NASA sees earliest manned moon landing in 2015

[So]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: DonVito
Congrats to NASA for spending billions of dollars to re-create what was an incredible accomplishment 47 years earlier. Maybe while they're at it, they can send more monkeys into orbit . . .

Heh.

Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

So, we should give up on scientific progress completely because someone out there isn't living the good life?

Nobody in America is starving to death. Most of the homeless in America are mentally ill, or otherwise unwilling to join civilized society, not poor but capable of working.

What is more important, sparking the biggest economic revolution in human history and guaranteeing that an asteroid doesn't wipe our species out, as well as improving the quality of life of everyone on the planet, and leaving a monument to history that will awe men a thousand years from today, or artifically deflating some statistic by pouring money into a hole that will not generate more?

Manned space exploration is the future, and if you suggest we stop because the money might be put to better use, you might as well give up.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: shilala

Originally posted by: iamwiz82
Why are they going back?

Armstrong forgot his glasses.

LMAO

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: blahblah99
How about we spend billions solving the problems at home first. Oh wait, what problems.

Haven't you learned yet, that throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it. It typically makes it worse.

 

[SagaLore]

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

Nobody in the United States is starving. Nobody. Some of our poorest citizens are morbidly obese.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: blahblah99
How about we spend billions solving the problems at home first. Oh wait, what problems.

Yeah, you're right. We need to be spending our money on tobacco subsidies and abstinence-only faith-based indoctrination programs instead.. Never mind the future of the human race. Why the hell would we need to look forward? Silly idea...

Quite frankly, I think we need to kill off about 5-6 billion people who make life difficult AND THEN move on to being peaceful, intellectual beings.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

Nobody in the United States is starving. Nobody. Some of our poorest citizens are morbidly obese.

I once saw a quote from an indian immigrant. I dont remember it exactly, but it was something like:

When I was moving to the United States, my friends asked me why I wanted to go there. I told them that I wanted to live in a country where the poor people were FAT.

 

[Jadow]

if they're going to retire the shuttles, they should soft land them on the moon and use them as bases.

 

[CRXican]

stupid NASA

at least the special effects will be better this time around

 

[Megatomic]

I am going to try to get a job on that project. Hell, I wouldn't mind doing a tour on a lunar base.

 

[brigden]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: DonVito
Congrats to NASA for spending billions of dollars to re-create what was an incredible accomplishment 47 years earlier. Maybe while they're at it, they can send more monkeys into orbit . . .

Heh.

Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

So, we should give up on scientific progress completely because someone out there isn't living the good life?

Nobody in America is starving to death. Most of the homeless in America are mentally ill, or otherwise unwilling to join civilized society, not poor but capable of working.

What is more important, sparking the biggest economic revolution in human history and guaranteeing that an asteroid doesn't wipe our species out, as well as improving the quality of life of everyone on the planet, and leaving a monument to history that will awe men a thousand years from today, or artifically deflating some statistic by pouring money into a hole that will not generate more?

Manned space exploration is the future, and if you suggest we stop because the money might be put to better use, you might as well give up.

I don't disagree with investing in the future. I would rather see them pump the money going to Mars, or further. Why bother going to the Moon again? Seems like a waste, especially when the money could be better spent.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

Nobody in the United States is starving. Nobody. Some of our poorest citizens are morbidly obese.

I once saw a quote from an indian immigrant. I dont remember it exactly, but it was something like:

When I was moving to the United States, my friends asked me why I wanted to go there. I told them that I wanted to live in a country where the poor people were FAT.

yeah i remember hearing that too...

Go to africa and other countries where poverty means not eating for weeks...and in most cases it is not their fault, unlike here

anyways back on topic...I believe that money for Space funding and Defence are very important. Yet, there are other things, it just seems that those too always produce the biggest and best tech that is usually then used in civilian things years later

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Jadow
if they're going to retire the shuttles, they should soft land them on the moon and use them as bases.

Ummm...what booster are they going to use to get them there? The shuttles aren't even close to being able to break orbit AFAIK. Now daisy chaining them to the ISS...that might work.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: DonVito
Congrats to NASA for spending billions of dollars to re-create what was an incredible accomplishment 47 years earlier. Maybe while they're at it, they can send more monkeys into orbit . . .

Heh.

Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

So, we should give up on scientific progress completely because someone out there isn't living the good life?

Nobody in America is starving to death. Most of the homeless in America are mentally ill, or otherwise unwilling to join civilized society, not poor but capable of working.

What is more important, sparking the biggest economic revolution in human history and guaranteeing that an asteroid doesn't wipe our species out, as well as improving the quality of life of everyone on the planet, and leaving a monument to history that will awe men a thousand years from today, or artifically deflating some statistic by pouring money into a hole that will not generate more?

Manned space exploration is the future, and if you suggest we stop because the money might be put to better use, you might as well give up.

I don't disagree with investing in the future. I would rather see them pump the money going to Mars, or further. Why bother going to the Moon again? Seems like a waste, especially when the money could be better spent.

As countless NASA scientists have stated, to go to Mars, we first need to conquer the moon. Just rushing off to Mars would be an even bigger waste of money.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: brigden

Originally posted by: DonVito
Congrats to NASA for spending billions of dollars to re-create what was an incredible accomplishment 47 years earlier. Maybe while they're at it, they can send more monkeys into orbit . . .

Heh.

Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

So, we should give up on scientific progress completely because someone out there isn't living the good life?

Nobody in America is starving to death. Most of the homeless in America are mentally ill, or otherwise unwilling to join civilized society, not poor but capable of working.

What is more important, sparking the biggest economic revolution in human history and guaranteeing that an asteroid doesn't wipe our species out, as well as improving the quality of life of everyone on the planet, and leaving a monument to history that will awe men a thousand years from today, or artifically deflating some statistic by pouring money into a hole that will not generate more?

Manned space exploration is the future, and if you suggest we stop because the money might be put to better use, you might as well give up.

I don't disagree with investing in the future. I would rather see them pump the money going to Mars, or further. Why bother going to the Moon again? Seems like a waste, especially when the money could be better spent.

Because the moon is full of valuable resources and is a great launching point for further expeditions. If you could get a self sustaining base on the moon (which WILL happen sooner or later) you can much more easily build deep space capable vehicles. Furthemore, it is a great piece of strategic real estate and I am sure it has vast mineral wealth. You could have said the same thing about the american west after lewis and clark went through. Look at all the riches we found right here in the NV desert.

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

Nobody in the United States is starving. Nobody. Some of our poorest citizens are morbidly obese.

Well, I'm pretty hungry waiting for lunch break time right now.

 

[Philippine Mango]

I think we should do this though it really sucks that it took us decades to actually do anything. I mean we land there but thats it, no nothing to help space exploration.. Were a bunch of sad sacks of sh!t for not doing this sooner. Had kennedy stayed in office, the program would have likely been much farther and well on it's way. Sighs.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Philippine Mango
I think we should do this though it really sucks that it took us decades to actually do anything. I mean we land there but thats it, no nothing to help space exploration.. Were a bunch of sad sacks of sh!t for not doing this sooner. Had kennedy stayed in office, the program would have likely been much farther and well on it's way. Sighs.

Actually, the kennedy administartion killed a program that would have given us a shutle no later than 74 and it would have been way more useful (smaller, but more or less the vehicle we want to buld now to send people to the ISS) -- kennedy made a good speech, but he didn't make the space program, it was more or less in motion when he came along.

