Scientists petition congress for return to Moon

reply to post by JadeStar


Computers are used by the masses of people. If they would have not been affordable, then very few would be using them. They had to condition people to "need cell phones" before they became a major part of our economy. To train people to think they need something that really is not needed seems like what this economy is all about.

They tried to get everyone to want to go to college because the baby boomers were in the jobs. They thought that the baby boomers would retire and the jobs would open up. When the economy crashed in 08 the baby boomers lost money and many of them kept working. This caused a decrease in new workers needed and with the recession, the owners of the corporations saw an increase of profits when they layed off people. They did not hire these people back, computers could do their work and it was cheaper for them to get rid of these dead weights.

The economy is a sham, we have created a consumer based economy. We need to fix the economy not start sending man to the moon again. Scientists think that the masses are sheep and believe they are the shephard and will follow them no matter which direction they go in. We are not all sheep, I can see what is happening. I have been either a foreman or business owner most of my life, learning many professions. I see what is wrong, these scientists can't fix it, they compound it. Computers could take the place of all schools, look at the jobs that they could replace. Very few teachers are actually needed now. I have learned more on this computer in the last six years, once I actually started researching important things, than I ever learned in school. I have studied economy a lot. These scientists use economic impact to fool us, no matter where the money is spent it is circulated into economies. They just want the money, they think they can deceive everyone to believing their cause is better. The Economy does not need NASA at all, it needs real jobs producing what we consume that is necessary.

So you might as well go bark up a different tree, this tree has a good root system with a broad network of knowledge. I have much real world experience in many fields.

Although I see a need for much of the sciences, I do not see a need for man going back to the moon or to mars. I don't even think the rovers we blow money on are worth it. I do think that the satellites used to learn how things work in space is a good investment though, because learning about how things work can possibly help us learn how to safely and cleanly make energy to fuel our needs without destroying the environment. They can also help us to monitor our environment. As long as we do not destroy our environment trying to achieve the getting of this knowledge. Rationality should be observed with everything. An economy that invests in the deceitful practices of any group is not solid. You cannot give every scientist unlimited money, you have to look at things and evaluate their true worth in the future. Man going to the moon before put us in debt for a very long time. We can't afford to do this at this time, our country is not solid. The jobs in the sixties were more real than they are now. Our country was more self sufficient.

reply to post by rickymouse


Computers replacing teachers does not work. It may work for adults, because adults can be a LOT more responsible than children. But it does not work very well with children, except as a tool.

I know this because I home school my youngest child through a program called K12, which hosts another program called SCVCS (South Carolina Virtual Charter School). I know other parents that do this.

It's a combination of computer used for online classes with teachers online, or recordings they make for the kids to watch. The rest is program courses the kids need to follow and tests that they take.

It's a great program full of all of the knowledge on the internet.

However, you the parent, have to be involved. You act as the Learning Coach, and have to make sure that your child is getting the work and lessons done. If left on their own.........it's not going to get done, and they will do badly.
I've seen this, where other parents in the program try to let the computer do the entire job, and their kids score very low and have issues with the material.

My son on the other had has me watching him, answering questions he has, making sure that he does the next lesson required.....even if it's one that makes him groan (he hates ELA, English Language Arts, but loves Science and Math). I do use the computer as a tool to show him things (he's learning about what is under the ocean right now, and not only does he get to use the lessons they provide, but I take him on tours with Google Earth).

But many times, I'm having to explain things to him, show him things, or put things in a way he can understand better.

In effect, I'm not just his father and babysitter. I'm acting as his teacher. And their is no way a computer can replace me.

It's a great tool...but that is all it is. The computer can not know exactly how to teach a child, because a computer can not deal with a child's attitude that changes on a daily basis. The computer can only show that the work was not done. It's can't force the child to get the work done. The computer can test a child's knowledge........but only a person that is the child's teach will know if the child really DOES understand the material, and is simply having a hard time expressing that knowledge.

Adults on the other hand will take things more seriously. We understand that if we want to learn something what it is we need to do to learn it. We can see how using a computer to access the internet can allow us to read and learn.

Children on the other hand see something that let's them play Minecraft, Skyrim or Call Of Duty.

Adults know that to learn math on the computer, you need to break out paper and pencils to work out the problem.

Children on the other hand have no issues at all breaking out the Calculator on their computer to do the math for them.......so they are not really learning anything except: wow, I can get the computer to do the work for me!

Adults know that we have to read the material or watch a video on the computer, then take the test and see what we learned and what knowledge we retained.

Children, when left on their own with the computer as the teacher only, see that they can just Google the stupid information and just click on the answers that way. Why bother do all that reading or watching all those boring videos on grammer or that boring history video on western expansion? Just Google it!

So yes......a computer can replace a teacher.......if the student is a responsible adult. Not if they are children.

Does not work well when it's children. You have to have human interaction there.

reply to post by eriktheawful


I agree but have to add...At this time it is like this. With proper conditioning and advancing computer science the schools will be obsolete within twenty years, or one generation.

I study a lot on the net but there is a downfall to that. I can not pronounce some of the words correctly, and I did not hear the words when I made the mental image of them so I keep wanting to pronounce them wrong. This means that in order for this computer education to work they will need to straighten out all the pronounciation shortfalls now in societies. Make words sound like they look, simplifying language. Also, I see that different sciences often have different names for the same thing, the reasoning behind this is to protect the science not to promote knowledge.

Another fifty years and we may be taught directly from a computer tied to our brain when we are young. Living a lifetime of experience within six months.

rickymouse


We haven't recovered from the depression yet, I think spending money on this till things get going would be unwise. I suppose we could borrow more money so all our tax money goes to interest instead of half of it.

Are you aware that minning near earth objects would create the revenue to pay you debt off ?

rickymouse
We are going to need our money to help people after the disasters that are happening everywhere.

Disasters such as overpopulation and resource shortages? Problems that minning and colonising parts of the solar system would solve?

rickymouse
I guess these scientists can only see what is in their minds.

No they are smart enough to look long term and see the comeing problems and how to sort them.

rickymouse
If someone says that this venture will boost the economy, I think we should send them to see Santa. Building roads and businesses that create necessary products that we use will be a better way to do that.

Same reason why we should be up space intrastruture. Like building roads it would create a boom and space minning WOULD BE A NECESSARY BUISSNESS ! In fact its a vital buisness!

Jerow
reply to post by lostbook

 

they encountered E.T. them E.Ts told them not to go there.
the moon has a dark side which cannot be seen from earth called the dark side of the moon.
thats where all their bases are.

to cut it short; there has been 3 astronauts who went there after the incident and never came back.
from that point on man didn't go there anymore, only robots.

Thats called science fiction.

rickymouse

I think it is a poor way to invest money to stimulate the economy.

Its about insureing RESOURCES. When even things like Iron become rarer and rare you will be in deep crap.
Especialy if Russia and China are already up there minning and have access to even cheap platnium and all the Iron and titannium they could ever use. The USA would be chocked off, you would become the next Africa!

Tindalos2013

spartacus699
Men have not been to the moon, only rovers. And it's only gonna be rovers. It's possible that one day man will walk on the moon but so far it's still way out of reach.

So you are saying the men we sent were actually ROBOTS

Was Starwars real? Because when I seen in on TV and in movies it sure looked real? They must have built all those space ships taht actually worked and sent them up into space to film the movie right? I mean how else could they have done it. Ya, they must have gone, because our g-v would never lie to us now would they. All the 100 billion of our tax money they spent went to do exactly what they told us. yes, they planted the flag, beat the russians and never went back. Because there is absolutely no need to go back right? Like why bother. Besides there's Mars, yes lets focus on mars, forget the moon as possible real estate or space tourism or any other scientific research such as helium 3. Forget all that. All that matters is we beat the those darn Ruskies taht were the booggie man trying to get us. Now we got to beat those tar are ists right? How can we bother going back to the moon when we got to get all those been-laid-ins out there that are gunning for us. And that's why I like this forum too because it's full of people who know there place in life as good little sheeple. Thats' the main reason I come on here is to talk and dicuss things with other sheeple that only think inside the box and never question big bro. I really appreciate that and will continue to come back for more. So yes I agree with you, we beat those ruskies back to there polar wasteland and we used the moon as our coodeegrahhh!!! HOO RAAAAHHH! YES!

reply to post by lostbook


This is an invitation to out-think and out-do the chinese. The americans must do it the "american way".

The Moon.."done that, been there". It will be a great excuse for a president to make his mark in history, just like JFK did. He said to go to the Moon not because it is there but because it is hard.

Now, we space exploration lovers need a bold US president with the cohones to promise an ASAP manned mission to Mars..

I do not know much about the mechanics of economy but would such an undertaking not provide jobs for ten of thousends people? If so, one could say that the timing of the chinese couldn't be better for the american worker.

rickymouse
reply to post by eriktheawful

 

I agree but have to add...At this time it is like this. With proper conditioning and advancing computer science the schools will be obsolete within twenty years, or one generation.

I study a lot on the net but there is a downfall to that. I can not pronounce some of the words correctly, and I did not hear the words when I made the mental image of them so I keep wanting to pronounce them wrong. This means that in order for this computer education to work they will need to straighten out all the pronounciation shortfalls now in societies. Make words sound like they look, simplifying language. Also, I see that different sciences often have different names for the same thing, the reasoning behind this is to protect the science not to promote knowledge.

Another fifty years and we may be taught directly from a computer tied to our brain when we are young. Living a lifetime of experience within six months.

I don't see them being obsolete in a single generation. How could they? Do you honestly believe that a computer with advanced AI can replace a human being in that role? Can you honestly believe that a computer will be able to recognize when it has lost a child's attention, and adjust how it is putting out information to make it more interesting....on the fly?

Do you really believe that in a single generation, we would have AI that is able to replace a human beings ability reason in ways that do not strictly follow logic? That said AI will be able to use "hunches" or "gut instict" that allows them to see a problem with a child?

You talk of "conditioning"........I'm shruddering right now, because that word, when applied to human beings reminds me way too much off George Orwell's book "1984"

There is a LOT more to learning that just simply reading information, hearing a lecture, or watching a video.
There is actual hands on experience of actually DOING.

Let me give you an example: At the beginning of the year, my son was learning about erosion. I was suppose to help him with this by using a pan, some flour and water. I thought to myself: no. I'll take him out and show him the real thing.
So I took him out to our dirt driveway that is sloped down the hill towards the road, that has sand, gravel and clay. I used the garden hose while he watched, and showed him how the water was eroding the land, and it's affects on the different types of terrain.

Then I put him in the car, and we drove around, showing him in different areas how water does this on a more massive scale.

Why did I do this? Because it was obvious to me that a pan, flour and dribbling water on it, was not really conveying how erosion works very well to him. He needed more. And I was able to tell that by looking into his eyes and his facial expressions.

Can a computer do that? No. Can it do it in 20 years and know what to do? Actually, I doubt it.

Using implants to directly impart information, and even possibly life experiences?

An interesting concept. And while I'm all for the bionic arm, leg or eye to help a person that has lost the function of these things (or even other artificial organs), I'm not exactly cool with the idea of forcing technology on a child.

If we do that. If we literally "force" that information into a person who is not allowed to make a free choice about it........then what happens?

Will a child actually be allowed to pursue what it is in life they want to do? Or will they now be "programmed" and "conditioned" ?

I really hope this never happens.

zatara
reply to post by lostbook

 

This is an invitation to out-think and out-do the chinese. The americans must do it the "american way".

The Moon.."done that, been there". It will be a great excuse for a president to make his mark in history, just like JFK did. He said to go to the Moon not because it is there but because it is hard.

Now, we space exploration lovers need a bold US president with the cohones to promise an ASAP manned mission to Mars..

I do not know much about the mechanics of economy but would such an undertaking not provide jobs for ten of thousends people? If so, one could say that the timing of the chinese couldn't be better for the american worker.

edit on 24/12/2013 by zatara because: (no reason given)

Yes. I agree wholeheartedly. This is the President's moment to step up to the plate and lead us the US into a bright future by moving forward with Moon resource processing. It's just a matter of which country gets there first and if our Pres. is smart he'll do it. However, as we all know here on ATS, it's not entirely up to him but rather the people who really call the shots.

America and Europe need to serosuly think what sort of world they want to leave to there children and grandchildren?

One depleted of all vital resources with a bleak future of poverty and hopelessness were Russia and China are the sole superpowers in every aspect and call all the shots.

Or

A bright future where even the currently rarest resources as abundent and were poverty doesnt exist?

reply to post by crazyewok


The cost of mining asteroids is too high according to studies I have read. It is much cheaper to mine here on earth. It will never be cost effective in my mind. It would be cheaper to put people seperating the trash.

If some rich person is BSed into believing that this mining is a viable venture, he deserves to be broke. It is an upcoming scam.

Iron getting rarer and rarer? Recycling is much better. My knowledge states that iron is an element, it will usually stay as iron in one form or another. Boy, you sure are convinced that we need these programs. The scientific conditioning is working better on some than others. We are led to believe we need to explore outerspace by those who rely on this for their income and continued employment. We are being led to believe a lie.

DP

rickymouse


The cost of mining asteroids is too high according to studies I have read. It is much cheaper to mine here on earth. It will never be cost effective in my mind. It would be cheaper to put people seperating the trash.

If some rich person is BSed into believing that this mining is a viable venture, he deserves to be broke. It is an upcoming scam.

It people like you which is why its expensive!

Space at the moment is like a city without any roads, that why its so bloodly expensive.

There are plenty of good ideas to make Earth to orbit more afordable, some of which could be done very soon (like Skylon) But it needs investment. But closed minded fools that can only see short term withold money and so these projects allway end up canned. And so nothing its done and space remain expensive. If the USA diverted just a couple of Billion from its bloated military and gave it to NASA there a good chance they could halve or even quater the price of space transport within a few years, more over time. But no you would rather spend your time drone bombing goat herders in the ME. Hell your NSA could use a good budget shave too!

