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

[Conservative]

again, you have my FULL PERMISSION to post any PM you claim I sent, where I whine.

I dare you.

(Of course, you won't because you're a chicken shit little dweeb of a liar)

I'll sum them up in visual form:

Yup, you're lying.

But then, leftists lie. All the time.

He has my permission to post ANY PM I ever sent where I whine about him negging me. In fact, I INSIST he do so.

 

[J.E.D]

Mars Exploration Strategies

MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES​

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.

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...

Boy... for a planet that Josephine claims NASA calls uninhabitable, they sure do throw that word inhabit around a lot when talking about Mars.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

 

[Conservative]

Mars Exploration Strategies

MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES​

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.

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...

Boy... for a planet that Josephine claims NASA calls uninhabitable, they sure do throw that word inhabit around a lot when talking about Mars.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

 

[J.E.D]

Mars Exploration Strategies

MARS EXPLORATION STRATEGIES:
A REFERENCE PROGRAM AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE ARCHITECTURES​

Boy... for a planet that Josephine claims NASA calls uninhabitable, they sure do throw that word inhabit around a lot when talking about Mars.

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an uninhabitable planet do not make that planet inhabitable. Man, you're stupid.

 

[Conservative]

Which still does not make Mars a habitable planet, per NASA's own definition of 'habitable'

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an uninhabitable planet do not make that planet inhabitable. Man, you're stupid.

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

 

[J.E.D]

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

I repeat: NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

If you can't survive on the planet without man-made technology, the planet is not habitable.

 

[Conservative]

NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

I repeat: NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

If you can't survive on the planet without man-made technology, the planet is not habitable.

can ANY life survive on the moon surface? yes or no

 

[J.E.D]

so, again, you're actually trying to claim that NASA says they want to inhabit Mars, a planet that NASA says is not inhabitable.

I repeat: NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

If you can't survive on the planet without man-made technology, the planet is not habitable.

can ANY life survive on the moon surface? yes or no

Not using the Moons natural resources - which is the basic requirement per NASA's definition of habitable

 

[Conservative]

I repeat: NASA wants to send humans to Mars and have them live in man-made habitats in order to further exploration of the planet. Man-made habitats on the surface of an inhabitable planet do not make that planet habitable. Man, you're stupid.

If you can't survive on the planet without man-made technology, the planet is not habitable.

can ANY life survive on the moon surface? yes or no

Not naturally. Which is the basic requirement per NASA's definition of habitable

define, not naturally for me. I want to be sure I understand your context.

 

[J.E.D]

can ANY life survive on the moon surface? yes or no

Not naturally. Which is the basic requirement per NASA's definition of habitable

define, not naturally for me. I want to be sure I understand your context.

Not using the Moon's natural resources. More specifically, liquid water and oxygen. Liquid water is a basic requirement per NASA's definition of 'habitable'.

 

[Conservative]

Not naturally. Which is the basic requirement per NASA's definition of habitable

define, not naturally for me. I want to be sure I understand your context.

Not using the Moon's natural resources.

in other words, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here... no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source.

Is that a fairly accurate portrayal of what your saying here?

 

[J.E.D]

define, not naturally for me. I want to be sure I understand your context.

Not using the Moon's natural resources.

in other words, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here... no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source.

Is that a fairly accurate portrayal of what your saying here?

I see where you're going with this. The Moon does not naturally provide oxygen, liquid water or radiation shielding. So, no, the technology that astronauts use in order to survive on the Moon does not count. Also, if humans extract oxygen from rocks or liquid water from frozen water on the Moon, they do so using technology - neither one is naturally present in a form that can sustain life without the aid of technology.

 

[Conservative]

Not using the Moon's natural resources.

in other words, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here... no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source.

Is that a fairly accurate portrayal of what your saying here?

I see where you're going with this. The Moon does not naturally provide oxygen, liquid water or radiation shielding. So, no, the technology that astronauts use in order to survive on the Moon does not count. Also, if humans extract oxygen from rocks or liquid water from frozen water on the Moon, they do so using technology - neither one is naturally present in a form that can sustain life without the aid of technology.

Actually, that is not where I am going. For the purpose of this question only, we'll take technology out of the equation.

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

 

[J.E.D]

in other words, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding you here... no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source.

Is that a fairly accurate portrayal of what your saying here?

I see where you're going with this. The Moon does not naturally provide oxygen, liquid water or radiation shielding. So, no, the technology that astronauts use in order to survive on the Moon does not count. Also, if humans extract oxygen from rocks or liquid water from frozen water on the Moon, they do so using technology - neither one is naturally present in a form that can sustain life without the aid of technology.

Actually, that is not where I am going. For the purpose of this question only, we'll take technology out of the equation.

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

Per NASA's definition of habitable, yes.

 

[Conservative]

I see where you're going with this. The Moon does not naturally provide oxygen, liquid water or radiation shielding. So, no, the technology that astronauts use in order to survive on the Moon does not count. Also, if humans extract oxygen from rocks or liquid water from frozen water on the Moon, they do so using technology - neither one is naturally present in a form that can sustain life without the aid of technology.

Actually, that is not where I am going. For the purpose of this question only, we'll take technology out of the equation.

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

Per NASA's definition of habitable, yes.

you are well and truly fucked...

Earth microbes on the moon - NASA Science

In 1991, as Apollo 12 Commander Pete Conrad reviewed the transcripts of his conversations relayed from the moon back to Earth, the significance of the only known microbial survivor of harsh interplanetary travel struck him as profound:

"I always thought the most significant thing that we ever found on the whole...Moon was that little bacteria who came back and lived and nobody ever said [anything] about it."

Although the space-faring microbe was described in a 1970 Newsweek article, along with features in Sky and Telescope and Aviation Week and Space Technology, the significance of a living organism surviving for nearly three years in the harsh lunar environment may only now be placed in perspective, after three decades of the biological revolution in understanding life and its favored conditions.

Interior view of Surveyor 3 TV camera; surviving microorganisms cultured from the polyurethane foam insulation (1 mL) covering the circuit boards (upper left).

The Surveyor probes were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. In November, 1969, the Surveyor 3 spacecraft's microorganisms were recovered from inside its camera that was brought back to Earth under sterile conditions by the Apollo 12 crew.

The 50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source.

Micro organisms... one the surface of the moon... 3 years... no food... water... nutrients... energy source.

Game
Set
Match

 

[J.E.D]

Actually, that is not where I am going. For the purpose of this question only, we'll take technology out of the equation.

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

Per NASA's definition of habitable, yes.

you are well and truly fucked...

Earth microbes on the moon - NASA Science

Interior view of Surveyor 3 TV camera; surviving microorganisms cultured from the polyurethane foam insulation (1 mL) covering the circuit boards (upper left).

The Surveyor probes were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. In November, 1969, the Surveyor 3 spacecraft's microorganisms were recovered from inside its camera that was brought back to Earth under sterile conditions by the Apollo 12 crew.

The 50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source.

Micro organisms... one the surface of the moon... 3 years... no food... water... nutrients... energy source.

Game
Set
Match

Game, set, fail

There is no liquid water on the Moon. Conditions on the Moon do not allow for the creation or support of life; therefore, per NASA's definition of habitable, the Moon is not habitable.

"habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism."

 

[Conservative]

Per NASA's definition of habitable, yes.

you are well and truly fucked...

Earth microbes on the moon - NASA Science

The Surveyor probes were the first U.S. spacecraft to land safely on the Moon. In November, 1969, the Surveyor 3 spacecraft's microorganisms were recovered from inside its camera that was brought back to Earth under sterile conditions by the Apollo 12 crew.

The 50-100 organisms survived launch, space vacuum, 3 years of radiation exposure, deep-freeze at an average temperature of only 20 degrees above absolute zero, and no nutrient, water or energy source.

Micro organisms... one the surface of the moon... 3 years... no food... water... nutrients... energy source.

Game
Set
Match

Game, set, fail

There is no liquid water on the Moon. Conditions on the Moon do not allow for the creation or support of life; therefore, per NASA's definition of habitable, the Moon is not habitable.

"habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism."

you're moving the goalposts, asshat.

I said...

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

you agreed.

I proved you wrong... life can and DID exist for three years on the moon without anything you said was required.

You can move goalposts and squirm all you want.... you were wrong. Period.

So, since you said life cannot exist on the moon, and I just showed you it can.......

FAIL on you.

 

[daveman]

I'll sum them up in visual form:

Yup, you're lying.

But then, leftists lie. All the time.

He has my permission to post ANY PM I ever sent where I whine about him negging me. In fact, I INSIST he do so.

He won't, because no such PMs exist.

He's lying.

 

[J.E.D]

you are well and truly fucked...

Earth microbes on the moon - NASA Science

Micro organisms... one the surface of the moon... 3 years... no food... water... nutrients... energy source.

Game
Set
Match

Game, set, fail

There is no liquid water on the Moon. Conditions on the Moon do not allow for the creation or support of life; therefore, per NASA's definition of habitable, the Moon is not habitable.

"habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism."

you're moving the goalposts, asshat.

I said...

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

you agreed.

I proved you wrong... life can and DID exist for three years on the moon without anything you said was required.

You can move goalposts and squirm all you want.... you were wrong. Period.

So, since you said life cannot exist on the moon, and I just showed you it can.......

FAIL on you.

Moron, read NASA's definition. There are no vast regions of liquid water on the Moon, and the environmental conditions do not allow for the creation of life, or have the ability to sustain life. Talk to NASA about it. Maybe they'll change their definition just for you

 

[Conservative]

Game, set, fail

There is no liquid water on the Moon. Conditions on the Moon do not allow for the creation or support of life; therefore, per NASA's definition of habitable, the Moon is not habitable.

"habitable environments must provide extended regions of liquid water, conditions favorable for the assembly of complex organic molecules, and energy sources to sustain metabolism."

you're moving the goalposts, asshat.

I said...

So with that understanding... is it your contention that no life can survive on the moons surface without oxygen, without radiation shielding, in the temperatures on the moons surface, without nutrients, water or an energy source... and thus, the moon in not inhabitable?

you agreed.

I proved you wrong... life can and DID exist for three years on the moon without anything you said was required.

You can move goalposts and squirm all you want.... you were wrong. Period.

So, since you said life cannot exist on the moon, and I just showed you it can.......

FAIL on you.

Moron, read NASA's definition. There are no vast regions of liquid water on the Moon, and the environmental conditions do not allow for the creation of life, or have the ability to sustain life. Talk to NASA about it. Maybe they'll change their definition just for you

Now you're changing to 'the creation of life'? What a fucking loser!

So, since YOU say the moon doesn't have the ability to sustain life, the story I posted FROM NASA above, about the microbes that survived for over 3 years on the surface of the moon without food, water, oxygen or any nutrient source, is a lie??

You're fucking pathetic. NASA has proved you wrong, yet you keep changing directions and moving the goal posts, claiming they actually prove you right.

No wonder you have no social life but this board. I really have to pray harder for you.