You guys are wrong about manned space missions.

[immoderate]

You guys are wrong about manned space missions. (At least some of you.)

Here it is: Technology enables the mission – not the other way around. Manned space missions, particularly to other planetary bodies, did not spur a surge of new technology. It rode the wave of the technology of the time. If Abe Lincoln had declared a manned mission to the moon, we still would not have had TANG in 1863. The technology would not have been ready to support it.

Now, I am not against science or exploration. But manned space missions, using current technology, are a waste of time and money. Now is the time for robotic exploration. Some manned orbital flights might be necessary, but new methods should be developed for lifting mass into orbit. (Space elevators, maybe.) The notion that technological advances come from space missions, sounds like trickle down economics to me. Yeah, space might create a demand for something specialized, but the technology is developed outside of NASA, usually.

Some posts have said the Apollo mission was responsible for the creation of the computer, or the microchip, or processing responsible for space navigation. Fiddlesticks! The integrated circuit was well along in the fifties. At least two companies had patents. The Apollo mission provided an application for the IC. But *cough* coincidentally, the same Apollo Navigation Processor worked nicely in Minuteman missiles! Imagine that! That provided a demand for mass production that brought down the price for ICs significantly. Note: Minuteman missiles do not fly in space. And the “spinoff,” if any, came from the Minuteman, not Apollo.

Ballistics started with the cannon ball, and the math was well understood by Newton and Leibnitz. Same old math got us to the moon. Some projects require a tweak to account for relativity, but even that’s a hundred years old. (TANG was also widely available in the fifties. The space connection was marketing.)

So how is a manned mission to Mars going to benefit you? What piece of future garbage do you need, that hasn’t been thought up yet, that will enable some space-tortured and irradiated passengers to better collect some rocks in the nearly nonexistent atmosphere of Mars?

Here’s an alternate proposal. Let’s go to Mars when we can make the round trip in two months for less than 100 million dollars. Technology first, then we go. Until then, we have space telescopes and satellites to play with, and probes to send to other planets. We might even think of something useful to do with the ISS, besides hosting millionaires.

--imm

[BlooInBloo]

1. Bullshit. Necessity is the mother of invention.

And dumb luck is the drunken one night stand father, I would suppose.

[humblebum]

118. The Russians are planning a manned Mars mission for 2020.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/russia_mars_2020_010416.html

[Warren DeMontague]

2. Fuck it if I'm not going to see a human being set foot on another planet before I die.

That's all the 'benefit' I need, frankly, leaving aside the host of other reasons it would be a worthwhile human endeavor. I'm going to see it happen, and my grandchildren's grandchildren (or, maybe their grandchildren) will be around when we begin the process of terraforming the place.

We explore. We grow. We move outward. That's what we do. That's what life does. That is, dare I say it, our job.

[ngant17]

3. The public never "saw" men walking on the moon

we saw only video feeds which could have been manipulated by NASA. It could have been faked and no one would have been the wiser.

I suspect the first 3 Apollo moon missions were faked on a Nevada or New Mexico desert stage, and perhaps the last 3 were also faked, too.

Outer space has billions of micro meteorites zipping around at speeds up to 60,000 miles per hour. Much more faster and much more denser than armor-piercing (depleted uranium) bullets. You can't protect against that. It only takes one small punch to breach the pressurized cabin.

There's no way you can see any evidence of footprints on the moon, no telescope can do it, and no photos of the lunar rovers have been published by independent researchers.

Robots are a different story. And they can explore space at 10% of the cost of manned exploration.

[Zipp]

4. OMG

You "faked in the desert" loons still exist.

[hobbit709]

5. What a crock of taurine metabolic byproducts.

[Fumesucker]

6. The Apollo Lunar missions left retroreflectors on the Moon which can be ranged with lasers..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Laser_Ranging_experiment

[ngant17]

24. those assertions are not new, nor are they prima facie evidence

No independent press coverage of the Apollo missions were permitted. All original data and information were monopolized by NASA. The photo you included (footprints from New Mexican desert and a white box), it is a NASA photo (i.e., fox guards hen-house). Moreover, relying on quotes from Wiki (notoriously biased and inaccurate) will only make your arguments less valid.

The laser ranging retro-reflectors argument is not convincing by itself, the 3 retro-reflectors on the moon's surface(supposedly by Apollo 11, 14 and 15), that is the least credible of evidence for a manned landing. Lunar reflectors are easy to get up there without human intervention, this is not particularly strong evidence of manned landings. They could have been placed by earlier unmanned missions (such as the French-built mirror placed on the moon from the Soviet Lunakhod 2) and thus do not prove a human landing. Many probes have landed on the moon.

FWIW, any laser will bounce off the lunar surface. No reflector required.
http://tinyurl.com/y7nxmvb

[Warren DeMontague]

128. What WOULD you accept as, quote, "prima facie evidence", then?

Since this isn't good enough, I guess.

[Cleobulus]

8. Being this stupid should be physically painful for people, period...

there is absolutely no excuse for this type of ignorance, I'm frankly shocked you have the intelligence to operate a computer.

[Blue-Jay]

9. Baahahahahaha!

[hlthe2b]

10. Good Heavens...

What to say... what to say. :eyes:

[WeDidIt]

11. ARE YOU A MOONER?

Man, before Birfers and Troofers, there were Mooners.

[MadHound]

15. You are disproven twice a day, every day, 365 days a year.

Since NASA and other scientists use the laser ranging reflectors to take various measurements on a daily basis. The first one was put in place by Neil Armstrong in 1969, and others were put in place by virtually every other moon mission. Oh, and before you say something else stupid, you can't just shoot these things at the moon, have them stick, and use them. They had to each be individually aligned by hand in order to function properly.

Still not convinced, well many of the academic institutions that use these reflectors do allow the public to sit in, so you can see for yourself. Find one near you.

[Codeine]

17. There's one in every crowd. nt

[Posteritatis]

52. There's usually several, sadly

This place got pretty sad last year around the Apollo 11 anniversary.

[sudopod]

18. Instead of raging at you

I'll provide a link that will answer your questions.

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

[Stuckinthebush]

27. HA! You are funny!

Pretending to be a wacko. That's rich!