 

[Ronstang]

Originally posted by: brigden
Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

There is no one starving in this country and if they are it is their own doing. This country has more opportuniy than anywhere in the world but it won't come to you, you have to go out an get it so anyone that you consider needs a hand up I simply consider they need to TRY a little bit. A lot of people will wallow in poverty their whole lives but that is not the responsibility of the government or anyone esle. Public education is afforded to everyone. If you care about your education and apply yourself that education will get you into a college and there is plenty of free money/scholorships/and cheap loans available of which a lot goes to the poor and minorities. Most people in lower income brackets do not apply themselves in the free school they have access to and thus are not eligible for college at which point they claim there are no opportunities for them. There destiny is THEIR responsibioity as it was there choice to THROW opportunity away. The only thing that will every bring people out of poverty is the desire and the willingness to work....no socialist government can do it unless they bring everyone else down to pay for it and that simply is not fair.

 

[EyeMWing]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Jadow
if they're going to retire the shuttles, they should soft land them on the moon and use them as bases.

Ummm...what booster are they going to use to get them there? The shuttles aren't even close to being able to break orbit AFAIK. Now daisy chaining them to the ISS...that might work.

The shuttles can get to the moon - they just can't get back on their internal fuel stores. The obvious solution is to tack on an external tank that's been pre-orbited, but that takes money.

 

[SVT Cobra]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Jadow
if they're going to retire the shuttles, they should soft land them on the moon and use them as bases.

Ummm...what booster are they going to use to get them there? The shuttles aren't even close to being able to break orbit AFAIK. Now daisy chaining them to the ISS...that might work.

The shuttles can get to the moon - they just can't get back on their internal fuel stores. The obvious solution is to tack on an external tank that's been pre-orbited, but that takes money.

the shuttles probably will not be envolved. New programs are focusing on disposable spacecraft's again. while i do not disagree with it, that's what they are doing.

 

[brigden]

I guess you guys are right - we need to be established on the moon to go further...

I'd love to see a planetary manned landing in my time.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Jadow
if they're going to retire the shuttles, they should soft land them on the moon and use them as bases.

Ummm...what booster are they going to use to get them there? The shuttles aren't even close to being able to break orbit AFAIK. Now daisy chaining them to the ISS...that might work.

The shuttles can get to the moon - they just can't get back on their internal fuel stores. The obvious solution is to tack on an external tank that's been pre-orbited, but that takes money.

Really? Wow. I did not know this...cool. link?

If that's the case, all we need is a way to get water on the moon, then you could mix concrete out of soil and bury the shuttles for long term rad. shielding.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: brigden
I guess you guys are right - we need to be established on the moon to go further...

I'd love to see a planetary manned landing in my time.

:thumbsup:

Well, if we make it to the moon by 2015 and you live until at least 50 (assuming you're ~20 now), you'll see PLENTY of them.

 

[Yossarian]

does Bush know that we have already been to the moon? let's not take anything for granted here. maybe nobody told him.

 

[m2kewl]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: brigden
Seriously, why bother sending men back to the moon? The first time was political - how does this differ? I don't mean to sound like a liberal, but I can't believe that you operate a society that would deem this important. I mean, human spirit and all that rubbish, but there are still people starving in your country - the richest, most powerful country in the world...

There is no one starving in this country and if they are it is their own doing. This country has more opportuniy than anywhere in the world but it won't come to you, you have to go out an get it so anyone that you consider needs a hand up I simply consider they need to TRY a little bit. A lot of people will wallow in poverty their whole lives but that is not the responsibility of the government or anyone esle. Public education is afforded to everyone. If you care about your education and apply yourself that education will get you into a college and there is plenty of free money/scholorships/and cheap loans available of which a lot goes to the poor and minorities. Most people in lower income brackets do not apply themselves in the free school they have access to and thus are not eligible for college at which point they claim there are no opportunities for them. There destiny is THEIR responsibioity as it was there choice to THROW opportunity away. The only thing that will every bring people out of poverty is the desire and the willingness to work....no socialist government can do it unless they bring everyone else down to pay for it and that simply is not fair.

Preach it!!!

tell the kid to put the XBOXand burger down!

Originally posted by: Yossarian
does Bush know that we have already been to the moon? let's not take anything for granted here. maybe nobody told him.

LMAO! this is the guy that almost died choking on food!