere; and is about a 3-day journey from the mother world.

The problems of the Lunar well are solved by mass drivers built on the surface. With no atmosphere to stop it, an iron bucket carrying cargo (usually basic materials mined from the Lunar regolith) can be flung off the Moon at Lunar escape velocity -- you just have to build the linear accelerator long enough. Then you have to have mass catchers in Cislunar space to capture and make use of said materials.

Really, reaching for Mars without first preparing a Lunar manufacturing site is such abominable stupidity that I can only predict the Mars Adventure will end as Apollo ended ... memories, rocks, lost billions and finally piles of equipment rusting in the Florida sun. A "straight to Mars" mission is almost entirely political -- with the remaining portion being some scientific intent.

With a well established Lunar base, all other planetary tours can take place as a side-effect of Lunar manufacturing activity. And once asteroidal missions return a sufficient chunk of volatiles to Cislunar space, shipments from Earth can be reduced to personnel and other small, specific cargoes like medicine, special equipment, biologicals and trace elements.

Re:waystation != mfg. center

[Anonymous Coward]

You must play a lot of Real Time Strategy games. You can't just send out a bunch of peasants to gather aluminum, silicon and iron, then press a button to produce a spaceship.

Re:waystation != mfg. center

[LaCosaNostradamus]

What are you talking about? We take raw materials on Earth and "produce" things all the time. The trusses forming the structure of a spaceship must be mined, processed, melted and then formed; all these things can be done at some shared arrangement from the Lunar surface to an orbit site.

How do YOU propose instead to manufacture a space infrastructure? Make every part complete (from truss to paint) on Earth, and then spend $10K per pound to loft them into orbit? I'll call your bullshit.

Face facts. People have to start living in the space environment in order to produce a sustainable infrastructure. This is the thing you have undoubtedly written off beneath all your blather.

Cape Canaveral

[dmusicstud]

A bit off-topic, but an important distinction. Cape Canaveral is the Military Base in florida. Kennedy Space Center is the NASA complex. Is Glenn stating that he feels the moon would be a military base or just a space launching point. True, there are launches from Canaveral - but they're done by the military. This point was stressed on a recent trip I took to the Kennedy Space Center.

Cheaper Solutions

[virg_mattes]

> Before doing anything like building a manned base on the far side of the moon... or even an unmanned radio telescope for that matter, is to create a series of 'stationary' communication satellites in moon orbit for communication.

The very idea of being free from interference, also prevents us from retrieving data due to the giant piece of rock in the way.

A valid point, but there are many cheaper ways of doing this than a network of lunar satellites. Ground based transmissions using the age-old technology of wires are valid on the Moon, where danger of damage to the wire is relatively low (heck, you can just roll the cable out on the ground, and a few thousand miles of wire isn't all that expensive compared to a lunar satellite). Targetted microwave transceivers on towers are another valid route to take, if cables concern you. Both of these solutions use technology that's cheap today, and both are cheaper than the satellite network you propose. I'm sure other answers can be brought up as well.

Re:Cheaper Solutions

[zx75]

True, you make a valid point.

But, wires may be cheap... on earth. But shipping a few thousand miles of wire is not only extremely bulky, the weight would be quite large, and might even be more expensive than putting up satellites in the long run.

Re:Cheaper Solutions

[ciphertext]

I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to construct a device to build fiber optic cable on the moon. If there is silicon available (in the form of aluminum silicate) perhaps we could create some fiber cable to string from the telescope array to the base-station or transmitting antennas on the "Earth-side" of the moon. We would also need to provide a method to process the aluminum silicate into a useable material.

Then again, perhaps we can't use the resources on the moon. In any case, the moon would provide a nice "proving" ground for technologies that could be used on Mars.

Stupid idea to use the moon militarily

[wisebabo]

One thing repeated over and over in this topic is using the moon as some sort of Uber military space station. Please stop and really think about it. What kind of attacks do you think you'd be launching from the moon? Precision tactical attacks that would knock out targets like the size of buildings? The U.S. already has excellent essentially unstoppable relatively CHEAP weapons for doing that including B-2s, cruise missiles, F-117s, and hypersonic cruise missiles soon that will do the job in under an hour. Even the most powerful railgun on the moon would take much longer to cross the quarter million miles to attack and that's if the moon is visible from that hemisphere at that time! Lasers? You still have to hope the part of the earth is viewable and radiation based weapons are subject to the inverse square law. (Laser on moon would have to be 1 million times more powerful than one in LEO). How about using the moon for a strategic attack? (Dropping big rocks?). Well the strategic supremacy of the U.S. is so far from being challenged (submarines, ICBMS, bombers) by any other power that I question the need. We already have extremely formidable weapons that can reach anywhere on the planet in half an hour, they are called H-bombs. Won't it be cheaper to launch these weapons from the moon? Only if you build them there (otherwise you'll be dragging them from here to there and back again). The costs of building an infrastructure of the sort to build any of these weapons (rail guns, lasers, bombs) is so huge it defies comprehension. (Ten's of thousands of people, industrial scale operations in vacuum and hard radiation). Remember that the moon is still a very hostile place. Just one problem: unless they can find ice at the pole (which is now in doubt) there is NO WATER. (If there was concrete on the moon, astronauts would mine it for water!). Also all this talk of Helium 3 is just talk. Seen any nuclear fusion reactors working in your neighborhood? How much effort would it take to refine this He, on the moon, found in mere parts per million (billion) in the lunar dust? The moon may be a great (good?) place for astronomy but not for the military.

Re:Stupid idea to use the moon militarily

[demachina]

All great points but you seem to neglecting one key point. Most of generals sitting in the Pentagon and their hawkish politician benefactors DON'T CARE if its pointless and expensive to put weapons on the moon. The U.S. builds all kinds of pointless and expensive weapon systems, the Comanche and the Crusader being the two most recent examples.

All it takes is for China to say they are going to put a base on the moon and there was an instant panic attack inside the Pentagon about losing "the high ground". It can be said that satellites in LEO and GEO are pretty vunerable while the Moon is pretty defensible even if its going to be an exhorbinantly expensive and marginally useful weapons platform.

So the key point about the Moon versus Earth as a weapons platform is all the politiicans and weapons on earth and satellites in LEO and GEO can be wiped in about a half an hour by a sneak attack. The Moon's one big plus is precisely due to the fact that it will take a while for an attack to get there from Earth and such an attack can countered by weapons and shielding on the moon. This leads me to conclude it is ESSENTIAL Dick Cheney be moved to a permenent base on the Moon so he survives the next terrorist sneak attack. ....And now I'm going to run away screaming as I recurse in to paranoid delusions stemming from trying to think like a general.....

If you need a refresher on the mind set just watch:

"Dr Strangelove or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb"

The goal is a presence is space, not a few trips

[Manhigh]

To that end, going to the Moon is very logical. We're finally going to learn how to live away from Earth. If we go to Mars a few times, never to return, whats the point?

Also, a lunar base can be mothballed more easily than ISS. In times of an economic downturn, you can stop going to the lunar base for a few years. If you stop going to ISS for a few years, it crashes back to Earth.

Re:One question: why? because...

[Dusabre]

Is a digital camera or a DVD better than your eyes? Would you rather be at the Duke basketball game or watch it on TV?

Can you look at a mountain range on a video or in a picture and see it context to your height, surroundings, atmosphere?

Ahh... tourism is a reason to go there!

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[leonardluen]

a space elevator on the moon also wouldn't have to worry about the added stresses from the atmosphere, such as jet streams and such.

Re:THAT IS WHAT EVERYBODY HATES ABOUT AMERICA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

the only reason you hate us is because we own you.

Wait a second there

[Tibor the Hun]

Are you suggesting that we exploit the "dark side" of the moon to realize a "large moon-like space station, capable of destroying an entire planet"!?
That plot can easily be thwarted by a number of small spacecraft which would be small enough to bypass your large defenses and exploit your criticalities. Duh...

I agree in part...

[JMZero]

I think there's a lot of value to the prestige of having a moonbase. In the current atmosphere, having military capabilities there would have positives and negatives in terms of prestige.

I'm not sure how potent it would be as a deterrent. Terrorists aren't blind to practicality, and moon-missiles just don't have a lot of advantages. A much less costly option, and much more effective (both practically, and as deterrents) would be legions of super-Predator drones.

Esp. when we can create a nuclear explosion without the nasty radioactive fallout

The most potent fallout of a nuclear weapon now would be political. Current technology could produce fairly clean "battlefield nukes" - it's just not politically feasible regardless of practicality or science. And honestly, they wouldn't serve a significant field role in currently-imaginable conflicts.

Overall, I really like the moonbase plan. Having a peaceful, positive "national goal" can be a powerful force for good - and I think that's about what Bush wants out of the whole effort.

This Isn't Waffling

[virg_mattes]

There's no waffling in these statements. What he said paraphrases correctly to "I'd go tomorrow if they asked me to, but I think they should ask someone else to go if they need to further examine space flight on the elderly." That's common sense, couched in personal preference. No flip-flopping to see here.

Virg

ISS as departure/return base

[dpilot]

Due to the orbit the ISS is in, it's useful primarily as a political compromise project between the US and Russia.

IMHO, even though budget cuts have made the ISS virtually useless for science research, it continues to be incredibly valuable for *engineering* research. This ISS is the biggest/most complex orbital assembly ever attempted. Mir was assembled in orbit, but essentially by docking intact pieces from earth. The ISS is truly being constructed in orbit.

ISS construction is perhaps around an order of magnitude beyond Mir. But it's still one or two orders of magnitude shy of the wheel in 2001: ASO.

There are many who point to the lack of science and push to abandon the ISS. I look at it and say, "We've got to solve these engineering problems," before we ever get anything better than the ISS.

OK, whatever.

[JMZero]

I have nothing interesting to say about your absurd conspiracy theory - it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

To me, that's a failure to keep your hill safe from moles.

"Hill", in this case, is not a generic metaphor for territory or power. It has a specific meaning relating to military capability.

Perhaps I need to be clearer about how irrelevant this is: the possibility of terrorists killing lots of civilians via low resource infiltration doesn't mean we need a hill on the moon to hit targets in Syria.

I suppose next you'll remind me that Bush wasn't really elected ON THE HILL.

Re:OK, whatever.

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to relax.

Re:OK, whatever.

[torpor]

I have nothing interesting to say about your absurd conspiracy theory - it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Did the Pentagon fail to protect the country or not?

Its not a conspiracy theory. Its a fact. 9/11 happened. It could have been stopped. It wasn't.

Don't bother arguing with me ... just wait for the 9/11 Commission to finish its work.

And no, Bush wasn't elected 'on the hill', no matter what Republican propaganda you choose to swing with, the votes were counted, and re-counted, and re-re-counted ... and each time, more excuses were given by the Republican party not to let the law do its job until finally ... well, you probably know the story. ... the possibility of terrorists killing lots of civilians via low resource infiltration doesn't mean we need a hill on the moon ...

I never said anybody needed a base on the moon, I merely gave reasons for why it might be militaristically important, especially in the current political context.

I think that in your rush to argue with a +5 Insightful comment, you've picked a fight which didn't exist ... but don't worry, that's common.

Re:Zubrin's Mars Society seems to be doing well ..

[demachina]

The one thing about Zubrin is he has the personality of Don Cherry (Have to know hockey especially in Canada to get the parallel). He does know what he's talking about and is very intelligent but he is so abrasive in his advocacy he's never going to get anywhere dealing with politicians. He has no reservations about challenging their intelligence publicly which isn't a way to win friends and influence people.

As Another Comment of Mine Suggests...

[virg_mattes]

> Considering that the Delta-V required to get from Earth to the Moon and then from the Moon to Mars is greater than Earth to Mars, why should we stop by the Moon at all?

Because being on the Moon would not be completely and solely to build a jumping-off point to Mars? Stopping by the Moon has the benefit of being on the Moon. If we weren't considering going to Mars at all, there would still be enormous benefit to building a Moon base. Add to that that we can build a Mars mission there once it's established, and that's just an added plus.

In short, we should stop by the Moon because the Moon is worth stopping by all on its own.

Virg

Re:ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

because if we all moved to mars we could leave the terrorists here!

The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[Ars-Fartsica]

Name one military scenario in the last twenty five years that would be mitigated by a threat from the moon.

If the threat is "total destruction", we already have that threat with nuclear subs, and that is far far more tangible than some hocus-pocus base on the moon.

Now lets move on to the future of warfare...i.e., Timothy McVeigh. Tell me how a base on the moon keeps him from levelling a building? 9/11...once again tell me how your moon base prevents twenty guys from levelling part of NYC and tanking the US economy for the cost of some box cutters.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[drinkypoo]

First of all, a terrorist strike is not the future of warfare. It's the future of terrorism. By definition war is declared.

Second, if you can hit something with a rock the size of a winnebago, you can neutralize basically any nonmoving target, so long as you can wait for the rock to hit, and it will be a "clean" "bomb". Any structure, any city.

Any place you would like to use a nuke but can't because it's too dirty, a rock will suffice - Unless you were just thinking small tac nuke, in which case a crowbar will do the job nicely. You can just drop that from orbit, though.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[Ars-Fartsica]

First of all, a terrorist strike is not the future of warfare. It's the future of terrorism. By definition war is declared.

Terrorism is the future of warfare. In EVERY conflict since WW1 the number of non-soldiers killed in a major conflict has been rising dramatically. War is only defined by combat with other soldiers if you go back to the civil war or the wars of German unification. After that it is open season on non-combatants in increasing numbers.

Second, if you can hit something with a rock the size of a winnebago, you can neutralize basically any nonmoving target, so long as you can wait for the rock to hit, and it will be a "clean" "bomb". Any structure, any city.

Well in the most devastating attacks on the US in the last ten years, all of the combatants have been in the US before they attacked. So I guess your plan is to level a major US city in order to protect it.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[shotfeel]

Just wondering where I can hide when they test this thing!

One nice thing about rockets (ala ICBMs) is that they have guidance systems. Does anybody realize what it would take to launch a rock from the moon, with no further guidance once launched, and be able to hit a given city, much less a specific target within the city? And that's not even considering the effect of the atmosphere both on the trajectory and in burning any winnebago-sized rock into nothing before it hit the ground.

IMO, this kind of scenario is only going to work if you aren't very choosy about what you hit.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[Zordak]

DISCLAIMER: I think the moon-rock-weapon scenario is stupid, but I would like to say one thing.

What you describe for the moon rock is basically what we do with ICBMs (they are, after all, ballistic missiles). The guidance system gets the thing up into space, rotatest a platform, and fires off the RV(s). The RV itself has absolutely no guidance or ability to change course. It does have Inertial Navigation and radar, but those just tell it when and if to detonate. The majority of the flight is basically the equivalent of taking a big cone and throwing it through space at your target. Given that, we can still pretty much hit an area the size of a football field, and with a 300 kT business end, it doesn't make much difference if you hit the wrong end zone.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[Moofie]

We can build a whole lot of JDAMs and B-2's to carry them for the cost of building a rail gun on the Moon.

So where's the cost-benefit advantage?

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[drinkypoo]

I never said there was one, and the lack of one has never stopped the military before. The argument was that there was no military value, and I was disagreeing.

Re:The moon has ZERO POINT ZERO military value

[CaptainAvatar]

By definition war is declared.

So I guess Vietnam was just a police action, huh. And Barbarossa was just a few panzer armies turning right at Brest-Litovsk instead of left ... I could go on; do you want me to?

I think a more workable definition of war vis a vis terrorism would emphasise its state-to-state nature.

I Have a Question

[virg_mattes]

> Get the inhabitants to tunnel out areas to support more people...

...and...

> Oh right... it's boring.


Was this an intentional pun?

Virg

Nuclear propulsion

[dpilot]

Back in the 50's and 60's they were looking at nuclear propulsion, both space and atmospheric. They got so far on the latter as to begin looking for pilots 'past reproductive age.' Eventually they dropped the manned ideas, and focused on a thing called, 'Project Pluto,' a kind of Mach-3 cruise missile that dropped bombs as it flew. Before the project was killed, they decided it didn't even need to drop bombs. The low-altitude supersonic overflight and radioactive exhaust were 'sufficiently destructive.' Part of the reason it was killed was that they couldn't figure out how to handle the test flights.

Re:Nuclear propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

Dude, you are so confused it isn't even funny. The early experiments in nuclear propulsion for flight were done by a company that basically loaded a reactor on board, flew it around, took some radiation readings, then proclaimed that nuclear flight needs "men over birthing age". (A really stupid statement if I ever heard one.)

After that, Project Pluto was commissioned as a nuclear bomber. Since the point was maximum destruction to the target area, the reactor was completely unshielded. It would still drop its bombs, but its unshielded nature would be great for added death and destruction. And since it used air and nuclear fission for fuel, they could fly it around enemy territory for months after the bombs were dropped. The project was dropped after ICBMs were shown to be a better near term solution. There weren't a whole lot of tears shed either, since many considered the project's goals a bit sadistic.

In the 60's, serious uses for nuclear propulsion were considered. The two that received the most funding and research were Orion (which had a built in radiation shield by the nature of its design) and NERVA (which was looked at for the upper stages of a moon mission, where the thrust to weight ratio didn't matter quite as much). While both were tested in a reasonable and safe manner, neither actually flew. The reason was that chemical propulsion was already more advanced and would be ready sooner than nuclear solutions. Thus the Saturn V was built for the moon mission.

After the Saturn V was finished, Von Braun began looking forward to exploring the rest of space. He was shown the "joyrider" experiment (a coffee can sized Orion that used conventional explosives) and became a believer. It was his intention to launch an Orion into LEO on top of a Saturn V. Once in space, the Orion could use its nuclear pulse drive to cruise the solar system.

Unfortunately, the US government had other plans. Since the Russians were defeated in the moon race, the US made quiet plans to decommission our remaining arsenal of super-rockets. The space program was scaled back to only handle comsat and military launches. Von Braun strongly disagreed with the government over this point, and eventually left to found the National Space Institute (later the National Space Society). Sadly, he contracted cancer and died in 1977. And that pretty much ended the golden age of space exploration.

The end result is that we have more designs for nuclear propulsion than we know what to do with. Yet not one of those designs has ever been flown, or will be flown, until someone says, "let's go explore!"

Most people just don't realize that we do have the technology to travel the solar system. "We can barely get to LEO!" they say. Too bad no one told them what we actually have to put in LEO. Space travelers live and die by the amount of energy they have available. Nuclear fission provides plenty.

BTW, check out the multimedia section over at Nuclear Space. They have the footage of the Orion joyrider, and the NERVA engine tests.

Re:Nuclear propulsion

[dpilot]

I don't think so confused as I didn't care to get that far into it, though you are better informed than me. My information on Project Pluto came from an issue of Smithsonian Air and Space about 5-10 years back. (It didn't add that the extra mayhem was a plus factor in leaving the reactor unshielded. My real information on the manned nuclear bomber (pilot qualification) came from the same article, though when much younger, my big brother had a plastic model of the Nuclear Bomber that I thought was pretty neat.

I also knew about Kiwi and Nerva, and have heard of Orion, though not in the same level of detail that you have. I hadn't actually seen non-science-fiction on Orion, so I need to check you links out. I can't check the multimedia stuff until later, but how rough would an Orion ride be? I've heard of bomb-rates in the 60/sec, which clearly doesn't square with the descriptions of intermittent back-slamming in Lucifer's Hammer, but even a good strong 60Hz buzz in the butt would get tiring, fast. (How well can it really be absorbed?)

We can barely get to LEO, and IMHO nuclear propulsion is not a good high-volume way to get there, until the exhaust can get really clean. I'd prefer a Space Elevator, and last I heard the materials side may only be 2 years away.

For other space purposes, your nuclear reaction would be good for manned missions, but for unmanned I suspect nuclear/ion would be more efficient with the reaction mass.

Re:Nuclear propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

I highly suggest starting with wikipedia's information on propulsion. It should give you enough knowledge to plug into Google. After that, visit my topic on the Nuclear Space message board to find out why heavy lifters aren't a big deal.

I started with the, "we can barely get to LEO" idea as well. Turns out we can put as much tonnage into LEO as we want. Once LEO is achieved, that acts as the staging point for more advanced engine designs.

I've heard of bomb-rates in the 60/sec, which clearly doesn't square with the descriptions of intermittent back-slamming in Lucifer's Hammer, but even a good strong 60Hz buzz in the butt would get tiring, fast. (How well can it really be absorbed?)

If you're referring to "Footfall", I haven't had the chance to read it. You would not be getting a 60hz buzz however. You have to remember that the pusher plate moves so that the acceleration to the rest of the craft is gradual. Thus you'd feel just a constant push. M2P2 Orions would be similar. The M2P2 field "gives" a bit, and basically would accelerate the craft as if it were inside a water balloon.

Re:Nuclear propulsion

[AKAImBatman]

BTW, here's a site on Orion with a cool little animation showing how it will work. The site also links to excerpts from George Dyson's (son of Freeman Dyson) book on his father's work.

Agreed, no scientific case for manned missons

[Ars-Fartsica]

95% of the cost of any of these missions will be the cost of keeping a human alive and in good health and to return that human to Earth.

Added to which the value of human observation is vastly overstated. No human can do what the Mars probes have already done. What human can stand in one place for a week and take measurements? The analysis is still done on Earth, the remote probe, be it human or robotic, is just fetching the samples.

Re:Agreed, no scientific case for manned missons

[ciphertext]

What the Mars probes have done, essentially, is act as an instrument for a human scientist or group of scientists. There has never been a robot or automated probe built which replaces the role of the scientist. Plenty robots have replaced the necessity of performing tedious and precise tasks, but have not replaced the scientist. All of the probes sent to space were designed to "collect" data (pre-programmed responses for sensor input not withstanding). They were never designed to "interpret" the data. A robot, currently, is nothing more than an instrument that a scientist uses to conduct their experiments.

Re:Agreed, no scientific case for manned missons

[Ars-Fartsica]

There has never been a robot or automated probe built which replaces the role of the scientist.

Agreed, but under any scenario, most of the scientific analysis is still done on Earth. We are planning on sending astronauts to Mars, not the entire faculty of CalTech. The best researchers and analysts are likely totally unqualified for space travel. No matter what, the presence on Mars is there to collect samples and transmit raw data, which is always better done by a robot.

military value of the moon is all in the physics.

[Illserve]

Here's an analogy.

You're standing at the bottom of a well.

50 feet above you is the rim of the well.

There are effectively an unlimited supply of large heavy rocks on the ground up there.

Would you say that being at the top of that well has military value over those at the bottom of the well? You can drop rocks on them all day long, for just about zero energy.

Bottom of the well = earth, top of the well = the moon, rocks = moon rocks.

Yessir, being on the moon would be great if you wanted to rule the earth with an iron heel.

And no, it wouldn't necessarily be possible to detect a moon launch as people here have boldly stated. Due to the low gravity well, such things could be done very quietly (or on the backside!) and with a minimum of absorbative coating on the rock, you could probably slip under the radar until it was far too late to do anything about it, apart from evacuate the doomed city. Maybe some of the richest nations in the world have the resources to scan rigorously enough to do this, but certainly not the vast majority.

And even if you did detect it, you wouldn't know exactly where it's going to end up. Attitude jets on the back of the rock could retarget that sucker until very late in the trajectory. You could put 5 rocks into space and tell someone they've got 3 days to meet your demands or you'll level 6 random cities. If they pay up, you just veer the rocks into space and no harm done.

fortunately, there are so many to choose from...

[Anonymous Coward]

so Democratic Senators don't have to waste their time doing research to criticize Pres. Bush - just open the paper, and I'm sure he'll have been dishonest about something or said something stupid to criticize.

Besides, it wasn't long ago when Republican Senators in the same position didn't need actual facts to criticize the President - they could just make them up. (wait, that implies intelligence - maybe their aides did it for them)....

Missing The Point

[standbypowerguy]

Most everyone, Bush included, is missing the point. The Moon is a big waste of resources. Mars is actually easier to attain. Here's a must-read: "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must," by Robert Zubrin.

Further Thoughts

[virg_mattes]

See, this exhibits the reason why proposals like this are better than first blush would suspect. Firstly, we're discussing a manned (or locally maintained) array, so there's already something there if this plan is to work. That given, why send wires to the Moon? Why not send the current bottle-rocket space shot with big blocks of some conductive material (copper would work, but there are lighter materials that would work just as well)? You don't even plan for an entry vehicle, just let it tunnel in when it hits. Then the Moon base folks fly out in their Eagle (erk, sorry, obligatory "Space: 1999" reference) and fetch it, and roll the wire locally. Or, make wire out of local materials, and what difference if they're lower conductivity than copper? Even so, I imagine the best answer would be microwave towers, for servicing purposes (adding bandwidth just requires more transmitters, not more wire rolled out), but I think you can see the idea. The obvious advantage to a ground-based solution appears the first time one of the transceivers breaks, and a pair of astronauts can drive out in a buggy and fix it. How does one fix a lunar satellite? And before you suggest that it's the same for an Earth-orbit satellite, I put forth that there are still lots of wires on the Earth because of that very fact.

Virg

It's harder to get to the Moon than Mars

[SB9876]

OK,
I keep hearing this idea of using the moon as a refueling station. If you haven't looked at the numbers, t seems like a good idea. However, a quick look at the actual orbital mechanics shows that the Moon is a big waste of time. Here's the breakdown for ow much Delta V is needed to get to the Moon and Mars:

Moon.........Mars
LEO to Moon/Mars..3.2.........4.0
Orbital Insertion.......0.9.........0.1
Orbit to Surface.......1.9.........0.4
Total.............. ......6.0.........4.5

Yes, it actually takes LESS fuel to get to Mars primarily because it has an atmosphere you can use to aerobrake. The Moon has no atmosphere and so you have to carry fuel to bleed off your transorbital speed. Furthermore, Landing on Mars is assited by being able to use the aerobrake to bleed off speed on the way down unlike the Moon. Those figures even assume that you don't use a parachute and rely upon retrorockets to come to a stop.

OK, what about the idea of the Lunar refuelling station? You now lose the 1.9km/s of energy you need to get back off the lunar surface. (you still pay for it but the refuelling barge now pays that cost) The problem is that the cost of getting to the Moon and in and out of Lunar orbit is as expensive as getting to Mars to begin with. Sure, you now havea refuelled ship that can go to Mars from lunar orbit which is cheap BUT you just spent as much fuel getting to the Moon as it would have taken to go to Mars without stopping!

To use an analogy, I want to drive to New York from Seattle. Now, would it a be a good idea to send a bunch of my friends out to Washington DC to build a gas station for me so that I can drive there, gas up and then drive up to New York? NO! The only way it would make sense is if we were building a spaceship in lunar orbit which is simply insane - we can't even do that in LEO right now. Hell, we have enough trouble doing it on the ground right now.

Furthermore, as the other respondant mentioned, you can't make fuel on the Moon. All rockets that aren't ion drives (which have no need to refuel at the Moon anyways) need an oxidizer and fuel. There's plenty of O2 on the moon in the form of metal oxides. The Moon's something like 70% oxygen. There's plenty of metal and O2 if we want to expend the energy to get it. However, O2 is the oxidizer - we still need the fuel. All our fuels use (to my knowledge) carbon, nitrogen or hydrogen. That includes everything from gasoline and candle wax to hydrazine and liquid H2. The moon has no large supplies of H2, C or N. You'll have to haul all of those in anyways. It really makes no sense to refuel there.

