If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   A careful, point-by-point analysis of why Newt's moon base idea is pants-on-head retarded   (slate.com) divider line 226
    More: Obvious, newts  
•       •       •

15268 clicks; posted to Main » on 30 Jan 2012 at 2:40 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



226 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-30 08:29:08 PM
I love how the only reason this fat load hates the ISS is because a Democratic promoted it.

What a farktard.
 
2012-01-30 08:54:52 PM

Rich Cream: 1. I'm sure in the 1960s there were plenty of lists of reasons why we could never put a man on the moon. Still used to "prove" we never went.

2. The entire point of the Space Station is to prove (and learn how) man can exist in a hostile environments like the moon and long space travel.

So fark off.

/not defending Newt, puhleaze


Right with ya. Can't stand Gingrich at a most primal level; he is all that I hate about politicians: corrupt, pandering, self-serving, egocentric and more.

That being said, i just think the idea that we have given up on putting people on the moon is crazy. So what if it has no perceived "econmic benefit". Sometimes, we as the human race just need to do crazy crap. The whole idea of an "international effort" is asinine. The models we have for an "international effort" are: the UN, the EU, the Kyoto accords, and so on. The models we ahve for a successful space program, stretcthing the boundaries come down to: The USA and the USSR. National interest above world interest. You don't get these kind of things done by committee (ask Padme). It takes strong leadership of a singular kind, a kind that even surpasses most nations most of the time. It also takes a strong competition amongst the nations. "Internatiional cooperation" is for the weak. Newt isn't that leader, but perhaps someone is. Perhaps the Chinese will spur us to do it, because we don't want to be left behind. That was what happened in the 50's and 60's: we were scared that the US was falling behind.

/End rant.
 
2012-01-30 09:31:17 PM

maxheck:
Get a commercially useful over-unity He3 reactor working and every country and corporate interest in the world will be fighting to get to the moon. But so far workable fusion is 50 years away, just like it was 50 years ago.


They must be making progress because fusion reactors used to be 30 years away. (they're learning)
 
2012-01-30 09:47:16 PM

LMark: By the way, there many explanations put forth for the Fermi Paradox, way south, and many of these do not involve the civilization simply dying out. I just can't buy your implicit argument that we should not have any fun, or even compassion for others, until we've completely colonized the galaxy. Technological advances, yes. Conservation, yes. Headlong, wasteful rush into something about which we know nothing? Absolutely not.


Its because we know nothing that time is all the more precious.

The Fermi Paradox, taken on the current evidence at least, suggests that getting out there and becoming a galactic species is not easy. The chances that there is a well meaning federation keeping us ignorant until we commit some special technical feat is all wishful thinking. Its more likely that life is rare and advanced civilizations are almost unheard of because something always nips it in the bud.

Without a model race to follow or any idea if we are truly unique in this universe (because of the fact that its populated by multi-gigaton fusion bombs that unleash the occasional atmosphere depleting love bite), We don't know what month it is.
Might be April, might be November.
How long do you take to smell the roses before buckling down to work?

/Especially when the onset of winter will be declared by a falling snowflake the size of Mount Fuji.
 
2012-01-30 09:50:44 PM

Mr. Titanium:
The ISS is in a low orbit because it is as high as the shuttle, Reagan's "Space Taxi" can reach. While building it, a raging debate within NASA dealt with whether the Kapton insulation used on the wiring would withstand the ozone at ISS levels. The data from high-earth orbits said there would be no problem, but the data from high stratospheric aircraft said the insulation would have a half-life of about 5 years. There was no long-term data from anywhere between these levels. The entire ISS project moved ahead by assuming the high-earth orbit data was right. To date, I don't think anyone has tried inspecting much of the insulation, so we don't know if it is good for another 20 years, or 20 days. We could have given the shuttle more altitude by replacing the boosters, but that design change would have delayed the shuttle program by 9 months (and prevented the o-ring problem for ever occurring). So one bad design assumption (the boosters) led to another (low earth orbit for the ISS).


I am no fan of Reagan but you blame the space shuttle on Reagan? Seriously?
 
2012-01-30 09:57:48 PM
way south
How long do you take to smell the roses before buckling down to work?


You do both at the same time. You certainly don't elect a chief who will neglect all of our other problems except for that one. BTW, I assume you were referring in your weeners to Gamma ray bursts. The latest information indicates that these are very rare, if not non-existent in mature galaxies. I also wonder if human life, divorced from our natural surroundings, is truly worth living. Then again, I'm the kind of weirdo who lives in New Mexico instead of New York.
 
2012-01-30 10:01:35 PM

rwfan: I am no fan of Reagan but you blame the space shuttle on Reagan? Seriously?


Many of the shuttles design decisions were political, as were other defense boondoggles like the B1. Nobody liked it, but it was politically necessary, so it flew. It wasn't all Reagan per se, but a lot of it actually can be put on his doorstep.
Even then NASA knew it was a dead end as a program, and were afraid it might even kill NASA as an organization. Just like the Air Force didn't like or even want the B1 anymore at that point but got it anyway.

