Well, This Is Money Well Spent... - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Speakeasy · #16 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Actually, I completely and 100% support the spending of this money and wish NASA's budget was even bigger than it is now.

For Christ's sake, the government has spent nearly $200 million on Murtha's airport. $79 million for something that could lead to a major discovery seems like an excellent investment.

Steve · #17 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

they don't have to find water in order to potentially profit from this. it's not the only purpose of the mission.

Profit?

Is that the goal now?

I thought the goal was to have a colony there. Or to get to Mars. Now it's to profit from it.

Got it...

Quote:

come on steve, you know there's potential for beneficial and profitable scientific breakthroughs from this and now you're reaching and changing your argument.

I've changed nothing...

Quote:

first it was "what use is it if we find water molecules on the moon?" and now it's "what if we don't find water on the moon?"

You're parsing words here. If they find water molecules on the moon, the scientific community will rightly proclaim "WE FOUND WATER ON THE MOON!". What they'll avoid mentioning is that they found such a ridiculously small amount to do anything other than to let us know that there are water molecules on the moon.

In either case, the information is of little practical use for the purposes of profit...

Again, if they don't find anything with this mission, how many more $79,000,000.00 missions should be undertaken before they decide to do something else?

jviehe · #18 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

How are we paying for this? We dont have 79million.

Steve · #19 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoMe

When America went to the moon in the 60's we shared its discoveries with the rest of the world. Some in our government believe that if China gets to the moon ahead of us and the rest of the world, they may not. I don't have anything to back that statement up, but I do recall reading it somewhere.

BUT WE'VE ALREADY BEEN THERE...

Quote:

Ultimate could be a strong word here

Yet, that's the very word that was used, and that suggests something finite...

Quote:

In regards to no water being found by the probe this week; well, if they don't find water, that would be a setback for NASA and it will have to scale back it's plans for permanent colonization.

"Setback"?

"Scale back"???

Don't both of those strongly suggest that NASA is proceeding with the expectation of moving forward with colonization? I think that's a ridiculous position to take, given that we don't know what the resources are.

That's like saying not winning the lottery would be a "setback" because someone had "plans" to buy a fleet of Bentleys...

Quote:

Colonization will likely still be possible though because it turns out that there is water locked in the lunar soil and NASA has recently developed the technology to unlock it using heat and some sort of chemistry of which I not too familiar.

So, wait; we know the water is there?

Then why are we spending $79 million to blow a hole in the surface of the moon?

Speakeasy · #20 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You're parsing words here. If they find water molecules on the moon, the scientific community will rightly proclaim "WE FOUND WATER ON THE MOON!". What they'll avoid mentioning is that they found such a ridiculously small amount to do anything other than to let us know that there are water molecules on the moon.

In either case, the information is of little practical use for the purposes of profit...

Again, if they don't find anything with this mission, how many more $79,000,000.00 missions should be undertaken before they decide to do something else?

Actually, they already have found water molecules on the moon. Crashing LCROSS into the moon will help us get a better idea of how much is there and where it might be concentrated most.

The information we currently have puts it at about 32 ounces of water per metric ton of lunar soil. Not a whole lot, but certainly way better than 'none'. Hopefully if we can find higher concentrations of it, it will better help us figure out where the best place to land would be once we return.

Steve · #21 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Speakeasy

Actually, they already have found water molecules on the moon. Crashing LCROSS into the moon will help us get a better idea of how much is there and where it might be concentrated most.

The information we currently have puts it at about 32 ounces of water per metric ton of lunar soil. Not a whole lot, but certainly way better than 'none'. Hopefully if we can find higher concentrations of it, it will better help us figure out where the best place to land would be once we return.

Great.

How many more $79,000,000.00 holes do you want to blast into the surface of the moon before a final determination, as to its’ concentration, is made?

bg85 · #22 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Profit?

Is that the goal now?

I thought the goal was to have a colony there. Or to get to Mars. Now it's to profit from it.

Got it...

come on, steve. your original contention was that the mission was not worth the money. i countered with the assertion that it would be worth the money and one of the reasons for that is because it could lead to profit for our country as well as our species (the one example i used was that it could make colonization of the moon easier, although there are many others. i never once mentioned mars).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

You're parsing words here. If they find water molecules on the moon, the scientific community will rightly proclaim "WE FOUND WATER ON THE MOON!". What they'll avoid mentioning is that they found such a ridiculously small amount to do anything other than to let us know that there are water molecules on the moon.

