Is the Moon really sacred to some religions?

[kentuck]

Maybe even some Native American tribes? Is it truly in pursuit of science or is it defamation of a religious symbol? Science vs Religion? Is it truly that simple? Or is it deeper than that? Who is the wise person that is willing to tell us that Science always co-opts Religion? Because Science deals with theory and facts while Religion merely deals with theories and belief. One has Faith and one has Knowledge, they say. Their way is Superior to yours, they insist. There can only be one simple explanation.

[TexasObserver]

1. We pay no attention to those who think the moon is more than a celestial body.

[kentuck]

4. You are absolutely positive that is the wisest course?

Not one small iota of doubt?

[TexasObserver]

14. YES to the first question. NO to the second one.

Do I think there's any magical, mystical, shamanistic aspect of the moon that exists other than in the collective and individual human mind? NO.

It's a big rock in the sky, obeying laws of physics. It all seems so perfect now because we're living in a world 4.5 billion years in the making. Of course everything fits together perfectly. But if we had two moons, we would have evolved to find that most acceptable and perfect for us.

This notion that we'd better be careful because God or some mystical presence might be offended is pure hog wash.

[kentuck]

15. religion = hogwash

right?

If it's not in the interest of science, it would be in the interest of the military expansionists. Nothing like putting a big eye in the sky. Maybe we can look down on China? We'll tell the ogres we are looking for water. If they think it is about science, they will believe anything.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. If religious scientists would like to be exempt from this mission,..

they're welcome to resign from NASA.

You don't see scientists going into church demanding to edit the unscientific bits out of the Bible.

Btw, are you and Mind Your Head the same person?

You seem to be typing from the same stream of consciousness. Unfortunately.

[neverforget]

21. We already have "eyes in the sky" called satellites. And the moon is a satellite

of the Earth just like Io, Europa, Ganymede and Callisto are 4 of the major satellites (moons) of Jupiter.

[TexasObserver]

33. Certainly most of it.

I can't decipher the balance of your comments there.

We're talking about whether I believe in mystical forces that lack scientific basis or any supporting evidence, right? We're talking about your suggestion that the moon is sacred because some groups of humans hold religious or spiritual beliefs to the effect, right?

[NeedleCast]

86. We already do look down on China

As a person who worked in defense intelligence, specifically satellite imagery analysis, I know a lot about this subject. There's no point in basing a camera system on the moon when you can put it into Earth orbit, and thus be much closer. Your ideas are silly and based on nothing.

[Why Syzygy]

157. Except it doesn't orbit. That makes it unique, don't you think? nt

[TexasObserver]

174. That has no bearing on this discussion.

It's the only moon of earth, which makes it unique.

Uniqueness is not the issue.

The issue is: rock or magical fairy dust?

[Why Syzygy]

199. You said

it follows the laws of physics. Since it does not orbit it is not following the laws of physics.

[anigbrowl]

103. Yup. Not even one iota of doubt.

C'mon, what if I said the sea was sacred and nobody should swim in it, would you take that seriously? Of course not. Just because you have an idea about something doesn't give you veto power over everyone else. Nobody owns the moon to a greater degree than anyone else.

[Sebastian Doyle]

2. Well a lot of religious reichers believe that Allah is a "pagan moon god"

(although there are Jews and Christians in Arab speaking countries who call God by that same name, and all three faiths originate with Abraham)

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. Stem cells are sacred to some people.

Screw some people.

[kentuck]

5. You win!

The majority agree with you.

[Mind_your_head]

8. Oh, BS.....the *majority* doesn't agree with you.....not even the 'dirty dozen'

Who are you trying to fool? Kentuck, I'm disappointed.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. The majority.

And literate people.

[Mind_your_head]

6. Should the moon be "left alone"????

It's been doing pretty okay w/o US human meddling/interferring....

It brings in and our the tides for one thing....

KRRRRRBLAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM!!!! D*MMIT WE HIT WATER!!!!!!!! Now wot??????

Fail.

[Posteritatis]

44. Fail indeed, if you think this will affect the tides. (nt)

[rd_kent]

142. I do pretty good without meddling from door knocking fundies....

but that doesnt stop them!

This is a scientific mission. No reason at all not to do it. Unless one is scared of the answers it will provide....

[imdjh]

7. Who gives a damn? Seriously, I get fed up with this bullshit. nt

[LostInAnomie]

10. A lot of people think a lot of stupid things.

[BuyingThyme]

11. I would think the Moon would be sacred to everybody.

[Prism]

12. The universe defaces the moon far more than we ever will

The rocket will be comparatively tiny and strike the lip of a crater near the moon's south pole. We won't even be able to see where it struck after the debris settles. Meanwhile, giant holes are blasted into the moon by various solar objects on a fairly regular basis.

If we used "sacred to a religion" as guide on whether or not we should take various actions to promote human progress, we would be a rather technologically regressed species. Practically everything we do violates some religious tenet, from the things we eat, to the things we wear, to the things we use to build our homes, to the people we love, to our prayer or lack of prayer, etc. etc. etc.

The idea that we're defacing the moon is silly. I would first challenge someone to actually photograph from the ground the difference we make to the moon's surface. Can't tell the difference? We're ok then.

[kentuck]

13. Didn't bother me.

Must be OK.

[Prism]

17. That's a very thin standard

Almost every single human being is bothered by something out of a variety of convictions, secular and religious. At what point do we, society at large, cater to it? At what cost? What behaviors are you personally willing to change so that you might be more sensitive to a religious sensibility you do not share? What kinds of human progress are you personally willing to forego so that a religious sentiment you do not believe in may be sated?

[kentuck]

25. That's an excellent question.

How far?

[Prism]

30. The nebulous "within reason" answer is best

In the case of the moon, I think within reason encompasses not defacing it in any kind of visible way. The fact is, had NASA not said a word about this experiment, no one would've been the wiser.

It's the same standard I use with all religions in my life. For example, my family is full of devout Catholics. When around them at gatherings or in their homes, I respect their rituals and beliefs and never go out of my way to cause active distress by pointedly crossing any lines. However, they know very well I do not believe as they do nor lead my life in a way acceptable to their religion when I am not around them.

That is the best accomodation possible. I will not alter my life for their beliefs, but I will respect them where tenable.

Same with the moon. I would not promote active defacement of it, but if scientists want to noodle around with it in such a way that no one will be immediately troubled by it, I'm fine with that.

Yes, my family may disapprove of what I do when I'm not around, but they are not within their rights to dictate to me the choices I make. Yes, some religious people might disapprove of what scientists get up to, but they are not within their rights to limit human progress if no material harm is being committed.

[kentuck]

31. We tend to fear that which we do not know...

And we do not know what is out there in space and what balance is within our universe. Some may believe that a butterfly may flap its wings in a jungle in Asia and it could create a hurricane in Cuba. We simply do not understand.

It is admirable that there are scientists and explorers willing to go out into the dark vastness of space in search of something. However, it does little to allay the fears of those that believe an all-powerful God is somewhere out there in that vast darkness...

[Prism]

34. Knowing can be pretty terrifying, too

The closest thing to a panic attack in my life is when I got lost in wikipedia while reading about the universe. Starting with the Sun, then working backwards through the solar system, out towards the heliopause, through the local interstellar clouds, past the galaxies, working back and back and back towards the Big Bang. The vast spaces and distances. The greater the knowledge, the more insight into how incredibly tiny and insignificant and alone we are in our little outpost. It's a terrifying notion. We also have knowledge the future, that the Andromeda galaxy will one day plow into the Milky Way, that the sun will die as every other star before it has. These vast forces and events, inevitable, unchangeable, unaffected and totally out of human hands.

In the face of it, it's very easy to attain a sense that we have no control. Sometimes, I think a belief in an all-powerful God is about the most comforting notion humans have come up with. In the face of the immensity of the universe, it would be a relief.

[tyedyeto]

16. I'd have to go back an review my 'Power of Myth' tapes and books by

Joseph Conrad. He dealt with numerous cultures and how they linked what was in the skies to their religious and spiritual stories/tales.

[BoneDaddy]

60. Joseph Campbell

and it is a great series

[NYC Liberal]

19. It's as simple as, it's the fucking moon

End of story. No matter what superstitions some people might want to attach to it.

