|
18 Apr 04 - 08:34 AM (#1164310) Subject: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver Hi folks. Something has been bothering me about the 1960's moon landing...A lot of money was spent getting there..Man walked on the moon...a triumph by the standards as they were in those days...A miracle of modern science(as it was then).....BUT what the heck did they go there for and what good has it done anyone?????. Or perhapos it was all a hoax like the James Brolin film Capricorn One...Any ideas?? |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:27 AM (#1164345) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: mack/misophist The original impetus for the moon program was political - the government needed to show that we were as good as the Russians. As for 'what good has it done any one?', NASA is not allowed to patent discoveries made by contractors so it's hard to see, but there have been hundreds of new products and materials that came from NASA programs, from teflon to tang. The real reason, however, the one that matters, is the survival of our species and our planet. There are too many of us. We are destroying our home. Space is the only truly safe place for many industrial processes. It's a source of new building material. Ultimately, we will perish like brewer's yeast, poisoned by our own waste products if we can't go someplace where they can be contained. If the moon landing had been a hoax, the temptation to tell would have been too much for any normal person to resist, don't you think? |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:35 AM (#1164352) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver I believe that temptation to tell can be bought if the price is right. Many have bought off silence from others in the past. Thanks for your views on Political and objective aspects. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:56 AM (#1164364) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: fat B****rd I've never understood the practical value in space travel. If somebody could please explain the "benefits to mankind" of the billions of money spent then I'm willing to listen. That is, explain without shouting !. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 10:58 AM (#1164398) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Mooh Space travel is exciting and exotic and educational and gives us something to conquer. Nonetheless, all that money would do more good if science and governments spent it developing ways of providing health, education, and environment needs. I'm not so naive to think that the money WOULD go to those needs, or for that matter that war expenses would either, but as a species, we sure have our piorities fucked up. Our world is polluted, chemical and oil dependent, diseased, paved over, crime ridden, warring, and gasping for life. The hope we get from space travel seems like empty promises to me. NOW I'm depressed. Peace, Mooh. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:08 AM (#1164407) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: MMario all that money would do more good if science and governments spent it developing ways of providing health, education, and environment needs actually - the money spent for space travel HAS gone a long way towards providing research into health, education, environmental concersn, manufacturing, and many many many new products. There are literally thousands of products that would probably NOT have been developed if not for the space program - and many thousands more that have been developed from THOSE products and processes. Plus the income and revenue from the same. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:41 AM (#1164424) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Mooh I truly believe that the necessary advances in the fields I mentioned would be possible without the expense and distraction of space travel, but that they don't happen because there isn't the will without the glory of space travel. Sure there have been benefits, but do they outweigh the liabilities, could there be better return on the dollar? The income and revenue argument could apply if we were as anxious to solve our problems as we are to get off the planet. Much the same arguments are put forth in support of the war machine and sports car racing. I still don't buy into it. In short, we don't NEED the space programs to help us solve our earthbound problems. Some of us WANT space to cure our ills, others realize that Earth will benefit from the spin-offs as a secondary concern not the paramount goal. We don't yet feel the urgency of our situation enough to make the research and development happen sans the glory of space travel. Btw...How many of those products of space programs are actually good for the planet and its people? How many are toxic, nonbiodegradable, unstorable? How much of the good stuff isn't being put to peaceful and healthy uses, shared with the rest of mankind. "Giant leap for mankind"? Okay, but how have we reversed the degradation of Earth, specifically? Is there less poaching, fewer landmines, less pollution, less oil dependency, higher education standards in impoverished (and other) countries, better health where it's most needed, fewer toxins which can't be safely moved (think train and ship accidents), disease control? Would it be worse with no space programs...only if none of its resouces were diverted and no other measure were taken to help ourselves. How does it promote tolerance, understanding, peace (think Reagan's starwars programs)? I don't think the world is a better place to live now than it could be if we realized we don't need the space programs to make it better. My 2 cents, Canadian funds, not adjusted for space-race inflation. Peace, Mooh. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:46 AM (#1164430) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos No it was not a hoax. We chose to go the moon as a measure of human accomplishment, and we did. I recommend you fond and listen to the oft-repeated speech by John Kennedy, who explained it perfectly. A |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:56 AM (#1164441) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace I was more than that. If humans give up on the idea of reaching the stars, of exploring space, of 'finding' new worlds (sounds like an episode of Star Trek with THE William Shatner), then we throw away the dreams of the future. My daughter really wants to go to Mars. It is a dream she has had since she was three or four and first found out it was there. She works hard at her maths and sciences, studies the sky, reads about everything to do with astronomy, takes a martial art to keep in shape, and has as her heroes those people who have risked their lives to venture beyond the bonds of Earth. As adults, we know the odds of that dream becoming a reality, but she is almost an adult, and she won't give up the dream. Do I continue to encourage her? Damn right. To quote Blish, "They Shall Have Stars." |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:57 AM (#1164442) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace Sorry, should be 'It was more than that.' |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:01 PM (#1164444) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris Noah, Kennedy was wrong, as surely was Queen Isabella of Spain. Think of the money she could have saved and lavished on more balls, luscious dinners etc, providing more work for serfs. Or she could have spent it on much-needed defense projects, protecting the country against the Moors. But no, she went and funded Columbus' crackpot idea of an expedition instead. And he was wrong, the Indies were not that way and he did not prove that the earth was not flat. Why, he risked losing all five ships over the world's rim. And what did he achieve? Jack shit. Where is the benefit to mankind? Just potatoes, tobacco, curare and a few piddly medicines. The Spaniards never got the quantity of gold they expected, so it was all a failure. Who can say the world is a better place now for the discovery of America? Osama Bin Laden for one would disagree. Or perhaps it was all a hoax, and America does not exist. After all, temptation to tell can be bought if the price is right. I bet you there's bugger all West of Ireland and Columbus just made the whole thing up. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:02 PM (#1164445) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos Well said, Bruce. Mankind is going to expand and grow to the limits of the Solar SYstem. Once there, he will figger a way to makew the leap to another system. It may take a century at the edge, but it will come assuming the species survives. If the United States, for example, does not continue to make the leading developments occur in this area, they will be made by India, China, France, or god-knows-who. One way or another they will occur. A |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:02 PM (#1164446) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris Noah should be "Nah" |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:04 PM (#1164450) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris Which was my convoluted way of agreeing with brucie, of course. The day I stop dreaming I deserve to die. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:05 PM (#1164451) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos Evkarisato El Gerko!! LOL!! A |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:55 PM (#1164476) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Uncle_DaveO In looking at the federal budget, you are ALWAYS going to have the "What you're doing is waste; the money would be better spent on what I want done." This is the nature of politics: The struggle of one or another person or group to control the power that resides in the association of a number of persons." And by "number of persons" I mean from two persons up to the entire population of Earth. That struggle, I repeat, is what politics is. Jimmy Jones and Mary Doe want to go to a movie. He wants to see a shoot-em-up, and she wants to see a romantic movie. (Or maybe he really wants to stay home and spend the time in bed.) The push and pull by which they make a decision is politics! Each wants to control the power that resides in their association. This is no different in nature from the national goals/budget discussion about scientific expenditure. Dave Oesterreich |
|
18 Apr 04 - 12:56 PM (#1164477) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Nigel Parsons El Greko: Columbus' 5 ships? Nina, Pinta, Santa Maria and... ? Nigel |
|
18 Apr 04 - 01:06 PM (#1164484) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: freightdawg Not sure about the fifth, but the fourth was the Enterprise, with Capt. James T. Kirk at the helm, aided superbly by Mr. Spock and Dr. "Bones" McCoy. Beam me up, Scotty. "Aye, Cap'n, but I dinno' if she'll hold together much longer!" Freightdawg |
|
18 Apr 04 - 02:47 PM (#1164541) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond The money spent on the space program is inconsequential next to the money we already spend on education, 'saving' the 'environment' (what a bunch of tree-hugger, bleeding-heart BS THAT is!) developing medicine, education means, manufacturing, etc... And well, giving that our time on this little ball of rock is absolutely finite, getting off it HAS to be a priority.... Because nothing's gonna save us but us.... Read Marshal T Savages book, "The Millennial Project : Colonizing the Galaxy in Eight Easy Steps", or visit the foundations web site @... http://www.millennial.org/ |
|
18 Apr 04 - 03:05 PM (#1164549) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk Wonderful story about Columbus, El Greko! LOL! the negative view of why man went to the moon: It was done for political prestige. Cold war politics. Had to show that the USA was superior to a bunch of godless Communists!!! It was done in order to gain a potential military advantage in space. He who can base strategic weapons on the moon and in orbit has a theoretical advantage over he who cannot...or who is less good at it. the positive view of why man went to the moon: It is natural that we should wish to explore and understand the Universe around us. Going to the moon was one more great accomplishment in doing that. And there are further such accomplishments to come...not only in space, but in the depths of the ocean, the interior of the Earth, and the depths of the human soul and psyche. - LH |
|
18 Apr 04 - 03:42 PM (#1164579) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: s6k could have been faked. there is actually some pretty good evidence to support it |
|
18 Apr 04 - 04:34 PM (#1164599) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond No there isn't... the 'evidence' of the moon landing being faked is almost as big a pile of bull-flop as the idea that we can 'save' the 'environment' |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:02 PM (#1164637) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver Why could it not have been faked....did you see the film "Capricorn one"? where did the idea come from?? |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:08 PM (#1164643) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk Oh, it could have been all right, but it wasn't. Almost anything can be faked, given present media and technology. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:27 PM (#1164657) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Gareth To miss-quote Edmund Hilary " Because it was there". One of the problems I encounter politically here in a little valley in old South Wales, is the "Not invented here" attitude. ie unless I can relate it to the local enviroment, its not worth doing. No let us explore, I suspect the cost of NASA is far less than the money that Shrub and friends waste on thier big business paymasters. Gareth |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:31 PM (#1164660) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk And people will probably go to Mars one day for the same reason...because it's there. It's really quite irresistible, given the means. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:35 PM (#1164664) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace NASA has requested about 17 billion over the next five years. Sounds like lots until one compares it with the cost of warfare. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 06:37 PM (#1164667) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace I will likely be dead by then, LH, but I truly hope my daughter is on that mission. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 07:20 PM (#1164701) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond "Oh, it could have been all right, but it wasn't." I didn't think that pedantic fact was worth mentioning... |
|
18 Apr 04 - 07:41 PM (#1164714) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee I hope that all my nieces and nephews are on the mission. I hope that my family's genetic materials ride out and onward yet. If you doubt that spinoffs from the space program, you'd best log off Mudcat and turn off you computer, 'cause if it wasn't for the space program you'd be using Big Iron instead of PC and you'd likely not be posting -- IF the Internet existed at all. I will make an offer to anyone who was alive between the time Sputnik I was orbited and July 20, 1969: I will refund to you, or donate to the cause of you choice, the amount the US space program cost the average citizen of the US during that time IF you will swear and sign a contract to the effect never to again use anything that is a spinoff of the Space Program. Now, in order to be fair, here are some things you'll be giving up: Personal Computers Colorization of black and white movies "Sound Guard" record cleaner Solar powered calculators Aluminized bags for snack food Weather satellites Halogen lights for cars Sports domes Microwave Ovens Pocket calculators Phone calls by satellite "Mylar" balloons "Blue Blocker" sunglasses Digital watches and thermometers "DirecTV", "Dish Network", etc "Kevlar" for bullet proof vests "Mini Mag" flashlights Fiber optics for phone calls "Vortec" engines in GM cars "Ovation" guitars and helicopter blades Pacemaker batteries that last 20 years and can be recharged through the skin. Compact Disks M R I medical scanners Electronic ignition in automobiles Laser scanners in stores "Bulb Miser" devices for long life light bulbs Weather Maps on television Juice boxes for "Hawaiian Punch", etc "The Patch" medical device Breathing systems for Mt. Everest climbers, Scuba divers and firefighters "Flexon" eyeglasses and dental braces Cellular phones and beepers Cable Television, H B O, Showtime, etc Sunglasses that block 99% of U. V. light Pens that write upside down and under water Anti corrosive paint for bridges and boats Scratch resistant coatings on glasses Football helmets for the NFL GPS Navigation Systems Cordless vacuums, etc. Aerodynamic bicycle wheels Thermal gloves and boots Joystick controllers Computer controlled automobile engines CDs ...and a whole bunch of medical stuff that's not mentioned, including the things used in laproscopic surgery and CAT scans. Okay, who's ready to take me up on my offer? Another hint: I already know what it will cost me.... |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:05 PM (#1164756) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk Clinton - Yeah...? Well, I don't think your response was either. Rapaire - I'd give up all that stuff for a sumblime sense of belonging... :-) |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:07 PM (#1164761) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk Damn! I meant "sublime". |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:12 PM (#1164765) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace sublime sublemon subtangerine subgrapefruit |
