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.
Originally posted by resistance
jra -- I'm not saying telescopes don't work. I'm saying they work almost as well as the Hubble, maybe better, based on the moon pics we're getting from the Hubble.
Originally posted by wetwarez
Originally posted by resistance
jra -- I'm not saying telescopes don't work. I'm saying they work almost as well as the Hubble, maybe better, based on the moon pics we're getting from the Hubble.
Ok resistance, you win. On a dark night, take one of those backyard telescopes and point it at the night sky.
When you find your home planet, send them a message to come pick you up as you have finally confounded and confused us mere lowly humans...
Originally posted by Astronomer68
Well Resistance you certainly adopted an appropriate name for yourself. You have resisted every attempt by everyone who has bothered to try to enlighten you. The way you write tells me you aren't totally stupid and enough information has been presented that you can't possibly be ignorant either; therefore, you are being obstinate because it pleases you in some warped, illogical fashion that can't stand up to even a cursory glance by someone else. Why are you doing this? What motivates you to remain obdurate and, and pig-headed?
Originally posted by sardion2000
Did ya read me post frosty? I guess not or you probably disagree Robotic exploration is good for Pure science missions but when it comes to learning how to live 'out there' Robotics is a poor substitue to a living breathing human. At the risk of sounding like a broken record I'll repeat "Any innovations that let us live up there easier will make it easier to live here on the ground "
[edit on 14-10-2005 by sardion2000]
Originally posted by resistance
Frosty -- I don't even think the robots are a good idea, not in the hands of NASA. Why? Because NASA is hugely incompetent, dishonest, and their biased position of being determined to prove that aliens exist makes them unfit for the job. It almost guarantees false results will be foisted on the public in the name of "science."
I am also against the Hubble for the same exact reason.
Originally posted by jra
Show me where NASA has been hugely incompetent and dishonest (saying the moon landings were fake doesn't count, since you can't even prove that)
Since when has NASA been in a biased position about proving life outside our planet exsist? They have looked for signs of life on Mars. But they arn't biased when it comes to that subject. They haven't claimed to find any life outside this planet yet. There findings are very inconclusive. If they were so determined to find alien life. I'm sure they would have claimed to have done so already. But they haven't.
Originally posted by resistance
Come on, JRA. Remember Challenger? Remember Columbia? NASA testified in Congress and all kinds of stuff came out about how incompetent they are.
Take a look at this pic at the bottom of the page on this link. THEN come back and tell me how swift and capable they are.
www.geocities.com...
For God's sake, they are LOOKING FOR WATER ON THE MOON. They claim there's water there, and that they are going to use it to set up a moon village. Ha! The only ones who think there's water on the moon are NASA and the space junkies who think there's life "out there" and will believe anything NASA tells them. No serious scientist who knows anything about the moon would claim such nonsense. Do a Google search for moon, water, and see what you find. There is no atmosphere to trap any water there, and it is very, very hot. Any moisture there might be would vaporize and dissipate into space because there's not enough gravity to hold it to the moon.
NASA has radio satellite dishes pointed out to space so they can make contact with the intelligent life they think is out there. So far nobody's dialed in.
Right now they're preparing another fake landing hoax. This time on Mars. They should be better at their hoaxing techniques this time than they were with Apollo. After all, they've had almost 40 years to perfect their legerdemain craft of smoke and mirrors, they and their distinguished gallery of astroNOTs on the web pictured so heroically holding their plastic model spaceships.
Originally posted by bodebliss
If a landing on the Moon can answer the question of whether a Moon based solar power regime is possible and then go about implementing said regime, I'm all for that.
$108 billion would be cheap and an investment of 1-2 trillion dollars in a Moon based solar solution would be well worth it, if they could produce a amount of energy equal to what we now produce w/ coal, oil, gas, gasoline and alternative energy.
Originally posted by sardion2000
Solar cells, Fuel Cells, High efficiency LED growlamps, water recycling technologies, air scrubing technologies.. shall I continue?
Learning to live in extreme environments is a good thing The Antarctic is just not good enough IMO.
[edit on 15-10-2005 by sardion2000]
"John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a Washington-based policy group that bills itself as nonpartisan, pointed to two reasons for continuing the station: furthering the U.S. commitment to its space-station partners, and maintaining a manned presence in space as the moon and Mars program gears up.
Pike said he was skeptical of the administration's motives in articulating the moon-Mars plan. He noted that a new moon landing would not take place until at least 11 years after the end of a possible second Bush term.
He went so far as to indicate that the plan is a Trojan Horse for killing the shuttle and station -- and that the moon-Mars initiative will never materialize beyond "paying contractors for artwork."
Originally posted by bodebliss
If a landing on the Moon can answer the question of whether a Moon based solar power regime is possible and then go about implementing said regime, I'm all for that.
$108 billion would be cheap and an investment of 1-2 trillion dollars in a Moon based solar solution would be well worth it, if they could produce a amount of energy equal to what we now produce w/ coal, oil, gas, gasoline and alternative energy.
[edit on 10/15/2005 by bodebliss]