Off Topic...The Moon

[Ash]

I was looking at the moon last night and thought to myself that they don't send guys to the moon anymore.

NASA has bigger fish to fry.  (no pun intended in reference to the shuttle disaster)

I was wondering...when was the last time we physically had a man on the moon?

What year?

Do you think they'll ever go back there again?

[Todd R.]

I have never been to the moon.

[raj]

1971,  I believe.  I think it was Apollo15 or 16, later missions were scrubbed.

We (the human race) damn well better go back to the moon, and beyond.  If we're just going to stick our head back in our shells because a few people have gotten killed over the years (17 for the American program, probably a hundred or so for the Soviets) then we just might as well pack the whole thing in.  The history of human advancement  has gone hand in hand with exploration; the rise of European powers came during The Age of Exploration (as my old history texts put it) while China, the inventor of gunpowder, moveable type, and a few other things, decided its borders were good enough, and thus China stagnated.  I think exploration is vital to the human race.

[Evan3]

I just want them to get to Pluto damn it. That planet gets too much flack.

[Fearless Freep]

We (the human race) damn well better go back to the moon, and beyond. If we're just going to stick our head back in our shells because a few people have gotten killed over the years (17 for the American program, probably a hundred or so for the Soviets) then we just might as well pack the whole thing in.

Actually, it seems like the moon was a target to shoot for to see what could be done.  Going to the moon is not that useful, anymore.  The current goal is to put people even further out, and to do that requires more preparation and staging.

[Funk, E.]

That doesn't make sense. The moon makes an ideal resource for both staging and stellar spacce craft production. With only a 6th of the gravity of earth and being one huge iron ball makes it a great place to mine and build. I think the moon would be, could be a key component to exploring and colonizing other planets in the system.

FYI: It was Gene Cernan on December 11, 1972

[raj]

Yes, but the moon would be a great staging area (especially if it does have water on it, somewhere).  

Fearless Freep wrote:

>
> Actually, it seems like the moon was a target to shoot for to
> see what could be done.  Going to the moon is not that
> useful, anymore.  The current goal is to put people even
> further out, and to do that requires more preparation and
> staging.
>
>

[Lancer]

It would be wise to build a space station on the moon... so they could launch ships from the moon to elsewere...

But I think it has something about (anti-gravity sickness) as the longer your in space you body seems to get weaker and sicker... (not too sure, Im not a doctor)

I do think movies like "Capricorn One" kind of sums up as why the moon landings were stoped (cost of money and intrupting reruns of "I Love Lucy")

[Funk, E.]

Absolute Zero G eventually (After several months) leads to medical complications. Mostly bones weeken 0 G interferes with calcification somehow. But again the light gravity of the moon would give the human body an orientation and thus negate those adverse effects.

[The Burgomaster]

The last time they went to the moon, they ran into Roger Corman and some crab monsters. They turned around and came home and never went back.

I think Corman is still there doing some location shooting (moon film crews work cheaper than American crews).

[Funk, E.]

Of course they do... They're lunatics after all

*ducks behind something heavy*

[raj]

And feeding them is cheap too; just scoop up a handful of green cheese.

[Funk, E.]

Come on... everyone knows the moon is made out of Roquefort.

[Pete B6K]

What advancements have we actually made from going to the moon?
And, on a similiar subject, does anyone know of any sources of info on Bush's crazy 'Star Wars' weapons in space thingimyjig?

Pete