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.

 

Obama Kills Mission to The Moon....REDUX

page: 3
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Chamberf=6
 

No the price is not the same but the technology is almost unchanged.
Regards, Iwinder




posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


What was rude?

If you are willing to use 45-50 year old tech, not train anyone, or develop anything new to improve the mission...

I am truly glad you're not in the space business.

For a person wanting a foreward thinking sort of mission, you seem to be content with backwards (to todays standards) means.
edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 


What was rude?

If you are willing to use 45-50 year old tech, not train anyone, or develop anything new to improve the mission...

I am truly glad you're not in the space business.

For a person wanting a foreward thinking sort of mission, you seem to be content with backwards (to todays standards) means.
edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)

And you are obviously in the "space business" because you sure seem to project what you are talking about....
I have no idea how old you are but in the 70's a new car was much more than a thousand bucks, but what do I know huh?

At least my Nova had real leather, a good 350 engine and I didn't need techs swarming all over it just to get to 250 thousand miles.
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Your logic is flawed, not to mention condescendingly brash. The things still have to be built, why would Audi want to make a 1969 Chevy Nova today? Having fun?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Does it go to the moon?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


In the sixties is what I mentioned about the car. as an average.) Mainly making a point.

According to NASA, the answer to the question, "Why should we return to the Moon?,"[43] would be to: extend human colonization,
1. further pursue scientific activities intrinsic to the Moon,
2. test new technologies, systems, flight operations and techniques to serve future space exploration missions,
3. provide a challenging, shared and peaceful activity to unite nations in pursuit of common objectives,
4. expand the economic sphere while conducting research activities that benefit our home planet,
5. engage the public and students to help develop the high-technology workforce that will be required to address the challenges of tomorrow.

Constellation program
Add to that a habitation, new tools and instruments, etc.
Does any of that sound cheap?

Like I said in my first post I would love to see it happen.

But You asked why it would cost so much.

I tried to explain...


edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Does it go to the moon?


Laughing here, it went to the junk yard at 258 thousand miles to be honest, a couple of drives almost got me to the moon though.
One night parked on lover's lane I did indeed see stars so maybe I was close to the moon.
I apologize if I have been rough around the edges here on this thread.
It is the gold tape and the computer power that get me cranked up.
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 25-1-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Christosterone
After watching the State of the Union last night, I couldnt help remembering my greatest disappointment in the current President of the United States.


According to the Washington Post, Obama will seek to shelve the $81bn Constellation program, which called for a return to the moon by 2020 and human landings on Mars by the middle of the century. The plans were laid out by his predecessor, George Bush, in 2004.

Get the whole article here:
www.guardian.co.uk...

Why would President Obama kill the Constellation Program? Especially considering it was such a small percentage of the national budget.

I know that I am a bit of a space nerd, but is it not imperative that we go forth into space?
Is that not where our inevitable future lies?
And the obvious first place to begin upon our trek to the stars is on the moon.
And, eventually, to colonize the moon as a base from which to launch deep space missions.

BTW, please do not turn this into a "did we actually go to the moon" thread.
This thread is strictly to discuss WHY we are not going back to the moon as the previous president and previous heads of NASA wanted...

IMHO, there is absolutely ZERO chance of a Richard Branson type making it to the moon. It takes the resources of a country to do something this grand.
A few billionaires will never be able to muster a space program to rival what America can do.....or China, ESA, or others....

I am personally appalled that we have no current plans to go back to the moon and I wonder what your thoughts are.
And if you are in favor of killing the mission, please give me your reasons...

Above all, please keep this discussion civil....that is my only request


Christosterone
"That we go forth into space"????

For what? To stay hanging around the moon again for another decade.? Why would we do something we already did before. We will never go back to the moon because there is no need to go back. Unless we need to desperately mine the moon. Which won't happen for another 100 years or more.

Space travel is a "black or white" issue. you either go all out or stay home..one doesn't go to the moon to realize(for a second time) , traveling past the moon is pretty much impossible to achieve using primitive physics( and boatload of hopeful theories).


Forget about the moon and enjoy your short life.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


A computer only works as well as its operator. You think people in the 60 were dim? Needed help with calculators to do math? 238,000 miles on a car is not real impressive, neither is a 350 V8.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Iwinder
 


Your logic is flawed, not to mention condescendingly brash. The things still have to be built, why would Audi want to make a 1969 Chevy Nova today? Having fun?


