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  
•       •       •

15266 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
 
2012-01-30 01:20:40 PM
Don't need to clik on the link and RTFA.

I learned existential logic, and when the proposer of any idea is already moon-bat-shiat nuts, you can pretty much dismiss any spittle pocked thing that flies out of his mouth.

Taco breathed dick hole that he is.
 
2012-01-30 01:31:35 PM
Because the fact that Newt proposed it wasn't good enough for you? what a waste of text. Anything that "man" proposes should be discarded out of hand.
 
2012-01-30 01:46:39 PM
In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.
 
2012-01-30 01:54:33 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.


With cheap domes that ensure mutations among the population.
 
2012-01-30 01:56:00 PM
Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)
 
2012-01-30 02:16:54 PM
Because he can't officially speak on behalf of the Chinese?
 
2012-01-30 02:22:25 PM

timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)


I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

The author probably thinks because he doesn't have flying cars yet, there has been "no science" coming out of it. Other commenters on the article share a depressing lack of understanding of how science works, especially the guy who says that with the $100 billion the ISS cost you could "Create an HIV vaccine (probably)" and "Create a universal flu vaccine (probably)."
 
2012-01-30 02:35:02 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.


Oh yeah? I'll build my OWN moon base! With blackjack! And hookers! In fact, forget the blackjack and the moon base! Ahh screw the whole thing.
 
2012-01-30 02:38:02 PM
Useful factoid for assessing the feasibility of random space-based ideas: It costs about $5,000 to $10,000 (different estimates) to put one pound of whatever into geosynchronous orbit, let alone safely down on the moon's surface. Call it $20M/ton on the low end, assuming some research breakthroughs and economies of scale.

When people start talking about mining operations to build underground barracks, think about the equipment, people, food, water, and supplies it would take. One small John Deere backhoe for digging trenches? That'll be ~$160M for shipping and handling, and please bring your own fuel, and the oxygen to burn it in. And replacement parts. The warranty probably doesn't apply when lunar regolith scratches and fouls up anything with moving parts.
 
2012-01-30 02:42:28 PM
Tanstaafl.
 
2012-01-30 02:43:21 PM
Newt wants a moonbase so he has a place to send old and busted wives.
 
2012-01-30 02:44:28 PM
any permanent presence on the moon is a non-runner no matter the technology or budget, period.

mars would actually be cheaper, easier, and more technically feasible to establish a presence on. smart money in the aerospace field says when we do go, its going to be there and/or orbital manufacturing/asteroid mining first.

the moon is a bad, bad, bad idea.
 
2012-01-30 02:44:37 PM
Newt 2012!

t2.gstatic.com
 
2012-01-30 02:44:41 PM
Newt was pandering to NASA employees and the economy that made a living off of them.

//That is all
 
2012-01-30 02:45:05 PM
What a Newt Moon Base might look like:

asneakpreview.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-30 02:45:51 PM
Rasha faja nashi, nacho majo si. Limo sacho buratti, ela jingstao mau.

- Newt Gingrich
 
2012-01-30 02:46:08 PM
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
 
2012-01-30 02:46:16 PM
So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.
 
2012-01-30 02:46:39 PM
B-b-but we need to get there before China does!

starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov

THAT DOESN'T COUNT!
 
2012-01-30 02:47:12 PM
Newt can afford it with his commie casino money.
 
2012-01-30 02:47:13 PM
What? Nothing better to greenlight???
 
2012-01-30 02:47:57 PM

vudukungfu: Don't need to clik on the link and RTFA.

I learned existential logic, and when the proposer of any idea is already moon-bat-shiat nuts, you can pretty much dismiss any spittle pocked thing that flies out of his mouth.

Taco breathed dick hole that he is.



Taco breathed dick hole that he is. LOL

You, my friend, have been added to my favourites.
 
2012-01-30 02:48:18 PM
We could take less money and do a LOT of cool undersea work, up to and including outfitting custom nuclear-powered submarines for scientific exploration and archaeology.

/space nerd
 
2012-01-30 02:48:24 PM
universityforstrategicoptimism.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-30 02:48:32 PM
I take exception to his assertion that "no science" has come from the ISS.

I believe "Citation needed" is the appropriate phrase, since he's the one making the claim.
 
2012-01-30 02:48:33 PM

NewportBarGuy: Eddie Adams from Torrance: When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.

With cheap domes that ensure mutations among the population.


Three-breasted prostitutes FTW!
 
2012-01-30 02:49:13 PM
I want a moon base! I am voting for Newt!!! He is right about innovation coming from doing it. Trickle-down innovation! Vote Newt!!
 
2012-01-30 02:49:25 PM
With what money, Newt? I thought the US government had a spending problem, and last I checked all the private operators were focusing on profitable LEO and geosynchronous satellite launch operations. Who's going to have the gonads to put up a few hundred billion without a guarantee of a profit these days?
 
2012-01-30 02:49:55 PM
Ozzie Pants go on your head and actually have pretty high defense

img33.imageshack.us

/guess this means Obama is Magus
 
2012-01-30 02:49:59 PM

vudukungfu: Don't need to clik on the link and RTFA.

I learned existential logic, and when the proposer of any idea is already moon-bat-shiat nuts, you can pretty much dismiss any spittle pocked thing that flies out of his mouth.

Taco breathed dick hole that he is.


Argumentum ad hominem (new window)
 
2012-01-30 02:50:10 PM
Do you actually think The Slate would actually endorse anything any Republican would propose? Regardless of whether or not its a good idea, the Slate is definitely left leaning in its bias.
 
2012-01-30 02:50:39 PM

xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.


Yeah, I don't get why this blew up the way it did.
 
2012-01-30 02:50:39 PM
In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.
 
2012-01-30 02:50:59 PM

xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.


Except that Newt's not proposing something that actually moves real space exploration ahead, he's just pandering.

Like when W said we would go to Mars. It's a load of crap designed to shake up a segment of the voting block with promises that cannot be kept.

How would the grinch pay for said moonbase? With tax cuts? Newtie, please.
 
2012-01-30 02:51:09 PM
I'm voting for Newt because of his crazy moon base promise. I've got no reason to vote for Romney or Obama so Newt wins.
 
2012-01-30 02:51:38 PM
I don't think I will ever forgive Newt Gingrich for associating himself with space exploration. The right will keep hating it because it's expensive and doesn't do anything to improve old-man boners (what science is for), and now the left will start hating it because of the (albeit compelling) argument that everything Newt says should be dismissed out of hand.

We do need a better way of getting shiat into orbit, of course, before a moon base is really worthwhile.
 
2012-01-30 02:51:41 PM
Newt is great! I hope he wins the nomination!

/Team Obama
 
2012-01-30 02:51:43 PM
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!"
 
2012-01-30 02:52:37 PM
I'll admit, I'm torn here. On one side, Newt's idea very much is "pants-on-head retarded" (a phrase that should be bandied about more often when it comes to talking about politicians and their policies).

On the other hand, given how unprofitable space exploration is in the short term (which is what corporations care about), and given how much our manned space program has been gutted recently, I'm having a hard time arguing against anyone championing such a program. What's the quote about "someday the sun will go out, and if we aren't off this rock, everything humanity has ever done is for nothing"? It seems relevant.

On the third hand, though, he's basically just sucking up to the Florida areospace industry, and will be just as likely to stay faithful to this campaign promise as he was to stay faithful to his wife.
 
