Mars? After he guts the Space Program?

[hyakku]

Which is precisely why you're not an astronaut.

This is actually one of the areas where I agree with RGS (shocking, I know). You can't gut the space program, divert what resources remain to mucking around in low Earth orbit for the next umpty-squat years, encourage almost solely commercial (profitable) applications for space and realistically expect to get to Mars.

And why not Mars? The pure science alone that would come from putting human hands and a human brain on another planet would be priceless, never mind the technological advances (and employment, and re-emphasis on science and math, and maybe just plain old excitement) that would come with an Apollo-style Mars program. Obama is being a wuss, there's plenty that can be cut to fund it if he could find his cajones.

What you are saying, is that instead of revamping a $100 billion dollar program that was supposed to be done in 2020 that is already over budget and behind schedule, we should continue to invest in, when we have very viable private, American corporations who have not only made extreme headway, but in someways have leapfrogged NASA in the few years they have been around.

Look at the innovations that these private corporations

Divert? We just INCREASED NASA funding, and it's going to be going to R&D and partnering with this private industries to find the cheapest, quickest way into space. There's no great enemy, government doesn't work well without one either. Sad, but true.

Please list the ways in which American or any other private corporations have surpassed NASA.

But that's almost irrelevant. Private industry will surely look for hte cheapest, quickest way into space - to what end? Exploration? Science? Inspiration for our young folks to get serious about math and sciences? Or to find a way to make it profitable?

I have nothing against private industry developing commercial space applications or making a profit from it on their own dime. In fact, I welcome it. I don't believe they should be the only or even the primary player, their duty to their shareholders won't allow them to pursue risk when the primary reward is not necessarily financial in nature.

Gladly here are just some of the private companies involved in space travel and the innovations they're making:

Spring Drive Spacewalk | SEIKO WATCH CORPORATION

Space watch designed for use in microgravity. Nothing too big, interesting nonetheless

Extremozyme Inc.

Biotech company lookin to exploit space and its resources to enhance our production of protein. This is pretty significant, especially if NEA's (or M's, whichever one we can land on) prove to have viable resources.

Space Adventures

Have been taking people to space since 2001. There's a planned lunar mission (though this was delayed shortly), and does not cost that rumored 50 million / seat that the Russians are supposedly going to charge us.

XCOR Aerospace - suborbital spacecraft, rocket engines and more

They've been providing SO flights and R&D reusable launch parts, something that will be essential in sustained future space exploration

Welcome | Virgin Galactic

Another suborbital flight company looking at innovating new, reusable ways of launching/re entry

The proposed budget brings NASA back closer to its old roots of science research, development and technology. Hell, even now, NASA still generally pays contractors to build their ships, they just control or work very closely on the design.

Those are just a few, there are other corps too but I figure the points been made.

 

[hyakku]

STFU, complain about spending, now complain when Obama cuts something. And just because we are at a tough time fiscally doesn't mean in the future, in his lifetime that still has many decades to go, that the program won't be started up again and succeed.

He cut the program, but INCREASED the program's budget. Only a true moron could accomplish this.

Every year that the program is shut down adds that year and another to the re-start if it happens.

There will be a base on the Moon in the next decade and it will be either Russian or Chinese. The Big 0 is a joke and the whole world knows it except him and Nancy Pelosi.

I'm joining Michelle Obama in being ashamed to be an American. Someone needs to flush the toilet on this turd.

Actually it's commonly accepted knowledge that the program was over budget, behind schedule, and overly ambitious for its proposed budget and schedule.

He increased NASA's funding to develop heavy rockets, for deep space exploration, and private corps. like XCOR who have already started innovating on reusable launch partners can provide significant aid in these realms.

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

 

[American Horse]

You guys bitch about spending, but want to keep the space programs.
You don't want to provide health care for your fellow man, but you are cool with spending billions of dollars on something we don't NEED right now?

Luissa, the space program has pretty well had a steady budget of about $20-billion and some as low as 15-billion per year, and that expenditure on space technology has fed into our national economy, so the actual cost has been much smaller. The whole 20-billion annual budget for NASA is equivalent to about 6-tenths of 1-percent of our annual budget. I've been cool about spending it because although it hasn't benifitted me directly, I have during the period of NASA paid boo-coo taxes, and that part that went to NASA made me feel better about all the rest.

Consider that the national per capita average income is $50,000 per year; as a part of that annual income the entire space program amounts to only about $300, or about one breakfast at McDonalds per week for that average wage earner.

There will be an immediate 7,000 jobs disappearing in the Florida Space Coast economy, with more jobs still, lost to contractors. Most of the budget of NASA will leave that area because it will go towards working with industry on new technologies to make human space flight safer. That development will go to giant space corporations, and some upstarts. It will cost 2.5 billion to close out contracts, and the toll for every astronaut we pay the Russians to take them to the Space Station will cost 65-million each. The extra 6-billion Obama has promised to NASA over the next 5 years won't go very far because of those funding allocations.

Anyone thinking of moving to Florida in the next 3-years or so will probably be able to find a really good deal on a house-and-lot in Titusville, Merrit Island, Cape Canaveral, or even Coco Beach. The economies of those communities have always been at the mercy of the space program.

 

[rdean]

Obama: Americans to Mars within his lifetime - Yahoo! News

Not likely, he gutted the program and expects us to reach Mars? He MUST mean SOME OTHER Country.

What, pardon the pun, on earth does the white wing care about the space program? They don't care about science. In fact, they are anti education.

Oh wait, I get it. This is just another dumb rant about that black guy living in the "WHITE" House.

 

[rdean]

So, let me make sure I get this right. We have already been to the moon many times but the white wing is mad because Obama wants to go to mars instead of the moon - again? So how many more times should we go to the moon before we get tired of it?

 

[American Horse]

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

 

[hyakku]

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

Agreed, but you ignore key factors in both of your scenarios. The impact of Industrial Revolution, Technology and now Information Revolution all represent the telescopic nature of the evolutionary model. Technology and Science build upon each other, they make exponential leaps, not linear, incremental steps generally.

I mean, when times of technology and science were scarce in certain regions int he 19th and early 20th centuries, there was very little major war (small battles nonetheless, etc.). I don't just attribute this to varying levels of technology, but its telling that Germany's exponential growth in its economic, industrial and technological abilities, as well as America's at the time dwarfed the likes of the former Britain, Russia, etc.

anyway, I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of the evolutionary paradigm, partially because i'm too lazy, and partially because I'd have to concede that even my own opinions on that are muddled.

Anyway, I say all this because as we look forward into the future, we aren't going to be looking forward 200, or 300 years, we're looking forward ten or twenty years, and if this paradigm continues to be telescopic in nature, soon we'll start seeing innovations within decades. At least we should hope so.

While manned mooned missions do have merit, we would then have to REBUILD another ship (or build one concurrently with the constellation program which is already over budget. Can you really see the American public supporting a 300-500 billion dollar NASA budget?), for NEA, and possibly another for a MARS trip (though hopefully we shouldn't once we've landed on the asteroid).

This plan eliminates that waste of time. Orion will be ready by 2015 (he compromised this morning), our planned asteroid landing is for 2025, and we want to be in Mars Orbit by 2030. These are feasible goals with the help of private industry. Many of the technologies needed to get to the space station for instance, can be used through private corporation, helping them to manage costs and expand business while allowing greater access to the consumer.

It's interesting, I guess we just have fundamentally different notions of the use of government economic funds. I feel that it should be limited to only regions where moral hazards may arise (security [i.e. police, fire fighters, etc] and the health care of its citizens). I may be able to think of others later, but everything else should largely be a private - public enterprise.

It's just fucking sad that American's have been taught that "gubberment so bad" that we don't want to invest more heavily in domestic things like NASA you're right, but at the same time private industry excels in technological innovation and product management. While the slight potential for a moral hazard exists (I guess if the world was ending and they ransomed off flight seats or something could be considered one), it's extraordinarily small, and that's really my only prerequisite over if government or a fusion of private-public capital should control an issue.

 

[blu]

i love the losers bitching about him gutting it. shows how little they understand about these things.

 

[rdean]

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

So many "raw materials" on the moon. Rocks, dirt, vacuum, a golf ball and an American Flag.

We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times.

 

[Old Rocks]

I find it very strange that the very people that are claiming that private enterprise can do health care better than the government, are the very same ones that are stating that private enterprise is incapable of designing a good heavy lift vehicle. Boeing did that when we first decided to build the shuttle. And was told that they would not be allowed to use the pads for testing the vehicle. Had we worked with Boing then, we might now have a cheap reliable heavy lift vehicle to back up the shuttle with.

I find this viewpoint echoes my own;


Chair Force Engineer: The Space Program We Can Afford

The Space Program We Can Afford

Reactions to the "Obama Space Plan" across the industry have been extremely polarized indeed. The debate has drawn in odd defenders of the president and some even stranger opponents. When Newt Gingrich is defending an Obama policy from the attacks of Charles Krauthammer, you know the world has been turned on its ear.

