Apollo 11 Lunar landing - 40th aniversary

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

However, to be able to
do so we need to learn how to survive, live, manufacture both in
space and on the moon; manned exploration increases such knowledge.

We are a long, long way from transporting people to some other planet to
live there and set up a permanent society there.

If I am far away from being a good photographer, is that a good
reason not to try to become better? Did all photographers fall
from the sky, fully formed and capable, none of them ever had to
learn from the start?

No place on our solar
system is even remotely habitable for more than a few weeks, and even
that
at great expense, with all supplies coming directly from earth.

You'd be surprised. Did you know why the mars is so red?
Because it's rusty. You know, rust ... contains oxygen ...
The moon rocks all contain a lot (40+%) oxygen as well.

So much for "all supplies".
You can also grow plants or algae for food --- power from the
sun is mostly free, once you set up the infrastructure.

The largest problem will be finding enough hydrogen for water
and rocket fuel. Oxygen weights 2/3rds of the total fuel of an
hydrogen-oxygen engine.

After the
robots have prepared a habitable place somewhere else, then perhaps we
could
actually go there, but to go there first is putting the cart way, way
before
the horse.

As we have always done, right?
Nobody's forcing YOU to go, by the way.

-Wolfgang

Not to worry......I am afraid of heights, and hate flying too.......I'll
stay here, thanks......But if you go, would you mind doing it on your own
money, and not forcing me to contribute?

Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

As we have always done, right?
Nobody's forcing YOU to go, by the way.

Not to worry......I am afraid of heights, and hate flying too.......I'll
stay here, thanks......But if you go, would you mind doing it on your own
money, and not forcing me to contribute?

Just as soon as you explain how you'll make sure you'll not use,
enjoy or profit from anything that has connections to manned
space exploration. This is not trivial and includes, for example,
non-obvious things like cinema (Barry Lyndon), so I eagerly await
your plan to find and avoid them all.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

As we have always done, right?
Nobody's forcing YOU to go, by the way.

Not to worry......I am afraid of heights, and hate flying too.......I'll
stay here, thanks......But if you go, would you mind doing it on your own
money, and not forcing me to contribute?

Just as soon as you explain how you'll make sure you'll not use,
enjoy or profit from anything that has connections to manned
space exploration. This is not trivial and includes, for example,
non-obvious things like cinema (Barry Lyndon), so I eagerly await
your plan to find and avoid them all.

-Wolfgang

I see they are setting up to see if there is any water on the moon. they are
going to orbit it, and shoot some kind of a missile into it, and then
analyze the resulting dust in sunlight with a spectrum analyzer on the
spaceship. If they find water, and/or the right materials to make water,
they will be much encouraged for future manned moon exploration programs.

I approve of this. For one thing, it is a robotic driven project.....You
don't need a manned space ship to do any of it. They should have done it
back in the 60's instead of what they did do back in the 60's. I say again
that putting men on the moon back then was a complete waste of both time and
money. (our money)

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Just as soon as you explain how you'll make sure you'll not use,
enjoy or profit from anything that has connections to manned
space exploration. This is not trivial and includes, for example,
non-obvious things like cinema (Barry Lyndon), so I eagerly await
your plan to find and avoid them all.

It isn't clear to me how I have ever profited from manned space exploration
in any way whatsoever to this day. None of the TV/communication satellites
needed manned space shots......I have always been more than willing to
finance non-manned space shots, both for exploration, as well as for
practical things like communication. It was only the manned stuff like
Apollo that I objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can
still learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots. There may
be some argument for using manned repairmen to service some of the
communications and optical equipment we have in orbit, but even there, one
could argue that it is probably cheaper to just build another one and orbit
it than to attempt to fix it on location.....Certainly this would be true
were it not for the fact that the money has already been spent to develop
space suits and livable space stations and the like, so we might as well use
them.

Bill Graham wrote:

I say again that putting men on the moon back then was a complete
waste of both time and money. (our money)

Yes, it is generally agreed that letting the Soviets win *every*
step of the space race (instead of only most of them) would have
been a grand idea. It's also absolutely sure that nothing good
ever came out of the whole manned space stuff. Inspiration isn't
worth money; triumphs aren't worth money (please close down all of
the commercial sports, they don't give anything of worth. either);
knowledge isn't worth money either. Knowing how our bodies react
to higher gees or micro-gee situations has and had and never will
have any value, just for example.

And there never will be space tourists either, neither really
rich ones on the ISS, nor well off ones on shorter hops with
private space vehicles, not in the past, not in the future.

There also were never any jobs created by putting men on the moon
--- the money was just burned --- a *complete* waste of money.

And it was of course a *complete* waste of time for all involved
and not involved. There was noone proud, noone fulfilled dreams,
noone gained skills --- all these people should just have been
drinking booze instead, it would have been a much more valuable
way to spend time. Or even better, they could have built something
that would be remembered.

-Wolfgang

Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

It isn't clear to me how I have ever profited from manned space exploration
in any way whatsoever to this day.

That's your problem. You haven't done your research, and only
you really know what's relevant to your life.

Obviously you expect something glamourous, when the reality is more
like 'occulation and sanitation' --- something done routinely which
has profound effects ... and isn't even thought about any more.

None of the TV/communication satellites
needed manned space shots......

Fact is that only manned space travel forced manrated rockets.
Manrating rockets will of course cause enormously increased
knowledge about the specific rockets and much of that knowledge can
be transferred to other rockets --- you don't have to start over at
zero each time.

Point: The Saturn V had twice engine failures. Because the same
Saturn V had an advanced computer it could not only compensate the
failures but could do so autonomously, recalculating and adjusting
the trajectory as it went --- and thus all starts were successfull.
This advanced computer had of course impacts on the advancement
of computers in general.

Point: The LEM had a couple computers as well, and their
capabilities were much increased over the lunar landings.
Of course the knowledge gained on building better, smaller
computers was not ignored for satellites.

I have always been more than willing to finance non-manned space
shots, both for exploration, as well as for practical things like
communication. It was only the manned stuff like Apollo that I
objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can still
learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots.

Sexual education movies can cover 90% for much less than 10%
what a baby costs --- and will not transmit diseases either.

Yet I've got the feeling the real thing is necessary for the
human race.

There may be some argument for using manned repairmen to service some
of the communications and optical equipment we have in orbit, but
even there, one could argue that it is probably cheaper to just build
another one and orbit it than to attempt to fix it on location.....

Hubble was an experiment designed to also test if repairing and
enhancing in orbit is feasible and worth the money. It turns out
it really needed fixing and taught us much about the processes,
even if it also turns out that replacing currently is often
cheaper.

Certainly this would be true were it not for the fact that the money
has already been spent to develop space suits and livable space
stations and the like, so we might as well use them.

The money for space suits is peanuts, and space station knowledge
will also serve us well when we'll settle on the ocean floors.
Given that the oceans have vast resources (though much much less
than asteroids offer) and that living space is going to be dear
if there will not be a *successfull* global (really *everyone*
involved global) change of the population curve.

-Wolfgang

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

It isn't clear to me how I have ever profited from manned space
exploration
in any way whatsoever to this day.

That's your problem. You haven't done your research, and only
you really know what's relevant to your life.

Obviously you expect something glamourous, when the reality is more
like 'occulation and sanitation' --- something done routinely which
has profound effects ... and isn't even thought about any more.

None of the TV/communication satellites
needed manned space shots......

Fact is that only manned space travel forced manrated rockets.
Manrating rockets will of course cause enormously increased
knowledge about the specific rockets and much of that knowledge can
be transferred to other rockets --- you don't have to start over at
zero each time.

Point: The Saturn V had twice engine failures. Because the same
Saturn V had an advanced computer it could not only compensate the
failures but could do so autonomously, recalculating and adjusting
the trajectory as it went --- and thus all starts were successfull.
This advanced computer had of course impacts on the advancement
of computers in general.

So? - You make my point. They didn't neeed men on board.....


Point: The LEM had a couple computers as well, and their
capabilities were much increased over the lunar landings.
Of course the knowledge gained on building better, smaller
computers was not ignored for satellites.


So why have men on board, if computers can do the job fine without them?


I have always been more than willing to finance non-manned space
shots, both for exploration, as well as for practical things like
communication. It was only the manned stuff like Apollo that I
objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can still
learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots.

Sexual education movies can cover 90% for much less than 10%
what a baby costs --- and will not transmit diseases either.

Yet I've got the feeling the real thing is necessary for the
human race.

Your "feelings" are costing us billions of dollars.....Perhaps you should
lie down for a while until your feelings go away.....


There may be some argument for using manned repairmen to service some
of the communications and optical equipment we have in orbit, but
even there, one could argue that it is probably cheaper to just build
another one and orbit it than to attempt to fix it on location.....

Hubble was an experiment designed to also test if repairing and
enhancing in orbit is feasible and worth the money. It turns out
it really needed fixing and taught us much about the processes,
even if it also turns out that replacing currently is often
cheaper.

Certainly this would be true were it not for the fact that the money
has already been spent to develop space suits and livable space
stations and the like, so we might as well use them.

The money for space suits is peanuts, and space station knowledge
will also serve us well when we'll settle on the ocean floors.
Given that the oceans have vast resources (though much much less
than asteroids offer) and that living space is going to be dear
if there will not be a *successfull* global (really *everyone*
involved global) change of the population curve.

-Wolfgang

Even with undersea exploration, unmanned robots are certainly the way to
go......Having to protect men from the horrendous pressures that exist 4 or
5 miles deep is ridiculous, when a mechanical photographer can do 90% of the
work for only 10% of the money.....Have you ever taken any courses in
business management?

