Quote from TM_Direct:
Gordo...Tell your mom she needs to use lanolin in between your feedings
TM, Thanks for the tip. Hope it helps. This has been a problem!
LMAO, ROTFL, Hehehehe
Gordon's Mom
back to the moon
- Thread starter Gordon Gekko
- Start date
TM, Thanks for the tip. Hope it helps. This has been a problem!
LMAO, ROTFL, Hehehehe
Gordon's Mom
Look at it this way. Why bother with all the costs of developing the mechanics of space travel incrementally?
Right now, the science of space travel is pretty limited to fuel supply and limitations of speed. Jet propulsion hasn't advanced since World War II really.
Presumably, physicists will figure out something beyond...totally different from..what we have now. What that would be, obviously none of us know. But in theory, anything is possible.
Put more simply, what is the sense right now? If we launched a manned mission to the nearest star system, it would take a few generations to get there. Births, funerals, all that would happen on the mission. So forgetting about fuel, how much food and water would need to go along?
But meanwhile, as science advances, some breakthrough could (and likely would) happen. So when the expedition that left hundred of years ago finally arrives at their destination, it is most likely that people who had left hundreds of years later would already have made the trip. Maybe in one day. Or less. Think "Contact".
Peace,
RSQuote from Error 404:
Look at it this way. Why bother with all the costs of developing the mechanics of space travel incrementally?
Right now, the science of space travel is pretty limited to fuel supply and limitations of speed. Jet propulsion hasn't advanced since World War II really.
Presumably, physicists will figure out something beyond...totally different from..what we have now. What that would be, obviously none of us know. But in theory, anything is possible.
Put more simply, what is the sense right now? If we launched a manned mission to the nearest star system, it would take a few generations to get there. Births, funerals, all that would happen on the mission. So forgetting about fuel, how much food and water would need to go along?
But meanwhile, as science advances, some breakthrough could (and likely would) happen. So when the expedition that left hundred of years ago finally arrives at their destination, it is most likely that people who had left hundreds of years later would already have made the trip. Maybe in one day. Or less. Think "Contact".
Peace,
Given our current budget situation, the cost benefit ratio of space exploration relative to the domestic needs (think rebuilding roads, libraries, public transportation, health care, etc.) doesn't seem to make much sense.
Bush has no plan to solve the problems here at home and abroad, nor the budget to do so....so his idea is to simply "Fly Me To The Moon."
I for one would happily contribute to that flight.
That's very true. However I don't know why you quoted my post. Seems like these arguments are unrelated.
The science I was talking about, will come with time no matter what. There is no urgency to do anything now. When Kennedy made a commitment to put men on the moon in the 1960's, it seemed politically important at the time, as some of us older guys remember.
The Manhatten Project was important at that time.
Now, it is senseless to make any kind of huge $ commitment to a project like space exploration for the exact reasons you mentioned. Too many other better and more crucial ways to spend the money. Really an almost endless list. But I wouldn't want to offend any of our right wing friends by saying a cure for cancer is more important than a new anti-missile missile, or a faster tank. Etc.
Peace,
RSQuote from Error 404:
Look at it this way. Why bother with all the costs of developing the mechanics of space travel incrementally?
Right now, the science of space travel is pretty limited to fuel supply and limitations of speed. Jet propulsion hasn't advanced since World War II really.
Presumably, physicists will figure out something beyond...totally different from..what we have now. What that would be, obviously none of us know. But in theory, anything is possible.
Put more simply, what is the sense right now? If we launched a manned mission to the nearest star system, it would take a few generations to get there. Births, funerals, all that would happen on the mission. So forgetting about fuel, how much food and water would need to go along?
But meanwhile, as science advances, some breakthrough could (and likely would) happen. So when the expedition that left hundred of years ago finally arrives at their destination, it is most likely that people who had left hundreds of years later would already have made the trip. Maybe in one day. Or less. Think "Contact".
Peace,
I responded because I am generally in favor of spending money on space travel, because in the past there have been many benefits by funding the minds who are capable of engineering space flight.
The key point of debate is not he value of space travel, but purely economic considerations. Right now, we can't afford that luxury.
Now, if Bush thinks we are going to completely fuck up the earth with all the pollution he is supporting, and he is looking for another planet for us to live on because we have wrecked this one, that might make some economic sense.
That's true. But now, the kind of technology that came out of the space program has evolved into a whole momentum that really doesn't need to be focused on a "mission to the moon" like the Apollo program. There's no going backward's now (unless we get another Reagan). Science goes forward. The space program accelerated things. The momentum hasn't stopped at all.
Excellent point!
Peace,
RS