[G_j]

23. not sure what that means...

but, it's probably not good.

[Quantess]

20. We should keep the moon pristine,

while fucking up the earth's environment fully. I'm sure that in 20 years from now, we will come up with some amazing technology to turn moon dust into rich farm soil where we can plant the new Amazon rainforest.

[neverforget]

22. Too late. There are many crash sites on the Moon from the Apollo program

plus some other countries doing the same thing.

[Quantess]

24. Hello, fellow Oregon DUer.

I guess you missed the sarcasm? :hi:

[neverforget]

26. Sorry. It's hard to identify sarcasm after reading so many "scientific

illiterate" and "jump to conclusion" posts. :spank:

Hello fellow Oregonian!:hi:

[Quantess]

28. Cool. One of these days, we really should do a Portland DU meet-up again.

I have not participated yet, but, I would like to. Have you been to any?
Edited to get rid of the "hi smilie".

[neverforget]

32. I haven't been to one yet. If there is one next year, I will certainly try to go.

Right now, I'm in Hawaii working temporarily.

[Hekate]

27. Do we really have to bomb everything? It's so stupidly military it's hard to fathom.

Send another Mars Rover.

See, there is another way of framing the issue, isn't there?

As to sacredness -- yes, of course; but for modern Pagans it's a potent symbol, not something literal. Pagans mostly leave literal interpretations of things to the Christian Fundamentalists and Islam's Taliban.

Hekate

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

29. The mars rover wouldn't work.

It wouldn't dig deep enough under the surface, or extract enough material.

Also, it'd be orders of magnitudes more expensive.

[Codeine]

41. Not military 'cause it's not a bomb.

It's an old rocket just being allowed to crash into the surface, like dropping a soup can into a sandbox only much faster.

It'll kick up some dust and we'll analyze it with spectroscopes and such, figure out the composition. That's all. No bomb. No nukes. No "end-of-the-moon" nightmare.

[anigbrowl]

106. There is no military angle, and rovers are expensive

This is basically a fishing expedition to investigate how much water might be on the moon, and it's a cheap one. I'm all for saving money by doing it the low-tech way, ie kicking up some moon dirt and taking a bunch of pictures. I think we'll put rovers up there too, but the more we know in advance the better we'll be able to do at the next stage.

[omega minimo]

35. This thread is like a chat around a Lord of the Flies campfire.

[Name removed]

121. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[omega minimo]

137. Your threats are hollow. If you want to be another attacker/instigator

like those who did get the thread locked, and the mod made very clear who the "usual suspects" were, you will be making a mistake.

If you attack me out of the blue and try to instigate and antagonize, along with the "usual suspects" you will find at most, being asked the question: "If you act like that, how do you expect or have the gall to demand any discussion at all."

Instigators can't threaten and smack people around and then pretend to want to be on topic. Number one, they can't have it both ways and Number two, that's not what they want any way. They don't want discussion or "substance;" they want to threaten and mock and push people around.

It's authoritarian behavior by the way. Not really progressive or democratic. At this moment, it's reached mob rule. drunk on its own delusions, as your threats exemplfy.

It seems that those who want to avoid "substance" are the ones domineering and dictating how and if other DUers post. It protects them from having to put their own knowledge and scientific credibility on the line, if they attack everyone else's first.

Like shooting fish in a barrel or launching a bullet at the moon.

I OP'd something "of substance" after the post you replied to, after observing how apparently limited and uninformed so many are on the topic. The Lord of the Flies was an apt image, although those British schoolboys probably possessed a broader set of historic, scientific and cultural references than reflected in the thread -- even if they could have been equally piggy about it.

If you're interested:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6724444

I will leave you with a quote, from the astronomer whose name identifies the crater being impacted tomorrow. It's something that may have been lost along the way. Certainly some scientists and educated people get the concept; it's not reflected in the shortsighted position that is currently domineering on DU.

"For just as we write in good faith what happens in our own time, and so to speak paint the state of our affairs, so that we put it on view to those who come after, and their successors, they also have done the same thing who were before us, from which it comes about by the common association of men that by combined endeavors our life becomes as it were more prolonged, and fuller, and we are able to pronounce on the state of things as if we had been present at them all."

Niccolo Cabeo, Italian Astronomer (1586-1650)

Please don't be one of "the usual suspects, who appear to have a hobby of looking for DUers to bait, antagonise and insult, who have ruined it."

[Why Syzygy]

155. That isn't what the mod wrote...

muriel_volestrangler (1000+ posts) Thu Oct-08-09 06:42 AM
Response to Original message
751. Locking
This has become impossible to moderate, with the rate at which people are insulting each other. This is no reflection on the thread starter, who put a perfectly reasonable article up; it's the usual suspects, who appear to have a hobby of looking for DUers to bait, antagonise and insult, who have ruined it.


*** Is there any doubt who meets those qualifications? hint: It isn't OM.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. For the record, I meant "the usual suspects" as a *very* wide phrase

and no-one who posted in that thread should assume they may not have been part of the target for the phrase.

[omega minimo]

184. For the record, "target" yes. Since Mod is kind enough to comment, perhaps the instigators

could be nipped in the bud or have their own forum for "entertainment" consisting of baiting and badgering.

They repeatedly refer to personal attacks and antagonizing as "questioning" and "discussing" -- and can't at all grasp the difference.

[omega minimo]

185. FWIW

the William Golding reference/observation (I was shocked by how little people know about these historic/cultural facts) I posted what was intended as informative, entertaining, illustrative, maybe food for thought or discussion.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6724444&mesg_id=6724444

[wickerwoman]

36. What's the scientific value of bombing the moon?

Can that value be achieved any other way? And if it can, why not do that instead?

The moon symbolizes the Goddess to pagans and the different phases represent her three forms (virgin, mother and crone). Most pagans don't literally believe that the Moon = the Goddess but the symbolism is important to their culture. The main ceremony involves "drawing down the moon", or symbolically investing the power of the Goddess/the feminine life force in the priestess.

Mountains are sacred to the Maori. Should we strip mine them just because worshiping mountains is a superstition?

Why go out of your way to offend people for an experiment of dubious scientific value?

I'm not a Buddhist, but it pissed me off when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan. If they're "just symbols" and religious people should "get over it" why not bomb St. Peter's Cathedral or the Dome on the Rock?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

37. The value is that it can determine the presence of water.

"Can that value be achieved any other way? And if it can, why not do that instead? "

Not really.

"I'm not a Buddhist, but it pissed me off when the Taliban destroyed the Buddhas in Afghanistan. If they're "just symbols" and religious people should "get over it" why not bomb St. Peter's Cathedral or the Dome on the Rock?"

Because there's not scientific value in blowing up the Dome of the Rock. Also, it's privately owned.

[neverforget]

39. And humans built the Cathedral. Unlike the moon which is made of rock

like the stuff we mine here and make things with.

[Posteritatis]

42. And the moon's a tad bigger than most mountains or cathedrals

While there's a lot of idiots on DU who're convinced that this is going to create a giant visible scar on the moon - or hell, destroy it entirely - they're, well, too wrong to bother with on the issue. Anyone who can't get past the media's use of the word "bomb" is too deep in doesn't-get-it land on this one.

[wickerwoman]

47. It's not a question of destruction; it's a question of symbolic disrespect.

In many Polynesian cultures, it's tabu to photograph mountaintops. There's no obvious harm to the mountain, but there is the issue of disrespecting the Gods.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it; just that we should weigh the chances of offending people with the benefit (aren't we already pretty sure there is water on the moon? how important is it to know for sure as soon as possible? is it possible to wait for a natural event and observe it instead of creating an event with possibly unforeseen consequences?)

[Posteritatis]

49. You'll find some people who will whine about anything

If one of those cultures thinks it's taboo to photograph mountaintops, I'm going to disagree and do it anyway, to be honest. There's people who think they or their family or their culture owns the damn thing, and who keep suing NASA or other space agencies for tresspassing.

If we listened to everyone on everything we wouldn't be allowed to do or know or think anything at all. Fuck that.

As for waiting for a natural event, you can't predict those. If we could guarantee when a meteor above a certain size was going to strike the moon in precisely the area they're looking at - which is not the entire moon - at a time when the impact will be observable, then chances are we wouldn't need to because we'd be up there already.

