Comments on: NASA PR: um, say what?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Fri, 16 Jun 2006 18:43:53 +0000

Don’t forget the first “A” in NASA is AERONAUTICS. It will be alot easier for some future administration to kill off NASA entirely once the only mission is manned return to moon (or mars) and NOTHING ELSE.
No more aviation research, icing, engine noise, safety, effiency etc.
I think it might be fairly easy to convince the public that a “moon/mars only” NASA isn’t worth the cost.

By: Kaptain K

Kaptain K — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 04:33:53 +0000

TheBlackCat,

As Elias Friedman said, read The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert A. Heinlein. Con sider the kinetic energy of 100 tons of rock moving at 11 kilometers per second!

By: Troy

Troy — Fri, 09 Jun 2006 00:34:26 +0000

I read an article in Seed magazine recently: “As Science goes, so goes the nation” Very sad, and worse is I believe that a future administration is going to kill the return to the Moon. Essentially NASA will be just spinning its wheels and have next to nothing to show for it. I’m relieved DAWN survived though.

By: TheBlackCat

TheBlackCat — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 05:23:06 +0000

Uh, the moon is a bit too high. In the even of a war the moon is simply too far away to be of any strategic importance. It would be like in a war between US and China, one of the two countries taking over Madagascar. Sure you could do it, but it is so far out of the way that it would be a complete waste of time. In a war between the US and Canada, sure Mount Everst would be the highest possible ground, but it wouldn’t do either of them any good to try to take control over it.

By: Elias Friedman

Elias Friedman — Thu, 08 Jun 2006 04:50:41 +0000

I feel compelled to point out that returning to the Moon before the Chinese has other aspects other than just “saving face”.

In military operations, owning the “high ground” is extremely valuable.

Go and read Robert Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress” if you don’t understand my point.

By: Will.

Will. — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:11:02 +0000

The corollary to the “sunk-cost fallacy” is the “lost-face fallacy,” or continuing to pursue a course of action (the last two disastrous “wars,” for example) just so as not to appear to be a “quitter.” Beginning a race to the moon now just because China might be able to put some folks up there doesn’t seem like a rational reason, I agree. Nearly as bad as trying to “out-sputnik” the Russians 36 or so years ago.
HOWEVER, should there be demonstrated scientific merit in a return to the moon (and not simply spun-off new consumer technology), then perhaps the U.S. should consider it.
But the war in Iraq isn’t getting any cheaper, and the “don’t cut and run” patriots are firmly in command of the current admininstration and the public which chooses to vote, it seems. And the deficit is compounding exponentially. I guess that’s an economic
reason, principled or no, not to expect any funding for much of anything in the way of “frills” in the near and not so near future. Sort of like the way many public secondary schools are funded today - at least in the bottom one-third of the country.

By: Rumour Mongerer

Rumour Mongerer — Wed, 07 Jun 2006 21:04:02 +0000

So, has anyone checked out the qualifications of Dean Acosta?