NASA Crashes into a Comet

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

My company doesn't lock down my usage (I'll post tomorrow from work if you'd really like me to). It's that I am far more busy now.

 

I apologize for that...

 

My point is you constantly use the "hot pocket" and "tv" comments (and sling them around as if you are too good to do such things) and yet you are more addicted to this board than anyone. period.

Sorry, I am really glad NASA made a golf ball fly farther and made your sunglasses resist scratches. Bravo to them.  Care to comment on the attempts at successfully landing a ship on mars?

375214[/snapback]

 

They've successfully sent a lot of ships on Mars, dimwit...probably near a dozen. Off the top of my head, they've lost three: Mariner 3 (before you were born...hell, before I was born, I think), the Climate Orbiter, and Mars Observer. They currently have four or five working missions there.

 

That, actually, is a HELL of a lot of success.

[Alaska Darin]

My company doesn't lock down my usage (I'll post tomorrow from work if you'd really like me to). It's that I am far more busy now.

 

I apologize for that...

 

My point is you constantly use the "hot pocket" and "tv" comments (and sling them around as if you are too good to do such things) and yet you are more addicted to this board than anyone. period.

Sorry, I am really glad NASA made a golf ball fly farther and made your sunglasses resist scratches. Bravo to them.  Care to comment on the attempts at successfully landing a ship on mars?

375214[/snapback]

I'll comment on an agency I worked with and for for nearly 5 years the minute you show more than a cursory understanding of how the government or any entity within it works. You certainly didn't help yourself any with your snide remark, other than to show you can pick out minutia from substance. Way to go.

 

The Hotpockets and TV analogies are used because they are "dead nutz" in describing your thought process (that's giving entirely too much credit).

 

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr Hypocrite Freud. About the only thing on this planet I'm addicted to is waking up next to my wife. If TBD ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd simply spend more time researching the market or playing my guitar.

[stevestojan]

Then talk to me. I'm still waiting for your thought out insight on Africa.

375218[/snapback]

 

 

Ok, I understand that seding billions of dollars to a country/countries who are run by corrupt leaders is not a magic band-aid to solve the problem of nearly 30,000 Africans dying EVERY day.

 

However (and I hate to bring this into it), GWB decided it was worth enough lives to go to Iraq to defend against WOMD that no one here can argue exsited. Bush then changed his reasoning for being over there, and even I will admit, good has come of it. Sadaam is out of power, people got to "vote" and some semblance of a soceity is beginning to form. YET, Americans are still dying, many in Iraq still hate us, and a majority of Americans believe we should be out of there within the next two years (something out chief executive refuses to say will happen).

 

Why do I bring this up? Well, after there were no WOMD and this war became more about freeing the Iraqi people and turning their country into a democracy (yeah, right), why in the world can't we spend a fraction of that money (or say the money spent to hit an asteroid to see what it's made of) to make SURE the billions we send over to Iraq gets something done.

 

Bush is so concerned with the Iraqi people (that wonderful humanitarian ) you'd think instead of just saying "If I send money to Africa, it will just get intercepted by corrupt leaders so I WON'T send it", why not do something about it? 30,000 people (mainly chidren) die EVERY DAY in Africa. EVERY DAY. Not one person in this day and age should die of diseases that we as a nation have VACCINES for. No one in the world should die of starvation when we throw away more food every day than we eat.

 

I'm sorry, but it just seems like Bush is going into G8 with an easy excuse as to why he won't help. Will it be harder than just signing a piece of paper? Of course, and on that point, I agree with Bush. But just because it won't be easy shouldn't mean we should just ignore it.

 

But what the hell, what's another year without sending aide to these people? Oh yeah, it's a touch over a million dead african children.

 

But hey, the Iraqis got to vote, and Bush probably has a framed picture of a purple Iraqi thumb on his desk.

 

Wow, went on a tagent a bit there, away from NASA... but what the hell.

[stevestojan]

I'll comment on an agency I worked with and for for nearly 5 years the minute you show more than a cursory understanding of how the government or any entity within it works.  You certainly didn't help yourself any with your snide remark, other than to show you can pick out minutia from substance.  Way to go.

 

The Hotpockets and TV analogies are used because they are "dead nutz" in describing your thought process (that's giving entirely too much credit).

 

Thanks for the diagnosis, Dr Hypocrite Freud.  About the only thing on this planet I'm addicted to is waking up next to my wife.  If TBD ceased to exist tomorrow, I'd simply spend more time researching the market or playing my guitar.

375222[/snapback]

 

 

You really are a sad individual. Can't wait to go eat my hot pocket.... cheese pizza flavored, by the way.

 

Have a good one...

 

By the way ALT+F4 will close the browser if it hurts to much to click on the X...

[Alaska Darin]

You really are a sad individual. Can't wait to go eat my hot pocket.... cheese pizza flavored, by the way.

 

Have a good one...

 

By the way ALT+F4 will close the browser if it hurts to much to click on the X...

375227[/snapback]

I just wish I could be as darn happy as you, Stoj.

[stevestojan]

I just wish I could be as darn happy as you, Stoj.

375236[/snapback]

 

 

Eat more hot pockets. They make you smile. It's a proven fact.

 

That, and more cowbell.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Ok, I understand that seding billions of dollars to a country/countries who are run by corrupt leaders is not a magic band-aid to solve the problem of nearly 30,000 Africans dying EVERY day.

 

However (and I hate to bring this into it), GWB decided it was worth enough lives to go to Iraq to defend against WOMD that no one here can argue exsited. Bush then changed his reasoning for being over there, and even I will admit, good has come of it. Sadaam is out of power, people got to "vote" and some semblance of a soceity is beginning to form. YET, Americans are still dying, many in Iraq still hate us, and a majority of Americans believe we should be out of there within the next two years (something out chief executive refuses to say will happen).

 

Why do I bring this up?  Well, after there were no WOMD and this war became more about freeing the Iraqi people and turning their country into a democracy (yeah, right), why in the world can't we spend a fraction of that money (or say the money spent to hit an asteroid to see what it's made of) to make SURE the billions we send over to Iraq gets something done.

 

Bush is so concerned with the Iraqi people (that wonderful humanitarian ) you'd think instead of just saying "If I send money to Africa, it will just get intercepted by corrupt leaders so I WON'T send it", why not do something about it? 30,000 people (mainly chidren) die EVERY DAY in Africa. EVERY DAY.  Not one person in this day and age should die of diseases that we as a nation have VACCINES for. No one in the world should die of starvation when we throw away more food every day than we eat.

 

I'm sorry, but it just seems like Bush is going into G8 with an easy excuse as to why he won't help. Will it be harder than just signing a piece of paper? Of course, and on that point, I agree with Bush. But just because it won't be easy shouldn't mean we should just ignore it.

 

But what the hell, what's another year without sending aide to these people? Oh yeah, it's a touch over a million dead african children.

 

But hey, the Iraqis got to vote, and Bush probably has a framed picture of a purple Iraqi thumb on his desk.

 

Wow, went on a tagent a bit there, away from NASA... but what the hell.

375224[/snapback]

 

Were you one of the people who was also complaining that we weren't doing anything to help tsunami victims when we'd sent thirty ships and an entire Army command to coordinate things into the region? Just because you hear it on TV, it doesn't make it true. Conversely, just because you don't hear it on TV, it doesn't mean it's not happening. I get the sense that a lot of your indignation stems not from things you want to happen not happening, but you simply not knowing (i.e. not having been told) what's happening.

 

Africa's been a cesspool for a LONG time...fifty years for most of it, even longer for some of it. Much of it doesn't have basic services...it would, but the Western aid GIVEN to Africa to build such services was diverted to people's pockets. Ten years ago we tried to save Somalia from famine...that didn't work out too well, as I recall. TWENTY years ago Bob Geldof threw a couple of all-day charity concerts to help Africa...they were so 'successful' he just had to do it AGAIN. The problem with Africa isn't people like NASA slamming probes into comets...the problem is idiots like you and Geldof who don't know jack sh-- about Africa yet think NASA not slamming probes into comets and The Who re-re-re-re-uniting are the solution to Africa's problems.

 

Frankly, the only thing you've got going for you on this topic is that you're not as big a fool as Geldof. You've only been wrong once. Geldof's been wrong TWICE now...

[SilverNRed]

Ok, I understand that seding billions of dollars to a country/countries who are run by corrupt leaders is not a magic band-aid to solve the problem of nearly 30,000 Africans dying EVERY day.

 

However (and I hate to bring this into it), GWB decided it was worth enough lives to go to Iraq to defend against WOMD that no one here can argue exsited. Bush then changed his reasoning for being over there, and even I will admit, good has come of it. Sadaam is out of power, people got to "vote" and some semblance of a soceity is beginning to form. YET, Americans are still dying, many in Iraq still hate us, and a majority of Americans believe we should be out of there within the next two years (something out chief executive refuses to say will happen).

 

Why do I bring this up?  Well, after there were no WOMD and this war became more about freeing the Iraqi people and turning their country into a democracy (yeah, right), why in the world can't we spend a fraction of that money (or say the money spent to hit an asteroid to see what it's made of) to make SURE the billions we send over to Iraq gets something done.

 

Bush is so concerned with the Iraqi people (that wonderful humanitarian ) you'd think instead of just saying "If I send money to Africa, it will just get intercepted by corrupt leaders so I WON'T send it", why not do something about it? 30,000 people (mainly chidren) die EVERY DAY in Africa. EVERY DAY.  Not one person in this day and age should die of diseases that we as a nation have VACCINES for. No one in the world should die of starvation when we throw away more food every day than we eat.

 

I'm sorry, but it just seems like Bush is going into G8 with an easy excuse as to why he won't help. Will it be harder than just signing a piece of paper? Of course, and on that point, I agree with Bush. But just because it won't be easy shouldn't mean we should just ignore it.

 

But what the hell, what's another year without sending aide to these people? Oh yeah, it's a touch over a million dead african children.

 

But hey, the Iraqis got to vote, and Bush probably has a framed picture of a purple Iraqi thumb on his desk.

 

Wow, went on a tagent a bit there, away from NASA... but what the hell.

375224[/snapback]

No offense, but you have to be !@#$ing kidding me.

 

I can't believe after taking such a thorough whooping on the "NASA is worthless/throw money at Africa" slant, you played the "Bush isn't doing enough anyway" card. How do you knock the Iraq war and at the same time say Bush isn't doing enough to save Africa? You do realize that the type of intervention it would take to start turning things around in Africa is exactly the type of thing we did in Iraq, right? We can't send money, we'd have to go over there. Rock concerts won't change a continent like Africa.

 

And part of the reasoning for the war in Iraq was ALWAYS about overthrowing a totalitarian regime. We had jets patrolling no-fly zones for over a decade to prevent Saddam doing a little extra "ethnic cleansing" in the Kurdish and Shia areas and getting shot at on a daily basis for their trouble. It's estimated that 50,000 Iraqi children died every year from malnutrition and lack of medicine while Saddam was building palaces using the UN's Oil for Food money (amazing what a little bribery can get you with the international community). Bush who you mocked as a "humanitarian" is the mother!@#$ing humanitarian, and not the retards at the UN or the rock stars who hate him. According to http://www.iraqbodycount.net/, the intervention in Iraq has cost a max of 25,000 Iraqi lives since March 2003. Yeah, it saved lives. Imagine that.

 

As for the purple fingers you mocked, the hope was that enough people in the countries surrounding Iraq would start wondering why they didn't get to vote for whoever they wanted; why they don't have democracy. Well, they were wondering in Lebanon anyway.

 

Whatever, though, I guess complex thoughts don't fit into the A.D.D. mentality. It's better to just have the rich rock stars demand that more U.S. taxpayer money is paid off to charities and international organizations that we already know can't get the job done in Africa because of the governments there.

[SilverNRed]

Much of it doesn't have basic services...it would, but the Western aid GIVEN to Africa to build such services was diverted to people's pockets.  Ten years ago we tried to save Somalia from famine...that didn't work out too well, as I recall. 

375246[/snapback]

Seriously, you would think people would be able to wipe the drool off their mouths and remember that one if for no other reason than Hollywood made a movie about it a couple years ago.

 

Save Africa? We tried, but it turned out it might actually be a pretty tough thing to do so we backed off. Apparently now that's what we're supposed to do in Iraq (within 2 years, according to Stojan) because it turns out turning a really horrific part of the world into someplace where people can reasonably live is hard work and can't be done with rock concerts.

 

Oh well, at least a lot of celebrities got on camera.

[KRC]

Ok, I understand that seding billions of dollars to a country/countries who are run by corrupt leaders is not a magic band-aid to solve the problem of nearly 30,000 Africans dying EVERY day.

 

However (and I hate to bring this into it), GWB decided it was worth enough lives to go to Iraq to defend against WOMD that no one here can argue exsited. Bush then changed his reasoning for being over there, and even I will admit, good has come of it. Sadaam is out of power, people got to "vote" and some semblance of a soceity is beginning to form. YET, Americans are still dying, many in Iraq still hate us, and a majority of Americans believe we should be out of there within the next two years (something out chief executive refuses to say will happen).