Politics trumps usually practicality - now and then. What else is new?
 
2012-01-30 10:02:59 PM
BTW, have we truly been "smelling the roses" this whole time? News to me. Maybe life has been a big party for you in the past, but it wasn't for the rest of us. We're working on developing technology, and trying to solve social problems, and trying to have a little fun before we die. Frankly, in the short term, I'm more worried about an apocalypse brought about by technology than one that could be prevented by it.


/eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die. 5 billion years from now, all of us posting will be dead, whether we get off "this rock" or not.
 
2012-01-30 10:15:49 PM

LMark: way south
How long do you take to smell the roses before buckling down to work?

You do both at the same time. You certainly don't elect a chief who will neglect all of our other problems except for that one. BTW, I assume you were referring in your weeners to Gamma ray bursts. The latest information indicates that these are very rare, if not non-existent in mature galaxies. I also wonder if human life, divorced from our natural surroundings, is truly worth living. Then again, I'm the kind of weirdo who lives in New Mexico instead of New York.


I consider space exploration and technological advancement to be a priority. These have a habit of bringing solutions to other problems. As a result I would not elect a Chief who didn't have that on his front burner, even if he promised to show me a good time on every other front.
That kind of leader just as likely selling out your future so he can win his election today.
Since no one can guarantee us tomorrow, his credit is no good.

The universe has other things that could get us besides mountain sized rocks and gamma rays, radiation, black holes, or unknown cosmic horrors. We learn about new hazards all the time and these go along with the earth bound dangers like disease and war.
The question is, why would you wait to figure out what's going to do you in?
Something or other is coming, why not hedge your bets against it?

Until someone can prove otherwise, I'm going to go with the easy presumption on fermi and say that our brand of life is unique. Letting it die without a fighting chance would be a crime. The universe would lose the only opportunity for it to understand itself.
I don't care so much for the quality of life so long as our fundamental need for survival is met.

Once that's accomplished, the rest of you can laze around and fark each other into a sexpocalypse for all I care.
There will be someone out there to come back and rebuild.
 
2012-01-30 10:25:45 PM
way south
Once that's accomplished, the rest of you can laze around and fark each other into a sexpocalypse for all I care.



Funny thing about farking. Without it, all the other issues become a moot point in 120 years.
 
2012-01-30 10:31:33 PM

LMark: PSIChick Came here to add this. But with less linkage and more ranting outrage.

/When I was little I dreamed of going into space
//Maybe it didn't work out, but DO NOT DIS SCIENCE.
///I HAVE CAPS LOCK!

Again, I don't think Lawrence Krauss, a Physics Ph.D., is interested in "dissing" science.


So slamming the ISS, which is the ultimate symbol of scientific achievement to date, is...what again?

/PhD != common sense
 
2012-01-30 10:39:17 PM

timujin: UtileDysfunktion: No, guess I don't. I'm sure it's all factual. I'm just saying that real contributions to science from the ISS will be found in papers submitted to independent scientific journals. Citing a NASA report to support a claim of the ISS's scientific significance is like citing the annual report of any large organization to support the claims that A) they're doing amazing stuff for mankind, B) everyone that works there is above average and ridiculously happy to be working there, and C) that their entire Board of Directors all walk on water.

so... you're "sure it's all factual" but think it's the same as a corporation releasing a report saying their employees are rock stars and their Board is teh most awesome ever? Do you read what you write before hitting "Add Comment"?

Now whether you think these experiments will make any money is a different question and one that isn't answered in the NASA paper. That wasn't the point of this discussion, but rather that the writer is an idiot for stating that there has been no science from the ISS.


Yes, I read what I write before I post,,,, but i have to consider how much effort I want to put into debunking the mis-information that some farker who spent a few seconds googling some factoids he thought would support his position. Here's a hint... actual research takes some amount of effort. Google ain't gonna' hand it to ya'.
 
2012-01-30 11:05:57 PM
PsiChick So slamming the ISS, which is the ultimate symbol of scientific achievement to date, is...what again?

/PhD != common sense


Oh, believe me, I know. I'm a Ph.D. program dropout, I know all the bullshiat that academics are capable of. But we're talking about motivation here. I doubt that someone would devote his life to science, and then turn around and "dis" it. I may say some horrible things about a couple of former advisors, but I would never say they were against science. And you may think the ISS is science's greatest achievement, I'm gonna go with antibiotics and sewage treatment. Not as flashy, but much more useful. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree : )
 
2012-01-30 11:13:42 PM
I think I'd like to see this happen before I die no matter how impracticle it would be. We already spend money like that on nothing of importance so why not doing something cool?
 
2012-01-30 11:30:15 PM
Well, ummmmm, actually - NASA, the ESA, and Russia have been discussing a joint manned moon base effort since last year.

While Newt's 9 year timeline is utterly ridiculous, he's not the only one talking about the idea.
 
2012-01-30 11:39:23 PM
Not a parody?
 
2012-01-30 11:46:04 PM
way south
I consider space exploration and technological advancement to be a priority. These have a habit of bringing solutions to other problems. As a result I would not elect a Chief who didn't have that on his front burner, even if he promised to show me a good time on every other front.


