Forums » Off-Topic
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0612/04lunarbases/
you'd think that people would learn by now that going out into space leads to nothing but war, so why make a lunar base. we all have seen the devastating effects a move like this could make.
you'd think that people would learn by now that going out into space leads to nothing but war, so why make a lunar base. we all have seen the devastating effects a move like this could make.
The value of moon rocks would plumet! Economic collapse will shroud this planet!
I thought better of you, who? me?. I thought you were smart, guess I was wrong.
Look, we, like any other species, suck up resources. What allows the world to be fine until now, though? The food chain. Always something bigger that can kill you. Even those at the top of the animal kingdom cannot multiply too much because, well, they are their own predators. Lions in fight and so on.
We humans, while we have wars and stuff, just simply don't die fast enough. Thus, resources get used up too quickly. And so, as our poor world suffers, we have to expand to continually feed this survival machine. Helium 3 is in the moon, good for next generation fuel when oil runs out. As well as iron and other minerals.
That's why a sane person would do it. NASA is just the puppet of the government which is the puppet of lobbyists. Guess who pays lobbyists! Companies! So in essence, companies support NASA because they spend our money and not theirs. If there's stuff, they'll exand their business operations to the Moon somehow. if not, no biggy, their not out a dollar.
Over simplified way of saying it.
Look, we, like any other species, suck up resources. What allows the world to be fine until now, though? The food chain. Always something bigger that can kill you. Even those at the top of the animal kingdom cannot multiply too much because, well, they are their own predators. Lions in fight and so on.
We humans, while we have wars and stuff, just simply don't die fast enough. Thus, resources get used up too quickly. And so, as our poor world suffers, we have to expand to continually feed this survival machine. Helium 3 is in the moon, good for next generation fuel when oil runs out. As well as iron and other minerals.
That's why a sane person would do it. NASA is just the puppet of the government which is the puppet of lobbyists. Guess who pays lobbyists! Companies! So in essence, companies support NASA because they spend our money and not theirs. If there's stuff, they'll exand their business operations to the Moon somehow. if not, no biggy, their not out a dollar.
Over simplified way of saying it.
Moldy, quick Fed Income Tax FYI: the companies provide far, far more of NASA's funding than Joe Blow's minor (aproximate) 10-20% income tax levels ever have or will.
Just like the prophet foretold.
I think the project is fairly interesting. Part because I am interested in space exploration and colonization (for lack of a better term), part because this might be where my future paychecks come from.
I think the project is fairly interesting. Part because I am interested in space exploration and colonization (for lack of a better term), part because this might be where my future paychecks come from.
i'd rather see nasa waste a few billions on this than the us army waste a few trillions on a futile and unjust war.
nasa is the last us institution that i'm utterly proud of, as a non us resident. even if they derive commercial applications of whatever they do, their work reaches truly human proportions and will benefit the world.
so, go nasa! and better build a black eagle too!
woot! go kenig!
nasa is the last us institution that i'm utterly proud of, as a non us resident. even if they derive commercial applications of whatever they do, their work reaches truly human proportions and will benefit the world.
so, go nasa! and better build a black eagle too!
woot! go kenig!
"People want Buck Rodgers."
Oop, Lecter. Spending their own money, so I guess it's "okay" after all ;)
toshiro, Exactly!
toshiro, Exactly!
Absolutely agree with upper case... if all the money we've dumped into Iraq for NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER, EXCEPT TO BREED MORE TERRORISTS/ENEMIES OF THE US, had gone to space exploration we'd have a Mars base already what to speak of a Moon base (or at least it'd be fully funded if not realized yet). Or we could put EVERY American citizen through college for free, etc. etc. EVERYTHING is cheap in comparison to war.
well, unfortunately, some wars are required. like the gulf war in the early 90s, was totally just-founded.
but this iraq one is a farce (if we can call 50,000 casualties a farce). that money would have been better spent on other issues like catherina relief (where tf are the rebuild plans of louisiana?). space exploration is also, i think, a valuable long-term investment.
but this iraq one is a farce (if we can call 50,000 casualties a farce). that money would have been better spent on other issues like catherina relief (where tf are the rebuild plans of louisiana?). space exploration is also, i think, a valuable long-term investment.
What war did going out into space cause?
did someone imply that?
See the first post:
"you'd think that people would learn by now that going out into space leads to nothing but war, so why make a lunar base. we all have seen the devastating effects a move like this could make."
I'm unaware of a war caused by going out into space (unless we count the "Space Race". The Space Race exacerbated the already existing Cold War).
As we have not yet made a "move like this" before, I'm unsure which devastating effects are being referred to. There's the International Space Station, but there's been no hostility there outside of a James Bond film.
"you'd think that people would learn by now that going out into space leads to nothing but war, so why make a lunar base. we all have seen the devastating effects a move like this could make."
