When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Costal nole what do you do? Are you in r&d, mission planning or a grease monkey or what?

 

[Cuyo]

yes and no Cuyo, sorry for the non black and white answer.

Technically, I think if the funding was there and the right private sector enterprises were brought on board (think silicon valley) a mission to mars could be done, with great success.

I do think the war in Iraq and the spending under Bush is the reason the Space program will be stuck on idle. we blew our load in the middle east and the funding is not there. Also, this current crop of Republicans are budget hawks, it would take a massive spending spree to upgrade the Eastern and Western ranges. Unless the hyper political chatter stops, we will never see the proper funding.

Its going to take a "sputnik" moment im afraid. the American public will have to be hit up top the head by the Chinese for us to wake up and realize our space program is and will be a valued treasures that is brought to us by the federal government. Some don't realize, the more anti government crap we hear, the more it takes away from such mission like our space program.

I think the statement was from a technological standpoint.

As far as the budget goes... I tend to agree. When you spend or cut taxes you sacrifice someplace, and personally I think it's a travesty that space exploration is so lowly prioritized. It's probably the most important human endeavor.

But then, I'm a Sagan fan.

 

[ABikerSailor]

There is no question that people can live on the moon.
It does not have what it takes to sustain life so we need to bring or make our own once there much in the same way we have to do in many places on Earth.
We need to provide our own heat in cold places, our own water in dry places, our own food many places and so on.
Living off planet really would not be so very different from what we do now.

You know......with enough focus on solar energy, as well as figuring out how to mine the water that is there, it MAY be possible to put up a small colony on the Moon.

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

Newt said it could be done in 8 years (by the end of his second term I believe is what the quote was), and that's just plain impossible.

We don't have the money, the ability (NASA no longer has the shuttle), nor do we really have the will to do it as a nation right now.

Admit it y'all.........Newt's remark was not the brightest thing ever heard on televised political speech.

got a link to bolster that second point?

the shuttle would NOT have been used for the moon anyway. Not designed for that type of mission. Moon missions will go back to Apollo style equipment... capsule, command module, etc.

Link for the second point? Sure.......

Back in January during a Florida debate, Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans to create a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. His plans were maybe better received in Florida, home of many NASA jobs and projects. But these ideas to the rest of the nation were not received as well. With unemployment soaring and the national debt rising, it may not have been the grand idea people were looking for to lift our country out of the dire straits we are in.

Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZl8CgV9aE&feature=related]Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You know......with enough focus on solar energy, as well as figuring out how to mine the water that is there, it MAY be possible to put up a small colony on the Moon.

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

Newt said it could be done in 8 years (by the end of his second term I believe is what the quote was), and that's just plain impossible.

We don't have the money, the ability (NASA no longer has the shuttle), nor do we really have the will to do it as a nation right now.

Admit it y'all.........Newt's remark was not the brightest thing ever heard on televised political speech.

got a link to bolster that second point?

the shuttle would NOT have been used for the moon anyway. Not designed for that type of mission. Moon missions will go back to Apollo style equipment... capsule, command module, etc.

Link for the second point? Sure.......

Back in January during a Florida debate, Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans to create a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. His plans were maybe better received in Florida, home of many NASA jobs and projects. But these ideas to the rest of the nation were not received as well. With unemployment soaring and the national debt rising, it may not have been the grand idea people were looking for to lift our country out of the dire straits we are in.

Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZl8CgV9aE&feature=related]Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube[/ame]

That has nothing to do with your second point.

 

[Coastal Nole.]

Actually Gpa, IM a mechanical and electrical engineer, graduated from FSU and did my graduate work at GT. I have extensive training in radar theory an orbital mechanics. It was my dream as a kid to support the space program. Both my mother and father were huge parts of the Apollo and Shuttle programs. my father was the man brought in after the first Challenger accident for safety purposes.

I guess if I had to give you a title, Radar and telemetry engineer. I am heavily involved in R&D on the radar end of things. I also have just picked up SOI training, Space Object Identification, has to do with taking radar return signals and telling if a space object is a satellite, cube sat, rocket body, missile, etc. I also have had time on the current imaging radars used by NASA, cool shit.

 

[ABikerSailor]

got a link to bolster that second point?

the shuttle would NOT have been used for the moon anyway. Not designed for that type of mission. Moon missions will go back to Apollo style equipment... capsule, command module, etc.

Link for the second point? Sure.......

Back in January during a Florida debate, Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans to create a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. His plans were maybe better received in Florida, home of many NASA jobs and projects. But these ideas to the rest of the nation were not received as well. With unemployment soaring and the national debt rising, it may not have been the grand idea people were looking for to lift our country out of the dire straits we are in.

Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZl8CgV9aE&feature=related]Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube[/ame]

That has nothing to do with your second point.

He was asking for a quote showing that Newt said he'd have it by the end of his second term.

Reading comprehension monkey.

 

[Conservative]

You know......with enough focus on solar energy, as well as figuring out how to mine the water that is there, it MAY be possible to put up a small colony on the Moon.

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

Newt said it could be done in 8 years (by the end of his second term I believe is what the quote was), and that's just plain impossible.

We don't have the money, the ability (NASA no longer has the shuttle), nor do we really have the will to do it as a nation right now.

Admit it y'all.........Newt's remark was not the brightest thing ever heard on televised political speech.

got a link to bolster that second point?

the shuttle would NOT have been used for the moon anyway. Not designed for that type of mission. Moon missions will go back to Apollo style equipment... capsule, command module, etc.

Link for the second point? Sure.......

Back in January during a Florida debate, Gingrich described himself as a visionary when he unveiled plans to create a permanent colony on the moon within the next nine years. His plans were maybe better received in Florida, home of many NASA jobs and projects. But these ideas to the rest of the nation were not received as well. With unemployment soaring and the national debt rising, it may not have been the grand idea people were looking for to lift our country out of the dire straits we are in.

Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZl8CgV9aE&feature=related]Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube[/ame]

I was asking about this...

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

what major advances in materials technology are you referring to, and waht leap in computing? I'm curious to see your scientific basis for these statements.

The 2nd term stuff was your 3rd point, not 2nd.

 

[Coastal Nole.]

I think the statement was from a technological standpoint.

We do not have the basic support infrastructure as we speak. that could change over night given the proper funding.

Let me put it this way. I still have to work with Wire Wrap technology on a daily basis, look it up, its old tech that we still rely on cause we wont spend the money.

 

[Conservative]

Link for the second point? Sure.......



Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube

That has nothing to do with your second point.

He was asking for a quote showing that Newt said he'd have it by the end of his second term.

Reading comprehension monkey.

actually, I wasn't. see previous post.

 

[ABikerSailor]

got a link to bolster that second point?

the shuttle would NOT have been used for the moon anyway. Not designed for that type of mission. Moon missions will go back to Apollo style equipment... capsule, command module, etc.

Link for the second point? Sure.......



Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWZl8CgV9aE&feature=related]Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube[/ame]

I was asking about this...

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

what major advances in materials technology are you referring to, and waht leap in computing? I'm curious to see your scientific basis for these statements.

A colony on the moon is going to be taking some pretty hard hits from radiation and the like, never mind the micro asteroids that would be around.

And.........as far as needing more computing power? Well, considering that you'd need redundant systems that are self sustainable, I don't think we've got the tech for that.

The space station is one thing, but a fully functioning colony on the moon is something else.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Link for the second point? Sure.......



Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube

That has nothing to do with your second point.

He was asking for a quote showing that Newt said he'd have it by the end of his second term.

Reading comprehension monkey.

That was your third point. Lol

Your first was about solar energy. Your second was about technical limitations.


And you call me the monkey? Lmao

Your turn space monkey

 

[Conservative]

Link for the second point? Sure.......



Newt Gingrich's Plan for a Moon Colony Has Become an Issue that Won't Go Away - Yahoo! News

Or..........if you prefer.......you can hear it from Newt himself........

Newt Gingrich pledges MOON BASE by 2020 - YouTube

I was asking about this...

However.........there would also have to be major advances in materials technology, as well as a pretty large leap in computing to make it sustainable.

what major advances in materials technology are you referring to, and waht leap in computing? I'm curious to see your scientific basis for these statements.

A colony on the moon is going to be taking some pretty hard hits from radiation and the like, never mind the micro asteroids that would be around.

And.........as far as needing more computing power? Well, considering that you'd need redundant systems that are self sustainable, I don't think we've got the tech for that.

The space station is one thing, but a fully functioning colony on the moon is something else.

while those are certainly valid points, they are your opinion, at least in regarding the technological capabilites needing to be significantly increased.

Remember... we got to the moon and back with less computing power than the average cell phone has now.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I was asking about this...


what major advances in materials technology are you referring to, and waht leap in computing? I'm curious to see your scientific basis for these statements.

A colony on the moon is going to be taking some pretty hard hits from radiation and the like, never mind the micro asteroids that would be around.

And.........as far as needing more computing power? Well, considering that you'd need redundant systems that are self sustainable, I don't think we've got the tech for that.

The space station is one thing, but a fully functioning colony on the moon is something else.

while those are certainly valid points, they are your opinion, at least in regarding the technological capabilites needing to be significantly increased.

Remember... we got to the moon and back with less computing power than the average cell phone has now.

Yeah........but I think the calculations for a sustainable biosphere are a bit more complicated than simple trajectory.

Oh yeah........nobody has created a sustainable biosphere yet either.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

And to think I repped you + earlier today sailor. No thanks for it and then you insult me and when proven wrong you don't even correct yourself.

Guess I should have known better.


By the way, you still haven't provided the link he asked for.

 

[Full-Auto]

And to think I repped you + earlier today sailor. No thanks for it and then you insult me and when proven wrong you don't even correct yourself.

Guess I should have known better.


By the way, you still haven't provided the link he asked for.

You are too trusting. Actually thinking liberals can honest and true to principle.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

A colony on the moon is going to be taking some pretty hard hits from radiation and the like, never mind the micro asteroids that would be around.

And.........as far as needing more computing power? Well, considering that you'd need redundant systems that are self sustainable, I don't think we've got the tech for that.

The space station is one thing, but a fully functioning colony on the moon is something else.

while those are certainly valid points, they are your opinion, at least in regarding the technological capabilites needing to be significantly increased.

Remember... we got to the moon and back with less computing power than the average cell phone has now.

Yeah........but I think the calculations for a sustainable biosphere are a bit more complicated than simple trajectory.

Oh yeah........nobody has created a sustainable biosphere yet either.

Yes, they have. We are living in then right now on the ISS. And also in the Arizona desert.

You don't have a clue, do you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

And to think I repped you + earlier today sailor. No thanks for it and then you insult me and when proven wrong you don't even correct yourself.

Guess I should have known better.


By the way, you still haven't provided the link he asked for.

I don't thank people for repping me, because I really don't like having to answer all those little IM's myself.

What link was that for?

 

[J.E.D]

no one, and I mean NO ONE, has implied the surface of the moon is habitable as is, dip-shit. NO ONE, and I mean NO ONE, has implied terraforming is possible on the moon, dip-shit.

The moon can be inhabited, by creating a man-made lunar shelter system. Think Captain Nemo's Underweater City, only on the moon not under the ocean.

YOU are confusing 'inhabit', with 'terraform', you mental midget.

Dumbass. Habitable in the context of space means naturally habitable. Manmade structures do not make a planet habitable. I provided a link per your request to NASA that proved my point exactly. Man, you are one stupid motherfucker

NASA appears to disagree with you. I think I'll go with NASA on this one, dip-shit.

This NASA, dip-shit?

http://api.viglink.com/api/click?fo...logy Roadmap&jsonp=vglnk_jsonp_13290977569661

A planet or planetary satellite is habitable if it can sustain life that originates there or if it sustains life that is carried to the object. The Astrobiology program seeks to expand our understanding of the most fundamental environmental requirements for habitability. However, in the near term, we must proceed with our current concepts regarding the requirements for habitability. That is, habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism. Habitability is not necessarily associated with a single specific environment; it can embrace a suite of environments that communicate through exchange of materials. The processes by which crucial biologically useful chemicals are carried to a planet and change its level of habitability can be explored through the fields of prebiotic chemistry and chemical evolution. A major long-range goal for astrobiology is to recognize habitability beyond the Solar System, independent of the presence of life, or to recognize habitability by detecting the presence of life

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Dumbass. Habitable in the context of space means naturally habitable. Manmade structures do not make a planet habitable. I provided a link per your request to NASA that proved my point exactly. Man, you are one stupid motherfucker

NASA appears to disagree with you. I think I'll go with NASA on this one, dip-shit.

This NASA, dip-shit?

Astrobiology Roadmap

A planet or planetary satellite is habitable if it can sustain life that originates there or if it sustains life that is carried to the object. The Astrobiology program seeks to expand our understanding of the most fundamental environmental requirements for habitability. However, in the near term, we must proceed with our current concepts regarding the requirements for habitability. That is, habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism. Habitability is not necessarily associated with a single specific environment; it can embrace a suite of environments that communicate through exchange of materials. The processes by which crucial biologically useful chemicals are carried to a planet and change its level of habitability can be explored through the fields of prebiotic chemistry and chemical evolution. A major long-range goal for astrobiology is to recognize habitability beyond the Solar System, independent of the presence of life, or to recognize habitability by detecting the presence of life

You're a glutton for punishment.

 

[J.E.D]

NASA appears to disagree with you. I think I'll go with NASA on this one, dip-shit.

This NASA, dip-shit?

Astrobiology Roadmap

A planet or planetary satellite is habitable if it can sustain life that originates there or if it sustains life that is carried to the object. The Astrobiology program seeks to expand our understanding of the most fundamental environmental requirements for habitability. However, in the near term, we must proceed with our current concepts regarding the requirements for habitability. That is, habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism. Habitability is not necessarily associated with a single specific environment; it can embrace a suite of environments that communicate through exchange of materials. The processes by which crucial biologically useful chemicals are carried to a planet and change its level of habitability can be explored through the fields of prebiotic chemistry and chemical evolution. A major long-range goal for astrobiology is to recognize habitability beyond the Solar System, independent of the presence of life, or to recognize habitability by detecting the presence of life

You're a glutton for punishment.

Yeah right. Whatever you need to tell yourself, Gramps. I've owned you, The T Bagee, Caveman and Conservatwit for the last 3 pages. Keep it up; you're amusing me to no end