In either case, the information is of little practical use for the purposes of profit...

you have no reason for saying this other than pure speculation and you know it. you're a smart guy, steve, don't belittle yourself by making claims you have no way of supporting. you don't know what kind of information we might gain from this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Again, if they don't find anything with this mission, how many more $79,000,000.00 missions should be undertaken before they decide to do something else?

well, basically the point you're trying to make with this question is that because there's a chance we might not gain anything out of the mission, we shouldn't carry it out at all. unfortunately, the way life works is that 99% of the time if you want to make some sort of profit, you have to take some sort of risk first. there's massive potential for benefit here (far more than $79 million).

Speakeasy · #23 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

Great.

How many more $79,000,000.00 holes do you want to blast into the surface of the moon before a final determination, as to its’ concentration, is made?

Actually, the LCROSS is an incredibly cheap space venture. Plus, LCROSS is only a portion of the total mission. Combined with the LRO, the entire mission comes out to $583 million dollars, over a course of nearly four years when development is taken into account. In light of that, complaining about $79 million is kinda funny.

Disillusioned_1 · #24 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Steve phrases it like they loaded up the spacecraft with $79 million in greenbacks and are going to crash it into the moon.

The truth is that the $79 million was part of a budget which paid for NASA overhead, research budgets, employees and their benefits, launch personnel, machinists, factory workers etc. The actual cost of the raw materials that are being destroyed is probably a few thousand dollars or maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars.

The only way to get rid of those costs, the majority of which NASA is incurring anyway (because it actually has employees) would be to eliminate NASA.

At $79 million, the mission cost is 26 cents for every US citizen. OMG THE HORROR.

JoMe already provided a good list of reasons the mission is worth doing. Item number 2 alone is worth doing the mission for. Considering the tens of trillions of dollars spent on fossil fuels, a tiny miniscule portion of that spent to find a source of fuel for nuclear fuel which isn't uranium or plutonium is worth the cost.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoMe

I know $79 million seems like allot of money in light of all of money the past and current administration have spent and given all of America’s challenges, problems, etc., but if we stop exploring, America and the rest of the world will wither and die.

Hundreds of years ago the English had a whole host of problems and challenges but they did not let that stop them from reaching North America. I’m sure it cost them lots of money to send ships here and setup colonies but had they not have done that the United States of American, as we know it, may not be here today.

Exploration and a permanent base on the moon will have immense benefits to both America and the world. NASA’s ultimate goal is to go to Mars but right now it is too expenses and there are too many science and engineering challenges to master. So, NASA’s plan, assuming the BO administration does not kill it, is to establish a permanent base on the moon which it is hoped to turn into a permanent colony. In order to have a permanent human presence on the moon, we need to know if there is water (because it will be too expenses to constantly ship it up from earth). That’s what Friday’s moon bomb impact is about in a nutshell. Other attempts to determine the presence of water from lunar orbit have more or less proved to be inconclusive.

Learning to live and work on the moon will

1) provide the science and engineering knowhow for going to Mars

2) provide an abundant supply of helium 3 (rare on earth), which scientist believe can be used to power fusion reactors here on earth (and quite possibly solve our energy problems in this country and elsewhere)

3) spinoff technology from living and working on the moon will provide America with the technological edge over other countries and help our economy to grow like Apollo research has.

4) China is actively working towards going to the moon and possibly establishing a permanent human presence there. Much like the days of old when the sea faring nations more or less dominated the world, in the 21st century and beyond the space faring nations will dominate the world. Unless America no longer wants to remain the dominate superpower, we can’t let China take control of what is essentially the new world of the 21st century – like North America was for the Europeans hundreds of years ago.

Steve · #25 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

come on, steve. your original contention was that the mission was not worth the money. i countered with the assertion that it would be worth the money and one of the reasons for that is because it could lead to profit for our country as well as our species (the one example i used was that it could make colonization of the moon easier, although there are many others. i never once mentioned mars).

I never said you did.

But that has been offered here as the "ultimate goal" of NASA...

Quote:

you have no reason for saying this other than pure speculation and you know it. you're a smart guy, steve, don't belittle yourself by making claims you have no way of supporting. you don't know what kind of information we might gain from this.

And my position is that $79 large is one Hell of a gamble...

Quote:

well, basically the point you're trying to make with this question is that because there's a chance we might not gain anything out of the mission, we shouldn't carry it out at all. unfortunately, the way life works is that 99% of the time if you want to make some sort of profit, you have to take some sort of risk first. there's massive potential for benefit here (far more than $79 million).

That argument is only valid if this first strike is a success.

If it's not; if this mission fails, how many more $79 million missions should be undertaken to find what will likely amount to a negligible amount of water?

Wallaroo · #26 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by bg85

i heard the moon has been harboring terrorists believed to be linked to al qaeda

Hehe! Lets just say there are better chances of them bing there than in Iraq.

Steve · #27 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Disillusioned_1

Steve phrases it like they loaded up the spacecraft with $79 million in greenbacks and are going to crash it into the moon.

The truth is that the $79 million was part of a budget which paid for NASA overhead, research budgets, employees and their benefits, launch personnel, machinists, factory workers etc. The actual cost of the raw materials that are being destroyed is probably a few thousand dollars or maybe a few tens of thousands of dollars.

The only way to get rid of those costs, the majority of which NASA is incurring anyway (because it actually has employees) would be to eliminate NASA.

At $79 million, the mission cost is 26 cents for every US citizen. OMG THE HORROR.

Bullshit.

If I intended to phrase it as such, I would've used $17.3 billion, as that was their operating budget for FY 2008...

Quote:

JoMe already provided a good list of reasons the mission is worth doing. Item number 2 alone is worth doing the mission for. Considering the tens of trillions of dollars spent on fossil fuels, a tiny miniscule portion of that spent to find a source of fuel for nuclear fuel which isn't uranium or plutonium is worth the cost.

So we'll be able to make nuclear fuel out of just water?

I might be able to get behind an idea like that...

Speakeasy · #28 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

So we'll be able to make nuclear fuel out of just water?

I might be able to get behind an idea like that...

How astronauts could 'harvest' water on the moon - space - 25 September 2009 - New Scientist

This is a pretty good article detailing the benefit of figuring out where the water is and how much there is of it.

bg85 · #29 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

And my position is that $79 large is one Hell of a gamble...

well, if you consider the possible return on the gamble (which is absolutely priceless...think of how much the original space race cost the taxpayers vs. how much we gained from it) it doesn't seem like too much too me at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

That argument is only valid if this first strike is a success.

the argument is valid in the context of this thread and the last few posts you've made.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

If it's not; if this mission fails, how many more $79 million missions should be undertaken to find what will likely amount to a negligible amount of water?

how am i supposed to answer that question? i'm not a nasa physicist. i have no idea how many more missions it would take to get conclusive results (whether they be positive or negative). i do know, however, that compared to what we could potentially gain from the mission, $79 million is pocket change.

TheLastBoyScout · #30 (**permalink**) 10-07-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve

I'm sorry, I just fail to see the benefit here...

The space program yields no immediate benefit to taxpayers......it's more of a long term payoff:

Quote:

Under the Space Act of 1958, NASA has had a mandate to share all the information it has gained with the public. Here are a few of the practical applications that have resulted from technologies and information learned by space scientists:

* CAT scans
* MRIs
* Kidney dialysis machines
* Heart defibrillator technology
* Remote robotic surgery
* Artificial heart pump technology
* Physical therapy machines
* Positron emission tomography
* Microwave receivers used in scans for breast cancer
* Cardiac angiography
* Monitoring neutron activity in the brain
* Cleaning techniques for hospital operating rooms
* Portable x-ray technology for neonatal offices and 3rd world countries
* Freeze-dried food
* Water purification filters
* ATM technology
* Pay at the Pump satellite technology
* Athletic shoe manufacturing technique
* Insulation barriers for autos
* Image-processing software for crash-testing automobiles
* Holographic testing of communications antennas
* Low-noise receivers
* Cordless tools
* A computer language used by businesses such as car repair shops, Kodak, hand-held computers, express mail
* Aerial reconnaissance and Earth resources mapping
* Airport baggage scanners
* Distinction between natural space objects and satellites/warheads/rockets for defense
* Satellite monitors for nuclear detonations
* Hazardous gas sensors
* Precision navigation
* Clock synchronization
* Ballistic missile guidance
* Secure communications
* Study of ozone depletion
* Climate change studies
* Monitoring of Earth-based storms such as hurricanes
* Solar collectors
* Fusion reactors
* Space-age fabrics for divers, swimmers, hazardous material workers, and others
* Teflon-coated fiberglass for roofing material
* Lightweight breathing system used by firefighters
* Atomic oxygen facility for removing unwanted material from 19th century paintings
* FDA-adopted food safety program that has reduced salmonella cases by a factor of 2
* Multispectral imaging methods used to read ancient Roman manuscripts buried by Mt. Vesuvius

Read more: Practical Applications of Space Technology: Discoveries and Developments by NASA and Their Benefit to Society | Suite101.com

Pretty solid contributions to science and society there. I think funding NASA is a good investment for pretty much anything they deem a priority. Given their track record, I think they deserve that confidence.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode