It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump expected to slash Nasa's climate change budget in favour of sending humans back to the

page: 6
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman
a reply to: Christosterone

Finally NASA will stop wasting time and money, thanks to Trump.


Are you being sarcastic?




posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.


Our own sun is going to die.

So total extinction of humans is OK with you?



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

Before any of that is seriously considered, we're going to have real space stations, and probably even automated comet mining.


Yes, I've been following the space elevator for a while. Not as in-depth as you, but still following it.

I've read a lot of negatives on space stations. Seems to me a solid permanent place would be more usable.

The biggest problem is getting stuff off earth.



posted on Nov, 21 2016 @ 10:44 PM
link   
I just started thinking about space program stuff pretty recently. Among other things, I can't seem to wrap my head around the gravitational intricacies of how satellites stay in orbit.

I have asked this kick off question before and run into a wall on a different site. Maybe the community here at ATS can help me see the light... Here goes...

What is the terminal velocity of an object falling in a vacuum?



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 12:50 AM
link   
a reply to: intrptr


I don't know what they really intend, or are covering up, but its not to live on moon or mars. Both are inhospitable to life.


just a tad Terraforming manipulation and it wouldnt be so Inhospitable

you know that NASA, JPL , Rand , LANL

Did testing of Equipment for Moon bases, to Build // Construct one on the Moon


I suggest you see this site ...
Scitech Connect was former ( infomation bridge )
www.osti.gov...:%20%22lunar%20outpost%22/sort:publication_date%20asc/filter-results:C

Term Search Lunar Outpost or Lunar Base

and check what NASA JPL did in the 60s 70s and 80s

Things of Interest of the recent ....
just an example


Converting the ISS to an Earth-Moon Transport System Using Nuclear Thermal Propulsion
www.osti.gov...

a big WTF!

using the ISS as a Transport ? from Earth Space to Moon Space ?


Design and construction of shielded lunar outpost
www.osti.gov...



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 03:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Go Trump!


Our future is out there among the stars, not looking at stupid ice and polar bears.


So well put.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 03:54 AM
link   
As many have said, trying to save this planet from "climate change" is futile at best. We have a right to look after it. We have no reason in trying to "save" it. This planet and the rest of our solar system goes through cycles and changes. We can't stop it.

I think the wisest decision IS to focus on creating a chance of survival for future generations. The sun will die, the planet will change. But if we want, our species has what it takes to survive. But we need to be proactive.

All for this.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 08:54 AM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Ok so if i had a choice between 2 man made inventions. 1 being global warming around which a entire billion dollar business has emerged making alternative energy production extremely expensive and taxable to no end and the other being space travel (in any form) i think i will go for space travel as well.

Not much of a choice really unless you are a #Vegan #Progressive etc who eats up all the BS created to agree with that billion dollar industry that is "Global warming", a industry that has made it immensely expensive in order to profit from it while making sure the oil industry keeps on rolling undisturbed .



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Natas0114
a reply to: intrptr

Resources that can be mined and exploited for cash. Iridium, platinum, palladium, gold, helium 3 etc.....

The return to earth is problematic. I see bragging rights.

Be the first wealthy elite person to have a Martian gold nugget on your desk.

Only 20 billion dollars. Which is peanuts to a trillionare.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz


using the ISS as a Transport ? from Earth Space to Moon Space ?

I reviewed that idea. Nuclear powered space craft mean shooting nuclear fuel and shielding into earth orbit. Something they undertake wth a lot of trepidation. if a launch were to fail it could seed the heavens with radioactive fallout that would travel around the world.

But who cares? Elysium denizens could give a crap about surface dwellers on Earth.
edit on 22-11-2016 by intrptr because: spelling



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.


Our own sun is going to die.

So total extinction of humans is OK with you?


The Sun won't die for another 5 billion years. Let's even move that up a bit, and say it has only 3 Billion years left...

Considering that 3 Billion years ago, all life on Earth was just simple single-cell life, and complex life did not begin until less than 1 Billion years ago, my guess is that humans will not even be around in 3 Billion years time. Heck -- just a short 100 Million (that's "Million", with a "M") years ago, the animals that eventually became humans looked like mice or shrews.

And 3 Billion years is 30 times longer than 100 million years. That means that the evolutionary path that went from shrew-like creatures 100 million years ago to humans today could happen 30 more times between now and then.

3 Billion years is a very very very long time for evolution to work. In that amount of time, a whole other type of intelligent life may evolve out of some other type of animal around today. Maybe descendants of today's lemurs or meerkats or groundhogs would have evolved into the dominant species by that time.

