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

[JWBooth]

The moon or mars, either would be an imbecilic abuse of the treasury in flush times, even more so now.

 

[Conservative]

I guess JosefK couldn't take the anal pounding that NASA gave him on his 'the moon cannot be inhabited' nonsense, so he fled the thread

That's what happens when you confuse the idea of inhabiting a body as is with no technology involved, and inhabiting a body using technology.

Facts are your friends, meatwad. Learn to use them.

Actually, Twit, I have a life. Unlike your sorry ass, I don't spend every waking moment whining on USMB. The only thing you have proven is that you are extremely stupid. NASA saying that man can inhabit the Moon in a man-made structure is entirely different than saying the Moon is considered habitable. Read it again, Twit:

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

still waiting for the post where I or anyone else claimed the moon, without technology, in inhabitable, you anal dwelling butt monkey.

 

[francoHFW]

What states get their roads lit with moon mirrors?

 

[Conservative]

ROFLMFAO@Josefk...

The date on your link is September, 2003 My NASA links are all from the last few years.

Another colossal FAIL for JosefK

 

[J.E.D]

I guess JosefK couldn't take the anal pounding that NASA gave him on his 'the moon cannot be inhabited' nonsense, so he fled the thread

That's what happens when you confuse the idea of inhabiting a body as is with no technology involved, and inhabiting a body using technology.

Facts are your friends, meatwad. Learn to use them.

Actually, Twit, I have a life. Unlike your sorry ass, I don't spend every waking moment whining on USMB. The only thing you have proven is that you are extremely stupid. NASA saying that man can inhabit the Moon in a man-made structure is entirely different than saying the Moon is considered habitable. Read it again, Twit:

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

still waiting for the post where I or anyone else claimed the moon, without technology, in inhabitable, you anal dwelling butt monkey.

Jesus, are you this stupid in real life, or just on the internets? Habitable in the context of planetary exploration means that the planet already has the ingredients to sustain life. Putting a man-made structure on an inhabitable planet does not make it habitable; it just means that you put a man-made habitat on an inhabitable planet.

 

[Conservative]

Actually, Twit, I have a life. Unlike your sorry ass, I don't spend every waking moment whining on USMB. The only thing you have proven is that you are extremely stupid. NASA saying that man can inhabit the Moon in a man-made structure is entirely different than saying the Moon is considered habitable. Read it again, Twit:

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

still waiting for the post where I or anyone else claimed the moon, without technology, in inhabitable, you anal dwelling butt monkey.

Jesus, are you this stupid in real life, or just on the internets? Habitable in the context of planetary exploration means that the planet already has the ingredients to sustain life. Putting a man-made structure on an inhabitable planet does not make it habitable; it just means that you put a man-made habitat on an inhabitable planet.

you really are too fucking stupid for words, aren't you. you are mistaken about what we've all said, and you simply refuse to accept the fact that you are talking about something different than what WE are all talking about.

you're bigreb's sock puppet...aren't you.

and what about all those references I gave from NASA... RECENT REFERENCES... about inhabiting the moon, Mars, etc. I guess NASA is only right back in 2003 and when they agree with you, and they are wrong now, huh.

Putz.

 

[J.E.D]

ROFLMFAO@Josefk...

The date on your link is September, 2003 My NASA links are all from the last few years.

Another colossal FAIL for JosefK

So, in the last few years, scientists decided that by putting man-made habitats on inhabitable planets, those planets are now considered habitable? Well, that solves the issue right there. According to you, we can plop a man-made habitat down on Venus and it magically becomes a habitable planet. Holy-fucking-shit, you are stupid

 

[J.E.D]

still waiting for the post where I or anyone else claimed the moon, without technology, in inhabitable, you anal dwelling butt monkey.

Jesus, are you this stupid in real life, or just on the internets? Habitable in the context of planetary exploration means that the planet already has the ingredients to sustain life. Putting a man-made structure on an inhabitable planet does not make it habitable; it just means that you put a man-made habitat on an inhabitable planet.

you really are too fucking stupid for words, aren't you. you are mistaken about what we've all said, and you simply refuse to accept the fact that you are talking about something different than what WE are all talking about.

you're bigreb's sock puppet...aren't you.

and what about all those references I gave from NASA... RECENT REFERENCES... about inhabiting the moon, Mars, etc. I guess NASA is only right back in 2003 and when they agree with you, and they are wrong now, huh.

Putz.

DUMB. ASS. Inhabiting a planet in man-made habitats does not make a planet habitable. Mars is not habitable. The Moon is not habitable. The vacuum of space is not habitable. This is science fact.

 

[Conservative]

ROFLMFAO@Josefk...

The date on your link is September, 2003 My NASA links are all from the last few years.

Another colossal FAIL for JosefK

So, in the last few years, scientists decided that by putting man-made habitats on inhabitable planets, those planets are now considered habitable? Well, that solves the issue right there. According to you, we can plop a man-made habitat down on Venus and it magically becomes a habitable planet. Holy-fucking-shit, you are stupid

Did I SAY Venus, dim-wit?

You're practicing Reductio ad ridiculum. Look it up, dip-shit.

Another FAIL for the brainless JosefK.

 

[Conservative]

Jesus, are you this stupid in real life, or just on the internets? Habitable in the context of planetary exploration means that the planet already has the ingredients to sustain life. Putting a man-made structure on an inhabitable planet does not make it habitable; it just means that you put a man-made habitat on an inhabitable planet.

you really are too fucking stupid for words, aren't you. you are mistaken about what we've all said, and you simply refuse to accept the fact that you are talking about something different than what WE are all talking about.

you're bigreb's sock puppet...aren't you.

and what about all those references I gave from NASA... RECENT REFERENCES... about inhabiting the moon, Mars, etc. I guess NASA is only right back in 2003 and when they agree with you, and they are wrong now, huh.

Putz.

DUMB. ASS. Inhabiting a planet in man-made habitats does not make a planet habitable. Mars is not habitable. The Moon is not habitable. The vacuum of space is not habitable. This is science fact.

So, as I said, according to you NASA was wrong when they said we could inhabit the moon, and possibly Mars. Got it.

 

[Decepticon]

 

[Conservative]

from JosefK's previously linked Website...
Space Weather on Mars « Articles « NASA Astrobiology

Nor is Mars necessarily uninhabitable for humans. If we learn how to shelter ourselves from the planet’s unique brand of weather, humans can explore and perhaps even live on Mars. That’s why NASA is sending a radiation monitor to the Red Planet … to find out how much protection we humans might require.

GAME, SET, MATCH, you dumb fuck.

 

[Katzndogz]

Factually, whatever obama said about going to Mars, he was lying because he scrapped the program. Which has the unintended consequence of taking Florida out of the safe zone.

 

[J.E.D]

you really are too fucking stupid for words, aren't you. you are mistaken about what we've all said, and you simply refuse to accept the fact that you are talking about something different than what WE are all talking about.

you're bigreb's sock puppet...aren't you.

and what about all those references I gave from NASA... RECENT REFERENCES... about inhabiting the moon, Mars, etc. I guess NASA is only right back in 2003 and when they agree with you, and they are wrong now, huh.

Putz.

DUMB. ASS. Inhabiting a planet in man-made habitats does not make a planet habitable. Mars is not habitable. The Moon is not habitable. The vacuum of space is not habitable. This is science fact.

So, as I said, according to you NASA was wrong when they said we could inhabit the moon, and possibly Mars. Got it.

Did I say that, Twit? NASA did not say that putting man-made habitats on the Moon makes the Moon a habitable planet. They said that man can put man-made habitats on the Moon and inhabit it. In scientific terms, in the context of planetary exploration, 'habitable' means that a planet or moon already has the ingredients to sustain life. Man-made habitats on the surface of an uninhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable.

Once again, from NASA:

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

 

[Conservative]

DUMB. ASS. Inhabiting a planet in man-made habitats does not make a planet habitable. Mars is not habitable. The Moon is not habitable. The vacuum of space is not habitable. This is science fact.

So, as I said, according to you NASA was wrong when they said we could inhabit the moon, and possibly Mars. Got it.

Did I say that, Twit? NASA did not say that putting man-made habitats on the Moon makes the Moon a habitable planet. They said that man can put man-made habitats on the Moon and inhabit it. In scientific terms, in the context of planetary exploration, 'habitable' means that a planet or moon already has the ingredients to sustain life. Man-made habitats on the surface of an uninhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable.

Once again, from NASA:

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

Are you EVER going to get around to linking to a post where someone here claimed we could make the moon a habitable planet, or make Mars a habitable planet? No, because no one but YOU mentioned anything even remotely like that.

We said INHABIT the moon...INHABIT Mars... not MAKE THEM HABITABLE.

you are seriously retarded, you know that, right?

 

[Conservative]

DUMB. ASS. Inhabiting a planet in man-made habitats does not make a planet habitable. Mars is not habitable. The Moon is not habitable. The vacuum of space is not habitable. This is science fact.

So, as I said, according to you NASA was wrong when they said we could inhabit the moon, and possibly Mars. Got it.

Did I say that, Twit? NASA did not say that putting man-made habitats on the Moon makes the Moon a habitable planet. They said that man can put man-made habitats on the Moon and inhabit it. In scientific terms, in the context of planetary exploration, 'habitable' means that a planet or moon already has the ingredients to sustain life. Man-made habitats on the surface of an uninhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable.

Once again, from NASA:

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

Including MAN MADE ones, shit-for-brains. A Man Made environment allows us to inhabit space, the moon, Mars, etc.

My God, the depths of your stupidity astound me.

 

[Conservative]

Mars Exploration Strategies
MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES

Verify a way that people can inhabit Mars.

Derived from this goal are three objectives: (1) Conduct human missions to Mars; (2) Conduct applied science research to use Mars resources to augment life-sustaining systems; and (3) Conduct basic science research to gain new knowledge about the solar system's origin and history. Conducting human missions to Mars is required to accomplish the exploration and research activities, but contains the requirements for the safe transportation, maintenance on the surface of Mars and return of a healthy crew to Earth. The surface exploration mission envisions approximately equal priority for applied science research - learning about the environment, resources, and operational constraints that would allow humans eventually to inhabit the planet; and basic science research - exploring the planet for insights into the nature of planets, the nature of Mars' atmosphere and its evolution, and the possible past existence of life. These more detailed objectives are shown in Table 2 and form the basis for defining the required elements and operations for the Mars exploration program.

Reference Mission Goals

The goal of the Mars Study Team in developing the Mars DRM was:

Create a baseline strategy enabling the earliest and most cost-effective program for the human and robotic exploration of Mars while addressing fundamental science questions and demonstrating the ability for humans to inhabit Mars.

Although it is certainly arguable that science return could be enhanced by a strategy where each human mission went to a different surface site, the goal of understanding how humans could inhabit Mars seems more logically directed toward a single outpost approach.

First, verifying the ability of people to inhabit Mars requires more than a brief stay of 30 days at the planet.

I see the word INHABIT up there several times... in a NASA document.

Don't they know that JosefK says inhabiting Mars or the moon is impossible? Silly NASA.

 

[Conservative]

NASA - Scenes From the Desert, or Maybe Mars: NASA's "RATS" Tests Technologies for Tomorrow's Treks

This scene, scripted from the high desert of Arizona, may one day become the real-life drama in space as humans first inhabit Mars.

There's that pesky little word INHABIT again.

 

[American Horse]

The problem was, when Newt said it he actually meant it, and that goes against the new Obama/NASA policy on manned exploration of space.

Newt would've added incentives and awards into the program to actually make it viable and economically feasible. Obama says we will circle Mars by 2030, with a goal of landing LATER.
In other words we will do a "dry run to Mars."

Only problem with that is......

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT.

They're driving rovers around on the surface as we speak. Unless the last remaining rover finally died and I just haven't heard.

Bottom line were not working with the technology of a smart phone in space anymore. We will HAVE TO test run any maned mission to mars with a trip to the moon again. To do otherwise would be both foolish and a risk to our astronauts

Driving rovers around on the surface of Mars (if that is what you are referring to) is a far cry from actually going there with manned missions. Obama has put off a landing on the suface indefinitely, with only a manned flyby, and that only tentatively planned.

Quote President Obama
In a major space policy speech at Kennedy Space Center on April 15, 2010, U.S. President Barack Obama predicted a manned Mars mission to orbit the planet by the mid-2030s, followed by a landing:

By the mid-2030s, I believe we can send humans to orbit Mars and return them safely to Earth. And a landing on Mars will follow. And I expect to be around to see it.

At any rate the moon is a near space platform with available resources and a shallow gravity well to serve as a training staging ground. Also good for trying out equipment that could be used on Mars. The time/distance to the moon and back is less than a week. The distance to Mars and back is a 150 times greater than that. We never did anything close to what we can do with a permanent base on the moon as of yet; just a little more than taking rock samples. It's like Columbus sailing to America, then nobody ever going back.

 

[Conservative]

Neighbourly Relations: Exploring Mars

In October 2010 NASA started investigating the feasibility of sending astronauts to permanently inhabit Mars in an operation called Hundred Years Starship. Whilst the operation may seem congruent to the plot of a science fiction novel, it gives a glimpse into future endeavours.

Damn, there someone goes again. Talking about inhabiting Mars, when JosefK says it simply isn't scientifically possible. Weren't they listening to him?