US to Return to Moon

[Iceweasel]

I think though, given the temperature and enviroment, it'd be more about making it less toxic to human life so we can exploit resources than actually move in like. Mars is more likely for settlement.

There are a lot of people I'd love to send to Mars. It might be worth it.

 

[dblack]

1. metal and resources should be taken advantage of.
2. Full on to terra forming mars and venus. I don't think Venus is impossible.
3. More money for extrasolar planet satellites.

This is the 3 steps for Advancing humanity.

Are you willing to resort to violence to achieve those goals?

Now talk about an out of context comment!

And just how does violence advance R and D? And why would violence lead to space exploration? What kind of nonsense are you pushing?

Not out of context at all. Much of the convo has been around whether we should employ government to advance the cause of space exploration. And the power to use violence to achieve its goals is what distinguishes government from all other institutions. We reach for government as a solution far too easily. We need to understand the implications.

 

[ScienceRocks]

you republicans really are anti-science, human and American pieces of horse shit.

Your economic policies would turn America into fucking North Korea.

 

[Iceweasel]

you republicans really are anti-science, human and American pieces of horse shit.

Your economic policies would turn America into fucking North Korea.

Well now, there's some unbiased scientific reasoning. For the record, I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. Unfortunately it doesn't mean the same thing. Liberal policies are bankrupting us so I think you've hitched your wagon to the wrong horse.

And asking for fiscal responsibility is not "anti-science".

 

[mamooth]

NASA is constantly "fixing" earth through the various earth science missions. I'll recopy this from a thread I did in the environment folder. Five launches coming up 2014. OCO-2 and CATS are somewhat global warming science specific, while the other 3 have broad applications.

NASA Set for a Big Year in Earth Science - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Feb 27. Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM) Core Observatory. Detailed global precipitation measurment. Launch by JAXA (the Japanese Space Agency).

Jun 6. ISS-RapidScat. Detailed global wind measurements. To be installed on ISS. Launch from Cape Canaveral on SpaceX Falcon 9, ISS resupply mission.

Jul 1. Orbiting Carbon Observatory - 2 (OCO-2). The first OCO satellite was lost in a launch failure in 2009. Examines carbon sources and sinks. Launch from Vandenberg on Delta II.

Sep 12. Cloud-Aerosol Transport System (CATS). Like the name says, looking at clouds and aerosols. Similar system, Glory satellite, lost in a launch failure in 2011. CATS to be installed on ISS. Launch from Cape Canaveral on Falcon 9, ISS resupply mission.

November. Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission. Like the name says, soil moisture mapping. Launch from Vandenberg on Delta II.

There's a new generation weather satellite launch in early 2017, JPSS-1. Cameras in visible and infrared, microwave radar for cloud height mapping, spectrometer, ozone mapper. This is important because the USA is currently down to one polar-orbiting weather satellite, the Suomi NPP, which has a design life that takes it to 2016. Let's hope it lasts longer. It's a story of bureaucratic struggles, where NASA, NOAA and the Air Force all wanted the other guys to be the ones responsible for launching a mundane civilian weather satellite. (The military has their own weather satellites, but they don't share.)

 

[Old Rocks]

you republicans really are anti-science, human and American pieces of horse shit.

Your economic policies would turn America into fucking North Korea.

Well now, there's some unbiased scientific reasoning. For the record, I'm not a Republican, I'm a conservative. Unfortunately it doesn't mean the same thing. Liberal policies are bankrupting us so I think you've hitched your wagon to the wrong horse.

And asking for fiscal responsibility is not "anti-science".

No, you are not a conservative, you are a 'Conservative'. Ike would consider you a moron.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Yeah let's just sit on this little rock as our resources run out. How exactly does that help improve the lives of 7 billion people???

 

[Iceweasel]

And asking for fiscal responsibility is not "anti-science".

No, you are not a conservative, you are a 'Conservative'. Ike would consider you a moron.

Is that supposed to make sense?

Yeah let's just sit on this little rock as our resources run out. How exactly does that help improve the lives of 7 billion people???

No one suggested it but resorting to scare tactics is a poor substitute for a reason.

 

[rightwinger]

US ready to return to moon - Telegraph

America is preparing to land a robot on the moon for the first time in four decades.

Nasa is looking for private partners to participate in the project that will see a new generation of rovers wandering across the moon’s surface.

The American space agency has set up a programme called Catalyst to exploit commercial opportunities offered by the moon.

It believes that eventually there will be a market for commercial cargo trips to the lunar surface.

Cool beans.

Like it

I prefer R2D2 to Buck Rodgers for these missions

 

[FA_Q2]

We should have had a base on the moon the past 40 years. It is a sick joke that humanity hasn't done shit since.

Where did our sprit to explore and find new resources? America isn't acting like a healthy first world nation.

What part of 17 to 18 trillion in debt don't you get? THAT is what's sick.

If there was a economically sound reason to set up a very expensive operation on the moon, I'd be for it. Let private companies fund it if there is and let's quit hemorraging other people's money to make a select few happy.

Money for exploration and R and D is almost a litmus test for fringies on the right and the left. The left says spend it here on earth, as if we were shipping loads of money out there. The right decries the debt, says we cannot afford it. Just as we cannot afford to upgrade our infrastructure. Neither seems to understand that exploration and R and D are investments that have paid off orders of magnitudes in returns on investment in our past.

The cost of the NASA program and a parallel ocean exploration/colonization program would be trivial compared tot he pork and entitlement spending.

While the return on spin off technology would grow our economy and technological capabilities exponentially.

Penny short, dollar foolish.

Truth. It is incredibly ironic that those decrying the expense are so fast to support other expenditures that are orders of magnitude larger. On both sides there are things that are supported that make NASA look like chump change and yet the returns on that investment are FAR larger.

Even without the huge number of spinoff technologies that are developed, there is real value in pushing the limits of the human race. It is one of the functions that government correctly pursues.

 

[FA_Q2]

you republicans really are anti-science, human and American pieces of horse shit.

Your economic policies would turn America into fucking North Korea.

Yes, this seems to be the depth of your ability to think. Of course, if you had bothered to actually read and understand this thread you would note that it is not a right/left issue but I don’t think that your brain can comprehend much past partisan asshattery.

Get off your asinine high horse and come back when you can articulate a point past its headline. So far the best you have been able to ‘produce’ are simple regurgitations without thought.