There's plenty of good reasons to go to the Moon, refuelling on the way to Mars is NOT one of them.

Re:Zubrin's Mars Society seems to be doing well ..

[torpor]

Right. I agree with you.

Which is why its good that folk like John Glenn are getting behind the program. It doesn't have to be Zubrin's baby, he just needs to be in bed at the time its made ... let someone else do all the lovin' ...

Mod Parent up

[SB9876]

Yeah, yeah, I'm putting a Mod parent up on my own message. I just want it to get read - there's too many people on this thread that seem to be under the impression that the Moon makes sense as a refuelling stop.

Hell, if you don't want to give me extra karma, mod it up as Funny or something - I just want to make sure it gets read so I don't have to see any more of these 'moon as a refuelling station' posts.

Glenn being a bit shortsighted, two-faced...

[prisoner-of-enigma]

If the (Democratic) Senator wishes to say that getting to the moon is "enormously complex," then precisely how would he define a trip to Mars? It's a six day journey to the moon, but it's a six-to-nine month journey to Mars, followed by an almost mandatory one year stay, then a six-to-nine month return trip.

If complexity and danger are enough for Senator Glenn to rule out a moon colony, just how in the hell can he claim a Mars run is an easier choice?

Perhaps the Senator has, in his old age, forgotten Apollo 8, which did a dry run of the entire Apollo CM/LM setup all the way around the moon before an actual landing was attempted. Many claimed it was a waste to send the whole damned setup to the moon and not land, but NASA (rightly) decided that a shorter hop was safer than a massive leap. By establishing a moonbase first, we are in a far better position to send manned expeditions and, more importantly, colonization efforts to Mars.

The last thing I want to see happen is for NASA to blow its wad on a Mars trip, bring back a few rocks, and then sit on its thumb for the next fifty years like we did post-Apollo. We need permanent offworld settlements, not rock gathering missions. A moonbase gets us a toehold, but with an election year dawning and the Democratic Senator Glenn wishing to derail Republican Bush space initiatives, I guess politics wins out over safety of astronaut lives. Thanks, Senator. You're such an American hero.

Re:MODS ON FUCKING CRAck!!

[gingerTabs]

Well, I wouldn't have put it quite like that but I agree with your sentiment. /me pats the troll on the head

Do you have. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

. . .anything even remotely intelligent to say?

Anything at all?

Re:Do you have. . .

[Anonymous Coward]

"Fuck you", was sufficient.

Politics won't go away...nor should they

[rbird76]

If the will among Americans is present, then we will go - whether it's Bush, his successor, or someone else calling the shots. Part of the reason politics come in to play is because the people may not want to go to Mars - whether that is derived from selfishness, self-interest, the mistakes of NASA, diagreement about methods, or something else is an exercise for the political consultants among us.

If we want to go, then the Democrats will lose position by criticizing Bush and the Republicans on this point, will lose votes, and will either change their position or continue to lose votes. If Americans don't want to go to the Moon or Mars, then Pres. Bush's initiative will not survive. While some of the criticism of this plan is partisan (based on nothing other than the party suggesting it), part of the criticism is of GWB's willingness to fund and support what he wishes to do. Empty promises do good only to the lucky few who receive the bounty of gov't funding that comes from such projects. While changing project plans in midstream is always a bad idea, there may be legitimate reasons to do. Locking in methods and funding for the long term may be a bad idea.

Politics is in this decision, and will or should not leave. The people suggesting and proposing to implement this are our representatives, and if they don't listen to those who elected them, they will be no longer. Implementation of this may be fixed once we decide to do it, but the decision on the plan needs to be subject to politics, because without the will of the people to go to Mars, we shouldn't go.

Ask Robert Zubrin how to get to mars !

[Anonymous Coward]

This man got it figured out, send a copy of the book "The case for mars" to the senate.

The Case For Mars
ISBN 0-684-83550-9

Wuh?

[JMZero]

think that in your rush to argue with a +5 Insightful comment

Slashdot ratings are meaningless. If you derive any satisfaction from having a +5 rated comment that is really, really sad. And, if you're wondering, my Karma dick is undoubtedly bigger than yours. :)

Did the Pentagon fail to protect the country or not?

My argument was that this was irrelevant. Let me be clear: I am not interested in talking about your absurd conspiracy theories or whether Bush was elected. As a hint for future reference, pretty much nobody is. I brought up Bush being elected as a joke - it's irrelevant to the point of cliche. I wasn't trying to argue it either way - it is completely irrelevant.

I never said anybody needed a base on the moon, I merely gave reasons for why it might be militaristically important, especially in the current political context

Actually, I think we should have a moonbase. My post was to give arguments as to why it didn't make sense as a military resource - arguments you ignored. Instead, you brought in 9/11, which is (at the risk of repeating myself) irrelevant - despite your vigorous metaphor mixing attempt.

Re:Wuh?

[torpor]

Slashdot ratings are meaningless.

Oddly enough, your "posts to +5's" stats don't prove that you really believe this.

And, if you're wondering, my Karma dick is undoubtedly bigger than yours. :)

I have no interest in dicks other than my own ...

• Did the Pentagon fail to protect the country or not?

My argument was that this was irrelevant.


Well, all I'm saying is that Bush' 'new space program' being motivated to 'put bases on the moon' may not be such a wise idea for geeks to get so hippy-dippy 'behind the leader' about, given the moons military potential, and especially given recent proven American aggression in places it feels it has a right to control.

I'm really not sure I'm comfortable with anyone having a military base on the moon, personally, and ESPECIALLY not America, whose people have a proven track record of letting its leaders abuse its almighty military powers, carte blanche ...

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[fredmosby]

Of coarse the length of a space elevator depends on two things. The mass of the planet it's orbiting, and the rotational period of that planet. The moon has 1/5 the gravity of the earth, but it has a rotational period 30 times as long. So an elevator on the moon may not be that feasible.

MOD PARENT UP

[kippy]

He's right. If you run the numbers, you will see that going to Mars directly is the only real way to go. The Moon only turns out to be a good launch base for the gas giants.

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[fredmosby]

Just one more thing to add...

On the other hand the moon has no atmosphere. So launches from the moon could easily be done with a rail gun.

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[SmackCrackandPot]

I found a link in First Science, The Audacious Space Elevator

Later, Jerome Pearson thought about building a tower on the Moon. He determined that the center of gravity needed to be at the L1 or L2 Lagrangian points, which are special stable points that exist about any two orbiting bodies where the gravitational forces are balanced. The cable would have to be 291,901 kilometers long for the L1 point and 525,724 kilometers long for the L2 point. Compared to the 351,000 kilometers from the Earth to the Moon, that's a long cable, and the material would have to be gathered and manufactured on the Moon.

Problem with that plan

[Gorimek]

Various tree hugging organizations will do whatever they can to stop the launch of a nuclear craft from Earth, but they can't say anything if it's launched from the moon.

But how do you propose to get the nuclear fuel to the moon without launching it from Earth first?

Even assuming we know where to find Uranium on the moon, which we don't, mining and enriching it there would be mindbogglingly expensive.

Re:Problem with that plan

[AKAImBatman]

It's all a matter of perspective. Shipping "ores" to the moon is less scary to most people than shipping working nuclear devices. Especially if you're launching nuclear engines, which people will fear will pollute Earth. Just launch them from the far side of the moon, and people won't be able to complain.

Re:Problem with that plan

[Chibi Merrow]

As someone else pointed out, shipping ores to the Moon isn't all that dangerous. Heck, most every big Interplanetary probe you've heard of in the past forty years has had moderate amounts of plutonium on board. The Moon *will* have Uranium in similar abundances as the Earth, and it also has vast amounts of He-3 that is an excellent fuel for fusion reactors.
I really don't think it would be all that mind-bogglingly expensive to mine and process the stuff. Strip-mining the Moon won't be nearly as unpopular as doing so here on Earth. ^_-

Re:Problem with that plan

[Zordak]

Strip-mining the Moon won't be nearly as unpopular as doing so here on Earth. ^_-

I think you are sorely underestimating the fanaticism of environmentalists. I have heard many complaints about what a tragedy it would be to "screw up" that dead gray rock just like we have earth.

Re:Problem with that plan

[Chibi Merrow]

The bright side is in a vacuum you can't hear them screaming. Plus they won't be there to bug me while I'm pushing the detonator's plunger, since they won't have rockets to get to the moon.

I can't wait until people are upset that we're screwing up Mars by terraforming it.

Huge value for the right purposes as with anything

[Anonymous Coward]

Name one military scenario in the last twenty five years that would be mitigated by a threat from the moon.

How nice of you to limit it to such a historically short period, but I'll still play along. Do you honestly think a new precision targeted crater in the desert of Iraq wouldn't have an impact (pun intended) on relations with that country and the Middle East?

In any case, I was pointing out how it could be of military use, which was the question, not that is was entiry practical. However, if you feel that in a war between nations that dropping a bus sized rock on someone's capital isn't going to bother them, then you might want to put a little more thought into it.

Also, tell me this: say you're a nation and you want to go to space. How are you going to build a launch platform when it's raining rocks at the launch site? There is significant military value to keeping any others from entering space if someone already has this capability on the moon.

Of course, this is all just theory about why it could be of military value, not that any of this should be done.

So Mars...

[DrCode]

...is even better, in case the enemy manages to wipe out your moon missles.