I'm unaware of a war caused by going out into space (unless we count the "Space Race". The Space Race exacerbated the already existing Cold War).
As we have not yet made a "move like this" before, I'm unsure which devastating effects are being referred to. There's the International Space Station, but there's been no hostility there outside of a James Bond film.
Whoa, what? 50,000 US casualties or 50,000 total?
50,000?
Abraham Licoln was fought against by his own Senate and many of the citizens, just like GW. Lincoln freed millions of slaves. GW freed millions of Iraqi's. Lincoln put political enemies in jail or kicked them out of the country. If the logical step were to happen, GW would be putting Polosi in jail, and kicking Kennedy out of the country..
People say Lincoln was one of the US's best presidents, and yet, during his time, many people thought he was an embecile and a warmonger. After all.. Lincoln did invade the South.. The South did NOT invade the North. They simply said "We do not wish to be part of the country anymore" And yet, the "warmonger" Lincoln sent armies into Atlanta and killed half the population, including women and children, burned the city to the ground.
He did this with several southern cities including Richmond, VA.
Bush should have gone into Iraq and burned Baghdad down to the ground if we wish to follow Lincoln's strategy for dealing with insurgents.. But this will not happen, nor should it. He is an honorable man, and does not wish to repeat history's mistakes.
In the end, history will judge him as a decent president, by no means the best. That falls onto Ronald Reagan.
Abraham Licoln was fought against by his own Senate and many of the citizens, just like GW. Lincoln freed millions of slaves. GW freed millions of Iraqi's. Lincoln put political enemies in jail or kicked them out of the country. If the logical step were to happen, GW would be putting Polosi in jail, and kicking Kennedy out of the country..
People say Lincoln was one of the US's best presidents, and yet, during his time, many people thought he was an embecile and a warmonger. After all.. Lincoln did invade the South.. The South did NOT invade the North. They simply said "We do not wish to be part of the country anymore" And yet, the "warmonger" Lincoln sent armies into Atlanta and killed half the population, including women and children, burned the city to the ground.
He did this with several southern cities including Richmond, VA.
Bush should have gone into Iraq and burned Baghdad down to the ground if we wish to follow Lincoln's strategy for dealing with insurgents.. But this will not happen, nor should it. He is an honorable man, and does not wish to repeat history's mistakes.
In the end, history will judge him as a decent president, by no means the best. That falls onto Ronald Reagan.
molldyman, my nick only has 1 r (yay, making minced meat of cute bunnies!).
As for who? me?'s post: Maybe he was joking?
And could we please not drag the war in Iraq into this? I'm aware that it's not entirely unrelated, but I'm pretty sick and tired of it. Oh wait, too late.
As for who? me?'s post: Maybe he was joking?
And could we please not drag the war in Iraq into this? I'm aware that it's not entirely unrelated, but I'm pretty sick and tired of it. Oh wait, too late.
I wondered if he was joking as well.
i was trying to make a somewhat (or arguably very) lame reference to something we all know alot about.
i wonder if someone yet will figure it out, though that wasnt the main point of the thread
i still think that nasa wasting money is stupid, no matter what.
i wonder if someone yet will figure it out, though that wasnt the main point of the thread
i still think that nasa wasting money is stupid, no matter what.
Could it be something that starts with a V?
Maybe just hang out until somebody comes up with something that sounds good, then own it.
It sounds like a waste from the article, but there are some valuable medical and technological uses for manufacturing in reduced gravity. I'd rather decrease world hunger first, though.
Maybe just hang out until somebody comes up with something that sounds good, then own it.
It sounds like a waste from the article, but there are some valuable medical and technological uses for manufacturing in reduced gravity. I'd rather decrease world hunger first, though.
50,000 civilians.
there has been (highly inaccurate, dubious, pessimistic or overly optimistic) reports on casualties but i can't commit to them for lack of documentation. i'm using iraqbodycount.org as my "official" figure. these are the min/max figures of every incident as reported by the media. eg, reuters says 2 and bbc says 4, the min is 2 and max is 4. every incident is detailed in their database and they list their sources (for all).
so, about 50,000, wich is by most account in the low range given the media doesn't cover all incidents and other wrongful deaths (kidnappings or else).
back on topic...
there has been (highly inaccurate, dubious, pessimistic or overly optimistic) reports on casualties but i can't commit to them for lack of documentation. i'm using iraqbodycount.org as my "official" figure. these are the min/max figures of every incident as reported by the media. eg, reuters says 2 and bbc says 4, the min is 2 and max is 4. every incident is detailed in their database and they list their sources (for all).
so, about 50,000, wich is by most account in the low range given the media doesn't cover all incidents and other wrongful deaths (kidnappings or else).
back on topic...