Obama cancells US moon return project - Polidicks

[QUOTE=smurfy;19981790]Aww :( Ah well space isn't [I]that[/I] important, it's really just a cool luxury. The money can go to important shit.[/QUOTE] Its [i]Only[/i] the final frontier.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19988496][B] HOW.[/B]. Give me a proof that NASA said we can colonize planets. Go ahead, give me a link that says having us send people to a desolate wasteland for nine months is worth it. I keep how we can get innovations from colonizing planets when we won't even reach that in our lifetime. How the fuck are we going to turn a lack of oxygen duststorm planet into a habitable one? This isn't god damn video game. You can't just click "SPACE COLONIZATION" button then wait 5 minutes for it to finish and you can instantly colonize planets. It doesn't work that way. Let me guess, you find Hearts of Iron a very good simulation of WW2? No, re-read it. I said it wasn't human nature to have world and outstanding peace, we'll always war over the stupidest thing. And holy shit, you did not just insult our awesome explorers. Are you implying our explorers were retards? They had a [B]theory[/B] that just because an ocean stands between their continents didn't necessary mean everything is different. He thought that because anyone who wasn't a crazy Christian knew that this whole fractured country was in one place, therefore habitable like his country. Everything is different in space. It takes way longer to travel there, almost impossible to colonize (there's a reason why our Rover didn't find shit by the way), and impossible NOT to have a logistical nightmare. You have no evidence or proof for anything you practically said. Back it up, show me official links from official non-crazy scientists that says we CAN colonize planets and get innovation.[/QUOTE] I can't that's the point. That's why we would put our money in NASA so that we can gain this technology. Also, when did I say I believe video games were like real life or explorer's are stupid? You're just pointing fingers and making false accusations. Also, I realize everything is different in space, it takes longer to get places. The first car on the road went 15 mph I believe, now they can go over 100. [editline]11:41PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Melkor;19988591]Great idea, let's not make any attempt to fix the problems on earth. Instead spend trillions upon trillions of dollars attempting to colonize a planet that if we succeed only the exceedingly wealthy will be able to afford to go to. Because it costs millions of dollars to send one rocket into space. Oh, and Columbus didn't discover the new world out of exploration. He discovered it because he was looking for faster trade routes with India. The discovery was driven by capitalism. You should have learned this in kindergarten.[/QUOTE] You missed the point completely. Try to read a bit better. I realize he was looking for a faster way to the orient, however, had they never funded his journey the new world never would have been found. That's what I'm saying about innovation, by trying to improve trade, he "found" a whole new continent. Also, who said trillions upon trillions? You did. I'm saying "don't cut the NASA budget" you're saying "IDIOT! TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS HURT DURF"

What some FP'ers truly believes. [img]http://www.cubeupload.com/files/636800facepunch.png[/img] by the way, are you saying that if we put all our money into GM Ford, they can create a hummer that can go 999 miles on one gallon of gas?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988519]The survival of people as a species is pretty much at stake here, our planet is turning to shit more and more everyday, melting ice caps, larger changes in global temperature, extinctions of species, mass deforestation, increasing desert size, pollution, all of these things turning our little Earth into a tainted shadow of what it used to be. I was saying you should not cut all budgets of NASA to go into space, because space is the future is it not? Eventually human beings will go into space. At some undetermined point in the future. If people used their money to feed the hungry instead of fuel innovation, where would we be today? If Queen Isabella and Henry the VII and whoever else didn't send explorers to visit the new world, there might be no America. If the rulers of those countries decided to feed the poor instead of have people explore the world would be different. Point is there will always be hungry people. You might as well fund something like NASA since well, they're the explorers going to see the final frontier. Even if we only get to mars by the end of our lifetime, at least we are making progress. If you say space isn't the future then you're a fucking moron and pretty much everyone will tell you that. Also, it's all fine and dandy to say "We'll give africans food and condoms and education" but you'd have to build infrastructure, build housing and schools, and places to grow food. You'd have to constantly send condoms, at least until they could buy their own (which I don't see happening considering the majority of Africa isn't suitable for farming, and it's been heavily mined for the last couple thousand years) If we ever get the majority of our food supply from hydroponics, we won't even need farmland, all that will matter are things like minerals and water. To be honest, I it'll most likely be harder to fix Africa than most people think.[/QUOTE] I'm going to agree with you when you say we should be researching better methods of propulsion and space travel in general, but I'm going to draw the line there. We have to solve the problems on Earth before we go to space. Earth's deterioration shouldn't make us want to abandon ship, it should make us want to stop our grossly selfish ways.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988636]I can't that's the point. That's why we would put our money in NASA so that we can gain this technology. Also, when did I say I believe video games were like real life or explorer's are stupid? You're just pointing fingers and making false accusations. Also, I realize everything is different in space, it takes longer to get places. The first car on the road went 15 mph I believe, now they can go over 100. [editline]11:41PM[/editline] You missed the point completely. Try to read a bit better. I realize he was looking for a faster way to the orient, however, had they never funded his journey the new world never would have been found. Also, who said trillions upon trillions? You did. I'm saying "don't cut the NASA budget" you're saying "IDIOT! TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS HURT DURF"[/QUOTE] You're the one who talked about terraforming other planets moron. Which would take Trillions of dollars.

[QUOTE=SantanaDVX;19988684]I'm agree with you when you say we should be researching better methods of propulsion and space travel in general, but I'm going to draw the line there. We have to solve the problems on Earth before we go to space. Earth's deterioration shouldn't make us want to abandon ship, it should make us want to stop our grossly selfish ways.[/QUOTE] He has a point. If we haven't evolved to the point we can't take care of ourselves, who says we can't do the same thing to our new colonized planet?

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19988678]What some FP'ers truly believes. by the way, are you saying that if we put all our money into GM Ford, they can create a hummer that can go 999 miles on one gallon of gas?[/QUOTE] Who said that? Another shameless accusation from another typical retard. I'm almost getting a little sick of your ignorance.

Seeing a lot of posts in here bashing Obama. Did you see his State of Union address? This is a good thing. We don't need to spend billions of dollars leaving the planet just yet when 20% of our population is unemployed.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988698]Who said that? Another shameless accusation from another typical retard. I'm almost getting a little sick of your ignorance.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988636]I can't that's the point. That's why we would put our money in NASA so that we can gain this technology.[/QUOTE] I'm almost getting little sick of your delusion.

[QUOTE=Melkor;19988696]You're the one who talked about terraforming other planets moron. Which would take Trillions of dollars.[/QUOTE] In time. maybe you guys don't know what time is. Time is limitless, it means, at some point in the future it will happen. Nowhere in our lifetimes. How the fuck would we survive if we DIDN'T terraform other planets? Just tell people to stop having children? As lankist said, telling people to stop having children is a mild form of genocide. [editline]11:47PM[/editline] [QUOTE=lolwutdude;19988708]I'm almost getting little sick of your delusion.[/QUOTE] Car technology has mostly been developed, it's been developed heavily over the last 200 years. Space technology is brand new, it was used a couple times in the 60s and has barely been touched since. Obviously we can make it more efficient. You guys are relating too completely different things.

Actually, the process of terraforming a planet is completely possible, and is the subject of numerous debates regarding the financial impact of such an undertaking, and the ethics of it as well. Anyone who hasn't done their research on this should Google "Terraforming Mars" right now. Also, off the topic of terraforming, I'd like to ask Sloppy a question: If we leave this deteriorating planet that is on a fast track to death, what happens to the billions of people left behind? We can't just leave several billion human beings to die. In this scenario, evacuating Earth would be by far the most massive genocide in history.

I apologize ahead of time for the long post... I've spent the afternoon and evening thinking about the whole matter, taking into account all the different pros and cons, getting an idea of why one option is better or worse than another. And after all this time thinking I have to say in all honesty - - I don't know how I feel about it. Clearly there were major, major problems with the Constellation program. The entire thing was essentially doomed from day one. The program was built on the idea of an Apollo Redux, using the same basic spacecraft design with updated technology, and unfortunately it's 'goals' outlined in the 2004 Vision for Space Exploration amounted to 'let's go to the Moon... or whatever'. And then of course on top of all this is the fact that for all it's ambition, the program never received anywhere near the necessary funding or support to pull it off. Constellation was, as the Augustine Commission, Bolden, and a lot of people at NASA have been saying for a long time - unsustainable, and reworking it or scrapping it was the best option. That said, there's concern about the number of jobs and more importantly experts lost in such a move. Frankly I think the best option to minimize job loss and get more congressmen on board is to compromise and allow for a program like Direct to develop, which would allow for some of those shuttle jobs to be saved. I'm extremely pleased to see NASA getting a budget increase (yes, let me clear this up for some of you who seem to be misinformed, NASA is not being gutted, it is in fact receiving an additional six billion dollars over the next five years, a modest increase but given the current economic situation I was actually surprised to find out NASA wasn't up for budget cuts) and am especially glad to see that the ISS will be funded through 2020 and perhaps beyond. This means that some of the unfinished and canceled modules could be revived and the station could continue to expand. It also means that rather than finish building it only to deorbit it a year or two later, we actually get to use the ISS as what it was intended to be - a lab. I think the decision to have NASA working with the private sector instead of trying to compete with it is brilliant. SpaceX is launching it's rocket in a month, Bigelow Aerospace is nearly done with it's long awaited module prototype, and dozens of lesser known private space companies are gaining quick ground. Within a few years it's likely NASA (and other country's space agencies) will be contracting all their LEO work to AMERICAN space companies which will be good for the economy and especially good for space exploration and development. However I want to know more about how this cooperation between the public and private sector will work. Will NASA still be closely involved? And while I'm excited that turning LEO over to the private industry will free up NASA to focus on new developments, I want to know what their backup plans are in case the private industry doesn't come through. A lot of NASA's new budget is aimed at research and development, but it hasn't been made clear yet if that will involve the development of an HLV now or what that HLV would be (Direct? ULA?). Still it's nice to see that NASA will finally have the funding to focus on advancing propulsion and other technologies rather than just recycling older concepts. The part I'm most uncertain about is the direction, the long term goals NASA and it's private partners will take. NASA, nor the President has made it clear what the long term mission is so I'm eagerly awaiting some information on that. While we may not be going to the Moon, there's a lot of options from near Earth objects like asteroids and comets, Phobos and Deimos, etc. The long term vision for the new proposal will be key, I think, to the plan being successful and to getting Congress on board. While there's still a lot of emotion and hysteria, mostly from people who haven't sat down and stared over budget and project proposals for several hours (ugh, tired), I'm certain that the details will be made more clear over the next several weeks as Congress examines and negotiates the 2011 budget.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988726]In time. maybe you guys don't know what time is. Time is limitless, it means, at some point in the future it will happen. Nowhere in our lifetimes. How the fuck would we survive if we DIDN'T terraform other planets? Just tell people to stop having children? As lankist said, telling people to stop having children is a mild form of genocide.[/QUOTE] The earth is easily capable of supporting a population ten times the size we have now. The cause of starvation is mostly from lack of proper infrastructure. There's plenty of unused land that's entirely capable of growing crops, and supporting livestock. There's plenty of land that we aren't using as living space. And since it will be several hundred years until any of what you proposed is possible, I suggest we try to better our planet. Also the death rate in first world countries is higher than the birth rate. It's only in third world countries without access to birth control that the worlds population is growing.

[QUOTE=SantanaDVX;19988749]Actually, the process of terraforming a planet is completely possible, and is the subject of numerous debates regarding the financial impact of such an undertaking, and the ethics of it as well. Anyone who hasn't done their research on this should Google "Terraforming Mars" right now.[/QUOTE] I did. It literally says we have to hypothetically carry some heavy shits like mirrors to reflect the radiation and shit. Problems with this: 1) Mars and Earth is completely different planets. 2) Our ship might explode before it even goes there. 3) Even if we did terraform it, what would be the consequences of this? How will this desolate violent rock react to a sudden change of being life? 4) How can we transfer supplies? We're literally trapping our men there while it take nine months to get from Earth to Mars. and there's even more problems.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19988831]I did. It literally says we have to hypothetically carry some heavy shits like mirrors to reflect the radiation and shit. [/QUOTE] You're reading the crackpot idiot ideas. Nasa has been researching methods about how to do this, Carl Sagan even delved into it a little bit, posting his own paper on terraforming Venus (through the introduction of Algae in Venus's atmosphere). It's entirely possible, and not as crazy as you might think. But it's still expensive as fuck and not going to happen in the next century.

[QUOTE=SantanaDVX;19988861]You're reading the crackpot idiot ideas. Nasa has been researching methods about how to do this, Carl Sagan even delved into it a little bit, posting his own paper on terraforming Venus (through the introduction of Algae in Venus's atmosphere). It's entirely possible, and not as crazy as you might think. But it's still expensive as fuck and not going to happen in the next century.[/QUOTE] link

[QUOTE=Melkor;19988812]The earth is easily capable of supporting a population ten times the size we have now. The cause of starvation is mostly from lack of proper infrastructure. There's plenty of unused land that's entirely capable of growing crops, and supporting livestock. Also the death rate in first world countries is higher than the birth rate. It's only in third world countries without access to birth control that the worlds population is growing.[/QUOTE] All of which I am aware of. The problem truly lies in the third world, where the population is growing by leaps and bounds. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png[/IMG] Assuming the yellow one, the population will be 9 billion in only 50 years. From 1960 to 2060 it increased by 200%.

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19988877]All of which I am aware of. The problem truly lies in the third world, where the population is growing by leaps and bounds. [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/77/World-Population-1800-2100.png[/IMG] Assuming the yellow one, the population will be 9 billion in only 50 years. From 1960 to 2060 it increased by 200%.[/QUOTE] That's if it continues at the same rate and doesn't reach its carrying capacity, and if it doesn't, then we do what lankist suggested and help third world countries build the proper infrastructure so that they have an acceptable standard of living and aren't fucking each other without condoms. You argue the difficulty of this prospect, but I can assure you it's easier than colonizing other planets.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19988496][b] HOW.[/b]. Give me a proof that NASA said we can colonize planets. Go ahead, give me a link that says having us send people to a desolate wasteland for nine months is worth it. I keep how we can get innovations from colonizing planets when we won't even reach that in our lifetime. How the fuck are we going to turn a lack of oxygen duststorm planet into a habitable one? This isn't god damn video game. You can't just click "SPACE COLONIZATION" button then wait 5 minutes for it to finish and you can instantly colonize planets. It doesn't work that way. Let me guess, you find Hearts of Iron a very good simulation of WW2? No, re-read it. I said it wasn't human nature to have world and outstanding peace, we'll always war over the stupidest thing. And holy shit, you did not just insult our awesome explorers. Are you implying our explorers were retards? They had a [b]theory[/b] that just because an ocean stands between their continents didn't necessary mean everything is different. He thought that because anyone who wasn't a crazy Christian knew that this whole fractured country was in one place, therefore habitable like his country. Everything is different in space. It takes way longer to travel there, almost impossible to colonize (there's a reason why our Rover didn't find shit by the way), and impossible NOT to have a logistical nightmare. You have no evidence or proof for anything you practically said. Back it up, show me official links from official non-crazy scientists that says we CAN colonize planets and get innovation.[/QUOTE] You want some advocation from some scientists? Alright, here you go: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZkyRl5IreM[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCifZSpaNSo[/url] [url]http://www.history.com/video.doname=science&bcpid=1681694253&bclid=1716440848&bctid=1668522650[/url] [url]http://www.marsnews.com/missions/humans_to_mars/[/url] And here's a little something I'm sure you're familiar with [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw[/url] Just because we can't colonize today, we shouldn't work towards it tomorrow? "Oh, we can't talk to each other, let's not develop speech.", "Oh, we can't exchange information quickly, let's not develop television." "Oh, we can't do this, blah blah blah." You're dumb.

[QUOTE=Melkor;19988965]That's if it continues at the same rate and doesn't reach its carrying capacity, and if it doesn't, then we do what lankist suggested and help third world countries build the proper infrastructure so that they have an acceptable standard of living and aren't fucking each other without condoms. You argue the difficulty of this prospect, but I can assure you it's easier than colonizing other planets.[/QUOTE] Obviously it's easier than colonizing planets. However, you should not cut the funding and the research simply because it takes time. People look at space and think it's a waste of time, but there are so many unexplored places and things that we don't know.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;19981927][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic[/url] Whole lot of nothin happenin there.[/QUOTE] Whoa man Im wearing that shirt. Oshkosh was fun :D

[QUOTE=nickohlus;19988975]You want some advocation from some scientists? Alright, here you go: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZkyRl5IreM[/url] [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCifZSpaNSo[/url] [url]http://www.history.com/video.doname=science&bcpid=1681694253&bclid=1716440848&bctid=1668522650[/url] [url]http://www.marsnews.com/missions/humans_to_mars/[/url] And here's a little something I'm sure you're familiar with [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouRbkBAOGEw[/url] Just because we can't colonize today, we shouldn't work towards it tomorrow? "Oh, we can't talk to each other, let's not develop speech.", "Oh, we can't exchange information quickly, let's not develop television." "Oh, we can't do this, blah blah blah." You're dumb.[/QUOTE] All I fucking hear is "We have to survive and colonize planets!". I saw those videos(cept Stephen Hawkin, did this guy do anything other than say black hole has radiation?) before, I got bored of it because they haven't showed me empirical fucking proof. No, I'm saying we if can't prove we can terraform a desolate violent sandstorm rock into a green habitable planet today, they should come up with a sound theory backed up with evidence tomorrow before wasting our tax money. You just made those comparisons and you're calling me dumb? Nigga, you crazy.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19989044]All I fucking hear is "We have to survive and colonize planets!". I saw those videos(cept Stephen Hawkin, did this guy do anything other than say black hole has radiation?) before, I got bored of it because they haven't showed me empirical fucking proof. No, I'm saying we if can't prove we can terraform a desolate violent sandstorm rock into a green habitable planet today, they should come up with a sound theory backed up with evidence tomorrow before wasting our tax money. You just made those comparisons and you're calling me dumb? Nigga, you crazy.[/QUOTE] To get the technology you need to terraform. That's the point of investing. Governments don't say "I need the technology finished before I give you any grants"

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19989070]To get the technology you need to terraform. That's the point of investing. Governments don't say "I need the technology finished before I give you any grants"[/QUOTE] So, if someone came to you and said "Hey, give me your money and time, I'll a create a machine that'll shit gold" would you? Government would say "I need proof and background of your experiment before I can give you a grant because I'm not retarded".

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19989096]So, if someone came to you and said "Hey, give me your money and time, I'll a create a machine that'll shit gold" would you? Government would say "I need proof and background of your experiment before I can give you a grant because I'm not retarded".[/QUOTE] No. The designers come up with a reasonable design report, they don't come up with a fully fuctional model before looking for funding.

God damn it. Now I'll [b]never[/b] live on the moon.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19989044]All I fucking hear is "We have to survive and colonize planets!". I saw those videos(cept Stephen Hawkin, did this guy do anything other than say black hole has radiation?) before, I got bored of it because they haven't showed me empirical fucking proof. No, I'm saying we if can't prove we can terraform a desolate violent sandstorm rock into a green habitable planet today, they should come up with a sound theory backed up with evidence tomorrow before wasting our tax money. You just made those comparisons and you're calling me dumb? Nigga, you crazy.[/QUOTE] WASTING OUR TAX MONEY??!! Did you seriously just poop out everything I said in my other posts as soon as you read it? How the fuck are we going to develop the technology to terraform if we keep getting budget cuts? You're not even giving it a chance. My sources made sense because ALL OF THEM were explaining the validity of exploring space. Because it's valid. Yes, it costs money, everything does. Yes, it's risky in some areas. But that doesn't mean it's not worth trying, that we gain nothing from trying. It's not a desolate sandstorm rock. Terraforming involves utilizing the greenhouse effect, which traps atmosphere, which creates an environment, which makes it habitable for life (plants), which creates oxygen, which makes the atmosphere breathable, must I go on?

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;19989120]No. The designers come up with a reasonable design report, they don't come up with a fully fuctional model before looking for funding.[/QUOTE] I didn't say that. I said they should provide evidence that this can happen, by using this and that, why and how, but they need funding to make it happen.

[QUOTE=lolwutdude;19989213]I didn't say that. I said they should provide evidence that this can happen, by using this and that, why and how, but they need funding to make it happen.[/QUOTE] Obviously they have evidence. I don't know about you but I'm actually not a NASA scientist so I don't know what they're up to. However, I'm sure they have a way to do everything. As nickholus said before, Sagan briefing worked on terraforming, and wrote a paper on terraforming venus.

I was pretty sure this would happen. We need to take care of the problems we have here rather than use all the money to go back to moon. Besides China might get there before USA anyways.