Re: A red moon after all?   
Group: alt.alien.visitors
Date: Thu, Oct 16, 2003, 3:52pm (EDT+4) From:
theobviousgcashman@theobviousindiana.edu
(Geoff Cashman)

In article <633b063b.0310160649.6326d4c3@posting.google.com>,
lensman1955 <lensman1955@hotmail.com> wrote: 
I do wonder. We didn't "claim" the moon because we signed a UN treaty
promising not to claim any exterrestrial body for outselves and not to
exploit any exterrestrial body (ie, mining et al). (I think [this] more
than anything else is why the moon landings fizzled.)
-------------
No, they fizzled because the program was incredibly expensive at a time
when the national economy was not exactly strong, plus a strong
reduction in national interest in the program (probably the most key
factor).
<snip>

I think the truth is more logical.  The moon landings didn't fizzle
because of money.  NASA would always have any amount of money they
wanted.  The reason really is that you just can't go around mining
celestial bodies that keep the universe in harmony.  How long do you
think it would be before the precious balance that we enjoy was undone
by us moving part of the moon to our planet?  How would the balance
start affecting us, by our orbit become eccentric and possibly bringing
us closer to the sun, or away from it?  Would eclipses still be as
glorious as they are or would weird things happen?  We don't need
anything from the moon, we have plenty of untouched natural resources
right here."