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.
Tell your wife to relax, I am not stating the nasa solution is the final word. It was a huge exaggeration to prove a point which you obviously missed. Typical. But 81B would be a great start though instead of jerking around earths orbit with telescopes. Telescopes bro
Originally posted by Christosterone
Originally posted by dilly1
Like I said before, if we ever go back to the moon , it will be only to mine it.
The Voyager Probe is the fastest man made object. Its traveling at speeds just over 100,000mph,,And will reach the nearest star outside our solar system in the next 50,000years. Our capabilities in Velocity for space travel is so dam primitive we must focus on "life-support" instead. Controlling our biological clock is the first step.
And the fist step is liquidating Nasa and its budget and converting it solely to investigate ways to control Aging..... Off course,This will never happen so we will not be taxing around LUNA any time soon. Sorry bro
First off, if you think we are going to travel to instellar locations via conventional(ie rocket/nuclear/ion whatever) then you are thinking entirely wrong.
As for your tangent regarding nasa and aging: obtuse and/or incredibly naive is the only way to describe those observations....
My wife who is sitting next to me is a double boarded physician(M.D.)....and if you think nasa's budget would do anything to change our currrent research into aging then we have nothing else to discuss.
$81B would be a drop of water in that ocean...nice try though
I refuse to debate with premises as absurd as your "proposals"...
Sorry, bro!
Chris
And if you are in favor of killing the mission, please give me your reasons...
ACTUALLY it's not that great of a post. Sure, you might be able to get to Mars in a month if you are accelerating at 4G the whole time.
Originally posted by scotsdavy1
I reckon he knows what is on the moon and doesn't want it advertised to the public, why do you think he thought about no fly zones on the moon? Crap! Nobody owns the moon, not even the United States Of America!
Originally posted by AaronWilson
All the rage that is coursing through my veins. Space exploration and of course, expansion is needed now more than ever! What the hell is he thinking!? Yes, money is tight, but this is our species survival were talking about.
We need resources, the moon is full of Titanium and of course, helium 3. (We have yet to know how to utilize this gas) However, speculation is it could be used as fuel. This is simple, not complicated. If we want to survive, we would have started 30 years ago.
Originally posted by Iwinder
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
I never said you did come up with that figure but it does beg the question.....
Why so much money for tape and a hand held calculator?
Regards, Iwinder
I imagine new research and studies for updated means of getting there, training, materials, test launches, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity,
...then of course all the above for habitats that would protect the people from radiation, develop ways for it to be self-sustainable for loooong term, multiple vehicles for lunar surface
...on and on and on.edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
My old chevy Nova got me to where I wanted and back for over 250 thousand miles, now to this day cars work the very same way, you put in gas and you go.
Are you saying that if I buy a new car and plan to drive it to the ground as in 250k (which I did in the 70's) that I must invest in training, materials, test drives, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity?
Then on top of that I pay 500 times or more the value of my 74 Nova just to get the exact same results?
I am shocked.
Regards,Iwinder
Originally posted by 35Foxtrot
Originally posted by Iwinder
Originally posted by Chamberf=6
reply to post by Iwinder
I never said you did come up with that figure but it does beg the question.....
Why so much money for tape and a hand held calculator?
Regards, Iwinder
I imagine new research and studies for updated means of getting there, training, materials, test launches, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity,
...then of course all the above for habitats that would protect the people from radiation, develop ways for it to be self-sustainable for loooong term, multiple vehicles for lunar surface
...on and on and on.edit on 1/25/2012 by Chamberf=6 because: (no reason given)
My old chevy Nova got me to where I wanted and back for over 250 thousand miles, now to this day cars work the very same way, you put in gas and you go.
Are you saying that if I buy a new car and plan to drive it to the ground as in 250k (which I did in the 70's) that I must invest in training, materials, test drives, reworking of designs, new tech to "invent" from scratch because of the necessity?
Then on top of that I pay 500 times or more the value of my 74 Nova just to get the exact same results?
I am shocked.
Regards,Iwinder
Actually, the Apollo missions cost US$145 Billion (in 2007 dollars). Cost
So, this new manned moon landing program would be roughly half the cost in today's dollars. Reasonable I think since, as you say, a lot of the tech already exists or would require minor mods.
you forgot to adjust for inflation..