Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
More ragging on Obama...
by Guest » Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:27 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;35757]One more question and then Ill tell you my point.
Do you follow NASA and all the things they do or is this just concern about cutting spending from the federal budget?[/QUOTE]
I do not follow NASA and all the things they do. I do not know the details of the budget for Obama's space program. However, he did say the following:
"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow."
It is reminiscent of when Kennedy stated that the U.S. would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. At that time it was just a promise. Kennedy also said, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, [B]not because they are easy, but because they are hard[/B]." [emphasis added]
It looks to me like Obama is following the same path. Americans have already been to the moon. Now landing on an asteroid would be pioneering. Being the first country to have a man orbit Mars would be incredible.
Do you follow NASA and all the things they do or is this just concern about cutting spending from the federal budget?[/QUOTE]
I do not follow NASA and all the things they do. I do not know the details of the budget for Obama's space program. However, he did say the following:
"We'll start by sending astronauts to an asteroid for the first time in history," he said. "By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow."
It is reminiscent of when Kennedy stated that the U.S. would land a man on the moon by the end of the decade. At that time it was just a promise. Kennedy also said, "We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, [B]not because they are easy, but because they are hard[/B]." [emphasis added]
It looks to me like Obama is following the same path. Americans have already been to the moon. Now landing on an asteroid would be pioneering. Being the first country to have a man orbit Mars would be incredible.
- Guest
by Guest » Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:49 pm
Ill start off by saying NASA is probably the only government division that stays within it's budget, to the detriment of the completion date AND then makes profits by selling inventions.
Off the top of my head, benefits from space exploration include: Cell phone satellites, dish TV, XM radio, fast internet, medical equipment now used in hospitals, GPS, better "space age" clothing, Tang (just thought I'd throw it in there, I know they didn't invent it etc..)....
Clearly we aren't in a position to decide what would be in the best interests of mankind in this particular situation regarding space exploration. I see your point about going beyond Mars, but perhaps we should ask questions before spouting off that landing on the moon is bad/good/whatever since as it stands we are not in a position to say that $X money would be better spent someplace.
I don't think Obama should be putting his finger in the pot seeing as he really could give a fuck about the program anyway. It is rare but I would say this is one of those times I'll defer to the experts. NASA should have autonomy.
You asked before what was so pioneering about going to the moon, [I]again[/I], has any other country gone to the moon once? Going again, with all the technology we have now... could garner something else. Plus, now we have a space station. Tons more possibilities.
Off the top of my head, benefits from space exploration include: Cell phone satellites, dish TV, XM radio, fast internet, medical equipment now used in hospitals, GPS, better "space age" clothing, Tang (just thought I'd throw it in there, I know they didn't invent it etc..)....
Clearly we aren't in a position to decide what would be in the best interests of mankind in this particular situation regarding space exploration. I see your point about going beyond Mars, but perhaps we should ask questions before spouting off that landing on the moon is bad/good/whatever since as it stands we are not in a position to say that $X money would be better spent someplace.
I don't think Obama should be putting his finger in the pot seeing as he really could give a fuck about the program anyway. It is rare but I would say this is one of those times I'll defer to the experts. NASA should have autonomy.
You asked before what was so pioneering about going to the moon, [I]again[/I], has any other country gone to the moon once? Going again, with all the technology we have now... could garner something else. Plus, now we have a space station. Tons more possibilities.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:56 am
Wasn't the point of going to the moon again was to see if it made sense to set up a deployment center there. You know once you are on the moon you are basically out of the earths gravitational pull. So if you launch from the moon it is 100 Million times easier to escape the earths gravitational pull. So if you wanted to get to Mars you would probably start from the moon to save all that fuel. The fuel that is needed to make that crazy long trip.
Someone should do a little research on this as I believe I am correct in the statement. So without going to the moon again with our current technology getting to Mars without the moon is impossible. Just like getting to that asteroid is impossible without first going to the moon.
Someone should do a little research on this as I believe I am correct in the statement. So without going to the moon again with our current technology getting to Mars without the moon is impossible. Just like getting to that asteroid is impossible without first going to the moon.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 7:52 am
[QUOTE=Finesse;35759]Clearly we aren't in a position to decide what would be in the best interests of mankind in this particular situation regarding space exploration. I see your point about going beyond Mars, but perhaps we should ask questions before spouting off that landing on the moon is bad/good/whatever since as it stands we are not in a position to say that $X money would be better spent someplace.[/QUOTE]
This could easily have been written in response to the "spouting off" in the original post or even in response to the "spouting off" in your post.
[quote]I don't think Obama should be putting his finger in the pot seeing as he really could give a fuck about the program anyway. It is rare but I would say this is one of those times I'll defer to the experts. NASA should have autonomy.[/quote]
I seriously doubt Obama makes many serious decisions about NASA himself. That's why he appointed Charles Bolden.
[quote]You asked before what was so pioneering about going to the moon, [I]again[/I], has any other country gone to the moon once? Going again, with all the technology we have now... could garner something else. Plus, now we have a space station. Tons more possibilities.[/quote]
What possibilities?
I know there are things to be learned from the moon. Studying materials and radioactivity on the moon can tell us things about how our solar system was formed or how the craters of the moon were formed or perhaps other events that happened in space. I don't think we need humans on the moon to do that, though. I could be wrong about that.
It looks like the Chinese are skipping the moon too and looking forward to a space station that will lead them to even further space travel. If we want prestige, if we want to be pioneering, we should be ahead of the Chinese, not repeating something we did over four decades ago.
I really don't care if we go to the moon or not actually. I was pointing out the inaccurate statements made by Grimm that Obama was scrapping NASA and that going to the moon is pioneering.
This could easily have been written in response to the "spouting off" in the original post or even in response to the "spouting off" in your post.
[quote]I don't think Obama should be putting his finger in the pot seeing as he really could give a fuck about the program anyway. It is rare but I would say this is one of those times I'll defer to the experts. NASA should have autonomy.[/quote]
I seriously doubt Obama makes many serious decisions about NASA himself. That's why he appointed Charles Bolden.
[quote]You asked before what was so pioneering about going to the moon, [I]again[/I], has any other country gone to the moon once? Going again, with all the technology we have now... could garner something else. Plus, now we have a space station. Tons more possibilities.[/quote]
What possibilities?
I know there are things to be learned from the moon. Studying materials and radioactivity on the moon can tell us things about how our solar system was formed or how the craters of the moon were formed or perhaps other events that happened in space. I don't think we need humans on the moon to do that, though. I could be wrong about that.
It looks like the Chinese are skipping the moon too and looking forward to a space station that will lead them to even further space travel. If we want prestige, if we want to be pioneering, we should be ahead of the Chinese, not repeating something we did over four decades ago.
I really don't care if we go to the moon or not actually. I was pointing out the inaccurate statements made by Grimm that Obama was scrapping NASA and that going to the moon is pioneering.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 8:50 am
So I guess we'll have to stop using the term "pioneers" for the people that settled the west all those years ago then, since they just kept going to the [same old places].
You say tomahto, they say tomato. This is the worst liberal trick in the book, changing definitions of words.
No one else has even been to the moon besides the US. Going to the moon should be like a practice mission for space programs before you say it's "easy". Their statement isn't inaccurate, yours is.
You want the land on mars... ok, that's fine, I can dig it. But let me ask you, do you even understand the magnitude of that? Building a rocket that can reach the moon and back should be childs play compared to going mars but it's not otherwise someone else would have done it by now. Fact is, Obama scraped the Constellation program which WAS the program that would allow NASA to return to the moon OR go mars and beyond since it was the long range rocket program that would allow them to fly to Mars, the Moon, or an "asteroid"... So, Obama did another one of his little tricks and spoke out both sides of his mouth. Looks like he suckered someone else with his double talk.
Going to the moon is still pioneering and Obama is still a socialist fuck. Yay!
You say tomahto, they say tomato. This is the worst liberal trick in the book, changing definitions of words.
No one else has even been to the moon besides the US. Going to the moon should be like a practice mission for space programs before you say it's "easy". Their statement isn't inaccurate, yours is.
You want the land on mars... ok, that's fine, I can dig it. But let me ask you, do you even understand the magnitude of that? Building a rocket that can reach the moon and back should be childs play compared to going mars but it's not otherwise someone else would have done it by now. Fact is, Obama scraped the Constellation program which WAS the program that would allow NASA to return to the moon OR go mars and beyond since it was the long range rocket program that would allow them to fly to Mars, the Moon, or an "asteroid"... So, Obama did another one of his little tricks and spoke out both sides of his mouth. Looks like he suckered someone else with his double talk.
Going to the moon is still pioneering and Obama is still a socialist fuck. Yay!
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests