Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Should U.S. attempt manned missions to the Moon? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Edscharp who wrote (12)	1/12/2004 2:45:20 PM
From: Fangorn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 41

Ed, re>If George Bush really has a concern about an asteroid hitting the Earth wouldn't it be better to be up front with Congress and the people about his concerns?< I didn't claim that this is Bush's concern but it should be. And given that neither of us know what he will say on Wednesday your veiled accusation is silly. I am all but certain that the issue has been discussed by the group developing the policy he will announce then. I get the sneaking suspicion from this quote that your tune would be different had Gore won and was now announcing the exact same policy. Mine would be the same, in fact has been the same since before I watched the first landing in '69. Yes, I was already worried about asteroid impacts at the tender age of 15. re>Also, before we start salting the Moon with our future progeny shouldn't we first give some thought to the possibility of a technology to detect asteroids and a way to destroy or deflect them? Ought this not be the greater priority?< Telescopes in orbit and on the moon will be integral to an effective strategy of asteroid detection. The ability to reach the asteroid years before a potential impact will be integral to a strategy of deflection. Humans in space will be integral to both phases. Again Humans off planet for any reason argues strongly for a lunar base. Your objection is baseless. And what is your problem with "salting the moon with our future progeny'? Would you rather they stay here and cut down the rainforest? There are no wetlands, endangered species, or fragile ecosystems on the Moon, there is no reason not to cover it with human cities. re>I think it would be best if some of the world's greatest scientists were to meet and discuss the best way to approach this issue before we go flying off to the Moon.< I think it would be best if you actually find out what the "world's greatest scientists" have already said on this issue before you suggest anything to them. Many space scientists are already urging the same things I am. Do you actually think the Bush administration is doing a major rethink of space policy without consulting exactly the "world's greatest scientists" in astronomy, aeronautics, etc.??? re>If you mean 'high ground' in the tactical military sense then I am confused. The Moon is way too far away to be used in any practical military endeavor.< This is an incredibly naive claim and makes you look PollyAnnish at best. And yet you state it like it is an obvious fact. It is not obvious, it is not a fact. It is wishful thinking verging on delusion. Reminds me of some things that were said about the plane before and after WW1. "never be more than an observation platform" "Sink a ship with a plane? Never happen!!!" re>The Moon has no economic or military value. As astronomical bodies go it is more akin to a black hole that can suck up the wealth of a nation.< Your assertion does not make it so. It is obvious to me that all three assertions in this quote are, to put it nicely, BUNK. The Helium for fusion possibility discussed in my last post is all it takes to show the Moon has potentially vast economic and military value. Of course we can always buy electricity from China when they have a monopoly on the preferred fusion fuel. It has worked real well with oil and OPEC.