Back to the moon we go?

[GT2000]

NASA has announced a plan to put man back on the moon by 2018, for a mear $104 billion. Assuming NASA continues to receive their yearly $16 billion, they wouldn't have to request any additional money for this. Not long ago Pres. Bush had given a statement saying we'd have a trip to the moon by 2020, so this isn't far off at all.

They go on to speak on how we will no doubt have more disasters in the US and the world, as we have had tsunamis and hurricanes, and more, play god with humanity, but that the spending required for these visions are a necessary investment in our future.

I'm down for this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/sc...rssnyt&emc=rss

[raublekick]

i was born down for this.

[thecreeper]

i'm all for space exploration, but really, what is the point to going back to the moon? what's there that we haven't already researched to death decades ago?

if there is some new findings that we can discover there, i think it is a great idea. but i think it would be a waste of money to go there just because we have for a long time and we're bored.

[raublekick]

there's plenty to research. we're getting to a point where we MUST think about living somewhere outside of the earth. and going to the moon once (especially in the 1960's) can't possibly provide us with all we need to know.

[Jesse]

If we do have to start living outside of the Earth, I think Mars would be a much better candidate.

[raublekick]

Originally Posted by Jesse

If we do have to start living outside of the Earth, I think Mars would be a much better candidate.

Total Recall has already debunked that idea. But then again, I do like tri-tittied ladies...


What makes Mars any better than the moon anyways? It's farther away and the environment is just as anti-human. We need to come up with some way to make water first, however.

[GT2000]

Mmm...two for the hand and another for the mouth.

[Optimus Funk]

Originally Posted by thecreeper

i'm all for space exploration, but really, what is the point to going back to the moon? what's there that we haven't already researched to death decades ago?

George W. Bush just saw 2001: A Space Odyssey before making his decision to go back to the moon. He wants to find the large black monolith in the movie that was on the moon. You know so, he can better wage war on terror. The planned 104 billion dollar budget does have some weird ass expenditures in it though, including 15 billion dollars to re-start the now defunked Pan-Am flight lines and give them a solid lead in the commercial space race. 3 billion to search and find the apes from the movie that learned to use tools, for they probably have some knowledge as to where the monolith of earth is hidden and the moon monolithis located...then exterminate with extreme prejudice. 35 billion to develop A.I. more advanced then the now outdated H.A.L. 9000, and name it H.A.L. 10k. We must be very hush, hush about this we dont want the terrorists, or communists to find out and foil our plans of interstellar domination.

Seriously though, unless he has some great ideas as to why we should go to the moon, not just again but for the um-teenth time, then I think we should better accolate our tax money. There is plenty to research I agree, but not enough to make us go back there while we have so much crap that needs much more attention atleast right now. Overcrowding is a problem, but not for the United States, look at India, China, and Japan those are the peeps that need to be flying people to moon, and not killing baby girls because they are only allowed to have 2 children at most(exclude japan for that last part). I do believe japan is looking to land on the moon in 2008 anyway we just just wait to see what they find out, before committing 104 billion US tax payers dollars or send a fucking little rover shit(yes that is what they are called) that NASA adores so much, I mean it would get there in like two days and scuttle around for much longer and safer no doubt then those damnable mars rovers. As of right now living on the moon would be horrible it would be like living on a submarine that you couldnt get off, and your body would physically deteriorate we aren't made to live in low-g eviroments. So I think, we should wait till our technology gets a bit better and we as a nation are in a safe position, and are fully fitted with a completely competent president, and government capable of pulling off such a task as going back to the moon, and then perhaps living on the moon.

::End Rant::

[raublekick]

while i agree with some of your ranty thoughts, i am a strong advocate for looking into the future. whatever problems we do have now will not be fixed in the future if we continue at this pace. there's nothing i hate to see more than the U.S. (or the world in general) struggling to quickly find a quick-fix solution to a problem that could have been avoided with some R&D.

Space exploration is extremely important right now. The development of space-dwelling technology should be one of NASA's top priorities. We weren't meant to live in space, but if we can come up with a way to artificially create earth-like conditions then we would be set.

The U.S. (and all the other wealthy nations) is in a position where it can do this research better than the countries that need it. So why is it important that we develop the technology and not them? If mass overcrowding in those countries ever becomes a severely worse problem, people won't be migrating to find better living conditions, they will be migrating to find ANY living conditions.

The whole issue really has little to do with Bush, Rebulicans, Conservatives, Liberals, and whoever else. We've made some incredible advances in space technology over the past few years. I'd like to see it continue.

[johnny]

space exploration is cool so i will patiently await the day when people fly off to the moon again.

[thecreeper]

Originally Posted by raublekick

there's plenty to research. we're getting to a point where we MUST think about living somewhere outside of the earth. and going to the moon once (especially in the 1960's) can't possibly provide us with all we need to know.

i believe we've been there countless times since the 60's, just none were manned flights.

but as long as its not "oh boy! this is fun! let's take paris hilton with us!" kind of trip, more power to them.

[Optimus Funk]

Maybe they can take that backstreet guy that was trained by the cosmonauts to go into space, and make him one of the crew members too. Have Jeff Probst host the flight, and people(including the host(s)!) get voted off and out the airlock based on how they perform during the flight to the moon, or by their singing talent?, perhaps both. Then the people that make it too the moon can finally say that "Fear is obviously not a factor!" and be crowned emperor(s) of the moon and ride the mighty moon worm! Oh and Paris Hilton will definately be going on the flight too.

And to clarify: Six times we have landed people on the moon, ontop of a few swing around flights of the moon no landing though(manned)

[raublekick]

that sounds like a fabulous show

[thecreeper]

we all know real world: the moon is only a few seasons away.

[Mike]

waste of so much money. I hate space.

[Plain Old Jane]

we're actually not looking for a new place outside of earth to live, not for a long time. Until we can solve the energy problem, the population/religion problem, the extremist conservatives/liberals fucking up EVERYTHING problem, and the nazi gold problem, we're not leaving.

Terraforming other planets is no good, too costly even with all the tech in the world(any world), we'd have to genetically adapt humans to live on them. Also, we arent adapted to alien bacteria or anything, so casualty rate's be high for the first few millenia. tell you what, wait two years, everything will be a little cheaper then.