Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Oh, stop being a fucking idiot for two minutes in a row, would you?Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.
And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.
Right?
THey do hate science...
...and the proof is that Newt thinks a base will on the moon in 8 years.
On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced before a special joint session of Congress the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the Moon before the end of the decade.
Apollo 11 was the spaceflight which landed the first humans, Neil Armstrong and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, Jr, on Earth's Moon on July 20, 1969, at 20:17:39 UTC.
8 years, 1 month, 26 days.
It's certainly possible. Only someone who hates science would say it's not.
Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?
Space really is the final frontier. I'd love to be alive in two hundred years.
There is actually a specific reason for a Moon Base now, that didn't exist before.
There's water on the moon.
That makes all the difference. It means the moon can be used as a launching platform and refueling station.
If it is such an attractive idea to private companies, why hasn't anyone done it?how does he plan on paying for enough crack to get private investors to sign up for this?
Most companies that would want to go would be mining companies.
I saw a special on TV and there's titanium everywhere.
It would be a great risk, but with great risks come great rewards.
or complete and utter failure, but shh
Maybe they should take some cement mix up with them so they can build a dam.
There's no customers on the moon (as far as we know).
Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?
It's certainly a better idea than "green energy."
If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.
If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.
If gas is above $4 a gallon in November, your Messiah® is done - I don't care WHO the GOP nominates.
Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.
And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.
Right?
Republicans also hate the truth.
Wait, how is that possible? We've been repeatedly assured that Republicans hate science.
And it takes a lot of science to get stuff to and build stuff on the moon.
Right?
Republicans also hate the truth.
yea ......im sure they ALL do......did Dean tell you that?.....or maybe Chris?.....
Yes, given the current state of the country we need to spend millions on that stuff.
Maybe he is thinking that will create jobs?
It's certainly a better idea than "green energy."
If you really knew what green industry was I know you would not claim that.
Corporate investment is investing in green energy. Private investment and public investment.
Green energy is the best alternative we have and it will create millions of jobs.
Ground water contamination is at an all time high with natural gas drilling now. Oil, gas and coal subsidies are massive only compared to the fees they pay their lobbyists and campaign contributions to Republicans.
Solyndra was a bad idea, corruption in my book as all that was is a reward for campaign cash the other way.
But that is no indication of the future wave of green energy. Where I live many have it and it is growing.
Just as the horse and buggy manufacturers scoffed at the horseless carriage many now turn from the vast benefits and job oppurtunities in green energy.
Gas will be at $4.25 a gallon by the end of the year and how many more young men will die defending our dependence on foreign oil?
Viable now? NO. In fact I oppose large public funding now as the cost return now is less energy for a higher cost for green energy. Bad idea. However, research funding now is needed but mass deployment to that sector now is a bad idea. The delivery system of green energy is the key.
There's no customers on the moon (as far as we know).
LIke many, many other industries, it would require a public investment to lay the foundation to make later profit available.
The long-term benefits to having a low-gravity launching pad/refueling station in our celestial backyard could be incalculable.
Mining the asteroid belt. Interplanetary travel leading perhaps to inter-stellar travel.
Think about it like this: As it stands, if you make a spacecraft, you have to give it enough power and fuel to escape earth's gravity every time it launches.
With a launching pad on the moon, the power and fuel needed to escape the moon's gravity would be miniscule in comparison.
Water = hydrogen + oxygen
Hydrogen = Fuel.
In the age of massive debt and pending heavy spending cuts across the board, this idea of a colony on the moon is nothing more than pie-in-the-sky nonsense.