Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"Water found on the moon," the headlines said – water that "could be used for drinking," the LA Times reported, possibly enough for "future astronauts to live off the land."
The "water" that was "found," however, consisted of 25 gallons. The average American uses about 80 gallons of water per day, according to the US Geological Survey. But most of that is for flushing the toilet and taking showers. If the astronauts used lunar "water" only for drinking, and if three astronauts each drank six eight-ounce glasses per day, they would drink the 25 gallons in about three weeks.
There would be a problem, however. NASA didn't find one big frozen puddle – their spectrometers identified dust that suggested water molecules were "likely to be mixed in with the soil." Getting the H2O out of the frozen soil would take energy and equipment. Maybe it would be easier for our people to bring their own water.
What explains the sudden discovery of "water" on the moon? Why is the chief scientist for NASA's "Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite mission" telling the media that "the moon is alive"?
Could it have anything to do with the the fact that Obama's commission on space travel recently questioned whether returning to the moon was "a worthy goal"? Could it be related to the commission's conclusion that Americans will not return to the moon anytime soon unless Congress spends a lot more money on the project -- at least $3 billion a year?
"These new discoveries could be game changers," the LA Times declared. That's true, if the game in question is taxpayer dollars spent on NASA space travel.
A modest proposal: forget about sending people to the moon to drink the water there, and instead spend the $3 billion a year on improving the drinking water here on earth.
Share this article
Posting a comment requires registration. Click here to register
If you are already registered, login here.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
Amongst the things we have found on the moon are such diverse elements as:
- Water
- Whitey
Even using energy (likely from a small nuke reactor) to separate the H20 from the regolith is cheaper/better than attempting to achieve escape velocity with 8.35lb per gallon onboard.
That being said, unmanned mission like the Mars rovers are cheaper still; manned missions are about ego.
And my drinking water is fine, whiner...you do realize that money spent on NASA is just as good for the economy as the rest of the stim-u-less if not better, right?
At least they aren't making weapons they plan to never actually use.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/14/2009 @ 8:54pm
Living on the moon? Go for it you two. Get a seat and get off this planet. We need you on the moon to....? Wait.. We don't know why we need you on the moon. Oh hell go anyway
Posted by notsleepy at 11/14/2009 @ 11:14pm
Jon,
"What explains the sudden discovery of "water" on the moon?"
It is explained by the carefully done science over the past twenty years. The announcement by the Clementine orbiter team in 1996 that signs of water ice were detected at the bottom of lunar craters opposed conventional wisdom that the surface of the moon that the moon was extremely dry. When funding became available for future lunar studies, water concentrations was going to receive close attention.
LCROSS was approved back in 2006, as a follow-up to the inconclusive Lunar Prospector mission in 1999, which had a similar mission profile. Further, LCROSS and the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) are a part of a program that goes back to 2004, which was tasked to discover information useful for any future human lunar exploration.
"Could it have anything to do with the the fact that Obama's commission on space travel recently questioned whether returning to the moon was "a worthy goal"? Could it be related to the commission's conclusion that Americans will not return to the moon anytime soon unless Congress spends a lot more money on the project -- at least $3 billion a year?"
No. Press releases of this nature are typical for recent space missions, because the public expects to know the results as soon as possible.
"A modest proposal: forget about sending people to the moon to drink the water there, and instead spend the $3 billion a year on improving the drinking water here on earth. "
It is a noble goal to improve drinking water, but that has nothing to do NASA's budget and doesn't invalidate the value of human spaceflight. If you seriously want action on water and sanitation, shouldn't you have at least mentioned the Senator Paul Simon Water for the World Act of 2009?
Posted by an_engineer at 11/14/2009 @ 11:21pm
I am wondering why we can't just dust off Apollo technology and go?
You really have got to wonder whether we have ever really been there at all.
Those fake - official "moon rocks" revealed in Europe recently..........
'Moon Rock' in Dutch Museum Is Fake By TOBY STERLING, AP
'The museum acquired the rock after the death of former Prime Minister Willem Drees in 1988. Drees received it as a private gift on Oct. 9, 1969, from then-U.S. ambassador J. William Middendorf during a visit by the three Apollo 11 astronauts, part of their "Giant Leap" goodwill tour after the first moon landing.'
'The U.S. Embassy in the Hague said it was investigating the matter..'
I think both NASA and Obama think we need another mission because a current mission to the moon may reveal alot of very embarrassing lies and deceptions. None of this adds up. These knuckleheads are trying to get us to buy that they need to "reinvent" the wheel to get to the moon. Nonsense.
Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2009 @ 11:57pm
I'm with snowball on this one. Unmanned missions give more science for the buck. I do favor updating our orbital technology to maintain telescopes like the Hubble and the ones currently hunting for exoplanets.
"I am wondering why we can't just dust off Apollo technology and go?
Because the Ares technology would use reusable components for a given moon shot.
You really have got to wonder whether we have ever really been there at all. "
No, only the tin-foil hat crowd has to wonder that.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:03am
i bet it's just neil armstrong's weewee.
SAVE FLINT!
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2009 @ 12:39am
Posted by OneVote at 11/14/2009 @ 11:57pm
We could dust off the Apollo technology, but the cost of doing so after 40 years is comparable to developing a program from scratch, and remember, it was decided that we couldn't afford Apollo back in the 70s.
If you need proof of the Apollo program: http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/index.html http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/revisited/index.html
Posted by an_engineer at 11/15/2009 @ 12:43am
The real goal here is a manned Mars Mission. I'm all for extensive use of unmanned missions. They are relatively inexpensive and provide tons of useful information. But to me there is something special and necessary, almost spiritual about manned missions.
The way to Mars in a sustainable fashion requires by most accounts a Space Station between Earth and the Moon, which we are currently working on. The next logical step seems to be a permanent base on the Moon and then a deep space outpost between the Moon and Mars. With this infrastructure in place we could establish a permanent base on Mars.
Is all this important enough to justify the extreme cost of such an endeavour? I think so, but then again I'm a dreamer. I believe the cooperation that would be required between all nations to accomplish something so grand as this would be a healthy, productive and unifying experience.
We would all be able to set aside for a moment our differences and tap into the very best of human aspirations. Discovery, curiosity and an abiding need to understand and experience something outside ourselves.
Is it worth it? I don't think we can afford not to.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 06:05am
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 06:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
Wow. I gotta go with the communist here.
Another wonder moment.
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/15/2009 @ 07:59am
Frosty, wee weed up!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 09:13am
Ya Chaoszen, that was inspirational!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 09:16am
Funny stories of how we attacked the moon http://bit.ly/4jX5Y2 ... and it surrendered http://bit.ly/3MKCHC
Posted by Guzelvis at 11/15/2009 @ 09:28am
maybe the bills should be paid before going to maui on vacation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2009 @ 10:12am
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/us/politics/15health.html?hp
I couldn't agree more with what you wrote. The "water on the Moon!" discovery is yet another hideously expensive PR mission for NASA, just like "water on Mars!".
The space agency came of age during an extended symbolic contest with the former Soviet Union over which nation could attempt the biggest space exploration stunt. The agency has not yet defined itself in a time where we are all beginning to realize that it is time to focus on the Earth, where people live, not try to go visit the Moons of Barsoom with Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Any dollar spent on setting up a permanent colony on the Moon is of course better than a dollar spent on occupying Iraq. However, it really is not clear that any permanent colony on the Moon would ever be anything but a risk-filled and hideously costly exercise in hanging around on a vacant rock with no atmosphere trying to stay alive while sending back photos.
NASA needs to have its entire upper management replaced and needs to have the national space technology mission defined for it as Earth-focused. We don't have money to plan on going to the Mars and Moon until we have a plan executed on Earth that redirects money from useless and destructive war, the excesses of extreme wealth inequality, and focuses that money on desperately needed social well-being, economic security for the broad population, and environmental sustainability and resuscitation.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/15/2009 @ 10:44am
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 06:05am | ignore this person | warn this person
"Discovery" is a fine thing, but what was your plan to stop just for one example the destruction of all coral reefs on Earth? Speaking of wonder and discovery, virtually half of all the biodiversity in the ocean's waters is hanging around coral reefs. Right here on Earth. And the average person today, in his mid-thirties, over his lifepspan? Half of all the coral that existed when he was born is now dead.
In about 30-40 years, half of the existing coral has died. Just for example.
How many hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars are to spent on getting people on an airless rock or a low-gravity, toxic-atmosphere desert rock with 300 mph duststorms? To what end? Before you plan on having a purely curiosity-based waystation on the path to Mars, perhaps you need to figure out how to sustain a population of billions on Earth without destroying the biosphere of Earth, first.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/15/2009 @ 10:49am
I mean, come on, everyone. Humans live on Earth. Remember? We don't live on Mars. We don't live on the Moon. We don't live on a moon orbiting Jupiter. We live on Earth. And we always will, and it is probably best to focus our political and economic initiatives on making that a longer-term proposition than it currently seems to be.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/15/2009 @ 10:50am
Frosty, wee weed up!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 09:13am
Wish I could "weed up". I miss that privilege. As a truck driver with DOT mandatory random drug tests. It is very difficult for me to enjoy one of life's truly awesome botanicals.
Last time was when I recently went on vacation and visited my kids in the high desert above Yucca Valley, CA. My son always has the most delectable skunk bud on hand. He learned how to grow it from me. We wandered up into an old gold mine and sitting in the dim light of the mines mouth enjoyed some herb and conversation. It doesn't get any better than that..
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 10:51am
Well that wasn't what I was going for, but I can go with it.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 11:10am
one small step for man, one big whiz in space.
Posted by frosty zoom at 11/15/2009 @ 11:36am
I mean, come on, everyone. Humans live on Earth. Remember? We don't live on Mars. We don't live on the Moon. We don't live on a moon orbiting Jupiter. We live on Earth. And we always will, and it is probably best to focus our political and economic initiatives on making that a longer-term proposition than it currently seems to be.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/15/2009 @ 10:50am
You make some very good points. And I agree with you for the most part. But your arguments fail to consider a host of other perhaps more esoteric and practical applications concerning exploration.
The cost of exploration has always been high in terms of investment capital and returns on investment and political repurcussions as well as moral issues. The Spanish in the 14th century experienced these same problems.
But that was then and this is now. This planet is getting smaller by the day, and human beings are overpopulating, exploiting and stressing our entire eco-system. One might consider it a disadvantage, but human beings are extraordinarily well evolved to exploit resources.
It is my opinion that we should not try and be something we are not. Do what you are good at is my mantra. Transformation.
I think it is a distinct possibility that the designer of the cosmos understood this. And that is why we were provided with a nearly infinite amount of space and resources to exploit. To deny our basic instincts for exploration and exploitation, is to deny our true nature.
And when we pretend to be something we are not, we will inevitably start feeding on one another as we are doing now.
I believe it is a matter of survival for us to have the sbility to excercise our primal instincts. Otherwise we risk destroying ourselves. And I dont believe that is what the creator wanted
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 11:40am
To summarize: We Need More Fucking Room!
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 11:46am
We could dust off the Apollo technology, but the cost of doing so after 40 years is comparable to developing a program from scratch, and remember, it was decided that we couldn't afford Apollo back in the 70s.
Posted by an_engineer at 11/15/2009 @ 12:43am | ignore this person | warn this person
Well Apollo cost what about $25 billion, and in inflation adjusted dollars, that might equate to about $125 billion today.
What was NASA's estimate - about $104 billion to do it again (with absolute certain cost overuns)?
So - we need to "reinvent" the wheel.
Not likely.
We supposedly spent an enormous amount of money to develop technology to accomplish a lunar landing - and you are telling me that we basically have to start from scratch? That is a very convenient argument isn't it.
NASA's biggest concern supposedly is safety concerns, and yet the Apollo program had multiple lunar landings?...lol.....
So tell me, what is so fricking difficult about putting a man on the moon again? We supposedly did it 6 times before? Sounds like pretty standard operating procedure - and our military/space technology is vastly improved compared to yesteryear.
Just can not buy that we have to start from scratch, unless, the lunar landings never took place to begin with.
Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2009 @ 11:55am
Well that wasn't what I was going for, but I can go with it.
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 11:10am
Sorry, I saw the word "Weed" and got all nostalgic. I guess I missed the larger point.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 11:56am
No, only the tin-foil hat crowd has to wonder that.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:03am | ignore this person | warn this person
that was what Bush said about those who doubted that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction wasn't it?
Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2009 @ 12:01pm
C'mon guys. I support cleaning up our own water supply as much as the next guy, but even in the worst of times I believe space exploration projects like this should be funded. It's all about discovery, learning more about the strange, mysterious new frontier that is outer space. The pursuit of knowledge and discovery is one of the most noble and human of endeavors, and any science-respecting progrssive worth his/her salt should support mankind's instinctual, ingrained desire to just learn more about his existence.
Posted by badreligionlover at 11/15/2009 @ 12:31pm
Chaozen, allrighty then!
Posted by Denise29 at 11/15/2009 @ 12:31pm
Just can not buy that we have to start from scratch, unless, the lunar landings never took place to begin with.
Posted by OneVote at 11/15/2009 @ 11:55am
There has not been a conspiracy theory that has been as throughly debunked as the one that denies that the lunar landings took place. That sort of thing is reserved for the most ardent anti-science nutcases.
Not only is it beyond belief it disrespects and cheapens the efforts, sacrifices and accomplishments of many of our greatest Americans and Hero's.
One of my favorite videos on YouTube is when Buzz Aldrin punches the crap out of a moon landing denier.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 12:38pm
Posted by badreligionlover at 11/15/2009 @ 12:31pm
Progressivism is a religion, not a science, based on the perfectibility of society through government control. It's a dogmatic faith. For example, it is an article of faith with the progressives that socialism works, and if it hasn't worked yet, it's because of our own failures as human beings. Why do you think Pol Pot saw it necessary to murder millions of people 'tainted' by improper teaching? In his view, it was necessary in order to create the perfect society. Progressives today are nothing more than lukewarm adherents to this basic philosophy. Just look at how 'bad' (i.e., greedy) people are always blamed for the failure of socialist policies. It's all the same philosophy, just a matter of degree.
As such, the core believers in progressivism can be expected to have a basic disregard for the value of things others might take for granted, such as the intrinsic desirability of exploration andthe expansion of knowledge. Thus, there's no need for us to go to the Moon or Mars or anywhere else, unless and until we become the perfect society the left wants us to be.
I think it's safe to say that any progressive who doesn't think that spending money on going to the Moon or Mars is a total waste of money is not, at heart, a true progressive (socialist).
Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 12:55pm
I have done research on lunar samples returned by every Moon landing. I was only one of hundreds of scientists who participated in that adventure. Most remarkably, essentially the whole story of the Moon's geology became understood after only a few years of research. Any further manned study of the Moon's geology on the Moon itself is most likely to result in unnecessary duplication. Then, what else can men/woman do on the Moon? Medical research? Given the fact that medical research centers on earth have access to an almost unlimited supply and variety of patients, that too is some pie in the sky. A lunar base? Well, be sure that that will not be a civilian but a purely military space-base. Ever since Apollo NASA has made numerous promises which have turned out to be duds/space fables, most prominently the space shuttle. I for one do not believe any new "mission" such as going to Mars will be performed within a stated time limit and finance limits claimed by this most dysfunctional/bureaucratic organization. The discovery of water in the lunar regolith is a significant scientific breakthrough but hardly a breathtaking one when compared to the discoveries of unmanned vehicles and the space telescope. The better understanding of the solar system and our galaxy does not need manned flights off the Earth. Lastly, ask yourself what the first letter A in NASA stands for and then ask yourself what NASA has done for that A. Zilch in my view.
Posted by DieterHeymann at 11/15/2009 @ 2:04pm
Posted by DieterHeymann at 11/15/2009 @ 2:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well put. I agree completely with you on the notion of a lunar base being probably not useful for any purpose, disagreeing with you only that it would have a military purpose. What does the military need with the moon? Wars are fought on Earth. For the military, building a moon base to fight wars on Earth is like building a base in Antarctica to wage war in Finland.
As far as the "A" in NASA, it seems very true that they don't focus on any activity beneath the stratosphere. I guess they can't call it "NSA" because that acronym is already taken by an entirely different agency.
I think that the national space technology initiative needs to be completely repurposed into Earth-focused technology. We didn't need a moon mission to invent "tang". We didn't need a space station to invent the microwave oven. We could have invented these things on our own. We don't need Moon or Mars missions to develop technologies that make life on Earth better. The money spent on space exploration should be spent on robotic probes alone and the things that we do in space should be immediately focused on critical Earth-based priorities. Satellites. We need more bright thinking in creative use of satellites.
Posted by syfriendly at 11/15/2009 @ 2:42pm
"We don't need Moon or Mars missions to develop technologies that make life on Earth better. The money spent on space exploration should be spent on robotic probes alone and the things that we do in space should be immediately focused on critical Earth-based priorities."
Except we don't live by bread alone. The discovery of water on the moon and extrasolar planets is well worth the money on automated probes and telescopes. Same applies to the robots on Mars.
"Progressivism is a religion, not a science, based on the perfectibility of society through government control. "
Absolute rubbish. Progressivism is based on ability of government to improve society. Progressivism gave us the social safety net; regulations for safety of products, etc.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 3:00pm
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 3:00pm
"Progressivism is based on ability of government to improve society."
Isn't that what I just said? Progressives feel that all the ills of society - homelessness, joblessness, what have you - can be cured by a government program.
"Progressivism gave us the social safety net; regulations for safety of products, etc."
Progressivism also gave us the following progression:
Problem: Not everyone has health care as a 'right'
Progressive solution: Everyone who shows up at the emergency room must, by law, be treated, for free if necessary.
Unintended consequence, as expressed by Obama: "Everyone who refuses to pay for their own health insurance is therefore getting a free ride on the system, and they will either pay for insurance, pay a penalty, or we will throw them in jail."
Progressivism, through the best of intentions, ends up enslaving every individual in society. Of course, many people are more than happy to trade their liberty for the promise of security. Some of us aren't.
Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 4:10pm
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 3:00pm
Oh, and by the way, brunowe. If you define 'religion' as a set of beliefs based on faith alone, which beliefs are not subject to challenge, then progressivism (which in the best case is just socialism lite) is certainly a religion. One only needs to have a short discussion with any socialist to determine that there is an utter faith in statism, and that any setbacks to the contrary have a ready rationalization.
Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
It's a good thing that Columbus was able to convince the king and queen of the need for exploration (though the supposed pile of gold at the other end probably had already whetted their appetites). At least someone was interested in finding what was "out there."
NASA's mission is still to find out what's "out there," and given sufficient funding and international cooperative efforts, they--and we--will.
It's always amazing when I see so much written about the costs of discovery, and so much additional whining about all the troubles "we have here."
Of course we have troubles here. We spend untold hundreds of billions on blowing people up, while simultaneously we bleat that exploration, science, and health care are "just too expensive."
Methinks our priorities are a bit off.
Posted by JonDainty at 11/15/2009 @ 6:07pm
Lastly, ask yourself what the first letter A in NASA stands for and then ask yourself what NASA has done for that A. Zilch in my view.
Posted by DieterHeymann at 11/15/2009 @ 2:04pm
Am I glad I never worked with someone like you in the space program.
I am proud of my work with the Shuttle program and the many astronauts I came to know (including a few of the Apollo astronauts). The NASA programs have been responsible for a good deal of our technology development in this country, including portable computers, the internet, and 10's of thousands of commercial applications.
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 8:43pm
Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 4:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
So true......
One might say...God's truth......;)
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/15/2009 @ 8:51pm
You said "Progressivism is a religion, not a science, based on the perfectibility of society through government control. "
I said that it was based on the idea that society can be improved, not perfected. They are entirely different things.
Your assumption regarding the "faith" nature of progressive policies is exactly that.
You should also explain how people are enslaved by workplace safety laws, product safety laws, etc.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 9:07pm
"So tell me, what is so fricking difficult about putting a man on the moon again? We supposedly did it 6 times before? Sounds like pretty standard operating procedure - and our military/space technology is vastly improved compared to yesteryear.
Just can not buy that we have to start from scratch, unless, the lunar landings never took place to begin with."
Or...hold onto your hat...maybe they'd rather see if there is a better way of doing it, with some components that are reusable, as in space shuttle technology.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 9:09pm
I am proud of my work with the Shuttle program and the many astronauts I came to know. Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 8:43pm
Let's see... hmmm. You talk to God on a regular basis and you schmooze with Astronauts. Wow! Anti. Please let us know when you have a sit down with the Pope.. And the next time Obama asks you for advice, please let him know I'm dissapointed. Thanks!
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 10:43pm
(which in the best case is just socialism lite) Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 4:14pm
Socialism Lite? Does that have more taste and is less filling than regular Socialism? Hell, JoHomamma thinks I'm a commie. Does that make me "Extra Rich" Socialism?
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 10:51pm
for antisocialist
NASA responsible for the internet? I am glad that I do not have to rely on your fantastically faulty information.
Why did I call the shuttle a space dud/fable? When it was proposed the shuttle was going to provide much cheaper space transportation than the preceding Apollo systems. It was going to be the 18-wheeler of space. It did not do that. The shuttle was an example of NASA promising the sky and delivering a handful of mud.
The fantastically expensive Skylab: please explain to me what good it will do for mankind compared to, say, medical research down here. My heroes work day and night in the Houston Medical Center and at numerous Universities around the world.
Posted by DieterHeymann at 11/16/2009 @ 07:47am
Posted by pontificus at 11/15/2009 @ 4:14pm |
Is there no middle ground?
No problem perhaps more readily addressed by a centralized function, well-regulated, being necessary to the security of a free State.
I'll give you another hint: they're deployed in two theaters at the moment.
Markets are great for speed-boats, diamond rings, baseball tickets, jeans, and Coke (no, Pepsi), but some things are two important to leave to jack-assery from people like Kenny Boy, dig?
Chaos, you're Socialism Classic(tm), and that's a complement.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 07:59am
Or...hold onto your hat...maybe they'd rather see if there is a better way of doing it, with some components that are reusable, as in space shuttle technology. Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 9:09pm |
Or maybe that's the cost of internationalizing the effort...it's become a 'potato-sack race', as has the Tokamak program.
Posted by snowball777 at 11/16/2009 @ 08:00am
take money (and all that depends upon it) out of afghanistan and iraq and...
SHOOT IT ALL TO THE MOON AND BEYOND!!!!
seriously...we need a dream and we need a purpose...
we NEED to go to space...its NOT A LUXURY - ITS A NECESSITY.
its a very literal necessity and it a mass psychological necessity. we need SOMETHING PRODUCTIVE other than the military (nothing against the military, but it is by its very nature...not exactly "productive, eh? lol) into which to dump buzillions of taxpayer dollars, ultimately creating jobs, fueling mass dreams of something beyond grubbing and trembling and to...
save the entire shaved ape race one day.
there is nothing more necessary nor vital to our future than NASA and a VIGOROUS space program.
and we need heros - brave men and women who put their lives on the line for all of us - other than the brave men and women who do so now with violence.
again, no disparagement to those serving in uniform. we lie to ourselves if we think they take the karmic stain of their actions while we who remain home, even in opposition, remain spotless.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 11:03am
Posted by YourJomamma at 11/15/2009 @ 8:
Maasch, why isn't conservatism a "religion"?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:04am
getting to know the area here in western NC...sort of a little patch of berkely in some ways, politically and socially.
then there's the retirees who like season changes.
i missed the masturbation and sundaes party at the hippy school on sunday, but found myself being asked deep questions by a former greek orthodox monk.
"if you could be anywhere you wanted, where would it be?"
i thought about it while the others were answering. there was the "i'm such an angel option", where i said something dippy and warm about being with the right people, but i was feelig honest, so i nixed that...
then there was the safe answer...some beautiful and cool popular place where everyone ooh's or ahh's wistfully and nods or says approvingly, "I've been there." or some really cool and exotic place that initially shocks until you explain all its rough charms... but again i was feeling honest, so nixed it...
finally someone spilled a bottle of wine before i had the chance to answer and by the time chaos yeailded to order once m0re, the conversation had moved along. which was fine with me, because my honest answer would surely have pegged me for the weirdo geek i am...
i would like to be somewhere in the main asteroid belt one to several hundred years from now, a living object in space, doing just about anything to justify my presence there.
but since that will never come to be, i can only dream and support those who will long after i die.
no problem with no seeing it. not seeing it is no excuse for not working for it.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 11:18am
Not only is it beyond belief it disrespects and cheapens the efforts, sacrifices and accomplishments of many of our greatest Americans and Hero's.
One of my favorite videos on YouTube is when Buzz Aldrin punches the crap out of a moon landing denier.
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 12:38pm
One of mine is the arrest of Stewart Nozette.
Buzz Aldrin's punch had more to do with an obnoxious reporter than it did with question of hoax.
Aldrin also claims that NASA ordered Apollo 11 crew into silence over alien sighting.
So....square #1.......we do know that NASA will keep some or all of the truth away from the public.....a nice way of saying they have no problem with lying to us.
These folks are human. You and the media make them into heroes of epic proportion.
See Lisa Nowak for instance.
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 11:32am
BTW, on-topic, always found it odd the neo-Luddite "anti-NASA" types on the Left.
Seems to run counter to atleast their stereotype. It's a "Government agency"...it works for the "common good"...it shows tangible effects from its research as well as the bettering of human knowledge....and it aspires to both hope for the future and the enrichment of Mankind.
Yet these same guys, for example, who want more spending on the arts, begrudge a program which has given us some of THE most awe-inspiring images...the photos taken by the Hubble....
and who seek international co-operation, attack a program which gave us the INTERNATIONAL Space Station, with a dozen countries involved....
and who are concerned with the global environment, go after the very devices and science that has given us our best look at the Earth's eco-system?!??!?!?!?
I can understand the Right...who loath any Gov't spending or embrace things like "creation science" and "ID"...but am always amazed as the NASA attackers from the Left.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah, really. my self identification as progressive conservative gives me a little comfy distance from that crowd.
i mean, as much as i detest the "larry-the-cable-guy" style conservative lunkheadism, the dippy libby ani-intellectual lunkheadism is no more preferable, though hippys can be lots of fun...
but i don't get it at all. much of what we need to know to conquer space (or to 'learn to live with it" or whatever) must be pioneered here on earth. understanding of closed system ecology, on site construction, responsible, waste minimal living, alternative energy utilization (especially PV tech)...all this stuff is stuff we will need to learn about and master if we are to fulfill our DEAREST common dreams of surviving long enough to understand just how ignorant we are...
its ultimately not a zero sum proposition, beyond all the devilish details, a vigorous and ambitious space program is an integral part of understanding our universe, our place in it, and surviving as a species in whatever form that takes.
nothing more noble, more needed...
NASA should not HAVE to pull sleazy stunts to get their funding or too wake up the marching morons for their upcoming trip to venus...lol...
its shamefully stupid but apparently necessary... go NASA!!!
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 12:12pm
I can understand the Right...who loath any Gov't spending or embrace things like "creation science" and "ID"...but am always amazed as the NASA attackers from the Left.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:37am | ignore this person | warn this person
It is very simple Mask. There are some on the "left" that believe NASA is just a front for more MIC "secret" spending.
Nice video of LCROSS impact.
Now we have the ability to see the head of a dime on earth from orbit mind you.
And from space, the view should be spectacular - i.e., the Hubble Telescope, due to lack of atmospheric distortion.
So...why can't we see an impact ejecta plume 6 miles high on the moon?
Hmmm......................
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 12:17pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 12:12pm
Seems a counter-productive, if not counter-intuitive move. Naturally, there are Luddites on both ends of the political spectrum.
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:36pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 12:17pm
How would you know that the Left thinks, OV?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:37pm
Posted by chaoszen at 11/15/2009 @ 11:40am
It's much more sensible to just limit our reproduction and make living on this Earth as pleasant as it can possibly be. I'm very much for exploring other worlds, but let's do it with robots and do it for the thrill of it, not for the purpose of finding an alternative home, when none is really needed.
And what's all this "the creator wants this and the creator wants that" nonsense? We're not babies anymore. Dump the creator along with Santa and the Easter bunny. Nobody wants anything for us but us, so let's just try to figure out what WE want. We are the creators of our destiny - no one else.
Posted by raaustin at 11/16/2009 @ 12:46pm
It's much more sensible to just limit our reproduction and make living on this Earth as pleasant as it can possibly be. I'm very much for exploring other worlds, but let's do it with robots and do it for the thrill of it, not for the purpose of finding an alternative home, when none is really needed.
Posted by raaustin at 11/16/2009 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The technological fix fosters the myth that exploitation of limited resources on Earth is okay, because the vast resources of the universe await us.
BIG MISTAKE.
The quantum leaps of technology necessary may be impossible based on physical laws, and I daresay, may be beyond the grasp of human intelligence.
In any event, our efforts should be concerted on saving and conserving this planet - the planet on which we have evolved.
The resources of the New World were once considered inexhaustible. By way of example, the vast virgin forests of North America were logged off in little over a century. What little remains does so only because they are protected. The same is now happening to rain forests the world over.
Mr. Wiener is absolutely correct in his priorities.
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 1:02pm
How would you know that the Left thinks, OV?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
The "left" was your terminology as I recall.
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 1:46pm
Some thoughts on space from our resident Commie Pinko Red:
The accomplishments of both the USA and the USSR in the Space Race were inspiring and I own some souvenirs of the latter.
Ongoing scientific research in and of space, including the use of space telescopes and unmanned probes, is both important and awe inspiring.
I am skeptical of the cost effectiveness of manned missions to either the Moon or the planets.
The level of involvment or control by the military in both space research and usage is worrisome.
I'm not mad about either the government-dominated model of space funding or the "leave it to the rich enthusiasts" model for potential new manned missions but am not sure what the best approach would be either now or in the future (i.e., after the revolution!).
Posted by cka2nd at 11/16/2009 @ 2:04pm
You really have got to wonder whether we have ever really been there at all. "
No, only the tin-foil hat crowd has to wonder that.
Posted by brunowe at 11/15/2009 @ 12:03am
Thanks, brunowe... I was getting my panties in a bunch about that comment. The LRO recently sent pictures of the actual moon landing site. Of course the 'Moon Birthers' will blithely advise us that anything can be faked with photoshop.
We need an accelerant to get us to the moon. Here's my idea... LOW GRAVITY SPORTS. Someone needs to invent a sport that can be done in low gravity in an underground arena. Stimulate the economy. The Chinese will probably even buy into it. Some strange morph of hockey and baseball or something. We could have a telescope up there, too. Televise the crap out of it. Imagine the camera shots! death from sudden decompression! Ratings will go sky high!
Pure fantasy. I agree with snowball that unmanned exploration is currently the most cost effective way to go. I am uncertain about traveling to Mars. We are a couple of centuries away from knowing anything about terraforming a planet, so what is the point? Let's go to the moon and hone our techniques involving space exploration before we try to go to the red planet. And what about the helium 3 on the moon?
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 2:11pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
the technology to colonize our own solar system is not as far away as you think. developments in materials technology and dozens of other areas make realistic dreams of solar system colonization and exploitation achievable sooner than most realize - if we go there.
i'm not talking "faster-than-light" fantasies - whether anything like that is remotely possible is pointless. what we can do now, will soon be able to do if we choose, is every bit as exciting and possible and profitable (and not just in the monetary sense).
we need to devote resources wasted currently in foolish imperialistic adventures of dubious profit to expanding all areas of scientific research and implementation, including specifically placing shaved apes in space for long stretches of time.
true, myopic luddism and inability to see the forest for the trees have retarded mush that has to be done. hard to believe, but we have next to no data on the effects of LOW gravity on organisms, for example. for years grad students and faculty at MIT have been trying to shoot up a mini torus filled with hamsters, for example, to study the effects of simple spin artificial gravity...relatively cheap and potentially important experiment there - why can't we help out the MIT guys a little, at least?
sometime between today and som thousands of years from now, the earth will blow up and blow up good...
when i say "blow up" i mean, of course that something horrible, either man made, man enabled, or completely unrelated to our clever meddlings, will likely wipe out human life or come damned near doing so and all the good stewardship and mother earth loving in the world will not stop it.
we can live in space. we must.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 2:17pm
The NASA programs have been responsible for a good deal of our technology development in this country, including portable computers, the internet, and 10's of thousands of commercial applications. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/
Posted by antisocialist at 11/15/2009 @ 8:43pm
I afraid to say that... I agree with you 100% on this issue. As long as we can keep space demilitarized, that is. I love the exploration of space and closely follow all the current missions. Cassini has provided us with amazing visuals of Jupiter and Saturn and all of the moons. I find it ceaselessly fascinating.
Let's hope that they get the rover unstuck. That mission has been pure gold as far as the data and the financial expense.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 2:17pm
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 1:46pm
I simply mean, there is little of your views outside the Buchanan/Ron Paul Right...so why associate yourself with the Left?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 2:24pm
The LRO recently sent pictures of the actual moon landing site. Of course the 'Moon Birthers' will blithely advise us that anything can be faked with photoshop.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 2:11pm | ignore this person | warn this person
LRO flew by impact site 90 seconds after impact. It took thermal images but no satellite-aerial photos? The resolution of LRO images of lunar landing sites sure looks good....good enough to photograph a 6 mile high ejecta plume........lol.....
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 2:43pm
I simply mean, there is little of your views outside the Buchanan/Ron Paul Right...so why associate yourself with the Left?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 2:24pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I don't - you do.
Progressive Independent remember?
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 2:45pm
I am for space exploration as long as it is paid for by increased taxes on upper class rich pieces of sh--.
Posted by DPGrassley at 11/16/2009 @ 3:12pm
The resolution of LRO images of lunar landing sites sure looks good....good enough to photograph a 6 mile high ejecta plume........lol.....
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 2:43pm
Ooops! It was the LCROSS satellite that took the photo. Sorry. The LCROSS was part of the LRO, and it separated from this original vehicle. I would guess that the optics aren't as precise as the LRO's, and it's mission was primarily to collect spectrographic data so that the presence of water could be analyzed.
About 20 seconds after impact, not 90.
How long would it take for the plume to gain 6 miles in altitude? another guess, but I would say that the plume hadn't reached it's full height yet, either.
Blithely. Lol, Dude.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 3:23pm
Kennedy (John F., not Edward) will most likely be remembered for two things: Diem, and the speech about going to the moon. Does this seal his legacy?
Posted by Mistral at 11/16/2009 @ 3:29pm
Progressive Independent remember?----Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 2:45pm
Yes, you CLAIM that....but on what issues? Versus Pat or Ron?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 3:38pm
I am for space exploration as long as it is paid for by increased taxes on upper class rich pieces of sh--.
Posted by DPGrassley at 11/16/2009 @ 3:12pm
Sorry, Bono has left the building and gone to the Netherlands to avoid increased taxes.
Posted by Mistral at 11/16/2009 @ 3:56pm
How long would it take for the plume to gain 6 miles in altitude? another guess, but I would say that the plume hadn't reached it's full height yet, either.
Blithely. Lol, Dude.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 3:23pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Remember - no gravity - no atmosphere - the plume would have been VERY high after 90 seconds.
It should have been very visible. LRO could have easily performed double duties. LCROSS did the spectral analysis and the poor photos initially. LRO orbited over the impact site 90 seconds later - after LCROSS had crashed into the moon. Why no awesome pictures?
LRO is still orbiting - searching for safe spots to land on the moon?
Why not use the same sites as Apollo????
Thought we already determined that these sites were suitable??????
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
I am for space exploration as long as it is paid for by increased taxes on upper class rich pieces of sh--.
Posted by DPGrassley at 11/16/2009 @ 3:12pm
You mean the ones who are already paying most of the taxes?
Posted by antisocialist at 11/16/2009 @ 4:01pm
Yes, you CLAIM that....but on what issues? Versus Pat or Ron?
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 3:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Remember the definition of progressive that I posted the other day?
Do you assert that some of the ideas of Pat and Ron aren't 'progressive' in respect to status quo government? They are certainly revolutionary compared to the big government models so loved by the two party monopoly. Yes, they are not necessary new, but heck, what is?
Remember - government action to limit its size and action is government action.
So - you agree with Ron on getting out of Iraq and Afpak....that doesn't make you a libertarian does it?
Similarly, if I criticize Israel, that doesn't make me Pat Buchanan does it?
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 4:07pm
Remember - no gravity...
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 3:58pm
*You mean to say 'one sixth of earth's gravity, don't you? Which isn't really the same as 'no gravity'.
Then you 'assert'...
"LRO is still orbiting - searching for safe spots to land on the moon. Why not use the same sites as Apollo?"
*Where is it documented that they are looking for 'safe spots' to land? I thought it was more correct that they are looking for spots to land where they could take the best advantage of the current study focus - water - maybe even helium three, among other things.
And then....
"Thought we already determined that these sites were suitable?"
*Why on Earth ( ;-) would they want to go back to exactly the same place that we landed before? You will never run out of "yeah, but" responses here, that much is clear.
The impact created by the LCROSS Centaur upper stage rocket created a two-part plume of material from the bottom of the crater. The first part was a high angle plume of vapor and fine dust and the second a lower angle ejecta curtain of heavier material. Approximately four minutes of data was collected before the LCROSS itself impacted the lunar surface. The LRO was instructed to take thermal images, so the focus was of less resolution because of the different instrument function.
It seems like you are just making stuff up to suit your personal prejudices about previous space missions. As well as imagining that the moon has 'no gravity'. Maybe you should review that data.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 4:36pm
any base on the moon will likely be minimally "manned" and mostly if not almost completely automated.
we need to research the effects of LOW gravity on the human body - already know the problems associated with NO grav...
the first big project which will enable all other endeavors is the construction of a torus style (big doughnut) spinning colony of around 1000 meters in diameter, the minimum theorized to provide comfortable 1g gravity for long term living without too much spin that could make folks dizzy...but again we need to do some research.
the construction of a permanent base in zero-g environment would enable further massive scale construction in zero-g conditions, including lunar mining, which, as said above, would likely require little human workforce on-site, but would require proximity of controlling HQ which could dispatch maintenance personnel at a moment's notice.
how to get the materials up for the station is the big question - current delivery systems could be used, but visions of earthbound mega structures are becoming increasingly realistic as materials technology advances to the point where we have substances with tensile strength to do such.
but its not that far off, and the more resources we allocate to those working in these areas the faster we will find the solutions.
its not a pipe dream. its future reality - if we want it.
and unless we are ok with the species dying out in the next several centuries or millenia, fine - EFF IT.
otherwise the future is bright and its "up there".
Posted by ibbleblibble at 11/16/2009 @ 5:27pm
Maybe you should review that data.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 4:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You will agree then that a impact plume would rise faster and higher than on earth by orders of magnitude - given that the moon has 1/6 the easth's gravity.
Do check out LRO's mission.
'The Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) is the first mission in NASA's Vision for Space Exploration, a plan to return to the moon and then to travel to Mars and beyond. The LRO objectives are to finding safe landing sites, locate potential resources, characterize the radiation environment, and demonstrate new technology.'
NASA
There it is....'safe spots to land.'
Doesn't say spots to land adjacent to "water" resources, and I don't think you can infer that from 'safe.'
LRO sounds very much like it is on a mission to test the feasibility of a moon landing:
1) safe spots to land
2) testing radiation environment
The ability of humans to withstand radiation is one of the "conspiracy theorist's" arguments lending doubt to the moon landings btw.
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 6:27pm
And what's all this "the creator wants this and the creator wants that" nonsense? We're not babies anymore. Dump the creator along with Santa and the Easter bunny. Nobody wants anything for us but us, so let's just try to figure out what WE want. We are the creators of our destiny - no one else.
Posted by raaustin at 11/16/2009 @ 12:46pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Psalm 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.
I think some other fool was way ahead of you on that! He used iambic pentameter and called it Invictus, and being dead I doubt Henley would support being the Captian of your soul anymore. But, like P.T. is reputed to have said there is a sucker born every day!
Posted by BigPasture at 11/16/2009 @ 6:34pm
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 11:04am
"Maasch, why isn't conservatism a "religion"?"
That's a good question, MASK. The basic fact is that what you call conservatism is actually empiricism, whereast leftism is a dogma. Conservatives believe in what works - leftists believe in the good and all-powerful State. It's a common statement of leftists that I meet, something to the effect of 'Gee, you're against the Health Care Bill? What do you have against providing Universal Health Care'?
Well, the answer is, of course, I would love it for everyone to have health care - it's just that I know through experience that the worst way to do that would be to put the government in charge, based on history. In contrast, leftists cannot conceive of it happening any other way, because they have a blind faith in the government to solve all problems. You should see yourselves from my perspective, it's inconsistent, but dogmatic and reflexive (thus the cliche, knee-jerk liberal).
Most conservatives are empiricists, MASK. We don't reject socialism for any other reason beside the fact that it simply doesn't work. In contrast, liberals always want a government solution to every problem because that's the religion - statism works - regardless of any evidence that you give them to the contrary.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 6:51pm
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:36pm
" Naturally, there are Luddites on both ends of the political spectrum."
There are? Which conservatives are Luddites? But first, let's define Luddite:
"Lud·dite (lŭd'īt) n. 1. Any of a group of British workers who between 1811 and 1816 rioted and destroyed laborsaving textile machinery in the belief that such machinery would diminish employment. 2.
One who opposes technical or technological change."
I can't think of any conservative Luddites off-hand, perhaps you can provide me with one. Ayn Rand wrote a great book on this subject, by the way, 'Anthemn' - the basic idea is that collectivism has no particular use for technology. This is reflected every day in the statements of true leftists.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 6:57pm
Posted by Mask at 11/16/2009 @ 12:36pm
I mispelt Ayn Rand's novella, it's actually called 'Anthem'. I read it in High School.
Despite having been written before the respective revolutions in each country, 'Anthem' is actually quiet predictive of current conditions in Cuba and North Korea, collectivist societies which are both sliding back into the Stone Age (with the obvious exception of nuclear weapons, which the NKs were given or stolen by others). And lack of home-grown technological innovation is a hallmark of most socialist/collectivist countries. Thus you should find it no surprise to find a lack of regard for technology on the part of the left here at The Nation.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 7:08pm
... locate potential resources, characterize the radiation environment, and demonstrate new technology.'...
Doesn't say spots to land adjacent to "water" resources, and I don't think you can infer that from 'safe.'
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 6:27pm
I think you CAN infer that from 'locate potential resources', however. Come on, give it up. And locating safe landing spots is kind of a given... who would want to land on an unsafe landing spot? I just mentioned that in passing because it's so obvious. Did we both screw up. Probably.
I had to chuckle at the no gravity part, OneV. And you did too. If there wasn't any gravity that plume would still be heading towards earth. I've had all the space mission websites bookmarked for ages... now you do too.
And, yes, they are most likely checking for the feasibility of a moon landing. I would never argue that point. We're going back!
I guess you may think that those pictures are fake... the ones of the landing module and the footprints. And yes, there's the radiation problem, which is something no one can adequately address, but in the final analysis, one that I ascribe to, more than 400,000 people worked on the Apollo project for nearly ten years, and a dozen men who walked on the Moon returned to Earth to recount their experiences. Hundreds of thousands of people, including astronauts, scientists, engineers, technicians, and skilled laborers, would have had to keep the secret. Were they fooled as well? Doubtful. The Cubans, wherever they go to teach, and in Cuba as well, relate the whole thing as a hoax to this day. Only 6% of Americans think it was a hoax. 5% are undecided.
As could be predicted, a FOX special presented the moon landing as a hoax as well.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 10:25pm
Thus you should find it no surprise to find a lack of regard for technology on the part of the left here at The Nation.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 7:08pm
I think that if you really tried to say something that stupid you probably couldn't do it. It just slips out naturally. It's those marxists... or those socialists... they're making you lose it!
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 10:27pm
The Cubans, wherever they go to teach, and in Cuba as well, relate the whole thing as a hoax to this day. Only 6% of Americans think it was a hoax. 5% are undecided.
As could be predicted, a FOX special presented the moon landing as a hoax as well.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person
I think if you check opinion outside the US, you may find the percentage of disbelief to be substantially higher than 11%.
Cuba - Kennedy....I suppose that is to be expected. Remember, Operation Northwoods was contemplated during the Kennedy administration.
Anyway....I do appreciate that you willing to engage, and at least think a bit about things.
It is a fascinating subject in more ways than one.
I am not against space exploration per se...just not pleased with NASA/DOD.
The Space Shuttle was actually a military program originally.
Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 10:49pm
I am not against space exploration per se...just not pleased with NASA/DOD. The Space Shuttle was actually a military program originally. Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 10:49pm
Ahhh... we come to rest then.
I am not pleased with NASA in all things, but I'm not quite as prejudiced about it as Richard C. Hoagland. Have you heard him on the radio or anything?
I think he's the 'lost washer' in some strange machine. The whole bit about NASA hiding information about structures on the moon (this big glassy 'shard'), and then there's the whole 'face on mars' theory that he popularized. At first I found it somewhat interesting, but he just kept developing the whole thing until it was a city, etc, etc. He lost me on the curve. He's a loose cannon.
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 11:04pm
Posted by ficheye at 11/16/2009 @ 10:27pm
And yet, Obama gutted the NASA budget - needs another 10 minutes of food stamps, apparently. Gotta pay for those votes somehow. And we see here at the Nation a column against funding NASA - and many commenters agreeing. You're quite the minority here, if you didn't notice.
Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 11:48pm
You're quite the minority here, if you didn't notice. Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 11:48pm
You mistake me for someone who gives a shit about that.
I think when we lose the yearning to go into space unmanned or otherwise, it lessens us. It's too bad that it's boiled down to just the dollars. It's too bad that mismanagement is endemic in our country and the domino effect is ready to cut loose at any moment.
I agree with antisocialist on this issue, odd as that may seem. I feel a sense of pride in many of the accomplishments of our space program. As an independent I don't just buy the 'leftist' line on space exploration (if there is one - I think everyone's just being pissy about the economy), but I am big on fiscal responsibility. I see their problem with NASA, but don't agree on ending space exploration. We should end one of those damn wars or the other so that culture can still bloom here. And space culture and products is one of our last industries where we hold on to a narrow lead.
Besides, this article is stupid. Water on the moon would be best used for generating oxygen, not just for drinking. I know that he mentioned it, but he also made it seem like there's only 25 gallons of water up there. And the LA times made that idiotic equation, not NASA (NASA made some OTHER idiotic assertions). Mr WEINER (kind of appropriate) is missing an obvious point: if there weren't so many people on this planet the water wouldn't be so screwed up. It's the 600 pound gorilla. Nobody touches that topic here at the Nation.
So if people, libs, cons, or otherwise want to stop being imaginative and exchange ire and position oriented rhetoric for the dreams of the frontier and the self esteem that it gives us as a nation - they can all fuck themselves. Seriously.
Posted by ficheye at 11/17/2009 @ 03:39am
Remember the definition of progressive that I posted the other day? "-----Posted by OneVote at 11/16/2009 @ 4:07pm
Nope...care to re-post it?
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 07:35am
Conservatives believe in what works - Posted by pontificus at 11/16/2009 @ 6:51pm
Social Security virtually eliminated poverty among the elderly...yet conservatives want to replace it with "private investment accounts" in the Stock Market which recently collapse.
Prohibition failed, yet not only do conservatives still want to keep "fighting the Drug War", they want to ban abortion, which would lead to another "Prohibition" style "bootlegging."
Conservatives supported war in Iraq and still do...which led to a PRO-Iranian government in Baghdad, increasing, not decreasing the status of Iran. They continue to support war in Afghanistan, though Bush couldn't "win it" and likely neither can Obama.
Posted by Mask at 11/17/2009 @ 07:38am
'Kennedy (John F., not Edward) will most likely be remembered for two things: Diem, and the speech about going to the moon.' -- Mistral
Remember the joke that went around at the time of that speech:
'We choose to go to the Marilyn, and to do the other women, not because they are easy, but because we are hard...'
Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/17/2009 @ 10:38am
Remember the joke that went around at the time of that speech:
Posted by HonestLiberal at 11/17/2009 @ 10:38am
You go girl! Pity there's no good joke about the Kennedy administration and Diem, though.
Posted by Mistral at 11/17/2009 @ 12:47pm