tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post3047746214844762769..comments2024-03-28T18:57:10.683-05:00Comments on Althouse: Obama cancelled the new moon mission partly "to make sure that we’ve canceled everything George Bush wanted to do, whether it’s the right thing to do or not."Ann Althousehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01630636239933008807noreply@blogger.comBlogger142125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-77777771179943402592010-04-22T02:23:55.181-05:002010-04-22T02:23:55.181-05:00MikeR: Rand Simberg is, and has been for a while, ...MikeR: Rand Simberg is, and has been for a while, so annoyed with NASA, and rightly so, that any and all private space ventures look to him like cake. Did you see the <a href="http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=26152" rel="nofollow">responses, at Simberg's site, to that NR article</a> you linked? <br /><br />The Shuttle was obsolete about as soon as it was first built. NASA has been asleep at the wheel for a long time. Neither of those things has anything at all to do with the importance of putting people in space. <br /><br />I suppose a privately funded Luna City, or L4 or L5 colony, could happen, if we lived in a Libertarian dreamworld, where the government would not be looking at everyone's seatbelts and the calorie counts of the space-rations. <a href="http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDBlMTUzNWZkMjYzNmJjNDAwZjJkMDUwOGJmZTBhYzA=" rel="nofollow">What Krauthammer said</a> about "ceding the <i>certainty</i> of access into space" reminds me of the construction of the <a href="http://www.nps.gov/gosp/" rel="nofollow">transcontinental railroad</a>. Private companies did that, but they did it with a lot of help from the government, and they could call for the Cavalry in emergencies. The new policy appears to me to be saying that private companies can try to do something after going through hugely expensive certification and licensing processes, and by the way, there will be no Cavalry to help you if you get in trouble out there.Hector Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09464231766299961050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-59821251782296525002010-04-21T12:50:31.881-05:002010-04-21T12:50:31.881-05:00http://article.nationalreview.com/432073/obamas-sp...http://article.nationalreview.com/432073/obamas-space-program-more-conservative-than-bushs/rand-simberg<br />Rand Simberg, who doesn't like Obama, likes the new space program.MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-1725285788300858062010-04-21T06:26:50.866-05:002010-04-21T06:26:50.866-05:00Stop using your tax money to enlarge his cock huh?...Stop using your tax money to enlarge his cock huh? Well, seems like daddy took away your toys when you were a kid, or maybe didn't let you watch 2001 A space odyssey when you were a kid. Not a fan of space travel you say? VERY short sighted. You scream the opposite of ambition. Let's just stay here on earth, that way when the next big catastrophe happens (which it will as the fossil records / history of the earth show's this is a consistent factor of our home) we will be stuck here on earth, with everything we know and learned throughout human history to be thrown in the trash with the Dinosaurs. <br /><br />So funny, your not a space travel fan, and don't understand a god damn thing about it. No wonder you would cry about tax money being spent on it. So, keep on staying upset about the probably $100 bucks of your tax money you have paid in your lifetime that went towards any space (anything) technologies or ambitions. <br /><br />Stop bitching about it, and let our cocks grow!!!! Hey, you said it!!!Renrut2005https://www.blogger.com/profile/08359871100539534111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-34886534090319255642010-04-21T00:55:25.684-05:002010-04-21T00:55:25.684-05:00> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all fo...<i>> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all for.</i><br /><br /><i>Curiosity. Adventure. Delight.</i><br /><br />No. Those things are by-products. "What it's all for" is survival of the species.<br /><br />For all we know, <i>Homo sapiens terrestrialis</i> (that's us) is the only self-conscious, thinking (I hesitate to say "intelligent") life-form in the entire universe. <br /><br />If you don't care about your species, maybe you could muster a philosophical concern. We, we human beings, here, now, can choose to perpetuate consciousness and thought, or to let it wither and die. I've heard it said, can't recall where right now, that God created humanity to save Himself from loneliness: that the existence of mankind is, in a way, God talking to himself. But since we have free will, we could end the conversation. If, as I said above, we do not establish self-sustaining settlements elsewhere than on this one small planet, we risk ending the existence of <i>thought</i> in the Universe. <br /><br />Big concepts, yes. We have big choices to make. The stars, or the mud. The Universe can be ours. Or we can turn our backs on it, and decline back to the unthinking mire. The choice is ours, and now is the time to make it. Resources are out there. All we have to do is go and get them. Or we'll be stuck on this rock, running out of everything, until it all winds down.Hector Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09464231766299961050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-28261344291376485752010-04-20T15:26:03.131-05:002010-04-20T15:26:03.131-05:00> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all fo...<i>> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all for.<br /><br />Curiosity. Adventure. Delight.</i><br /><br />Right. Which means it's a perfect candidate for not being paid for with my tax dollars. If people like Carmack and Musk want to play spaceman with their own money, more power to 'em.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-42769866519911067292010-04-20T13:06:15.812-05:002010-04-20T13:06:15.812-05:00> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all fo...> Sorry. I've never seen what it was all for.<br /><br /> Curiosity. Adventure. Delight.bridgecrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10997720600019428999noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-887692594883701362010-04-20T12:02:28.125-05:002010-04-20T12:02:28.125-05:00Well, that's it, isn't it? If who put them...<i>Well, that's it, isn't it? If who put them in orbit? The way it's looking now, it's somebody else will put them in orbit, and then what?</i><br /><br />What are you talking about? We still have the capacity to put things in orbit. So do quite a few private companies. This is about the wisdom of sending *people* to the *Moon*, not sending machines to Earth orbit.<br /><br /><i>Who wants Russia or China to have that?</i><br /><br />Russia and China have had the capacity to put weapons into space for decades -- for longer than WE have, in Russia's case. They haven't done it, which tells you that either they're nice, benevolent people who it isn't a smart idea. I leave it to you to determine which possibility is more likely.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-27464917080139399512010-04-20T08:30:20.504-05:002010-04-20T08:30:20.504-05:00El Pollo Real shines a light on it:
"The not...El Pollo Real shines a light on it:<br /><br /><i>"The notion of people working towards an unattainable goal seems more in line with what the USSR did."</i>Original Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714345479248980398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-91035160135435197452010-04-20T06:40:08.326-05:002010-04-20T06:40:08.326-05:00he is an adjunct prof there isn't her? you can...he is an adjunct prof there isn't her? you can walk over anytime if you have an interest instead of waiting for a media event.<br /><br />perhaps he will give you a few pearls of wisdom on why climate change is just a way for the government to "get more control over our lives"....aha! tea party. i get your interest now.Opus One Mediahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04041788083619471630noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-88963217443375177242010-04-20T06:08:22.806-05:002010-04-20T06:08:22.806-05:00You don't need to have a manned presence in sp...You don't need to have a manned presence in space to have weapons there. In fact, to do so would be a waste of money. Space is only the high ground from the standpoint of observation - there's no reason to put weapons there.<br /><br />There's also no reason to believe "the human race must go to space." I hear a lot of people saying that, but they never explain why that would be so. The fact of the matter is there isn't anything you can do with people in space that isn't easier and cheaper to do with machines.<br /><br />If Einstein was right about the speed of light being a fundamental physical limit, there's no reason to think we'll ever be leaving this solar system. Even if we could settle the other planets there isn't any reason to actually expend the massive amount of resources to do it.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-23730427839286470292010-04-20T01:11:13.657-05:002010-04-20T01:11:13.657-05:00Eric said, "if you put them in orbit"
