The total mass of Apollo samples is several hundred kilograms; the total for all the lunar meteorites found in 25 years of searching is 33Kg. So Von Braun fond more rocks surreptitiously in a week’s vacation than many people searching earnestly and openly for 25 years have found? (The Antarctic searches have found over 100,000 meteorites, but only a tiny percentage are lunar, and a similar tiny percentage are martian.)

The Apollo sample rocks have unique chemical composition and physical structure. The only similar rocks ever found are the lunar meteorites. They are different from all other meteorites, all Earth rocks, Martian rocks, the Venusian surface, Titan, Eros (and all other asteroids ever examined close up) and anything else. But the Apollo rocks and the lunar meteorites clearly came from the same place, and that place matches the geological composition of the Moon as determined by the Surveyor landers and the Clementine and Lunar Prospector orbiters. (And nothing from SELENE or Chang’e-1 has cast any doubt on this, AFAIK.) And it all makes sense in light of theories of the Moon’s (and Earth’s) formation developed *after* the Apollo landings, but not at all what they were expecting *before* the Apollo landings. What, did Von Braun just make an extremely lucky guess?

I got most of the lunar meteorite information from http://www.meteorites.wustl.edu/lunar/moon_meteorites.htm

I don’t have any sources on terraforming, it’s just my speculation, and something that has featured in various forms in science fiction, which, while not currently feasible, can give ideas of where we might pursue the science. Just look at Arthur C. Clarke’s works.

IMHO, colonies would likely be rather unpleasant places to live for years at a time: enclosed, cold industrial decor, few live plants or fauna except in special greenhouses or zoos, if even that. However, if the technology could be developed to, say, give a planet a more hospitable atmosphere (something that would probably take decades if not centuries to do), then colonies would not need to be enclosed. The way I figure it, pursuit of such technologies would probably start with trying to figure out how to repair the damage done to the Earth’s atmosphere and climate, once we get past how to keep the damage from progressing.

Just speculation, but ambitions like these, especially if they are started early, can lead to grand developments in the future. Most definitely not in my lifetime, nor in the next generation or two, but definitely somewhere down the road.

Don’t we need some other baskets, though? ;^}

Todd…

I’m genuinely interested in this concept. Should I just google it or do have any links that would get me going? Seriously. Thanks.

In the short term, yeah, it won’t be a very welcoming experience. But, if we can advance terraforming technology to make uninhabitable places not only habitable but pleasant… Stepping stones, my friend. Stepping stones.

Is living in an inhospitable environment within a manmade “colony” devoid of all the things we evolved an appreciation and in fact a need for really what “surviving” as a species looks like?

Pass!

Yes!

Why???
Because solar power satellites are the “wedge” to space colonization, providing a reasonable profit incentive to attract curious monkeys. Humans will rarely do what is good for them in the long term but show them a chance to gain lots of “bling” and you can barely constrain them. I have every reason to believe that humanity MUST settle the High Frontier in order to ensure our long term survival and the survival of earth life in general.

For that I’d do pretty much anything,,,for some strange reason, I LIKE humans,,,go figure,,,

GAry 7

I’m still laughing at the “caffinated rabbit with ADD on crystal meth” up above

- Jack

It’s not that we haven’t been back to the moon, it’s that we haven’t been more than 400 miles from the earth’s surface since the last Apollo mission and yet supposedly we traveled a quarter of a million miles out and back.

Those first 400 miles are the hardest.

I have always thought this was the dumbest part of the would debate about whether we have been to the moon or not. It is like saying, since I have not been on my high school football field since I was a junior in high school, that some how proves that I did not play football. But yet there are photos and newspaper articles with my name in them to prove that I did indeed play high school football. But I guess since I have not put on a pair of shoulder pads since 1991 and run out on that field, I did not really play football.

I understand he’s a comedian, and its difficult for them to take their comedian hats off sometimes. But even on a comedic level, it doesn’t work, because Rogan (jokingly, perhaps) presented himself as cool and clever. Funny isn’t cool and clever! It’s lame, loser and depressing! Richard Pryor taught us all that.

Anyway, I thought he was a bit of a dink.

Exactly. Great points.

In the opening moments Rogan makes it clear he has no special information or proof; he’s not saying he knows for sure it was a total hoax, etc. Then he continues on by saying, “I’m just sayin’…” And that’s where it should have ended! It’s the extraordinary claims, require extraordinary evidence bit. And Joe, like all other conspiracy nuts, ain’t got nuthin’! Penn and Phil should ahve said, “Come back when you can do more than toss off a bunch of Yeah, but what abouts…”

I just wished he see the flaws in the moon hoax claims, and turn the knowledge on all the other theories. He was a smart guy, he just hadn’t really done anything, and knowing every detail of every theory out there made him look important to other people.

Neufeld has had an agenda regarding von Braun for decades. This isn’t the first book he’s written “to tell the truth.” The problem is, he often uses the same techniques as the MHB’s such as cherry picking facts and leaving out contrary evidence.

In his case though, it has a basis in fact. Von Braun really did develop the V2 and really did join the Nazi party. As a public relations animal, von Braun always downplayed his role at Dora/mittlewerk saying he was in R&D and the SS was in charge of production. At first he claims never to have been there at all, but when confronted with photographic evidence (and a paper trail, see my previous post) to the contrary, he ‘fessed up.

Neither side is especially objective, but von Braun is no longer around to defend himself. That makes it open season for to opposition.

- Jack

I was crushed by the end of Penn radio because I wanted to hear the interview with Chritopher Hitchens, more than the third debate. I can only listen to a goofball mutter the same nonsense for so long.

Exactly, which is why my tactic, as I’ve said here before, is to never engage them on their terms. Turn the tables. Start asking them questions such as:

1) Who was involved in the conspiracy? Obviously it had to include the head of NASA (side question, who was the head of NASA during Apollo?). How far down did it go? Division Managers? Project Managers? Engineering Staff? Prime Contractors? Sub Contractors? Suppliers? The answer is usually “All of them,” which, of course, runs to hundreds of thousands of people.

2) A conspiracy this vast cannot be coordinated with phone calls and face-to-face meetings. To have been so successful, it needed modern management techniques meaning a paper trail. Do you have any memos, any phone records, any meeting minutes, even one shred of physical evidence to support an effort this massive?

3) Do you know what an engineered solution is? (I use this one in the case of the “Van Allen Belt” argument) You figure out what the problem is and then you solve it within the parameters you need. In this case, we knew the level of radiation in the belts, we knew the transit time so we knew the total exposure. We also knew how much radiation a healthy body can tolerate, so the shielding only had to deal with that limited amount. Compared to the rest of the engineering problems going to the moon, this one was a piece of cake.

…and so on. You get the idea. Don’t let them put you on the defensive. Be on the offensive!

- Jack

Good job keeping your cool. you do know how to put the “Bad” as in Bad-a@@ into Bad Astronomer

Rogan seemed hung up on the fact that Von Braun was a Nazi, and so saw this as a yet another reason to question the nature of the moon landings.

It is rather foolish for that journalist to ask Rogan instead of a scientist like you.
What is it with the media?