So no -- I don't think humans need to worry about the Sun going out in 5 Billion years. Whatever creature is on the planet at that time might need to worry, but humans will almost certainly had naturally become long extinct.


edit on 2016-11-22 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: InachMarbank
I just started thinking about space program stuff pretty recently. Among other things, I can't seem to wrap my head around the gravitational intricacies of how satellites stay in orbit.

I have asked this kick off question before and run into a wall on a different site. Maybe the community here at ATS can help me see the light... Here goes...

What is the terminal velocity of an object falling in a vacuum?


I'm no physicist so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that there isn't one. Terminal velocity is the result of air friction slowing down your fall to the point that gravity no longer accelerates you, it's based on mass, surface area, and atmospheric composition. Without an atmosphere there's nothing to create drag and slow you down.

Orbit is basically perpetually falling, and the orbits all happen at roughly the same speed. What changes how fast a satellite can go around the earth (or the direction it moves in) is the height of the orbit.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:02 PM
link   
You guys are forgetting the most important reason we need to get to Mars. We need to stop these guys.

Seriously though, global warming may or may not end up being a problem. Only a tiny percentage of far-right wackos claim there's no climate change, there's just legitimate debate about how much humans are responsible for it and how much we can really effect it, even if we completely cripple our economy bending over backwards with our balls in a knot trying to lighten our carbon footprint. It's certainly not "settled science" as some of the hardcore climate change worshipers like to say.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: LumenImagoDei
I don't think we have any business going to other planets if we can't even take care of our own.


Our own sun is going to die.

So total extinction of humans is OK with you?


The Sun won't die for another 5 billion years. Let's even move that up a bit, and say it has only 3 Billion years left...


I know that.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 06:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Yay!

If people want to study man-made climate change, they should be free to do so.

But not with my tax dollars!

Now spaceships and Moon bases?

Heck yeah!



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 09:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

Great job Trump. No need to waste money on fairy tales.



posted on Nov, 22 2016 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: InachMarbank
I just started thinking about space program stuff pretty recently. Among other things, I can't seem to wrap my head around the gravitational intricacies of how satellites stay in orbit.

I have asked this kick off question before and run into a wall on a different site. Maybe the community here at ATS can help me see the light... Here goes...

What is the terminal velocity of an object falling in a vacuum?


I'm no physicist so I could be wrong, but my understanding is that there isn't one. Terminal velocity is the result of air friction slowing down your fall to the point that gravity no longer accelerates you, it's based on mass, surface area, and atmospheric composition. Without an atmosphere there's nothing to create drag and slow you down.

Orbit is basically perpetually falling, and the orbits all happen at roughly the same speed. What changes how fast a satellite can go around the earth (or the direction it moves in) is the height of the orbit.


Hey thanks for reply.
Yea reading in various forums, seems the consensus is there's no terminal velocity in a vacuum.
If you're free falling in a near vacuum, like the ISS is said to be, at an acceleration of 9.8 meters per second squared (gravity of earth) would you keep accelerating to infinity, because of insignificant air resistance???



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: InachMarbank
I just started thinking about space program stuff pretty recently. Among other things, I can't seem to wrap my head around the gravitational intricacies of how satellites stay in orbit.

I have asked this kick off question before and run into a wall on a different site. Maybe the community here at ATS can help me see the light... Here goes...

What is the terminal velocity of an object falling in a vacuum?


Depends on the strength of the gravitational field. On the Moon, it's not going to be as fast as it would on something with the mass of Earth or of the sun.

edit on 23-11-2016 by Byrd because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:05 AM
link   
I feel the discussion is so often predicating itself on arguments falling victim to the black for white fallacy. It's either we put effort towards climate change, or space exploration. Why the hell are we limiting our imaginations in this way? That societies can only muster the time and resources to address one and not the other?? How about we cut back just a smidgen on tanks and stealth bombers and both fix our # and send people out into space instead of the gross expenditure that goes elsewhere??



posted on Nov, 23 2016 @ 12:28 AM
link   

Great job Trump. No need to waste money on fairy tales.

Then again, there is also the people that are straight up denialists...

Climate change is a fact. It happening now is a fact. It happening now in unprecedented ways is a fact. Those facts are only in dispute among people like you and stubborn and or ignorant politicians. The debate for a long while now has only been about how much of Humankind's behavior is contributing to it.




top topics



 
52
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join