2012-01-30 02:52:37 PM

Gerald: Do you actually think The Slate would actually endorse anything any Republican would propose? Regardless of whether or not its a good idea, the Slate is definitely left leaning in its bias.


True, but to be fair it is sometimes hard to tell the difference between 'left leaning' and 'factual' sometimes. They tend to often overlap to the point of being functionally indistinguishable sometimes.

If only truth didn't have that annoying liberal bias.
 
2012-01-30 02:52:38 PM
We'll be ready for a permanent moon or mars colony just as soon as we have permanent colonies in the dry valleys of Antarctica -- and not a day sooner. And it will have schools, civil infrastructure and its own economy. In short, that's probably *never* going to happen.
 
2012-01-30 02:53:33 PM
I'm still laughing at how fast Gingrich burned out. This moonbase idea would be a good idea if the Republican Party 1) hadn't sunk the economy and 2) created a political divide based on choosing religion over science. Exactly how is a GOP candidate that panders to the Jesus Crowd going to find a trillion dollars to invest in SCIENCE, again?

The whole thing is silly. Gingrich's false sincerity doesn't help him in the way he thinks it does. If anything, it just lost him Florida while giving both Romney and the Democrats perfect ways to undermine anything he'll ever do again while proving that Teabaggers aren't even in their right minds. They can't even be consistent enough in their own 'belief' system.
 
2012-01-30 02:54:26 PM
Do you really need a point-by-point analysis of anything said by a republican candidate for president to determine that it is pants-on-head stupid?

/cut to the chase people
 
2012-01-30 02:55:23 PM
Of course it's expensive, and since there's no one but a few space nuts like myself will actually support this initiative regardless of who proposes it...well, to paraphrase Luke Skywalker "I'm never getting off this [farking] rock!".

We should do it just because we believe that going to the stars might give meaning to our little lives, and I mean whilst we are alive, not in company of some theoretical sky wizard.

A lunar Colony would teach us much about long duration space flight without having to be IN free space - you know, vacuum engineering, hydroponics, air conditioning [which includes O2 management], water, etc. A Colony would be able to have multiply redundant systems and would be able to build and test new stuff all the time, perfecting the systems in a real life environment. "Space walking" or going on the surface would have to become a bit more routine, and we would develop transportation systems....etc. etc.

Imagine a "flying Bedstead" on the moon.

Gives me wood just thinking about the opportunities.
 
2012-01-30 02:56:05 PM

olddinosaur: In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.


So little of the above is true that it makes me wonder if you're a troll.
 
2012-01-30 02:56:33 PM
We shouldn't hate space exploration. We should hate meaningless, useless proposals like Newt's moon base proposal. We should research things that will allow us to explore further, knowing it is a long-term project. We should work with other countries, and their funds and manpower, to do this.

Focusing on achievements of the past is no way to go forward. Instead, look to new things, and you'll find developments that benefit us in many other ways beyond mere exploration.
 
2012-01-30 02:56:44 PM
First we have a moonbase. Next they are throwing rocks at us.
 
Ehh
2012-01-30 02:57:29 PM
Somebody needs to tell Newt that those hot chicks in purple wigs aren't going to be there. *ssshhh! That was just a TV show*
 
2012-01-30 02:57:48 PM
It is from Newt. What more needs to be said?
 
2012-01-30 02:57:52 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: I'm still laughing at how fast Gingrich burned out. This moonbase idea would be a good idea if the Republican Party 1) hadn't sunk the economy and 2) created a political divide based on choosing religion over science. Exactly how is a GOP candidate that panders to the Jesus Crowd going to find a trillion dollars to invest in SCIENCE, again?


You are correct. I just wish that humans actually would return to the moon, establish bases and other cool shiat, doesn't matter if it is the USA, China or the EU. But only if we don't do something stupid like go to war with Iran.
 
2012-01-30 02:58:13 PM
What we need is a large interplanetary self-sustaining migration spaceship capable of transforming into giant robot with particle cannon gun for self defense, escorted by fleets of fighters capable of transforming into different modes for different combat environments to handle possible giant hostile humanoid aliens.
 
2012-01-30 02:58:24 PM
M-O-O-N

that spells Newt!
 
2012-01-30 02:58:25 PM

Sock Ruh Tease: We shouldn't hate space exploration.


No we shouldn't. We should also realize that meaningful space exploration and manned space flight are not the same things.
 
2012-01-30 02:58:39 PM
There is a homeless man living in a section of woods in my neighborhood who literally wears pants on his head. He doesn't speak to anyone except the occasional growl at kids in the park, and he usually walks by quickly like he's late for something, all the while with a pair of jeans on his head. I would rather he be the next president than Newt.
 
2012-01-30 02:59:18 PM
Ozziepants go on your head.
 
2012-01-30 03:00:35 PM
Is Newt not getting the message? Should we turn it up all the way?
 
2012-01-30 03:00:39 PM

Klippoklondike: Ozzie Pants go on your head and actually have pretty high defense

[img33.imageshack.us image 153x120]

/guess this means Obama is Magus


DAMNIT

That's what I get for not reading the thread.
 
2012-01-30 03:00:43 PM
Freepers have always said space exploration is a waste of money until NASA got a bunch of cuts and since Obama is president, suddenly they are all for it.
 
2012-01-30 03:01:19 PM

meanmutton: olddinosaur: In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.

So little of the above is true that it makes me wonder if you're a troll.


Like what, specifically?
 
2012-01-30 03:01:41 PM
And now for a traditional Moon shanty:

We're whalers on the Moon
We carry a harpoon
But there ain't no whales
So we tell tall tales
And sing this whaling tune
 
2012-01-30 03:01:45 PM

chimp_ninja: Useful factoid for assessing the feasibility of random space-based ideas: It costs about $5,000 to $10,000 (different estimates) to put one pound of whatever into geosynchronous orbit, let alone safely down on the moon's surface. Call it $20M/ton on the low end, assuming some research breakthroughs and economies of scale.

When people start talking about mining operations to build underground barracks, think about the equipment, people, food, water, and supplies it would take. One small John Deere backhoe for digging trenches? That'll be ~$160M for shipping and handling, and please bring your own fuel, and the oxygen to burn it in. And replacement parts. The warranty probably doesn't apply when lunar regolith scratches and fouls up anything with moving parts.


Phooey. Newt's tax cuts will wipe out the national debt in six months and we can afford to build three moon cities

/lunar? Or looney? We report, you decide
 
2012-01-30 03:01:57 PM
Correction: What specifically is not true?
 
2012-01-30 03:02:02 PM

FightDirector: On the third GRIPPING hand, though, he's basically just sucking up to the Florida areospace industry, and will be just as likely to stay faithful to this campaign promise as he was to stay faithful to his wife.


Fixed for Niven and Moties.
 
2012-01-30 03:02:10 PM
I'm all for space stuff. I think it's important and we need to do it.

But as a realist, I cannot believe that with the economy in the crapper that any political candidate would be brave* enough to suggest that this kind of commitment is a good idea. The voters are going to hate it and his ideas seem to be ludicrously expensive and honestly somewhat pointless.

* There is a very fine line between brave and stupid. It's been crossed pretty badly in this case, I think.
 
2012-01-30 03:02:18 PM

Rincewind53: Other commenters on the article share a depressing lack of understanding of how science works


As do those who think the science coming out of the ISS is in any way worth the cost. How many other projects have been unfunded or underfunded to pay for the white elephant? Other than the experiments on long term human exposure to zero g, what science could not have been done for lower cost by unmanned probes?
 
2012-01-30 03:02:23 PM
Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?


amphetamines.com



/Not a Newt supporter
//It's not that crazy of an idea
 
2012-01-30 03:03:07 PM
www.best-horror-movies.com

The stupid, they mostly come out of politicians. Mostly.
 
2012-01-30 03:03:14 PM

CliChe Guevara: mars would actually be cheaper, easier, and more technically feasible to establish a presence on.


Why?
 
2012-01-30 03:03:30 PM

BalugaJoe: First we have a moonbase. Next they are throwing rocks at us.


i.imgur.com
 
2012-01-30 03:03:56 PM
Meh. I knew it probably was going to be implausible, but I couldn't help but get starry-eyed when I heard him say that.

Seriously, a base on the moon? Aside from all the reasons why it wouldn't work anytime in the near future, that would still be farking awesome!
 
2012-01-30 03:03:57 PM
We don't have the ability to get to the moon any more. We've forgotten how, we'd have to start over from scratch.
 
2012-01-30 03:04:47 PM
Lawrence Krauss would have finished his work and got to the bar a lot faster and reduced his article to: "New Gingrich is an idiot, who'd suck a cock in public to get elected."
 
2012-01-30 03:04:52 PM
I have to laugh. This was on the front page of money.cnn.corn

i2.cdn.turner.com
 
2012-01-30 03:06:03 PM

olddinosaur: In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.




Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon
 
2012-01-30 03:06:34 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.


Exactly. As much as I want it to be true and real and as much as I wish we could have these types of programs with the type of national zeal we had 50 years ago, I know it's just Newt pandering to the local base.
 
2012-01-30 03:06:35 PM

9beers: xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.

Yeah, I don't get why this blew up the way it did.


Because of the source. If it were a respected astrophysicist relating the technical details and possible benefits then people might have reason to listen. But it's Newt Farking Gingrich. The only thing that stupid asshole knows about science is what his staffers told him that might be beneficial in the polls.
 
2012-01-30 03:06:40 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?


I knew him!

/he was my friend
//Newt is no him
 
2012-01-30 03:07:58 PM

Masso: What we need is a large interplanetary self-sustaining migration spaceship capable of transforming into giant robot with particle cannon gun for self defense, escorted by fleets of fighters capable of transforming into different modes for different combat environments to handle possible giant hostile humanoid aliens.


I like your plan, but I feel that such a plan is going to need something else. Perhaps a chinzy musical accompaniment and a pointless love triangle composed of three incredibly annoying characters.


/whole thing should have been about Roy and Max, with Miriya thrown in halfway through. Keep Gloval and the Bridge bunnies and call it a day.
 
2012-01-30 03:08:27 PM
I'll vote to fund this:
www.oocities.org

If they can guarantee the women will dress like this:
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-30 03:08:53 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




I think the point of TFA, and most of the criticism about his idea, was more that Newt's idea was disingenuous at best. I think a moon base would certainly be a great idea, but one by 2020 sounds extremely optimistic and generally unrealistic. I think a serious consideration for a project would also require us to rethink our standing in the world (at the very least in terms of how we're spending our money) to the point where I wouldn't bet on any current Republican to deliver on that idea.
 
2012-01-30 03:08:58 PM
Why all this hate on Newt and Moon Pies? I love Moon Pies!
 
2012-01-30 03:09:59 PM

timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)


Quantum Apostrophe will be along shortly to tell you that any science output would have been done terrestrially by some other entity and that the space station was and is a complete waste of humanity's resources and will never, ever produce anything useful. Ever.
 
2012-01-30 03:11:52 PM
A Republican suggesting scientific advancement? That's don't make any cents.
 
2012-01-30 03:11:58 PM
My Anaheim Electronics stock is up because of this.
 
2012-01-30 03:11:59 PM
He's stealing a forecast from George Friedman's (the STRATFOR guy) book "The Next Hundred Years." According to Friedman, moon colonization is feasible, if not inevitable... 30 or 40 or even 50 years from now, not anywhere in the near future.

/ I loathe Newt and this plan will never leave the ground. Clear pandering.
 
2012-01-30 03:12:33 PM
fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.
 
2012-01-30 03:12:34 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: I'm still laughing at how fast Gingrich burned out. This moonbase idea would be a good idea if the Republican Party 1) hadn't sunk the economy and 2) created a political divide based on choosing religion over science. Exactly how is a GOP candidate that panders to the Jesus Crowd going to find a trillion dollars to invest in SCIENCE, again?

The whole thing is silly. Gingrich's false sincerity doesn't help him in the way he thinks it does. If anything, it just lost him Florida while giving both Romney and the Democrats perfect ways to undermine anything he'll ever do again while proving that Teabaggers aren't even in their right minds. They can't even be consistent enough in their own 'belief' system.


Someone should really start a project to fly astronaut to the moon through the power of prayer.
 
2012-01-30 03:13:50 PM

timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)


Science to the layperson means consumer technology. In short, they want all of the gadgets they saw on Star Trek. Research and discovery don't count.
 
2012-01-30 03:14:15 PM
I don't want to be mistaken for someone who opposes space exploration. A serious plan to establish sustainable human colonies on the moon, Mars, and beyond would be exciting. I just don't see it happening without a willingness to shovel several hundred billion dollars into a furnace without any expectation of return. It's about as risky and resource-intensive an operation as we can cook up, and opportunities to extract resources from the whole thing will be a side effect of the big exploration experiments - new and improved space propulsion systems, better radiation-hardened computers, long-term self-sustaining habitats, and so on. The sunk costs will be in-farking-credible, and unless Newtie intends to backstop the whole thing with T-bills and debt, it's exceedingly unlikely any combination of today's aerospace companies will be willing to hang their necks out there to finance the mess. The shareholders would riot, for one thing.
 
2012-01-30 03:15:50 PM

FightDirector: Masso: What we need is a large interplanetary self-sustaining migration spaceship capable of transforming into giant robot with particle cannon gun for self defense, escorted by fleets of fighters capable of transforming into different modes for different combat environments to handle possible giant hostile humanoid aliens.

I like your plan, but I feel that such a plan is going to need something else. Perhaps a chinzy musical accompaniment and a pointless love triangle composed of three incredibly annoying characters.


/whole thing should have been about Roy and Max, with Miriya thrown in halfway through. Keep Gloval and the Bridge bunnies and call it a day.


The later ones got Yoko Kanno, though, so the music is infinitely better.
 
2012-01-30 03:16:51 PM

DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon


Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.
 
2012-01-30 03:17:51 PM

PlatinumDragon: I don't want to be mistaken for someone who opposes space exploration. A serious plan to establish sustainable human colonies on the moon, Mars, and beyond would be exciting. I just don't see it happening without a willingness to shovel several hundred billion dollars into a furnace without any expectation of return. It's about as risky and resource-intensive an operation as we can cook up, and opportunities to extract resources from the whole thing will be a side effect of the big exploration experiments - new and improved space propulsion systems, better radiation-hardened computers, long-term self-sustaining habitats, and so on. The sunk costs will be in-farking-credible, and unless Newtie intends to backstop the whole thing with T-bills and debt, it's exceedingly unlikely any combination of today's aerospace companies will be willing to hang their necks out there to finance the mess. The shareholders would riot, for one thing.


Mike the Computer could help.
 
2012-01-30 03:17:51 PM
In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

Newt has all of the commitment of a 5-year-old with ADD. He would be fun as a president: every day a new kooky idea. And this former community college instructor fashions himself as the Republican "big thinker in chief".