W...Eric said, "if you put them in orbit"<br /><br />Well, that's it, isn't it? If <i>who</i> put them in orbit? The way it's looking now, it's somebody else will put them in orbit, and then what? It's the high ground that confers the strategic advantage. Who wants Russia or China to have that? Eric? Does anyone think that it does not matter who controls the High Frontier? There's a serious lack of strategeric thinking going on here. (That's the adjective I just made up from "strategery." That which should not be misunderestimated.)<br /><br />The human race<br />must go to space.<br /><br />And will do that. And if something does not change fairly soon, those humans will be Chinese. With all the politics that entails. The US has been Top Nation for so long that people are suffering from a failure of imagination, believing that because it has been so, it shall be so evermore. It ain't necessarily so.Hector Owenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09464231766299961050noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-40826506145561261462010-04-19T21:39:32.970-05:002010-04-19T21:39:32.970-05:00Here's a thought experiment for you: for the c...<i>Here's a thought experiment for you: for the cost of a moon colony and accompanying linear accelerator, compute how many $500,000 cruise missiles we could build instead.</i><br /><br />Or $20,000 JDAMS. Or $1,500 artillery shells.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-52567995774853307812010-04-19T21:35:59.372-05:002010-04-19T21:35:59.372-05:00Everything based in space is a weapon in fact, whe...<i>Everything based in space is a weapon in fact, whether or not it is intended to be, because of the enormous energies involved.</i><br /><br />Sure. But for tens of billions of dollars less we can make nuclear weapons that also have enormous energies. Enormous enough to be on par with the rocks from space and yet close enough that we can slap a new coat of paint on as necessary.<br /><br />As Revenant pointed out, there's no point in building weapons that will take days to arrive on target. On the other hand, if you put them in orbit you force potential adversaries to have their nuclear forces on a hair trigger. It's destabilizing.<br /><br />And it still has nothing to do with a manned space program. There really is nothing we can do with people in space that we couldn't do more cost effectively with machines.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10330712047609650184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14015404169380672982010-04-19T21:30:09.523-05:002010-04-19T21:30:09.523-05:00Maybe you should tell the Air Force your theory of...<i>Maybe you should tell the Air Force your theory of modern warfare:</i><br /><br />You have missed the point with almost surgical precision. Our capacity for long-range attacks on our enemies is precisely why we don't need to spend trillions of dollars to establish that capacity on the moon.<br /><br /><i>Space-spaced weapons need not be WMD.</i><br /><br />I didn't say they had to be. I said that was the only use of a moon base.<br /><br /><i>I directed you to the article on kinetic bombardment; since you didn't read it, I'll summarize.</i><br /><br />I've been familiar with the idea for the last quarter-century or so, thanks. I am, again, not arguing against kinetic weapons, but against voluntarily basing them several light-seconds away from their targets when doing so serves absolutely no purpose other than increasing cost and decreasing usefulness by several orders of magnitude. I liked "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" as much as every other libertarian I know, but reality is what it is.<br /><br /><i>Granted that modern warfare moves quickly, factories, dams, nuclear plants and such don't move very quickly as a general rule and often maintain the same position for hours or even days at a time.</i><br /><br />Here's a thought experiment for you: for the cost of a moon colony and accompanying linear accelerator, compute how many $500,000 cruise missiles we could build instead.<br /><br />Even under the most conservative of estimates, we're talking millions. What problem are we trying to solve with this moon base, again?Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-92190203758672355892010-04-19T20:09:20.692-05:002010-04-19T20:09:20.692-05:00But the time lag means that the capacity to wreak ...<i>But the time lag means that the capacity to wreak such devastation has little use except as a MAD-variety deterrent.</i><br /><br />Maybe you should tell the Air Force your theory of modern warfare:<br /><br /><i>On 16 February 1991, a flight of B-52Gs flew from Barksdale AFB, Louisiana, refueled in the air en route, struck targets in Iraq, and returned home — a journey of 35 hours and 14,000 miles round trip. It set a record for longest-distance combat mission.[94][95] Over the next months, B-52Gs operating from bases at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia; RAF Fairford in the United Kingdom; Moron AB, Spain; and the island of Diego Garcia flew low-altitude bombing missions. After the first three nights, the B-52s moved to high-altitude missions, while coalition forces took air superiority and suppressed anti-aircraft weapons that might have struck high-flying aircraft.