My brief take on the new space policy is that it's the only option our nation can possibly afford at this time. Every day I fret that America is going broke, and sliding into a debt oblivion before anybody realizes it's too late to claw our way back from the brink. Can we really afford "Apollo on Steroids" right now? We certainly can't give the former Constellation program the extra $3 billion per year that it needs simply to meet its baseline schedule. So what we get instead is no system to replace the shuttle when it's retired, an ISS extension to 2020 or later, continued American flights on Soyuz, and a "heavy lift research program."

The reliance on commercial spacecraft is one based in convenience and necessity. It's the most controversial aspect of the new policy and the linchpin of any future plans to travel down the "flexible path." I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm for a commercial spaceflight industry with a realistic outlook on the ability of these companies to deliver a safe and reliable manned spacecraft program. SpaceX and Boeing likely have the experience and knowledge to pull it off, although their schedules are anybody's guess. The other vendors I'm more skeptical towards.

 

[Old Rocks]

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

So many "raw materials" on the moon. Rocks, dirt, vacuum, a golf ball and an American Flag.

We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times.

The most important raw material has been established as present, H2O. And unlimited energy. The moon is a much more logical base for launching interplanetary exploration than the Earth's surface.

Almost the whole of what we are communicating on, computers, the net, had there origin in the space program. Striving to do more exploration can only do our level of technology good. Fail to explore, and we cede the leadership role to the nations that do explore. The classic example of this is the exploration program of China that beat the Europeans by many years with a far better technology, and then just quit. And ceded the future to the Europeans.

 

[rdean]

I find it very strange that the very people that are claiming that private enterprise can do health care better than the government, are the very same ones that are stating that private enterprise is incapable of designing a good heavy lift vehicle. Boeing did that when we first decided to build the shuttle. And was told that they would not be allowed to use the pads for testing the vehicle. Had we worked with Boing then, we might now have a cheap reliable heavy lift vehicle to back up the shuttle with.

I find this viewpoint echoes my own;


Chair Force Engineer: The Space Program We Can Afford

The Space Program We Can Afford

Reactions to the "Obama Space Plan" across the industry have been extremely polarized indeed. The debate has drawn in odd defenders of the president and some even stranger opponents. When Newt Gingrich is defending an Obama policy from the attacks of Charles Krauthammer, you know the world has been turned on its ear.

My brief take on the new space policy is that it's the only option our nation can possibly afford at this time. Every day I fret that America is going broke, and sliding into a debt oblivion before anybody realizes it's too late to claw our way back from the brink. Can we really afford "Apollo on Steroids" right now? We certainly can't give the former Constellation program the extra $3 billion per year that it needs simply to meet its baseline schedule. So what we get instead is no system to replace the shuttle when it's retired, an ISS extension to 2020 or later, continued American flights on Soyuz, and a "heavy lift research program."

The reliance on commercial spacecraft is one based in convenience and necessity. It's the most controversial aspect of the new policy and the linchpin of any future plans to travel down the "flexible path." I'm trying to temper my enthusiasm for a commercial spaceflight industry with a realistic outlook on the ability of these companies to deliver a safe and reliable manned spacecraft program. SpaceX and Boeing likely have the experience and knowledge to pull it off, although their schedules are anybody's guess. The other vendors I'm more skeptical towards.

Republicans are a day behind and a dollar short. Things have been moving ahead.

SpaceX Slips Falcon 9 Launch to May | SpaceNews.com

WASHINGTON — Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) plans to attempt the maiden launch of its Falcon 9 rocket no sooner than May 8, the Hawthorne, Calif.-based company said April 2. SpaceX previously had reserved April 12 for the launch attempt.

Old space hands aren't buying Obama plan - Return to Flight- msnbc.com

PayPal founder Elon Musk said his company SpaceX hopes to fly astronauts to the space station by the end of 2013. He figures he will charge NASA about $20 million an astronaut. That's a bargain compared with the more than $300 million a head it was going to cost NASA under the Bush plan, and the $56 million NASA will pay Russia for trips on Soyuz rockets in the short term.

Musk's Falcon 9 unmanned rocket is sitting on a Cape Canaveral pad with its initial launch a month away. Several companies are competing with Musk, including one run by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos.

 

[rdean]

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

So many "raw materials" on the moon. Rocks, dirt, vacuum, a golf ball and an American Flag.

We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times.

The most important raw material has been established as present, H2O. And unlimited energy. The moon is a much more logical base for launching interplanetary exploration than the Earth's surface.

Almost the whole of what we are communicating on, computers, the net, had there origin in the space program. Striving to do more exploration can only do our level of technology good. Fail to explore, and we cede the leadership role to the nations that do explore. The classic example of this is the exploration program of China that beat the Europeans by many years with a far better technology, and then just quit. And ceded the future to the Europeans.

Don't make me laugh.

So NASA hits a deep canyon on the southern side of the moon and uses a spectral radiometer and discovered there are "ice" crystals mixed in with the dirt and that "proves" there is water on the moon.
You could hit the driest desert on earth with a missile and examine the resulting plume with a spectral radiometer and you will indeed see water molecules.
You would have an easier time removing oil from shale. At least THAT's feasible.

I'm not saying launching from the moon is a bad idea, but I suspect, as far as there being usable amounts of water on the moon, that is mostly wishful thinking.

 

[Avatar4321]

You guys bitch about spending, but want to keep the space programs.
You don't want to provide health care for your fellow man, but you are cool with spending billions of dollars on something we don't NEED right now?

How is spending trillions of dollars to make the health care sysem worse beneficial to me or my fellow man?

I can easily point to how the Space program has been beneficial. Much of the technology we use everyday is from Space exploration.

There is a huge difference between investing to improve and learn; and spending to waste and destroy

 

[Avatar4321]

So, let me make sure I get this right. We have already been to the moon many times but the white wing is mad because Obama wants to go to mars instead of the moon - again? So how many more times should we go to the moon before we get tired of it?

The whole point of going back to the moon was to set up a station to launch toward Mars Genius.

If you refuse to take the first step you never reach the end of the journey.

 

[Avatar4321]

Agreed, but you ignore key factors in both of your scenarios. The impact of Industrial Revolution, Technology and now Information Revolution all represent the telescopic nature of the evolutionary model. Technology and Science build upon each other, they make exponential leaps, not linear, incremental steps generally.

And you seem to forget the lessons in history, that which is learned can quickly become lost.

We dont always continue advancing in technology. It's not a one way trip. It can come back the other direction.

But let's just not think about that. Perhaps I should propose a theory of devolution.

 

[American Horse]

I don't know why you guys have such a hard on for the moon. We can just send far more efficacious robots up there that can work for far longer periods of time and don't require maintenance, care, psychiatric evaluation, training, etc. You just sound like you want to waste money.

Manned moon operations are an excellent training ground for other missions, and there are raw materials on the moon to make those operations "efficacious." What we learn to do in practical applications on the Moon would transfer to other destinations. We could make those types of operations safe before venturing further. We paddled around in the Mediterranean Sea for two thousand years before venturing in crossing the Atlantic.

Consider that the 30-miles crossing English Channel between Gaul and Britannia with armies was done routinely during the time of Rome, but after its fall that same journey was very hazardous when attempted by William the Conqueror in 1066.

So many "raw materials" on the moon. Rocks, dirt, vacuum, a golf ball and an American Flag.

We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times.

The moon is commercially viable, first as an outpost, for development, then as a platform for transporting materials both raw and processed into Earth orbit (and finally commercially for tourism).The moon has an abundance of metallic magnesium, oxygen, some helium-3, and water-ice exists in certain crater bottoms. But if not, the raw materials exist there to produce water. Once a base was established on the moon, followed by the next "development" steps mentioned above, a mass ejector could be built to transport materials at very low cost into Earth orbit. Lunar craters are in effect giant open pit mines already excavated into the lunar crust giving us access to minerals and raw materials.

Mankind has never found sufficient reason to do anything if it wasn't financially profitable, and economically viable. A moon base would let us build on the economic viability of our efforts step by step, improving and developing techniques as we go right next door to our home base, Earth and LEO.

I believe, traveling directly to Mars will be at such a great expense that we will probably only make the effort once; if that. If we fail, and a crew is lost, we will never try again. The combined cost in treasure and loss of life will be found to not be worth the potential gain, as compared to the need for the practical application of resources at home on Earth to provide for our many, and unlimited needs.

(We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times) Twelve men have walked on the moon, and we’ve landed there 6 times. We barely scratched at the surface, in that endeavor. We've done a geologic study by collecting rock samples, and tested a lunar rover. Our efforts on the moon don't that much exceed experimental practice flights of the first airplanes, let's say over open water between London and Paris.

(Hyakku:)

Agreed, but you ignore key factors in both of your scenarios. The impact of Industrial Revolution, Technology and now Information Revolution all represent the telescopic nature of the evolutionary model. Technology and Science build upon each other, they make exponential leaps, not linear, incremental steps generally.

I mean, when times of technology and science were scarce in certain regions int he 19th and early 20th centuries, there was very little major war (small battles nonetheless, etc.). I don't just attribute this to varying levels of technology, but its telling that Germany's exponential growth in its economic, industrial and technological abilities, as well as America's at the time dwarfed the likes of the former Britain, Russia, etc.

anyway, I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about the nature of the evolutionary paradigm, partially because i'm too lazy, and partially because I'd have to concede that even my own opinions on that are muddled.

Anyway, I say all this because as we look forward into the future, we aren't going to be looking forward 200, or 300 years, we're looking forward ten or twenty years, and if this paradigm continues to be telescopic in nature, soon we'll start seeing innovations within decades. At least we should hope so.

While manned mooned missions do have merit, we would then have to REBUILD another ship (or build one concurrently with the constellation program which is already over budget. Can you really see the American public supporting a 300-500 billion dollar NASA budget?), for NEA, and possibly another for a MARS trip (though hopefully we shouldn't once we've landed on the asteroid).

This plan eliminates that waste of time. Orion will be ready by 2015 (he compromised this morning), our planned asteroid landing is for 2025, and we want to be in Mars Orbit by 2030. These are feasible goals with the help of private industry. Many of the technologies needed to get to the space station for instance, can be used through private corporations, helping them to manage costs and expand business while allowing greater access to the consumer.

It's interesting, I guess we just have fundamentally different notions of the use of government economic funds. I feel that it should be limited to only regions where moral hazards may arise (security [i.e. police, fire fighters, etc] and the health care of its citizens). I may be able to think of others later, but everything else should largely be a private - public enterprise.

It's just fucking sad that American's have been taught that "gubberment so bad" that we don't want to invest more heavily in domestic things like NASA you're right, but at the same time private industry excels in technological innovation and product management. While the slight potential for a moral hazard exists (I guess if the world was ending and they ransomed off flight seats or something could be considered one), it's extraordinarily small, and that's really my only prerequisite over if government or a fusion of private-public capital should control an issue.

I believe that the president is right in offering inducements to private industry and innovators/entrepreneurs to get involved. They were there all the time and giving them an “award" or a prize is the best way to get them to excel at what they already want in the worse way to do. As I said above if our ventures don't produce economically beneficial results they will not happen.

The settlements in North America which (not to mention those in Central and S.A. by the Spanish which were ventures aimed at treasure and empire) were successful and were based on the profit motive; In N.A. I'm thinking here of the Mayflower (and it's sister vessel) and Plymouth Colony. It is roughly equivalent to the situation we are discussing here. The King of England wanted a presence (population) to represent the crown in North America, and offered land-grants to settlers. It was up to them to get themselves there. There were investors willing to take risks to finance settlers and "pilgrims" and their few belongings to make an attempt at establishing settlements.

The frailty of their ships were barely equal to the task of sailing the Atlantic, and the people poorly equipped to make a viable settlement once they arrived. Pioneers are made of sturdy stuff. Our politicians, unless they were driven by national survival, are not. I don't think we will ever make more than a symbolic political gesture to that goal if we first over-reach, and that is why, in the end, those who actually do settle Mars, will have first settled our own moon; sadly I doubt that will be the United States. Instead it will be a country with a real fire in their gut to be first at something magnificent. All highly speculative I know, but worth considering as an appraisal of where we stand regardless of political leanings.

FYI - I enjoyed reading your ideas on the subject. You seem to have given real thought to the subject.

 

[Avatar4321]

So many "raw materials" on the moon. Rocks, dirt, vacuum, a golf ball and an American Flag.

We've already "paddled" to the moon, many times.

Yeah those darn rocks. What on earth could we possibly do with rocks?

You do realize that most of the precious resources on this planet are just "rocks," don't you?

 

[Avatar4321]

rdean, you're a very interesting person sometimes.

You deplore Republicans for not being scientific. Yet, you aren't at all curious about further exploration of the moon. You dont care about the technological advancements we'd create in doing so. You claim we know whats on the moon already. It took thousands of years to explore the earth and there are still parts that no man has been to. Yet, less then 30 years and we have nothing more to learn from the moon?

How do you know we don't have some sort of amazing energy supply on the moon that is completely unknown to us now? How will we ever find out if we don't explore it more? How do you propose that we explore the rest of the universe if we dont have a steady presence on our closest neighbor?

This is one of the greatest areas of scientific exploration and you want to just stop it because Republicans support it? Take a step back and dont let your biases block you from seeing the great possibilities ahead of us.

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErKy_g-8pbo&feature=related]YouTube - Buzz Aldrin: Alien creatures built Phobos monolith[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAAn4vSWWRI&feature=related]YouTube - The Phobos Incident - A Moon of Mars - 1 of 2[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSrddDwvorg&feature=related]YouTube - The Phobos Incident - A Moon of Mars - 2 of 2[/ame]