Tweet
Err... You said the US is the best space program...
-
Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards
And notifying the next of kin
Once again... -
Yeah, I know I said that. I'm saying the US will be first to do it and it won't be til about 2030, though that might be a little late. Anyway, the US will be first to do it. I'd bet a whole lot on it."The first man who, having fenced off a plot of land, thought of saying, 'This is mine' and found people simple enough to believe him was the real founder of civil society. How many crimes, wars, murders, how many miseries and horrors might the human race had been spared by the one who, upon pulling up the stakes or filling in the ditch, had shouted to his fellow men: 'Beware of listening to this imposter; you are lost if you forget the fruits of the earth belong to all and that the earth belongs to no one." - Jean-Jacques RousseauComment
-
I'd bet a whole lot on it.
I take you up on that. Today, 30 years from now you gonna owe me. If there still is a USofA of course...Within weeks they'll be re-opening the shipyards
And notifying the next of kin
Once again...Comment
-
Define "best space programme". You seem to consider "high profile" as being equitable to "best".
By the yardstick of profitability, the European Space Agency is the best, thanks to it being the largest launcher of commercial satellites, and most efficient user of its funding. You need to define how you measure best.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
err. about how the only one thats been to the moon, the one that does the most reserach, and the one that has best scientists. Im betting 2007 by the usa.Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try. -HomerComment
-
The moon landings were a waste of time and money. Russia, Europe, Japan and China are all capable of getting there. Why bother?
the one that does the most reserach,
Do you have a source for that claim?
and the one that has best scientists
There is that word "Best" again. You are talking in circles. How do you define best.
Im betting 2007 by the usa
Who's DL are you?One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Why bother?
Why? To say that you are the best off course!
<Kassiopeia> you don't keep the virgins in your lair at a sodomising distance from your beasts or male prisoners. If you devirginised them yourself, though, that's another story. If they devirginised each other, then, I hope you had that webcam running.
Play Bumps! No, wait, play Slings!Comment
-
Hopefully charmon will volunteer for that 2007 trip to Mars.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
Why bother going to the moon?
Why bother sailing to the new world?
Why bother tinkering with the concept of flight?
Why bother trying to decode the human genome?
All of these questions are fundamentally the same, and the answer TO those questions is also the same.
To expand our knowledge and our horizons.
Yeah, I know, you guys can call it a pipe dream if you want to, but the day WILL come when there are human beings living on the moon, on mars, and further.
When it happens, the things we learned by making our lunar excursions will be the key building blocks for more advanced, more ambitious undertakings.
There was a time when the European sense of exploration was unrivaled in all the world.
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Velo, what purpose is there for going to the moon now?
Also a lot of those things you mentioned have practical applications. A moon mission has none whatsoever.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
There are more economically and scientifically efficient methods to develop inter-planetary travel. The moon missions were purely political.Originally posted by Velociryx
When it happens, the things we learned by making our lunar excursions will be the key building blocks for more advanced, more ambitious undertakings.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
What purposes are there for going to the moon now?
Among them are:
1) practice. The day WILL come when we go there to establish a permanant presence. The better we understand the conditions we can expect, the better our chances of success.
2) Advanced surveying. There may be mineral deposits or other resources beneath the surface that would suddenly make the moon a much higher priority than it is right now. But we'll never know unless we go check it out.
3) experimentation - the moon's lower gravity has all sorts of intriguing possibilities for chemistry and manufacturing. Again, theorizing about it is one thing, but tinkering with working models....that's quite another, and immensely more valuable.
4) General information gathering....testing new technologies to see how the operate under lunar and landing conditions. Again, you can discuss it to DEATH in the classroom or lab, but until it gets a test run, it's just so much hot air and hope.
5) Advances in astronomy. The Hubble is pretty good at what it does, but imagine a lunar observatory and what it could do for our understanding of the stars.
I could go on, but that should be enough to provide evidence that there ARE, today good reasons for making such trips.
If the Euros don't want to....if they've lost that sense of exploration....that's cool. We'll tell you all about it when we get back....
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Oh, I won't deny you that, but to say that there is nothing to be gained from lunar missions is, in my mind, just silliness, and on par with saying that there's nothing to be gained from....say, tinkering with the notion of flight.
When it was first being done, nobody was thinking in terms of fleets of jets in the sky....nobody really even thought it would work!
But then, that wasn't the point....
-=Vel=-Comment
-
Practice is only good if it is used quickly and or built upon. This requires a permanent presence on the moon. The cost would be (forgive the pun) astronomical.Originally posted by Velociryx
1) practice. The day WILL come when we go there to establish a permanant presence. The better we understand the conditions we can expect, the better our chances of success.
When we go to the moon we must do it wholeheartedly and concertedly, else it is not worth doing at all.
2) Advanced surveying. There may be mineral deposits or other resources beneath the surface that would suddenly make the moon a much higher priority than it is right now. But we'll never know unless we go check it out.
Send probes, why send men?
3) experimentation - the moon's lower gravity has all sorts of intriguing possibilities for chemistry and manufacturing. Again, theorizing about it is one thing, but tinkering with working models....that's quite another, and immensely more valuable.
Again same problem of cost-benefit
4) General information gathering....testing new technologies to see how the operate under lunar and landing conditions. Again, you can discuss it to DEATH in the classroom or lab, but until it gets a test run, it's just so much hot air and hope.
How does that have a practical implication that warrants the cost?
5) Advances in astronomy. The Hubble is pretty good at what it does, but imagine a lunar observatory and what it could do for our understanding of the stars.
Why do you need a lunar observatory when satellites are doing the job just fine?
I could go on, but that should be enough to provide evidence that there ARE, today good reasons for making such trips.
I disagree.
[q]
If the Euros don't want to....if they've lost that sense of exploration....that's cool. We'll tell you all about it when we get back....[/QUOTE]
Go ahead, what you do with your money is upto you.One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.Comment
-
::shrug:: Fair enough....but don't start complaining 'bout an "American Extra-Terrestrial Hegemony" if you're not even willing to try....
-=Vel=-Comment
Comment