[QUOTE=Muk;35763]the only incentive to go to the moon
was to say
"WE GOT THERE FIRST LOLYOUSUCK!!"
since we already did the deed
there's no point for anyone else to go there[/QUOTE]
Said the guy who can't see past his nose.
Dallas PUA
The Pickup Artist Playground
More ragging on Obama...
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:31 pm
[QUOTE=playercool;35764]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.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/CxEMM_SITE/index.html[/URL]
You are correct PC.
The moon was planned to be a step in the part of getting man out of low earth orbit. The interactive flash describes it.
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.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/CxEMM_SITE/index.html[/URL]
You are correct PC.
The moon was planned to be a step in the part of getting man out of low earth orbit. The interactive flash describes it.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:47 pm
[QUOTE=Muk;35749]when you have a trillion dollar Credit Card Bill, Power bills to pay, and plumbing problems, that trip to Hawaii doesn't sound like a good idea.
Just sayin[/QUOTE]
Dude, you're talking about responsible spending? Did you know that NASA only accounted for 0.53% of the 2010 Federal Budget? Cutting NASA is like cutting out one pack of gum per year of your personal budget.
If you want to pay down the debt, power bills, and fix the plumbing, then why don't we start cutting things like:
$695 billion in Social Security spending
$453 billion in Medicaid
$290 billion in Medicare
$571 billion in other Mandatory programs (whatever that means)
Using the argument that we can't afford it is stupid when we can't afford any of the above programs...
Just sayin[/QUOTE]
Dude, you're talking about responsible spending? Did you know that NASA only accounted for 0.53% of the 2010 Federal Budget? Cutting NASA is like cutting out one pack of gum per year of your personal budget.
If you want to pay down the debt, power bills, and fix the plumbing, then why don't we start cutting things like:
$695 billion in Social Security spending
$453 billion in Medicaid
$290 billion in Medicare
$571 billion in other Mandatory programs (whatever that means)
Using the argument that we can't afford it is stupid when we can't afford any of the above programs...
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 12:51 pm
[QUOTE=Bull Run;35771]
Using the argument that we can't afford it is stupid when we can't afford any of the above programs...[/QUOTE]
Plus NASA is one of the only, if not the only, program that makes at least some money back by selling inventions and other things.
Using the argument that we can't afford it is stupid when we can't afford any of the above programs...[/QUOTE]
Plus NASA is one of the only, if not the only, program that makes at least some money back by selling inventions and other things.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:01 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;35766]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.[/QUOTE]
You're putting words into my mouth. This is the worst conservative trick in the book. You're so interested in arguing that you create a straw man to argue with. You label the other person in the discussion a liberal so you establish a clear enemy. The thing is, I wasn't even arguing with you. I was responding to Grimm's post where he exaggerated things to absurdity.
For the record, I never defined "pioneering." I asked a question. Nobody answered.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said going to the moon was easy. I implied that landing on an asteroid or orbiting Mars is hard and that's why we should do it.
[quote]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![/quote]
I don't want to land on anything. In actuality, I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. However, I did see some statements that appeared to be over the top, so I commented and asked questions. Not everything has to be a pissing match.
You say tomahto, they say tomato. This is the worst liberal trick in the book, changing definitions of words.[/QUOTE]
You're putting words into my mouth. This is the worst conservative trick in the book. You're so interested in arguing that you create a straw man to argue with. You label the other person in the discussion a liberal so you establish a clear enemy. The thing is, I wasn't even arguing with you. I was responding to Grimm's post where he exaggerated things to absurdity.
For the record, I never defined "pioneering." I asked a question. Nobody answered.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Again, you're putting words in my mouth. I never said going to the moon was easy. I implied that landing on an asteroid or orbiting Mars is hard and that's why we should do it.
[quote]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![/quote]
I don't want to land on anything. In actuality, I don't care. I'm not trying to convince you of anything. However, I did see some statements that appeared to be over the top, so I commented and asked questions. Not everything has to be a pissing match.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:19 pm
[QUOTE=Finesse;35770][URL]http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/CxEMM_SITE/index.html[/URL]
You are correct PC.
The moon was planned to be a step in the part of getting man out of low earth orbit. The interactive flash describes it.[/QUOTE]
I watched all of the videos and they say that Constellation is just the first step that would "feed into" future exploration projects, such as testing habitats and pressurized rovers on the moon that would be similar to the habitats and pressurized rovers that would be used on Mars. They wers using Constellation as a spring board into a preseason game in a sense.
What that site does not say is that launching from the moon makes going to Mars more efficient (100 million times easier? It would actually be much less efficient because you'd have two gravitational pulls to contend with). If anything, they would slingshot past the moon, using the moon's gravity to propel them further into space, rather than landing on the moon and then launching again.
So, to answer your question, PC, Constellation would have helped future missions to Mars by allowing them to develop and test habitats and pressurized rovers that would be similar to those to be used on Mars, at least according to the site Finesse linked to.
You are correct PC.
The moon was planned to be a step in the part of getting man out of low earth orbit. The interactive flash describes it.[/QUOTE]
I watched all of the videos and they say that Constellation is just the first step that would "feed into" future exploration projects, such as testing habitats and pressurized rovers on the moon that would be similar to the habitats and pressurized rovers that would be used on Mars. They wers using Constellation as a spring board into a preseason game in a sense.
What that site does not say is that launching from the moon makes going to Mars more efficient (100 million times easier? It would actually be much less efficient because you'd have two gravitational pulls to contend with). If anything, they would slingshot past the moon, using the moon's gravity to propel them further into space, rather than landing on the moon and then launching again.
So, to answer your question, PC, Constellation would have helped future missions to Mars by allowing them to develop and test habitats and pressurized rovers that would be similar to those to be used on Mars, at least according to the site Finesse linked to.
- Guest
by Guest » Sat Apr 17, 2010 1:46 pm
[QUOTE=Rhody;35775]
What that site does not say is that launching from the moon makes going to Mars more efficient (100 million times easier? It would actually be much less efficient because you'd have two gravitational pulls to contend with). If anything, they would slingshot past the moon, using the moon's gravity to propel them further into space, rather than landing on the moon and then launching again.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, sue me, it wasn't exactly on that site. But it was on this one. I just tied 2 and 2 together.
[URL]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/lox_methane_engine.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]"And as an added bonus, a team at NASA is already working on reactors that can convert moon dust into oxygen or create methane from the Martian atmosphere. Called in-situ resource utilization, methods such as these have the potential to further reduce the amount of propellants carried into space. "[/QUOTE]
What that site does not say is that launching from the moon makes going to Mars more efficient (100 million times easier? It would actually be much less efficient because you'd have two gravitational pulls to contend with). If anything, they would slingshot past the moon, using the moon's gravity to propel them further into space, rather than landing on the moon and then launching again.
[/QUOTE]
Ok, sue me, it wasn't exactly on that site. But it was on this one. I just tied 2 and 2 together.
[URL]http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/lox_methane_engine.html[/URL]
[QUOTE]"And as an added bonus, a team at NASA is already working on reactors that can convert moon dust into oxygen or create methane from the Martian atmosphere. Called in-situ resource utilization, methods such as these have the potential to further reduce the amount of propellants carried into space. "[/QUOTE]
- Guest
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests