Because they won't fight back...

[breakingnews]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

But who owns the moon? Is there enough space for everyone?

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, but the bill had nothing about creating a separate democratic alliance for governing the moon. Thus he and some other lunar-tics (har har) established an intergalatic federation (not joking) of sorts and were distributing deeds to land plots on the moon. He said the major hotel chains were so far their best customers; on the show, he gave Carson, Donald Trump and Nelly each their own titles to moon property.

I think he ran into some troubles after this. I don't remember his name, so I've been searching for reviews of that episode to find a list of the guests on the show ... however, in three instances his name was omitted entirely. I have a feeling his appearance may have been axed from the broadcast show - there's no way there would be no mention of something this quirky. Furthermore, imbd.com says actor Dennis Hopper appeared on that episode. Perhaps there was a switcheroo.

Anyway. I think a moon base would be awesome. If we have the resources to travel out there and beyond, hell, go for it. We might as well try it while we can - we could end up with the dinosaurs in another couple thousand years.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property,..

Here's another occasion to be pleased about the UN's utter powerlessness. It is a shame that states will be involved in any way but its a big universe once you get a foothold.

[9th Engineer]

We'll probably need to complete the space elevator before any sort of large scale extraterrestrial construction becomes really feasable. I heard a quote on that for about 2020, we need to increase our technology surrounding carbon nanotubes a bit first. It's supposed to reduce the cost of transporting materials to space to only a few thousand dollars a pound or less.

[Shocker]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

I went to Last Call with Carson Daly in September 2004, and one of the guests was this whackjob who formed some federation that supposedly would govern the moon when it becomes inhabitable.

His point was that the UN's Outer Space Treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, but the bill had nothing about creating a separate democratic alliance for governing the moon. Thus he and some other lunar-tics (har har) established an intergalatic federation (not joking) of sorts and were distributing deeds to land plots on the moon. He said the major hotel chains were so far their best customers; on the show, he gave Carson, Donald Trump and Nelly each their own titles to moon property.

I've read about this guy... you send him some money and then he will send you a deed for some 'property' on the moon. He also sales deeds for other celestial bodies. Only problem is that while the international treaty prohibits nations from claiming extraterrestrial property, it doesn't mention anything about sales to private individuals. However, such sales of 'lunar property' are not legally recognized by any nation or world body. I couldn't find his name because most of the internet is blocked at my work, but I know he is from Nevada and you can read more about him at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Registry
and http://www.lunarregistry.com

[9th Engineer]

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands, right now we can make them a few tens of centemeters long. Carbon nanofiber will be strong enough and flexable enough to make a permanent Earth to space connection possible, it's about 100 times stronger than steel and as flexable as plastic. At our current rate of progress I would say we could have everything ready for construction by ~2030, but that wouldn't take the accelerating law of returns into account.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

The only material we need to work on is how long we can braid carbon nanotube strands,

I hope so, but manufacturing will have to become extremely exact, as the tiniest flaw dramatically decreases the strength of a nanotube. And I don't know the physics, but I can certainly see hard radiation, drastic temperature differentials, and space-dust impacts could cause imperfections even if our production methods are perfect. Some form of continually-replaced shielding would probably be needed, which would dramatically increase the weight of the cable.

[tw]

Originally Posted by breakingnews

Anyway. I think a moon base would be awesome. If we have the resources to travel out there and beyond, hell, go for it. We might as well try it while we can - we could end up with the dinosaurs in another couple thousand years.

Be very careful about letting your emotions replace logical thought. Same hype created a Space Shuttle that cost the US leadership in space launching. Why? Space Shuttle was not created for science or for logical accomplishment. It was created on emotional hype that America would have a space airplane. Air Force was particularly interested in this so as to create a Space Force.

Overlooked his where mankind is accomplishing great things. Robotics is how great men have been advancing mankind. Need I cite example after example - Martian Rovers, the constellation of satellites now in orbit around Mars, Hubble Space Telescope, Chandler, Solar Max, etc. Even earth borne telescopes operate on robotics. And the future tools for this are being developed by innovators in waves. Already the Martian Rovers have been provided with artificial intelligence to change their mission based upon events they detect. Almost all NASA science is accomplished on less than 10% of its budget - in robotics and other intelligent machines.

'Grand Challenge' again demonstrates the future of who will be the world leaders. Next year, 'Urban Challenge' continues making tools that are so necessary for mans conquest of the unknown - and that means space exploration. A benchmark for whether you grasp mankind's greatest advances. Do you know about Grand Challenge and Urban Challenge?

Because a Moon Base is proposed by an administration full of political extremists - and that means low intelligence - then I am indeed suspicious. It would be illogical to not be extremely suspicious. Meanwhile, manned flight repeatedly results in the least prosperous science and at tens of times more cost. After $tens of billion on the International Space Station, ISS still does no science.

Why was the Columbia destroyed? It was carrying the only manned space experiments that we do - Space Lab. Did you know that? Then why do you think a manned moon base is good? Again, we have seen what happens when emotion and political rhetoric is reason for doing something. Do you approve of a moon base only because it feels 'cool'? Or are you doing what a patriotic American does – first learn facts?

When Ballard was doing deep ocean research, he learned something stunning. Rather than look out of portholes, his scientists were running to their instruments and cameras. That is when Ballard got the message. Robotics is the future of deep ocean accomplishment - not manned probes. Have you yet learned the future - or are you so in the 'Columbus discovered America' mode?

Use principles even from Military Science 101. What is the strategic objective? Advancement of science advances mankind. Throwing big bucks at something – ie International Space Station, Space Shuttle, etc – only permtted others to become the advancers of mankind. Need we again cite how America lost space leadership due to Shuttle?

The history of America is doing things for logical reasons. What does a moonbase do other than advance the legacy of George Jr? That question should scare you.

[bluesdave]

tw, you are quite correct regarding robotics, and satellite based technology. Many scientists at NASA and associated organisations believe that sending manned missions into space is a waste of money, and that "man" can do nothing that a robot cannot, and usually robotic laboratories (aka Mars Rover), are far more cost effective than a "manned" equivalent mission.

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

If Nixon had not killed the Apollo mission, we would have had a base on the Moon by 1975 (that was the plan), and the whole of the space programme probably would have taken a different direction. Who knows which branch of possible futures would have been better for mankind (I'm getting a little Sci-Fi here, I know).

One argument in favour of the Moon base is that it will be much easier, and cheaper, to launch craft to Mars (and beyond). Maybe something useful will be salvaged from the political decisions.

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights (we have also benefited from the non-manned programmes). Unfortunately, I do not recall the site.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

Having said that, we have to accept that there is a strong emotional aspect to the argument. We all cheered when JFK announced the mission to land men on the moon, in that famous speech in 1961. I remember watching Neil Armstrong taking his first steps live on TV in 1969.

It is a trade off between cost - both financial and in people's lives, and benefits - technological and emotional.

In 1960s, only robots we had were Neil Armstrong, et al. So we sent what we had. The transistor was but less than ten years old. Something extremely rare - a commerical version of a microprocessor that cost about $2000 or something over $15,000 in today’s money (plus support chips). Instruments that could see and remember also did not exist.

Today, instruments routinely see things that man cannot - and record them. Machines measure things that man cannot. Man must visit and leave quickly – machines stay and keep working. By 2010, an army must even have fleets of trucks that drive themselves. Why then is a manned moon base in 2020 so important?

Again, this sounds too much like a decision by those without any grasp of science and without even knowledge of Military Science 101. Political types did not provide facts about going to the moon in 1960. Back then, the president's legacy was not more important than America.

Clearly there will be parts of our space program that require man just as those telescopes on Hawaii and Hubble also require visits from men. But to create a manned moon base only to promote a political agenda or hype emotion - that sounds exactly why we are wasting Americans in Iraq.

If there is a purpose to this manned moon base, then where are those facts - those all so necessary details - the underlying science that will be studied? No details are provided. This is Vietnam, Iraq, and ISS deja vue all over again. Just because Queen Isabella had to send a human to find America means robots still cannot do it better today?

What is the mission? What is the objective? Emotion has no place in such decisions. Emotion creates defeat, death, loss of power, destruction of science, both Vietnam and Iraq, and is even what murdered seven Challenger astronauts and seven Columbia astronauts. Do we call that advancing mankind because we feel good? I smell the legacy of George Jr - America's nominee for worst president - all over this program.

Why did Nixon cancel future space launches? Vietnam war could not be lost on his watch. Logical thought had nothing to do with canceling moon launches. Nixon had priorities that were for his legacy - at the expense of America. But again, first ask why a decision was made.

Do you smell the legacy of a president rather than the advancement of mankind? It happens when we blindly believe a lying president rather than first ask embarrassing questions. For example, what is the science? What is the mission? Questions that both of America's worst presidents ever could not even hope to answer.

[tw]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

There used to be a web site that listed all the day to day technology that we take for granted, that originally was developed by NASA specifically for the manned space flights.

Like Tang? Like the transistor and microprocessor? Don't believe that hype. The space program simply consumed technologies that existed in America. You could use that same reasoning to justify the war in Iraq or the actions of bin Laden.

Reality, those technologies existed because they had a purpose previously in society.

We had a tiny camera that took video on the space shuttle arm. What did we have? A portable camcorder. So clearly a light weight video camera came from the space program? Nonsense. The Japan also made those same products and sold them to Americans. But sometimes I hear someone claim the camcorder was due to the Space Shuttle. Those products might appear first in the space program. But the space program did not create the microprocessor, et al.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by tw

Reality, those technologies existed because they had a purpose previously in society.

tw, you are quite incorrect, you know (well, apparently you don't). I can't rattle off all of the technology that has come directly from the space programme, but I have heard lists of examples given many times. Also, improvements on existing technology to make some new apparatus for space technology is still a valid example of how the space programme has improved our day-to-day lives. You need to cool down and look at this rationally. I am not trying to start an argument with you - I'm not as resilient as Bruce! :p

Just take a breath, and cool down. If you think that projects costing billions of dollars can exist without government support, then you are living in another world. This means that politics always comes into it. I agree with you that it would be better if politics kept out of science, but that is not going to happen in the real world.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by bluesdave

I am not trying to start an argument with you - I'm not as resilient as Bruce! :p

You pussy. :p
Start here or here or here.
You know he's full of shit, so go get 'em, tiger.

He's weaseling by saying a concept, or even working example existed before it was perfected, miniaturized, and made commercially viable, by the space program. It's like his argument that the German fighter planes had fuel injection back in WW II so GM should have had it after the war. Despite the fact that the system cost more than 10 cars and required hours of maintenance after only a few hours of flight.

And saying something would have been invented/developed anyway, is horseshit that can't be proved or disproved. There's tons of consumer products that were made better by materials and technology that was financed by NASA, because it was necessary for their use, but consumers could have got along without it. We had wool, we didn't need thinsulate, it just makes life more pleasant and created new products/jobs.

[bluesdave]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

You pussy. :p
Start here or here or here.
You know he's full of shit, so go get 'em, tiger.

Thanks Bruce. Your links cover more directly what tw denied. I only had time to do a quick search on the NASA site, and came up with some incredible number of results, so I went through the first page of results and picked a few to quote back at him. I knew that if I had Googled I would have found more, but I was supposed to be researching for my project... You know, the sort of thing tw just does not seem to get - using science for the benefit of mankind. I know that you understand, and most Cellarites do too, I'm sure.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Start here or here or here.

In every case, the technology was developed and then used by Nasa or was going to exist anyway. Using that same logic, we could also prove how $1 billion to develop a new grass seed cured human diseases, reduced global warming, discovered hidden archeological treasures, and discovered new miracle plastics. Same bullshit as in Bruce's three classic propaganda citations. Also not in Bruce's list are those other innovations stifled because so much money went to NASA.

Those citations are classic propaganda that works on those who also confuses a treadmill under a planes wheels with airspeed. Meanwhile, we used to have fun making up those same 'look how we saved the world' myths. Then see them published as 'science that would not happen if we did not do it'.

Clearly computers would not exist had the auto industry not spun off so much technoloy. Steel manufacturers used to prove that the plastic industry was only a spinoff from their innovations - when big steel was really doing no innovation. Amzaing how we could make this stuff up and get other to believe we were therefore saving the world with our spinoffs. Contest was to see which myth would actually get printed. Clearly Henry Ford saved the computer industry. It is nonsense and it is propaganda that works - just like proof that Saddam had WMDs.

Meanwhile, those who grasp reality would be more concerned about relevant science such as the constellation of deep space observatories. 10% of Nasa's budget does almost all the science. And that is being diminished for what? Tang? Lighweight blankets? These clearly would not have existed if not for a manned space program. Bull.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Start here or here or here.

Let's start with one propaganda list that Bruce provides - proving how all this stuff would not exist if not for manned spaceflight:

GROUND PROCESSING SCHEDULING SYSTEM - it was called project management software. So old that it was even used on the Nautilus in 1957. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

SEMICONDUCTOR CUBING - three dimensional ICs have been implements or experimented with for decades. Hitachi DRAM used some of those ideas in their 1980 memory chips. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - computer aided architectural analysis and same for airplanes did not exist 20 plus years ago? Bull. This stuff was being uses as soon as it was available first in other industries such as aircraft. Much of it was done with slide rules on the B-29. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

WINDOWS VISUAL NEWS READER (Win Vn) - clearly newsgroups and applications doing same on timesharing would not have existed without manned spaceflight. Clearly the technical documentation system we used to locate prints on the IBM mainframe - before PCs existed - is due to manned spaceflight. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

AIR QUALITY MONITOR - this stuff was required by CA semiconductor facilities generations ago where hazardous material venting via the common exhaust system might even create a Bhopal. Same was also necessary in places such as refineries. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

VIRTUAL REALITY - so clearly the military is going to NASA for this stuff and not to the gaming companies that they have been using for virtual reality simulations. Clearly even those crude 1950 and 1960 flight simulators used to teach pilots would not have existed without manned spaceflight. How did manned spaceflight create it? Myth.

And so it goes. Most things in this world would not have happened without manned spaceflight. Also so easy to convince all that Saddam attacked the World Trade Center - using this same reasoning. It is called propaganda. It works on those who don't ask embarrassing questions. Bruce - I never expected you to be so gullible.

How many NASA spinoffs would have happened had we instead invested $1 blllion to develop a new grass seed. Using this propaganda, probably the same. Imagine the better strutural analysis program used to develop a better casing for the seed. Clearly we should spend a billion developing better grass.