3 ms·

> I think we're lucky that ancient mariners didn't listen to the people who told them "there's literally nothing, nothing, in the Great Water". You're making a

> I think we're lucky that ancient mariners didn't listen to the people who told them "there's literally nothing, nothing, in the Great Water". You're making a false and dishonest equivalency. Those mariners didn't know what was in the Great Water. We absolutely do know to a huge degree of precision exactly what is on the Moon. (A whole bunch of nothing.) We know more about the Moon than we know about the Mariana Trench. We've explored the Moon to death already.

JoshCole 8y ago
When I watched the NASA administrator meeting in which NASA plans were discussed, one of the reasons listed for going to the moon was that we have seen that our understanding of it is not complete. It was not the United States of America that discovered, for example, that there was water ice on the moon, though we later confirmed the discovery. Yet this is a critical insight into its composition which has major implications. When I watched the NASA administrator meeting in which NASA plans for building a base on the moon were discussed, one of the reasons listed was also rooted in discovery. There are many challenges that such a base would face and it is better to solve them when the Earth is close and rescue is more reasonable than to go to Mars with those problems not yet understood and solved, since the time till return from Mars will be measured in months and years rather than days. What makes you so stridently disagree that we have more things to learn while on the moon, when the experts disagree with you? Also, since they do, doesn't this also make his equivalence a very good one, rather than false? Certainly the argument that there is more yet to be discovered about the trench does not refute his claim, only serving to enhance the degree to which claiming there is nothing is not valid.

3 ms·

> I think we're lucky that ancient mariners didn't listen to the people who told them "there's literally nothing, nothing, in the Great Water". You're making a

by otabdeveloper1 8y ago

JoshCole 8y ago
When I watched the NASA administrator meeting in which NASA plans were discussed, one of the reasons listed for going to the moon was that we have seen that our understanding of it is not complete. It was not the United States of America that discovered, for example, that there was water ice on the moon, though we later confirmed the discovery. Yet this is a critical insight into its composition which has major implications. When I watched the NASA administrator meeting in which NASA plans for building a base on the moon were discussed, one of the reasons listed was also rooted in discovery. There are many challenges that such a base would face and it is better to solve them when the Earth is close and rescue is more reasonable than to go to Mars with those problems not yet understood and solved, since the time till return from Mars will be measured in months and years rather than days. What makes you so stridently disagree that we have more things to learn while on the moon, when the experts disagree with you? Also, since they do, doesn't this also make his equivalence a very good one, rather than false? Certainly the argument that there is more yet to be discovered about the trench does not refute his claim, only serving to enhance the degree to which claiming there is nothing is not valid.