Also, there will be no "consequences" from smacking a miniscule probe into the moon! Anyone who's worried about changing the tides or altering women's menstrual cycles or whatever other completely insane bullshit showed up in the other giant thread about this is simply too ignorant of what's going on for their views to deserve consideration.

[omega minimo]

55. No one said any of that either. You're tilting at windmills with NO FACTS in the name of "science"

[charlie]

51. Traces of water have been detected

but no accumulated water. That's what they're hoping to see. Namely, ice from a crater that's perpetually shielded from sunlight.

S'funny, 4 months ago the Japanese deliberately crashed an orbital satellite and this place didn't boil over with threads about the moon's sacredness.

[omega minimo]

56. Good questions.

And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data, in a cost effective way, that didn't require high velocity impact by humans.

[Statistical]

65. Sure a manned mission to moon could do that at a cost of billions.

This probe cost $48 million. The moon impact is only tiny part of its mission. Even the object being used for impact is a spent booster which is essentially trash.

We recycled a piece of junk to add a final experiment to the end of an existing scientific mission.

[omega minimo]

75. You ignored "cost effective"

[Statistical]

76. That is the point it isn't.

We don't know exactly where the water is. Even landing an unmaned lander on the moon wouldn't necessarily find water unless it was designed to land multiple times.
Even a relatively small lander going to the moon would be substantially more expensive and much less likely to succeed.

The LCROSS was an add on to the LRO mission because they had extra weight. The entire mission cost only $48 million. The moon bullet is a tiny fraction of the total cost. It is hard to believe it could be done cheaper.

[omega minimo]

77. You ignored the point

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data, in a cost effective way, that didn't require high velocity impact by humans."

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data..."

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data..."

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data..."

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data..."

[Statistical]

84. SO YOU CLAIM.

No nation on the Earth has managed to do that. We have reasonable suspicion of water based on orbital surveys but no proof.

YOU MAKE A CLAIM that you could find proof of water cost effectively without an impact but don't back it up with anything.

I can make a CLAIM that lowering taxes will produce a BILLION TRILLION QUADRILLION extra dollars because everyone will be richer.
Without something to support it, it is just hot air.

[omega minimo]

94. You ignore the question

"And would it be possible (yes) to create another experiment to obtain the data, in a cost effective way, that didn't require high velocity impact by humans."

It's a question, not A CLAIM!!!!!!##$%*^*&##!!11:freak:

Certainly it's possible. It hasn't been found yet. That would take the will and the imagination to invent it. That's science. That's exploration.

[Statistical]

95. Questions have this "?" also putting your answer (yes) into the "question" kinda makes it loaded.

[omega minimo]

114. I believe in the possibilities and potential of science

of course it will require more imagination and creativity and perhaps necessity, than seen here today.


Replying "Good questions. AND would it be possible......" is very good clueage that a question is at hand.

[anigbrowl]

119. Except this particular bit of science, apparently

So it's pretty crude and simple, we're basically firing a lump of metal at it to see how it behaves. Why over-complicate things? It's not like this part of the moon is somehow unique and special.

[anigbrowl]

111. Well, this is about the most cost-effective way to do it

We've got all the data we're going to get from the probe currently orbiting the moon (it's not like Hubble whee we're sufficiently close to upgrade it easily) - as of now have such high-resolution imagery of the moon that we can basically map it's surface down to a resolution of a foot or so. So we can either leave the little probe orbiting until it crashes of its own accord, or we can stage a controlled crash and get some extra information from that.

Total cost for this mission is $79 million IIRC. A rover could cost 2-3 times as much. From the moon's point of view, it's small beer - impacts of about the same force take place every month or so.

[tammywammy]

89. Also there's the chance of something happening to the astronauts going up

and them dying to be taken into consideration.

A manned flight is a lot more expensive than sending a piece of junk at the moon.

[rd_kent]

145. I will respect the "symbolism" of a religious culture when that culture actually created the symbol.

I will not allow superstition and mythology to hinder scientific research, just as I will not allow superstition and mythology to hinder my life.

[wickerwoman]

165. Then you don't understand anything about paganism.

Why respect the sacredness of man-made symbols like cathedrals and big carved Buddhas but not the sacredness of natural places? Pagans see it the opposite way. If you believe in god(s), you should worship the things made by him/her/it/them, not things that you can make yourself.

You don't have to let superstition or mythology hinder your life, but if you want to be considered a "liberal" you might want to think about what it means to have respect for other people who aren't doing you any harm. Why piss people off by saying "you're crazy and your ideas don't count" when you can look for a work around?

[rd_kent]

180. I love nature just as much (if not more) than the next person

I do want to preserve special natural places, but this is the MOON were talking about. A dead rock orbiting our planet. The research being done will do NOTHING to spoil the moons ecosystem or the view of the moon we enjoy from here.

And I DO have respect for other people and their right to believe what they want, but I DO NOT have to respect the beliefs themselves. My work around is "dont let your beliefs get in the way of knowledge and science".

[omega minimo]

186. There's also a break in history, culture, common knowledge

of who we are, where we came from, what our common history and shared inheritance encompasses.

I have never seen the likes of the vociferous disregard and/or ignorance of that inheritance that dominates on DU. EVERYTHING not sanctioned in their invisible handbook is "superstition" and verboten.

[PavePusher]

196. Scientific research offends me. Stop it all now. Seriously?! n/t

[omega minimo]

54. You make these big bogus claims. No one has said anything close to your statements.

:thumbsdown: FAIL

[Posteritatis]

107. Keep on lying to yourself. (nt)

[omega minimo]

130. You are repeating hearsay in this thread about hearsay in another thread about another thread

So it's doubtful you're reading anything, rather than just knee jerk reacting, or you would know your claims are bogus.

[Rabrrrrrr]

149. Actually, the moon IS bigger than a cathedral. That musy be why you can't understand any of this.

I see your point of confusion, now - you think the moon is smaller than, or at most equal to, a cathedral.

I know it looks so small from here, but remember, it's hundreds of thousands of miles away - so it actually IS bigger than a cathedral. WAAAAAAAAY bigger.

Average cathedral is, maybe, let's say, 400 feet long, 200 wide, and 100 high.

The moon is approximately 2000 MILES in diameter, making it approximately 1/64 the size of the earth.

I've been to the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in NYC, the biggest cathedral in the world, and I can tell you, there is no way in hell, as big as it is, that it is 1/64 the size of the earth.

[omega minimo]

187. strawman much?

:crazy:

[Rabrrrrrr]

200. Strawman? You might want to look that up in a dictionary, because you are using it incorrectly.

You're the one who raised the claim that no one is saying the moon is bigger than a cathedral.

Of course, I'm sure that you will insist that you didn't, and so this argument will just devolve into a useless clod of crap, in which case, if you insist that you didn't, I will cease responding as you will then have proven the futility, yet again, of attempting to engage you in any kind of meaningful dialogue.

[omega minimo]

201. That's not true

Reread the posts.

[wickerwoman]

43. So only things made by humans deserve to be respected and preserved?

The Grand Canyon is fair game, but not Pete's Taco Stand?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

45. Scientists have removed samples from the Grand Canyon.

They didn't stop because some high school drop out luddite claimed it was sacred.

[wickerwoman]

48. I was responding to the specific argument

that since the moon is made of rocks, and we have rocks on earth, that we should be able to do anything we want to it.

Not all value is material and not all objects which are considered sacred are man-made.

[havocmom]

169. Scientists haven't 'bombed' it yet through

But Hayduke may still live and still have his eye on that dam.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

177. And they're not going to bomb the moon.

[rd_kent]

146. You confuse preservation with conservation.

Conducting scientific experiments on the moon is not the same as conducting those same experiments in the Grand Canyon. Dont be disingenuous.

[wickerwoman]

164. See posts 47 and 48.

Don't accuse people of being disingenuous without reading the whole thread.

I was responding to the specific claim that since the moon isn't man-made we can do anything we want to it since natural "sacred" spaces like the Grand Canyon are "just rocks". I'm an atheist, but I'm sympathetic to paganism and I can see how people can find sacred value in natural objects, even more so than in man made structures like cathedrals. If we're just going to be utilitarian and say the only things worth conserving or preserving are man made things, then why not strip mine and clear cut everything?

And in post 47, I explained that the objection is not about the actual harm done to the location; it's about the perception of disrespect to the location perceived by followers of certain belief systems. I'm sure when they do experiments on the Grand Canyon that they avoid places which are considered sacred to native peoples, not because taking samples would harm the location, but because the act of removing something from a sacred place could be considered insensitive.

If certain people find it grossly offensive to take pictures of a place and then publish them, why do it unless the corresponding scientific value is much greater than the consequences of offending people? So it's worth asking what is the scientific value of confirming *right now* that there are large water resources on the moon? We already know that there's water there and on Mars. Last I read, we would be terraforming and colonizing Mars before we colonized the moon. So what's the hurry on this experiment?

And it doesn't strike me as especially "liberal" to say "screw those idiots and their deeply held beliefs which aren't harming anyone... doing this is cheaper and easier and not worth waiting for a better opportunity or working around objections".

Again, I'm the world's biggest atheist but I also don't see the point of upsetting people who aren't hurting anyone when other solutions can almost certainly be found.

[havocmom]

105. My fear is the moon might become 'privately owned' and made into a mess

Seem to recall, back in the early 90s, some talk about big, orbital billboards. I would hate to see big corporate logos on the moon, but wouldn't put it past some of the corporations that are 'too big to fail' ;)

[Occulus]

141. I think there's a UN treaty to that effect to prevent it

but I know that some nations aren't parties to that agreement.

However, it will only happen when it becomes viable from a business standpoint. That's pretty far off.

[Prism]

46. Not equivalent comparisons

Bombing St. Peter's or the Dome on the Rock would destroy them. With this experiment, there will be no visible difference to the moon. It will look precisely as it did before.

Smacking a rocket into the moon would be like throwing a tennis ball at Mt. Everest. It's just not going to do anything significant.

[AsahinaKimi]

38. "Usagi Tsukino " and "Otsukimi" Folk lore from Japan

In Japanese tradition, rabbits live on the Moon where they make Mochi - a popular sticky snack.
The rabbit in the moon is lifted out of Japanese myth. Representing the female principal, which meant divine inspiration in spiritual or creative matters, but folly, mania, or death in everyday affairs.
Tsukino Usagi means "Rabbit of the Moon."

The Moon rabbit, also called the Jade Rabbit, is a rabbit that lives on the moon in East Asian folklore. The legends about the moon rabbit are based on the traditional pareidolia that identifies the markings of the moon as a rabbit pounding in a mortar. In Chinese folklore, it is often portrayed as a companion of the moon goddess Chang'e, constantly pounding the elixir of life for her; but in Japanese and Korean versions it is just pounding mochi.

The earliest records suggesting that there is a rabbit on the moon appears in the Warring States period in ancient China. The Chu Ci, a Western Han anthology of Chinese poems from the Warring States period, notes that along with a toad, there is a rabbit on the moon who constantly pounds herbs for the immortals.

Japanese traditionally enjoy "Otsukimi"(moon viewing)on the night of the full moon in autumn.
We make offerings to the moon of autumn fruits and vegetables,odango(rice dumplings) and susuki(Japanese pampas grass).

[XOKCowboy]

40. "Bombing" the moon. It's pretty obvious that the media knew how to frame this experiment...

to get the maximum outrage.

[Codeine]

50. Who gives a fuck?

Seriously, every damned thing on Earth is sacred to one douchebag or another. Do we not study man's origins in fear that we'll piss of the anti-evo fundies? Do we avoid excavating archeological sights because some whack-a-doodles think they have some important familial bond with a three-thousand-year-old corpse?

No. No we fucking do not.

[SidDithers]

63. +1...

and damn. I went to bed early last night and missed the fun in that other "bomb the moon" thread. There were all kinds of idiocy on display, eh?

Sid

[bobburgster]

52. Will we lose our "Full Moon" because of these bombings?

I sure hope not! I would sure miss all the looneys that come out during one.

Hmmm, by the way, was this thread / debate started during a full moon?

:sarcasm:

[Jamastiene]

53. It is, but we've bombed something as sacred as the Earth damned near into oblivion already.

Our government feeds us this pro "religion" BS, but if you really think about it, there isn't much more diabolical than the wanton destruction of the very planet where we live.

Yes, we are supposed to be the "stewards" of the Earth and the critters that live on it, even according to the Christian Bible...but that has never stopped any bombs or wars or poverty or rape or wanton destruction here before.

Why would they stop when it comes to the Moon if they don't even stop when it comes to bombing the Hell out of the Earth?

[Kurska]

57. Well if the goddess has any objections she can voice it to NASA personally.

If not, I think we'll assume she doesn't really care.

[MineralMan]

58. The silly is strong in this thread...

[Odin2005]

59. Why should I care about someone's primitive superstitions?

I don't give a damn about the idiots who think stem cell research is murder, so I certainly don't have any reason to listen to garbage about the moon being a goddess.

[omega minimo]

188. Let's see

1. It's a fundamental part of our shared history

2. It's not garbage

3. It's not "about the moon being a goddess"

4. It's related to the issues of misogyny and your eye-opener about them

5. What harm is there is understanding our common human culture and respecting subcultures you may not ascribe to?




Can you think of any?

[Odin2005]

193. 1. I like mythology, doesn't mean I have to believe it.

2. Posters were going off about this tossing the moon off it's orbit and screwing up the order of the cosmos, or being comprable to torturing spiders for fun. That is nonsense.

3. That's a joke stemming from the post by a Native-American neo-pagan poster that IIRC set off the commotion in the fist place.

4. This is this, not something else. This has NOTHING to do with women's rights and thinking it does is a slap in the face of actual issues concerning women.

5. Understanding it does not mean thinking it is true.

[sagetea]

61. Yes

It is to me, my family, and my ancestors.
I will not deny science, but I have a gut feeling this may not turn out the way they want.
Moon lore is and has been an integral part of our life styles since the beginning of time. I do not like any part of Earth or the Moon, or the Sun, for that matter messed with.
I was taught to honor them, and even done/been to, Ceremonies that honor them.
Think of me what you will, and No I do not sacrifice goats, as some here suggest.

Ho
sage

[SidDithers]

62. The correct answer to that question is...

Yes, but who gives a shit?

The days of mythology ruling over reason are long gone, hopefully never to return. Religious opinions have no place in the pursuit of knowledge. In fact, religious thought is often the biggest impediment to the advance of knowledge.

Sid

[kentuck]

64. So we should have total disrespect and disregard for religious beliefs?

in the pursuit of "knowledge"? Perhaps there is something to be learned from that? What degree of respect do we give to each other as human beings?

[SidDithers]

67. Yup. Religious thought deserves no respect...

and respect for each other as human beings does not derive from religious belief.

Sid

[kentuck]

68. Right... I respect you but your religion sucks?

That will work.

[SidDithers]

70. Works for me...nt

Sid

[rd_kent]

148. I fully agree with your statement.

[sagetea]

73. Hmmm, interesting

No, it does not, in fact, more wars and hatred has come out of "religious" thought and practices than any other idea, and yet, the Earth based spiritual thoughts were the beginning of scientific form. Are you aware of how many allowances my people have made for your people? And yet you can not respect (even if you disagree) our way of life?
I am sorry you feel that way,sir.

ho
sage

[kentuck]

74. And it is such thoughts that see us stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan..

even today. Lack of respect for the Muslim holy places and their religion is why we are at "war" - not the religion itself.

[SidDithers]

78. Riiight. And Bush called his Iraqi adventures a Crusade by accident...

If religion is involved at all, it was Christian arrogance that got us into this mess, not lack of respect for Muslim holy thought.

Sid

[kentuck]

79. George W Bush = every Christian?

The arrogance of our leaders does not equate to ridicule of an entire religion. That is quite a generalization.

[SidDithers]

80. To an outsider looking in...

he's as suitable a representative as any.

Sid

[Angry Dragon]

87. Respect

Not all people of this country are of the mind that we have to fear and disrespect others that do not believe as we do.

[SidDithers]

88. Your inaccurate equating of lack of respect...

with "fear and disrespect" is, ummm, interesting.

Sid

[Angry Dragon]

163. Disrespect

As I listen to others I hear fear from some of them, it is a fear of not understanding of others. Within that fear they then feel that they have to disrespect the other to make them equal, to bring them down to their level or below. I see a lot of disrespect on this site. I feel a lot of that is a fear. If one is secure in their position there is no need for belittling or disrespect. I do not think like others so I connect the dots as I see them. If I make a mistake then tell me and why it is, if you have to attack me to do it then you have lost.

[arikara]

113. osiyo

its nice to find a human being on this thread.

[sagetea]

160. O`ki

ho
sage

[Confusious]

198. Earth based spiritual thoughts were the beginning of scientific form

Doubtful. Unless you mean in the widest sense. Kind of like a dog licking its balls leads someone to think up the scientific method.

[sagetea]

205. hmmm

You're very simplistic in your thoughts, aren't you?

Have you never heard of Alchemy?

[armyowalgreens]

158. I'm atheist agnostic. But I still have religious thought.

Maybe you should read up on your terms before you run around mocking things that I seem to know nothing about.

Religious thought does not equal religion.

[SidDithers]

202. Well, at least you're honest...nt

Sid

[rd_kent]

147. No, not disrespect, but in many circumstances, such as this one

disregard for those beliefs, yes. Religion is an OBSTACLE to knowledge.

[Confusious]

197. I CLAIM JUPITER

For the flying spaghetti monster. RESPECT MY RELIGION!

[Throd]

133. As a Werewolf-American, I am deeply offended by your lack of regard for the moon!

[Cleita]

66. In many pagan religions the moon is the symbol of the mother goddess Danu.

The Irish choral group Anuna even has a song they sing to her.

[Bigmack]

69. Of course we worship the moon....

The named a day of the week after it.

[Canuckistanian]

71. A Muslim friend of mine once told me there were protests over the moon landings

He grew up in Zanzibar (now part of Tanzania).

He said that Muslims consider the moon sacred becuase it's light once helped the prophet Mohammed during a war.

[Bill McBlueState]

72. Mauna Kea is sacred to the Native Hawaiians

Yet cutting-edge astronomy continues to be done from the telescopes at its summit.

In that situation, the best course of action has been for each side to be sensitive to the other's needs, instead of just criticizing them. Astronomers have agreed to sharply limit the construction of new telescopes while continuing to make full use of the existing ones.

The mountain has traditionally been a source of inspiration to the Native Hawaiians. Some consider the astronomical research conducted on its summit, which yields many inspiring results, to be an extension of that traditional purpose.

There is probably a similar way to incorporate the reality of scientific exploration into a sacred understanding of the moon.

[scheming daemons]

81. I don't give a damn if some religions are offended by scientific advancement

Religion is the bane of humanity.

[kentuck]

82. an earworm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYcf2W_Uztc

[theophilus]

83. So where were you folks when they desecrated the Earth that one time? n/t

[SIMPLYB1980]

85. Can't wait for us fuck the Moon up!

That fucker has been giveing me the stink eye for 29 years, he's been asking for it.

[Forkboy]

90. We're gonna get right up in his grill!

:)

[SIMPLYB1980]

91. Here is a grill that the moon should fear!!!! BYOB!

http://www.geekologie.com/2009/06/geekologie_reader_makes_death.php

"I started with two Weber grills and used the bottom portions because they were fairly spherical. I welded up the stand and fabricated the vent systems (there is a vent on the bottom also). The inside is painted in barbecue paint so it is safe to cook with. The outside is painted in engine enamel so it should be good to 500 degrees. I know it isn't perfect but it was a fun project. The grill is now up on eBay.com so check it out if you'd like your very own Death Star Grill!"

[Forkboy]

92. That is just way too cool!

:rofl:

[SIMPLYB1980]

96. Would be the perfect thing for a picnic on the Moon!

:rofl:

[Swamp Rat]

99. LOLOL!!!

:rofl:

I want an R2D2 grill! :D

[SIMPLYB1980]

104. Now I am honored!

A tip of my hat to Swamp Rat!

[MorningGlow]

93. This entire argument is ridiculous (no disrespect to you, Kentuck)

I am a pagan; everything is sacred to me. Am I offended at this plan of NASA's? Damn straight I am. Am I stupid, do I think that this is going to knock the moon out of her orbit etc.? Not a bit of it. (Hey, science types--spiritual people are not automatically stupid, no matter how often you insist it is so.)

What offends me is that once again humans are taking the "let's blow shit up" approach to scientific discovery. Upthread it was admitted that the scientific community does not know if there is water where they are hitting the moon, or even if there is any water to find on the moon at all. HOW is this the most effective approach? It isn't. But this kind of activity DOES get attention; hey, you know what they say--any type of publicity is good publicity, so these arguments are fantastic for NASA, which has been strapped for cash for decades as they scramble to be as impressive as they were in the '60s.

This. is. just. an. attention-getting. ploy. on. the. part. of. NASA. They have to do something to retain their funding; why not this?

I'll tell you why not this: No, I do not think that this will harm the moon. But it's the MINDSET of the scientific community that offends me as a pagan; it's the equivalent of kids pulling the legs off a spider just because they can. "Hey, it's only a spider--let's mess with it."

And in my belief system, the more humans take that kind of disrespectful and unthoughtful approach, the more devolved they become. It's the callous, casual disregard for our surroundings that have gotten us into the mess we're in here on Earth, and I just don't like to see such a blatant display of it yet again. So I'm not only offended; I'm sad about it. IMO. As a pagan who values and respects every last molecule of the universe.

Flame away.

[SIMPLYB1980]

97. What is wrong with defending ourselves.

Outer-space is out to get us. It's only a matter of time. We must learn quickly how to deal with this threat. If that means blowing a hole in the moon or anything else out there I'm all for it.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/deepimpact/main/index.html


Map of Comet Tempel 1

10.02.06 -- Arrows a and b point to large, smooth regions on comet Tempel 1. The impact site for Deep Impact's impactor is indicated by the third large arrow. In the image above, Arrows a and b point to large, smooth regions on comet Tempel 1. The impact site for Deep Impact's impactor is indicated by the third large arrow.

[MorningGlow]

98. Are you talking about my favorite threat, the "Killer Komet"?

Ah yes. What was that movie...oh yeah...

http://pan-starrs.ifa.hawaii.edu/public/asteroid-threat/movies.html

Damn, if we are taking our scientific ideas from bad Bruce Willis movies, we ARE in big trouble.
:rofl:

[SIMPLYB1980]

100. So you just want to sit back and wait for the univers to kill

us all. I can respect that. Hell the big rip is going to get us one day if we can't figure out how to enter other dimensions. But that is way out of league right now.

There are credible ways of stopping an astoroid if we have enough time, but we need to learn more.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/10-greatest-major-impact-craters-on-earth/1403

10 Greatest Major-Impact Craters on Earth

http://scienceray.com/astronomy/can-we-survive-another-impact/

"As of today there are no procedures in place on a global level to deal with the threat of an impending asteroid impact. The UN will be meeting in 2009 to discuss possible protocols and procedures to deal with an impending impact. This will only begin to address the issues of which agencies will be tasked with developing and implementing anti-asteroid measures. Today, NASA is tasked with locating and identifying NEOs (Near Earth Objects) or objects that have a trajectory that brings them close to the Earth. With many NEOs already discovered there needs to be a focus on how to deal with these if a trajectory leads one of these objects on a collision course with Earth.

Many scientists agree that trying to deflect the object is a better idea than trying to destroy the object. Many of us are familiar with the Hollywood movies depicting a space shuttle blowing the asteroid to pieces with nuclear weapons. Blowing the asteroid up could result in several large pieces impacting the Earth, creating widespread destruction. Even smaller asteroids (measuring 500 meters) can destroy a city depending on the composition.

There are several options that are currently being discussed by scientists, one of them being a kinetic impacter. This kinetic impacter is simply a spacecraft that would collide with the asteroid to knock it out of the trajectory that would lead it close to the Earth. This is probably the best option that is currently on the table as is doesn’t involve nuclear weapons, whose use is currently prohibited in space. Other scientists have suggested using lasers or sunlight to heat the asteroid. Heating the asteroid would then cause the asteroid’s outer layers to expel off of it in turn changing the trajectory."

[MorningGlow]

127. Wait. You're serious?

You think it's worthy of panicking about a random rock hitting the Earth sometimes in the next million or so years? Why?!

And I thought this moon exercise was to find water. Are you implying it's not, and it's instead practice for asteroid interception?

