woo hoo going to the moon

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: extra
Oh, one more thing--this global warming, catastrophe stuff is freaky! It'd be good to diversify so we aren't attatched to just 1 planet!

The probable outcome of anthropogenic global warming is that too much fresh water melting into the oceans will stall the great ocean conveyor belt and another ice age will start. Unlike that tripe "The day after tomorrow" it will likely take many decades for the effects to be considered catastrophic to present agricultural areas, ect.

My point is this: Why bother trying to exist on another planet that is far more hostile to human life as a solution? When we can apply the same technologies to our own planet, with the benefit of readily accessible resources and complex infrastructure of all kinds already existing. Space exploration is important to our future, IMHO, but not as a method to ensure the survival of homo sapiens. The spin-off technologies, and eventual ability to harvest resources in a cost effective manner, make for a huge potential payoff for the expenditures. Nothing ventured, nothing gained, is my perspective on it.

We would do better colonizing the oceans, as oppossed to trying to do it on another planet, in relatively "near future" terms.

 

[rudder]

We've got to get up there an plant some more U.S./Mexican flags before the Chinese throw their flag up all over the place.

 

[HombrePequeno]

I'd much prefer spending money on places we haven't gone like Mars. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the moon.

Also, straightalker, you're an idiot. Go to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html to redeem yourself. Moon landing denyers are annoying as hell.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Strk

Originally posted by: BrownTown
OK, diseases isnt the correct thing since yeah its doctors not engineers. How about we change it to designing more fuel efficient cars, cleaner coal plants, and new nuclear reactors?

I know its not a *huge* amount of money for this project, but still its worthless, weve been to the moon and we dont need to go back, there is nothing there of value to us right now. Also, don't go on about how the technology developed in the space race is worth the investment becasue that is simply not true.

We actually are spending millions (probably billions) on those things. The Bush administration funds pretty much everything except for IVS stem cells. Why people think he is conservative is beyond me.

I don't think anyone thinks he is fiscally conservative...

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd much prefer spending money on places we haven't gone like Mars. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the moon.

Also, straightalker, you're an idiot. Go to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html to redeem yourself. Moon landing denyers are annoying as hell.

Your the idiot. This is an area that i've done my research and i'm rock solid in my evidence. See the documentaries that debunk the phony moon landings then let's talk. Nuff said to these anti-social fools.

The reason why no Nation has sent a man to the moon since Apollo, a span of 30 years, is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt which will fry anyone inside the space craft. To adequitely shield a spacecraft would require adding a large amount of extra weight. The passage through that belt of intense radiation in an unsheilded spacecraft would not be "brief" as another poster has said. The Apollo Astronauts circled the Earth and faked travelling to the moon and the landing was a stage show that can easily be proven to be exactly that. The videos of the rover vehicles on the moon are a joke. As is all the dancing astronaut video footage. There was also no blast crater in the soft dust lunar surface on the first moon landing. They gave a lame excuse why a rocket with thousands of pounds of downward thrust did not disturb anything underneath it.

Going to the moon "again" would be a very intertesting mission to follow closely. I'd have to see how they planned on shielding the new lunar orbiter and lander to make it through the radiation.

 

[Thump553]

I came of age in the sixties when the space race was in full bloom. Given the vast number of technological improvements that resulted from that effort I think we more than got our money's worth out of it.

If nothing else this pushed US's computer development hard, which ultimately led to the minicomputers, microcomputers, desktops, laptops, Microsoft, etc. that have been the driving engine of our economic growth for at least the last twenty years.

It's certainly better than pouring another few hundred million down economic ratholes like Iraq.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I came of age in the sixties when the space race was in full bloom. Given the vast number of technological improvements that resulted from that effort I think we more than got our money's worth out of it.

If nothing else this pushed US's computer development hard, which ultimately led to the minicomputers, microcomputers, desktops, laptops, Microsoft, etc. that have been the driving engine of our economic growth for at least the last twenty years.

It's certainly better than pouring another few hundred million down economic ratholes like Iraq.

:thumbsup: spin-off tech.

 

[straightalker]

Originally posted by: Thump553
I came of age in the sixties when the space race was in full bloom. Given the vast number of technological improvements that resulted from that effort I think we more than got our money's worth out of it.

If nothing else this pushed US's computer development hard, which ultimately led to the minicomputers, microcomputers, desktops, laptops, Microsoft, etc. that have been the driving engine of our economic growth for at least the last twenty years.

It's certainly better than pouring another few hundred million down economic ratholes like Iraq.

Iran is next.

And yes, the Cold War and the Nassau scientific achievements of the Saturn Five Earth orbiter was a great boost to the private sectors of industry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: Thump553
I came of age in the sixties when the space race was in full bloom. Given the vast number of technological improvements that resulted from that effort I think we more than got our money's worth out of it.

If nothing else this pushed US's computer development hard, which ultimately led to the minicomputers, microcomputers, desktops, laptops, Microsoft, etc. that have been the driving engine of our economic growth for at least the last twenty years.

It's certainly better than pouring another few hundred million down economic ratholes like Iraq.

Iran is next.

And yes, the Cold War and the Nassau scientific achievements of the Saturn Five Earth orbiter was a great boost to the private sectors of industry.

Those Nassau girls ain't got no comb.

Launch their rockets with a whipper backbone.

 

[libs0n]

Originally posted by: straightalker
Oh and of course, when on the surface of the moon, the astronauts will have to say they can't see the stars. Because pictures or video of the surrounding stars can be perfectly mapped and prove exactly where the astronaut really is. That's why in ALL the Apollo moon landing mission photos and videos we NEVER see a star from photos taken on the lunar surface.

Could they see the earth? Are there photographs of the earth taken from the surface of the moon or from the journey to it? How do you account for that? While your at it, since your knowledge of science is so absolute as to declare the Van Allen radiation belts impassible, how much of a radiation dosage would one recieve with a one hour transit through them? My best friend shares your belief, so I can't resist.

Much of NASA is a waste, but a much better waste than the three hundred fold increase of funding America pumps into its military industrial complex each year. A massive jobs and industrial pork program that, to be honest, does little to open the door into space for humanity. At least every now and then you get a new space telescope or a mars rover, instead of a war. Too bad NASA couldn't have a budget of 450 billion a year, and the defense department 16 billion a year. But then I'm a Canadian, spend your precious resources as you see fit, and I'll enjoy the pretty pictures.

 

[sierrita]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd much prefer spending money on places we haven't gone like Mars. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the moon.

Also, straightalker, you're an idiot. Go to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html to redeem yourself. Moon landing denyers are annoying as hell.

Your the idiot. This is an area that i've done my research and i'm rock solid in my evidence. See the documentaries that debunk the phony moon landings then let's talk. Nuff said to these anti-social fools.

The reason why no Nation has sent a man to the moon since Apollo, a span of 30 years, is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt which will fry anyone inside the space craft. To adequitely shield a spacecraft would require adding a large amount of extra weight. The passage through that belt of intense radiation in an unsheilded spacecraft would not be "brief" as another poster has said. The Apollo Astronauts circled the Earth and faked travelling to the moon and the landing was a stage show that can easily be proven to be exactly that. The videos of the rover vehicles on the moon are a joke. As is all the dancing astronaut video footage. There was also no blast crater in the soft dust lunar surface on the first moon landing. They gave a lame excuse why a rocket with thousands of pounds of downward thrust did not disturb anything underneath it.

Going to the moon "again" would be a very intertesting mission to follow closely. I'd have to see how they planned on shielding the new lunar orbiter and lander to make it through the radiation.

Oh my God...You and your tiresome rants about the radiation belts!

Every honest astrophysicist will tell you the problem is getting past the Muthafukken Snakes.


:disgust:

 

[magomago]

Every honest astrophysicist will tell you the problem is getting past the Muthafukken Snakes.

OH HELLLL YEAH. The easy counter though is to bring along Samuel L Jackson


This came up in one of our physics classes, and our professor said that we did mainly because we can still see the left over parts on the moon. If there is such a debate about this (not much of an astronomer myself) why not end it and looking at the moon right now. There are huge chunks of metal that should STILL be there.

 

[tommywishbone]

"... Your the idiot..."

:laugh: My syntax is dreadful, but that one always makes me laugh.

 

[squirrel dog]

The fed is going to do what its going to do . Even with dems in power . But , I would think a Mars shot would be way easier from the moon than earth once a base is established . Very little gravity .

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd much prefer spending money on places we haven't gone like Mars. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the moon.

Also, straightalker, you're an idiot. Go to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html to redeem yourself. Moon landing denyers are annoying as hell.

Your the idiot. This is an area that i've done my research and i'm rock solid in my evidence. See the documentaries that debunk the phony moon landings then let's talk. Nuff said to these anti-social fools.

The reason why no Nation has sent a man to the moon since Apollo, a span of 30 years, is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt which will fry anyone inside the space craft. To adequitely shield a spacecraft would require adding a large amount of extra weight. The passage through that belt of intense radiation in an unsheilded spacecraft would not be "brief" as another poster has said. The Apollo Astronauts circled the Earth and faked travelling to the moon and the landing was a stage show that can easily be proven to be exactly that. The videos of the rover vehicles on the moon are a joke. As is all the dancing astronaut video footage. There was also no blast crater in the soft dust lunar surface on the first moon landing. They gave a lame excuse why a rocket with thousands of pounds of downward thrust did not disturb anything underneath it.

Going to the moon "again" would be a very intertesting mission to follow closely. I'd have to see how they planned on shielding the new lunar orbiter and lander to make it through the radiation.

Besides the hilarity of your grammar mistake...well you're wrong about pretty much everything else too. You clearly haven't done enough research (or not enough scientific research). In the link I gave you there were two other links about the astronauts trip through the Van Allen Radiation Belt and how much radiation they received. Here they are:

http://spider.ipac.caltech.edu/staff/waw/mad/mad19.html
http://lsda.jsc.nasa.gov/books/apollo/S2ch3.htm

They weren't in the Van Allen Belt for very long. It's not as if you instantly vaporize when enter the Van Allen Belt (which varies in intensity depending on exactly where you are).

So if you could show me your "scientific" data, I might consider your point.

Edit: I just caught the last part of your post. That makes it even more clear that you didn't read the link I posted. There's no air on the moon. Dust doesn't fly up when you're lifting off, it moves to the side and only that which is pretty much directly in the path of the thrust is moved. Since there is no air the only thing that can make the dust move is the stuff coming out of the Lander and other dust. Do you really think that would be the case if they faked it? Do you think they'd just forget to put thrust in the lander? If they're spending billions and billions of dollars don't you think they'd make it so it would act how most people (who know near nothing about science) expect it to act? What would be the reason for doing it differently? Do you think they would spend billions of dollars to be debunked by something as retarded as dust? Or could it be the fact that the environment on the Moon is nothing like Earth's and that sh!t there behaves a lot differently than it does here?

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: squirrel dog
The fed is going to do what its going to do . Even with dems in power . But , I would think a Mars shot would be way easier from the moon than earth once a base is established . Very little gravity .

Very little gravity, sure, but you would have to have enough infrastructure on the Moon already to launch a rocket from there. Food, oxygen, water, and rocket fuel is hard to come by on the moon. One of NASA's initial plans for Mars back when Bush I asked for a report I believe was something like that (the 90-day Report). Their price tag came out to $450 billion in 1990 dollars (around $650 billion nowadays). Also the change in velocity of going to Mars from Earth as opposed to from the moon is quite a bit lower (also lower than from the Earth to the moon).

There really is nothing for us on the moon. We could set up a giant ass array of telescopes but again that would require quite a bit of infrastructure to set up and would cost quite a bit of money. Mars seems a hell of a lot more interesting considering there is the possibility (albeit small) of life. I'm sure the geology would be quite a bit more interesting too considering all the cool volcanos, canyons, etc. as opposed to the moon which is fairly uniform.

I'm sure it could be done for a similar price as well. Using the Mars Direct plan put forth by Robert Zubrin, the infrastructure for a Mars program would be something like $50 billion over 10 years or so. Each mission would only cost a few billion dollars roughly every two years. That's better than what we currently have with the ISS which cost a sh!tload to run and we barely get any research out of it (to run it takes 2.5 people/day so you get one person doing research for a few hours a day).

 

[Zorba]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
If you're going to wait for the planet to be perfect before you wish to explore space, then as a species we are already dead.

QFT

You know I believe this is the first time I have ever agreed with you. I am really gald the explores of the 15th and 16th centuries did not have the same mindset as most of the people on here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: straightalker

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno
I'd much prefer spending money on places we haven't gone like Mars. It's a hell of a lot more interesting than the moon.

Also, straightalker, you're an idiot. Go to http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html to redeem yourself. Moon landing denyers are annoying as hell.

Your the idiot. This is an area that i've done my research and i'm rock solid in my evidence. See the documentaries that debunk the phony moon landings then let's talk. Nuff said to these anti-social fools.

The reason why no Nation has sent a man to the moon since Apollo, a span of 30 years, is because of the Van Allen Radiation Belt which will fry anyone inside the space craft. To adequitely shield a spacecraft would require adding a large amount of extra weight. The passage through that belt of intense radiation in an unsheilded spacecraft would not be "brief" as another poster has said. The Apollo Astronauts circled the Earth and faked travelling to the moon and the landing was a stage show that can easily be proven to be exactly that. The videos of the rover vehicles on the moon are a joke. As is all the dancing astronaut video footage. There was also no blast crater in the soft dust lunar surface on the first moon landing. They gave a lame excuse why a rocket with thousands of pounds of downward thrust did not disturb anything underneath it.

Going to the moon "again" would be a very intertesting mission to follow closely. I'd have to see how they planned on shielding the new lunar orbiter and lander to make it through the radiation.

If it's far out and unbelievable you'll find straightalker in the front seat.