I’m not suggesting that NASA not do the research.

I would be interested in knowing what technological advances have come about as a direct result of a space craft actually landing on the moon. I’m not suggesting that we shouldn’t have landed on the moon, but we’ve only landed on the moon six times. How many technological advances have come about because of those six hard landings, which wouldn’t have been attainable without stepping foot on the moon?

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I believe this will answer that, Steve:

http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/apollo.htm

NASA - Apollo's Small Steps Are Giant Leap for Technology

Most of these technologies would not have been realized had humans not been a part of the equation.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

So Black & Decker and Nike would've been fucked without a man actually stepping on the moon? Did something happen on the moon, which could've happened nowhere else, that resulted in cordless drill technology?

I've never suggested people shouldn't have been part of the equation. What I question, though, is the wisdom of $79 million missions to hopefully find something that looks like water in a place where a prolonged or sustained presence may or may not have benefits and is, at best, currently a very questionable reality.

The space program, up until now, has been great. How questioning one mission means, to some, that I don't support the space program is fucking stupid...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

You've decided to believe that this particular mission is a waste of money regardless of the arguments for doing it. If you cant see that the reasons for doing it are worthwhile then there's really no point in continuing to argue the point. We see that you're opposed to it. Most of us think you're wrong.


In the case of man walking on the moon, there were many geological breakthroughs in understanding how the moon formed because we were able to put a geologist on the moon. Knowing how the moon formed is key to understanding what resources it might hold (and the moon appears to be made almost entirely of the same material as the earth's mantle).

Again, I've never suggested that people should not have been part of the equation, nor that they shouldn't be now.

Ergo, your point is stupid...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

I never suggested you thought that. You made comments about what the benefit of actually putting men's feet on the moon was. Ergo, your point about a point I never made is wrong.

I've asked what some of those benefits have been.

I was presented a laundry list of technological advances which have been a result of the space program, but nothing which said which advances could've been realized had man not physically stepped on the moon. I'm thinking that most of them would fit that category...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

In my opinion putting men on the moon was mostly a psychological breakthrough. There were certainly a lot of things that were easier (such as doing geological studies) by having actual people there. Mostly it was a big PR stunt because it was the first time we beat the USSR at accomplishing a major milestone in the space race. Then we proved it was repeatable as opposed to being a one-shot miracle.

Having men either sit up above in orbit while robots explore the surface or having men sit on earth while everything is robotic just doesn't carry the psychological weight of a guy who can come talk to the public who has FREAKING WALKED ON THE MOON! It makes the task seem less daunting and forbidding, which ultimately makes projects like a mining colony on the moon much more psychologically acceptable as a real goal (and therefore fundable).

I understand you have no issue with the space program. Look at things this way, though. Before Apollo 11 set foot on the moon, there were countless small missions that were done beforehand purely for research to ensure the Moon landings would go off without a hitch. From Mercury to Gemini and everything in between. It would have been easy to pick any one of those specific missions, by itself, and say that it was absurd and a waste of money. But in the bigger picture and when looked at in context, it makes sense as a building block to a larger goal.

Fact is, mankind will eventually one day need to go out into space and stay there. Water will be necessary for this. We can't reasonably supply them with Earth's water (it's cost prohibitive for longer missions), so it's crucial to learn all we can about finding water on other planets and getting that water to work for us. Slamming LCROSS into the lunar surface so we can get a better idea of where most of the water is, how abundant it is and be able to apply our findings to other planetary bodies such as Mars will be invaluable in our quest to get off this planet. Whether we like it or not, the human race's time on earth certainly does have an expiration date and learning all we can about surviving off planet is pivotal to the survival of mankind.

__________________
“If you want to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first create the universe.” - Carl Sagan

Remember to submit your nominations for the U.S. Politics Online Alternative Awards!

There was something special about the moon: It was the ends to the space program. The means are what brought us all the advances in technology. So actually achieving the goal of walking on the moon in 1969 has allowed people to support it since. Had we failed to walk on the moon, I would argue that NASA may have been disbanded by now.

So now....we've been to the moon. What are the new ends? It's exploration and discovery...and eventually colonization.

The same critique you have now could just as easily fit with the declaration of the Apollo program. It takes hindsight to appreciate the value of each mission. The outcome of upcoming missions and the resulting benefits are not known.......but that's the nature of exploration.

__________________

The world could use more Stan Ovshinsky's

I suppose we could have just done all the research and calculations on how to get to the moon, and come up with the technological breakthroughs along the way (all "on paper", so to speak)... and then just scrapped the actual building of any spacecraft, scrapped the entire launch and mission... once we figured out how to get to the moon, what was the point of actually going there? Right?

Thank you for admitting that you're completely unable to address the question I asked...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Er, sorry... I guess I didn't understand your question....

You absolutely did.

It took you a while to get there, but, kudos...

__________________



For those who have fought to defend it, freedom has a taste the protected will never know...



If it wasn't for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all...

Unfortunately Steve, theory and experiment often diverge.

Headlines:
"Scientists and engineers theorize we have all the technology necessary to land people on the moon so we don't need to actually go"
vs
"Astronauts land on the moon, collect samples, and return to earth".