Why going back to the moon?

[jedidia]

It breeds people like this because of the total lack of civilization and good government there.

Since you are bringing this up in connection with 9/11, I take it you're refering to the muslim world here...

While I agree that most of these countries have screwed up gouvernements, the "total lack of civilisation" is as far from the truth as it can get. Unless you're refering to specificly to Afghanistan or Iraq.

And maybe I should mention here that least of the gouvernements were screwed up by themselfes, but by outside influence.

However, Military intervention sometimes IS needed, I don't deny this. I spent too much time in Bosnia to not aknowledge this fact (and an AMEN to all them saying the UN is joke... the only times they messed up as good as they did in Bosnia was Somalia and right now in Darfur...). Apart from this, western europeans still have to thank America for the great work they did in Germany during and after the second world war.

Still, too enthusiastic military intervention leads to tyrany. It's a thin line between keeping order and opression, even a thinner one on a global scale than on a national one.

I would think about why people in the region have a reason to hate you, while the worst guys are pretty irrational, there is also many rational reason to be your enemy.

Another misconception is that 9/11 happened because of hatred towards america. If 9/11 would have been a strike against america, it would not have been the only one. To understand this you have to know quite a bit of Muslim history, Theology and Ideology, but Bin Ladins Videostatement made it unmistakebly clear that attacking America was NOT the major purpouse of 9/11. It was a call to civil war among muslims. His dream is to reunite the muslim nations under a common ruler, a Caliph, as it used to be through most of the middle ages. Which is why there are much more bombings in Islamic countries than there are in the West.

Why the WTC? Well, it was Big (read: great symbolic value). Bin Ladin needed a SYMBOL, so the coup had to be BIG. It's the major reason why it HAD to be a target in the U.S, otherwise noone might have noticed it. Plus, there were quite a few Muslims working there. Muslims that cooperated wth "the enemy". I don't deny that Bin Ladin considers America an enemy, but it's not the major problem. It's more like a nuisance. A nuisance majorly because they side with Israel, if they wouldn't do that most Islamic countries wouldn't even bother with America other than for economy. America is of quite significant insignificancy in the whole conflict, the whole mess is about the divided muslim nations and about Israel. Which brings in the U.S indirectly.

I don't want to blame the US for their alliance with Israel (rather the other way around, alliances would be forbiden to Israel by the law of moses...), sometimes I just wonder if it might be helpful to let the whole bunch down there battle it out. Allthough, it wouldn't be quite fair, since Israel is the only nation in the region with nukes. Now guess why THAT is... :dry:

Anyways, now we've gone completely of topic. Let's catch bin ladin, and shoot him to the moon, that would be a good purpose for a space flight indeed...

 

[Linguofreak]

Anyways, this sidetrack into US foreign policy started from the question of the military value of the Moon. There may be some advantage a nation could get by sending weapons into LEO, but weapons in LEO lose the maneuverability and flexibility of Earthbound weapons. Weapons on the moon are pretty much useless because they share all the disadvantages of LEO weapons, *plus* they end up several days travel away from their targets, when an ICBM or orbital nuke can reach its target in less than an hour. There's no use in militarizing the moon unless there are resources there valuable enough to be worth staking a claim and protecting it. Said resources would have to be rare and valuable enough on Earth and common enough on the moon that it is more expensive to produce the resources on Earth than to: a) launch the requisite materials for a mining colony from Earth, b) maintain a mining colony in a non-habitable environment, c) ship the resource back to Earth, and d) guard the resources militarily. A) alone would probably kill the scheme for most if not all resources that could be found on the moon, and b) would likely kill the rest.

As I see it, going to the moon (or any place in the Solar system other than Earth), is pretty much sensless from a purely rational standpoint, except maybe to glean some scientific data. I do, however, think that it is worthwhile from the emotional/societal/psychological standpoint. The intangible benefits outweigh the rational stupidity of the idea 10 to 1.

 

[tl8]

To quote Jeremy Clarkson:

"America likes to talk about how it saved Europe from tyranny twice in the past century. True, but let's not forget that they were unbelievably late on both occasions. Predictably, the Germans were as punctual as ever."

On a side note, what does this have to do with Going to the Moon again?

 

[Urwumpe]

Another misconception is that 9/11 happened because of hatred towards america. If 9/11 would have been a strike against america, it would not have been the only one. To understand this you have to know quite a bit of Muslim history, Theology and Ideology, but Bin Ladins Videostatement made it unmistakebly clear that attacking America was NOT the major purpouse of 9/11. It was a call to civil war among muslims. His dream is to reunite the muslim nations under a common ruler, a Caliph, as it used to be through most of the middle ages. Which is why there are much more bombings in Islamic countries than there are in the West.

I don't subscribe the civil war theory. Before Iraq, the major pattern was provoking the western world, especially the USA, into military action. All civil war provoking actions took place when Shias and Sunnis started killing each other in Iraq. While all islamists aim for a caliphate, as ultimate ratio, attacking the decadent monarchies of the Arabian peninsula could have been more effective for causing a civil war.

But you sure wouldn't bite the hand that feeds you, right?

The question for me is rather: Which royal house of these aims for becoming caliph? And why is the activity in Iran pretty limited, though it is the worst stepping stone for a caliphate?

Don't bite the hand that feeds you...

 

[Linguofreak]

Actually, the problem was something else: They oppressed Germany for about 15 years before Germany started rearming. From 1922 to 1935, there was only a small army, trained better as allowed in the soviet union. When Germany was rearmed, they attempted to use diplomatics to avoid a war, for getting time to rearm themselves. Finally, France got practically crushed in WW2 for not being able to learn from WW1... like Patton later also said about Nazi Germany: Fixed fortifications are a monument to the stupidity of man. Anything built by man, can be destroyed by him.

WW2 was from the European perspective, the result of WW1. Not more, not less. The accounting of unpaid bills.

Well, yes, without the Versailles treaty Hitler may never have come to power. But once he did, there was a period when Germany was still bringing its military up to strength when Britain and France could have stopped him if they had had the guts.

As to the French error in trusting fixed fortifications, this was compounded by the error of not noticing that Germany had invaded through Belgium in the past 2 or 3 wars.

As to Versailles: I'm of the opinion that it would have been far more desirable for the Central Powers to win WWI than the Allies. They strike me more as the aggrieved party, what with the Ferdinand assassination, and the Allies really did screw things up with the Versailles treaty. What really irks me is the US involvement in the war. We had no business being mad at the German's U-boat campaign at all. IIRC, all American lives lost prior to our joining the war were American passengers on British shipping, and Britain was a belligerent. Only one American ship was torpedoed, well before we joined the war, it did not sink and there was no loss of life, and the incident was not repeated until we ourselves became a belligerent.

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, yes, without the Versailles treaty Hitler may never have come to power. But once he did, there was a period when Germany was still bringing its military up to strength when Britain and France could have stopped him if they had had the guts.

I don't think so, Britain and France together, maybe, but this would maybe also just have accelerated the events. The USA would not have come to help, when these two attacked.

As to the French error in trusting fixed fortifications, this was compounded by the error of not noticing that Germany had invaded through Belgium in the past 2 or 3 wars.

Yeah. Their whole strategy was based on static defenses, which also made it harder to make offense actions.

As to Versailles: I'm of the opinion that it would have been far more desirable for the Central Powers to win WWI than the Allies. They strike me more as the aggrieved party, what with the Ferdinand assassination, and the Allies really did screw things up with the Versailles treaty. What really irks me is the US involvement in the war. We had no business being mad at the German's U-boat campaign at all. IIRC, all American lives lost prior to our joining the war were American passengers on British shipping, and Britain was a belligerent. Only one American ship was torpedoed, well before we joined the war, it did not sink and there was no loss of life, and the incident was not repeated until we ourselves became a belligerent.

I think, if France wanted to disarm Germany, they should have attempted to conquer it. Of course, in that moment, the allies would have turned to rivals.

 

[Linguofreak]

When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, he didn't have the forces to actually hold it in the face of a French counterattack. Had a counterattack been made then, rather than when he invaded Poland, that would have been the end of it.

 

[Chipstone306]

I am kinda scratching my head here guys how we have gone from going to the moon to 9/11 conspiracy theorys to WWII...

I believe an International mission to the moon has a great opportunity in building the international ledership capabilities to go to mars

 

[Urwumpe]

When Hitler remilitarized the Rhineland, he didn't have the forces to actually hold it in the face of a French counterattack. Had a counterattack been made then, rather than when he invaded Poland, that would have been the end of it.

Remember that Frances occupation of the Rhineland in the 1920s was already illegal - it would have been actually reason enough for Germany to accuse France of violating the treaty of Versailles first..

The French Army was also not in the best shape at that time, just like the British army.

 

[Art]

On (that is back to) the "ultimate high ground" discussion, Nuclear weapons in space do not need rockets for re-entry. They could just as easily, or more easily use explosive propellant (a gun). This takes care of the "long burn" question.

I feel the overriding answer to why we should go back to the moon has nothing to do with what happened in Europe during the 1940's. Why we should go back is simple...we want to.

 

[Pilot7893]

Why are we going back to the moon? So we can watch the footage of them showing the old Apollo descent stage, lean over to all the Hoax Believers, and say a big, fat "We told you so"

 

[Moonwalker]

Why are we going back to the moon? So we can watch the footage of them showing the old Apollo descent stage, lean over to all the Hoax Believers, and say a big, fat "We told you so"

This is something I'm really waiting for. It would be interesting to see the old stuff up there on "new" photos. But it is rather probable that the hoax community will assume that the latest photos are faked also, using the old movie sets one again at Area 52. There are even people who believe that no human ever went into space at all (even the images of the Mars surface are assumed to be faked by some people) :blink:

 

[Pilot7893]

This is something I'm really waiting for. It would be interesting to see the old stuff up there on "new" photos. But it is rather probable that the hoax community will assume that the latest photos are faked also, using the old movie sets one again at Area 52. There are even people who believe that no human ever went into space at all (even the images of the Mars surface are assumed to be faked by some people) :blink:

All these old Grandpa's who are all "You kids with your rock and roll and sputnik and moving pictures!"

 

[jedidia]

Why we should go back is simple...we want to.

Hi Art, nice to see you around here every once in a while. I'm afraid I got a little sidetracked from your models by another mod... :sorry:

Anyways, yes, WE want to. That is most people on this board. But I think we have to admitt that we're a kind of nerds... and most f the public does not see a need to get back there, and seriously, I couldn't give them another one than "if we ever want to get beyond, we have to take it step by step...". Because they don't even want to get beyond.

I think the Moon will play a similiar role as the last time: as a milestone for an emerging power, like e.g. China. China wants to mess with the best, and getting to the moon would be a very strong symbol. I'm afraid I don't quite believe that america will see the Ares/Orion thing through... If they would be that determined, they would have invested more into the project from day one. Oh well...

 

[Art]

Yeah, I am a little side-tracked too...Bushonomics.

We arn't the only nerds out there. LOTS of people would be inspired by a visit to the moon. Has to have a plan of course, not just to plant a flag. It's sort of like any project called "big science". I am not calling a trip to the moon science, but it is equal to science...it is discovery. Discovery of what we can do. In "Big Science", you build giant devices to do things like smash atoms and other things quite esoteric to the layman. Probable outcomes are theorized, but no one knows for certain. The Moon is a much more concrete thing. The Moon is not just some light in the sky that you see on your annual desert camping trip, it is a place that you can see on a regular basis. For ten dollars, you can buy a cheap telescope and go exploring the mountains of the moon. They are there. You can see them. It looks like you could take a hot-air balloon there. To not go there and test the cheese ourselves seems like a ridiculous folly to a large portion of the population. Conservative mindset mammals are content with what and where they are. So long as they can consume and pursue their biological imperitives, they see all other pursuits as waste. Liberal individuals are wired with more curiosity. Exploration brings us pleasure. Why? Because without exploration, you are not prepared for eventualities that come with change. Our biological imperative requires us to explore, and we are rewarded with both feelings of pleasure, as well as eventual material gain.

 

[Moonwalker]

Anyways, yes, WE want to. That is most people on this board. But I think we have to admitt that we're a kind of nerds... and most f the public does not see a need to get back there, and seriously, I couldn't give them another one than "if we ever want to get beyond, we have to take it step by step...". Because they don't even want to get beyond.

It's a little bit strange. I'm a great manned space flight fan and of course it would be great to see us back on the Moon in my point of view. But on the other hand I can't really tell people an intelligent reason why it should be important to do so. People who know that I'm a space flight nerd often ask for the reason or importance of going to Moon or beyond. I have to admit that it is rather difficult to find a real reason and to explain it. Space flight is great. And a lot of people think it's great what we can do. But on the other hand most humans on this planet don't see a real need or requirement to do so, including me.

For me the most important thing is the Earth and its unmatched beauty if we look to anywhere else up there above our heads. The only real reason and requirement I can see is to be able to make life on Earth as much peaceful and ecofriendly as possible for our being. As also astronauts and lots of scientists believe and say, I also believe and say that it doesn't matter what we do, we'll never really "live" anywhere else. There is absolutley ***ing nothing outhere which is not even nearly as much as beautiful and worth living than our blue planet. That's why most people aren't really interested in space flight and astronomy. Life happens on Earth and as Thomas Reiter once said it's always great to be back after being in space for a while. At some point you just will be sick and tired of not being able to just walk a little bit, breath fresh air and just enjoy the great life on Earth and the nature. That's something we won't get on Moon, Mars or beyond. We're just not made physically and psychologically to live anywhere else no matter what some nerds think about. We also won't get gills to live in the oceans or get wings and fly like an eagle

I love what we did by Apollo. I also like the Space Shuttle and even more I love simulators and so do it myself virtually. It's just human curiosity I think. But on the other hand when I look at the very little results of manned space flight I also think that it doesn't really matter if we fly to space manned or not, beside wasting a lot of money which could be spend for much more important things here on Earth.