« An Eye On Sheehan | Main | Bush Calls For National Rescue Plan »
September 25, 2005
Man on the moon: Been There, Done That, no need to do it again
With President Bush recently reminding us of the propensity of the federal government to sling tens of billions of dollars at problems with reckless abandon and reminding us of the bloat and waste that has become its hallmark over the last 40 years, NASA chief Michael Griffin couldn't have possibly picked a worse time to unveil his $104 billion plan to return to the moon by 2018 than last week. Why in God's name would we possibly want to spend better than $100 billion over the next decade and a half to do something we already did nearly 40 years ago? What could we possibly gain from it? The answer is nothing other than a big ego boost for NASA and the opportunity for the seven-year-olds of 13 years from now to remember fondly yet another man walking on the moon.
Shooting for the moon in the 1960s was a great adventure that helped us establish our superiority not only on the Earth but in space as well. It was a bright spot on a current events scene marred by images of the Vietnam War and war protests flashing across the TV screens on a nightly basis. But it was more than just positive diversion from an otherwise dismal current events world in the late-60s. The technological revolution spurred on by the space race spawned much of the technology development that we benefit from today. But we no longer need the space program to spur on technological development -- the private sector is doing a fantastic job of that now -- and even so we still have technological development in the unmanned space program.
Another reason for going to the moon back in the 60s -- perhaps the most important one -- was that great national quest to do something that had never been done before. The Russians beat us to the punch when they put Yuri Gargarin in earth orbit in April 1961. But President John F. Kennedy was determined that they wouldn't beat us to the moon and set as a great national priority that the U.S. would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. Compared to where the space program was back in May of 1961 when Alan Shepard became the first U.S. man to be shot into sub-space orbit around the Earth, putting Neil Armstrong on the moon a little more that eight years later was pretty remarkable. By comparison, taking 13 years to put a man on the moon again is a pretty leisurely goal. Perhaps this casual goal reflects the NASA's reality that manned space exploration isn't the priority that it was 40 years ago -- and it shouldn't be. The unmanned methods we have for exploring space that are far less costly and have told us a lot more about the universe around us than manned space exploration ever could. We've proven with the last moon landings that about the only thing putting a man in space is good for is just to be able to say we were there. The last thing we need to be doing is spending $104 billion to be able to again say we were there 13 years from now.
Rather than spending this $104 billion to be able to say we put a man on the moon AGAIN, perhaps we should put this money and the same amount of determination it took to put a man on the moon decades ago to use solving some of the problems we face here on Earth. For example:
· How far would $104 billion go towards building a missile defense system to protect ourselves and our allies from the threat of nuclear destruction from above? The Koreans have nukes and so do the Iranians, not to mention the Chinese. If we could put a man on the moon 36 years ago, we could easily build a system to defend us against the threat of nuclear missiles in the next decade, especially since we're well on our way to being able to do that now.
· Think of how much border security $104 billion spent correctly – not squandered – would buy. It wouldn't even cost a billion to build a good tall, sturdy fence topped with razor wire along our Southern border. You can't tell me we couldn't build a better and more impenetrable fortress given the money and determination. And why stop at the southern border? We could build an equally strong fortress along the northern border. And everybody knows that our port security leaves something to be desired. Imagine what this would do to stem the flow of illegal drug traffic across the borders to say nothing of the money saved on public assistance and other services provided to the illegals provided us by the taxpayers. Of course the Democrats would lose half of their electorate but that's not what you would call a bad thing. This would be $104 billion well spent.
· Just another crazy thought here, but perhaps this $104 billion might be better spent to incentivize the development of alternative sources of energy or maybe even to (gasp!) relax some of the outrageous restrictions on the development of the plentiful supplies of petroleum we have in our own country and increasing our refining capacity so we aren't slaves to foreign sources of oil.
· Another pressing issue is all of the bloat and waste in the federal government. I wouldn’t be opposed to spending some money (not $104 billion, mind you) on forming an independent commission dedicated to a decade-long plan to make binding recommendations on eliminating ALL government spending that is not constitutionally authorized. We know that the pansies on both sides of the aisle and in the executive branch don’t have the guts to do this themselves, and in fact, most Democrats don’t think we spend enough. So let’s give them some deniability as we did with the base closings so they can say “it’s not us, it’s the commission”. I don’t care how we do it as long as it gets done. Who knows? We might actually find enough savings there to put another man on the moon (probably 150 times over).