Just look at what he's trotted out in the primaries:
* the "Cuban spring" to match the "Arab spring"
* lunatic bases
* Romney's a "European socialist" but we must back Israeli socialism
* shoot lasers at North Korea
* allow a terrorist attack to succeed (new window)once in a while just to keep people terrorized
 
2012-01-30 03:18:03 PM

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?


Yes, but he was a DEMOCRAT!

/Its almost assured that some day in the near future, someone will build a moon base.
/I wonder if the logical thinking and sane people looking up from the ground will still feel like they are wearing their pants on their bottoms.
 
2012-01-30 03:19:29 PM

monoski: Newt was pandering to NASA employees and the economy that made a living off of them.

//That is all


That might be what he was trying to do, but NASA employees know just how stupid and unrealistic his idea is.
 
2012-01-30 03:20:10 PM

PlatinumDragon: I don't want to be mistaken for someone who opposes space exploration. A serious plan to establish sustainable human colonies on the moon, Mars, and beyond would be exciting. I just don't see it happening without a willingness to shovel several hundred billion dollars into a furnace without any expectation of return. It's about as risky and resource-intensive an operation as we can cook up, and opportunities to extract resources from the whole thing will be a side effect of the big exploration experiments - new and improved space propulsion systems, better radiation-hardened computers, long-term self-sustaining habitats, and so on. The sunk costs will be in-farking-credible, and unless Newtie intends to backstop the whole thing with T-bills and debt, it's exceedingly unlikely any combination of today's aerospace companies will be willing to hang their necks out there to finance the mess. The shareholders would riot, for one thing.



That's pretty much the argument for space exploration being the purview of the government, right there.

If it's going to happen at all, then the government HAS to do it, because absent a guaranteed return on the tremendous investment, no-one else will.
 
2012-01-30 03:20:26 PM

bmwericus: Of course it's expensive, and since there's no one but a few space nuts like myself will actually support this initiative regardless of who proposes it...well, to paraphrase Luke Skywalker "I'm never getting off this [farking] rock!".

We should do it just because we believe that going to the stars might give meaning to our little lives, and I mean whilst we are alive, not in company of some theoretical sky wizard.

A lunar Colony would teach us much about long duration space flight without having to be IN free space - you know, vacuum engineering, hydroponics, air conditioning [which includes O2 management], water, etc. A Colony would be able to have multiply redundant systems and would be able to build and test new stuff all the time, perfecting the systems in a real life environment. "Space walking" or going on the surface would have to become a bit more routine, and we would develop transportation systems....etc. etc.

Imagine a "flying Bedstead" on the moon.

Gives me wood just thinking about the opportunities.


I would agree with your sentiment but not the target. We CAN do all those things on Mars - quite practically, and with current technology. We cannot ever feasibly do them on the Moon, likely ever, and even if we could we wouldn't want to.


Short lesson from someone who helps design this stuff;
Moon=No way, ever.
Mars=Feasible
Self-sustaining orbital colonies=Feasible
 
2012-01-30 03:20:35 PM
Two words: gravity well.
 
2012-01-30 03:21:47 PM

way south: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?

Yes, but he was a DEMOCRAT!

/Its almost assured that some day in the near future, someone will build a moon base.
/I wonder if the logical thinking and sane people looking up from the ground will still feel like they are wearing their pants on their bottoms.


The logical thinking and sane people will be the ones who build it. We just know it can't be done in eight years without throwing half the US budget at it (and maybe not even then). It'll happen, no doubt -- though I'd rather it be a Lagrange point colony than a lunar base.
 
2012-01-30 03:22:21 PM

StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.



Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.
 
2012-01-30 03:23:38 PM
Wibble
 
2012-01-30 03:24:02 PM
The most pants-on-head retarded thing about it is the idea that he'd ever be elected President, let alone get a SECOND term.
 
2012-01-30 03:25:23 PM
Newt's nuttiness aside, this guy does a fairly stupid straw man tap dance. Newt hasn't released a plan, so this guy kindly makes one up in order to destroy it.

He begins with the premise that Newt's plan is the same as Griffin's estimate from almost a decade ago and goes from there. BS article is BS. I mean, I'd like to hear Newt out on this.

If he plans to send up four guys for a week, then its strictly no sale.

If he plans for a long-term project where we, say, send up robots that can print building materials from the regolith then, yeah, he might be worth hearing on the matter.

Finally, Gingrich may not be aware that the current U.S. flags on the moon don't mean we own it, any more than those on U.S. research stations in Antarctica mean we own that continent.


Did Gingrich say that? I honestly don't know. What I do know is that our polar research program is incredibly very worth it, and I have trouble seeing how a permanent research station is NOT worth the effort.
 
2012-01-30 03:26:27 PM

Rincewind53: timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

The author probably thinks because he doesn't have flying cars yet, there has been "no science" coming out of it. Other commenters on the article share a depressing lack of understanding of how science works, especially the guy who says that with the $100 billion the ISS cost you could "Create an HIV vaccine (probably)" and "Create a universal flu vaccine (probably)."


HOWEVER, the station is too low, because we wanted to be able to reach it with the shuttle. At the time, we had no evidence that the insulation on the wiring could survive the ozone levels at that atmosphere. The low orbit provides a lot if disadvantages, but we were so locked-in to Reagan's "space taxi" that we could not put it up where it belongs.

/Yes, Reagan is not responsible for the low orbit.
//The moron who told him it was a "space taxi" is responsible for a multitude of sins.
 
2012-01-30 03:29:01 PM

FeedTheCollapse: [reasonable discussion points]


Ok, you can not fark off.
 
2012-01-30 03:29:32 PM

FightDirector: I'll admit, I'm torn here. On one side, Newt's idea very much is "pants-on-head retarded" (a phrase that should be bandied about more often when it comes to talking about politicians and their policies).

On the other hand, given how unprofitable space exploration is in the short term (which is what corporations care about), and given how much our manned space program has been gutted recently, I'm having a hard time arguing against anyone championing such a program. What's the quote about "someday the sun will go out, and if we aren't off this rock, everything humanity has ever done is for nothing"? It seems relevant.

On the third hand, though, he's basically just sucking up to the Florida areospace industry, and will be just as likely to stay faithful to this campaign promise as he was to stay faithful to his wife.


Yellowstone will erupt a bunch of times and we'll get hit with lots of asteroids before the sun burns out. On top of the tons of self-inflicted thing we might do to ourselves.
 
2012-01-30 03:29:58 PM

I would have thought the idea for a moon base would have come from

LUNAR OP
 
2012-01-30 03:30:33 PM

CliChe Guevara: Short lesson from someone who helps design this stuff;
Moon=No way, ever.
Mars=Feasible
Self-sustaining orbital colonies=Feasible



Seriously, and in a non trolling way, can you explain to me how the intersection between technology necessary to land things on Mars and technology necessary to create a self sustaining orbital platform could POSSIBLY preclude a self sustaining Moon platform? I can imagine reasons for it to be silly, impractical, maybe even pointless, but I can't possibly see how it could be argued as infeasible from a technical perspective if the other two are.
 
2012-01-30 03:30:46 PM

atomsmoosher: Did Gingrich say that? I honestly don't know.


13,000 people and they can vote to become a state
 
2012-01-30 03:32:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.


Nevertheless it was NOT done with the intention of setting up a network of global positioning and communications satellites. Research being done today may have implications that we cannot even conceive of until 30-40-50 years from now, but people can not or willfully do not understand this. They see how far we've come and all the advances we've made and have decided that anything else to be done must only be done so if the rewards for it being done are immediate and quantifiable, preferably in monetary terms. We are left with no vision for the future because having vision also entails understanding and undertaking risks, which people today will have nothing of.
 
2012-01-30 03:33:01 PM

FightDirector: PlatinumDragon: I don't want to be mistaken for someone who opposes space exploration. A serious plan to establish sustainable human colonies on the moon, Mars, and beyond would be exciting. I just don't see it happening without a willingness to shovel several hundred billion dollars into a furnace without any expectation of return. It's about as risky and resource-intensive an operation as we can cook up, and opportunities to extract resources from the whole thing will be a side effect of the big exploration experiments - new and improved space propulsion systems, better radiation-hardened computers, long-term self-sustaining habitats, and so on. The sunk costs will be in-farking-credible, and unless Newtie intends to backstop the whole thing with T-bills and debt, it's exceedingly unlikely any combination of today's aerospace companies will be willing to hang their necks out there to finance the mess. The shareholders would riot, for one thing.


That's pretty much the argument for space exploration being the purview of the government, right there.

If it's going to happen at all, then the government HAS to do it, because absent a guaranteed return on the tremendous investment, no-one else will.


Anyone willing to step up is welcome to try. Personally, I don't think anyone motivated primarily by personal financial profit will make the first move. The basic R&D will require people willing to risk resources for the sheer hell of it or for non-financial motives. By that standard, I don't even see the US government ponying up taxpayer money, debt, or hot-off-the-presses Salmon P. Chases at this time.

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?
 
2012-01-30 03:33:28 PM

manimal2878: fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.


And every woman in the kitchen.
 
2012-01-30 03:33:37 PM
Maybe they could build Club Med on the moon.
 
2012-01-30 03:34:26 PM
I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.
 
2012-01-30 03:35:54 PM

DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.


Considering how little Saturn technology was used in ICBMs, I'm going to have to throw a [Citation Needed] on that. We came to the realization fairly early that large liquid fueled rockets make poor weapons. Takes too long to fuel them.
 
2012-01-30 03:35:57 PM
Newt Gangrape.

I just wanted to be the first one to use that.
 
2012-01-30 03:36:39 PM

way south: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?

Yes, but he was a DEMOCRAT!

/Its almost assured that some day in the near future, someone will build a moon base.
/I wonder if the logical thinking and sane people looking up from the ground will still feel like they are wearing their pants on their bottoms.


Kennedy's challenge to get us to the moon within a decade had nothing to do with space exploration. It was meant as a direct threat to the USSR. He wanted to show them that we could develop the technology needed to rain nuclear weapons down on them from space. In fact most of our and the Soviet's space program had this purpose. The rest was just cover and good PR.
 
2012-01-30 03:37:20 PM

Mr. Titanium:
HOWEVER, the station is too low, because we wanted to be able to reach it with the shuttle. At the time, we had no evidence that the insulation on the wiring could survive the ozone levels at that atmosphere. The low orbit provides a lot if disadvantages, but we were so locked-in to Reagan's "space taxi" that we could not put it up where it belongs.

/Yes, Reagan is not responsible for the low orbit.
//The moron who told him it was a "space taxi" is responsible for a multitude of sins.


What the hell are you talking about?
 
2012-01-30 03:37:29 PM

StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.

Nevertheless it was NOT done with the intention of setting up a network of global positioning and communications satellites. Research being done today may have implications that we cannot even conceive of until 30-40-50 years from now, but people can not or willfully do not understand this. They see how far we've come and all the advances we've made and have decided that anything else to be done must only be done so if the rewards for it being done are immediate and quantifiable, preferably in monetary terms. We are left with no vision for the future because having vision also entails understanding and undertaking risks, which people today will have nothing of.



Yea, I'm aware of all that. I just really hate it when people act like manned space flight is the totality of space exploration, when at best it's an expensive sideshow. Later this year we're landing an SUV on Mars -- and we didn't have to waste billions of dollars on a human chauffeur for the thing to do it.
 
2012-01-30 03:39:10 PM

DarnoKonrad: atomsmoosher: Did Gingrich say that? I honestly don't know.

13,000 people and they can vote to become a state


Oh for f**k's sake.
 
2012-01-30 03:40:01 PM

CheatCommando: DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.

Considering how little Saturn technology was used in ICBMs, I'm going to have to throw a [Citation Needed] on that. We came to the realization fairly early that large liquid fueled rockets make poor weapons. Takes too long to fuel them.


Space program didn't start on Saturns. And you know it.
 
2012-01-30 03:41:35 PM
A republican could claim that women have babies and global warming is real and he or she would be immediately dismissed as a nutjob and there would be 4 fark threads greenlit about it.
 
2012-01-30 03:41:37 PM

DarnoKonrad: CheatCommando: DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.

Considering how little Saturn technology was used in ICBMs, I'm going to have to throw a [Citation Needed] on that. We came to the realization fairly early that large liquid fueled rockets make poor weapons. Takes too long to fuel them.

Space program didn't start on Saturns. And you know it.


It was Kia's, amirite?
 
2012-01-30 03:42:43 PM
Finance a trillion dollar moon base by taxing the middle class, while reducing taxes on the rich and increasing tax breaks for big oil?

Or increase the national debt.

Why are Republicans against the national debt now? After all, it was they who created the budget deficit in the first place, with all their wars and tax breaks for the rich.
 
2012-01-30 03:44:08 PM

DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.

Nevertheless it was NOT done with the intention of setting up a network of global positioning and communications satellites. Research being done today may have implications that we cannot even conceive of until 30-40-50 years from now, but people can not or willfully do not understand this. They see how far we've come and all the advances we've made and have decided that anything else to be done must only be done so if the rewards for it being done are immediate and quantifiable, preferably in monetary terms. We are left with no vision for the future because having vision also entails understanding and undertaking risks, which people today will have nothing of.


Yea, I'm aware of all that. I just really hate it when people act like manned space flight is the totality of space exploration, when at best it's an expensive sideshow. Later this year we're landing an SUV on Mars -- and we didn't have to waste billions of dollars on a human chauffeur for the thing to do it.


You mean you're crashing an SUV on Mars. As much as I want MSL to succeed the skycrane thing is just too sketchy.
 
2012-01-30 03:44:35 PM
Maybe Gingrich can "invest" our tax dollars like the highly successful Green Energy initiative!!!

Oh wait.......

http://www.globalwarming.org/2012/01/27/drip-drip-drip-yet-another-gr e en-energy-stimulus-recipient-hits-the-skids-the-third-this-week/
 
2012-01-30 03:45:28 PM
StrangeQ 9beers: xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.

Yeah, I don't get why this blew up the way it did.

Because of the source. If it were a respected astrophysicist relating the technical details and possible benefits then people might have reason to listen. But it's Newt Farking Gingrich. The only thing that stupid asshole knows about science is what his staffers told him that might be beneficial in the polls.


Interestingly enough, the author of TFA, Lawrence Krauss, is himself a respected astrophysicist. Keep that in mind if you try to argue that the people opposed to Newt's program are anti-science Luddites.
 
2012-01-30 03:45:52 PM

Parthenogenetic: BalugaJoe: First we have a moonbase. Next they are throwing rocks at us.

[i.imgur.com image 370x534]


That's the one movie I most want somebody to make. I want to see that climactic battle!
 
2012-01-30 03:46:04 PM
I can just picture his people thinking "Dangit. Aren't those folks who support 'science' ever satisfied? This should have shut them up for at least a couple of months."
 
2012-01-30 03:48:33 PM
Rich people will spend money on *anything* to avoid having one thin dime go to improve the lives of the middle and working classes.
 
2012-01-30 03:48:48 PM

GreatTikiGod: He's stealing a forecast from George Friedman's (the STRATFOR guy) book "The Next Hundred Years." According to Friedman, moon colonization is feasible, if not inevitable... 30 or 40 or even 50 years from now, not anywhere in the near future.

/ I loathe Newt and this plan will never leave the ground. Clear pandering.


How is moon colonization inevitable? There's nothing on the farking moon. Or at least nothing there that we can't get in greater quantities with much lower shipping costs on Earth. There's no economic benefit, the environment is harsher than the bottom of the ocean, and there isn't any science you can't do better with robots or in orbit.
 
2012-01-30 03:52:16 PM

meanmutton: Argumentum ad hominem (new window)


Beg to differ.
Au countrair, mon fair.

he cheated on his wife.
He is not a man.
Ergo, I cann't attack him as a man alone.

Also, his hair is a road killed bird, so your argument is invalid.
 
2012-01-30 03:53:58 PM

wren337: I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.


The far side of the moon would be better for an optical telescope rather than radio. Radio isn't disrupted nearly as much by our atmosphere, light pollution, etc as optical given the technological advancements of today(software, interferometry, etc)
 
2012-01-30 03:54:30 PM

hawcian: way south: Abe Vigoda's Ghost: Know who else thought it would be a good idea to go to the moon?

Yes, but he was a DEMOCRAT!

/Its almost assured that some day in the near future, someone will build a moon base.
/I wonder if the logical thinking and sane people looking up from the ground will still feel like they are wearing their pants on their bottoms.

The logical thinking and sane people will be the ones who build it. We just know it can't be done in eight years without throwing half the US budget at it (and maybe not even then). It'll happen, no doubt -- though I'd rather it be a Lagrange point colony than a lunar base.


I think the time table is not an engineering debate. Its political, and we're under estimating what the application of presidential level flame to bureaucratic rear end can accomplish.

Do we have the rockets needed to lift payloads to the moon? With orbital refueling and a few other tricks, yes. Between SpaceX and the EELV programs, the hardware can be found.
Do we know how to make most of the base related equipment we need?
Yes, since NASA was already studying how to build new rovers, suits and landers.
Do we have the expertise? I believe we do. NASA and private industry are both fast studying folks.

The real question is if NASA can negotiate the sea of its own contractual red tape to get hardware built within a presidential term limit. There's nothing in the engineering that's stopping us from making a moon shanty within that time.

/Last go round they did it all in less than eight years, without modern computers or four decades of additional space experience.
/One estimate has the total cost at under 200 billion in today's dollars.
/That's the gold package moon program for less than what it cost to make the F-22.
 
2012-01-30 03:57:39 PM

Masso: What we need is a large interplanetary self-sustaining migration spaceship capable of transforming into giant robot with particle cannon gun for self defense, escorted by fleets of fighters capable of transforming into different modes for different combat environments to handle possible giant hostile humanoid aliens.


God dam it! The vehicle Voltron was the worst Voltron ever.
 
2012-01-30 03:58:28 PM

Rincewind53:
I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.


Yes, but when you look at the list it almost falls into one of two categories:

1. Stuff which could have been done just as well, and much more cheaply, on an unmanned satellite and

2. Stuff about how humans adapt to living on the ISS, which is really only of interest if you have an ISS to put humans on.

The few nuggets of interesting science there are not $100,000,000,000 worth.
 
2012-01-30 03:58:50 PM

DarnoKonrad: CheatCommando: DarnoKonrad: StrangeQ: DarnoKonrad: Low earth orbit is a vital component of Earth's economy -- but it has practically nothing to do with the actual physical presence of human beings in low earth orbit -- much less the moon

Except for all those missions leading up to Apollo where we were testing out different rocket designs and learning how to send people into Earth orbit, your statement makes complete sense.


Actually, that had a lot more to do with regularly testing ICBMs under the guise of a peaceful program.

Considering how little Saturn technology was used in ICBMs, I'm going to have to throw a [Citation Needed] on that. We came to the realization fairly early that large liquid fueled rockets make poor weapons. Takes too long to fuel them.

Space program didn't start on Saturns. And you know it.


No parts from the ICBMs used for Gemini or Mercury were used in Apollo, either. In fact, the Air Force complained to high heaven that the man-rated versions of those rockets were delaying production of the weaponized versions. Particularly with the Titan. The Von Braun team was pulled out of the ICBM world when they were left in the Army and the Air Force got that role.

So I am still waiting for that citation.
 
2012-01-30 03:59:06 PM

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?


It'll be the French.

/for the cheese
 
2012-01-30 04:00:46 PM

orbister: Rincewind53:
I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

Yes, but when you look at the list it almost falls into one of two categories:

1. Stuff which could have been done just as well, and much more cheaply, on an unmanned satellite and

2. Stuff about how humans adapt to living on the ISS, which is really only of interest if you have an ISS to put humans on.

The few nuggets of interesting science there are not $100,000,000,000 worth.


Meh, we would have just spent that money on stupid shiat like single payer health care and free college educations.
 
2012-01-30 04:01:50 PM

DarnoKonrad: Nevertheless it was NOT done with the intention of setting up a network of global positioning and communications satellites. Research being done today may have implications that we cannot even conceive of until 30-40-50 years from now, but people can not or willfully do not understand this. They see how far we've come and all the advances we've made and have decided that anything else to be done must only be done so if the rewards for it being done are immediate and quantifiable, preferably in monetary terms. We are left with no vision for the future because having vision also entails understanding and undertaking risks, which people today will have nothing of.


Yea, I'm aware of all that. I just really hate it when people act like manned space flight is the totality of space exploration, when at best it's an expensive sideshow. Later this year we're landing an SUV on Mars -- and we didn't have to waste billions of dollars on a human chauffeur for the thing to do it.


It's not the totality, but there are certain advantages to having a live, human being at the helm, especially when it comes to exploration. A 5 minute communication delay over a limited data pipeline is no match for a person on the scene able to react to information in real time. There is also the personal aspect. What do you think is going to inspire a child more: seeing a replica of an autonomous vehicle sent to Mars that is sitting behind ropes at a museum, or having a real life conversation with a person who actually walked on another planet?

LMark: StrangeQ 9beers: xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.

Yeah, I don't get why this blew up the way it did.

Because of the source. If it were a respected astrophysicist relating the technical details and possible benefits then people might have reason to listen. But it's Newt Farking Gingrich. The only thing that stupid asshole knows about science is what his staffers told him that might be beneficial in the polls.

Interestingly enough, the author of TFA, Lawrence Krauss, is himself a respected astrophysicist. Keep that in mind if you try to argue that the people opposed to Newt's program are anti-science Luddites.


Not at all. I would love to see a base on the moon, but there is no way on this Earth it will ever be accomplished by a Newt Gingrich.
 
2012-01-30 04:04:24 PM

timujin:
No science? (warning: PDF, pops)


Um, keep in mind that is a NASA publication. Just sayin'.

/often times really interesting experimental data doesn't emerge for years after the experiment's over
//and it's not always from the experiments you thought it would be the most rewarding
///or the ones you spent the most money on
 
2012-01-30 04:05:52 PM

soopey: I have to laugh. This was on the front page of money.cnn.corn

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 620x355]


Odd they chose the Shanghai skyline to photoshop onto the background
 
2012-01-30 04:09:39 PM

babtras: soopey: I have to laugh. This was on the front page of money.cnn.corn

[i2.cdn.turner.com image 620x355]

Odd they chose the Shanghai skyline to photoshop onto the background


I'm guessing it has to do with China's recent boasts about starting a lunar colony.
 
2012-01-30 04:13:30 PM

hawcian:
The logical thinking and sane people will be the ones who build it. We just know it can't be done in eight years without throwing half the US budget at it (and maybe not even then). It'll happen, no doubt -- though I'd rather it be a Lagrange point colony than a lunar base.


But a-how-how-how-how would you build it there?

/here they gotta a lotta nice girls though
 
2012-01-30 04:13:32 PM

UtileDysfunktion: timujin:
No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

Um, keep in mind that is a NASA publication. Just sayin'.

/often times really interesting experimental data doesn't emerge for years after the experiment's over
//and it's not always from the experiments you thought it would be the most rewarding
///or the ones you spent the most money on


It's usually those that do the work that publish the results of their experiments... And while your slashies are both obvious and vague enough to be unworthy of debate, do you have any issues with the information in the document itself?
 
2012-01-30 04:14:42 PM
Isn't this the kind of lunacy that got Kucinich laughed out of contention?
 
2012-01-30 04:20:41 PM
StrangeQ Interestingly enough, the author of TFA, Lawrence Krauss, is himself a respected astrophysicist. Keep that in mind if you try to argue that the people opposed to Newt's program are anti-science Luddites.

Not at all. I would love to see a base on the moon, but there is no way on this Earth it will ever be accomplished by a Newt Gingrich.


Oh, I wasn't saying that you, in particular, were making that argument. I was thinking of the many farkers who would, and often already have, argued that. It was the collective "you." Sorry if that was unclear.
 
2012-01-30 04:21:00 PM

Slaves2Darkness: orbister: Rincewind53:
I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

Yes, but when you look at the list it almost falls into one of two categories:

1. Stuff which could have been done just as well, and much more cheaply, on an unmanned satellite and

2. Stuff about how humans adapt to living on the ISS, which is really only of interest if you have an ISS to put humans on.

The few nuggets of interesting science there are not $100,000,000,000 worth.

Meh, we would have just spent that money on stupid shiat like single payer health care and free college educations.


Or one more year in Iraq!
 
2012-01-30 04:25:45 PM
What Newt's moon base might look like:

cdn.pimpmyspace.org
 
2012-01-30 04:26:19 PM

xtragrind: So we are against space exploration now? Any politician, whether retarded or not, pushing for space exploration is a good thing.


No, but you have to look at the bang for the buck. There are pretty much three useful goals for space exploration:

a) making sure we know what is out there -- e.g. asteroids and stuff coming at us, interesting deposits of rare elements, possible alien life.
b) making sure humanity has an escape route for existential threats -- of course since I get motion sickness and am not a billionaire I don't expect to be able to make use of said escape
c) performing science and astronomical observation that is easier in space (i.e. due to low gravity, less atmosphere, etc.)

The only one that requires people in space is (b). I agree we need to invest somewhat in that -- i.e. it is a worthy goal to have humans established permanently off Earth. But it out of practicality has to be a bit of a slow burner -- there is a huge expense and time to develop all the technologies. And the moon won't be sufficiently far away to be protection from bad events on Earth -- so would have to be Mars.

The other goals can be done with lots of relatively cheap robots, orbiters, rovers, etc. I'd rather support getting satellites around every major body in the solar system before we set up a permanent moon base ...

Lastly all this has to be balanced with investments back home. It is dumb to be spending more in space exploration than in exploring our own oceans.

So basically, it is not a matter of saying space exploration is lunacy, but rather that doing it quickly, expensively, and without the right priorities is.
 
2012-01-30 04:26:51 PM
Well his plan sounds neato and all; and I would be all for it. But whats the point besides purely scientific research? Its a pretty expensive endeavor just for the sake of doing it. And its not as if we are in a pissing contest with another superpower. I find it unlikely this will ever happen given the pubic.

The only reason to do this would be resources. But the most economically viable resources are in asteroids and comets. The moon could only serve as a processing/support facility. And even then it might be an unnecessary step.

/Newt and Mitt, is this the best the right has to offer?
//Im not sure who is slimier and out of touch.
 
2012-01-30 04:31:51 PM
http://i.imgur.com/MqIP0.jpg
 
2012-01-30 04:32:42 PM
heh...been awhile.

anyway, just send them to reclaim detroit.

i.imgur.com
 
2012-01-30 04:35:13 PM

SquiggelyGrounders: Well his plan sounds neato and all; and I would be all for it. But whats the point besides purely scientific research? Its a pretty expensive endeavor just for the sake of doing it. And its not as if we are in a pissing contest with another superpower. I find it unlikely this will ever happen given the pubic.

The only reason to do this would be resources. But the most economically viable resources are in asteroids and comets. The moon could only serve as a processing/support facility. And even then it might be an unnecessary step.

/Newt and Mitt, is this the best the right has to offer?
//Im not sure who is slimier and out of touch.


Well, the moon is rich in helium3, which can be used on earth for power generation. That doesn't necessarily make it economically viable, but it makes it viable to the state
 
2012-01-30 04:37:40 PM

timujin: UtileDysfunktion: timujin:
No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

Um, keep in mind that is a NASA publication. Just sayin'.

/often times really interesting experimental data doesn't emerge for years after the experiment's over
//and it's not always from the experiments you thought it would be the most rewarding
///or the ones you spent the most money on

It's usually those that do the work that publish the results of their experiments... And while your slashies are both obvious and vague enough to be unworthy of debate, do you have any issues with the information in the document itself?


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.

My personal, unqualified, opinion is that what comes out of the ISS program will ultimately prove to be worth nowhere near the cost... that's if one could prove it. Get enough people/corporations/government agencies(/governments) involved in a project and throw enough money at it and, one way or another, it will be considered success.
 
2012-01-30 04:38:00 PM

Omnivorous: * allow a terrorist attack to succeed (new window)once in a while just to keep people terrorized


#7 on this list: Prepare for an inevitable EMP attack
Newt worries a lot about "a nuclear blast high above the United States that would instantly throw the nation into a dark age,"

While I would argue that "inevitable" is a stretch, seems like one of the best ways to whack at the U.S. economically without getting into a blowing-cities-up war is EMP. Hardening electronics against that makes sense.

The other things on the list? Ouch.
 
2012-01-30 04:38:14 PM

olddinosaur: In 1945 it cost $10 a minute to talk from New York to Los Angeles, and you couldn't do it all the time.

In 2011, I bought a whole telephone at Walmart for $10, and a card for $20 which lets me talk anywhere in the world for 18 cents a minute. I checked the phone by calling a guy at the next table ten feet away and there was a 1/4--second lag, because the call was bounced off satellite.

Your phone, your computer, your Innertubes, your banking and credit systems, all come from space research.

In 1961 the average life expectancy was 65 years, while today it is 78 for women, 74 for men---and rising. Most of that is due to space research.

Crops are better every year because space research has made for better weather forecasts, so don't talk with your mouth full---it is not polite.

If you really think space research is a crock, go ahead and braid yourself a grass skirt and chase your dinner with a sharp stick; the rest of us like the good things in life which scientific research has to offer. Take your horsesh*t opinions and wipe your ass with them.