:D

[Bluenorthwest]

35. That is just hilarious

And you know, no wonder. This notion that the moon landings were 'faked' requires that the believer know nothing about film making then or now. The fact is, faking that would have been a greater achievement than doing it. Harder than actually going there.
And also, by the way, it would require that hundreds of people who know how things are 'faked' because they make a living doing that, to hold their views and opinions for no good reason at all. Those who don't think we went are uninformed. They think we are incapable in areas we are capable, and at the same time they believe we have technologies that simply do not exist. It takes a certain kind of mind to get to that place. And a vast lack of experience in either related field.

[sudopod]

37. You'd think the Soviets would have said more about it. nt

[trotsky]

114. The Soviets could have found at least ONE person...

who, for a large price, would have blown the whistle on the Apollo program were it faked. Hell, technology was advanced enough at the time that the Soviets were able to track us to the moon just like Mission Control did. They had every reason in the world to expose the hoax, but they didn't. Guess Brezhnev and the entire Communist regime was in on the scam too, huh? :rofl:

[hlthe2b]

58. I find it simply amazing... to believe the manned lunar landings

were a hoax, must require the same mindset that puts man riding on dinosaurs and the age of the earth a mere few thousands years old. This denial of science just pains me SO damned much. The rest of the world is amazed at the ignorance of so many Americans.

[hlthe2b]

36. I've always wondered what the average age of moon walk deniers

might be...I guess, I had a hunch that it might be comparatively, fairly young. You, of course can refuse to answer, but how old are you?

[Posteritatis]

55. Almost every one I know personally is around my age

And I'm under thirty. It's sadly common; of the fifteen students in my graduate program (in history!), about half were Apollo deniers. Great job taking evidence into account and properly evaluating arguments, guys! *grumble*

[MattBaggins]

125. What school did you go to?

they should have standards for college, where if you believe such nonsense you are immediately expelled.

[WillyT]

39. Just Curious... How Old Are You ???

:shrug:

[Generic Other]

40. An octopus stole your brain

He went thataway!!

:silly:

[ChimpersMcSmirkers]

45. You hoaxers need to get a grip

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html

[proteus_lives]

67. Are you shitting us?

You're not that stupid are you?

[Warren DeMontague]

74. Reply: And then I'm not wasting any more time than this on your gibberish.

[MilesColtrane]

79. You are a nut.

[jpak]

95. ummm...they didn't *walk* they sorta hopped around on account of that moon mass gravity thingy

:rofl:

PS - the robots will have their revenge....

I'll be back

:scared:



















:rofl:

[nadinbrzezinski]

102. After dealing wiht a few tinfoilers round these parts

this one is at least entertaining, if OLD.

[KonaKane]

103. My aunt had a friend who always said that

...that the moon landing was "faked". Of course, she was the same lady who said that the communist were trying to indoctrinate us with the flouridated water system, and that if you pull a face and hold that way for longer than ten seconds, it will stick.

[apocalypsehow]

104. Amusing, silly nonsense - from stem to stern. Here, go educate yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

Read slowly, if it'll help. :thumbsup:

[apocalypsehow]

105. Delete, dupe. n/t.

[MattBaggins]

124. Astounding.. We have a real honest to goodness moon landing denier on DU?

I never would have thunk it.

[Warren DeMontague]

127. There are at least two.

The one positive thing I'll say about this one, at least he's not dragging "the patriarchy", "angels" and "our friends at the star folks lunar colony" into it.

[Posteritatis]

131. We have vast herds of them actually

You should have seen the Apollo threads last July. There were times it felt like they were actually the majority view.

[eShirl]

13. Frankly, I'd rather it be done well than quickly. Haste makes waste.

I don't really care if it happens in my lifetime or not. If I want to see humans on another planet I can watch Star Trek reruns.

[Warren DeMontague]

75. I'm old, but I'm not THAT old.

With any luck, "before I die" gives NASA a good bit of leeway.

[sudopod]

28. Godsdamnit, it IS rocket science.

It's fucking hard. Why does every noob with an algebra class under their belt think they're smarter than several thousand engineers who have millenia of combined lifetime experience?

Sigh.

Do you suppose it's akin to the phenomenon of voting for leaders "who are like us"? That people can't deal with the idea that there are things that are difficult to grasp, and therefore they reach for the easy solution of discarding it as "useless" or even "a hoax"?

These threads are depressing. I'd like to think folks like us are doing good by participating, but Cheezus McChrist...it's hard to not just get mad and say "fuck em." How do you stay patient?

Sorry about the ramble-rant. :p

[proteus_lives]

66. Well said!

:thumbsup:

[TreasonousBastard]

7. Agreed-- manned space missions use up too much of the scarce...

resources we now have for research.

We went to the moon because the Soviets beat us into space with Sputnik. That was it- our collective ego was shattered by those nasty ol' Russkies. It's nice we went there, but it cost a lot and was backed up by huge investments in other technologies, research, and massive grants for science education. It was a humongous Cold War effort pushed by two Presidents when we had the money and will to do it.

Who's got the money for that sort of thing now? Who has the will to federally fund equipping high schools across the country with bio, physics, and chem labs like mine was in the '60s?

Some day someone will invent a something like a warp drive and we'll be ready to go. Throwing a brazillion dollars at it won't make that warp drive come significantly sooner, but continuing basic research across all fields just might.

[sudopod]

30. "Throwing a brazillion dollars at it won't make that warp drive come significantly sooner"

Actually yes, yes it would.

[TreasonousBastard]

76. How so? After all the money spent on scientific and military projects...

we're still using chemical rocket power-- invented by the Chinese centuries ago and explained by Newton some time after that.

The money we threw at the lunar landing accelerated existing technology, but didn't give us much new. Just as war didn't give us nuclear energy or airplanes-- just accelerated work on what knowledge already existed.

So, some Einstein will show up in the future showing us the way to get into space without burning stuff or using 99% of the craft's energy just to escape gravity, and we'll be on our merry way to the stars.

[sudopod]

77. you've gotta be trollin... nt

[TreasonousBastard]

80. Which means you have no answer, just a statement you pulled outa somewhere.

[Confusious]

98. Yes, we went to the moon riding on tiny rockets

powered by gunpowder.

I'm starting to think we should invest the money in history lessons.

It's the same way this message board is the exact same thing as a town crier in the middle ages.

Oh, and newton never explained rockets. He explained gravity.

And his calculations, while close, weren't all that. Einstein made quite a few corrections, and considering, they may need to be revised again.

[TreasonousBastard]

99. Sure should-- rocketry has advanced quite a bit since the Chinese...

invented it. Even since the rockets' red glare was enshrined in song. However, whether it's a roman candle, and ICBM, or the space shuttle it still involves burning something and hot gases expanding to create a force.

And speaking of force, you may have forgotten that Newton also came up with those neat laws of motion that define how a force acting on a body makes it move.

Now, what I'm saying is that when someone comes up with an idea for an engine that doesn't burn stuff so hot gases can fly out of its ass, then we can explore the galaxy.

[Confusious]

100. We're not talking about the galaxy

We're talking about the solar system.

Pretty much even type of engine has hot gases coming out it's tailpipe. Ion, plasma. So we should wait 1000 years or more to do anything.

I find that completely unacceptable, and short-sighted.

[TreasonousBastard]

106. And we are researching the solar system with some excellent technology...

Cassini alone has been invaluable.

It's the manned missions that are questionable. What do we get, aside from bragging rights, if we do get someone on Mars in 10 years or so?

[Confusious]

110. Investing in NASA is an investment in science

Sending robots will advance a few disciplines. Sending people will advance every one, and create new ones.

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Sending people is a small part of the money. The investment in science is the large part.

[Confusious]

101. The state of rockets

this was 1925



this was 1969

[TreasonousBastard]

107. I know that, and said as much. What's your point?

[MadHound]

12. Manned space missions were the spur that drove many tech innovations in the '60's

Yes, one has to have the technological capacity to develop various innovations, but one also must have a reason to develop them as well. Yes, the integrated circuit was developed in the fifties, but it was the manned space missions that drove that innovation to become more powerful and smaller. Whether this would happened without manned space flight isn't in doubt, but we might not have launched the computer age until ten, twenty years later without the spur of the manned space flight.

Likewise, we had the capability to develop those thin, reflective emergency blankets during the seventies, but they came into being because of the manned space flights. This list goes on and on.

We need the spur of manned space flights to continue to help drive our technological innovation. We also need to manned space flight to continue in order to learn how to have the human species survive and thrive in space. Eventually we're going to have some sort of colonization of space, thus we need to start laying the groundwork now.

The major spur for technological innovation is war. But the cost of such a spur is far too high. I would rather we use space as the spur, rather than war.

Besides, what was the point of sending out all those manned missions to the New World six hundred years ago? What was the point of that manned mission across the North American continent at the dawn of the 19th century? We should have just stuck to the eastern seaboard, or better yet to Europe:eyes:

[eShirl]

14. "what was the point of sending out all those manned missions to the New World six hundred years ago"

GOLD
RICHES
WEALTH BEYOND IMAGINING
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

etc.

[MadHound]

16. Which is also part of the long term purpose of manned missions

We're running out of various resources on this planet. Figuring out how to mine asteroids and other planets in our solar system could replenish our depleted resources of various metals and minerals.

[eShirl]

20. Let's just do it in a logistically practical and cost-effective way. Whatever that happens to be.

That's all I'm asking.

[ngant17]

53. you mean plunder and slavery?

Besides, comparing surface of Earth exploration to outer space exploration is apples/oranges. We used old-fashioned free energy (wind power and sails) for exploration of New World.

Have you ever considered the economics of space exploration? ROI? It won't ever happen, unless you can invent a zero-gravity device so the rockets don't need millions of dollars worth of fuel to launch.

The reason why private enterprise will never make it in outer space exploration is because it would bankrupt any company that tries it.

[eShirl]

59. Yes

[ngant17]

50. flawed arguments on many levels

ICs were used before the Apollo landings, and they were implemented in ICBMs independently of anything that was done on the moon.

Tang was around in the '50s.

The Apollo manned moon landings were synonymous with war. During the years 1969-71, when the US was waging a massive, imperialist war against the popular liberation of Vietnam, it conducted a strongly nationalistic, fascist-like manned space exploration to the moon. These two massive endeavors were often coordinated together in such a way as to compliment each other, or at least to reduce the negative and unpopular impact
that one or the other was creating for the American people. For example, Pres. Nixon announced his so-called "Nixon Doctrine" in a televised speech at almost the exact day that the Apollo 11 astronauts returned from the first manned lunar landing in 1969. Of course, everyone was cheering the astronauts, and likewise some of that national euphoria could be
brought over into support for an escalated war in Vietnam, which the Nixon Doctrine entailed. Of course, the Vietnamese people were hardly cheering with us. Here are some specific dates of major Vietnam battles and the Apollo moon missions:


16 Jul-24 Jul 69 Apollo 11
“Nixon Doctrine” 25 July 1969
=================
14 Nov-24 Nov 69 Apollo 12
Initial US public trail, My Lai massacre, large anti-war protests in
Washington, D.C. and other cities. Nov., 1969
================
Apr 1970 Apollo 13 cancelled , in-flight explosion half-way to moon
Incursion into Cambodia May, 1970
================
31 Jan-9 Feb 71 Apollo 14
Operation Dewey Canyon/Lan Son II, Laos invaded 30 Jan - 6 Apr 1971
================
26 Jul-7 Aug 71 Apollo 15

16 Apr-27 Apr 72
Apollo 16
Hanoi bombings, Haiphong harbor bombings 15 Apr - 8 May 1972
=================
7 Dec-19 Dec 72 Apollo 17
Christmas carpet bombings 18 Dec - 29 Dec 1972
-----------------------------------------------------------

"At the White House Wednesday, someone asked (Nixon) presidential press secretary Ronald Ziegler if the news of the new military operations in Laos was being delayed to coincide with the news of a successful Apollo 14 landing on the moon…he implication was that the good tidings of another space spectacular might bury the bad news of some wider involvement President Nixon was planning in Indochina…he display of journalistic cynicism wasn’t significant in itself; no one believes a widening of the war in Asia can be overshadowed even by a moon landing. But it was symptomatic of a mood of general skepticism here about the Nixon course in Southeast Asia…he underlying cause of the skepticism is, of course, the incursion into Cambodia Nixon ordered last May…".

