http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40345048 Steven Hawking has thrown in with the likes of Jackie Gleason, John F. Kennedy, and LazyTown to suggest that an international effort to send astronauts back to the Moon, perhaps this time to colonize it, would be the best way to "rekindle the excitement of the early days of space exploration in the '60s". "Whenever we make a great new leap, such as the Moon landings, we bring people and nations together, usher in new discoveries, and new technologies" End of Hawking quotes. I have a humble suggestion on the subject of sending astronuts back to the Moon. This time, let's plan from the very beginning to make certain those conspiracy theorists who claim that we never actually went to the Moon can be universally treated to the degree of incredulity and disgust they so richly deserve. How exactly could we go about doing something like that? Why should this idea actually be harder to perform on than going to the Moon? Is this important to anyone else, or just me and the late Neil Armstrong? What else would anyone else like done differently this time? How about installing a next generation robotic near Earth asteroid observatory near the poles close to the dark side (which isn't always dark)? Retractable or rotating shades could allow it switch directions and operate anytime. How much light pollution does the Moon currently have? Does anyone else have issues with Trump saying "Let's go to Mars"? Why is that idea so much less appealing, other than the distinctly unpleasant prospect of dying there because the project runs out of money and support early, I mean?
Might I suggest that on the "next" moon missions, we actually INCLUDE some of those same conspiracy theorists in the crew . . . . h-m-m-m-m- "colonize"? . . . perhaps leave the conspiracy folk ON the moon!! . . . .no, that probably would not work well . . . they would complain that lunar warming was caused by colonists!
Hawking's "call to industry" might seem rather trivial if China's and India's plans for manned missions and settlement are already underway.[1][2] Suggesting that what he's implying by "rekindle the excitement of the early days of space exploration in the '60s" is that such only counts if it refers to Western international efforts to return to the Moon. However, he's been issuing similar "save humans from extinction" propaganda for years, arguably prior to east Asians fully articulating their manned space mission goals (and India especially flexing its technological muscle with recent accomplishments). https://www.space.com/27893-china-space-program-moon-mars.html EXCERPT: [...In comparison to China...] Plescia said, "the United States has been floundering around for decades, trying to figure out what to do." In the meantime, the U.S. has de-emphasized manned missions into space, instead focusing on a robotic science program that is "myopic at best," as it's narrowly focused on Mars, Plesica said. Disadvantages to Manned Missions to Space http://www.brighthub.com/science/space/articles/72499.aspx EXCERPT: While manned missions can result in the injury or death of humans [with lengthy setbacks to solve the safety problems after accidents], they also offer a unique perspective on exploration. However, robotic missions can go places humans can not and often for far less money. Stephen Hawking: Manned vs Robotic Space Missions? (2009) http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblo...hey-dont-catch-the-public-imagination-in.html EXCERPT: [...] Hawking favors human space exploration, rather than just sending robots to explore space, a position taken by Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, among others. Eventually, Hawking said, humanity should try to expand to Earth-like planets around other stars. If only 1% of the 1000 or so stars within 30 light years of Earth has an Earth-size planet at the right distance from its star for liquid water to exist, that would make for 10 such planets in our solar system's neighbourhood, he said. "We cannot envision visiting them with current technology, but we should make interstellar travel a long-term aim," he said. "By long term, I mean over the next 200 to 500 years." Humanity can afford to battle earthly problems like climate change and still have plenty of resources left over for colonizing space, he said. "Even if we were to increase the international [space exploration] budget 20 times to make a serious effort to go into space, it would only be a small fraction of world GDP," he said. GDP, or Gross Domestic Product, is a measure of a country's economic activity. Hawking believes that traveling into space is the only way humans will be able to survive in the long-term. "Life on Earth," Hawking has said, "is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers ... I think the human race has no future if it doesn't go into space." Another of his famous quotes reiterates his position that we need to get off the planet relatively soon. "I don't think the human race will survive the next 1,000 years unless we spread into space." - - - - - - [1] China developing manned space mission to the moon http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/09/china-developing-manned-space-mission-to-the-moon.html http://www.businessinsider.com/china-plans-mars-moon-landings-2016-4 EXCERPT: "China has plans to orbit the moon, land people on it, and eventually settle a moon colony." [2] Isro plans to mine the Moon by 2030 to help meet India needs (Helium-3#Power_generation) http://www.livemint.com/Science/W5W...nergy-from-Moon-by-2030-to-help-meet-Ind.html EXCERPT: "Apart from planning for manned missions to Moon, Mars [...] Isro is now working on a plan to help India meet its energy needs from the Moon by 2030." - - -
Ha! Hi karenmansker. I was thinking the exact same thing! Lure them up there, and then leave them to ponder their stupidity???
Careful there Karen. Next thing you know they'll be moving climate change deniers to the Florida coast.
