Great News from Lunar Crash Despite Conservative Ridicule

[Lurker]

I laughed a while back when Neil Cavuto ridiculed NASA for wasting taspayers dollars on crashing a probe into the moon. CAvuto thought the whole thing was a waste of money and worked hard to ignore the NASA scientist trying to tell him the interesting things that might be learned and the fact that the probe was at teh end of its life and this was not some additional cost.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091113/ts_afp/sciencespaceusmoon

It turns out that those crashes have discovered extensive water on the moon which may have inplications for a moon base!

The Right's war on science is painful to watch. Will Cavuto comment on this? Here's a link on Cavuto's crusade against it:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,563403,00.html

Here is a link about the Cavuto/Aldrin discussion. Note that Cavuto preferred to remain in ignorance than actually learn anything. Also, Aldrin suggested a specific scientist Cavuto could have on to explain further and CAvuto said he would yet we have yet to see this.

http://www.newshounds.us/2009/10/13...he_moon_then_doesnt_want_to_hear_about_it.php

 

[Captain.Sassy]

Politics aside, finding moon water is pretty awesome. I'd pay at least 25$ for a bottle of the stuff. It would probably cure all sorts of diseases. Can you imagine how effective homeopathy would be if it used moon water?

 

[Lurker]

Politics aside, finding moon water is pretty awesome. I'd pay at least 25$ for a bottle of the stuff. It would probably cure all sorts of diseases. Can you imagine how effective homeopathy would be if it used moon water?

I agree it is awesome! Finally water that is simply two Hs and an O with no contamination from the moon's gravitational induced forces.

 

[dudalb]

TO be fair, there are conservatives who are supportive of the space program.
And I would bet you can find a lot of people on the Left who thought the moon probe was a waste of money better spent on welfare at home, etc.

 

[theprestige]

The OP is just gratuitous bashing of straw men. Plenty of conservatives, including myself, always approved of this mission and are currently celebrating its much-anticipated success.

In related news, while I disagree with it, I believe the opinion that too much is spent on the US space program is a perfectly legitimate opinion to have, and I'm quite comfortable disagreeing with people who have it, without feeling any urge to use their opinion as an excuse to stereotype and ridicule entire groups of people simply because I already hate them for other (probably similarly poorly thought out) reasons.

 

[rwguinn]

TO be fair, there are conservatives who are supportive of the space program.
And I would bet you can find a lot of people on the Left who thought the moon probe was a waste of money better spent on welfare at home, etc.

I would bet they outnumber those on the right who object...

 

[Whiplash]

I'm also a conservative who saw value in this mission, and virtually every other scientific endeavor going on in the world. I say virtually only because I'm sure there are some crackpot things going on that people from either side of the isle wouldn't support.

 

[332nd]

YES!!! Water on the moon!
ETA: Walter Mondale clashed with NASA... Does that indicate the Left's war on science?

 

[Fiona]

How can this possibly be made a matter of partisan politics?

Surely the question is always about how we can best allocate our resources, and there will always be disagreement over what we are trying to achieve and how best we can achieve whatever we agree on.

There are many who would see this as a colossal waste of money: I cannot imagine that splits on party lines.

Some on the right will perhaps oppose it because it is government expenditure and it is not directly related to those things which they see as a legitimate use of tax money: others may support it for patriotic or defence or any number of other reasons.

Some on the left will perhaps oppose it because they believe there are problems closer to home (whether domestic or international) which would be a better use of the spend: some will support it because they support pure science and the direct and unintended benefits which come from that.

Some who are not especially political will oppose it for any number of reasons: or support it for a range of different reason.

What is it that makes anyone believe that one's stance on such a matter can be predicted from a left/right perspective? Is there nothing else?

 

[tyr_13]

Cavuto did indeed level conservative (fiscal) ridicule at this NASA program, so I really don't get all the belly aching about how conservatives really like science and straw man accusations. The OP seems very clear about who exactly is being criticized and is accurate in depicting Mr. Cavuto's position.

That said, I don't think it belongs in the politics section. I don't see how it ties into politics at all.

 

[Whiplash]

Cavuto... ya, he's a mainstream voice of the Conservative / right wing movement.

What, just because he's on Fox news? Cavuto is a clown...

Tyr I think you are making the mistake you mention, in the opposite direction. You want to lump all conservative and right wingers together based on the few loudmouths who get the most play. I'm certain (and know from experience) that that isn't accepted by the left when it's turned back on them. Try to say that you all are Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore or Al Gore and you guys are very quick to run from them. Suddenly then you recognize the extremist loudmouth fools that you are burdened with. How about cutting us the same slack? It's extremely possible to share conservative values and not be a nutjob Christian who hates science and wants to hold women down, and is a racist, homophobic bigot. Trust me, it's very possible. I hope I can impress that enough. Because I'm sure you don't believe it.

Cavuto. L O F'n L.

 

[mhaze]

I would bet they outnumber those on the right who object...

Of course they do, as evidenced by the traditional voting patterns of the parties.

But the fairly new nasa trend of "smaller, cheaper, smarter" targeted probe robots may be difficult to understand for a lot of people - apparently including Cavuto.

Substantial ice on the moon essentially means the moon can be populated.

 

[theprestige]

Substantial ice on the moon essentially means the moon can be populated.

Technically, the Moon can be populated even without substantial ice. And while finding substantial ice there would make some kinds of proposed activities somewhat cheaper, it doesn't really change the game all that much.

Take Antarctica, for example. Not only does it have substantial ice, but it also has a lot of other things the Moon doesn't have: Earth-normal gravity. A breathable atmosphere. A much shorter supply line. And yet, while we do have a few science stations on that continent, we really don't see Earthlings falling all over themselves trying to populate the place.

 

[tyr_13]

Cavuto... ya, he's a mainstream voice of the Conservative / right wing movement.

What, just because he's on Fox news? Cavuto is a clown...

Tyr I think you are making the mistake you mention, in the opposite direction. You want to lump all conservative and right wingers together based on the few loudmouths who get the most play. I'm certain (and know from experience) that that isn't accepted by the left when it's turned back on them. Try to say that you all are Cindy Sheehan or Micheal Moore or Al Gore and you guys are very quick to run from them. Suddenly then you recognize the extremist loudmouth fools that you are burdened with. How about cutting us the same slack? It's extremely possible to share conservative values and not be a nutjob Christian who hates science and wants to hold women down, and is a racist, homophobic bigot. Trust me, it's very possible. I hope I can impress that enough. Because I'm sure you don't believe it.

Cavuto. L O F'n L.

I'm actually doing no such thing. The criticism itself is conservative. Perhaps I should have made that more clear than with the simple (fiscal) tag. Cavuto's main objection seems to be along the line of the traditional fiscal conservative line of opposing 'wasteful spending', which is what he thought the NASA program was. I have no illusions that Cavuto is some spokesperson for all conservatives or something. Many conservatives no doubt have very different views on NASA funding.

It is more than a little tiring that any time any conservative or conservative view is criticized people tort out the 'no true conservative' thing, or 'conservatives don't believe that', no matter how specific the criticism is. I don't take offense any time a liberal is criticized as being a criticized of something. Quite the opposite as I've been heavily critical of the people on the left you listed. That isn't running from them. I don't call them 'not really liberal' and I don't pretend they don't have a substantial liberal following. I speak out against them when I feel the need and see them doing something wrong.

 

[mhaze]

Technically, the Moon can be populated even without substantial ice. And while finding substantial ice there would make some kinds of proposed activities somewhat cheaper, it doesn't really change the game all that much.

Take Antarctica, for example. Not only does it have substantial ice, but it also has a lot of other things the Moon doesn't have: Earth-normal gravity. A breathable atmosphere. A much shorter supply line. And yet, while we do have a few science stations on that continent, we really don't see Earthlings falling all over themselves trying to populate the place.

Technically, certainly it is true that it can be populated without substantial ice. However, ice changes a lot of the games dramatically. Just one example is h+o production for return trips to Earth, which would make an enormous difference in total launch payloads required, as well as change the nature of the fuels used in the spacecraft.

For example, without ice, the return spacecraft would likely be fueled with a hypergolic propellant. That makes that return spacecraft a "one shot rifle". On the contrary, a fuel depot means pretty much that you could tank up and go exploring or do useful work within the limitations of the propulsion system (eg, limits on the useful life of the nozzle and exhaust bell).

That's just one tiny area of the implications, but you get the picture.

Antartica is actually much less interesting. And it doesn't have He3, which is projected to be the product found on the moon that can be returned to Earth to make a colony on the moon profitable.

Again, here is the key word: Profitable.

 

[tyr_13]

Yeah, you don't want to launch missions to the other planets from Antarctica.

 

[mhaze]

Ah, you miss the point. There is no comparable profitable enterprise in Antartica.

He3 is very, very valuable.

 

[Checkmite]

Somebody told me President Obama has slashed NASA's budget because he and his advisers believe another moon landing by 2020 is an unrealistic goal. Confirm/debunk?

 

[tyr_13]

Ah, you miss the point. There is no comparable profitable enterprise in Antartica.

He3 is very, very valuable.

No, I added another point.

 

[WildCat]

Celebrate all you want, but you won't be laughing when the moon people launch their retaliatory strike.