Actually If GM still made the early 70's Nova I would buy all the ones I could afford because tank tough and proven to be virtually flawless.
I would guaranteed lots of miles, almost zero maintenance , and most importantly it would do the job just as well in the 70's as it would today.
So why can't a space vehicle designed and proven in the 60's do the same thing today?
Regards, Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Here's a ABC news Twitter post of 23 minutes ago, I think is relavant...


@jonkarl
Jonathan Karl Newt: "By the end of my 2nd term, we will have the first permanent base on the moon and it will be American."


edit on 1/25/2012 by Larryman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 





I would guaranteed lots of miles, almost zero maintenance , and most importantly it would do the job just as well in the 70's as it would today.


And one hell of a monthly budget for gasoline.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
 





I would guaranteed lots of miles, almost zero maintenance , and most importantly it would do the job just as well in the 70's as it would today.


And one hell of a monthly budget for gasoline.


You are correct but I would not have to worry about a budget say for, computers, re-design,engineers, re-progamming,test drives, budget arguments, fear it wont get me there, etc.
stay with the proven and you will be ok.
Regards,Iwinder
So why can't a space vehicle designed and proven in the 60's do the same thing today?
Regards, Iwinder
edit on 25-1-2012 by Iwinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Probably he's thinking. Why should the USA spend billions developing space travel (which it would mean that as they would not be satisfied in just going to the moon) with all the dangers to the men as well and then for all the other countries to join in when the hardest part has been done? If the USA had a moon base or even a mars base that of course would lead to the USA to say "We payed for this with our money and the lives of our men so the moon and mars are ours". If you don't believe that then you are naive. The rest of the world would not accept that and I think that is a very sound arguement. The only fair way to develop space is for there to be a global plan for doing it. That includes all nations putting in money and technology. That has no chance of happening yet as all the seperate nations jealously guard their technology from one-another. That is just my opinion.



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 





So why can't a space vehicle designed and proven in the 60's do the same thing today? Regards, Iwinder


With everything we know now, and wehat we have developed since then, why would you want to undertake such a grand mission with sub-par equipment and do it half-assed?



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Iwinder
 


So it does get you to the moon, and you junked it!???!!!



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by Iwinder
 


So it does get you to the moon, and you junked it!???!!!


I didn't have a budget close to a few billion to keep it on the road, all it needed was a new engine and I would have been good to go.
Regards,Iwinder



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:19 PM
link   
without going into a debate, I just want to put down some quotes about the need for space exploration


The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right! — Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur C. Clarke in an interview online at space.com, 2001.



If humans one day become extinct from a catastrophic collision, there would be no greater tragedy in the history of life in the universe. Not because we lacked the brain power to protect ourselves but because we lacked the foresight. The dominant species that replaces us in post-apocalyptic Earth just might wonder, as they gaze upon our mounted skeletons in their natural history museums, why large headed Homo sapiens fared no better than the proverbially peabrained dinosaurs. — Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death By Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, 2007.


these, and many more quotes can be found at
www.spacequotations.com...



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chamberf=6
OP--

Just wondering...

Are you bringing up something Obama did a few years ago and you disagree with NOW because it is an election year?


No....but good question.
I tend to believe that persuading people off their politics is impossible


Nor do I care to discuss politics.

You will never see me say anything in the political forums...

I just want to pursue space. I dont care who is president re space travel...I only care that we, as a country, strive to do this and the other things!!!!
Space is there to be explored....

Travel to the moon must be done if we, as a species, are to survive into the future.

Space, IMHO, should be a priority..

I dont care if the president is democrat, republican, or independent...I just want us to go back to the moon.

chris



posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 05:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hellhound604
without going into a debate, I just want to put down some quotes about the need for space exploration


The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right! — Larry Niven, quoted by Arthur C. Clarke in an interview online at space.com, 2001.



If humans one day become extinct from a catastrophic collision, there would be no greater tragedy in the history of life in the universe. Not because we lacked the brain power to protect ourselves but because we lacked the foresight. The dominant species that replaces us in post-apocalyptic Earth just might wonder, as they gaze upon our mounted skeletons in their natural history museums, why large headed Homo sapiens fared no better than the proverbially peabrained dinosaurs. — Neil deGrasse Tyson, Death By Black Hole: And Other Cosmic Quandaries, 2007.


these, and many more quotes can be found at
www.spacequotations.com...


Your first quote is a theory,not a fact. We don't know for sure how dinos' just vanished.

Your second quote is another scare tactic. We do not have nor have the physics to destroy,deflect nor capture a asteroid or comet. So if one comes we are at the mercy of it. Accept it


I think you need to stop believing what every scientist yaps about our future. Or anything else really. That's if(unless) you faithfully believe theories as facts.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join