Commentary of 5 February 1971 by the Washington columnist Jack W. Germond

[apocalypsehow]

108. "fascist-like manned space exploration to the moon" - It's hard to top that statement for silliness,

at least in the English language.

:rofl:

[ngant17]

120. I see a lot of silly ignorance of modern American history in your posts

and I call it what it is, Apollo morphed into a fascist-like exploration of space, as it was and still is dominated by the US military-industrial complex embedded into the national security state, all of which was diametrically opposed to what Pres. Kennedy wanted to do (he also would have ended the Vietnam escalation). JFK wanted international cooperation, and I would call it an American version of "glasnost" in space.

So where was NASA's cooperation with Kennedy then? Their shameful record at that time was an absolute disgrace to all Americans. And to think that Apollo-Soyuz happened less than 10 years later, under Nixon/Ford, when it was JFK who was asking NASA to do exactly this in 1963.

[apocalypsehow]

134. I see a lot of silly ignorance of modern American history in your posts

And science, too.

[sudopod]

19. Scientist here.

You're wrong about pretty much all of that. Especially the bits about orbital mechanics.

Sorry your CS degree didn't talk much about actual science. :3

[Mother Smuckers]

31. Scientist here too...and thank you. I'm new but I can see there's a lot of antipathy toward science

here and it saddens me.

[sudopod]

33. You think it'd help if we wore lab coats all the time?

I've heard that helps. :)

[Mother Smuckers]

38. Tried that...people kept asking if I worked in the meat department at Wal Mart.

:silly:

[sudopod]

42. lolz nt

[berni_mccoy]

115. lol!

[Silent3]

116. You might get a better reaction...

...if you try wearing the lab coat that doesn't have all of those blood stains. :)

[Tailormyst]

122. Hahahahahaha

[ngant17]

57. "moon hoax" is not antipathy toward science

it is simply critical and independent thinking applied to things unseen.
Bill Kaysing, Ralph Rene,David Percy, Mary Bennett, Bart Sibrel, et. al. are not against science, most of them were highly educated, and they have raised important questions about the Apollo moon missions.

For myself, I would like to see more "glasnost" in science, especially space science, and less secrecy.

The problem I have with manned space exploration is that it is not done cooperatively with other nations on the Earth, which was originally JFK's vision for his Apollo Programme. The "space race" would have never happened under Pres. Kennedy. He had the right idea, to distribute expenses internationally, so no one nation will have to bear the brunt of the costs.

Ever read his last speech to the UN on 20 Sept. 63? It pretty much lays bare his idea, which NASA has ignored for so long. Indeed, NASA fought Kennedy tooth and nail to avoid space cooperation with the Soviets in '63. These space scientists, mainly confined to upper level management, were not intelligent enough to see his grand vision. Yet they controlled NASA? How was this possible?

[Posteritatis]

60. Claiming the moon landings didn't happen is the opposite of thinking. (nt)

[Confusious]

73. After looking up those people

they are all wacks.

Why don't we see stars in the background of the moon pictures?

For the same reason we don't see stars during the day.

The sun is so close and so bright, it washes everything else out.

Pulease. It's not about critical and independent thinking. It's about making yourself feel better, because you know a secret no one else does.

The same as the religious fundies who believe in the rapture.

[RoyGBiv]

89. Yes it is

[apocalypsehow]

109. "which was originally JFK's vision for his Apollo Programme" - Nonsense; that is simply false.

You either are willfully ignorant of the historical facts, or are simply making stuff up.

Which is it? :shrug:

[ngant17]

119. what part of NSAM 271 am I distorting?

Do you even have an idea what NSAM 271 was? JFK had planned to stop the race to the moon in favor of a joint US - USSR effort. After LBJ took over, cooperation in space was automatically deleted from the program.

And also what part of Pres. Kennedy's UN speech on 20 Sept 1963 is inaccurate?

It is you who lack the historical knowledge of the events related to the Apollo moon missions.

I've taken a lot of time to do this research, what about you?

FYI, here are excerpts from JFK's speech to the UN of 20 Sept. 1963, as published in Vital Speeches of the Day:

"...Finally, in a field where the United States and the Soviet Union have a special capacity -- in the field of space -- there is room for new cooperation, for further joint efforts in the regulation and exploration of space. I include among these possibilities a joint expedition to the moon."

"Space offers no problem of sovereignty; by resolution of this assembly, the members of the United Nations have forsworn any claims to territorial rights in outer space or on celestial bodies, and declared that international law and the United Nations Charter will apply."

"Why, therefore, should man's first flight to the moon be a matter of natural competition? Why should the United States and the Soviet Union, in preparing for such expeditions, become involved in immense duplications of research construction and expenditure? Surely we should explore whether the scientists and astronauts of our two countries -- indeed of all the world -- cannot work together in the conquest of space, sending some day in this decade to the moon, not the representatives of a single nations, but the representatives of all of our countries."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On Sept. 23, 1963, President Kennedy wrote a reply Rep. Al Thomas, who asked the President to clarify the national space effort to the moon(as stated in the Presidential Address to Congress on May 25, 1961) as opposed to an international effort he now had proposed before the UN on Sept. 20, 1963:

"...I am very glad...to state my position on the relation between our great current space effort and my proposal at the UN for increased cooperation with the Russians in this field..."

"As you know, my idea of cooperation in space is not new...our willingness to cooperate in a moon shot was an extension of a policy developed as long ago as 1958...our specific interest in cooperation with the Soviet Union...was indicated to me to Chairman Krushchev in Vienna in the middle of 1961...and...in my letter to him of March 7, 1962, which was made public at the time...so my statement at the UN is a direct development of a policy long held by the US Government."

"This great national effort and this steadily stated readiness to cooperate with others are not in conflict. They are mutually supporting elements of a single policy. We do not make our space effort with the narrow purpose of national aggrandizement...our readiness to cooperate with others enlarges the international meaning of our own peaceful American program in space."

But almost immediately after the UN speech, it was NASA which became uncooperative. There was serious foot-dragging within their upper ranks. For example, Dr. Robert C. Seamans(Associate NASA Administrator) had (privately) threatened to resign rather than cooperate in a joint US-USSR lunar flight. Moreover, a former head of NASA's moon flight program, Dr. B. Holmes, publicly stated in an ABC television interview in Sept. 1963 that a Soviet-American mission to the moon would be, "a very costly, very inefficient, probably a very dangerous way to execute the program."

On the other hand, on Sept. 29, 1963, the Soviet responses to his speech were all quite favorable. Later on Oct. 25, 1963, at a Kremlin press conference in another positive response to Kennedy's joint space initiative, Premier Krushchev emphasized that there would not be any kind of 'moon race' against the Americans. And really from that point on, the Soviet government no longer made any sort of plans for a lunar landing on its own.

It would be a great distortion of the historical record to suggest that the contest to send humans to the moon was against the Soviets. The US military-industrial complex deceived the American people into believing that a race to the moon against the Russians was real when in fact the US was the only one in the race. The Russians had officially withdrawn from the 'space race' in Oct, 1963. It is important to know this because a lot of the 1960's rightwing propaganda must be exposed for what it really was all along, a big lie.

Incomplete portrayals of this historical record continues even today. Read the June 1994 issue of the Scientific American article, "Was the Race to the Moon Real?" Among other things, the author's fail to even seriously discuss the close collaboration between Dryden and Blagonravov during that time.
-----------------------------

I can further elaborate, but you appear to have a closed mind on this subject.

[apocalypsehow]

133. For starters, plagiarism really is an unethical practice: you did not write the bulk of your reply,

but cut & pasted it from here without the slightest attempt at attribution or even the courtesy to the original author (Nathan Gant) of a link to his work.

Second off, this memo does not substantiate your claims - it merely empowers the bureaucratic framework for possible cooperation with the Soviet Union, and, indeed, explicitly states that "All proposals or suggestions originating within the Government relating to this general subject will be referred to you for your consideration and evaluation." - which, in effect, put NASA in the driver's seat when it came to such a possible effort.

You are exaggerating the import of the memo to make a point that is not valid upon even the most cursory examination - not that I'm surprised at such a tactic from a CT'er.

Third, let's examine that UN speech a little closer, shall we? It's quite interesting what you leave out when quoting that speech as "proof" of your dubious assertion:

"Our conflicts, to be sure, are real. Our concepts of the world are different. No service is performed by failing to make clear our disagreements. A central difference is the belief of the American people in the self-determination of all people.

We believe that the people of Germany and Berlin must be free to reunite their capital and their country.

We believe that the people of Cuba must be free to secure the fruits of the revolution that have been betrayed from within and exploited from without.

In short, we believe that all the world--in Eastern Europe as well as Western, in Southern Africa as well as Northern, in old nations as well as new--that people must be free to choose their own future, without discrimination or dictation, without coercion or subversion.

These are the basic differences between the Soviet Union and the United States, and they cannot be concealed. So long as they exist, they set limits to agreement, and they forbid the relaxation of our vigilance. Our defense around the world will be maintained for the protection of freedom--and our determination to safeguard that freedom will measure up to any threat or challenge." (emphasis added)

Selective (and dishonest, IMO) parsing of a speech by JFK to back up a faulty premise may work with some, but not with me. Please try again.

[ngant17]

136. I'm hardly plagarizing by quoting my own work on this issue

Why should I bother mentioning my own work in this regard. And for the record, NASA did supply me with some important historical material which eventually made its way to prouty.org, courtesy of Len Osanic. Most everything that was quoted is simply available as a historical record anyway, so what's wrong with pointing out text that is readily available in libraries? Quoting historical facts do not constitute plagarism.

Besides, I thought you might have figured it all out from my handle on DU, ngant17, and a simple look at my profile would have also suggested that I was also the same person who had submitted that material on prouty.org.

You are the one who is being selective and dishonest in quoting JFK's speech. Why do you think Kennedy personally inspected NASA's facilities in Florida, the week before he was assassinated in Dallas? It was not a suggestion, it was a presidential order. NSAMs are not simple "memos", they are direct orders coming from a commander in chief, it is more than "empowering" someone with ideas, or suggestions, or something that might be done or might have entertained the idea to consider it. For example, NSAM 273 was a direct order to the Pentagon generals to withdraw our troops from SE Asia. This was not a suggestion! Col. Prouty, with whom I have had personal correspondence, had researched this important NSAM and I think his conclusions were right on the mark. And I am sure he would disagree with you about the meaning of NSAMs coming from the White House and Pres. Kennedy. Why was NSAM 271 classified as secret for almost 20 years if it was nothing more than an innocent memo or suggestion?

Also you conveniently leave out the positive Soviet reaction to the UN speech (especially Yugi Gagarin), it was all favorable in Russia and the historical record indeed shows that the Soviets were going to work with Kennedy on the cooperative mission. Khrushchev's son has verified that. And you also seem to ignore the hatred and hostility which NASA had wrt to same cooperative moon mission (I refer to upper level NASA management, I am sure rank and file NASA would have been able to work with the Soviets). It was the difference between night and day.

[apocalypsehow]

137. Then you should have made clear that you were the author, and cited yourself. You did not do this,

and that is unethical in and of itself.

As to the rest, my analysis stands. You are now engaged in the practice known as "special pleading," and are continuing to distort the historical record in the so doing.

"NSAM 273 was a direct order to the Pentagon generals to withdraw our troops from SE Asia"

No, it wasn't. More distortion of the historical record - something you seem to be quite adept at.

Here are the three key instructions in NSAM 273:

"5. We should concentrate our own efforts, and insofar as possible we should persuade the Government of South Vietnam to concentrate its efforts, on the critical situation in the Mekong Delta. This concentration should include not only military but political, economic, social, educational and informational effort. We should seek to turn the tide not only of battle but of belief, and we should seek to increase not only the control of hamlets but the productivity of this area, especially where the proceeds can be held for the advantage of anti-Communist forces

.(Action: The whole country team under the direct supervision of the Ambassador.)

6. Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition, or any other readjustments which are possible between MAP and other U.S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import, distribution, and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta.

(Action: AID and DOD as appropriate.)

7. Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there should he estimates of such factors as:

A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam;
B. The plausibility of denial;
C. Possible North Vietnamese retaliation;
D. Other international reaction.

Plans should be submitted promptly for approval by higher authority.

(Action: State, DOD, and CIA.)

8. With respect to Laos, a plan should be developed and submitted for approval by higher authority for military operations up to a line up to 50 kilometers inside Laos, together with political plans for minimizing the international hazards of such an enterprise. Since it is agreed that operational responsibility for such undertakings should pass from CAS to MACV, this plan should include a redefined method of political guidance for such operations, since their timing and character can have an intimate relation to the fluctuating situation in Laos. (Action: State, DOD, and CIA.)"

None of which - not one speck - supports your incorrect statements regarding it in the reply above. In point of fact, President Kennedy intended to stay in Vietnam right up until the day he died.

How about replying to me with facts from here on out, instead of fantasies and distortions of the historical record? :shrug:

Thanks.

[apocalypsehow]

138. "Col. Prouty, with whom I have had personal correspondence" - Prouty was not only a proven liar and

crackpot, he was also cozy with all kinds of right-wing scum from Lyndon LaRouche to professional anti-semite Willis Carto's "Liberty Lobby" to the Ku Klux Klan.

Here, go educate yourself:

Fearless Truth Teller, or Crackpot?

"it was all favorable in Russia and the historical record indeed shows that the Soviets were going to work with Kennedy on the cooperative mission"

False. You have not one scintilla of evidence to back the sweeping generalization embodied in that claim, which is why you didn't post a link to any evidentiary material to substantiate it.

Please try again.

Edit: grammar.

[apocalypsehow]

139. "and a simple look at my profile would have also suggested that I was also the same person" - False.

Again, you just keep seeming to have difficulty telling the truth.

Your profile contains not one word or reference that would lead one to believe you were anything but a male from some city in Florida. Not one word.

Quick - go update it! A scrap of credibility might yet remain for you to salvage from this encounter.

:eyes:

[immoderate]

44. I got Newton and Einstein. Who did I leave out?

What "actual science" is done remains to be seen.

--imm

[sudopod]

46. Oh, everything in the 20th centry...

For example, here are aspects of orbital mechanics that Newton had no clue about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N-body_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network

BTW, you're not going to see much general relativity anywhere you're going to send astronauts.

Just because you have an equation or two doesn't mean that you instantly recognize all of the consequences that flow from it. Sometimes, it takes hundreds of years before many of their consequences are understood. This is especially true regarding natural laws described by differential equations. Differential equations are not trivial things to solve. Just name dropping "Newton" says nothing about the complexity of the problems that must be solved to put a thing where you want it. This is only a small part of the entire endeavor, though. Even greater layers of complexity are added when we consider the engineering required to build something that can withstand the tremendous forces necessary to travel on these paths.

You see, just because you don't know something doesn't mean that it isn't important, Sarah. This is a prime example of how someone can be bitten in the ass by the things that they don't know that they don't know.


Status: ( ) Not Told (X) Fuckin Told

[immoderate]

78. I see nothing there that justifies your self importance...

I already mentioned that relativistic effects are for certain projects. I was thinking of GPS.

The orbital mechanics you cite were not invented because of the Apollo mission, which supports my thesis that the project rides the technology, not creates it. Oberth Effect was new to me. I bet Newton would understand those equations, though. I suspect Oberth's effect would be doing quite well if Apollo had never happened. In fact there are those, even on this thread, who deny Apollo, but I bet they can't deny Oberth. LOL. Again I'm aiming at those who claim that a manned mission will create all sorts of scientific and technological discoveries. What it does is provide the resources which then requires imagination and work. But what are the goals?

So let me reiterate my point, which you did not address. A manned mission to Mars, using current technology, is not the best use of our available resources. It is a dangerous and expensive way to collect some rocks, when robots could do the job. So can you justify going to Mars using the same technology that got us to the moon in 1969? Where's the science in that?

You make assumptions about me that I already know are wrong. Your arguments are off the point. Some are just well camouflaged ad hominems. Not very persuasive.

--imm

[Confusious]

68. I take umbrage at that

I'm getting a CS degree, and had to take 3 science classes and with labs and calc.

I DO not claim this guy.

[immoderate]

81. Don't worry, that's another thing he's pulling out of his ass.

Don't know where he got the idea that I have a CS degree. But neither he nor you have addressed the issue.

Science classes and calc are good. There are other issues involved here. Can you provide any substantive refutation of the issues I brought up in my OP? You may have to read for understanding.

--imm

[Confusious]

86. There's one part of your post that says it all

Here’s an alternate proposal. Let’s go to Mars when we can make the round trip in two months for less than 100 million dollars. Technology first, then we go. Until then, we have space telescopes and satellites to play with, and probes to send to other planets. We might even think of something useful to do with the ISS, besides hosting millionaires.

It would be a waste of my time, not because I can't explain it, but because you don't want to believe it.

And that has been proven over and over again.

Additionally: Obviously, you don't want tax money being spent on that, and when they come up with ways to fund themselves outside of tax dollars, you get down on them for that. Heads I win, tails you lose. Your feelings about it have been made PERFECTLY clear.

[immoderate]

87. And your time is much too precious...

Oh, and it's not because you can't explain it. But you do have time to post, even forgoing content. :rofl:

This proof of "over and over again" -- surely you have a link? And what is you're trying to prove? Express yourself much?

[Confusious]

90. Well you made you feelings about it perfectly clear

There's no point in going any further.

And it's been that way for some time, so I don't see the scorpion changing.

[immoderate]

97. My feelings?

C'mon kid, address the issue.

--imm

[Johonny]

135. I see nothing wrong with that statement

it is a major concern of the ISS. Can the ISS do science that can't be done here on Earth and is the value of those experiments worth the HUGE cost of operating ISS. This was a major selling point of the ISS in its early stages. However as science conducted in space failed to really develop on Mir or the space shuttle ISS mission changed to something more basic. I.E. keeping the USSR rocket scientist employed and possibly getting some long term science out of ISS. It is rather uncertain ISS will ever conduct enough valuable science to justify its cost. It is not a new bold statement. It was understood before it was ever built. It is also why so many in the space science field feel such apathy towards it.

Here's a nice book that has a nice chapter arguing against things like the ISS for its lack of science value. It is certainly biased, but not anti-scientific in its argument.


http://www.amazon.com/Voodoo-Science-Road-Foolishness-Fraud/dp/0195147103/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271716112&sr=8-1

[KittyWampus]

21. Agreed- work on robots that can transmit information so exquisitely detailed we can smell

where it is.