It took a whole lot of inspiration and determination to make it from the inception of the space program and NASA in 1958 to putting a man on the moon less than a dozen years later. But in 2005, the world is a lot more complicated place and we have plenty of pressing issues to deal with here. The ones I’ve mentioned only a very few of many. In the cost/benefit analysis, putting a man on the moon is a frivolous waste of precious taxpayer resources that could be better spent and better benefit more people if we spend it here on Earth.
Posted by Steve at September 25, 2005 09:30 AM
Copyright © 2007 by author. May not be copied, published, or otherwise used (except for brief quotes) without express permission of author. Articles published with permission by Pardon My English.
-->Comments
Agreed, esp. on the missile defense thing. I'd feel a lot better about the Iran situation if we had missile defense tech we could give Israel.
Posted by Richard Frankel ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.pardonmyenglish.com//nav-commenters.gif)
at September 25, 2005 05:34 PM
missle defense shield???
we've been dumping money into that for far, far too long without any reliable results. i think we'd be more likely to put a man on mars than get that thing working.
Posted by mattk at September 25, 2005 06:10 PM
As Don Rumsfeld said: would rather have a 5 out of eight chance of shooting a missile out of the sky or a zero chance? A zero chnace is what we have now. Five out of eight is the current record of the missile defense program. If we actually made missile defense a priority, we could improve on the current average in practical application.
Posted by Steve at September 25, 2005 10:36 PM
>>Five out of eight is the current record of the missile defense program.
And you believe that?
Posted by Um Yeah at September 25, 2005 11:13 PM
>>A zero chnace is what we have now.
Currently, we also have a zero chance of being hit by a missle.
---
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the missle defense shield but the technology just isn't there yet. Its a damn hard problem to solve, in many ways harder than sending someone to the moon. The technology just isn't there no matter how much money you throw at it.
Its a defense contractors wet dream and nothing more.
Posted by mattk at September 26, 2005 12:55 AM
Currently, we also have a zero chance of being hit by a missle.
Do tell....ever heard of NK? China? What ahppens when China invades Taiwan and we come to their aid? Stick yoiur head back in the sand.
In case you missed it, the technology really wasn't there to send men to the moon either....but a fucking smart country put together some smart guys and put men on the moon. So, because we can't cure a single virus because "the technology isn't there yet"...we might as well stop trying? You DO know that "research" is done on things we don't know yet don't you? With technologies we don't have yet, don't you? That inventions are made for things that don't exist yet?
You're half-right on one thing...it IS a defense contractor's wet dream.....but it is certainly NOT for nothing.
And you believe that?
...and you've got nothing to say?
Posted by Sarge at September 26, 2005 08:53 AM
>>...and you've got nothing to say?
Those numbers are bogus.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 26, 2005 09:52 AM
>>but a fucking smart country put together some smart guys and put men on the moon.
Then why don't we put those guys on some sort of "world peace" project?
Posted by mattk at September 26, 2005 10:27 AM
peace, through superior firepower matt!
Posted by Falgore at September 26, 2005 11:03 AM
>>peace, through superior firepower matt!
yeah, thats been effective against the terrorists...
Posted by mattk at September 26, 2005 11:17 AM
I love how it is opposed merely because it's arbitrarily declared to be impossible.
It's really not all that different from what our Patriot missiles are doing right now, and doing a damn good job of.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 11:20 AM
yeah, matt. you're right. we haven't killed any of those terrorists. none of them. not a single one.
Posted by Falgore at September 26, 2005 12:53 PM
Those numbers are bogus.
The almighty UY has spoken. Everybody take heed.
Matt...because smart people understand that world peace is not attainable.....unless everyone's dead but us or in agreement WITH us. (yeah, that's called sarcasm-based-in-reality to show the point)
So long as someone HAS something, someone ELSE will seek to take that something for their own.
MJ....just because it doesn't work perfectly "right now"....not only means that it will never work, but ALSO means that we need to scrap the whole project and ALL future planning for the project. The almighty UY said so.
Posted by Sarge at September 26, 2005 12:56 PM
"Pie in the Sky." For many of you on this thread, that’s just what the Moon is to you; a barren, lifeless place that serves no practical purpose going back to after the Apollo missions of 1968-1972.
However, those “Moon Dreamers” you've chosen to deride have uncovered what a valuable resource and solution our Moon can be to some “down-to-Earth” problems that you all have decided to ignore as impractical or "too costly."
By looking at the chart presented at this website: www.ssi.org/assets/images/slide06.jpg , the loose lunar soil -- which requires no disfiguring mining -- contains valuable raw materials for many useful building products. Items such as important metals and alloys; oxides for making glass, fiberglass and composite materials as strong as steel; ceramics; even cement and concrete.
Additionally, there are considerable volumes of valuable “volatiles” such as hydrogen, helium, carbon, nitrogen and neon which have been absorbed into the fine soil particles that can be “harvested” by heating up the material.
As a result, Lunar building materials can be used to expand the first human outpost on the Moon and eventually build larger, permanent settlements. The Moon’s natural resources also allows us to build larger, cheaper space stations, laboratories, factories and tourist facilities in low Earth orbit (LEO), as well as clean Solar Power Satellites to handle Earth’s energy needs without polluting the atmosphere with greenhouse gases.
All of this is possible because it takes 20 times LESS energy to launch a given-size payload from the Moon’s lower-gravity surface to a destination in Earth orbit than it does to launch the same payload from Earth itself. Fuel expenditures, not distance, are the relevant factor.
The Lunar Prospector mission of 1998-1999 discovered large deposits of comet impact-derived water ice in permanently shaded craters in both the northern and southern polar regions of the Moon -- water that can be used for agriculture and industry; cryogenic fuels for transportation on the Moon and between the Moon and Earth, or the Moon to Mars and beyond in our Solar System.
The Moon? It’s not “just a Rubble Pile” anymore! Some of you just need to go back and take some basic science and math courses.
Posted by WSpaceport at September 26, 2005 01:29 PM
Okay, so I guess you have a hard-on for the moon or something, that's great. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on the raw materials thing because I can't be bothered to research it. However, we wouldn't be going to the moon to get raw materials from it. Putting a man on the moon has nothing to do with mining the moon.
Also, what do basic science and math classes have to do with this?
Posted by Richard Frankel at September 26, 2005 02:15 PM
I'm a big supporter of the space program. One may as well say to Columbus "Do you know how much a ship costs? There's no point to sailing over there."
Reaching out to the stars has been a dream of humanity since we first saw the stars, it's the advancement and elevation of us as a race. I beleive it's also in our undeniable nature, it's the vast untapped resource, the unexplored frontier, the fantastic unknown. Quite simply, it is (quite literally) the stuff dreams are made of. I think it was put quite well when it was said that space was 'one giant leap for mankind'.
That being said.....yah, it's kinda pork. Gut it.
Eventually NASA will be obsolete, private industry will be more then capable of taking over, and until now NASA has acted as a sort of catalyst by demonstrating how it MIGHT be done, which helps to perk the interests of skeptical investors. But on the whole, it's simply not neccessary. And sooner or later, the private industry will develop if the opportunities are there, NASA or no NASA. So even though I adore it, you need not be paying for it just because I like it.
I must say though,
"Putting a man on the moon has nothing to do with mining the moon."
The hell it doesn't. How do you intend to mine it without putting men on it? That's like saying 'crawling has nothing to do with walking'.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 03:00 PM
So thier are no misunderstandings - NASA may never be COMPLETELY obsolete, the government will still need some form of space-access for launching satellites and whatnot (and strategic missile defense)...By 'gut it' I mean the unnecessary parts such as rovers on Mars.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 03:04 PM
I must also say that I love the idea of mining space (like, mining asteroids and distant moons), but I really think mining OUR moon is a FREAKING LOUSY idea. Dude! Do you know what happens if alter it's orbit by moving 15% of it's mass down to the planet?
Space is limitless, the moon is however rather limited and finite. Let's start a teensy-bit further away, you know, just in case.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 03:07 PM
"Putting a man on the moon has nothing to do with mining the moon."
The hell it doesn't. How do you intend to mine it without putting men on it? That's like saying 'crawling has nothing to do with walking'.
Maybe I can clarify...first, we're not doing anything new by putting a man on the moon again, so it doesn't get us closer to mining it. He's not going to go up there and bring back stardust in this mission. Second, I would presume that we could/would do it with robots.
Posted by Richard Frankel at September 26, 2005 04:47 PM
Anyway, I agree that space exploration is very romantic and exciting, but that doesn't mean that it's a good use of government money, even if you think it's cool.
Posted by Richard Frankel at September 26, 2005 04:47 PM
Well I agree too. Like I said above, as much as I love it, much of this shouldn't be government funded. I'll admit to that and surrender what is perhaps the 1 bit of pork I actually like, because like it or not, you're right.
On a completely different subject, however (I'm picking at your technicalities here)...
What we're doing this time is putting a man on the moon MUCH safer and MUCH cheaper then last time. Suffice to say, it's still terribly unsafe and absolutely ridiculously expensive, so we have a long way to go with sending men to the moon before we're ready to start doing anything of significance there.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 05:54 PM
Sarge/Steve.
That "test" was scripted you know rigged.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 26, 2005 06:03 PM
Sarge/Steve.
That "Um Yeah" is lying you know chinese robot spy.
Posted by MJohnson at September 26, 2005 10:32 PM
Wow...the mighty UY has spoken AGAIN....take heed.
Yeah....child...like, lemme 'splain something to you. The first tests of new technology, especially new defense technology, are ALWAYS scripted, you fucking moron. That way, they can show that they CAN do it. You know...they can show that it is possible. What do you want? Them to launch a nuke at NYC and hope the system shoots it down? Is that too fucking difficult for you to understand? Do I need to dumb it down further for you?
PLUS, you say "that test" like the first tests in the series were the ONLY tests in the series. Like they just said "Yep, we can shoot one down, no need to further research or improve on this one. Pack it up and ship it out. You DO know that the tests after the initial ones for "the brass" are classified information don't you? That you have no fucking idea how those test were performed or how well they systems performed during the tests, don't you?
Oh yeah. I forgot that you are the almighty UY and know everything.....even if you don't have a security clearance to obtain classified information.
MJ...come on now, robots at least have SOME sort of intelligence.
Welcome to the UY circle-jerk of knowing nothing.
Posted by Sarge at September 27, 2005 07:31 AM
Well, I daresay, China wouldn't be a concern had Clinton not sold them long range missile technology in exchange for campaign donations.
Oh and don't forget... we never went to the moon in the first place. It was all a ruse conducted on some Hollywood set. lol. Ok, maybe not.
Here's the thing. I agree and disagree with Steve. $100 billion could certainly be better spent than sending a manned mission to the moon. In fact, many of these space programs... like the Mars rovers... are of little benefit to us right now. They further our understanding of other planets, but the impact is insignficant. So what if we find a whole plethera of microbe fossils on Mars... where's the benefit? Now, I do believe space exploration is important... but I think we should be focusing our attention on making significant technological advances in areas such as propulsion systems, communications, etc so that space exploration might one day amount to more than a couple billion dollar remote control vehicles. My guess is that the trip to the moon is more about re-invigorating public interest in the space program than it is about science. Again, I see this as a luxury expense that we can support when we're in a position to offer that support... but with a war going on and a nation plague with catasrophe... I think NASA should be putting their plans on hold indefinitely. IMHO.
Posted by Johnny New Englander at September 27, 2005 09:46 AM
>>are ALWAYS scripted,
Yep. Thanks for agreeing with me.
That means saying they have a success rate of _____ Is bunk.
They arent realistic tests Sarge which is the whole point.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 27, 2005 10:34 AM
>>You DO know that the tests after the initial ones for "the brass" are classified information don't you?
Oh noes!!!! Sooper Secrit Intel strikes again!!!!!!11!!11!!!!!
LOL wise up numbskull.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 27, 2005 10:44 AM
Yep. Thanks for agreeing with me.
Yep...thanks for ignoring the fact that you know NOTHING of further tests and claim some knowledge that you don't have. Yes you fucking idiot, EVERYTHING is classified and you do not have the clearance for that information. It's how the Defense Department works you fucking moron. Or do you think we just like to give up our capabilites to the enemy so they can do and end-run around them? What a fucking ignorant moron you are. If you even work for a company that handles DoD contracts, even if you're not working on classified items, YOU NEED a cleance. I wouldn't expect a never-done-anything-in-his-entire-pathetic-life ignorant college undergrad to understand the finer workings of DoD contracts OR to understand security clearances and why we have 'em...so assholes like YOU don't sell out our country.
Wait...wait...UY says, with zero evidence provided or knowledge of the technology....that it was all bunk.
Therefore it must be bunk.
THAT's logic for ya.
Posted by Sarge at September 27, 2005 11:30 AM
>>Thanks for ignoring the fact that you know NOTHING of further tests
We were talking about the one with the so-called highest rate of success.
And the further tests you are talking about, are they the sooper secrit ones?
>>Or do you think we just like to give up our capabilites to the enemy so they can do and end-run around them?
If we had a missile defense shield that you know worked, yes it would be a good idea to let others know not to even try it.
>>so assholes like YOU don't sell out our country.
LOL!
