| |
|
Subject: "Going back to the moon?"
|
Archived thread - Read only
|
John M Stafford
Member since Jun-3-02
9072 posts |
Dec-03-03, 06:37 PM (EDT) |
|
|
"Going back to the moon?"
|
|
|
|
|
|
- RE: Going back to the moon?,
MrDanger, Dec-03-03, 07:05 PM, (1)
- RE: Going back to the moon?,
David K, Dec-03-03, 08:43 PM, (2)
- RE: Going back to the moon?,
Shimmercore, Dec-04-03, 10:37 AM, (3)
- RE: Going back to the moon?,
chopper, Dec-04-03, 05:51 PM, (4)
- RE: Going back to the moon?,
scott160
 , Dec-07-03, 02:28 PM, (5)
- What Happened?,
richard , Dec-20-03, 09:30 PM, (12)
|
MrDanger
Member since Aug-9-02
1452 posts |
Dec-03-03, 07:05 PM (EDT) |
|
|
1. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #0
|
|
|
|
|
|
David K
Member since Jun-7-02
4579 posts |
Dec-03-03, 08:43 PM (EDT) |
|
|
2. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #0
| |
LAST EDITED ON Dec-03-03 AT 08:44 PM (EDT)
I hope he does push for further exploration -- manned or unmanned. Just as long as it continues beyond Earth orbit. Likewise, I hope the public pulls its collective head out and realizes that space exploration is actually important.In my opinion, NASA has truly busted ass to make missions as low budget as possible due to public and political pressure. However, when it loses an exploration satellite in orbit around Mars, the public goes ballastic about cost and whetheror not space exploration should be a "priority". (Duh, maybe focusing on bean counting instead of the mission is what created that situation in the first place.) Worse yet, this is the same citizenry that will probably spend the same amount on total ticket sales for a couple blockbuster cinema releases during the upcoming holiday season. Seriously, that one satellite came in under $400 million, and Americans as a whole spend WAY more than that on movie receipts in the course of one year. Talk about priorities... David K In my dreams, I slash your tires. BTSC
http://www.burgundytopz.com |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shimmercore
Member since Apr-10-03
204 posts |
Dec-04-03, 10:37 AM (EDT) |
|
|
3. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #0
| |
Heh Heh. I hope NASA still has those hollywood sets and props to film the next moon landing hoax. But nowadays, they can use those groovy computer special effects like the Matrix and Star Wars. Believe It or Not, it's still entertaining:
http://batesmotel.8m.com/ - Mike 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chopper
Member since Jun-9-02
8035 posts |
Dec-04-03, 05:51 PM (EDT) |
|
|
4. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #0
| |
Bush could go up himself, but i don't think the US sends chimps into space anymore. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
scott160
unregistered user
|
Dec-07-03, 02:28 PM (EDT) |
|
|
5. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #0
| |
I've always been a great space exploration advocate, but right now I think there is a priority that would be better choice for a JFK "off to the moon, rally the country" type speech. How about putting all our best minds and spare cash together and finding a way to lower our dependence on fossil fuels? Yeah, I know, longshot with GWB in office. Then despots like Saddam would be able to be ignored like the rest of the horrible murderous dictators we don't bother getting all lathered up about because they aren't sitting on our oil. Scott |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
chopper
Member since Jun-9-02
8035 posts |
Dec-08-03, 12:13 PM (EDT) |
|
|
6. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #5
| |
i think once you point out that people will be spending less than half as much on gas, they'll really start to get excited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott160
Member since Jul-24-02
758 posts |
Dec-08-03, 12:52 PM (EDT) |
|
|
7. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #6
| |
The cost issue is important, but we focus way too much on our immeadiate cash outlay for our fill up. The real problem that we need to address is that just a very few people have the collective balls of the industrial world on a chopping block and can come down with a cleaver at their whim. I'm right now reading a book on the unholy alliance of the US and Saudi governments and how just a few well placed suicide bombers could wreck the entire saudi oil system for months and put the entire world in a depression that could be comparable to the one in the 30's. The only reason that we got through the Venezuela strike and the loss of most of Iraq's oil without huge upheavals in the oil market is the saudi's huge extra capacity. They took up the slack either literally or figuratively. Take that out and the world oil market goes into a frenzied tailspin, no matter where you get your oil. Islamic militants are looking at the saudi government more and more as a puppet who is in bed with the infidels. Cash payouts are only keeping them at bay for now. We need to remove ourselves from this game by removing ourselves from the dependence on oil, no matter where it comes from. When the shit hits the fan, which it will, our balls would only be bruised instead of lying on the chopping block.