[sudopod]

22. As long as you don't mind 20 minute communication delays

and data streaming at a screaming several kbps, not to mention the chance that five years of your work will go down the crapper because a hinge gets stuck and your solar cells don't deploy.

Too bad no one can be there to, you know, nudge it.

[KittyWampus]

23. It's potentially possible to close the "communications gap". Why not focus on THAT?

And to thoroughly debunk your comment- one little mistake and an entire shuttle of humans will blow up.

The resources and time saved NOT sending humans into space could cover sending multiple probes/crafts to Mars so if that hinge does get stuck, the next Rover will come along to either fix it or complete the mission.

[sudopod]

25. Debunk?

I do not think that word means what you think it means. :p Moreover, astronauts don't need your help to protect themselves from...I dunno, the hopes and dreams of generations of people? And what do you mean "close the communications gap?" You can't send signals faster than light. Though communication time varies depending on the two worlds' relative positions, Mars will always be many light-minutes away.

Also, I don't think you have a very good grasp of the relative costs of the various sorts of space missions, nor the relative returns on investment. Why, oh why, of all the things to make a stand about, do you feel the need to attack this? If the godforsaken F-35 program were cut, we'd save just as much money. I don't see multi-page threads talking about killing the grossly over budget death machine program, though.

[KittyWampus]

26. you are correct. Debunk was an extremely poor choice of words.

:blush:

Have a great Sunday, we're going for a walk since the sun decided to shine. :hi:

[sudopod]

29. I'm sorry if I'm being loud and mean.

:(

It's just that space is my dream. It's all I've ever wanted since my earliest memories.

I imagine that my emotions are similar to what an artist might feel at an exhibition of their work, where a someone comes in as says, "Well, that isn't real art. It doesn't look like anything." Where do you even begin in a situation like that? I guess the graceful thing would be just to walk away, but to have people arbitrarily walk into one's life and shout "Everything you've done, that you're doing and will ever do is wrong" is a hard thing to bear gracefully.

I'm sorry.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. One little mistake and tragedy?

I guess then we should ground our airliners. Entire air crafts filled with humans go down on a regular basis. Hundreds dead. Burned to a char. And yet, at that very moment, dozens of other airliners are taking off anyway.

[MadHound]

41. Actually that's not true

After all, despite "one little mistake" Apollo 13 returned safely.

But you are right however, people have and will die in space, that is a fact. However if we had let the fear of death rule us, well, we wouldn't be on the North American continent, much less in space.

Thankfully not all humans are timid little rabbits afraid to come out of their hole.

[Confusious]

69. Shit, we wouldn't have crawled out of caves

We'd still be eating maggots.

[Bluenorthwest]

32. Math did not get us to the moon, people did, using math

What do we need? Knowledge and experience. We seek to know that which we do not know. Without human presence, we have not been there. We will not find out what we did not know, could not predict, could not design robots for in advance.
Many of the most important results of the space program so far are things you probably would not even think of. The stories of those who traveled are of enormous value to the culture. Some say that the first photos of Earth from space had more impact on our understanding of our place in the universe than all that went before. A photo of home. This coupled with the reported human emotions felt from those places forever altered how we see ourselves, our planet and the universe.
In addition, of course, we are just talking about when. Because robotic missions are not the end goal, nor will they fill our needs. Included in our needs are the clearly human impulses to go and take a look over there, across the waters, over the mountains. So even if we go robo now, before long, it will be people. Because we need to go look. It is who we are.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

43. I find the belief system on here interesting.

Millions of Americans, and most people here, do not believe the 'official line' on JFK, MLK, RFK, the Gulf of Tonkin, 911, Iraq and so on, but the majority of Americans and certainly a majority here believe the US landed on the moon.

'Technical proofs' and or 'debunking' of each item aside, I find it interesting how people pick and choose what to believe.

It's similar to the other items believed or disbelieved here. Global warming is accepted for the most part, while the benefits of GM foods and vaccinations aren't.

[Posteritatis]

51. So believing in one requires believing in all of them?

I "believe" in the moon landing as much as I "believe" in gravity or evolution or the fact that the Earth orbits the sun. All of those are utterly irrefutable truths and anyone who continues to deny them this late in the game is ignorant, stupid, or (generally) both at once.

Just because the "official line" and objective reality happen to line up there doesn't mean I do or even should buy said line in all situations. That would be just as stupid as pseudoskeptical rejection of everything as a first response.

[ZeitgeistObserver]

54. Science is a buffet apparently. Pick and choose at will.

And it often gets mixed up with politics and ideology.

[Odin2005]

47. Bullshit! A Sagan quote for you:

"We embarked on our journey to the stars with a question first framed in the childhood of our species and in each generation asked anew with undiminished wonder: What are the stars? Exploration is in our nature. We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

--Carl Sagan, Cosmos

[sudopod]

48. *thumbs up* nt

[neverforget]

61. Cosmos is a fantastic series and Carl Sagan died way too young.

[sudopod]

62. The only man in the universe

who could be stylin in a turtleneck.

[immoderate]

83. As soon as we can make Mars and back in 60 days, we should do it.

What's wrong with that? Carl Sagan won't save you.

--imm

[Posteritatis]

85. Meh, people will just move the goalposts by then

And it's not really possible to move towards that sort of capability if people howl in rage every time there's talk of working in that direction.

[immoderate]

88. Well, I am surely for that type of research.

If we don't do it, others will.

--imm

[Motown_Johnny]

49. it is clearly a combination of both

the goals set must be achievable but without achievable goals being set the technology won't improve.

[MisterP]

56. basically, the most cost-efficient way to get technology out of a space program is to keep the

rockets on paper, then

while technically for solar-system exploration--within budgetary limits and for geological and cosmogonic purposes rather than with an eye to system-wide conquest--I categorically reject the baggage that adhered to space travel from the 1880s and beyond the Viking landers

Tsiolkovsky's mentor was Nikolai Fyodorov, who, inspired by a "militantly antitranscendental" Russian Orthodox heresy, saw space travel as part of a scientific project that would produce the apotheosis of humanity and allow for the bodily resurrection of all who had died: the other planets would be terraformed and farmed to provide these resurrectees with food. In the same vein, Soviet SF writer Ivan Yefremov's scientific utopia has the whole world remade into a new Garden of Eden via human labor and ingenuity, with orbiting mirrors to melt the tundra and all predators exterminated or coralled into farms. 20s Soviet planners deemed the Aral Sea "nature's mistake" when discussing the diverting of the Syr and Amu Darya in current-day Uzbekistan.