"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
news
Bill Graham wrote:

I say again that putting men on the moon back then was a complete
waste of both time and money. (our money)

Yes, it is generally agreed that letting the Soviets win *every*
step of the space race (instead of only most of them) would have
been a grand idea. It's also absolutely sure that nothing good
ever came out of the whole manned space stuff. Inspiration isn't
worth money; triumphs aren't worth money (please close down all of
the commercial sports, they don't give anything of worth. either);
knowledge isn't worth money either. Knowing how our bodies react
to higher gees or micro-gee situations has and had and never will
have any value, just for example.

And there never will be space tourists either, neither really
rich ones on the ISS, nor well off ones on shorter hops with
private space vehicles, not in the past, not in the future.

There also were never any jobs created by putting men on the moon
--- the money was just burned --- a *complete* waste of money.

And it was of course a *complete* waste of time for all involved
and not involved. There was noone proud, noone fulfilled dreams,
noone gained skills --- all these people should just have been
drinking booze instead, it would have been a much more valuable
way to spend time. Or even better, they could have built something
that would be remembered.

-Wolfgang

Had the money been left where it was already earmarked to go.....With the
universities who were getting ready to explore our solar system, we would
already be miles ahead of where we are today in knowledge......Throwing it
away on protecting men was a terrific waste of resources......

Bill Graham wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message

Manrating rockets [...]

Point: The Saturn V had twice engine failures. Because the same
Saturn V had an advanced computer it could not only compensate the
[...]

So? - You make my point. They didn't neeed men on board.....

And the Saturn V had no men on board. It had a computer ...
and a payload. And it had that sort of computer because it
was a manrated rocket.

Point: The LEM had a couple computers as well, and their
capabilities were much increased over the lunar landings.
Of course the knowledge gained on building better, smaller
computers was not ignored for satellites.

So why have men on board, if computers can do the job fine without them?

Cause computers cannot do the job fine without them. You might
have to LOOK UP the details of the Apollo 11 landing; human
interaction was critical twice for a safe landing.

You either don't even know what you rant against (always a
bad sign) or, worse, you misrepresent the truth.

I have always been more than willing to finance non-manned space
shots, both for exploration, as well as for practical things like
communication. It was only the manned stuff like Apollo that I
objected to, and I am still objecting to these, because we can still
learn 90% as much for 10% of the money with unmanned shots.

Sexual education movies can cover 90% for much less than 10%
what a baby costs --- and will not transmit diseases either.

Yet I've got the feeling the real thing is necessary for the
human race.

Your "feelings" are costing us billions of dollars.....

I have power over billions of dollars? I don't even have any
*ugly* assistants, never mind pretty ones!

What has become of the trappings of power! Whatever happened
to the dollar, devalued so that you need many billions for a
hot dog or a burger --- oh, yes, I remember, the formerly
great United States lost --- no, never even started --- the
race for asteroid resources.

Perhaps you should lie down for a while until your feelings go
away.....

Now I, as Lord And Master over Billions Of Dollars, Tell You,
without the real thing humanity will be dying out and the last
humans will die within 100 years from now. Babies are *necessary*,
even if they cost money. Lying down will not alter that.

Now, speaking of lying down, how about that pretty assistant
I was supposed to have?

The money for space suits is peanuts, and space station knowledge
will also serve us well when we'll settle on the ocean floors.
Given that the oceans have vast resources (though much much less
than asteroids offer) and that living space is going to be dear
if there will not be a *successfull* global (really *everyone*
involved global) change of the population curve.

Even with undersea exploration,

Please read what I wrote. I didn't say "exploration", I didn't
say "exploitation", I said "settle". You know, what people did
in the American West between when there were only Indians and now.

Or would reading actually hurt your agenda?

go......Having to protect men from the horrendous pressures that exist 4 or
5 miles deep is ridiculous,

It's ridiculously cheap, Bathyscopes are.
Of course, you are always trying to settle the Mariana Trench
instead of the continental shelf because you don't aim for
realistic scenarios.

when a mechanical photographer can do 90% of the
work for only 10% of the money.....

It can make babies, invent, manufacture, learn, react autonomously,
teach classes, collect, classify, name, test, observe, repair,
make judgement calls, allocate, priorize, measure, describe,
write papers, assist, study, hold conferences --- and all that
for only 10%? You must share the construction details some day.

Have you ever taken any courses in business management?

Are you talking about the same courses that caused all these many
banks to collapse recently? Must be very expensive, these courses,
learning how to destroy so much money so fast.

-Wolfgang

Bill Graham wrote:

Had the money been left where it was already earmarked to go.....

Please provide proof that most of the money used for landing
humans on the moon, including all necessary steps to do that,
was earmarked to go.

Bet you cannot, because that money was never earmarked, but
made available only because of the race to the moon.

-Wolfgang