Sending men to the moon seems to be a silly game when faced with challenges this important. My 2c. Scott |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milans1
Member since May-13-03
2952 posts |
Dec-08-03, 01:35 PM (EDT) |
|
|
8. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #7
| |
<<Sending men to the moon seems to be a silly game when faced with challenges this important.>> Well put Scott. Priorities of this government are real weird. I was sitting in the I-5 traffic the other day and wondering why is it that the richest state of the richest nation in the world still doesn't have public transport? Fast trains are standard in Europe, you can commute 400 miles to work every day and don't even feel it at 250MPH. I mean even China has Magnetic Levitation Trains that go 300MPH (http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,867159,00.html) while US is still using pre-historic diesel trains with no network to speak of. The government's answer: build more highways and bigger cars! But hey, we'll beat the China to the Mars and show them, oh yeah! 
"Look, all I know is that this cord here was plugged into my house, and your house was glowin' like the frickin' sun. So I put two and two together there, and decided you're pissin' me off." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
John
Member since Jun-6-02
5724 posts |
Dec-08-03, 02:49 PM (EDT) |
|
|
9. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #8
| |
Not sure if you are aware of the plans for the highspeed rail system but who knows if it'll ever actually get built. I first heard of it about 15 years ago and movement has been REAL slow. Doubtful it'll ever get built. Unforgiven SC - the NEW home of Unforgiven SC http://www.unforgivensc.net 
Texas is the reason |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Scott160
Member since Jul-24-02
758 posts |
Dec-08-03, 03:45 PM (EDT) |
|
|
11. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #9
| |
That's the thing, we "dabble" a lot to pretend we are doing something, but if we were to put HALF of what we are spending on that piece of shit, waste of time, unnecessary, non working ballistic missle sheild, or all the rest of these cold war mentality weapons systems that are useless in todays world, we would all have our own personal maglev's. Saw on a Bill Moyers special that the Pentagon is so fucked that it can't even begin to audit itself. It cannot account for over a TRILLION dollars that it has spent. Yes, that is with a "T".
And we give them another 400 billion to piss away. It's all about priorities. And ours as a nation are pretty fucked in general. Comes from being fat and lazy as a nation and generally having way too much power and money to piss away. Fucks up people, fucks up nations the same way. Scott |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
chopper
unregistered user
|
Dec-08-03, 02:51 PM (EDT) |
|
|
10. "RE: Going back to the moon?"
In response to message #7
| |
definitely. unfortunately, the people in charge are neck-deep in the oil industry. i think we're going to go back to the moon first, because A) we don't want the chinese to show us up, and B) maybe Bush thinks he'll find the missing WMD and Osama Been Forgotten hanging out in a crater somewhere on the dark side. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard
unregistered user
|
Dec-20-03, 09:30 PM (EDT) |
|
|
12. "What Happened?"
In response to message #0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milans1
Member since May-13-03
2952 posts |
Dec-20-03, 10:05 PM (EDT) |
|
|
13. "RE: What Happened?"
In response to message #12
| |
The Wright Bros replica plane never took off that day so maybe he decided that going to the moon is not worth it after all (I know, I give him too much credit). They said the plane didn't take off because there wasn't enough wind (?!?!). I love when journos don't do their research... "Look, all I know is that this cord here was plugged into my house, and your house was glowin' like the frickin' sun. So I put two and two together there, and decided you're pissin' me off." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard
unregistered user
|
Dec-20-03, 10:18 PM (EDT) |
|
|
14. "RE: What Happened?"
In response to message #13
| |
Think of the advantages, though. Bush could put the 'persons of interest' and 'illegal combatants' on the Moon, which surely is not subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. civil legal system. Regarding the Wright replica, it needed a constant 10MPH or more wind to fly. Actually, the Wrights went to Kitty Hawk because of the straight and steady winds there. They also did it in December because the air is denser, which give the engine more power, the prop more thrust, and the main wing more lift. Cool, man. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
milans1
Member since May-13-03
2952 posts |
Dec-21-03, 01:50 AM (EDT) |
|
|
15. "RE: What Happened?"
In response to message #14
| |
My bad, history of flight, heh? It seemed silly that they would rely on wind for lift instead of generaing it from aircraft speed. "Look, all I know is that this cord here was plugged into my house, and your house was glowin' like the frickin' sun. So I put two and two together there, and decided you're pissin' me off." |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
richard
unregistered user
|
Dec-21-03, 11:18 AM (EDT) |
|
|
16. "RE: What Happened?"
In response to message #15
| |
Yeah. Things were pretty tough back then. They flew many gliders before the powered flight. They and others had trouble making a light powerful engine and a propeller that was efficient, among other things problems. The Wrights were really good engineers, though. They had no formal education in science or engineering. They actually built their own engine. I've been reading a little about them lately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(