dagblog - Comments for "Moon Water: What's it Good For?"

Can I just give a shout-out

Doctor Cleveland — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:44:17 +0000

In reply to Moon Water: What's it Good For?

Can I just give a shout-out to the Earth's magnetic field?

Pace Marshall ... all of our eggs are in this basket because we can't take any eggs out of this basket without totally freaking irradiating them!

I get it too, but … I want to

Nebton — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:19:36 +0000

In reply to Sorry Neb, I haven't had time

I get it too, but … I want to go to the moon!

IMHO, your last point is

DF — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:06:20 +0000

In reply to Agree 100 per cent,

IMHO, your last point is utterly germane here. Astrophysics has tons of fodder for inquiry right now (one of the reasons that empirical findings have been forthcoming in astro in recent decades, as opposed to the relative stand-still in theoretical), but that fodder didn't come from manned missions.

I don't have an answer of

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:17:06 +0000

In reply to Something to dream about

I don't have an answer of course. I'll say that I find the work on photon sails more exciting than moon water because it at least holds out a promise of actually going somewhere.

Sorry Neb, I haven't had time

Michael Wolraich — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:13:33 +0000

In reply to I'm going to thread a needle

Sorry Neb, I haven't had time to comment. I don't argue that we need to fund projects based on strict utility, but you need some kind of rationale commensurate to the funding level. We fund the arts because we believe that art and culture is intrinsically important. Basic science is also intrinsically important as well as utilitarian. But while a lunar colony would advance basic science, it's a damn expensive experiment. Would we not do better by putting some of those billions into other basic research? Marshall gets this, which is why he tries to come up with other rationales. Unfortunately, he doesn't do a very good job. Nor has anyone else recently, which is one reason that NASA is struggling.

I'm going to thread a needle

Nebton — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:08:40 +0000

In reply to OK, I'll clarify that a bit:

I'm going to thread a needle here. I won't argue why it makes sense to go back to the moon, but if we're evaluating projects based off their utility, I will ask one to quantify the utility of the arts. (Note that I'm not arguing against the funding of the arts.)

To be fair, I did a little research on relative funding amounts. In 2008, the NEA received almost $150 million, while NASA received over $17 billion, or more than 110x as much money. That said, NASA gave us Tang, while the NEA gave us crucifixes in urinals. :)

OK, I'll clarify that a bit:

Nebton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:42:53 +0000

In reply to I'm going to have to

OK, I'll clarify that a bit: I could come up with a whole laundry list of reasons for why it would make sense for us to go back to the moon, to build colonies there, and to do likewise on Mars.

However, I'd know (and you'd probably guess) that I was creating those arguments in order to satisfy a pre-conceived viewpoint, and I'd be guilty of what I rail against the Creationists for. There are times when I'd do it anyway, but today's not one of them.

I'm going to have to

Nebton — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:39:43 +0000

In reply to Moon Water: What's it Good For?

I'm going to have to disagree, on religious grounds: I want to go to the moon!

Agree 100 per cent,

acanuck — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:29:49 +0000

In reply to Moon Water: What's it Good For?

Agree 100 per cent, Genghis.

A big reason the bombing of the moon didn't make a big splash was that the result was anything but a surprise. The evidence for water on the moon has been building for years. And they crashed the probe directly where they knew that water had to be. The question for me wasn't whether there would be water in the resulting plume, it was "How much?" The answer appears to be: "Lots." Great.

Marshall's disappointment that the public isn't clamoring for moon colonies is understandable. He's one of the guys who would get to build them, and I'm sure there are thousands more at NASA who think just like him. But they lost. One of Obama's earliest and best policy decisions (which NASA fought tooth and nail) was to scrap Bush's airily declared plan to return to the moon. As a stepping-stone to Mars!

I think it's great we walked on the moon in the affluent '60s and '70s. But with the economy in ruins and people dying needlessly every day for lack of health-care funding, a repeat was just not in the cards. That diehards at NASA were willing to sacrifice everything else to get the space ball rolling -- the ISS, Hubble, all the unmanned probes -- shows what an irrational boondoggle the whole idea was.

Unmanned missions and high-resolution multi-wavelength observatories have multiplied our knowledge of the universe many times over (and done it at quite manageable cost). Let's spend a few decades digesting that new knowledge; actual space travel can wait.

Something to dream about

DF — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:50:52 +0000

In reply to Moon Water: What's it Good For?

Something to dream about might be nice, but what would it be? As you note, we know much more about our solar system than we did 40 or 40 years ago. Though we might find some interesting life-forms, we know we won't find anything like life resembling that on Earth. The other planets in our solar system are essentially inhospitable. Travel outside our solar system would likely require a multi-generational journey, but to what end? What would these dreams be made of?

Personally, I kind of like the idea of some astronauts chillin' on the moon while the world is destroyed. It's a nice counter-point to the image of John Cusack running, driving and apparently flying to stay just ahead of impending doom. When I see that trailer, I just keep wondering, "Where the hell is he going?" Where is he going to land that airplane when the ground beneath him appears to be falling away? I guess it's effective marketing.