Obviously, these are two different questions.

Alan Sturm, George Leonard and others have identified specific locations on the lunar surface which appear to be anomalous.

If you are so confident that there are no alien artifacts why don’t you recommend the the LRO imaging these sites?

The MRO did this for the “face on mars” and it Hoagland was proven wrong. Shouldn’t you want the same for the moon?

Fact:

1. Former employees of the Air Force and NASA have reported that structures were images during the Apollo years.

2. There are currently 3 orbiters circling the moon. Chinese, Japanese and Indian but no images are available of reasonable resolution (1 pixel =500m) are available of the suspicious sites.

3. None of these orbiters have imaged any of the anomalous structure sites identified by Leonard, Sturm, and others.

So, I have the courage of my own convictions. Do you? I will place a simple $100 bet with you, Phil Plait, that the LRO will NOT image the Leonard and Sturm sites. Deal or no deal?

If it does, I will give $100 to SETI, but if it doesn’t you can donate$100 to MUFON.

My suspicion is that the LRO will image some of the apollo sites, but will malfunction before it does anything else. Or, it will completely fail at launch.

The moon will keep her secrets (from the general public at least).

Genuine question: What’s the argument for funding a return to the moon over other NASA projects? I ask as a space enthusiast (and graduate student in astrophysics) whose primary interests lie away from planetary science. What’s the scientific value of a return trip?

We still don’t know very much about our moon, with only some 50 plus years of studying the moon its unlikely that we’ve learned everything there is to know already. Not to mention, once you have an answer in science you don’t just automatically accept it and move on. No, you test and retest until all reasonable questions have been answered. So I would say there is plenty of scientific reason to return to the moon.

From just learning about the moon, to using the moon as a test-bed. The thing that people have a problem with is whether or not there is sufficient reason to return to the moon manned. I think there is, if only because you don’t just blast off to Mars with green astronauts. Especially when your experience on another celestial body is limited in the first place.

Six missions to the lunar surface, that’s it, and we’re going to blast off to Mars on what we learned on those six missions?

Of course there is the argument whether we should have manned missions or not, but again I think we should. Why? Eventually we’re going to have to leave this planet to insure that the human race continues. Of course some believe that we’ll kill ourselves first, but giving up should never be an option. If it was why should we do anything?

I give a damn about the future, I know my views aren’t shared. The vast majority of humanity after all only gives a damn about it self, nobody seems to care about the future generations. Just their own amusement, and enjoyment here and now.

Then there is the older generation, who is angry and bitter and cares even less for the next generation. All they care about is that the world didn’t turn out the way they thought it would, but then again they weren’t being realistic in their hopes and dreams in the first place.

There is so much more to life, so much more to this wonderful world and the wonder of our universe. Yet it isn’t enough, humanity has to be a spoiled child who isn’t happy with anything. Hmph.

Reading comprehension is only relevant when you actually put your arguments in writing, irrespective of whether you have them in your head. To wit, in response to the argument (paraphrased) “We must colonize space or go extinct” you responded with:

“In the long run we’ll go extinct no matter how many planets we live on. And what makes you think other planets don’t hold the same kinds of perils we face here on Earth?”

A reasonable person would interpret your statement as “we shouldn’t try to colonize space since we’re going to go extinct anyway and space is hostile” (as many did).

So, please explain how you expected a reader is to comprehend that what you MEANT was:

“Good point, but we’re still a long way from being able to colonize.”

To which I would respond: “True, but we still have a lot to learn about how to keep humans alive in space. Therefore, is it ever too soon to start trying to figure that out (given that human extinction from cosmic events like a K-T type impactor could be mere decades away)?”

You also did a nice job of putting words in other peoples’ mouths with the ridiculous straw man of “Should we retire all our telescopes? Our seismographs? Our spectrometers? Should physicists give up exploring the elements because there are no people small enough to walk the nuclei?” No one here suggested anything of the kind, so perhaps you should be searching the pantry for your own “can of reading comprehension.”

