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

[J.E.D]

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?

I didn't say that it isn't scientifically possible, you fucking moron; I said that man-made habitats don't fit the definition of 'habitable' in the context of planetary exploration; and I provided NASA's definition, which backs up my point. Christ, you are fucking 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.

Here you go, DUMB. ASS.

Here:

When Newt mentioned going to the moon he was crazy, but when Obama mentioned goin to Mars he was applauded. What gives?

Because Obama was talking about exploring Mars for scientific purposes - like looking for evidence of water (a key ingredient for life as we know it). The end goal is to find a habitable planet. Exploration of planets like Mars, which was at one time a lot like our planet, is key to that goal.

Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. I repeat, Gingrich was talking about colonizing the Moon. 'Nuff said.

What idiot says the moon isn't habitable?

Here:

What idiot says the moon isn't habitable?

What? You cannot be serious. Habitable in this context means that there are natural resources that can sustain life - water, oxygen, etc. Now that you know this, would still like to proclaim the Moon habitable?

Yes, just as habitable as the ISS

Duh

Here:

What idiot says the moon isn't habitable?

What? You cannot be serious. Habitable in this context means that there are natural resources that can sustain life - water, oxygen, etc. Now that you know this, would still like to proclaim the Moon habitable?

Of course.

Scientists Make Oxygen Out of Moon Rock

NASA finds 'significant' water on moon - CNN

Here:

In this thread, as in the other thread a couple months ago about colonizing the moon, it seems as though leftists hate science and conservatives love it.

This coming from the guy who thinks the Moon is habitable.

I showed you it was.

Why do you hate science?

 

[J.E.D]

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?

Inhabiting Mars in a man-made habitat does not make Mars a habitable planet, dumbass

 

[The T]

Come on guys. It's "liberal" scientists who would be inventing the technology that would take us wherever we go in space. Republicans don't believe in education. They think science is a faith. Until they can "prove" that magical creation has some basis in science, they should stay out of the discussion. Everything they touch turns to shit. A space mission involving Republicans would be just another Republican disaster.

I've read this thread, and it's the left who are claiming colonizing the moon can't be done, and it's the right who are saying it can and should be done.

Apparently, the left hates science.

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe one could sail around the world or maybe there was an edge out there that would prevent that. Columbus set out to find out. What if nobody had ever done that?

Maybe it was possible to capture electricity and use it for humankind's advantage. Or maybe it would simply kill you as lightning often did when it struck you. What if nobody had ever tried?

Maybe one could break the sound barrier and live. Or maybe, as many scientists thought, the human body could not withstand that. What if nobody had ever found out?

Maybe man could travel into space. What if we had always considered that as impossibly absurd as it was once thought to be?

Maybe man could walk on the moon. What if we had allowed other visionaires to accomplish that feat before us? (It is rather remarkable that so far, we're the only nation that has.)

Maybe it would not be unacceptably unhealthy to put men and women on a spacve station for weeks or months at a time. Or a giant telescope into space to record images impossible to see from the surface of the Earth? How much science would we not have if we had not done that?

So, my timid friends. How improbable is placing a permanent base on the moon? Something offering a lot more stability, mobility and space than a space station allows? You really think that is impossible? And would not advance our scientific knowledge? Maybe even pay for itself as a vacation destination? If you had the money, would you pass up a chance to spend a couple of nights or so on the moon?

What is inward and destructive and limiting thinking? Not funding the Hubble or replacing it when it has finally croaked would be one. Mothballing our space program would be another even if it is transferred to a cooperative effort between government and private initiative. Do you really want other countries to pass us in technology there? Do you really trust other countries to have the only access to communications satellites, etc.?

Sometimes I think the party spirit causes us to cut off our collective noses to spite our collective faces.

 

[American Horse]

Come on guys. It's "liberal" scientists who would be inventing the technology that would take us wherever we go in space. Republicans don't believe in education. They think science is a faith. Until they can "prove" that magical creation has some basis in science, they should stay out of the discussion. Everything they touch turns to shit. A space mission involving Republicans would be just another Republican disaster.

I've read this thread, and it's the left who are claiming colonizing the moon can't be done, and it's the right who are saying it can and should be done.

Apparently, the left hates science.

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

I think to any honest observer SOME on the the left are merely following the lead of their masters.

 

[The T]

I've read this thread, and it's the left who are claiming colonizing the moon can't be done, and it's the right who are saying it can and should be done.

Apparently, the left hates science.

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

I think to any honest observer SOME on the the left are merely following the lead of their masters.

With no forethought whatsoever. They lack imagination.

 

[The T]

Maybe one could sail around the world or maybe there was an edge out there that would prevent that. Columbus set out to find out. What if nobody had ever done that?

Maybe it was possible to capture electricity and use it for humankind's advantage. Or maybe it would simply kill you as lightning often did when it struck you. What if nobody had ever tried?

Maybe one could break the sound barrier and live. Or maybe, as many scientists thought, the human body could not withstand that. What if nobody had ever found out?

Maybe man could travel into space. What if we had always considered that as impossibly absurd as it was once thought to be?

Maybe man could walk on the moon. What if we had allowed other visionaires to accomplish that feat before us? (It is rather remarkable that so far, we're the only nation that has.)

Maybe it would not be unacceptably unhealthy to put men and women on a spacve station for weeks or months at a time. Or a giant telescope into space to record images impossible to see from the surface of the Earth? How much science would we not have if we had not done that?

So, my timid friends. How improbable is placing a permanent base on the moon? Something offering a lot more stability, mobility and space than a space station allows? You really think that is impossible? And would not advance our scientific knowledge? Maybe even pay for itself as a vacation destination? If you had the money, would you pass up a chance to spend a couple of nights or so on the moon?

What is inward and destructive and limiting thinking? Not funding the Hubble or replacing it when it has finally croaked would be one. Mothballing our space program would be another even if it is transferred to a cooperative effort between government and private initiative. Do you really want other countries to pass us in technology there? Do you really trust other countries to have the only access to communications satellites, etc.?

Sometimes I think the party spirit causes us to cut off our collective noses to spite our collective faces.

You know...when this thread was published and I began reading some of the responses...I thought something very close to this.

Some really wish to limit themselves...and to think that when those that proposed that the Earth was round, and it orbited around the Sun were more oft than not made to recant or burned at the stake...

Sad.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I've read this thread, and it's the left who are claiming colonizing the moon can't be done, and it's the right who are saying it can and should be done.

Apparently, the left hates science.

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

I think to any honest observer SOME on the the left are merely following the lead of their masters.

IN 8 YEARS!?!?!?!?

 

[daveman]

I never claimed that Newt said the Moon is habitable. I don't think he's that stupid. You, Daveman and The T are the ones claiming that the Moon is habitable. Get it straight, Gramps, before you look even more foolish than you already do.

The moon is only slightly less habitable that Antarctica.

There is oxygen in Antarctica -- and that's it. You cannot survive there without technology.

Dumbass.

 

[daveman]

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've been shown the moon has oxygen and water available.

Dumbass.

 

[Conservative]

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

Here you go, DUMB. ASS.

Here:

What idiot says the moon isn't habitable?

Here:



Here:



Here:

This coming from the guy who thinks the Moon is habitable.

I showed you it was.

Why do you hate science?

you whine like a little girl about the context of your statement, but ignore the context of theirs?

typical.

 

[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?

Inhabiting Mars in a man-made habitat does not make Mars a habitable planet, dumbass

so, your whole argument is this... just because NASA says you can inhabit someplace, in a habitat, doesn't make the place habitable.

You sure you want to stick with that, Sparky?

You are now, officially, the dumbest poster on this board. Rdean will be pissed you took his title.

 

[daveman]

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

Here you go, DUMB. ASS.

Here:

What idiot says the moon isn't habitable?

Here:



Here:



Here:

This coming from the guy who thinks the Moon is habitable.

I showed you it was.

Why do you hate science?

None of those posts say what you claim they say, that each body is inhabitable without technology.

Antarctica isn't habitable without technology. Don't believe me? Go there in just a T-shirt.

 

[daveman]

Come on guys. It's "liberal" scientists who would be inventing the technology that would take us wherever we go in space. Republicans don't believe in education. They think science is a faith. Until they can "prove" that magical creation has some basis in science, they should stay out of the discussion. Everything they touch turns to shit. A space mission involving Republicans would be just another Republican disaster.

I've read this thread, and it's the left who are claiming colonizing the moon can't be done, and it's the right who are saying it can and should be done.

Apparently, the left hates science.

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

We have to keep in mind that these people think science serves politics.

 

[daveman]

Maybe one could sail around the world or maybe there was an edge out there that would prevent that. Columbus set out to find out. What if nobody had ever done that?

Maybe it was possible to capture electricity and use it for humankind's advantage. Or maybe it would simply kill you as lightning often did when it struck you. What if nobody had ever tried?

Maybe one could break the sound barrier and live. Or maybe, as many scientists thought, the human body could not withstand that. What if nobody had ever found out?

Maybe man could travel into space. What if we had always considered that as impossibly absurd as it was once thought to be?

Maybe man could walk on the moon. What if we had allowed other visionaires to accomplish that feat before us? (It is rather remarkable that so far, we're the only nation that has.)

Maybe it would not be unacceptably unhealthy to put men and women on a spacve station for weeks or months at a time. Or a giant telescope into space to record images impossible to see from the surface of the Earth? How much science would we not have if we had not done that?

So, my timid friends. How improbable is placing a permanent base on the moon? Something offering a lot more stability, mobility and space than a space station allows? You really think that is impossible? And would not advance our scientific knowledge? Maybe even pay for itself as a vacation destination? If you had the money, would you pass up a chance to spend a couple of nights or so on the moon?

What is inward and destructive and limiting thinking? Not funding the Hubble or replacing it when it has finally croaked would be one. Mothballing our space program would be another even if it is transferred to a cooperative effort between government and private initiative. Do you really want other countries to pass us in technology there? Do you really trust other countries to have the only access to communications satellites, etc.?

Sometimes I think the party spirit causes us to cut off our collective noses to spite our collective faces.

Bringing up American exceptionalism (even though in this case, it's utterly undeniable) will get our lefty colleagues frothing.

Your post is 100% dead on target.

A scientifically curious person answers the question "Why?" with " Why not?"

A partisan hack uninterested in science answers the question "Why?" with "Why should we? Your party supports it -- it has to be a bad idea!!"

 

[daveman]

We see the true deniers of REAL Science don't we?

I think to any honest observer SOME on the the left are merely following the lead of their masters.

IN 8 YEARS!?!?!?!?

Why not?

As Foxfyre said, Americans are the only human beings to have walked on the moon. We met that challenge in 8 years.

Do you really think Americans are incapable of doing something once we've decided to do it?

 

[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've been shown the moon has oxygen and water available.

Dumbass.

Which still does not make it a habitable planet. M. O. R. O. N.

 

[rightwinger]

While bitching that we can't afford healthcare, spending hundreds of billions to colonize the moon is batshit crazy

 

[J.E.D]

Antarctica isn't habitable without technology. Don't believe me? Go there in just a T-shirt.

Really? WHich kind of technology do these Antarctic wildlife use? Maybe you can go ask them. Don't forget your coat.

"Antarctica is a continent of extremes. It holds the title of coldest, driest and windiest location on earth. Temperatures have been recorded as low as -129 degrees F, with winds blasting along the coastline at speeds up to 200 mph. Its average interior precipitation is less than a couple of inches per year, making Antarctica a peculiar and brilliant frozen desert of snow. But even in such harsh conditions Antarctica remains the home of a large variety of extraordinary wildlife."