Fvck the Moon!

[RelaxTheMind]

i think im the only one here equipped enough to fvck the moon. on opposite day

 

[BillyBatson]

MARS OR BUST!!!!!!!

 

[Platypus]

set the controls for the heart of the sun

 

[tyler811]

Scotty we need more POWER

Captn she aint got any more, I've givn er all shes got

 

[randay]

Not entirely relevant, but... "Stop exploding you cowards!!"

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Coolone
But I like the moon!!

not funny. was never funny. will never be funny.

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: moshquerade
Fly me to the moon. Let me sing among those stars.

haha, I remember something about that song and you

 

[Shawn]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: preslove

Fvck the Moon!

Sir, that's quite a difficult proposition...

Not really - for most people that means just shifting aim to the left or right a little. :laugh:

LMFAO!

 

[tjaisv]

clunky-ass human spaceships...

I'll be laughing as i pass u in my Grey UFO

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Well, I'd like to visit the moon
On a rocketship high in the air.
Yes, I'd like to visit the moon,
But I don't think I'd like to live there.
Though I'd like to look down at the earth
From above,
I'd miss all the places
and people I love,
So although I might like it for one afternoon,
I don't want to live on the moon.

I'd like to travel under the sea.
I could meet all the fish everywhere.
Yes, I'd travel under the sea,
But I don't think I'd like to live there.
I might stay for a day there
If i had my wish,
But there's not much to do
When your friends are all fish,
And an oyster and clam aren't real family,
So I don't want to live under the sea.

I'd like to visit the jungle,
Hear the lion's roar;
Go back and meet a dinosaur.
There's so many strange places I'd like to be
But none of them permanently.

So if I should visit the moon,
Well, I'll dance on a moonbeam, and then
I will make a wish on a star,
And I'll wish I was home once again.
Though I'd like to look down at the earth from above,
I would miss all the places
And people I love
So although I may go,
I'll be coming home soon,
'Cause I don't want to live on the moon.
No, I don't want to live on the moon.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: tjaisv
clunky-ass human spaceships...

I'll be laughing as i pass u in my Grey UFO

Do you know what starship captains do to little boys?

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

 

[LeadMagnet]

Titan, Europa, or IO

 

[feralkid]

Let's talk about Uranus...I hear it's big and gassy.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

 

[Mathlete]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

FVCK THE MOON I SAY!

I suggested this to my gf once and she was none too pleased with the idea?!?!?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

Not necessarily. The Delta-V to get to Luna from Earth is higher than it is to Mars. It's just a different set of challenges really. The moon offers a quick trip where you have to take everything (food, water, fuel, etc.) with you whereas Mars is a longer trip (more research can be done but also higher doses of radiation) that allows you to make many of the things you need (water and fuel) there. Taking everything with you takes up a lot of weight which raises the cost. It's a lot easier to build up decent infrastructure in a place that offers many of the things you need for life compared with one where you have to take every from Earth and transfer it hundreds of thousands of miles into space.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

Not necessarily. The Delta-V to get to Luna from Earth is higher than it is to Mars. It's just a different set of challenges really. The moon offers a quick trip where you have to take everything (food, water, fuel, etc.) with you whereas Mars is a longer trip (more research can be done but also higher doses of radiation) that allows you to make many of the things you need (water and fuel) there. Taking everything with you takes up a lot of weight which raises the cost. It's a lot easier to build up decent infrastructure in a place that offers many of the things you need for life compared with one where you have to take every from Earth and transfer it hundreds of thousands of miles into space.

Uh, we're talking a first trip here, therefore you WOULD have to take everything with you.


There is no way it is easier to get to Mars than the Moon.

 

[JRich]

"Write this down: M-A-R-S, Mars, b1tches! That's where we are goin', Mars! Red rocks!"

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

Not necessarily. The Delta-V to get to Luna from Earth is higher than it is to Mars. It's just a different set of challenges really. The moon offers a quick trip where you have to take everything (food, water, fuel, etc.) with you whereas Mars is a longer trip (more research can be done but also higher doses of radiation) that allows you to make many of the things you need (water and fuel) there. Taking everything with you takes up a lot of weight which raises the cost. It's a lot easier to build up decent infrastructure in a place that offers many of the things you need for life compared with one where you have to take every from Earth and transfer it hundreds of thousands of miles into space.

Uh, we're talking a first trip here, therefore you WOULD have to take everything with you.


There is no way it is easier to get to Mars than the Moon.

Go read up on Mars Direct. Fuel, water, and oxygen are readily available on Mars. Reading the Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin is quite an eye-opener. His plan sure made NASA do a complete 180 on their ideas of how to get to Mars. Previously they WERE thinking that everything had to be brought with the astronauts there. Their plan in their 90-Day Report back in 1989-90 cost around $450-500 billion ($570-635 billion in 2004 dollars) compared with roughly $50 billion (I added a few billion to Zubrin's estimate, his was $40 billion, I believe) which would be the cost of Mars Direct.

So NASA rethought their plans and came up with a plan that has pretty much been dubbed Mars Semi-Direct that would send 5-6 astronauts at a cost of somewhere around $80 billion. So yes, a Mars program can be done "easier" (if easier=cheaper) or just as easily as a moon program.

 

[Sc4freak]

But what would Google do?

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

Not necessarily. The Delta-V to get to Luna from Earth is higher than it is to Mars. It's just a different set of challenges really. The moon offers a quick trip where you have to take everything (food, water, fuel, etc.) with you whereas Mars is a longer trip (more research can be done but also higher doses of radiation) that allows you to make many of the things you need (water and fuel) there. Taking everything with you takes up a lot of weight which raises the cost. It's a lot easier to build up decent infrastructure in a place that offers many of the things you need for life compared with one where you have to take every from Earth and transfer it hundreds of thousands of miles into space.

Uh, we're talking a first trip here, therefore you WOULD have to take everything with you.


There is no way it is easier to get to Mars than the Moon.

Go read up on Mars Direct. Fuel, water, and oxygen is readily available on Mars. Reading the Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin is quite an eye-opener. His plan sure made NASA do a complete 180 on their ideas of how to get to Mars. Previously they WERE thinking that everything had to be brought with the astronauts there. Their plan in their 90-Day Report back in 1989-90 cost around $450-500 billion ($570-635 billion in 2004 dollars) compared with roughly $50 billion (I added a few billion to Zubrin's estimate, his was $40 billion, I believe) which would be the cost of Mars Direct.

So NASA rethought their plans and came up with a plan that has pretty much been dubbed Mars Semi-Direct that would send 5-6 astronauts at a cost of somewhere around $80 billion. So yes, a Mars program can be done "easier" (if easier=cheaper) or just as easily as a moon program.

Actually, I was not talking "cheaper".

I re-iterate; there is no way it is easier to go to Mars than the Moon.

Hint: degree of difficulty, greater potential for failures, not to mention the snakes.

 

[Kalmah]

Originally posted by: Sc4freak
But what would Google do?

:laugh:

 

[mobobuff]

I'll need a map to its largest crater.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: sierrita

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd prefer Mars as well. There's a lot more to see there (possible life, more interesting geology, etc.) and the cost would be similar. Just because it's farther away doesn't mean it's harder to get too.

Yes it does.

Not necessarily. The Delta-V to get to Luna from Earth is higher than it is to Mars. It's just a different set of challenges really. The moon offers a quick trip where you have to take everything (food, water, fuel, etc.) with you whereas Mars is a longer trip (more research can be done but also higher doses of radiation) that allows you to make many of the things you need (water and fuel) there. Taking everything with you takes up a lot of weight which raises the cost. It's a lot easier to build up decent infrastructure in a place that offers many of the things you need for life compared with one where you have to take every from Earth and transfer it hundreds of thousands of miles into space.

Uh, we're talking a first trip here, therefore you WOULD have to take everything with you.


There is no way it is easier to get to Mars than the Moon.

Go read up on Mars Direct. Fuel, water, and oxygen is readily available on Mars. Reading the Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin is quite an eye-opener. His plan sure made NASA do a complete 180 on their ideas of how to get to Mars. Previously they WERE thinking that everything had to be brought with the astronauts there. Their plan in their 90-Day Report back in 1989-90 cost around $450-500 billion ($570-635 billion in 2004 dollars) compared with roughly $50 billion (I added a few billion to Zubrin's estimate, his was $40 billion, I believe) which would be the cost of Mars Direct.

So NASA rethought their plans and came up with a plan that has pretty much been dubbed Mars Semi-Direct that would send 5-6 astronauts at a cost of somewhere around $80 billion. So yes, a Mars program can be done "easier" (if easier=cheaper) or just as easily as a moon program.

Actually, I was not talking "cheaper".

I re-iterate; there is no way it is easier to go to Mars than the Moon.

Hint: degree of difficulty, greater potential for failures, not to mention the snakes.

Easier can mean different things to different people. Sure there are greater risks of failure. I wouldn't say that means it's more difficult. If you were to do a moon mission for as long, I would imagine there would be an even greater risk of failure than on Mars. The thing is, is that I think Mars has a vastly greater payoff. I don't think there is much we can learn about the moon that we haven't already learned from the Apollo missions.

I would say easier would equal cheaper simply because if the challenge is greater technologically and logistically, chances are it is going to cost more.