I understand the need for robotic exploration, I would not mind seeing one manned mission to the moon per year. If for no other reason than to hear, first hand their experience of actually being there. My dream is that someday, in the not too distant future, ordinary folks will have that experience for themselves. Others seems to be to get the science done for the least amount of money possible.

“T.E.L. says it’s better to put robots in space than humans, and since humans are going to go extinct eventually we shouldn’t even try to colonize space.”

Feel free to open up a fresh can of reading comprehension. My argument wasn’t that we ought NEVER to colonize space. My comment about extinction was to show that “our long-range survival as a species” doesn’t mean that we now exist in a situation where it’s preferable to spend what little we have for putting hungry bodies on Mars. We’re nowhere near being able to colonize other planets. Right now we’re just at the phase where we’re LEARNING about other planets, and that evidently can be done effectively with remote instruments.

“Of course it is bad thing, and this have nothing to do with patience or lack of. This is matter of efficiency and progress.”

What makes you think the present situation is lacking in efficiency and progress? How many assays of martian rocks did we have 20 years ago? Answer: zero. Progress is being made, and it’s being done efficiently. Toting a bunch of hungry bodies along makes space exploration at least an order of magnitude more expensive, and they can make it harder for the instruments to do their jobs. Many of the solar images taken aboard Skylab were ruined because there were men bouncing off the walls? The Soviet Union traversed more of the Moon’s surface than the U.S. did, without making even a single bootprint. Just think of how much better a Lunokhod could be made today, compared to 40 years ago.

But whatever. You think that the pace of technological progress is somehow holding us back. I ponder that notion as I speak to you from a place which may be up to several thousand kilometers from wherever you happen to be. Perhaps you think the internet is keeping us from conducting this conversation.

Did I miss anything? I know whose side I’m on.

> You say that it takes a week for one of today’s robots to do what a field geologist
> could do in five minutes?”
At least you admit it now. :>

> Is that somehow a bad thing, that it takes a week?
Of course it is bad thing, and this have nothing to do with patience or lack of. This is matter of efficiency and progress.

I will omit nonsequitors.

“Blah, blah, blah, …”

Wow. All that just so you can rationalise why you can’t stand not having warm bodies in-situ to the same labor that robots can do. You say that it takes a week for one of today’s robots to do what a field geologist could do in five minutes? So? Is that somehow a bad thing, that it takes a week? Are you really so impatient? You should be grateful you weren’t born a hundred years ago, when you would’ve waited a hell of a lot longer than a week. You’d have spend your entire life not knowing what we now know, thanks to robots.

They’re just playing Left 4 Dead

We can only figure that out if there are so-called other universes. Do you have any compelling evidence that there are others?

No. And it is irrelevant. If there aren’t and we try anyway, we lose nothing. If there are, and we don’t try, we lose everything. So, as long as there is a nonzero chance that they are there, we should try.

And do you really have the slightest comprehension what it means for “us” to exist for a trillion years?

No. Nobody has. And there is no other way to finding it out than trying.

There’s no particular reason to *believe* we’ll continue indefinitely.

Of course there is. There is no catastrophe that can wipe out entire local group of gallaxies. So, as long as we spread through it we would be indestructible.

For that matter, what makes you think that after a million or a billion more years that our descendants will even be human?

Founder effect, disruptive selection and reproductive isolation make it sure that our descendants will split into large number of species. But it is completely irrelevant what species our descendants will nominally be, as long as the re will be any.

We could evolve into creatures so ghastly and vulgar that you’d be ashamed to call them your kin.

Some of them will surely monsters. And equally, some of them will be beautiful angelic creatures of pure goodness. But this line of reasoning is irrelevant at best, and selfdestructive at worst. If one had to give up just because it could go all wrong, you would not be capable of even getting out of the bed in the morning. Because, you don’t know, you could just go mad and kill a lot of people if you get out.

Should we retire all our telescopes? Our seismographs? Our spectrometers? Should physicists give up exploring the elements because there are no people small enough to walk the nuclei?

This is a multi gigaparsec sized straw man. You took my “dont’ abandon humans, they can make themselves usefull if we figure out how to get them there” and turned it into “abandon anything but humans” which is blatant nonsense you.ve made up and put it in my mouth

Do you have any compelling evidence that there are others?

No. And it is irrelevant. If we try searching for them and there are not, we lose nothing. But if they are, and we give up, we lose everything. So as long as probability of their existence is not exactly zero, trying is the only rational choice.

There’s no particular reason to *believe* we’ll continue indefinitely.

Of course there is. Complete lack of catastrophes that can wipe out entire galaxy cluster at once.

For that matter, what makes you think that after a million or a billion more years that our descendants will even be human?

They will be still our descendants. How exactly would they decide to call themselves is absofuckinlutely irrelevant.

We could evolve into creatures so ghastly and vulgar that you’d be ashamed to call them your kin.

But equally, we could evolve into beautiful angelic beings of pure goodness. If it were unreasonable to try just because it could go all wrong, then even going out of the bed in the morning would be unreasonable.

Should we retire all our telescopes?

that is a mighty gigaparsec sized straw man. I did not want to stop anything but humans, I merely pointed out, that where human can get, he can do more than a robot.

“Universe will die of thermal death one day. But we ‘d have a trillion or so years to figure how to get to some other universe.”

We can only figure that out if there are so-called other universes. Do you have any compelling evidence that there are others?

And do you really have the slightest comprehension what it means for “us” to exist for a trillion years? That’s just a word that’s all too easy to spit out. Humans haven’t existed for even a millionth that long. There’s no particular reason to *believe* we’ll continue indefinitely. For that matter, what makes you think that after a million or a billion more years that our descendants will even be human? We could evolve into creatures so ghastly and vulgar that you’d be ashamed to call them your kin.

“yeah. robots are better, than humans but only when there is no human around. Makes sense”

It’s not just robots. It’s instruments and methodology. Astronomers were learning things about the Universe before the word “robot” was even coined. It remains that way even today. Most of what’s known about the Universe has been discovered by people from a distance. Should we retire all our telescopes? Our seismographs? Our spectrometers? Should physicists give up exploring the elements because there are no people small enough to walk the nuclei?

So you think the Universe will always be conducive to our longevity?

Universe will die of thermal death one day. But we ‘d have a trillion or so years to figure how to get to some other universe.

yeah. robots are better, than humans but only when there is no human around. Makes sense

“Not true. Once we get just a handful of stellar systems we will grow exponentially till fill the whole galaxy so there would be no way of getting extinct.”

So you think the Universe will always be conducive to our longevity? That’s a premature assumption, at best.

and:

“like the one who can do 5 minutes of geologist work in a week ? Or the one who needs several years to move a distance you could cover in half an hour ?”

You should open up a can of reading comprehension. The robots are exploring Mars NOW, not ten years from now. Excuse me, I should rephrase that: PEOPLE are exploring Mars NOW. The tools in-use are robots.

IN FACT, robots are at this moment parked in places where human crews could ever venture.

Robots now are getting more done than any field geologist will do for quite a number of years.

like the one who can do 5 minutes of geologist work in a week ? Or the one who needs several years to move a distance you could cover in half an hour ?

In the long run we’ll go extinct no matter how many planets we live on. And what makes you think other planets don’t hold the same kinds of perils we face here on Earth?

Not true. Once we get just a handful of stellar systems we will grow exponentially till fill the whole galaxy so there would be no way of getting extinct.

This comment triggered my memory that there is now a series Life After People (on History Channel?) that shows what would happen after X months/years moving forward. They have NOT mentioned what would happen to the satellites and probes after various times, and I suspect that any Earth orbiters would wind up deorbiting because of the ever-so-slight friction with the extended atmosphere (not to mention the variation in the density of the atmosphere from solar events).
Voyagers, etc. that are independent of planets would probably continue, but I suspect that while any orbiting (Earth, Mars, etc.) satellites would eventually wind up ‘falling from the sky’.
That would be an interesting episode for LAP. (IM[NS]HO)

J/P=?

“Why colonize and inhabit the Solar System (and beyond?)? Again, no guarantee of anything, but if our species does not it will go extinct.”

In the long run we’ll go extinct no matter how many planets we live on. And what makes you think other planets don’t hold the same kinds of perils we face here on Earth?

“A human can get around this much more easily than a robotic mission. They’re still great, but you’ll see a lot more accomplished quicker once a field geologist gets on site.”

Robots now are getting more done than any field geologist will do for quite a number of years. It’s fallacious to point out how much more a human could do on-location than robots [currently] do. With each robot comes experience, and at a lot lower cost all around than sending out people. For the cost of one crewed expedition to Mars, we can put a dozen robots there, on greatly varied locations.

And remember, if all you want is to keep people in the equation, then that’s no problem. People are always in the picture, right here on Earth.

Don’t know exactly when you heard that Astronomy cast, however, so far (recently) three objects have struck the Moon. The first was the Chandrayaan 1 (India) Moon Impact Probe which struck the surface near the South Pole on the 14 Nov 2008. A camera onboard took some still images as it crashed near a crater called Shoemaker, but no image campaign by astronomers on Earth observed the event as it was too far south out of view.

The second such object that struck very recently was the mini satellite, Okina, from the Kaguya (Japan) spacecraft on the 12 Feb last. It struck on the farside — the side which we can never observe from Earth because of the orbital mechanics between the Earth and the Moon — so that was a no-go. Incedentallly, there’s another small mini satellite involved here, callled Ouna, so that too might end up on the surface shortly as well as the main orbiter, Kaguya, itself. The latest I have is that the crash(s) will occur this June on the nearside, but please DON’T QUOTE ME ON THAT quite yet as these things change like the weather. If it does occur, however, you and your trusty 8″ telescope could see the event — all depending on advanced announcements, location, and timing etc.

And, finallly, the third object was the Chang’e 1 (China) spacecaft on the 1 March last. It did stike on the side of the Moon that faces us in a region known as Mare Fecunditatis (near where the US Luna 16 probe also landed back in 1970s). But, as to any observations made of the crash from Earth, I don’t think we had the time to do such a campaign as only a day later we only found out from NHK News that it had done so

Hope that helps?

John
PS — I recently produced a new Moon Atlas 2009 in 20 Maps, so that might help you prepare for any crash (and landing) events in the near future. It’s full of detail — nearly 3000 features, and comes in three formats for any type of telescope out there. Do have a peek ww w.moonposter.ie

When I was at school in the ’50s I was convinced that in my lifetime we (ie humans as opposed to any particular country) would not only get to the moon but to Mars & Venus too (the temperature & pressure on Venus weren’t known at that time). I watched the first TV images transmitted via satellite from the US to the UK; followed the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions and saw Neil Armstrong take that first step onto the Moon.

Then it all seemed to fade away. Sure there was Skylab, Voyager, Soyuz, Pioneer etc., then the space shuttle, but the energy & excitement of the late ’50s and the ’60s dissipated – the space race seemed to be going on at snails pace. What it all boils down to is that the general public, the great unwashed if you like, lost interest after the space race was won (by the USA) and lost (by the USSR).

Whether you like it or not, and I know many contributors to this blog don’t like it, manned space missions are going to be the only way to get the interest and the funds necessary to get back to level of the ’60s. I hope you don’t suffer the same level of frustration & disappointment that I have.

“Probably none, in the usual sense, but I’d say the scientific value would be in getting people more interested in, and supportive of, science.”

There actually is a lot of scientific value of having people there. Look at the trouble Phoenix had dealing with the soil on Mars because scientists could not predict how clumpy it would be. A human can get around this much more easily than a robotic mission. They’re still great, but you’ll see a lot more accomplished quicker once a field geologist gets on site.