And Obama does consider it to be a priority. But he wants to take the time and develop something that will really be step forward (he's more concerned with deep space exploration and wants the leave the closer stuff to private industry). Plus, the basis of our technological development will have to be education. Obama actually cares about this. Gingrich wants to fire the custodians and put the kids to work cleaning the schools. How well rested will they be the next day if they have to do that?
 
2012-01-30 11:49:34 PM
Believe me, I care about space exploration. I think NASA is, if anything, underfunded. (but take the money from our "world police" fund, rather than other budget items) But I just don't believe that it should be 100% of the federal budget. Correct me if I'm wrong, way south but I get the impression from your earlier posts that you want something close to that.
 
2012-01-31 12:13:58 AM

PlatinumDragon: My guess - if China's economy doesn't implode from massive misallocations and labour unrest within the next two decades, they might establish a test facility. That's a big if, though. India + Russia, maybe?


Try Russia+USA+EU Link (new window)

BTW - China has only recently just managed to keep one guy in low earth orbit for less than a day, using soyuz technology purchased from Russia. They are still not even close to where Russia and the U.S. were more than half a century ago. I suggest that it may be a bit premature to get all starry eyed about the Chinese space program.
 
2012-01-31 01:50:24 AM
asneakpreview.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-31 08:34:00 AM

LMark: Correct me if I'm wrong, way south but I get the impression from your earlier posts that you want something close to that.


I'd settle for getting 1% and a solid plan, at present. Enough to continue doing the path-finding work that NASA is geared towards. Commercial entities can provide the rest as time goes on.

The problem is that simply telling rocket builders to just go ahead and build stuff without giving them a business case is probably why the Obama plan wont work in the long run.
Business types know what an opportunity looks like and they'll do the footwork when the chance presents itself. Right now they are only working to collect government funds.

If Obama wants a gold rush in space, he needs to concern himself less with who builds the wagons and more with showing people where the gold is.
You can't do that from an office on the ground.
 
2012-01-31 10:51:00 AM

give me doughnuts: Cut the DoD's budget in half, give that to NASA.

Build lunar facilities near the poles for easy access to a water supply.

Still can't come up with a reason to build a lunar base other than "Because it'll be cool!"


How about "because it is cheaper to launch LARGE vessels to mars from the moon." Also, the engine most likely to be used in a round trip to mars is the NERVA (new window). Something which I don't want launching terrestrially due to the radiation hazard. The NERVA would in all likelihood be used as a space tug to tow vessels to mars.
 
2012-01-31 01:04:35 PM
I want a damn moon base. It freaking 2010 already. I don't care if china does it, good for them but we need to get some sort of self sufficient presence off this rock for the future of our species.
 
2012-01-31 02:47:01 PM

UtileDysfunktion: timujin: UtileDysfunktion: No, guess I don't. I'm sure it's all factual. I'm just saying that real contributions to science from the ISS will be found in papers submitted to independent scientific journals. Citing a NASA report to support a claim of the ISS's scientific significance is like citing the annual report of any large organization to support the claims that A) they're doing amazing stuff for mankind, B) everyone that works there is above average and ridiculously happy to be working there, and C) that their entire Board of Directors all walk on water.

so... you're "sure it's all factual" but think it's the same as a corporation releasing a report saying their employees are rock stars and their Board is teh most awesome ever? Do you read what you write before hitting "Add Comment"?

Now whether you think these experiments will make any money is a different question and one that isn't answered in the NASA paper. That wasn't the point of this discussion, but rather that the writer is an idiot for stating that there has been no science from the ISS.

Yes, I read what I write before I post,,,, but i have to consider how much effort I want to put into debunking the mis-information that some farker who spent a few seconds googling some factoids he thought would support his position. Here's a hint... actual research takes some amount of effort. Google ain't gonna' hand it to ya'.


Still not an answer, just more vague and random statements pulled out of your ass.

/also, what makes you think I Googled it? There's just the slimmest chance a hard copy is sitting here on my desk.
 
2012-01-31 03:20:49 PM

LMark: PsiChick So slamming the ISS, which is the ultimate symbol of scientific achievement to date, is...what again?

/PhD != common sense

Oh, believe me, I know. I'm a Ph.D. program dropout, I know all the bullshiat that academics are capable of. But we're talking about motivation here. I doubt that someone would devote his life to science, and then turn around and "dis" it. I may say some horrible things about a couple of former advisors, but I would never say they were against science. And you may think the ISS is science's greatest achievement, I'm gonna go with antibiotics and sewage treatment. Not as flashy, but much more useful. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree : )


I'm more considering the political ramifications. Two warring superpowers committed to something purely for the science of it--pulling off something like that is impressive.

/But yeah, I get he didn't mean it
//Agree to disagree works. :)
 
2012-01-31 06:05:23 PM

RembrandtQEinstein: I want a damn moon base.


s11.allstarpics.net

/hell, I'd just like his ex-wife's alimony
 
Displayed 26 of 226 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report