PHS - The Moon Is A Possible Option

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Oct 2006, 09:10

by Jane Bradley, EN reporter for Portobello and the cosmos :

In a shock announcement today, COEC announced a controversial plan to build a combined PHS and St Johns complex on the moon.

"Funding may be tricky for this one" said Cllr Roy Jobson, director of children, families and lunar development. "We've nothing left in the kitty and need to raise around Â£83 billion"

Community Leader Diana Cairns slammed and blasted the decision -

"This typical New Labour decision flies in the face of international conventions on non-proliferation of education. That's why I've formed PCATM"

Local father Bob Jefferson, of PFANSOTM, welcomed the development -

"My great-great-great grandchildren's education is now guaranteed."

Protest over the fact that there is already a lunar base which could be used as a school have been met with scorn, however. One local resident, Sean, said -

"Whilst it's true that the existing lunar education centre could be refurbished, this is problematic in terms of the footprint of the crater in use, plus the fact that the current class would have to be decanted to the International Space Station" he said, authoritatively.

Local forum user Dadaist blasted the decision to build on the moon as undemocratic. "Everyone in the cosmos should get a vote on this. They should send out space probes and stuff, for the aliens to get a vote. And anyone who disagrees with me is an enemy of democracy".

Supreme Overlord Of The Galaxy Maureen Childs, however, said "Ultimately, this decision is a judgment call. And as your judge you can count on this : those people who expressed a view which doesn't tie in with ours will be hunted down and vaporised."

Murky Machiavellian machinations (remove this bit - Ed) are afoot however on NASA's funding and oversight committee - which has seen a recent flood in membership applications. Two such potential candidates commented -

Stephen Macintyre of the "Steven Supports Option M Campaign"said -

"As a lifelong scrutinizer of space funding, it's coincidental that I have chosen this juncture to apply for membership. Once elected though, I'll be putting my weight behind pushing this proposal through. The fate of humanity depends on it."

Alison Connelly of NEBOTME said -

"As a lifelong member of "Never Ever Build On The Moon, Ever", I see no contradiction in supporting the plan to re-develop some small and remote corners of the lunar surface. And all this fuss about the decant has been blown out of all proportion - my statistics show that if they did decant to the International Space Station, most of them would survive."

Brian McCrow, of the John St action group, hailed the council's plan as a victory for common sense and the community. "This decision means there will be no building on John St, which is a victory for common sense and the community", he said.

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 10 Oct 2006, 09:18

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 10 Oct 2006, 10:38

No No They cant build on the moon. My soup wells! The blue string pudding! The poor we Clangers terrified of the noise and traffic!

I suggest Mars. Much more suitable.

Yes the commute would be a tad longer and the catchment area may be put slighlty askew but it's larger area gives room for expansion and its greater gravity would make a swimming pool a much easier option than on the moon.

elkie · Post by **elkie** » 10 Oct 2006, 12:11

..and has anyone costed the gravity boots to keep those pesky kids down on their vast on-site playing fields/craters. Honestly..

What about a short term decant to Option M whilst we rebuild on PHS site ? We could send them out to PE without said gravity boots to take their chances in the atmosphere. Sure, the numbers might deplete but by the time they decanted back after a few light years they would all fit on current site.....

I'm coming round to this one. That Porty chap is full of good ideas, isn't he?

Alison Connelly · Post by **Alison Connelly** » 10 Oct 2006, 12:19

removed

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Oct 2006, 12:47

Pal Of Porty today blasted pleas from the scientists on board the International Space Station who protested at plans to sell off the research station to rich tourists in order to fund the new school on the moon.

"These so-called scientists simply haven't done enough experiments" Pal opined, "and not only that, I can shockingly reveal that they haven't ever had a junior section".

Pal Of remained unperturbed when it was pointed out to him that it would be difficult for the ISS to have a junior section when most of those on board were military officers with PHDs.

"So what?" he criticized, "Nobody ever said it would always be a research station. And we're building them a perfectly reasonable replacement around Uranus."

Porty · Post by **Porty** » 10 Oct 2006, 13:00

Quality.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 10 Oct 2006, 19:14

We now have a new problem- where to site the launch pad. Figgate Park, PHS current site, Power League, Portobello Park?

The cost of gravity boots offset by advertising on them ( Starbucks perhaps? ) and space suits could be adopted as the new school uniform, though I would advise caution when sewing name tags into them.

Mars is the most suitable and popular option. No one has yet complained about building on RED sites.

Dadaist · Post by **Dadaist** » 10 Oct 2006, 19:21

I think we'll be able to find somewhere for the launch even if we have to build a pier.

We could call it Cape Macintyre after the great man.

SoupDragon · Post by **SoupDragon** » 12 Oct 2006, 21:08

You know I think we could have a new business for Portobello here. A pier, a space port. There must be many a person who'd pay a good money to blast some others into space. If public outcry or the fee was high enough we could even bring them back.