ALL SCI-FI

[bulldogtrekker]

We Don't Have a Moon Base Because You Don't Need One to Nuke Moscow
Matt Novak, I09



Image: An atomic cloud rises July 25, 1946 during the "Baker Day" blast at Bikini Island in the Pacific via Getty

Why doesn't the United States have a base on the Moon? Because getting to the Moon was a matter of national security. Setting up a permanent base there? Not so much.

Through the fog of history it's really, really easy for Americans to forget why we went to the Moon in the first place. It was essentially a proof of concept for shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles at Moscow. And for the Soviets, a sign that they could launch ICBMs that could hit Washington, D.C. While ideas about shooting bombs and lasers from space have a long history, there's no real tactical advantage to having your guns mounted on the moon. At least not yet.

The space race of the 1960s wasn't simply a pissing contest between the world's two superpowers — it was a trial run for the end of the world. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in October of 1957, the US was on high alert. It had become apparent that America was lagging behind in rocket technology; or if it wasn't, that it soon might be. The establishment of NASA and ARPA (now DARPA) in 1958 were ways to remedy that under the guise of both civilian-led and military agencies respectively.

An article by Dr. Lee Alvin DuBridge, published in the February 1958 issue of Engineering and Science, explained the context post-Sputnik:

[Bud Brewster]

This is an excellent article. Can't argue with a single statement in it. Damn . . .

But other countries have become interested in going to the Moon, so there must be some pretty good reasons for doing it. The article at the link below lists six reasons for lunar explanation, as well as a video of the Chinese Moon probe and a rover that landed there in December of 2013 -- the first soft landing on the Moon since 1976!

Six Reasons NASA Should Build a Research Base on the Moon

The article also suggests that a lunar colony might look like this.


_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Brent Gair]

I think the article is preposterous and it's just cycnical revisionism. Sure, national pride was involved and there's nothing wrong with that. I think a good technology contest is a wonderful thing.

But the whole "It was essentially a proof of concept for shooting intercontinental ballistic missiles at Moscow" is total baloney.

Before President Kennedy was even elected, the United States had already fired a Polaris missile from a submerged submarine. The Atlas missile had been in service since 1959 and had orbited a heavy payload in1958. By 1961, the Titan missile had been undergoing testing for a couple years and made it's first launch from a silo. The first Minuteman Missile Wing was activated in 1960 with the first succesful silo launch in 1962.

By the time Of Kennedy's moon speech, the United States had operationally deployed sea and land based ballistic missiles, built hardened silos, had authorized the production of 30 Minuteman missiles per month, and was producing 6 different thermonuclear warheads for it's long range ICBMs.

The Soviets didn't need proof of anything.

The United States was never behind the Soviets in technology. They were always well ahead of them. Like most authoritarian states, the Soviet Union was extremely good at marshalling resources for a single task...like putting a man in orbit.

The U.S. on the other hand, had it's resources spread among all branches of the service who separately engaged in missile development. Missile research was being done by various, competitive private companies. And there were another half dozen private firms working on rocket propulsion. Unlike the Soviets, they could not put everybody into one big camp and demand a missile (as the Americans had successfully done in the Manhatten project).

That article is, in my opinion, nonsense.

[Bud Brewster]

I know this will sound like I'm fence sitting on this, but I think the point of the article is that scientific research and development only gets the big government bucks if it has a military application -- or if the government decides that global bragging rights are worth billions of dollars, which is undoubtedly the main reason for the space race.

After all, the minute we declared ourselves the winner, we lost interest in the Moon.

Intelligence and communications satellites had military applications, so that became the big motivation for the space program, but scientist had to beg for a few crumbs so they could launch cash-strapped probes into space from time to time.

I'm not convinced, however, that a big part of the motivation for the space race was to improve missiles that could kill them dang Reds in the comfort of their own homes. The military doesn't need any excuse to test weapons, and the best test of an intercontinental missile is to launch an intercontinental missile -- not something sorta kinda like one, but with astronauts on top to make it look like something else.

Therefore, I don't agree with this statement in the article:

Quote:

The space race of the 1960s wasn't simply a pissing contest between the world's two superpowers — it was a trial run for the end of the world. After the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in October of 1957, the US was on high alert. It had become apparent that America was lagging behind in rocket technology; or if it wasn't, that it soon might be.

The government encouraged the press to talk about how we might be lagging behind the Ruskies, simply because that was such Jim-dandy way get the public to be in favor of giving tax dollars to NASA.

And of course, there were plenty of people who quaked in their boots at very notion that the Russians could do anything better than us -- like putting stuff up in space or dropping bombs on America before we dropped bombs on them.

Last but not least, the space race showed us that the general public could get real excited about space exploration when it was a new idea and presented with lots of glitz and glitter. But when the shine wore off, they lost interest quicker than a Kardashian can get a divorce.

And there's no way we can make it new again, much less present it as anything remotely like the Hollywood versions that blatantly breaks all the rules by zooming around in space while firing noisy lasers, accompanied by John Williams and the London Philharmonic Orchestra.

Oh well . . . it was fun will it lasted.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[scotpens]