 

Why do I bring this up?  Well, after there were no WOMD and this war became more about freeing the Iraqi people and turning their country into a democracy (yeah, right), why in the world can't we spend a fraction of that money (or say the money spent to hit an asteroid to see what it's made of) to make SURE the billions we send over to Iraq gets something done.

 

Bush is so concerned with the Iraqi people (that wonderful humanitarian ) you'd think instead of just saying "If I send money to Africa, it will just get intercepted by corrupt leaders so I WON'T send it", why not do something about it? 30,000 people (mainly chidren) die EVERY DAY in Africa. EVERY DAY.  Not one person in this day and age should die of diseases that we as a nation have VACCINES for. No one in the world should die of starvation when we throw away more food every day than we eat.

 

I'm sorry, but it just seems like Bush is going into G8 with an easy excuse as to why he won't help. Will it be harder than just signing a piece of paper? Of course, and on that point, I agree with Bush. But just because it won't be easy shouldn't mean we should just ignore it.

 

But what the hell, what's another year without sending aide to these people? Oh yeah, it's a touch over a million dead african children.

 

But hey, the Iraqis got to vote, and Bush probably has a framed picture of a purple Iraqi thumb on his desk.

 

Wow, went on a tagent a bit there, away from NASA... but what the hell.

375224[/snapback]

 

Red herrings aside, do you realize that since 2000, the U.S. has tripled their aid to Africa? Since 1980, the U.S. has send $300 billion to Africa, only to see it disappear into the blackhole that is corruption.

 

You easily dismiss the possibility of the aid being diverted. Until you end the corruption, you can sign all the pieces of paper you want. It will not do a damn thing. Having concerts is great and it makes the tree-huggers feel better about themselves, but in the end it doesn't do squat.

 

Before you say that Bush is not doing anything for Africa, read up on the Millennium Challenge Account. Aid is tied to proper governing. End the corruption, and you get aid.

 

Money solves nothing unless it is properly applied. The tree-huggers do not understand that, and it is costing people their lives.

[Ghost of BiB]

We have pledged a lot of money to fight AIDS. Very recently, Bush pledged 1.5 Billion to fight malaria, which kills more people than AIDS. Current policies in general are to support democratic reforms in Africa by more of a carrot and stick method. When African leadership shows that it is actually doing something positive, they get more carrot. I go back to the debt Africa owes. Before you go blaming America, see what countries are willing or unwilling to forgive debt. When a country like Kenya is repaying loans to the tune of 50% of their GNP each year, there isn't any money left for housing, health care, job creation, etc - at least not on the scale needed to make a dent.

 

Iraq is one piece of the puzzle for an overarching strategic and foreign policy to rid the Middle East of despotic rule and institute some forms of cooperation and if there isn't cooperation, institute new governments friendlier to our strategic interests. Unless this is done, the terror thingy is going to go on for a long, long time. The WMD thing has been beaten to death. Failed intelligence. If there is anyone on this board who has a justifiable reason to be stumped over that one, it's me. You better bet that there is a serious overhaul going on right now in how WMD intelligence is gathered and used. But, although that was used as the reason to hit when we did, it would be almost impossible to make other moves within the region with Iraq existing in the form it did. Technically and legally, we are enforcing UN resolutions they were unwilling to enforce.

 

Going back to Africa, it is also in our strategic interest to try to help them out of their wallow. Yes, it's nice to be able to talk about humanitarian reasons and those certainly are there - but bottom line, neither we, nor any other nation commits MASSIVE resources to something that is not in their own interests.

[KRC]

We have pledged a lot of money to fight AIDS. Very recently, Bush pledged 1.5 Billion to fight malaria, which kills more people than AIDS.  Current policies in general are to support democratic reforms in Africa by more of a carrot and stick method. When African leadership shows that it is actually doing something positive, they get more carrot. I go back to the debt Africa owes. Before you go blaming America, see what countries are willing or unwilling to forgive debt. When a country like Kenya is repaying loans to the tune of 50% of their GNP each year, there isn't any money left for housing, health care, job creation, etc - at least not on the scale needed to make a dent.

 

Iraq is one piece of the puzzle for an overarching strategic and foreign policy to rid the Middle East of despotic rule and institute some forms of cooperation and if there isn't cooperation, institute new governments friendlier to our strategic interests. Unless this is done, the terror thingy is going to go on for a long, long time. The WMD thing has been beaten to death. Failed intelligence. If there is anyone on this board who has a justifiable reason to be stumped over that one, it's me. You better bet that there is a serious overhaul going on right now in how WMD intelligence is gathered and used. But, although that was used as the reason to hit when we did, it would be almost impossible to make other moves within the region with Iraq existing in the form it did. Technically and legally, we are enforcing UN resolutions they were unwilling to enforce.

 

Going back to Africa, it is also in our strategic interest to try to help them out of their wallow. Yes, it's nice to be able to talk about humanitarian reasons and those certainly are there - but bottom line, neither we, nor any other nation commits MASSIVE resources to something that is not in their own interests.

375404[/snapback]

 

 

There you go with that big picture thingy again.

 

You are getting into the Millenium Challenge Account, as I mentioned. Until you see reforms in the government, anything you send to Africa is wasted. You want to send vaccines to dying children. Too bad. The vaccines we send there are getting diverted away from those children. You want to send money to the starving children. Too bad. The money is being diverted away from those children.

 

Billions and billions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet because people cannot see what is going on. People respond, "well, we just need to send more money to solve the problem." It makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy without actually accomplishing anything. Forgive debt? Yeah, sounds good and it makes people feel like they are doing something, but it still does not go after the root cause of the problem: the governments.

 

Until you go after the root cause of the problem, you will not make a dent in the situation. So, how many times was that brought up during the concert? Oh wait...going after the root cause of the problem is hard. We need simple solutions. Just send more money and forgive debt. Why? Because it makes a good soundbyte and it will make people feel better about doing something that will not solve the problem.

[Ghost of BiB]

There you go with that big picture thingy again. 

 

You are getting into the Millenium Challenge Account, as I mentioned. Until you see reforms in the government, anything you send to Africa is wasted. You want to send vaccines to dying children. Too bad. The vaccines we send there are getting diverted away from those children. You want to send money to the starving children. Too bad. The money is being diverted away from those children.

 

Billions and billions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet because people cannot see what is going on. People respond, "well, we just need to send more money to solve the problem."  It makes everyone feel warm and fuzzy without actually accomplishing anything. Forgive debt? Yeah, sounds good and it makes people feel like they are doing something, but it still does not go after the root cause of the problem: the governments.

 

Until you go after the root cause of the problem, you will not make a dent in the situation. So, how many times was that brought up during the concert? Oh wait...going after the root cause of the problem is hard. We need simple solutions. Just send more money and forgive debt. Why? Because it makes a good soundbyte and it will make people feel better about doing something that will not solve the problem.

375411[/snapback]

 

Hence the carrot and stick. Still, even if every leader in Africa turned into George Washington overnight, those countries are not going to improve the standard of living when one out of two dollars or two out of three go to debt repayment.

[KRC]

Hence the carrot and stick. Still, even if every leader in Africa turned into George Washington overnight, those countries are not going to improve the standard of living when one out of two dollars or two out of three go to debt repayment.

375415[/snapback]

 

I don't have a problem with that. The mechanism is in place, but the African nations need to take the appropriate steps. Until that happens, debt relief and aid packages are short-sighted and the same problems will arise again in the future.

[Ghost of BiB]

GWB quote from the G-8 re: The above.

 

"I don't know how we can look our taxpayers in the eye and say, this is a good deal to give money to countries that are corrupt," he said. "What were interested in ... is helping people and, therefore, we have said that we'll give aid, absolutely, we'll cancel debt, you bet. But we want to make sure that the governments invest in their people, invest in the health of their people, the education of their people, and fight corruption

 

Simply stated, but pretty well sums it up.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

GWB quote from the G-8 re: The above.

Simply stated, but pretty well sums it up.

375481[/snapback]

 

But Osama bin Laden's still out there; why is Bush ignoring global terrorism?????

 

[Ramius]

Ok, I understand that seding billions of dollars to a country/countries who are run by corrupt leaders is not a magic band-aid to solve the problem of nearly 30,000 Africans dying EVERY day.

 

However (and I hate to bring this into it), GWB decided it was worth enough lives to go to Iraq to defend against WOMD that no one here can argue exsited. Bush then changed his reasoning for being over there, and even I will admit, good has come of it. Sadaam is out of power, people got to "vote" and some semblance of a soceity is beginning to form. YET, Americans are still dying, many in Iraq still hate us, and a majority of Americans believe we should be out of there within the next two years (something out chief executive refuses to say will happen).

 

Why do I bring this up?  Well, after there were no WOMD and this war became more about freeing the Iraqi people and turning their country into a democracy (yeah, right), why in the world can't we spend a fraction of that money (or say the money spent to hit an asteroid to see what it's made of) to make SURE the billions we send over to Iraq gets something done.

 

Bush is so concerned with the Iraqi people (that wonderful humanitarian ) you'd think instead of just saying "If I send money to Africa, it will just get intercepted by corrupt leaders so I WON'T send it", why not do something about it? 30,000 people (mainly chidren) die EVERY DAY in Africa. EVERY DAY.  Not one person in this day and age should die of diseases that we as a nation have VACCINES for. No one in the world should die of starvation when we throw away more food every day than we eat.

 

I'm sorry, but it just seems like Bush is going into G8 with an easy excuse as to why he won't help. Will it be harder than just signing a piece of paper? Of course, and on that point, I agree with Bush. But just because it won't be easy shouldn't mean we should just ignore it.

 

But what the hell, what's another year without sending aide to these people? Oh yeah, it's a touch over a million dead african children.

 

But hey, the Iraqis got to vote, and Bush probably has a framed picture of a purple Iraqi thumb on his desk.

 

Wow, went on a tagent a bit there, away from NASA... but what the hell.

375224[/snapback]

 

i really dont know what to say...everyone before me has echoed my exact sentiments...

[brihs2005]

Ummm, well, i may be in the minority of the people that posted in this thread that didn't really give a darn about rationalizing the money that is spent in the space program, but i just thought it was pretty cool we crashed into a comet.

[TheMadCap]

The moon makes sense for a lot of things, if you're maintaining a manned presence there.  It's not hard to think of economical uses for it (mining, for one.  Deep space missions, for another, IF you can solve the problem of getting the infrastructure there.  If you solve that, you're launching out of a much shallower gravity well.  Hell, you get those two industries set up, you can conceivably start mining asteroids economically and safely.)  Might even make a Mars mission safer and easier...though given that NASA hamstrings their engineers these days to the point where they can't even make the shuttle reliable and safe after 25 years, I don't see anyone going to Mars ever coming back anyway. 

 

If NASA wants to continue manned space flight, they need to be developing new and sensible (i.e. designed to carry people; not people, cargo, and the kitchen sink) vehicles for it NOW.  And send their lawyers and bureaucrats on the test flights.

375219[/snapback]

 

There isn't really anything on the moon that we can't get on Earth for much, much cheaper. I think the cost of setting up a mine or something there would take it years to get the money back out of.

 

One of the main points of the Mars Direct plan, which I tend to agree with, is that if you are going to go ahead and get out of Earth's gravity, then go ahead and go to Mars, there doesn't need to be another stop off at the moon. You are correct, it would be easier to get back off the moon than Earth, but why not just go the whole way while you have the rocket up there already?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

There isn't really anything on the moon that we can't get on Earth for much, much cheaper. I think the cost of setting up a mine or something there would take it years to get the money back out of.

 

One of the main points of the Mars Direct plan, which I tend to agree with, is that if you are going to go ahead and get out of Earth's gravity, then go ahead and go to Mars, there doesn't need to be another stop off at the moon. You are correct, it would be easier to get back off the moon than Earth, but why not just go the whole way while you have the rocket up there already?

375992[/snapback]

 

Mine the moon? Why bother, the moon's mostly rock, any ore worth mentioning is to deep to effectively get at. Instead, find a nice nickel-iron asteroid out there, strap a space shuttle main engine and fuel tank onto it (since we'll have a suplus of THOSE pieces of crap once we scrap the shuttle program), and fly the asteroid gently into the moon. Then pick up the pieces (i.e. mine the ore from the crater and debris), and send them back to earth (i.e. put them together into reasonably-sized packages, encase them in thermal shielding made on-site from moon rocks, and fly them direct to the earth. Land them in shallow ocean regions and have ships winch them up.)

 

Sure, it might not pay for itself for a while...but even a smallish asteriod has a lot of iron, nickel, and even gold in it. Efficiently mined, an asteroid will pay for itself...and if you can think of a more efficient way of mining it than I just outlined (and safer - I'd prefer slamming them into the moon rather than trying to gently nudge them into orbit around the earth) using given technology, feel free...