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

Uh, Gingrich wanted to COLONIZE the moon. Not simply visit it. The colonization part being the crucial weird ingredient. If you missed that, no wonder you are so clueless about the ordeal.
Seems to me that a moon colony would be far more beneficial to the US and to humanity as a whole than simply visiting Mars then coming home.

But then, I'm not an Obamabot.

Then you are on an island. At any rate, it misses the point.

To act like Gingrich and Obama made equivalent statements is simply dishonest.

And you guys know it.
You're correct.

Putting people on the moon would lead to space exploration.

going to Mars would be suicide for whoever went, unless they planned on building a base.

:eusa_whistle:
 
:lol::lol::lol:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wD4bTudisTg]Saturday Night Live 715 (Se 37 Ep 13) Channing Tatum - Newt Gingrich: Moon President - YouTube[/ame]
 
Uh, Gingrich wanted to COLONIZE the moon. Not simply visit it. The colonization part being the crucial weird ingredient. If you missed that, no wonder you are so clueless about the ordeal.

What's "weird" about it? The moon has an abundance of Helium 3. If you're going to mine it, you need a colony on the moon.
 
Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. :lol::lol::lol: 'Nuff said.

:lol: They sure are twisting in knots to make both statements seem similar. Didnt Newt say we could colonize the moon in 8 years?!!? Fucking stupid


Your scientific ignorance is showing.

Colonization does not mean walking around in shorts building houses.

NASA already has colony and mining plans drawn up. Try researching the matter so you don't seem quite so stupid with your comments.

I know what colonization DOES NOT mean, but that has shit to do with my post. Thinking you are going to colonize the moon in 8 years is fucking stupid. Care to address that? or do you just want to go on about what things arent?
 
We need a colony at L-5 first.
Why L-5? Too expensive to boost the parts there from Earth. Have to come from the moon. And since we're there mining anyway, why not build the colony there?

Plus:

Disadvantages

The risk of proton exposure from the solar wind as well as the health threat from cosmic rays is significant. In the Earth-Moon system, the orbit of colonies at L1 - L5 will take them outside of the protection of the Earth's magnetosphere for approximately two-thirds of the time (as occurs with the Moon).​

A moon colony would most likely be under the surface and therefore well shielded.

You mistake my enthusiasm for the L-5 colony with denigration or exception of need for a moon colony. I speak of nothing of the sort. You still have to contend with a gravity well from the moon. On L-5, or should I say AT L-5 you have very much less of that. It can be used as a staging area for the lunar colony. We can capture and process cometary and asteroidal objects there as a supply chain for lunar colonization. It doesn't have to be a huge "2001 a Space Odyssey" colony wheel. At least at first.
Granted, but it seems to me the cost in fuel of altering orbits of asteroids and comets would be greater than the cost of boosting basic mining and refining equipment to the moon.

An L-5 colony would be good for transshipping people and supplies to and from Earth and the moon to colonies on the other planets.
 
Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. :lol::lol::lol: 'Nuff said.
What idiot says the moon isn't habitable? :confused:

:eek: What? You cannot be serious. Habitable in this context means that there are natural resources that can sustain life - water, oxygen, etc. Now that you know this, would still like to proclaim the Moon habitable?
Of course.

Scientists Make Oxygen Out of Moon Rock

NASA finds 'significant' water on moon - CNN
 
What idiot says the moon isn't habitable? :confused:

:eek: What? You cannot be serious. Habitable in this context means that there are natural resources that can sustain life - water, oxygen, etc. Now that you know this, would still like to proclaim the Moon habitable?

Yes, just as habitable as the ISS

Duh
Far more so, actually. Everything on the ISS has to be boosted to orbit. Everything we need to live on the moon is already there.
 
When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to Mars he was applauded. What gives?

Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. :lol::lol::lol: 'Nuff said.

:lol: They sure are twisting in knots to make both statements seem similar. Didnt Newt say we could colonize the moon in 8 years?!!? Fucking stupid
You sure don't have much faith in the ingenuity of mankind, do you?

I'd say the Apollo program pretty much blows your luddite attitude out of the water.
 
Gramps......I don't care about all that. You have done an internet search for moon/space information during your participation in this thread.

I am only bringing you down from atop that huge pile of bullshit that you constantly maintain here.
And if he'd made his claims without any links, you'd still call bullshit.

Face it: You hate the idea because Newt supports it. That's all. Really.
 
Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. :lol::lol::lol: 'Nuff said.

:lol: They sure are twisting in knots to make both statements seem similar. Didnt Newt say we could colonize the moon in 8 years?!!? Fucking stupid
You sure don't have much faith in the ingenuity of mankind, do you?

I'd say the Apollo program pretty much blows your luddite attitude out of the water.

The apollo program colonized the moon?
 
:eek: What? You cannot be serious. Habitable in this context means that there are natural resources that can sustain life - water, oxygen, etc. Now that you know this, would still like to proclaim the Moon habitable?

Yes, just as habitable as the ISS

Duh

I'm not talking man-made habitats. Scientists interested in Mars are looking for clues that the planet was once capable of sustaining life with natural elements.

Interestingly enough, they're working on that right now and may possibly have proof......

Possible evidence of life

Several Martian meteorites have been found to contain what some think is evidence for fossilized Martian life forms. The most significant of these is a meteorite found in the Allan Hills of Antarctica (ALH 84001). Ejection from Mars seems to have taken place about 16 million years ago. Arrival on Earth was about 13 000 years ago. Cracks in the rock appear to have filled with carbonate materials (implying groundwater was present) between 4 and 3.6 billion-years-ago. Evidence of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) have been identified with the levels increasing away from the surface. Other Antarctic meteorites do not contain PAHs. Earthly contamination should presumably be highest at the surface. Several minerals in the crack fill are deposited in phases, specifically, iron deposited as magnetite, that are claimed to be typical of biodepositation on Earth. There are also small ovoid and tubular structures that might be nanobacteria fossils in carbonate material in crack fills (investigators McKay, Gibson, Thomas-Keprta, Zare).[24] Micropaleontologist Schopf, who described several important terrestrial bacterial assemblages, examined ALH 84001 and opined that the structures are too small to be Earthly bacteria and don't look especially like lifeforms to him. The size of the objects is consistent with Earthly "nanobacteria", but the existence of nanobacteria itself is controversial.[citation needed]

Many studies disputed the validity of the fossils.[25][26] For example, it was found that most of the organic matter in the meteorite was of terrestrial origin.[27] But, a recent study suggests that magnetite in the meteorite could have been produced by Martian microbes. The study, published in the journal of the Geochemical and Meteoritic Society, used more advanced high resolution electron microscopy than was possible in 1996.[15][28]

Martian meteorite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I first heard about it on the Discovery Channel.
 
Mars he was applauded. What gives?

It makes more sense to explore Mars. There's nothing on the moon worth the time and money.

Explore the planet Mars with realistic Mars habitats, rockets, ground cars and robots

This is cool to look at.

But then, you just wanted to post that image..

you really need to actually research statements like that before you make them. You might not sound so stupid if you did.

The Resources of the Moon and Beyond | Space.com
Titanium On The Moon: Resources To Spark New Space Race? | HULIQ
 
...Newt's thought that we should endeavor to colonize the moon is not stupid at all. It would demand manufacturing feats that have yet to be discovered, employ firms that develop such things and keep other support firms busy. It would be good for the economy.

Perhaps that's why Obama and his worshipers are against it. It would impede his efforts to destroy the US economy.
 
:lol: They sure are twisting in knots to make both statements seem similar. Didnt Newt say we could colonize the moon in 8 years?!!? Fucking stupid


Your scientific ignorance is showing.

Colonization does not mean walking around in shorts building houses.

NASA already has colony and mining plans drawn up. Try researching the matter so you don't seem quite so stupid with your comments.

I know what colonization DOES NOT mean, but that has shit to do with my post. Thinking you are going to colonize the moon in 8 years is fucking stupid. Care to address that? or do you just want to go on about what things arent?

that is your opinion, and you're entitled to it. That doesn't make it fact.
 
When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to Mars he was applauded. What gives?

Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. :lol::lol::lol: 'Nuff said.

you realize that using the moon as a training base for longer duration missions like a manned Mars mission makes logical and financial sense, right?

you realize there is less cost and less risk with going back to the moon then there is in going directly to Mars, right?

En Route to Mars, The Moon - NASA Science
 

Forum List

Back
Top