[Moonbase-discuss] Re: Moonbase-discuss Moon vs orbit

Sun, 17 Mar 2002 16:30:19 EST

--part1_129.e36102b.29c664eb_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Jon Alexandr:
<< Anyway, it can be argued that Yuri Gagarin's flight into space was a 
stunt, whereas the first human landing on the Moon was a concerted effort to 
show the
possibilities of a multiplanet species (by some of those involved, at least).

Randall Clague:
<< Quite the contrary - as much as I admire the people involved, Apollo was 
the stunt. A huge, memorable, and important stunt, but a stunt. One measure 
of stuntiness is how many times the achievement is repeated. In Gagarin's 
case, that figure is well over 200, and still climbing. In Apollo's case, 
that figure is 5, and will remain at 5 for the foreseeable future. >>

Jon Alexandr:  One of course needs to go into orbit in order to go to the 
Moon -- or anywhere else, including non-Earth orbits.  It's a vacuous point 
in the context, I think.

JA: << What, in fact, was dreamed of in the millennia before -- going into 
space or going to the Moon? >>

RC: << They were considered the same thing. Where was there to go in space, 
but the moon? (Sagan called this "planetary chauvinism." O'Neill jumped on 
it. O'Neill was wrong.)

Jon Alexandr:  Even in the 20th century, space was by far mostly considered 
an intervening distance -- not a goal.  As for O'Neill, it would seem to me 
that his timeline was just overly ambitious -- not erroneous.  But I must 
credit the Russian, Tsiolkovsky (if what I've read about him is accurate), 
with the brilliant counterintuitive idea of space itself as a "place" to 
establish civilization.

JA: << What was the 'pull'? >>

RC: << Romance, mostly. Just like now. >>

Jon Alexandr:  Cute.

--part1_129.e36102b.29c664eb_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>Jon Alexandr: 
&lt;&lt; Anyway, it can be argued that Yuri Gagarin's flight into space was a stunt, whereas the first human landing on the Moon was a concerted effort to show the 
possibilities of a multiplanet species (by some of those involved, at least). 
 
Randall Clague: 
&lt;&lt; Quite the contrary - as much as I admire the people involved, Apollo was the stunt.&nbsp; A huge, memorable, and important stunt, but a stunt.&nbsp; One measure of stuntiness is how many times the achievement is repeated.&nbsp; In Gagarin's case, that figure is well over 200, and still climbing.&nbsp; In Apollo's case, that figure is 5, and will remain at 5 for the foreseeable future. &gt;&gt; 
 
Jon Alexandr:&nbsp; One of course needs to go into orbit in order to go to the Moon -- or anywhere else, including non-Earth orbits.&nbsp; It's a vacuous point in the context, I think. 
 
JA: &lt;&lt; What, in fact, was dreamed of in the millennia before -- going into space or going to the Moon? &gt;&gt; 
 
RC: &lt;&lt; They were considered the same thing.&nbsp; Where was there to go in space, but the moon?&nbsp; (Sagan called this "planetary chauvinism." O'Neill jumped on it.&nbsp; O'Neill was wrong.) 
 
Jon Alexandr:&nbsp; Even in the 20th century, space was by far mostly considered an intervening distance -- not a goal.&nbsp; As for O'Neill, it would seem to me that his timeline was just overly ambitious -- not erroneous.&nbsp; But I must credit the Russian, Tsiolkovsky (if what I've read about him is accurate), with the brilliant counterintuitive idea of space itself as a "place" to establish civilization. 
 
JA: &lt;&lt; What was the 'pull'? &gt;&gt; 
 
RC: &lt;&lt; Romance, mostly.&nbsp; Just like now. &gt;&gt; 
 
Jon Alexandr:&nbsp; Cute.</HTML>

--part1_129.e36102b.29c664eb_boundary--