This topic is in the Space Exploration discussion forum.  (rss)


Triana




Topic started on 26-11-2006 @ 12:07 AM by AMANNAMEDQUEST


Found this on wikipedia


Since 1998, Gore heavily promoted a NASA satellite that would provide an constant view of Earth, marking the first time such an image would have been made since The Blue Marble photo from the 1972 Apollo 17 mission. The "Triana" satellite would have been permanently mounted in the L1 Lagrangian Point, 1.5 million km away. [24] The finished satellite was not launched due to opposition from the Republican congress


Why wouldn't the Republicans allow a constant live feed of the earth?
I found this interesting and just wanted to share this info.
Man I wish I voted for this guy!

[edit on 26-11-2006 by AMANNAMEDQUEST]



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 26-11-2006 @ 12:18 AM by semperfortis


Reading it, sounds the other way round to me...

Sounds like the Republicans defeated Gores proposal to have it launched...

???????

Semper



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-11-2006 @ 01:58 AM by byhiniur



Originally posted by semperfortis
Reading it, sounds the other way round to me...

Sounds like the Republicans defeated Gores proposal to have it launched...

???????

Semper


Exactly, so "why didn't the republicans want a live feed of the Earth"?

Maybe it was because there'd be no scientific merit to having the live feed. It'd be the most expensive piece of technology to produce artwork.

What benefits do you think there are to be had Quest, other than being something 'pretty' to watch.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-11-2006 @ 09:22 AM by AMANNAMEDQUEST


Its cost was $100 million and remains in storage for $1 million a year.



It'd be the most expensive piece of technology to produce artwork.




reply to this post:   copyright & usage 


reply posted on 27-11-2006 @ 07:05 PM by byhiniur


Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit.

Hubble allows scientists to test their hypotheses while still giving people beatiful pictures of the Universe. If this idea, of viewing the Earth, would have cost $100 million then its still alot because there's no scientific merit.

If you want to see the earth then download Google Earth, I doubt this cost as much as $100 million, although I can't find the cost of it on t'internet.

How much is a pen and paper, how much are water colours and a canvas and how much is a block of marble and some chisels. Therefore I think it would have been the largest amount of money spent on technology to give us, what would essentially be, a piece of technology to create art.



reply to this post:   copyright & usage 










Top Topics Right Now:



Active Topics Right Now:



ATS MIX Podcasts:











Newest Topics:


























ATS Server: www4.theabovenetwork.com
Powered by AboveTop:Board v2.3
Header data processed in 0.002 seconds
Page processed in 0.086 seconds
6 total database queries (1)









The Above Top Secret Conspiracy Community Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.





thread