
In Case They Didn't Come Back From the Moon - blhack
http://www.motherboard.tv/2010/6/1/in-case-they-didn-t-come-back-from-the-moon--4
======
rdl
I wonder how many people today would accept a one-way trip to Mars.

It is actually cheaper to keep sending supplies to Mars to keep you alive,
than to send enough to lift off and return.

I'd probably do it myself now; certainly would if were 60 years old.

~~~
dmm
I'm 24 and would absolutely do it, assuming I could bring a wife.

~~~
mahmud
Reminds me of that scene from Men In Black when the alien kidnaps the female
doctor and carries her back to the ship: "It's a long trip, I will need a
snack".

------
noonespecial
Its the fact that they could address the very real (and I do mean very real)
possibility that they would not be coming back in such a clear and dignified
manner that differentiates the space program then and now.

They did their best to keep from dying of course, but I somehow doubt they'd
have grounded the program for years of congressional whinging had it occurred.

In short they seem like a whole different kind of person. The people who are
going to win the race to mars (and eventually reap the near limitless mineral
wealth the solar system has to offer) are going to be the people who are most
prepared to accept death on the way.

~~~
patio11
There is no "race" to Mars. It will still be there if we wait a couple of
decades. There is no long twilight struggle against Communism to justify a
multi-billion dollar PR-friendly defense contractor slush fund.

I question the notion that we'll ever tap the "limitless mineral wealth" in an
efficient manner (we still have to take it back home for it to be useful, that
costs energy, energy is dear while rocks are cheap), but supposing somebody
did, is there any incentive to be first to the party? What are they going to
do, grab the infinite wealth and leave nothing for the rest of us?

Anybody with a few million can launch a satellite these days, regardless of
what their nation's space program was like in 1960. Let China (or India, or
Kenya, or whomever) get to it a few months early and then private industry
will commoditize access. (And the value of rocks will plummet as the supply
shock hits. Whee.)

In the meanwhile, we can spend the billions saved on things that won't be
there tomorrow. "Children in Africa" are just one example.

~~~
noonespecial
We've no time to sharpen the axe, there's far too much wood to cut.

Its the most important race ever run. Its not against soviets or chinese, its
against ourselves and our limited resources.

There's something else that won't be here tomorrow as well. All of the
resources we have today. We might have centuries to go do the space thing
later. We might not.

Right now I think maybe we could use some hope and few heroes that don't play
with rubber balls for a living.

 _I do believe this is the first time I've ever disagreed with Patio. Much
respect, brother._

~~~
arethuza
I can't see any way that going to the Moon or Mars is going to help with the
real issues we will have in the next 20 to 50 years.

It's not like I dislike the idea of going to Mars (I have a well thumbed copy
of Zubrin's "The Case for Mars") - but at this moment in time, do I think it
is a sensible thing to do? Sadly, absolutely not.

~~~
DougWebb
It might give us the hope and belief that we are able to deal with the real
issues in the next 20 to 50 years. You don't hear "If we can send a man to the
moon, why can't we do X" anymore, because most people today don't remember
that we were once able to send a man to the moon. They don't have that
expectation that anything is possible if we just focus intently on it and
decide to get it done.

~~~
arethuza
Perhaps because "If we can send a man to the moon, why can't we do X" is a
pretty terrible argument for most problems.

For most analogous engineering projects (e.g. going to Mars) the answer is
"because it costs too much".

~~~
wlievens
That's not what the he meant. The Apollo Project inspired people to go into
sciences and engineering to an extent that nothing since has done. That effect
is, after four decades, ebbing away.

~~~
wlievens
Addendum: except of course the internet!

------
wlievens
Full text: <http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/In_Event_of_Moon_Disaster>

------
turnersauce
I certainly can't think of a lonelier place to die than the moon.

~~~
SamAtt
I don't know. Dying sucks no matter where it happens but once you come to
terms with that I think it would be kind of neat. I can't imagine they didn't
have some kind of suicide pill to avoid an unpleasant death (probably couldn't
be a pill but some kind of syringe or something). So they wouldn't suffocate.

Assuming that's true I think drifting to sleep underneath the Earth in the
same way people on earth drift to sleep underneath the moon would be pretty
darn awesome.

~~~
Zaak
Not to be morbid or anything, but the only painful part of suffocation is
excess carbon dioxide. In a pure nitrogen atmosphere you'd be in a good mood
for a couple of minutes, then lose consciousness and never wake up.

I have no idea if that sort of thing was available on the moon missions, but
it would probably the most convenient option if you've got nitrogen available.

~~~
Luc
On that subject, there is a great documentary with former British MP Michael
Portillo about humane death penalty methods:

[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8068091823725414405...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8068091823725414405#)

He comes to the conclusion nitrogen would be the most humane (euphoria, then
painless death). Apparantly it won't get used because those states that still
use the death penalty find this way of leaving the temporary for the infinite
a bit too easy on the convicted... (forward to 45:30 in the video).

------
pmiller2
This could have been one of the greatest speeches in American history. It's
fortunate that it wasn't.