Huge value if applied properly

[CXI]

*sigh* I posted anonymously be accident, so I'll repost and address another point.

Name one military scenario in the last twenty five years that would be mitigated by a threat from the moon.

How nice of you to limit it to such a historically short period, but I'll still play along. Do you honestly think a new precision targeted crater in the desert of Iraq wouldn't have an impact (pun intended) on relations with that country and the Middle East?

In any case, I was pointing out how it could be of military use, which was the question, not that is was entiry practical. However, if you feel that in a war between nations that dropping a bus sized rock on someone's capital isn't going to bother them, then you might want to put a little more thought into it.

Also, tell me this: say you're a nation and you want to go to space. How are you going to build a launch platform when it's raining rocks at the launch site? There is significant military value to keeping any others from entering space if someone already has this capability on the moon.

If the threat is "total destruction", we already have that threat with nuclear subs, and that is far far more tangible than some hocus-pocus base on the moon.

Just because we have weapon A, that doesn't mean weapon B is useless. This argument is meaningless.

Of course, this is all just theory about why it could be of military value, not that any of this should be done.

Bush must lose for the sake of science

[LZ_Mordan]

enough said

Re:Bush must lose for the sake of science

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree fully. He should also lose since he is running this country into the ground.

Re:Huge value for the right purposes as with anyth

[Ars-Fartsica]

How nice of you to limit it to such a historically short period, but I'll still play along. Do you honestly think a new precision targeted crater in the desert of Iraq wouldn't have an impact (pun intended) on relations with that country and the Middle East?

UGH! Is everyone here illiterate? We can ALREADY level the Middle East. Anything you can do with a rock from space I can do for 1% of the cost here, and the difference is my threat is tangible, yours is scifi.

The Moon is a harsh mistress

[rossdee]

Yes one of RAH's best works.

A catapult on the moon could be of great strategic value as a weapon system. Rocks are cheap, and you don't have the problem of fa;;out. Of course you have to be able to defend your catapult or have it hidden underground, like the revolutionaries did in the book.

Importance

[Tango42]

From the article: "Glenn, a retired Democratic senator from Ohio and the first U.S. astronaut to orbit the Earth..." Is the fact that he was a senator really more important than the fact that he was the first American in space? The reason people will listen to him on this issue is because of the latter, not the former (His political experience may in actual fact be more important, but that doesn't change things).

Real soon now

[amightywind]

In just 2 decades, this idea has gone from being impossible to far-out to design studies [sciencentral.com].

Only 2 decades your say? Wow what progress. At this rate a space elevator may take over controlled nuclear fusion over as the technology most likely to revolutionize the world "real soon now."

More notes on why this makes no sense

[Ars-Fartsica]

Second, if you can hit something with a rock the size of a winnebago, you can neutralize basically any nonmoving target, so long as you can wait for the rock to hit, and it will be a "clean" "bomb". Any structure, any city.

And what is your delivery window for this? If its less than one half hour (and thats probably generous), you and all of your assets are DOA. In that time a capable enemy can have ballistic missiles (more than you can shoot down) in the air. In fact they could likely level all of your assets before your rock hits them. And since they will likely have a significant warning about your rock, they may even be able to stop it.

Once again you will have a tough time pinpointing this rock against your most likely adversary, who is likely already in the US by time they are ready to strike. Of course since you do not treat terrorism as war, I guess we would just be "scuffling".

Glen is right and wrong

[Performer Guy]

He's right in that getting to Mars via the moon is utterly laughable, but he's wrong about keeping that multibillion dollar floating tin can of a boondoggle in orbit. The NASA bozos should never have blown billions on the ISS.

Maybe they could strap rockets to the ISS and use it as the human habitation section for a Mars mission. That'd get my vote and maybe even save a few billion on any Mars mission.

Anyone Who Wants to Live on the Moon is Nuts!!!

[rocker_wannabe]

Living on an environmentally hostile planet like the moon or Mars is just crazy at this point, never mind the technological feasibility, or the cost. When NASA can keep a group of people alive for 2 years in a TOTALLY self-contained environment on Earth then we might stand a chance.

The biggest obstacles, IMHO, are the psychological and physiological factors. There is no "going out for a breath of fresh air" on the moon or Mars. We take many things for granted on this earth and have no real substitute for the ocean, rivers, trees, bacteria, etc for renewing our environment. We would need to replicate big parts of Earth to make a distant planet habitable, in any real sense.

What needs to happen is the terraforming of Mars to see if it is feasible. If we have the patience to wait 100 years or so we could make parts of Mars much more hospitable, probably with the help of robotic factories to augment the environment. Of course in this "Short Attention Span" society of ours, 10 years seems like an eternity so what are the odds that anyone would consider a more long-term solution.

Well...

[StarKruzr]

there is the matter of the He-III which has collected on the moon's surface over the millenia. That's a big, big resource to anyone interested in sustainable nuclear fusion.

The Goal

[Hythlodaeus]

The goal isn't to get there. It's to get there and stay there. To do that, we first need to learn how to stay on the moon.

Sen. Glenn the politician

[jmorris42]

Yup, kinda sad to see someone who was once a great man, and a supporter of the space program, spend so much time in Congress he forgets all that and becomes just another political operative. Guess is a Democrat first and and an astronaut/space booster/etc second. All that matters is Bush proposed it so he now has to oppose it. Sad.

It hasnt been the Lewis Research Center since 1999

[Manhigh]

Its now the Glenn Research Center (ironically enough)

BUILD on the moon

[mosb1000]

NO, you don't understand. The idea is not to build the ships here, land then on the moon, refuel them there and launch them form the moon. That would be idioitic.

The idea is to BUILD the ships and equipment on the moon using lunar materials and lanuch them from there. This does make a lot of sense because it is a lot easier to launch from the moon than from earth. Further, it results in us having the infrastructure on the moon to mount similar future missions.

Also it gives us the chance to gain experiance building self-sustaining colonies on other planets. That way when we do get to mars, we can build a perminant colony there too.

In short, it is cheeper in the long run because you get a long term return on your investment(a perminant self-sustaining colony on the moon). And don't you tell me that a self sustaining colony is impossible, nothing is impossible.

Re:BUILD on the moon

[kippy]

I'm afraid you don't understand. The Moon is only useful for a Mars mission as a testbed for hardware. It's cheaper to launch directly from Earth to Mars. However, it's easier to test the hardware you're going to use on the Moon. Even Zubrin supports that and he's about as frantic as you can get on skipping the moon.

The Moon is a harsher environment than Mars so if your equiptment works there, it should work betters on Mars.

Building on the Moon means decades of preperation. During that time, the space program could be derailed by some future Nixon. Getting to Mars ASAP is the best hope for making a human persence in the solar system outside of Earth permanent.

Re:BUILD on the moon

[Ayaress]

Actually, it's cheapest to go from the MOON to MARS, which is the idea with the Lunar base.

You start out with Earth-Mars missions (which are shorter, and you have the free-return trajectory in case things go wrong). Once you have a small contstruction system set up, you stop bringing people back every time, and just start doing more and more one-way trips to deliver work and supplies that can't be grown/built/mined on-site.

The people for the Moon-Mars missions would be sent to the Moon fairly early in this project. They would train on the Moon, they would work with the hardware for field trials on the moon, and when the time comes, they would lanch the spacecraft and materials, built on the moon, to Mars.

You're also thinking of only ONE mission. Hopefully when we get off our cans and start doing something useful (or at least interesting) in space again, we won't just do it once or twice and go back to piddling around in low-earth-orbit like we did last time.

The moon base would be the building, training, and launching point for NUMEROUS missions to Mars, as well as serving it's built-in scientific and economic potential as a permanant low-gravity (as opposed to our current permanant micro-gravity) installation.

Heck, once it's running well, Earth-Moon missions would become less and less neccessary. The cool thing about human resources is that if you leave them in a confined area long enough, they tend to build more human resources for you.

Re:BUILD on the moon

[kippy]

Actually, it's cheapest to go from the MOON to MARS, which is the idea with the Lunar base.

Not really. From an energy standpoint, it is cheaper to go from the Earth to Mars than Earth-Moon-Mars. But if you have a self-sustaining base on the Moon, it's cheaper right? Well yes but there's a difference between a scientific outpost and an industrial complex/mine/power plant/farm/foundry that you would need to make Cape Canaveral on the Moon. That would take decades and hundreds of billions (possibly trillions) to make. I find it questionable that it would ever pay for itself.

You start out with Earth-Mars missions (which are shorter, and you have the free-return trajectory in case things go wrong). Once you have a small construction system set up, you stop bringing people back every time, and just start doing more and more one-way trips to deliver work and supplies that can't be grown/built/mined on-site.

I'm assuming you meant Earth-Moon in that last paragraph. First, Mars has a free-return trajectory too. Second, the only things you'll be able to get on the moon are sunshine and rocks. You'd have to ship everything from Earth. Why not just send it to Mars where you can synthesize everything you need in-situ?

You're also thinking of only ONE mission. Hopefully when we get off our cans and start doing something useful (or at least interesting) in space again, we won't just do it once or twice and go back to piddling around in low-earth-orbit like we did last time.

The moon base would be the building, training, and launching point for NUMEROUS missions to Mars, as well as serving it's built-in scientific and economic potential as a permanent low-gravity (as opposed to our current permanent micro-gravity) installation.

I'm not thinking of one mission. Read up on Mars Direct. It outlines a cheap, repeatable way to do return missions that lead into a self sustaining colony within the current NASA budget.


Heck, once it's running well, Earth-Moon missions would become less and less necessary. The cool thing about human resources is that if you leave them in a confined area long enough, they tend to build more human resources for you.

They are not necessary now. They are useful as a hardware testground and that's about it. This isn't Warcraft or Civ where you start a colony and it magically grows. It costs money, time, life and votes. If we can't go to Mars in a timely and intelligent fashion, it will be doomed from day one.

Bush or Glenn, men to Mars is dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

John Glenn's was a talented jet jockey, but his mind froze up long ago. Direct to Mars like he wants is simply a redo of NASA's direct to the moon idea, chosen not because it was the best way, but because it was the cheapest/quickest way to beat the Soviets. If one link in that single chain approach fails, the crew dies. And the chain to Mars if far longer than that to the moon. Repeat Apollo 13 for Mars and you get dead astronauts drifting forever in space.

Glenn and numerous others are also living under the illusion that everything of value must be prefixed with "manned"--manned trips to the moon (1960s), a manned space shuttle (1970-80s), a manned space station (1990s) and now manned trips to Mars. All were or are too much money for too little benefit to the public or to science.

In reality, telescopes, computers and robotics have improved to the point where people have become a costly nuisance in space. Their life support system are too complex, they always have to be returned to earth, and too much money has to be spent on their safety. And so forth....

The ISS costs far too much for the pitifully little science it produces. Hubble would have been been a better telescope and had a longer life if it had been designed to be serviced by robots rather than people. Mars multiplies all the factors that make people in space a costly nuisance by a hundred. Mars could be explored better and cheaper by an increasingly complex series of robotics, some able to return material to earth.

Space fans need to face the fact the the public is no longer interested in manned space ventures to the point where they're willing to fund schemes like Mars. From their perspective (and that of science), a robot gives 95% of the value for 5% of the cost. Send more robots and you get 300% of the value for 15% of the cost.

Space fans have always been caught up in the illusion that space is the new frontier, that going to the moon or Mars is like Columbus discovering American and the Lewis and Clark expedition. That's nonsense. In Columbus' day you could buy a ship in which you could sail around the world (slowly) in any of dozens of European ports. Even the cost was no big deal. Private individuals regularly funded trading trips to Asia via the horn of Africa. Going around the world was only about 2 or 3 times more costly than that.

Space isn't like that. We don't have the technology to take us to Mars and getting it will take huge sums of money that most Americans think, quite rightly, ought to be spend elsewhere.

As much as I like space exploration, we have to be realistic. Manned trips anywhere but near earth probably won't make sense for several generations or longer. The chief advantage of Bush's Mars program isn't that it will take us to the moon and on to Mars. It's that it provides us cover for leaving the foolish ISI to Europe and the Russians. Then we can conveniently forget about the moon and Mars.

In the long run, being realistic may give us a real and continuing presence in space sooner than a single symbolic push to put human footprints on the red sand of Mars. Look at what happened to our drive to the moon. We went a few times and haven't returned once in over 30 years. Our moon landing came too soon, was too rushed and became more symbolism than substance (much like the JFK who originated the idea).

Like it or not, the future of space exploration is robotics for our solar system and telescopes for the rest of the universe. If we're smart, we'll put our creativity and money there. Until someone comes up with the actual physics for a "warp drive" we're stuck on Earth.

And there are certainly worse places to be stuck than our charming little planet.

--Mike Perry

http://www.InklingBooks.com

Lunar rocks don't have plausible deniablity

[Baron_Yam]

A few checks with military radar and the course can be traced back to point of origin.

As long as the rock was observed (by people who survive the impact) for several seconds before impact, the origin would be well known.

If it was suspected that there was anything like a loaded military mass driver on the Moon pointed at Earth, you can bet it there would be radar watching it 24/7.

Niggling point

[cagle_.25]

Lasers aren't subject to inverse square law. Consider the typical laser pointer: it can illuminate a point up to 25+m away using only 5mW of power. An equivalent light bulb, which *does* obey inverse square, can't do diddly squat at that distance.

Lasers only diminish at far distances because the wavefunctions of the output photons aren't perfectly coherent.

BTW, the inverse-square-law occurs for light bulbs because they generate radiation uniformly in all directions; hence, the intensity = P/A = P/(4*pi*r^2) drops off proportional to r^(-2).

I agree with a lot of your other points.

Bad for my kids, but good for me :-)

[Anonymous Coward]

>>John Glenn lost all credibility with me when, as a US senator, he pulled that garbage line about "exploring the effects of age on space travel" as an excuse to get NASA to launch him back to space.

>Yes, of course it was an excuse.

20 million here and 20 million there, and it all adds up to real money.

Fortunately, I work for a VERY large bank (nameless, as am I).

I know it's stupid to spend that kind of money when we are in debt more than any other time in history. BUT, if the government was borrowing less I can tell you for a FACT that people in my company (inc. me!) would have bbeen laid off after Sept 11.

Yes, loansharking is not an honorable trade. But who'se got the Lexus?? :-P

All *I* can say is, I'm glad I am 58 years old. I'll be dead before this dinner chekc gets paid. God bless you young kids you're predestined for one fuvked economy.

Re:Niggling point

[wisebabo]

isn't the moon (250,000 miles) and even LEO pretty much a "far distance" when compared to a laser with a beam width measured in meters? At this point doesn't the cross section of the beam still drops with the inverse of the distance? (and the intensity light/area drops with the inverse square?) A laser pointer with a beam with of a few millimeters illuminating a target a few tens of meters away has a beam width that is still relatively large in proportion to the overall distance. That is I can shine my laser pointer at a wall 1 meters away and it covers a spot 10mm across. At 10 meters the beam may only have expanded to say 30mm across (not 100) because the output at the beam's source was 10mm to begin with. On the other hand this same beam shining on an object 1km away might produce a spot 1m across. Now if it illuminated an object 10km away the beam would be 10m across (and 100th the intensity). What I'm trying to say is that at far enough distances, everything is a point source. Check out my post in the tumbleweeds in Mars article!

I wish I have some moderator points

[XPACT]

I would give you 5 informative :)))) You are right!!!! Even 0.5c is impossible!!!

Re:THAT IS WHAT EVERYBODY HATES ABOUT AMERICA!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

selfmade terrorism owns you.

Oh yes, because we are opressing the islamic world. It's all big bad America's fault. We are so tyranical!

Send him, but don't bring him back

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem!!!

Re:military value of the moon is all in the physic

[Moofie]

Stand on the surface of the moon. Drop a rock. What happens?

Hint: the rock does not go hurtling towards Earth.

Any military utility from rocks on the moon pre-supposes a rail gun, the construction costs of which would dwarf the wettest dreams of the most hardware-lovin' Pentagon techno-wonks.

So why is this viable again?

Glenn is only slightly better than the monkey

[thelizman]

...and he sure as hell isn't an accountant. I've not seen a serious scientist yet advocate a direct trajectory mission to mars with a straight face. The cost getting enough fuel and payload off the ground is enormous (and will remain so until the space elevator gets erected). A moon base is a practical first step and fuel generation point (mmm, He3 fusion rockets).

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[Idarubicin]

On the other hand the moon has no atmosphere. So launches from the moon could easily be done with a rail gun.

Quite right. Rail guns only work for cargo, however. Squishy people do much better with a space elevator. I wouldn't be surprised if the two technologies even existed in tandem. You could certainly make use of a rail gun in constructing an elevator, for that matter.

Technological spin-offs - resource conservation

[sarahtim]

I'm a Mars nut and have been for many years. It got a lot worse after reading Zubrin's The Case For Mars which convinced me it will not cost a trillion dollars but could be done inside the current NASA budget.

The most frequent argument against going to Mars seems to me to be that it costs too much and doesn't fix problems on Earth. Supporters usually mention the technology spin-offs but this doesn't really address the concerns of the fix-Earth-first brigade.

For 10 biillion or so people to live happily on Earth we are going to have to improve our resource utilisation and recycliing technologies. These technologies will be critical for the success of a Mars base and the necessity of being super-efficient on Mars will lead to breakthroughs that can be used on Earth. It would be a crucible for pushing the state of the art in recycling.

Re: Silly waystation - space elevator on the moon?

[fredmosby]

It wouldn't have to accelerate people very fast. It could be miles long and accelerate people over it's entire length. In order to get escape velocity while giving the cargo 3 G's of force would take 80 seconds, and 100Km of track.

Parent is trolling

[ediron2]

Wow, enigma, you really shouldn't take so many red pills at once.

An astronaut talks about keeping things simple and you somehow turn this into political posturing. Further, you so invert the logic to even say "I guess politics wins out over safety of astronaut lives."

How does a 2 or 3 stop mission improve safety?

The only thing that'd make the irony thicker is if Glenn, instead of Shepp, were famous for the "everything was made by the lowest bidder" quote.

Incidentally, there are a lot of responses to the story showing the fuel costs make a 2 stop mission a bad idea. Add in stresses to hardware under takeoff and landing, dust and other unforseens on the moon and I agree with the senator: keep it simple. Redo apollo, with an orbiter and lander pair. Get there, get back.

After that, we can go to work on increasing budgets to prevent another 30 year lag before the next mission. The two are separate issues, though. Budget cuts and cancellations (bipartisan) have gotten us here.

Attn moderators: If this was a carefully researched rant, I'd support your moderating it up. But it isn't. There is a factual error (30 not 50 years), several unsupported declarations (need settlements, the lesser complexity of a moon COLONY vs. a mars RUN, a moonbase improves access to mars, and his safety vs. politics rant) and it *insults* a prominent figure just to declare partisan politics as the basis for Glenn's thinking. If the parent message doesn't deserve being modded down, not much does. Repeatedly, I've stepped up to defend space programs, and repeatedly I get notes from other pro-space types that say it's a waste of breath, since there seems to be something about space exploration stories that makes computer geeks into armchair rocket scientists. Please... prove 'em wrong.

Re:Parent is trolling

[prisoner-of-enigma]

An astronaut talks about keeping things simple and you somehow turn this into political posturing.

I'm going to ask you to answer the same question posed to the Senator: precisely how is a Mars mission "simple" compared to a Moon mission?

The answer: it isn't, and you're too blind to see that.

Attn moderators: If this was a carefully researched rant, I'd support your moderating it up. But it isn't. There is a factual error (30 not 50 years),

We haven't gone back yet, you fool, so 30 years vs. 50 years has yet to be decided.

several unsupported declarations (need settlements,

Are you going to argue that we don't need settlements, that humanity will be just fine for eternity on Earth alone?

the lesser complexity of a moon COLONY vs. a mars RUN,

Yes, my shortsighted comrade. If something goes wrong on an Earth-lunar run, you're not that far from help. If something goes wrong on an Earth-Mars run, you're pretty much SOL. And that doesn't even begin to debate the worthiness of spending several billion dollars to put a bootprint on Mars versus spending that same money to give us a permanent lunar colony. Such a colony would give valuable experience in setting up such an offworld site, experience that could be put to use making a permanent Mars colony. Given the vast distances involved, a Mars RUN is far less perferrable to a Mars COLONY. Send folks there to STAY, not to return a few rocks.

moonbase improves access to mars

I challenge you to find the part of my post that actually stated this. You won't find it because this is pure conjecture on your part, probably derived from your intense desire to fabricate me saying something wrong. Too bad it's just your paranoia showing up, because you're lying. Regardless that I never said it, I wouldn't have said it anyway because I don't believe it. However, a moon base would be easier to construct and would give us valuable experience in setting up such a base. That is not to be underestimated, my underestimating comrade.

and his safety vs. politics rant

As opposed to your fabricating rant?

and it *insults* a prominent figure

Insults? No, I stated my opinion. If it differs from yours, tough. It seems you've got a terminal case of defending a Democrat, even if it means sacrificing logic and common sense, even to the point of fabricating statements I never made. Typical.

Re:Parent is trolling

[ediron2]

1. A mars MISSION is easier than a moon BASE. One's a rocket, an orbiter and a lander, the other equates to vacuum-resistant living space for MUCH more staff, I'd assume a mining capability to generate fuel or consumables, assembling gear in a dusty zero-atmosphere area, the much larger issues of large-crew life support, getting all of the above into of the moon's gravity well during all stages of assembly, etc. Ball's in your court to explain how the complexity equation would even remotely be otherwise. Base vs. Mission. Not base vs. base. No redefining terms midgame.
2. We're *at* 30 years, not 50. And both Glenn and Bush seem to be talkin' short-term plans (less than 20 years). 50 years is not factual as a frame of reference. Semantic games that shift you to being in the right because of speculation are unrealistic, since it could be 33, 38 41, 54, 938, or never. I can't believe I'm having to point this out, but SPECULATION IS NOT FACT. Oh, and calling me a fool is ad homenim. You seem to do that a lot, checking prior posts. How sad. That's proof in my book that you're incapable of relying simply on the strength of your argument. Doing the attacks, and subsequent denying such acts are insults (which you do in a later paragraph) is typical of a dittohead, though. Are you one?
3. I need air. I need food. I don't need a trip to mars. Sad, but true. All my life, I've had opinions that'd likely make me the biggest proponent of space travel you'll ever meet, but I don't say 'need'. Burden of proof for the word 'need' is on you. Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I'm both uncertain if we'll ever get Out of Here and less certain that it matters. Out of Here, in my book, is actually attaining interstellar travel. As inhospitable as the nearby remotely-earthlike planets or moons are, Manifest Destiny is going to have to mean interstellar travel. Life anywhere else in our solar system is just too inhospitable to count as really 'living'. Even mars and venus would need an unimaginable amount of work to support life as we know it. Incidentally, I'm also of the opinion that, in the universe, life will turn out to be insanely common (if we ever learn) and intelligent life won't be that unlikely, but that's my opinion. Based on that, and a slowly-decreasing respect for humanity (we, as a species, lack control, class, etc) over the last few decades, I'm pretty ok with us not colonizing. The universe won't care, either way. Thinking we're unique resembles pre-copernican delusions of the true importance of humanity in the universe. All things considered, I'm most on your side with this argument. I want us Out There more than almost anything else. I just don't admit it's a NEED. And you insulted someone I respect AND questioned his committment to space-related things in the tawdry name of smearing his argument with a brush called partisanship. Saying we shouldn't go would be bad. Saying what he did say (mars direct) sounds like a desire to stand behind SOMETHING THAT HE BELIEVES CAN PASS that gets us back off our thumbs. A something that is politically more likely, by the way. I'd wager nobody's as frustrated as the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo generation of astronauts and engineers and technicians who are reaching the end of their lives without seeing a turnabout from how deeply space research has been cut. Then there's the space-research ROI. Ever seen the 7 dollar quote?
4. If something goes wrong anywhere in space, you're in Trouble with a capital T. But you've left out a point of complexity in your counterargument: I don't disagree trouble earth-to-moon is easier to help than earth-to-mars. I do disagree that anything is improved by adding the moon. The earth-to-moon notwithstanding, you're still stuck with a leg that goes from here to there (the MOON to MARS part). I feel that the odds of things being made worse with a moon-based midpoint are significant. Any mission servicing on the moon is inordinately tougher. Clean rooms, fuel sources, manpower, time-lag fo

Re:Parent is trolling

[prisoner-of-enigma]

A mars MISSION is easier than a moon BASE.

Perhaps you're hard of reading. Allow me to speak very slowly: I don't disagree with this point! However, what I do disagree with is the benefits of a Moon base versus a Mars mission. What will we gain by sending half a dozen astronauts to Mars, let them gather some rocks, and send them back? We could send automated sample gathering missions far easier than we could manned missions, and several such missions are already in the planning stages.

A moonbase, however, would give us valuable experience doing something we've never done before, namely the construction of an offworld surface-based permanent habitat. Pretty much anything that would be sent to Mars could be field-tested on the Moon in much greater safety, with faster results, and at a lower cost. You seem to think (as does the senile Senator) that we're just going to plop a moonbase up on 'ole Luna and then sit back and do nothing for the next century. I don't think so. A moonbase would be used to gear up for Mars, and thus it would make any future Mars mission simpler, safer, faster, cheaper, or any combination thereof.

We're *at* 30 years, not 50. And both Glenn and Bush seem to be talkin' short-term plans (less than 20 years)

We're at 30 years. President Bush's plan calls for manned missions by the end of the decade or thereabouts. The last moon mission was in 1971. The time interval would be about 39 years. You want to quibble over minutiae, then quibble. You're just seeming petty at this point.

I need air. I need food. I don't need a trip to mars.

Keep saying that the next time a killer asteroid comes heading our way. Ultimately, we need to establish an offworld presence simple as a means to preserve the race in the face of global catastrophe.

If something goes wrong anywhere in space, you're in Trouble with a capital T.

As proven by Apollo 13, you may be in a lot of trouble, but it's a helluva lot less trouble to get you back on a 2-3 day moon journey than it is to get you back from a 6-9 month Mars journey. With Luna you have the option of a free return trajectory that'll get you back to Earth in a few days even if the engines fail. With Mars...no such option. You head out, you're going to be there for a long, long time if anything goes wrong. Far more dangerous, and that doesn't even take into account the fact that any Mars mission would take you outside the Earth's magnetosphere, making you much more vulnerable to solar flares. With the Moon...that's not a problem. You are severely underestimating the difficulties involved here. Whether it's out of ignorance or malice I can't yet judge.

Also, colonizing mars might be easier than colonizing the moon. Atmosphere? Got some. Water: looks like maybe so. Gravity (for long-term physiological effects, since that seems an issue for zero-g space station residents): near what we're used to. Landing: can air-brake instead of fuel-braked descent (which means fuel usage advantage goes to mars). A day's about the same length. I'm sure there are more. How does a moon-base outweigh those advantages?

Atmosphere? Unbreathable and thinner than most terrestrial vacuums.

Water? Yes, but surveys indicate there's water ice on the moon as well. You can always get water from fuel cells, though, and any space vehicle is going to have these.

Gravity? Yes, it's there, and stronger than the moon's gravity. That's a hindrance if you're trying to get off the damned planet, you know. Physiologically, 1/3rd G isn't much different from 1/6th G. Zero G is the primary bone and muscle mass killer, but even small amounts of gravity counteract this.