[Occulus]

118. No, we're in big trouble if people think that only happens in the movies.

Near-Earth Object

Impact rate

Objects with diameters of 5-10m impact the Earth's atmosphere approximately once per year, with as much energy as the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, approximately 15 kilotonnes of TNT. These ordinarily explode in the upper atmosphere, and most or all of the solids are vaporized. Objects of diameters of the order of 50 meters strike the Earth approximately once every thousand years, producing explosions comparable to the one observed at Tunguska in 1908. Objects with a diameter of one kilometer hit the Earth an average of twice every million year interval. Large collisions with five kilometer objects happen approximately once every ten million years.

Historic impacts

The general acceptance of the Alvarez hypothesis, explaining the Cretaceous–Tertiary extinction event as the result of a large object impact event, raised the awareness of the possibility of future Earth impacts with other objects that cross the Earth's orbit.

1908 Tunguska Event
Main article: Tunguska event

It is now commonly believed that on 30 June 1908 a stony asteroid exploded over Tunguska with the energy of the explosion of 10 megatons of TNT. The explosion occurred at a height of 8.5 kilometers. The object that caused the explosion has been estimated to have had a diameter of 45-70 meters.

2002 Eastern Mediterranean event

On June 6, 2002 an object with an estimated diameter of 10 meters collided with Earth. The collision occurred over the Mediterranean Sea, between Greece and Libya, at approximately 34°N 21°E and the object exploded in mid-air. The energy released was estimated (from infrasound measurements) to be equivalent to 26 kilotons of TNT, comparable to a small nuclear weapon.

2008 Sudan event

On 5 October 2008, scientists calculated that a small Near-Earth asteroid 2008 TC3 just sighted that night should impact the Earth on 6 October over Sudan, at 0246 UTC, 5:46 local time. The asteroid arrived as predicted. This is the first time that an asteroid impact on Earth has been accurately predicted. However, no reports of the actual impact have so far been published since it occurred in a very sparsely populated area. The object is confirmed to have entered Earth's atmosphere as a meteor above northern Sudan at a velocity of 12.8 kilometres per second (29,000 mph).


Close approaches

On August 10, 1972 a meteor that became known as The Great Daylight 1972 Fireball was witnessed by many people moving north over the Rocky Mountains from the U.S. Southwest to Canada. It was an Earth-grazing meteoroid that passed within 57 kilometres (about 34 miles) of the Earth's surface. It was filmed by a tourist at the Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming with an 8-millimeter color movie camera.

On March 23, 1989 the 300 meter (1,000-foot) diameter Apollo asteroid 4581 Asclepius (1989 FC) missed the Earth by 700,000 kilometers (400,000 miles) passing through the exact position where the Earth was only 6 hours before. If the asteroid had impacted it would have created the largest explosion in recorded history, thousands of times more powerful than the Tsar Bomba, the most powerful nuclear bomb ever exploded by man. It attracted widespread attention as early calculations had its passage being as close as 64,000 km (40,000 miles) from the Earth, with large uncertainties that allowed for the possibility of it striking the Earth.

On March 18, 2004, LINEAR announced a 30 meter asteroid 2004 FH, which would pass the Earth that day at only 42,600 km (26,500 miles), about one-tenth the distance to the moon, and the closest miss ever noticed. They estimated that similar sized asteroids come as close about every two years.

On March 31, 2004, two weeks after 2004 FH, meteoroid 2004 FU162 set a new record for closest recorded approach, passing Earth only 6,500 km (4,000 miles) away (about one-sixtieth of the distance to the Moon). Because it was very small (6 meters/20 feet), FU162 was detected only hours before its closest approach. If it had collided with Earth, it probably would have harmlessly disintegrated in the atmosphere.

On March 2, 2009, a near-Earth asteroid, Asteroid DD45 2009 flew by Earth at about 8:40 a.m. ET (1340 UT). The estimated distance from Earth was 72,000 km (44,740 miles); approximately twice the height of a geostationary communications satellite. The estimated size of the space rock was about 35 meters (115 feet) wide.]

There's one thing one of those films got absolutely correct: large, global-killer rocks have hit the Earth before, and one will hit the Earth again at some point in the future. That day may be 1000 years away, or 1,000,000 years away.... or a year or two from now. Or tomorrow. We don't know, but if we miss even one of those, it's over for us and just about all other life on Earth.

It's a pretty damn big sky, too. That's the other thing one of those movies was correct about. And we're not looking hard enough. Not by a long shot.

[NeedleCast]

101. The moon is not a "her"

its a rock. A big one.

[MorningGlow]

102. People's beloved hot rods are not "hers" either

Bet you've got no problem when they call them that.
:rofl:

[NeedleCast]

108. I have never named a car

and I've got a long and easily viewed history on DU of calling out the sillyness of giving living characteristics to inanimate ojbects.

What's your stance on stem cell research? Should we bow to the whims of christaian conservatives because they don't like it?

[Posteritatis]

109. But but but but but but that's different! (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

110. Grovel Bot will kick your ass!

:D

[MorningGlow]

128. Oh NeedleCast, it's been so long since I've enjoyed your nonsequiturs

Stem cell research? Wassamatter, can't handle the debate topic we've got going without dragging something else into it?
:rofl:

[Occulus]

112. You know what offends me? Kneejerk reactions based on scientific ignorance.

"What offends me is that once again humans are taking the "let's blow shit up" approach to scientific discovery."

O.....k. We went over this over and over again on that locked thread from yesterday, and it obviously didn't sink in for some of us. I'll say it again: NASA. is. not. blowing. up. anything.

They are going to impact an empty, nonexplosive object composed of non-reactive metals into the lunar surface to kick up some dust and lunar soil. The reaction will be purely a result of kinetic energy. They are then going to measure the resulting dust cloud to see what it is composed of. Because of gravity, much if not all of the material will resettle onto the lunar surface. This already happens to the moon constantly; things crash into the moon all the time. The only difference here is that we're the ones doing the crashing.

NASA will then analyze the cloud's spectra for water. As I understand the mission, they will bounce light off the dust cloud and measure the reflection, seeking the signature that represents water. This is a technique similar to how NASA scientists determine the composition of distant stars.

"Upthread it was admitted that the scientific community does not know if there is water where they are hitting the moon, or even if there is any water to find on the moon at all."

Since the location they are going to be impacting is in shadow pretty much continually, there is a good chance that water ice could be lying in those shadows. We don't know right now because we can't see those areas. If there isn't any water there, then we know something new. If there is water there, the sustainability of any future lunar colony rises.

We didn't know there was water on Mars- until we found ice right under the lander. We don't know if there is water under the ice on Europa or Enceladus, but NASA already has preliminary plans to go to both of those bodies, drill through the ice, and see if there are in fact oceans beneath.

By the way, if you replace the word "water" with the word "life" and apply it to Mars or Enceladus or Europa, you'll start to understand the 'why' of the whole thing. Where there is water, there is a chance for life to form and be sustained (not on the moon, though, because that's totally dead, and we already know that).

"HOW is this the most effective approach? It isn't."

To do this in any other way would cost quite a bit more and NASA doesn't have the funds to send another rover to the moon. Sending humans to do the work would cost even more than a rover. This is the cheapest way to get the job done, and it's effective because NASA will be able to see the water (or whatever else) in the dust cloud from right here on Earth. This mission is a cheap and effective way to perform this study, which is why NASA is doing it this way rather than sending something complicated and expensive to do the job "better".

"which has been strapped for cash for decades as they scramble to be as impressive as they were in the '60s."

NASA sent two rovers to Mars recently; their mission was intended to be short-lived because they expected the rovers to fail within a matter of months. Years later, those rovers are still doing their job and their mission (very unexpectedly) continues. Meanwhile, the Hubble space telescope has revealed the far reaches of the universe in ways we could never have imagined before; at the same time, the Cassini probe has allowed us to study Saturn and its moons to a degree never before possible. Closer to Earth, the GOES satellites have provided us with invaluable satellite weather data.

Putting a man on the moon doesn't even compare with the goals NASA has achieved since that time, and they've done it all with less funding. That's pretty damn impressive.

"This. is. just. an. attention-getting. ploy. on. the. part. of. NASA."

NASA is doing this to see if there is usable water on the moon in any appreciable amount. They need to know this if they are to try to establish a lunar colony. Water, on the moon, would be more precious than gold or any jewels. Lunar colonists would be/will be rationing water even if NASA finds water inside these craters. If, however, we have to ferry water there, the costs of any lunar colony will rise dramatically- possibly to the point that it becomes cost-prohibitive to do it in the first place. We're going to have a lunar colony at some point in the future if we can do it. This search for water ice on the moon is a big part of that 'if'.

"it's the equivalent of kids pulling the legs off a spider just because they can."

No, it is not. The moon is dead rock. The two are nothing even close to equivalency.

[NeedleCast]

115. This should be the first post in ever single one of the "moon bombing" threads

[Posteritatis]

143. I think it should be the first fifty, to raise the odds that the kneejerkers get it to 5-10%. (nt)

[Swamp Rat]

116. Thank you.

[Occulus]

120. You're very welcome.

The level of scientific ignorance being displayed on these threads makes me fume, primarily because the people objecting to this mission have done absolutely nothing to understand it. All the information is out there, freely available to the public.

Denial of the harmlessness of this experiment is part of it, I think, because people see the word "bomb" and think "explosive". They don't understand that impacts between two bodies at a high rate of speed can produce the same effects as an explosion with purely kinetic forces involved. They also don't understand that something bigger than NASA's object probably hit the moon last night and nothing happened in particular as a result. They also don't understand that objects much larger than that routinely 'hit' the Earth, burning up or even exploding in our own atmosphere.

I also think a lot of these people don't want to understand it, and that makes me just simply angry.

[MorningGlow]

126. Aaaand you just proved my point

Thanks for the lecture, but I am well aware of the details of the procedure. Sorry you had to take so much time to "teach" this "willfully ignorant" person. The condescending tone was a nice touch. Bonus points for you.

You obviously have a problem with nuance; I was using "blow shit up" as the equivalent of the saying "When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

"Lunar colony?" Dude, you're reaching. We've got so many problem on this planet, how the hell soon do you think that'll happen?
:rofl:

And let me ask you this: Why, if NASA managed to find the money to send a probe to Mars, they couldn't do the same for the moon?

"The moon is dead rock." To pagans (and those of other faiths), everything in this existence has a purpose and commands equal respect; playing fast and loose with our surroundings has its consequences.

[Occulus]

135. You proved you didn't know *enough* about it when you said

"blow shit up", because that's not what's going to happen. You further proved it when you said "HOW is this the most effective approach? It isn't.", because in fact it is the most effective and cheapest approach to this particular experiment.

You further proved it when you said "Why, if NASA managed to find the money to send a probe to Mars, they couldn't do the same for the moon?", because you are apparently not considering the fact that a) Mars has an atmosphere, while our moon does not, and b) our moon has less mass than Mars, which requires an expensive redesign of any experiments involving a rover. The Mars rovers were designed for that specific environment, just as a lunar rover of the same size would be designed for its specific environment, but any sort of lunar rover capable of performing this experiment in a way that would gather the necessary data would require years of design and testing, and a whole lot more money.

You're also apparently not considering the fact that this impact will dig deeper than any rover NASA has designed to date is capable of digging. Again, designing such a device, launching it, getting it there, landing it, digging up the lunar soil, and then conducting an experiment to find water ice would be prohibitively expensive with current technology. Doing it "your way" would cost $DOOM and wouldn't happen for years out, if ever. We can and are going to to do it this way, very soon. We'll have results as soon as the instruments can see the dust, i.e., almost immediately.

In other words, from beginning to end, this is a good experiment that will produce valuable data, whatever the results.

Let me "reach" even further. I think we should design and send robotic probes to the asteroid belt for the purpose of eventually towing a rock into geosynchronous orbit, there to mine the thing until it weeps. Then I want to rinse and repeat, because the Belt holds more raw resources than the Earth can provide and doing so will, in the end, help preserve our own planet. In fact, given that, I think we should look for a captured comet rather than an asteroid, because that could represent potable water if it's properly purified and we're running out of that here on Earth.

I want to see a fusion rocket engine developed that can get us out to Mars in a couple weeks, and I want missions to Europa and Encedalus so we can drill through the ice and see if there's anything under it (something NASA's Carolyn Porco is very excited about). I want a lunar colony and a Mars colony, and I even want to develop a program to terraform that last so we're not so vulnerably stuck on this lonely little piece of real estate.

In other words, I want humanity to explore and expand onto other bodies in our own system, and eventually, I want a colony on some far-flung planet orbiting a different star. Most of those things will never happen in my lifetime, but that is no reason for me to throw up my hands and say "it can't be done" or "there's too much to do here".

""Lunar colony?" Dude, you're reaching. We've got so many problem on this planet, how the hell soon do you think that'll happen?"

That's precisely why it must happen, sooner rather than later, for reasons of self-preservation if nothing else. We need to get off this rock, or have a way off. We don't know whether we can survive offplanet. We think we can. Some of us are determined to prove it. First the moon, then Mars, then the Belt, and then who knows where?

However, we have to know if there is any advantage in selecting any particular site, which is part of what this mission is about. If they find that there is water ice inside some of these craters, that will definitely play a role in the positioning of any lunar colony or manufacturing facility. Other determining factors include the moon's own orbit, because we'll be using that colony as a launchpad for missions deeper into our own system. That's another reason why we'll eventually have a lunar base/colony: it's far cheaper to launch from the moon than it is to launch from the Earth.

[MorningGlow]

154. Okay, I'll repeat

I said, "I was using 'blow shit up' as the equivalent of the saying 'When you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.'" To reiterate: I KNOW it's not an explosion or a bomb.

My entire point of my posts in this thread--until now, I have stayed out of the debate but today I apparently felt like wading into the muck for some reason--is that this event is rather dramatic, and I suspect that the "most cost effective" way to probe for water on the moon was also chosen perhaps in part BECAUSE it's more dramatic and "cool" than scientifically analyzing data (as we do for deep space). Math-based research gets far less publicity than flinging something at the moon (again, I KNOW it's not a bomb). And look at how the media treated it--and now NASA is in the news. Woo hoo. (Note: I am not against NASA. I am all for space exploration. I just find it sad that they have to struggle for attention.)

I appreciate your well-thought-out and detailed response, Occulus. I am also not against space exploration for water and seeking other places to inhabit.

[rd_kent]

179. "To pagans (and those of other faiths), everything in this existence has a purpose and commands

equal respect" Uh, no it doesn't. Just because YOU choose to believe some (what I feel is) nonsense based on nothing more than an idea, does not mean that knowledge should take a back seat to that.

[MorningGlow]

181. Oh for the love of...

:banghead:

There is a time when being argumentative trumps reading comprehension, apparently. What part of "TO PAGANS (AND THOSE OF OTHER FAITHS)" don't you understand?

[anigbrowl]

117. Imma firing mah lazer

a) it's the most effective approach because it's cheap and it kicks up a LOT of dirt, ie about a 350-ton sample. That tells us more information in one go than we could get in years by other means.

b) there's is nothing wrong with a 'blow shit up' approach if you're not destroying anything that's hard to replace. Digging a garden is destructive - a lot more destructive, because you're disturbing the habitat of multiple small creatures - but nobody things this is a bad thing because animals are always digging little holes. All that's happening is we're kicking the dirt around to check it out. If you break out a powerful telescope this weekend and look at the moon, you won't be able to tell the difference without a map.

c) 'I am a pagan; everything is sacred to me.' Apparently this doesn't include ballistic space exploration.

d) 'it's the equivalent of kids pulling the legs off a spider...' The difference here is that a spider is alive and I'm 99.9% certain it suffers pain if its legs are damaged. The moon is not going to suffer from having its surface dirt rearranged - if you think it does, then you must think that the ground screams when you walk on it and ask why the universe is so cruel as to keep whacking the moon with meteorites, many of which strike the moon with vastly more force than our little probe will.

[Odin2005]

161. Stupid posts like this is why I have no respect for new age crap.

The moon is a big ball of rock. It is not sapient. It has no feeling or emotions. objects strike the moon all the time, this one just happens to be man-made. Treating inanimate objects as if they were entities that care if we crash things into them is, frankly, bordering on psychotic. WHO CARES!!!

As for publicity, anything that makes more people interested in science is a good thing.

[MorningGlow]

166. THERE you are, Odin!

You're late!

Thanks for the insult. :yourock:

[Odin2005]

170. Never take anything I say personally.

:evilgrin:

[omega minimo]

189. Your dead, mechanistic universe is obsolete, Odin. Unbelievably backwards.

[Odin2005]

190. Projecting human social reality onto the physical universe is obsolete.

Neurotypicals like yourself have problems with that, or so I have just recently read*. :P :hi:



(*the book is The Imprinted Brain: How Genes Set the Balance Between Autism and Psychosis )

[omega minimo]

192. Projecting your strawman is obsolete

No one said anything about "projecting human social reality onto the physical universe."

[Odin2005]

195. It's the basis of all religious beliefs and superstitions.

The moon is a big ball of rock. So what if we bang a space probe into it to look for water? It's not gonna hurt anything and it's a lot cheaper than sending a rover down there.

I'm seing 2 memes being pushed here:

1. That this is somehow "violating" the moon in some way, as if the moon could care

2. That is is just an excuse to "blow things up", or has some evil, dark symbolism about the depravity of modern Western culture.

Both make no sense.

[kestrel91316]

122. The moon is sacred to pagans/Wiccans. You have a problem with this?

[comrade snarky]

132. Only when they expect the government to

Use their beliefs as a basis for public policy.

Like say, wanting to stop scientific research because it's going to anger the goddess.

[omega minimo]

139. Oh, expectations are much lower than that.

One might expect it possible to discuss such concepts respectfully on DU.

[comrade snarky]

151. If that's what you want

Maybe you should try it sometime.

Just a crazy suggestion.

[omega minimo]

162. Is that supposed to be

:sarcasm: Are you taking the side of attackers? so they won't attack you? you see what they do to open discussion and don't want it heaped on you :scared:





http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x6724444

[comrade snarky]

168. You may have forgotten who I am but we've argued before.

I've experienced your version of discussion and find it wanting. You insult other people while constantly crying your victim status if anyone dares disagree or question your assertions.

Look through that thread of legendary song and story, the one where you claim the Moon causes menstruation and I'm sure you'll recall cursing at me when I disagreed with you.

If I recall correctly in another thread you've implied my wife is a whore.

Not a fan of yours. :hi:


:edited for clarity

[omega minimo]

171. If you call attacking "disagreeing," that would cause problems.

Perhaps you misimplicated your wife -- Dunno what you're talking about but wouldn't be something I'd say. Or imply.

[comrade snarky]

172. Ok... so that's your strategerie

Pretend it never happened.

I've seen that from you before too, sometimes 25 posts away from the original statement. You get what you give around here and that's why you get vitriol.

Most people have memories. I do.

[omega minimo]

173. and yours is

TO MAKE SHIT UP. I didn't "claim it never happened." I don't recall it. "If I recall correctly in another thread you've implied my wife is a whore." You said "if you recall correctly," maybe you don't.

And you're saying I "implied" -- then that means neither one of us knows what you're referring to. I would not say it or imply it. If you felt it was "implied" you misread or I wrote something unclearly. Sorry.


BUT DON'T SIT HERE AND SAY I JUST PRETENDED "IT NEVER HAPPENED." Hey, you don't like me? After this bullshit, intentional or not, I don't need to see you either.


And yes, you probably would attack and then claim to be "disagreeing." :evilfrown: That's your "strategerie."

[comrade snarky]

175. And this is why I don't argue with you

That and I think you start drinking right about this time and get less coherent as the evening goes on.

I don't care what you think, I don't care what you say. Not even if you write it in all caps. I've seen too much of your writing and hectoring of other posters to believe any form of apology from you. To be your buddy all I have to do is defend you, to be an asshole all I have to do is question you. God help those who don't bow before you for they are subject to the most personal of attacks.

I find you to be a nasty person. The only reason you aren't on ignore is for the entertainment value.

Oh, and you posted to me because you thought I'd be a hallelujah chorus for your insults to other posters.

Well, I'm very happy to disappoint you.

[omega minimo]

176. Clearly the delusions are yours

"Oh, and you posted to me because you thought I'd be a hallelujah chorus for your insults to other posters."

Uh, what. Don't flatter yourself. Can you see how crazy that is, you somehow think you know that?

If you "question" someone without a personal attack, discussion can continue. Personal attacks are not "disagreeing." Why is that so hard for assholes to understand? :think: Oh! they're assholes!! :think:

And you called yourself "Comrade Snarky" for some reason. Think it's "entertaining" to watch the drive bys and pile ons. Then you wanna be part of the problem, not the solution.

Good luck with that. My best to your wife.

[comrade snarky]

178. The name is a literary reference

I'm sure you wouldn't approve of the book.

My wife has you on ignore. She's met you too. Me? Having read the 200 post long threads where you argue and drag out worthless insults just for jollies I'll say tooodellllooooo.

Enjoy your victim hood.

You sure seem to.

[omega minimo]

183. Try not to let the

haters poison your mind too much more. You all read from the same script.

[kestrel91316]

144. I'm not aware of anyone trying to do that. They WOULD have the right to

express such concern, of course. But the government is free to disregard it as superstition.

Pagans are not known for loud, contentious public weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth, BTW. They understand that personal spirituality is just that.

[comrade snarky]

153. My Pagan friends would find this whole moon thread madness

Depressing and funny.

I'm talking about the people here saying this experiment shouldn't be done because it's somehow disrespectful to their god\goddess.

Anyone who calls for policy to be decided on the basis of their superstition is an idiot be they Pagan, Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Shinto, Zoroastrian or any other belief you can name.


:edited for italics mistake

[aint_no_life_nowhere]

123. Dittoheads worship the Limbaugh moon

and those sacred caretaking cysts that have colonized its gigantic central crater.

[myrna minx]

124. I thought this was going to be a thread about killer bees or

killer robots. :cry:

[SIMPLYB1980]

131. Want to see something that will frighten you?

I'm am glad that no africanized bees have made it into me and my dads hives.

[myrna minx]

138. A killer bee-bot?!

:scared: That is proof positive that the end is near. :D

Are those photos of you own bee colonies? Bee, like ants, are fascinating to me.

[SIMPLYB1980]

150. Yeah my dad and I raise them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6728974&mesg_id=6728974

[thelordofhell]

125. Those people crazy about the moon are just a bunch of Lunatics

:spray:

[SteppingRazor]

129. Beam me up, Scotty. There's no intelligent life down here.

:popcorn:

[golddigger]

134. Lmao...

:rofl:

[nolabear]

136. Just because something is sacred doesn't necessarily mean it's untouchable.

Often it's a matter of attitude. Doing something with reverence and thanks for the knowledge gained or the sustenance given is a far cry from treating it as though it's nothing important. That's much closer to the ways of paganism and many Native American cultures.

[KamaAina]

140. Well, Rev. Moon is sacred to the Unification Church

if we must bomb a Moon, why not that one? :shrug:

[Warren DeMontague]

152. The superstitious, anti-science crowd never has to see the moon from closer than 225,000 miles.

In fact, if it wasn't for science and technology, they never would have. Nor would they have ever been "forced" to see pictures of the Earth from space.

If they were to shun all the apparatus of man's dreadful, soul-destroying technology, they could live in wood huts with no television or internet, and would never have any idea that this lunar "violation" was taking place. They could look up and see the same "sacred" moon they always have.

If you don't want to believe in science and technology, don't. Don't watch the NASA feed on tv, don't read about it in the papers or on the internet.

It never happened.

[Scout]

156. yes n/t

[Mixopterus]

167. Looks like

The anti-science morons are out in force since we are going to drop a tiny object on the moon that will in no way shape or form cause significant damage.

[Phoonzang]

203. The sheer stupidity being shown in these NASA "bombs" the moon threads is making me

seriously consider leaving DU. I mean...it's hard for me to consider these people more intelligent than Freepers.

[Cha]

182. The Moon is sacred to me as is

all the Universe including Mother Earth..thanks for asking.

But, there's no religion involved.

[Rex]

191. The Moon is very scared of me.

Oh, well...anyway he knows what he did.

[Swamp Rat]

194. Won't be long.

Lock and load NASA! :nuke:

[CanonRay]

204. Wiccans, for one