You are not logged in.
Pages: 1
if the goal for the moon is science, let's use robots, they can make the job better and much cheaper than human. Otherwise the moon base will become a second ISS in concept.
I'm sorry, but time and time again, the idea that robots can do a job better than humans has been proven ENTIRELY wrong, ESPECIALLY in an area like exploration.
That glen should shut up, just because you went into space twice dont make you an expert.
It's interesting that you set aside so easily two trip's into space. That, my friend, may not make him an expert, but it certainly makes him far more experienced in the field of space exploration than anybody else on this forum I would imagine (setting aside the idea that many of you are astronauts ). :;):
dicktice, I would imagine though, even with all that, you still would take the M1 Garand over any of the bolt actions being used by the Axis powers of the day
Indeed, there are many useless fed programs out there, I just took the nuclear arms program because I thought it was one of the more obviously over inflated programs that we have. But indeed, the funding is there. As far as the government, I think that we desperately need to work for a cleaner, more representative government in this nation. We let the government get to this point, and we are the only one's who can change it. And hopefully, under that changed government, we'll get a space program that makes sense, not the useless bureaucratic BS that comes out of NASA these day's.
Field Marshal Mathers, you don't fully understand what I am saying here. I'm not talking about just cutting back funding and leaving nukes to just sit there. I'm talking about getting rid of a few thousand warheads. Disposal would be a one time cost, which would be paid off in the long run with money saved on maintenance. You must ask yourself if we really need 10,500 nuclear warheads. We could get away with a few hundred by all rights, and that would save a lot of money, but I think you would have a better chance asking for a reduction of just a few thousand. Trust me when I say that my idea was no idle thought, but an idea that had some research behind it. It is a sound idea, and one I think more people should be pushing for, so email those that represent you and get active about getting us to Mars!
Im sorta guessing that was a joke, right? lol
I'm not sure where Kerry stands, but I have emailed him about a plan I idea I have for implementing Mars Direct which is in the thred "Mars- lets do it without NASA" if you would like to see what it is. I also sugjest emailing both Edwards and Kerry if you think that my idea has merit. The more that do so, the better chance we have of one of them listening
I agree that the Moon will eventually need a base, but its not a necessity for going to Mars. Not in the least really. And in fact, establishing a permanent manned presence on Mars would be much easier than on the Moon for a number of factors (read 'The Case for Mars' if you haven't already, by Dr. Robert Zubrin). Also, there are many space enthusiasts out there, such as Tom Hanks, who may be willing to assist in such a program down the road with funding and support. While we are doing this, I don't believe we should stop lobbying for the Mars Direct plan in the government. In fact, I've come up with something of an idea that I emailed to Dr. Zubrin several days ago. The United States spends 35 billion dollars annually on our nuclear arms program (maintenance, new launch vehicles, clean up, etc.). If we shaved even just 4 or 5 billion dollars off that a year, we could fund the Mars Direct plan starting NOW instead of 20 or so years, and get to mars before 2020 (maybe even by 2015). Now of course George Bush would never go for such a plan, but Dr. Zubrin suggested John Kerry may be willing to listen to such an idea. If any of you would like to know where I got my figures from, feel free to email me at EQfan592@aol.com (which is also my AIM name). If you want help in this company, sign me up. I done have much money, and am currently a student, but I'd like to think I'm at least a fairly sharp person, and I believe I could bring a lot to the table Anyway, we shall see what happens, and write to John Kerry (as it seems he will be getting the democratic ticket) and anybody else you think might listen, and tell them about this idea if you feel so inclined. Thanks for listening
I know this isn't entirely the place for this kind of talk, but I just wanted to point something out real quick Being a liberal doesn't mean you are against civil liberties. "Liberal" as it is used in current day politics tends to refer to more of a belief in a certain economic policy. This is why the typical 'left/right' scale doesn't really work at all. I recommend going to [http://www.politicalcompass.org]www.politicalcompass.org. It adds a second axis of measurement, authoritarian or libertarian. I'm a liberal libertarian. I'm a gun owner myself in fact (M1 Garand Rifle if you are interested). But the main point of all of this is that liberal does not mean anti-space. I believe that nothing can represent that which is good about both humanity and the human spirit more than the exploration of space. I still hold the hope that maybe, someday, programs like manned space exploration just might persuade people to put their energies to greater works beyond finding more reasons to kill each other.
Well, anyway, sorry for the diatribe folks
Don't be mistaken in thinking that all liberals are against the space program my friends I, personally, am extremely liberal, and I feel that the space program is extremely important, especially plans like Mars Direct that make SENSE! Now if we could only get rid of some of the bureaucracy in NASA, things might get rolling
Pages: 1