Landing: can air-brake instead of fuel-braked descent (which means fuel usage advantage goes to mars).

Only for landing. For taking off you have a higher gravity well to climb out of and you have atmosp

Re:Parent is trolling

[ediron2]

So, as I see it, you're a true native Vulgarian, too dim to carry an argument on the strength of logic alone, and you have some delusional aspects. There isn't a paragraph you've written that is worth response, including the ones where I challenged you to explain claims only to have you say 'I did' or equally loftless witticisms. You rant for 3x the usual /. post length but refuse to take the time to cut/paste evidence for your claims. Lazy. Par for lowest-common-denominator narrowminded leave-it-to-beaver throwbacks-to-the-fifties toting preconceived notions dictated by the extreme right. Or, since you obviously can't use or afford a dictionary, what are often called dittoheads.

Bozo bit flipped. (hint: http://www.codeguru.com/columns/VB/article.php/c46 07/)

PS: I did get a helluva laugh about you calling Glenn's spaceflight self-serving, since you seem to be championing a draft-dodging reservist pilot who wasted god knows how much to land on a carrier for a photo op. Thanks for the chuckles.

Re:Parent is trolling

[prisoner-of-enigma]

So, as I see it, you're a true native Vulgarian, too dim to carry an argument on the strength of logic alone, and you have some delusional aspects.

I was wondering when you'd get around to responding, and as I suspected, you're unable to directly attack the logical arguments I presented. Instead, you've resorted to ad hominem attacks. This is truly the typical tactic of the non-thinker, and goes far to prove my point that you have no thought process, only an emotional reaction.

There isn't a paragraph you've written that is worth response,

Yet you chose to respond. How funny!

I challenged you to explain claims only to have you say 'I did' or equally loftless witticisms.

I supposed the fact that I did point your failings out in a previous post escaped you. No doubt on purpose, since you are unlikely to ever admit to fabricating anything. Too bad the evidence condemned you of it several posts ago, you're just too lazy to go back and look at it.

PS: I did get a helluva laugh about you calling Glenn's spaceflight self-serving, since you seem to be championing a draft-dodging reservist pilot who wasted god knows how much to land on a carrier for a photo op. Thanks for the chuckles.

Draft-dodging? When was George W. Bush drafted? Oh, I forget, he wasn't. More lies from someone who's proven themselves to be an adept, but stupid, liar.

Wasted money? How much money? I'm sure you have a dollar figure since you've thought to include this in your argument. And I suppose all of Bill Clinton's visits to carriers, as well as the current Senator Kerry's visits to U.S. Naval vessels, completely escaped your radar, right?

Why not come out and admit it? You oppose the Bush plan not because it's a bad plan but because it's a Bush plan. You support Glenn's comments not because it's a good plan but because it's a Democratic plan.

In short, you're a dyed-in-the-wool leftist liberal who's more than willing to sacrifice logic in order to push an emotion-based argument. I should be thanking you for the chuckles, but it's acutally repugnant having to converse with someone so bereft of cognitive thought as you.

Re:Parent is trolling

[prisoner-of-enigma]

You know what the sad thing about this argument is? If the Bush and Glenn proposals were reversed, I'd support Glenn's position. You, however, wouldn't support the Bush position because you hate and despise anything that comes out of his administration. You would never let reality stand in the way of being two-faced and partisan, would you?

Re:Parent is trolling

[ediron2]

Whatever. You wanna re-engage this conversation, change your tone. Otherwise, you're indistinguishable from a troll.

Re:Parent is trolling

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Whatever. You wanna re-engage this conversation, change your tone. Otherwise, you're indistinguishable from a troll.

By your definition, then, a troll must be anyone who disagrees with you strongly enough to state it out logically, and who requires the same of you. You want to suppot Glenn's position, fine. Be prepared to defend that position logically and you won't be ridiculed. Instead of using logic, you've used innuendo, calculated misunderstandings, and absolute fabrication in some places. If it is your intention to garner respect for these tactics, you've utterly failed.

You wish me to change my tone? Let's make a deal then: you start acting like a logical human being with a logical point to debate and I'll engage you logically. You start tossing in distortions, lies, partisan bickering, and namecalling ("Vulgarian"?) and I'll nail your worthless carcass to the wall with logic.

Bush's January space plan merely "posing"

[MMHere]

He was merely posing for the press. He barely altered NASA's budget (adding $1B to existing $87B budget, a 1% increase). The science is bad. Unless the moon already has sufficient resources to provide most of the mass of the project, using the moon as a stepping stone is bad physics.

Why loft materials out of Earth's gravity well and into another sizable gravity well (the moon). You end up doing the heavy lifting twice.

If they wanted to stage from an earth orbiting station, that might make a little more sense. All told you expend the same/similar energy getting out of Earth's well if you pause part of the way out. If there is benefit of assembly in zero-G (free fall), then you could utilize a space station.

(Existing space station orbit is too far out of the solar plane to be useful in its current location, BTW.)

Re:John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go mo

[danila]

whoops. ignore I said any of that. tinfoil hat slipped

Actually, if your tinfoil had slipped, you would not say anything of that, since THEY would obviously be able to manipulate thoughts in your brain, unprotected from the biomagnetic mind control devices. Assuming THEY == guvmint, you would be forced to believe that the mission to Moon in fact happened and nothing interesting was found there.

So I would presume you are an agent of the system, be it the guvmint or aliens. You are attempting to turn the question of the true Moon findings into a joke, trying to make those of us with fully functional tin hats and those immune to mind control believe that there was nothing of note there. But you will not fool us!

Another DUMB idea

[Anonymous Coward]

What can your rail gun do that the nukes we have already bought, paid for, and tested not do???

Re:Huge value for the right purposes as with anyth

[addaon]

I think you misunderstand. The desire for bigger and better weapons is not driven by their destructive ability, but by the lust for their destructive ability. A lot of people in very high places get their rocks off by thinking about being able to kill billions, not just millions, of people. These are the people who drive military development today.

Excuse Me

[Chaturbhoja]

I agree with everything above. We are not the only Nation that has a space program. Unless you have a Secret Plan to make Everybody Love Each Other Right Now (in which case, I would love to hear your secret plan), what is being said is a good argument for A United States Presence on Luna. Now, mind you, I don't really care who gets there first; we are currently on Good Terms with two of the three other Powers that have the independant capability of placing Human People on the Moon. But we must be there, and there must be a military presence there. .

Re:John Glenn doesn't want the rest of us to go mo

[Anonymous Coward]

So. why doesn't John Glenn want the rest of us to go to the moon? what's he hiding? WHAT DO THEY KNOW IS UP THERE.

The secret colony of Women Who Love Engineers, of course.

Re:Niggling point

[Mikeydude750]

Then how were lasers used to accurately determine the distance of the moon? If what you say is true, there wouldn't be enough detectable photons deflected from the mirror left on the moon to be received.

Space elevators not practical on moon...

[Goonie]

I don't have Bradley Edwards' book with me which discusses this in some detail, but IIRC you can't build a space elevator on the moon because the "selino-stationary" orbit is way, way, way, too far out.

Dock Worker

[*SpOoNdRiFt*]

I used to work on a truck dock, and we had a philosophy that we lived by when loading and unloading trucks: never move your freight twice. It's double work. I'm with Glenn.

Re:Niggling point

[cagle_.25]

IANALaser Tech, so I can't give you hard numbers. However, I would make the following points:

In your example, the mathematical relationship between the numbers is not 1/r^2 but 1/r^n, where n is about 1. I'm willing to accept a 1/r^n relationship as likely, but I am fairly confident that n is close to 0.

As evidence, I would appeal to the use of lasers to find the distance to the moon. Apollo 11 left mirrors on the moon, and lasers have been used to check the distance to the moon. In order for this to work, the drop-off in intensity must be negligible, at least for well-tuned lasers (i.e., not the cheapo solid-state laser pointers).

Regards,
Jeff Cagle

P.S. read your post. It was interesting, although I confess ignorance on Mars issues.

typos

[ediron2]

ye gods... manner, not manor. s/manor/manner/g for the perl-inclined. Also, s/Not Going/Not debating Going/g

far side radio telescope

[mforbes]

One question: what's the best way to transmit the signals from the telescope back to our Earth-bound scientists?

I only see a few solutions, but maybe someone else can suggest others:

• Build a really friggin' long cable to carry the signal to the near side, and then have a broadcasting station to send the signal the rest of the way
• Put the broadcasting station at the telescope itself, but use a frequency so low that the wave form is larger than the moon's diameter (of course, bleed-off from this could interfere with the observations, but that's an engineering problem)
• Put a narrowcasting station near the telescope, and have it aimed at a satellite in halo orbit around L5. In that orbit, the satellite would always be visible both to the telescope and to Earth-orbiting satellites that could then repeat the signal.
• Use the same narrowcasting station, but use more repeaters: a few in lunar polar orbit, and more in lunar equatorial orbit. A properly configured network of satellites would guarantee that a continuous link between the telescope and Earth is always available. Of course, this & the L5 halo orbit both have the potential to intefere with observations. Both of these also have problems associated with maintenance. With Hubble, we've been able to send the shuttle up for repair & maintenance missions-- and now that we're not, we've numbered its days. What do we do with setups like we're talking about here? Crash land old satellites on the lunar surface & send up replacements?

Any other ideas?