When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to

[Conservative]

And please, Conservatwit, stop whining to me in PMs. It's getting to be rather sad.

again, you have my FULL PERMISSION to post any PM you claim I sent, where I whine.

I dare you.

(Of course, you won't because you're a chicken shit little dweeb of a liar)

 

[daveman]

I'm right; you're wrong.

TRANSLATION:

 

[daveman]

And please, Conservatwit, stop whining to me in PMs. It's getting to be rather sad.

You're lying.

 

[J.E.D]

And please, Conservatwit, stop whining to me in PMs. It's getting to be rather sad.

again, you have my FULL PERMISSION to post any PM you claim I sent, where I whine.

I dare you.

(Of course, you won't because you're a chicken shit little dweeb of a liar)

I'll sum them up in visual form:

 

[Conservative]

You. Are. A. Moron.

There is a huge difference between the meaning of the words 'inhabit' and 'habitable'. NASA explorers can inhabit a man-made structure on the surface of Mars all they like, but that doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. If life cannot be sustained by a planets natural resources (water, oxygen), then it is not habitable.

I've posted NASA's definition numerous times. It clearly defines habitable planets in that way.

no one has said Mars can be made a habitable planet in the context you are using it, dick-spittle.

I've posted numerous links to NASA sites, saying they want to INHABIT Mars, and INHABIT the moon. Yet you ignore those links and every mention of them, like they don't exist... all because they don't fit into that little pea brain of yours.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT THE MOON.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT MARS.

You lost. Get over it.

Which doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. You do realize that's what this has been about, right? You say a man-made structure on a planet makes that planet habitable; I say it doesn't. I'm right; you're wrong. Not once did I deny that NASA wants to put human habitats on Mars. Nice try, though. You're retarded. Get over it.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited. You are such a moron, you simply can't grasp the concept.

I'll pray that God lifts the veil of stupidity you seem to be surrounded by. It's a pretty thick veil, so I'll have to get some more people to pray for you on this one.

 

[J.E.D]

no one has said Mars can be made a habitable planet in the context you are using it, dick-spittle.

I've posted numerous links to NASA sites, saying they want to INHABIT Mars, and INHABIT the moon. Yet you ignore those links and every mention of them, like they don't exist... all because they don't fit into that little pea brain of yours.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT THE MOON.

NASA WANTS TO INHABIT MARS.

You lost. Get over it.

Which doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. You do realize that's what this has been about, right? You say a man-made structure on a planet makes that planet habitable; I say it doesn't. I'm right; you're wrong. Not once did I deny that NASA wants to put human habitats on Mars. Nice try, though. You're retarded. Get over it.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited. You are such a moron, you simply can't grasp the concept.

I'll pray that God lifts the veil of stupidity you seem to be surrounded by. It's a pretty thick veil, so I'll have to get some more people to pray for you on this one.

So, you ARE arguing that a man-made structure on an uninhabitable planet makes that planet habitable. What gives, Conservatwit? You just said that you weren't making that argument? Shame.

Anyway, like I've said repeatedly, inhabiting a man-made structure on the surface of an uninhabitable planet does not make that planet habitable.

Man, you are really stupid

 

[Conservative]

Self-deployable advanced lunar habitat | Lunar Science Forum 2011

These are a major step-stone towards a context to study, inhabit and make use of our Moon in a sustainable way.

 

[The T]

Which doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. You do realize that's what this has been about, right? You say a man-made structure on a planet makes that planet habitable; I say it doesn't. I'm right; you're wrong. Not once did I deny that NASA wants to put human habitats on Mars. Nice try, though. You're retarded. Get over it.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited. You are such a moron, you simply can't grasp the concept.

I'll pray that God lifts the veil of stupidity you seem to be surrounded by. It's a pretty thick veil, so I'll have to get some more people to pray for you on this one.

So, you ARE arguing that a man-made structure on an uninhabitable planet makes that planet habitable. What gives, Conservatwit? You just said that you weren't making that argument? Shame.

Anyway, like I've said repeatedly, inhabiting a man-made structure on the surface of an uninhabitable planet does not make that planet habitable.

Man, you are really stupid

I'll take what is S C U B A for $1,000 Alex...

Son? Keep digging your hole...

 

[Conservative]

Which doesn't make Mars a habitable planet. You do realize that's what this has been about, right? You say a man-made structure on a planet makes that planet habitable; I say it doesn't. I'm right; you're wrong. Not once did I deny that NASA wants to put human habitats on Mars. Nice try, though. You're retarded. Get over it.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited. You are such a moron, you simply can't grasp the concept.

I'll pray that God lifts the veil of stupidity you seem to be surrounded by. It's a pretty thick veil, so I'll have to get some more people to pray for you on this one.

So, you ARE arguing that a man-made structure on an uninhabitable planet makes that planet habitable. What gives, Conservatwit? You just said that you weren't making that argument? Shame.

Anyway, like I've said repeatedly, inhabiting a man-made structure on the surface of an uninhabitable planet does not make that planet habitable.

Man, you are really stupid

your reading comprehension skills are stuck on stupid.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited.

 

[J.E.D]

Self-deployable advanced lunar habitat | Lunar Science Forum 2011

These are a major step-stone towards a context to study, inhabit and make use of our Moon in a sustainable way.

Which still does not make the Moon habitable, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'.

 

[J.E.D]

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited. You are such a moron, you simply can't grasp the concept.

I'll pray that God lifts the veil of stupidity you seem to be surrounded by. It's a pretty thick veil, so I'll have to get some more people to pray for you on this one.

So, you ARE arguing that a man-made structure on an uninhabitable planet makes that planet habitable. What gives, Conservatwit? You just said that you weren't making that argument? Shame.

Anyway, like I've said repeatedly, inhabiting a man-made structure on the surface of an uninhabitable planet does not make that planet habitable.

Man, you are really stupid

your reading comprehension skills are stuck on stupid.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

It's pretty simple to understand. Even for a complete moron like you, Twit. A man-made structure can be inhabited. That man-made structure is habitable. If that man-made structure is sitting on the surface of an uninhabitable planet, that planet is still scientifically uninhabitable. As soon as you step outside of that man-made structure without protective gear into the atmosphere of Mars, you will find out very quickly what uninhabitable means.

 

[Conservative]

Self-deployable advanced lunar habitat | Lunar Science Forum 2011

These are a major step-stone towards a context to study, inhabit and make use of our Moon in a sustainable way.

Which still does not make the Moon habitable, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'.

You're saying NASA says they want to inhabit and make use of our moon, even though NASA says the moon isn't inhabitable.

You are officially off the scale on the stupid-meter.

 

[The T]

So, you ARE arguing that a man-made structure on an uninhabitable planet makes that planet habitable. What gives, Conservatwit? You just said that you weren't making that argument? Shame.

Anyway, like I've said repeatedly, inhabiting a man-made structure on the surface of an uninhabitable planet does not make that planet habitable.

Man, you are really stupid

your reading comprehension skills are stuck on stupid.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

But it does because provisions have been made to make it so.

Idiot.

 

[J.E.D]

your reading comprehension skills are stuck on stupid.

NASA says a man-made structure on the moon or Mars can be inhabited.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

But it does because provisions have been made to make it so.

Idiot.

Mars does not have natural resources that can sustain life. That's NASA's definition of habitable. Man-made habitats don't fit NASA's definition of habitable.

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...logy Roadmap&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13292720340101

A planet or planetary satellite is habitable if it can sustain life that originates there or if it sustains life that is carried to the object. The Astrobiology program seeks to expand our understanding of the most fundamental environmental requirements for habitability. However, in the near term, we must proceed with our current concepts regarding the requirements for habitability. That is, habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism.

 

[Conservative]

Mars Exploration Strategies

MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES​

The surface exploration mission envisions approximately equal priority for applied science research - learning about the environment, resources, and operational constraints that would allow humans eventually to inhabit the planet; and basic science research - exploring the planet for insights into the nature of planets, the nature of Mars' atmosphere and its evolution, and the possible past existence of life.

Create a baseline strategy enabling the earliest and most cost-effective program for the human and robotic exploration of Mars while addressing fundamental science questions and demonstrating the ability for humans to inhabit Mars.

Although it is certainly arguable that science return could be enhanced by a strategy where each human mission went to a different surface site, the goal of understanding how humans could inhabit Mars seems more logically directed toward a single outpost approach.

First, verifying the ability of people to inhabit Mars requires more than a brief stay of 30 days at the planet...

Boy... for a planet that Josephine claims NASA calls uninhabitable, they sure do throw that word inhabit around a lot when talking about Mars.

 

[Conservative]

NASA - Scenes From the Desert, or Maybe Mars: NASA's "RATS" Tests Technologies for Tomorrow's Treks

This scene, scripted from the high desert of Arizona, may one day become the real-life drama in space as humans first inhabit Mars. On Mars, humans will need the help of various technologies that permit them to venture across stretches of the red planet.

 

[The T]

Mars Exploration Strategies

MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES​

The surface exploration mission envisions approximately equal priority for applied science research - learning about the environment, resources, and operational constraints that would allow humans eventually to inhabit the planet; and basic science research - exploring the planet for insights into the nature of planets, the nature of Mars' atmosphere and its evolution, and the possible past existence of life.

Create a baseline strategy enabling the earliest and most cost-effective program for the human and robotic exploration of Mars while addressing fundamental science questions and demonstrating the ability for humans to inhabit Mars.

Although it is certainly arguable that science return could be enhanced by a strategy where each human mission went to a different surface site, the goal of understanding how humans could inhabit Mars seems more logically directed toward a single outpost approach.

First, verifying the ability of people to inhabit Mars requires more than a brief stay of 30 days at the planet...

Boy... for a planet that Josephine claims NASA calls uninhabitable, they sure do throw that word inhabit around a lot when talking about Mars.

And there are resources available for us to exploit there...Joey needs to learn to read.

 

[pvsi.]

When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy,
but when Obama mentioned goin to Mars he was applauded. [/IMG]

And when I didn't even bother to listen to what Obama said, I was called insane and given minus points by your ilk. On a related subject, it is definetely less hypocritical for Obama to want to go to the moon then for money saving "republican"

 

[Conservative]

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20090014085_2009013226.pdf

NASA’s Space Exploration Policy outlines returning to the moon with plans to stay for an extended period of time in addition to other goals. Fabrication capabilities will be critical in order for the inhabitants to be self sufficient and even more critical in future missions to Mars

damn.. there goes NASA again, talking about inhabitants on the moon. Haven't they been paying attention to Josephine???

 

[daveman]

And please, Conservatwit, stop whining to me in PMs. It's getting to be rather sad.

again, you have my FULL PERMISSION to post any PM you claim I sent, where I whine.

I dare you.

(Of course, you won't because you're a chicken shit little dweeb of a liar)

I'll sum them up in visual form:

Yup, you're lying.

But then, leftists lie. All the time.