Oh man the only people selling out this country are the people in your party.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 27, 2005 11:53 AM
>>Five out of eight is the current record of the missile defense program.
And you believe that?
I Quote the Great UY, purveyor of only the finest barnyard porn.
>>You DO know that the tests after the initial ones for "the brass" are classified information don't you?
Oh noes!!!! Sooper Secrit Intel strikes again!!!!!!11!!11!!!!!
LOL wise up numbskull.
And again, UY The Rump Impaler speaks "the troof."
Yeah, I'm absolutely sure that missile intercept testing is going to be broadcast live on CNN. Maybe you should wise up -- simply because you don't understand something doesn't make it wholly bunk... So first you think there's nothing wrong with social security, and now you seem to believe that, what, missile defense will never work? Or are you pissed they're spending so much money on it? Though, as a guy who works with the military myself, I can wholeheartedly share with you that if Northrop and/or Lockheed are involved, it'll take forever and cost your children's children a boatload of loot.
Though it'd be really interesting to hear your thoughts in the future if NK ever fired a nuke at us after, say, Ted "Tipsy" Kennedy somehow struck down National Missile Defense... somehow it'd be the fault of some Republican Senator for not being the proud owner of a crystal ball.
Stupid Fact of the Day -- No two countries with McDonalds franchises have ever gone to war.
Posted by RP at September 28, 2005 10:37 AM
">>are ALWAYS scripted, Yep. Thanks for agreeing with me. That means saying they have a success rate of _____ Is bunk. They arent realistic tests Sarge which is the whole point." Apparently, UY, you simply do not understand how the Defense Department awards contracts. That's okay; you're a collidge kid. Please continue to disregard what Sarge says so you can stay in your little world where you're always right and where shemale Oompa-Loompas tend to your every need.
Posted by RP at September 28, 2005 10:48 AM
Has anyone else noticed that over the past few years of posting on here, UY has become considerably less lucid?
Sorry for running off topic... it just struck me that he's not said anything of any sort of value... at least you used to say SOMETHING with some clarity.
Posted by RP at September 28, 2005 10:52 AM
RP...he wasn't lucid 2 years ago and he's not lucid now. I WILL note that he used to sneak in a multi-sentence incorrect opinions once in a while, but that's a thing of the past. It's not that he doesn't understand, it's that he has no knowledge and goes off of whatever the latest bunch of whiners tells him. Go on UY....prove yourself for a change. This is the time to do it, when people are calling you on it. Shove it back in our faces. Or you can continue to be the insignificant troll that you are.
Posted by Sarge at September 28, 2005 11:23 AM
>>you're a collidge kid.
I am?
>>So first you think there's nothing wrong with social security
Right now, no.
And in case you were wondering that is the truth.
>>missile defense will never work?
Never is a long time, but no I dont think it will ever work with any kind of reasonable success rate in my life time.
>>Or are you pissed they're spending so much money on it?
I think the money would be better spent on conventional security, because right now there is more of a threat from dirty bombs delivered via a lone person than some ICBM Nuke duel.
W was focused on SDI when he first came in, to the detriment of other things. You know regular terrorism, thank him for 9/11 later.
Sarge for years now your posts have been confined to threats and gurgles of apoplexy.
Oh and sooper secrit intel, which is you know a great way to make an argument.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 28, 2005 05:55 PM
Never is a long time, but no I dont think it will ever work with any kind of reasonable success rate in my life time.
That's because you have no fucking clue how American ingenuity works and how wicked smaht people can really be. UY doesn't think it'll work...therefore it'll not work. THAT's logic for ya.
Lemme know when you've made your first argument here and stop lying about me. EVERYONE here, including the lefties, see right through your bullshit and lies. Ever wonder why they don't come into discussions you've poinsoned with your lies? They don't want to be associated with them, dumbfuck.
Posted by Sarge at September 29, 2005 01:09 PM
>>stop lying about me.
Reminds me, where do I live again?
You are on like your third guess.
Posted by Um Yeah at September 29, 2005 01:38 PM
Got nothing? Not a single thing to add? Didn't think so.
Posted by Sarge at September 29, 2005 04:28 PM
You can read cant you?
Posted by Um Yeah at September 29, 2005 07:20 PM
No, I can't read...you said so yourself sometime in the past. Can you actually say something worth reading?
Posted by Sarge at October 3, 2005 01:32 PM
Note: Comments once posted become the property of Pardon My English. We therefore reserve the right to make use of such in any manner and for whatever purpose we deem appropriate. Please refer to comment policy for further information.