Sorry to burst your bubble, Eath is a FINITE Area with FINITE resources with a population that rapidly growing, your way of doing things will not end well 20+ years down the line. Deal with it.

reply to post by eriktheawful


People are conditioned to do many things. Society is a big conditioning project. It takes a couple of generations to effectively condition someone. That is why I said fifty years. People revolt if change is too fast and chaos destroys society. Right now, change is happening too fast here in America and in other countries. You see, the internet is destroying the conditioning of many people as they see the truth and pass it on. Not all conditioning is really bad but it is still deceit. Some just helps us to get along together and keeps us polarized enough so we cannot gain enough numbers to go against the system in place. I guess I am a potential threat to society for mentioning this. Oh well, I guess nobody really believes this is true and can't fathom how long this has been going on. Remember that the ones who have been using these systems effectively are the countries in power. This is no coincidence.

rickymouse


Iron getting rarer and rarer? Recycling is much better. My knowledge states that iron is an element, it will usually stay as iron in one form or another. Boy, you sure are convinced that we need these programs. The scientific conditioning is working better on some than others. We are led to believe we need to explore outerspace by those who rely on this for their income and continued employment. We are being led to believe a lie.

edit on 24-12-2013 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

Are you really that short sighted?

Recycling works up to a point. Fact is as earths population rises more and more resources are consumed! Recycling wont keep up with that.

And its not just abount Iron but more importanly Rare earths. Things like platnium and rubidium.

rickymouse
those who rely on this for their income and continued employment

Cause god forbid we have a new area of economic growth and a sector of high skilled jobs ! O no! We need high unemployment and low skilled labour jobs.

No wonder America is full of uninspired dimwitts. No sense of wonder or exploration.

crazyewok

rickymouse

Cause god forbid we have a new area of economic growth and a sector of high skilled jobs ! O no! We need high unemployment and low skilled labour jobs.

No wonder America is full of uninspired dimwitts. No sense of wonder or exploration.

edit on 24-12-2013 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)

Some of us still have it.

The problem is, there seems to be steady conditioning whether intentional or unintentional, through a lot of films and TV (The Hunger Games, Elysium, Revolution, Falling Skies) of people to expect LESS of the future than more.

Perhaps its just a recollection that generations after the boomers have less than their parents had and a reflection of that in the sci-fi of the time.

Personally I don't think anyone wants a dystopian future but they are lead not to trust an alternative future of abundance. (which leads to a distrust of science, engineering, etc which leads to less people going into those fields)

If all one searches for is the lowest common denominator then they will never find anything else.

Kennedy said, "We choose to go to the Moon -and do the OTHER things- NOT because they are easy, but because they are hard.".

That's worth remembering. I don't think most people understand the profoundness of that statement and what it said about America.

Today, America is all about the easy and standing around looking at what was lost.

The solution to dwindling resources and an economy based on scarcity of said resources is NOT down here.


It's the abundance that mother nature put above your head that stares at you almost beckoning you to come and take it, every night.

Happy Holidays

reply to post by crazyewok


that's what they want you to believe.
you really think all the astronauts and the guys who retired from NASA who worked with moon projects are all just telling fairytales? for one, whats the point of lying since you are already retired and some 80 years old. to get famous? not really.

also, guys at NASA know what they are doing... there are so many secret projects going on that you have no idea in the world thats happening.. you are still thinking its all fiction where in reality theres stuff going on you dont even know about.
they know what they are doing, they are not stupid.
going to the moon goes all the way back to 1969. we are almost in 2014.. thats some 45 years.
still think its all fiction? i'd like to hear your take on why man hasnt gone back to the moon?

i can guarantee you this; money and technology is not the reason why. if that, we have more money and technology than 50 years ago... way more.

reply to post by Jerow


Why did we choose to go there in the first place?

It was more of a political statement, and intellectual war against the USSR.

Once we had not only caught up, but surpassed the Russians technologically, there became a lack of political will to fund the projects.

Not sure why it has to be more complex than that.

ShaeTheShaman
reply to post by Blue Shift

 

with such little time spent there, how would they know if anything useful was on the moon.

Oh, as far as anyone knows on the Moon there are underground lakes of gold and diamonds and rare metals. But that can also be said about the Earth.

The question at the moment is whether or not the enormous costs of flying to the Moon and prospecting for these things, and then mining and transporting them will make mining the Moon a reasonable and economically sound thing to do. At the moment, it is not, and it's not going to be unless somebody brilliant comes up with a better and cheaper way to get there and back.

And it's all about money. If you want people just to do science, they can send cheap little robots.

Also, as for the secondary and tertiary benefits that industry might receive from a highly active space program, that might have been the case during the Cold War, but not anymore. The NASA tail doesn't wag the economic dog anymore, it's the other way around.

Still, if you want to support very expensive white collar welfare, I guess a space program is a good way to keep our scientists and technicians from selling their skills to the highest bidder.