<OT> oh, my

[dep]

quoth Matthew Carpenter:
| David A. Bandel wrote:
|
| >Generally, I'd agree with you.  But the last para ... "Going to Mars
| > is something that I think we almost have to take off the table
| > right now ... " I can't agree with.
|
| In the interest of getting back to the moon, focus cannot be on Mars,
| although it cannot be discarded as the next goal.  That is most
| likely why Bush even brought it up.  Agreed that setting the goal as
| the next step just means you'll never make it that far.

i agree with the points david made, and the one you make above, which 
is, interestingly, explained well (along with a whole lot of other 
interesting stuff) in an article which details the whole process that 
led to the announcement and that, to the best of my knowledge, is true 
(except for nov. 12, 2001, being less than 2 months after 9/11/01):

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=915

| I believe the main reason private enterprise has not stepped up is
| that in the USA, if it can't be measured to bring in hard cash we
| just don't seem to be interested.  How can funding moon-travel
| without some sort of overpopulation or Earth-decay be considered as a
| money-maker?  I don't necessarily agree with this thought, but
| understand where it comes from.

the *worst* time to try to do a moon project is during the kind of 
circumstances you describe -- there is no imaginable condition on earth 
that would make the moon (or mars) preferable as a residence, or at 
least none short-term predictable that would allow a working crash 
program. though your underlying point, that quick profits motivate what 
our industrial base has become, is in my estimation entirely accurate 
and the chief reason i expect that china will over time have a superior 
space program. 

| >The most expensive part of space travel (IINM) is leaving the
| > planetary gravity well.  If we're not focused on solar system
| > colonization and exploration, why bother?  In fact, I suggest we
| > should be paying more attention to the moon's La Grange points than
| > the moon itself, although certainly the moon affords more resources
| > locally at a very slight penalty due to its small gravity well.
|
| Agreed.
|
| I would imagine we should be able to elicit financial aid from other
| governement agencies interested in Earth-study.  The Moon is a great
| satellite which has been highly underused.

the moon is a great platform for a lot of reasons. for astronomical 
telescopes, it is free of atmospheric debris. for "listening" to the 
cosmos, it offers the only place we know of, anywhere, that is free of 
earthly interference -- the other side. because of its very 
inhospitable nature, a lot of things too dangerous to do here, 
involving development of nuclear propulsion systems and the like, are 
possible, and these would be needed for mars, the asteroids, and very 
serious (though unmanned) venusian exploration. microgravity is more 
readily achieved, and traveling to and from it is far safer, with the 
moon as a base. much of the near-zero-g trouble that is encountered in 
low earth orbit is absent on the moon (though atrophying of the muscles 
and calcium migration would still be issues). all of which means that 
it would make a very good space station, once we get good at travel to 
and from, which is not likely anytime soon to involve the kind of fly 
up, touch it, and run away stuff we've done before; far more likely 
that as soon as the transportation system completes testing and becomes 
operational, we're talking a year minimum per trip. and this is before 
even considering whether we find any natural resources there of use to 
us, which we very well might.
-- 
dep

It's remarkable how quickly a problem goes away once the people with
a vested interest in there being a problem go away. -- Mark Steyn