|
18 Apr 04 - 09:50 PM (#1164785) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee LH, you're on Mudcat, where you belong -- thanks to spinoffs from the space program. |
|
18 Apr 04 - 10:17 PM (#1164801) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: The Fooles Troupe Georgiansilver I know, you're just trying to emulate the success of my 'UFO' thread... I'm still winning! And as to the faked moon landings - I discussed in another thread the wonderful French TV documentary that Kubricks widow participated in - incidentally many of the current big names in politics - advisors, appointed ones - not elected ones - willingly appeared in it too! You see Kubric was able to borrow that very low light level lens from NASA to shoot a movie by candlelight becuase he had used the set of 2001 to fake the moon landings! Robin |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:29 PM (#1164829) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris You see, Nigel? Columbus lost two ships over the edge of the world, that's why you never heard of them. It's a cover up. Anyway, I don't believe in letting facts get in the way of a good story... |
|
18 Apr 04 - 11:51 PM (#1164838) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Chief Chaos Because we saw how pristine an environment there was on the moon and Clint's ancestors said why should the earth be the only f'd up thing in the solar system. Clint, from a dedicated professional tree hugger (the gov't pays me for it anyway)it isn't about "saving the environment" but seeing to it that laws are followed to prevent further "Love Canals" etc. I know for a fact that without the laws and regulations concerning the pollution of the environment that the industrial processes necessary for our current life styles would generate far more pollution to the environment than is necessary. I know for a fact that without these laws and regulations that the industrial complex would willingly dump their "unprofitable" waste streams directly into the environment. I've seen it with my own eyes at facilities where they thought we weren't watching. And the environment that we are all wasting our time saving is the environment of clean air, clean water and clean land. Is your house a toxic waste dump? Should we allow others that are profiting from the sale of their items to destroy that which belongs to all? I know that they'll be the only ones that could afford air filters, water filtration and the best land left on which to live if we did. Sorry for the thread drift. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 12:09 AM (#1164851) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond Pristine an environment??? Give yer head a shake... Dead is more like it... |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:40 AM (#1164914) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,harlowpoet A complete hoax. The film footage is remarkably similar to the set of the movie First Men On The Moon which came out a few years earlier. Nixon, the president at the time was a proven liar' The flag flutters, although the moon is windless. Cold war was the motive. Hardly anyones been there since. You have motive from day one. All this so called space travel is merely orbitting around the earths outer edge. We'd burn up if we went any further. The biggest lies are always the most believable. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 02:52 AM (#1164919) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: The Fooles Troupe Isn't "First Men On The Moon" the one made by the famous Russian Director? "We'd burn up if we went any further." That's because we would get closer to the sun. Simple - go there at night! Robin |
|
19 Apr 04 - 03:08 AM (#1164925) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,harlowpoet As a kid, I was told the moon was made of cheese. I find that a far more believable hypothesis. Even if we could go there, which we can'(, isn't polluting one planet enough already? |
|
19 Apr 04 - 03:41 AM (#1164941) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver Georgiansilver I know, you're just trying to emulate the success of my 'UFO' thread... I'm still winning! Foolestroupe..Sorry my friend but cannot allow to to elevate yourself to the dizzy heights of having given me the will to emulate your UFO thread....I started this as a way of searching for answers to something that has puzzled me for some time....nothing more.. However. If you wish to treat this as some sort of competition, I would be happy to start yet another thread which will give people a huge appetite for providing answers and make a challenge to your considered superiority. The challenge for this thread was to provide me with some answers, which, fortunately I seem to be getting. Best wishes to you in your personal battle with me and I hope you keep winning...I am really not too bothered either way |
|
19 Apr 04 - 03:43 AM (#1164943) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris And the Man on the Moon is Elvis discuised as a Yetti. Well, not so very much disguised, really... |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:01 AM (#1164982) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Sooz The American space programme spent an enormous amount of money developing a pen that could write upside down while the Russians used a pencil. More than one way to skin a cat? |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:11 AM (#1164992) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris Yes, but think of the mess the wood shavings make when you have to sharpen the pencil, and the tress you have to cut, and the lead you have to mine....I am sure the Australians are grateful for the invention. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:52 AM (#1165017) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Pied Piper The sad reality is that long before humans have explored the solar system and set up sizable colonies on Mars the present Ecological, Economic and Political crisis will (if we're not very careful, and we're not) have caused our extinction. Of cause there's no way we could destroy all life, and it's just possible that anther species might reach our level of intelligence and again look with awe, out into the vastness of space, but I think the odds make it unlikely. You would think that we would learn from the un-imaginably small amount of the Universe that is us, and how venerable we already are to processes absolutely beyond our own control that intelligent life is very unlikely and we should cherish it not trash it for the short-term gains of a small minority. Viking proverb "Pissing in your boots doesn't keep your feet warm for long" Sad (some of the time), but still proud to be Human. PP |
|
19 Apr 04 - 06:12 AM (#1165030) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Wolfgang Sooz, you are repeating an urban legend: see this old thread. Who really thinks the moon landing was faked can look at the arguments and links in the old thread Did We really land on the Moon? Wolfgang |
|
19 Apr 04 - 08:40 AM (#1165119) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Tracey Dragonsfriend Because it was there! We need challenges - look around you for what happens when we don't have any... |
|
19 Apr 04 - 09:28 AM (#1165159) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee Damn straight, Tracey! |
|
19 Apr 04 - 11:38 AM (#1165265) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: mack/misophist No matter what the impetus - war, ecology, or simple curiosity, basic research always ends up making some kind of profit. It may take a while, but it happens. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:50 PM (#1165396) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver O.K there are many reasons why it has been successful in updating and inmproving technology but the moon still remains unused either for warfare or re-population..so what was it all for?? |
|
19 Apr 04 - 01:58 PM (#1165405) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee Read Heinlein's "The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress". Consider the weapon used. Heinlein was an engineer and his math was always correct. It wouldn't be hard to build such a weapon. Do you seriously want the moon used for warfare??????? |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:22 PM (#1165613) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver I don't want it used for warfare,,,just remarking on the fact that we don't live there or put it to good (or bad) use. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:32 PM (#1165626) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond The tech advances we had to go through were worth the going there! Well worth it... |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:35 PM (#1165631) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Strick "BUT what the heck did they go there for and what good has it done anyone?????" I agree. I don't think we should have ever migrated out of Africa, either. Think of all the problems that would have prevented! |
|
19 Apr 04 - 05:38 PM (#1165635) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk We don't do that because it is not economically feasible or practical to do so as yet, and there's little to gain from it. People have been to the South Pole too, but they didn't stay there for much the same reason. Ditto for the interior of Greenland, and the bottom of the deeper ocean areas. |
|
19 Apr 04 - 10:54 PM (#1165675) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,Fred Miller It's impossible to know beforehand where things will or won't take you. And still, it's the frigging moon whether it... whether it, um, what utility do we want from it? Maybe to save lives? of people who will die anyway? So what. What's the point of having a point? The moon might not make me live to be 400, but in my lifetime we went to the moon. It's not a bad deal. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 12:08 AM (#1165734) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST Gareth (and another poster not too far above this one) stole my thunder (18 Apr 04 - 06:27 PM) .... I wonder if they're looking for volunteers for long term space travels? If they let me take a lifetime supply of weed, a guitar, and a few decent books -over and above the bare essentials, of course - I think I might just be able to stay up there forever. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 02:23 AM (#1165771) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: dianavan Because it was a race and the U.S. wanted to win. I was disgusted by the planting of the U.S. flag. The moon belongs to everybody on Earth. I left for Europe the next day. Talk about pollution! Think of the emissions produced by NASA! |
|
20 Apr 04 - 02:36 AM (#1165778) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Bee-dubya-ell Unmanned spaceflight is like building and driving Toyota sedans: practical, dependable, boring. Manned spaceflight is like building and driving Grand Prix racecars: totally impractical, risky, exciting. Yet, we're often told by automakers that racing is where many of their innovations come from. Same thing with spaceflight. Though the benefits we see (ie satellite communications) are primarilly the results of unmanned programs, it is the manned programs that are responsible for the unmanned programs' success. The rockets that launch satellites are extremely dependable. They're dependable because their predecessors were developed to launch humans into space and, unlike satellites, humans are not expendable. As soon as it became obvious that it was possible to send something into space, was there ever any possibility that we would be satisfied with little spinning metal balls with radio receivers in them? Nah! |
|
20 Apr 04 - 03:27 AM (#1165799) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond "Think of the emissions produced by NASA!" *sheesh* Most of what comes out of conventional rockets, after the burn, is plain old hydrogen... " I was disgusted by the planting of the U.S. flag" Don't be a bigot! |
|
20 Apr 04 - 03:44 AM (#1165810) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Metchosin dianavan, or the emissions generated by the transport you used to get to Europe for that matter.*BG* That probably used up enough energy to light a small village in India for five years and yeah, I took the same trip. Where there's folks there's mire. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 05:49 AM (#1165879) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Hrothgar El Greko, you are the ones who are writing upside down, nut us. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 07:35 AM (#1165953) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,noddy cos it was there. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 09:50 AM (#1166081) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee Now, if I remember rightly, the fuels used to propel the first stages of the rocket to the moon were liquid hydrogen and LOX. When these are added together you get get a right big burst of energy and the resultant pollutant is...(are you ready for it?)...pure, distilled water. Even if the fuel was LOX and purified kerosene you would have gotten more water than anything else, plus oxygen and hydrogen gases. The "fluttering" of the flag left on the Moon, it was noted at the time, was caused by a wire inserted along the top edge. As for polluting the "pristine" reaches of space or the "pristine" surfaces of a planetary object -- methane covers the surface of more than a little real estate in the solar system. Dropping a satellite into the atmosphere of Jupiter sends information back to Earth and burns the satellite up, just as meteorites burn up in the Earth's atmosphere -- and there are no virii or bacteria that I know of that can survive being heated to incandescence and fewer that can survive total destruction (the number in the last case approaches zero). I'm aware of Hoyle and Chandra's theory that certain viruses have been seeded on Earth from space, but I haven't seen proof of it yet so it must be listed as "unproven." I suspect that space pollutes Earth far more than Earth pollutes space. Sorry you felt the need to move to Europe, dianavan. I'm still trying to do some good here in the US. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 09:56 AM (#1166088) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: George Papavgeris Sorry Hrothgar, you must be right. It explains why I keep losing the cap for my felt tip pen - it drops off, that's why :-) |
|
20 Apr 04 - 09:58 AM (#1166090) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee I notice, too, that no one has taken up my offer. There has been sufficient time for consideration, and I hereby withdraw it. I also note that while there is be a lot of criticism of the space program, no one wants to give up the benefits it has brought. Gee, why did I think that my money was safe? (Historical note: From the time Sputnik I achieved orbit and man landed on the moon for the first time, the average person in the US paid less than a nickel (USD 0.05) per day for the space program. If you don't believe me, check out the figures for yourself.) |
|
20 Apr 04 - 10:50 AM (#1166131) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver Hey Rapaire. I don't think anyone doubted your word on those benefits..but they were side benefits which developed as a result of the "trip to the moon"....what was it all for?? why has it not been used again for anything in over 40yrs? what really was the point? some people have given good replies and yours is no exception but the question was "Man went to the moon, but why???? Best wishes. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 10:51 AM (#1166135) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond "were liquid hydrogen and LOX" Thank you for that clarification... I knew hydrogen was invloved in there somewhere... |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:00 AM (#1166150) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos GS: The answer is Kennedy's address at Rice University which can be found here and can be listened to. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation. We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours. There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas? We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency. That answers the question. That answer has been on record since the original orders were given. It is the right answer. A |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:12 AM (#1166163) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Bill D "The "fluttering" of the flag left on the Moon, it was noted at the time, was caused by a wire inserted along the top edge." How to start a conspiracy theory. 1)Fail to read/listen to all the facts. 2)Misunderstand the science 3)Nurture a basic distrust of all institutions you can't control 4)Make up your own explanations, no matter how off-the-wall, to make your personal version of reality halfway coherent. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:21 AM (#1166172) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Peace We are humans, and much of what we do has no rhyme or reason. We are nosy. We are curious. We are crazy. And I love the human race for all of that and more. Whys outnumber the answers, and until they don't, we will search, glean, sift and wonder. We all should be spending lots of money on a space program. It is of such stuff that dreams are made. 'Our' trip to the moon screwed up a few songs and notions, but despite that I still think a mouse would grow fat and happy there. (I know it has no air, it's unbearably hot on the lit side. BUT, there lots of cheese there for that little rodent.) The human imagination is remarkable, and the idea of space exploration gives me a 'thrill' that even Little Hawk's goat couldn't provide. We have to go there, even if for no particular reason. Besides, I would like to know what 'the green hills of Earth' look like from a million miles away, and I want to see if the bridge on Jupiter is still in the process of construction. The book that stirred my imagination more than any other I have read in this life is "Cities in Flight" by James Blish. When I become caught up in the day-to-day stuff of this world, and I need a mental vacation, that is the book I return to--probably once every two years. And I hope with all my heart that someday the ideas and things talked about in that collection of four novels will become a reality for the children we leave behind us in this beautiful world and this awesome universe. |
|
20 Apr 04 - 11:23 AM (#1166174) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk I'm right with you on this one, Bill. :-) They naturally wanted a flag that would look like a flag when photographed. Flags are made to wave in the wind and spread out. There is no atmosphere on the moon, therefore no wind. This makes for a mighty dull-looking flag that flops down like a rag and doesn't spread out...unless you put a stiffener in said flag and do something to MAKE it spread out and wave, which is what they did. And there you have it. However, someone intent on composing a conspiracy theory which they have a passionate emotional committment to doesn't want to hear that, do they? Now, let's discuss the death of Paul McCartney in the '60's. (grin) Lots of great compelling evidence to support that too, I hear. - LH |
|
21 Apr 04 - 08:04 AM (#1167008) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,*daylia* I was about 9 when the "Eagle" landed, watched the "big moment" on black-and-white TV at school. I'll never forget the feelings that arose as I watched Neil Armstrong plant that flag on the moon. I was only a child, but I was just plain flabbergasted at the arrogance and stupidity of it all. I remember wondering how anyone in their right minds could possibly think they "owned" the moon? (At least, that's how I interpreted the action of planting a flag on the moon at the time). The Moon's been hanging around up there in 'her' mysterious celestial glory for billions of years, and now measly human beings think they own 'her' just because they managed to tramp around on 'her' for a few minutes (maybe???) I couldn't understand that kind of thinking at ALL, and I remember walking home from school that day with this "cloud" of disbelief and anger over me that I carried around for quite a while afterwards. I always wondered if anyone else ever felt that way about it - and now I see a few more Catters were of the same mind. *whew* Maybe there's hope for this (rather dim-witted, it seems) species yet! Later I realized that people claiming "ownership" of the moon makes about as much sense (not!) as people claiming "ownership" of the earth (or any parts of it thereof). And I'm just grateful that so far at least, usurping the moon has not carried the same god-awful devastating price! daylia |
|
21 Apr 04 - 08:16 AM (#1167015) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,Whistle Stop We (the USA) went to the moon for a lot of reasons, but the biggest one was that the development of space technology was seen as vital to our national defense. High-flown Kennedy rhetoric notwithstanding, the decision-makers were pragmatic men, and not particularly visionary; what they really wanted to do was develop technological capabilities superior to those of the Soviets and other potential adversaries. In fact, the advances brought about by the space program -- in satellite communications, computer technology, guidance systems, and other related areas -- are absolutely critical to our military position in the world today. Other countries have also benefited from these advances, but in military matters, what really counts is staying a step or two ahead of the other guys. More than anything else, that was why we went into space. The moon race in particular provided a well-defined mission around which to organize these efforts, and a "happy" rationale that the country could rally behind. As for spending our money on space vs. spending our money on Earth, where do people think the money goes? It goes to the companies and individuals that are contributing to the mission; which means that it goes to technological and industrial development, and to the salaries of the men and women who work for the companies that are part of the effort, helping to contribute to a robust domestic economy. NASA doesn't just collect a bunch of money and shoot it off in a rocket; it stays right here on Earth. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 08:51 AM (#1167035) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Rapparee Yup, the money does stay here on Earth. And I, for one, would MUCH rather see it used for the space program than for, say, the Iraq debacle. |
|
21 Apr 04 - 09:01 AM (#1167045) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Little Hawk I felt odd about the whole thing too, Daylia. It was really quite peculiar to see a couple of guys go to the moon in a tin can, tramp around on it for a bit, messing it up, stick a dumb little flag in the ground and take pictures...yuck! I can understand your negative reaction. Kind of like a Walmart agent arriving in Katmandu or something, complete with a canned sound bite for the watching audience. ("That's one small step for a man, one giant fart for the cosmos.") Still, I do understand the human desire to explore space. It would have been better for me if it had been a mission jointly sponsored by the whole world than by the USA specifically...but the USA had the money and resources to do it, so they did. - LH |
|
21 Apr 04 - 04:32 PM (#1167226) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,Shlio Because he came down too soon (presumably before the necessary evolution to create an aware, intelligent species was completed), so they thought they'd try to send him back for a while, in the hope that there would be some improvement. |
|
22 Apr 04 - 10:34 AM (#1167964) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: el ted Boring. |
|
26 Apr 04 - 12:33 PM (#1171363) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos HUMAN SPIRIT "To confine our attention to terrestrial matters would limit the human spirit." Stephen Hawking |
|
02 Jun 04 - 06:18 PM (#1198816) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Georgiansilver Tonight, Wednesday 2nd June, there was a programme on this very subject on UK TV complete with a conspiracy theory....Anyone any views please. Be Blessed. |
|
03 Jun 04 - 06:49 AM (#1199083) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Tracey Dragonsfriend I think I agree with this chap : DID WE LAND ON THE MOON? |
|
03 Jun 04 - 04:54 PM (#1199617) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Clinton Hammond "To fake a moon landing in 1969 would have been so difficult, that it would have been easier just to GO to the moon" -Ivan Semeniuk- Paraphrased... from a recent episode of Daily Planet where he tackled the claims of the 'idiots' who continue to perpetratea the lunacy that man didn't land on the moon... |
|
03 Jun 04 - 05:32 PM (#1199633) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Amos And as for "Why"?, the answer as JFK expressed it is because we chose to. IF that seems unclear or hard to understand then it's kinda like jazz -- "if ya hafta ask..."... A |
|
03 Jun 04 - 06:42 PM (#1199694) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Grab Georgiansilver, that programme's a repeat. Every issue raised is phoney and has been well debunked in the past, long before the programme was made. Clearly, the only reason the programme was made was to stir up the credulous. As for "why" man went to the Moon, all the reasons previously quoted. Maybe read a few of them? ;-) Currently we don't have the technology or resources to live full-time and unsupplied anywhere except Earth. People are working on it though (various biolab projects, etc). Part of the problem is sheer technology though, of course. With ultra-cheap space transport, it'd be much easier to colonise places, mainly bcos you can then afford to keep the colony supplied from Earth. But that needs a space elevator, and a space elevator needs very high quality carbon nanotubes (the only suitable material). Nanotube technology is on the rise, but isn't anywhere close to being good enough yet. North America is the best example of how tough it is to settle a hostile environment. Think how long it took from Columbus setting foot on the continent, to the Lewis and Clarke expedition making it from one side to the other, and think how much longer it took for full colonisation (covered wagons, etc) to make it all the way across. And that's in an environment with relatively cheap transport over there, air, water, building materials, food on the tree and on the hoof, and no problems with the livestock and plants you brought with you living in your new home... The Moon and Mars are orders of magnitude more expensive to reach, and are utterly inhospitable once you get there, so settling them will be *hard*. Not impossible though, just very, very difficult. So with North America as an example, face the fact that it ain't happening in your lifetime or mine, and probably not for generations to come. Picking a number out of my arse, I'd say we could be seeing the start of colonisation in 10 generations time. Say 200-300 years. Graham. |
|
03 Jun 04 - 11:07 PM (#1199841) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,freda for the cheese.. |
|
04 Jun 04 - 12:43 AM (#1199870) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Cluin If they can put a man on the moon, how come they can't put a man on the moon anymore? |
|
04 Jun 04 - 01:59 AM (#1199899) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Sam L I wasn't much a fan of Andy Kaufman, but was interested in seeing someone play him, so I rented the movie. Or thought I did. Halfway home I noticed the spine said Man In The Moon. Wait--we didn't put a man IN the moon, did we? No. It was a hoax, a conspiracy. We only put a man ON the moon. How does the man in the moon cut his hair. 'Eclipse it. |
|
04 Jun 04 - 02:14 AM (#1199902) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: GUEST,Blind DRunk from Blind River The reason was simple eh? Mars was too far. BDiBR |
|
04 Jun 04 - 11:31 AM (#1200306) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Cluin I once saw a moon put on a man —— well, boy, really. It was a hockey team initiation thing. Funny, they all indulge in gay-bashing, but the things they do to each other, given the chance... |
|
04 Jun 04 - 01:42 PM (#1200397) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: JennyO If they can put one man on the moon why can't they put them all there? ~ Chocolate Waters |
|
04 Jun 04 - 03:01 PM (#1200471) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: Chief Chaos The astronauts placing a flag on the moon was not "claiming ownership" no more than anyone climbing Mt. Everest doing the same thing. It was just to prove that we had been there. Otherwise their would have been a statement of ownership (something similar to "I claim this new land in the name of Her Majesty the Queen). Which makes me wonder why you would fly to England when it seems to me they started the U.S. as colonies in the first place. |
|
04 Jun 04 - 09:54 PM (#1200721) Subject: RE: BS: Man went to the moon, but why??? From: robomatic I read that Benjamin Franklin, while in France, was witness to one of the early balloon flights originated by the Montgolfiers. When someone questioned the use of the flying thing, Benjamin answered, "Of what use is a newborn baby" It is a much better way to spend money than on re-entry vehicles, kill vehicles, and 'starwars' It's what comes next. |