<br /><br />On 2–3 September 1996, two B-52H struck Baghdad power stations and communications facilities with 13 AGM-86C conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCM) as part of Operation Desert Strike, a 34-hour, 16,000-mile round trip mission from Andersen AFB, Guam—the longest distance ever flown for a combat mission.</i><br /><br />Space-spaced weapons need not be WMD. I directed you to the article on kinetic bombardment; since you didn't read it, I'll summarize. Space-based weapons are powerful, precise, and cannot be defended against, and they are perfect for the non-nuclear destruction of hardened targets. They are perhaps more of a STRATEGIC weapon, but that doesn't make them useless or last-resort.<br /><br />Granted that modern warfare moves quickly, factories, dams, nuclear plants and such don't move very quickly as a general rule and often maintain the same position for hours or even days at a time.Gabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-46024407717502008742010-04-19T19:32:13.070-05:002010-04-19T19:32:13.070-05:00On Earth this might be a valid point, but in space...<i>On Earth this might be a valid point, but in space it's irrelevant. What is relevant is the difference in energy between a base on the moon and a target on Earth.</i><br /><br />That's not correct. One of the most important things in war is response time. Any weapon based on the Moon is going to have a travel time measured in hours at the least, days at the most. Modern warfare operates in minutes and seconds.<br /><br /><i>Everything based in space is a weapon in fact, whether or not it is intended to be, because of the enormous energies involved.</i><br /><br />A Lagrange point would be a superior option, if that's your concern.<br /><br /><i>A base on the moon can wreak enormous devastation to targets on Earth using very little additional energy.</i><br /><br />Yes. But the time lag means that the capacity to wreak such devastation has little use except as a MAD-variety deterrent. And we already have one of those; we don't need to build a moon base for to achieve one.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-69754914846744188722010-04-19T17:32:31.344-05:002010-04-19T17:32:31.344-05:00One final note: all the alleged "profits"...<i>One final note: all the alleged "profits" of the space program could have been obtained more cheaply by investing in R&D and then NOT launching people into space.</i><br /><br />or let's set up an imaginary goal and then not do it??? <br /><br />With all due respect revenant I don't think that's how most people work, let alone collections of individuals like a nation. <br />Without real goals there would have been no real problems to solve and thus no real progress. Think Teflon.<br /><br />The notion of people working towards an unattainable goal seems more in line with what the USSR did.chickelithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10773887469972534979noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-63365425414162880502010-04-19T17:26:49.111-05:002010-04-19T17:26:49.111-05:00On the other hand, nobody wants to be Harrison Sch...On the other hand, nobody wants to be Harrison Schmidt.<br /><br />When we used to go out bar hopping occasionally there would be some new dude in the group. So we would walk in the bar and there would be a druken semi-atractive floozy slopping down drinks at the bar. So the new guy would go "What's her story." And you would go "You should stay away from that man." "Really, why?" "Well you don't want to be Harrison Schmidt."<br />"Who is Harrison Schmidt?" "He was the twelfth guy to land on the moon."Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-74881278474672032112010-04-19T17:23:07.430-05:002010-04-19T17:23:07.430-05:00"Yeah? Well, quit using my tax money to try t..."Yeah? Well, quit using my tax money to try to enlarge your cock."<br /><br />The real reason why the professor hates the space program is that Meade likes to dress up in a bus drivers uniform and yell at the top of his lungs: "To the Moon Alice....to the Moon!"Trooper Yorkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01978703998566102194noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80841160781223273532010-04-19T17:18:15.758-05:002010-04-19T17:18:15.758-05:00@Revenant:
Spending trillions of dollars to estab...@Revenant:<br /><br /><i>Spending trillions of dollars to establish a military base 240,000 miles away from the nearest enemy? Not a smart move.</i><br /><br />On Earth this might be a valid point, but in space it's irrelevant. What is relevant is the difference in energy between a base on the moon and a target on Earth.<br /><br />Everything based in space is a weapon in fact, whether or not it is intended to be, because of the enormous energies involved.<br /><br />The Direct TV satellite that you watch football games on is traveling at two miles per second--which is twice as fast as the muzzle velocity of a tank round.<br /><br />A base on the moon can wreak enormous devastation to targets on Earth using very little additional energy. This is why we have treaties promising not to build one.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardmentGabriel Hannahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12356186353979140904noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-82915957408869499862010-04-19T17:06:28.438-05:002010-04-19T17:06:28.438-05:00billions of dollars to support the lives of a smal...<i>billions of dollars to support the lives of a small number of physical beings is a lot more realistic than sending "us" as computers or whatever you're trying to say when you say we'll wait until we're not meaty.</i><br /><br />I assumed "space expansion" meant "establishing permanent settlements off of Earth". If that's what it meant then, no, the "spend billions to support a small number of people" approach is not a realistic means of reaching that goal. There is, in fact, no realistic path to establishing permanent settlements for humans (as we currently exist) off of Earth.<br /><br /><i>It's not like the universe is unable to support life.</i><br /><br />I'm sure there is some place in the universe, other than Earth, that is capable of supporting human life. Just nothing in THIS solar system.<br /><br /><i>And that's not even to discuss the military significance of a missile base on the Moon.</i><br /><br />Spending trillions of dollars to establish a military base 240,000 miles away from the nearest enemy? Not a smart move.<br /><br />One final note: all the alleged "profits" of the space program could have been obtained more cheaply by investing in R&D and then NOT launching people into space. The same will hold true for any future space program we can foresee, given our current knowledge of the universe.Revenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11374515200055384226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-83127012642255113102010-04-19T13:35:59.576-05:002010-04-19T13:35:59.576-05:00Of course Obama cancelled the moon boondoggle. Who...Of course Obama cancelled the moon boondoggle. Who else was he listening to in the dorm room while discussing Frantz Fanon's Wretched of the Earth with his philosophical and bogarting friends? If you want to understand Obama - health care to moon don't-care - you have got to revisit Gil Scott Heron.<br /><br />A rat done bit my sister Nell, <br />With Whitey on the moon.<br />Her face and arms began to swell,<br />And Whitey's on the moon.<br />I can't pay no doctor bill, <br />But Whitey's on the moon.<br />Ten years from now I'll be payin' still, <br />While Whitey's on the moon.wefhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06173796935219523602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-11169258006516468612010-04-19T11:50:40.742-05:002010-04-19T11:50:40.742-05:00It's got nothing to do with cock Ann, but if w...It's got nothing to do with cock Ann, but if women ruled our species we would still be in West Africa huddled around a fire pit. Most women are not Amelia Earhart and as essential as the female perspective is, it has huge blind spots, which are now becoming central to our society's weakening as we begin to opt for equality over freedom and safety over risk and discovery.bagoh20https://www.blogger.com/profile/10915174575358413637noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-14921766061714432382010-04-19T10:32:26.314-05:002010-04-19T10:32:26.314-05:00"Yeah? Well, quit using my tax money to try t...<i>"Yeah? Well, quit using my tax money to try to enlarge your cock."</i><br /><br />Sorry Ann, but ObamaCare says you <i>have</i> to pay for my cock enlargement, so tough titties.Original Mikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01714345479248980398noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6329595.post-80171742693863062082010-04-19T10:13:43.791-05:002010-04-19T10:13:43.791-05:00Mostly really bizarre comments, IMHO. I'm vast...Mostly really bizarre comments, IMHO. I'm vastly in favor of the space program, and vastly against the way NASA has been doing it. Most space enthusiasts are happy or overjoyed with the changes Obama (may be) making; see Rand Simberg for lots of info on the issue.<br />http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/gettospace.html<br />"Sir Arthur C. Clarke said that if the human race is to survive, then for all but a very brief period of our history the word ship will mean space ship."MikeRhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00127456522803816485noreply@blogger.com