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 Murcielago
Frosty
For a small fraction of the cost we could send robots to the moon for years to do what men could accomplish over several missions lasting only weeks....and then with the money left over send out more robots.
Have you ever heard of Columbus? Or Lewis & Clark?
The obvious point i'm making is that we like to explore the unknowns for ourselves. Sure robots can do it as well, and for a cheaper price, but there not as reliable and resourcefull as us, what takes a Mars rover 2 weeks, humans could do in under a day.
Originally posted by Frosty
No, the obvious point is that apples are not oranges. Colombus was sent out by a king and queen to discover gold. Lewis and Clark were sent out by a president to map the northwest. And the places these men set out was not unknown.
Your comparison of these two to space exploration is very childlike. And you have no idea what manned exploration is do you? What fronteirs have they explored that robots haven't too first?
Originally posted by sardion2000
There is also the fact that we are on a tiny island call planet earth and we could get blindsided by any number of celestial calamities. Pushing the boundries of where and how we live will lower the chances that we will get blindsided. Extinction sucks ya know
You will not hear from me on this issue again as it's obviously a waste of time trying to convince you. At least you're at least willing to listen to arguments another one I had an argument with on this subject(named Realist) would barely even do that. Been fun! I hope you see the light someday.
Frosty
There is nothing in space that can support mankind at the moment.
Originally posted by Frosty
At first it was about the science, but now I can clearly see this is a political and personal goal whether it be to upstage the communist or release fears of doomsday.
Originally posted by bodebliss
"Thats the point!
thats the thing we need to change"
Your never going to change the fact that to live outside of Earth, we will have to live underground.
Look for the advent of mole tech.
[edit on 10/21/2005 by bodebliss]
Originally posted by bodebliss
Your never going to change the fact that to live outside of Earth, we will have to live underground.
Originally posted by bodebliss
Radiation.
Definately, radiation. Oh , and lack of atmosphere and the foots ability to touch the ground. and grow crops and have cities, especially when meteors are raining down..
Originally posted by seeuathemovies
lol if China gets up there and can't find any evidence of us being there, that would just make me laugh; despise the govn't even more lol.
peace
jeff
Originally posted by seeuathemovies
i really don't think that we made it to the moon. i think we just had to be the hardcore us nation that we are and beat russia in the space race. how would it look if the us lost to a communist nation? they had been working for a lot longer on getting to the moon and spent a lot more money and then we came along and spend less money and accomplish their task in a short amount of time. i don't think we just had better people work on it. it was all a hoax.
p.s. deny hate
Originally posted by wetwarez
originally posted by resistance
Murcielago -- Your logic isn't making it. The galaxies may be huge, but they are far, far away. The moon is the closest thing to us in space, a piddly 250,000 miles away, and even to the naked eye looks pretty big. We can look at it through binoculars and see craters and stuff. So my point is, if this contraption they've got up in space known as the Hubble telescope can't even get a good pic of the moon, why should I believe them when they produce these things that look like ink blots and claim these are "new stars forming, or "old stars dying" or whatever other nonsense they claim.
resistance, have you ever known anyone with glasses? Hubble was designed to look at "DEEP" space objects, not close objects and as you said, the moon is a "piddly 250k away". Hubble was never designed to look at earth or the moon. In fact NASA has even explained why here and here .
Originally posted by Frosty
resistance, calm the (something) down. The Hubble was never meant to take pictures of the moon. It's greatest achievement has a been the Hubble Deep Field Images (google this).
Your thinking that a telescopse such as the Hubble not being able to look at the moon with such magnification is odd. It is a telescope, not a microscope, it is meant to look out into space not magnify Apollo debris for paranoid web surfers, again google Hubble Deep Field Images.