Since the 30s or 40s, Arthur C. Clarke saw rocketry as a way to escape racism, the Holocaust, and WWII, promising a new Renaissance. Hosts of space-related SF has been analyzed and psychoanalyzed as offering novelty, interest, and adventure by means of the rocket, creating the New Wave--Joanna Russ, Barry Malzberg, Stanislaw Lem (to a degree)--in response to perceived childishness in SF outside of "Galaxy" magazine and Ray Bradbury.

With the Viking and Venera programs undermining the notion that the cosmos was predestined and intended to support life (and thus offered fertile colonization grounds like North America did in the 16th-19th centuries) and, some say, the anticlimax of actually wandering amidst dusty, subtly-colored hills in the harsh glare and bringing back KREEP rocks to Nixon, the attention turned to "terraforming," which was described as a way to make your own utopia, morally neutral, inevitable, and "natural."

Though the "Great Hope" of space may have gone out of SF (replaced by goose-stepping Reaganauts, the New Weird, and whatever gothic SF Iain Banks and Alastair Reynolds are), this dream lives on among several scientists--and, like any hope, won't perish for lack of evidence. Gerard O'Neill and Robert Zubrin offer rocketry as means to "escape" Earth's troubles and strangled ecology--though this is putting the cart before the horse, since humanity is dependent on the ecosphere, and probably can't replicate the conditions that took a few billion years to evolve via a bus-sized life-support system. Hawking encourages humanity to "blast off" to--well, somewhere, he can't say--because "we'll" be burned by the sun in 2 billion years: a space program now will guarantee against extinction and put our eggs in several "baskets" or, for Clarke, win us the esteem of some cosmic sugar-daddy who will give us some moons and planets, or become friends with us against the crippling loneliness of space being large. This exemplifies the "long-term view" in that it worries about stellar evolution today while neglecting the fact that 2 billion years ago the Earth was covered in bacteria, and 700 million years ago "arthropods" and "vertebrates" were the same biological category; since mutation doesn't cease, BONES might no longer be in use by 2 billion years in the future, and humanity would have split into several barely- or incompatible species by 5,000,000 AD and dwindled back to the trees by 50,000,000 AD. It's like Opabinia losing sleep over the ultimate fate of The Future Is Wild's Poggle because it's so poignantly the last mammal.

[sudopod]

72. ...Russian Orthodox heresy...

[Silent3]

117. WTFBBQ?

[bobbolink]

63. Can you explain to me why all of you are OK with this expenditure, but NOT housing for those of us

who are without homes?

Why this as a priority?

WHY?

Can anyone actually answer that without attacking me for asking?

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eShirl]

65. false dichotomy

[Confusious]

70. false dichotomy

Now if you where to say something like military spending and homes and health care, that would be true.

Military spending, while it might make for better weapons, it doesn't enrich like spending on a space program.

[wtmusic]

111. Military spending WAS the space program.

There would have been no lunar landing if it wasn't for ICBM research led by rocket pioneers Werner von Braun and Hendrik Wade Bode.

[Confusious]

132. I'm not talking about the past I'm talking about NOW. nt

[sudopod]

71. Who ever said we can't fight for both? nt

[bobbolink]

92. I wish you would........

[immoderate]

82. Hey I'm on your side.

--imm

[bobbolink]

94. Thank you.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tailormyst]

123. False reasoning

I haven't seen anyone here saying that.

[KonaKane]

91. Horseshit. It's actually all ABOUT humanity in space.

We don't explore just for the raw data. Remember that exploration....any exploration...is about a human experience. Have you ever spoken with one of the astronauts who walked on the moon, or even spent days above the planet, looking down on the blue globe? Many of them say it was the most profound experience of their lives and it changed them on some pretty deep spiritual levels.

Or would you have preferred that Neil Armstrong's quote now a part of history ("That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind") been reduced to little flashing red light on some ground controllers console, indicating a landing?

[ZeitgeistObserver]

96. Yes, otherwise we're just still tossing rocks like cavemen.

'Smart' rocks, but rocks all the same.

Same as 'smart bombs' are still bombs.

If humans don't go, there's no point going...because nobody cares about 'smart rocks'.

[CLANG]

93. The reason space travel fosters innovation

is because things are worked on that would not be economically feasible for a private company to work on. Because billions of dollars can be spent by the government, things can be worked on where there is a long term development cost with no assured payoff.

[joshcryer]

112. If you can build a robot that can effectively scout out Mars, then I would be blown away to see it.

Until then your argument is not based in reality.

Yes for near earth objects (Moon, NEOs), robots can be a fantastic resource, and I have argued against a manned moon base for that reason. But when you get into the time delays that you will experience beyond NEOs you will not be able to effectively do much at all. The technology simply isn't there yet, and won't be for quite awhile.

[DailyGrind51]

113. Exactly! How much of the technology and "cabin space" is used for life-support?

[Tailormyst]

121. So many thing may be discovered in the quest to get to the moon.

No one is talking about taking off tomorrow. Lots of research and planning to do.

[unhappycamper]

126. $100 million dollars ain't shit.

Stop the occupations for 8.33 hours and you got $100 million dollars.

$100,000,000 / $200,000 (per minute) = 500 minutes / 60 = 8.33 hours

[cynatnite]

129. There is nothing better, IMO, than seeing a human walk on another planet...

I remember when I was a kid and watched the first moon walk. It changed me in ways that I can't fully describe. There was so much hope and awe. I'll never forget it.

[TheKentuckian]

130. You have it so wrong that the only way to get there would be to willfully

avoid the development of technology as goals were set rather than the goals be driven by the desire to use some new invention (though that certainly happens too).

The alternate proposal is lets never go to Mars unless we can steal/be gifted/find some alien technology rather than actually develop it on our own. We've got planes a hundred years after Kitty Hawk that cost more than 100 million.

Why can't you have different priorities without trivializing those of others? What a bunch os smarmy bullshit the OP is, you mentioned TANG like three times!!! Like that's all the manned space program has yielded (and that misnomer).