There are much more useful ways to spend a trillion dollars than a manned moon base. Almost all space science can be done via unmanned probes and robots, which are much cheaper (by a factor of a hundred or more).
 
2012-01-30 04:40:23 PM
It's already getting pretty crowded up there...


moonconspiracy.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-01-30 04:43:09 PM

JerkStore: What Newt's moon base might look like:

[cdn.pimpmyspace.org image 500x340]


Awww, sweet! I had some of those sets 30 years ago!
 
2012-01-30 04:43:44 PM

Geotpf: There are much more useful ways to spend a trillion dollars than a manned moon base. Almost all space science can be done via unmanned probes and robots, which are much cheaper (by a factor of a hundred or more).


That's cool. We'll leave you here when we move to Mars after we fark this place up enough
 
2012-01-30 04:44:36 PM

bhcompy: wren337: I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.

The far side of the moon would be better for an optical telescope rather than radio. Radio isn't disrupted nearly as much by our atmosphere, light pollution, etc as optical given the technological advancements of today(software, interferometry, etc)


IANARS but I'd understood that the far side of the moon would suffer less from interference from terrestrial radio sources
 
2012-01-30 04:50:23 PM

wren337: bhcompy: wren337: I'd personally love to see a research station on the far side of the moon, probably with a large radio telescope as the anchor tenant. I'd like to get some extra-terrestrial experience on the (much closer) moon before we set sail for Mars.

The far side of the moon would be better for an optical telescope rather than radio. Radio isn't disrupted nearly as much by our atmosphere, light pollution, etc as optical given the technological advancements of today(software, interferometry, etc)

IANARS but I'd understood that the far side of the moon would suffer less from interference from terrestrial radio sources


That is true, but my limited understanding(one course in school) was that earth based issues are more prevalent in optical telescopes than radio. You can get a massive angular resolution earthside to help overcome some issues. Of course, a fair compromise would be to build both
 
2012-01-30 04:51:54 PM
TL;DR - It was Newt's idea.
 
2012-01-30 04:56:45 PM

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.
 
2012-01-30 04:58:05 PM

CliChe Guevara: I would agree with your sentiment but not the target. We CAN do all those things on Mars - quite practically, and with current technology. We cannot ever feasibly do them on the Moon, likely ever, and even if we could we wouldn't want to.


Short lesson from someone who helps design this stuff;
Moon=No way, ever.
Mars=Feasible
Self-sustaining orbital colonies=Feasible


Why? What makes the moon so unusable?
 
2012-01-30 05:00:29 PM

StrangeQ: It's not the totality, but there are certain advantages to having a live, human being at the helm, especially when it comes to exploration. A 5 minute communication delay over a limited data pipeline is no match for a person on the scene able to react to information in real time.


Sure a human could fix flat tire on a rover but what if the information that needs reacting to is something like an air leak or loss of fuel for the return voyage or water spilling on the equipment or a broken space suit or God knows what else. The addition of humans to a mission increases the complexity of the system by several orders of magnitude. You don't plan to maintain a complex system by the inclusion of an even more a fragile and complex system..


There is also the personal aspect. What do you think is going to inspire a child more: seeing a replica of an autonomous vehicle sent to Mars that is sitting behind ropes at a museum, or having a real life conversation with a person who actually walked on another planet?

The quest for knowledge should be a goal in and of itself. We should not judge science as worthy or not based on the amount of needless risk we choose to add to it. We could force theoretical physicists to work in labs hanging precariously over a pool of sharks but why would we?
 
2012-01-30 05:02:22 PM
Too bad for Newt... This is a great idea, BUT it's going to require a shiat-ton of money, more than 8 years to accomplish, actual cooperation from the right, and possibly more of a international effort. There is no end to the benefits of a moon base, Newt could have had a winner here, if he'd have done some thinking before opening his mouth.

Instead, he forgoes the entire 'think things through before you speak them', and shoots himself in the foot, getting a decent concept completely ridiculed and pushed aside. It's his own fault, really, for being such an idiotic douchebag.

Oh well, some day a SMART politician will organize this concept into something we can actually use. Newt's obviously not the guy.
 
2012-01-30 05:03:54 PM
images.cheezburger.com
 
2012-01-30 05:05:27 PM

chimp_ninja: Useful factoid for assessing the feasibility of random space-based ideas: It costs about $5,000 to $10,000 (different estimates) to put one pound of whatever into geosynchronous orbit, let alone safely down on the moon's surface. Call it $20M/ton on the low end, assuming some research breakthroughs and economies of scale.

When people start talking about mining operations to build underground barracks, think about the equipment, people, food, water, and supplies it would take. One small John Deere backhoe for digging trenches? That'll be ~$160M for shipping and handling, and please bring your own fuel, and the oxygen to burn it in. And replacement parts. The warranty probably doesn't apply when lunar regolith scratches and fouls up anything with moving parts.


These are my favorite posts, because they seem correct, on the surface.

First, as to current costs, Spacex is offering launches at $1400/lb, much less than even $5k/lb. Current launch prices, at less than a third of your low end. Spacex also has plans for full reusability of both stages, and their capsule is already proven reusable. So, we go from a floor of $1400/lb, driven by the recurring cost of the disposable launch vehicle (Oh, and the planned Falcon Heavy, an incremental advance over the Falcon 9 that requires only minimal engineering to apply existing industry practices to put two strap-on (heh) boosters around an existing F9 brings us down to ~$950/lb) down to the cost of fuel plus amortization. Well, what's the fuel cost to launch 1 lb to orbit on any launch vehicle?

This is where it gets interesting. Typical mass fractions to low-earth orbit are around 2%. 12% or so of the vehicle mass is tanks, structure, and engines. This leaves about 84% fuel. 84:2 is 42:1, so 42 lbs of fuel for each pound of payload. LOX and RP1 are about as dense as water and about the price of milk, so $3.50/gallon times 6 gallons, or $21/lb.

Fuel costs, for liquid propellant rockets, is a trifling $21/lb. (With a low-hypersonic air-breathing first stage, you might be able to cut that in half. Maybe.) The remainder of the $1400 - $21 is engineering and consumables, namely the booster. What if you can reuse a rocket 10 times? Neglecting operations, you're down to ($140 + $21)/lb = $141/lb. How about 100 times? $38/lb. At that point, operational costs dominate. By the time we can reuse a vehicle 1000 times, replacing the heat shield every 50 launches, We're down to $24/lb plus operations. Maybe $14/lb if the air-breathing thing works as advertised.

Your backhoe still costs $500,000 to ship, but we're down a couple of orders of magnitude in cost. The Mercury capsule was 3,000 lbs with pilot. $70,000 for a trip to orbit? Yes, please!

/Oh, I may have an Aero/Astro Engineering degree.
//Spoiler: I do.
 
2012-01-30 05:05:47 PM
bhcompy:

Well, the moon is rich in helium3, which can be used on earth for power generation. That doesn't necessarily make it economically viable, but it makes it viable to the state

Pet peeve, but *please* stop using that as a reason to return to the moon. He3 *cannot* be used on Earth for power generation currently and may never be.

We have had more than enough He3 to get a research reactor working since the beginning of the Cold War, but no one has produced a viable reactor any more than they have with other forms of fusion.

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.
 
2012-01-30 05:11:39 PM

Mr Guy: CliChe Guevara: Short lesson from someone who helps design this stuff;
Moon=No way, ever.
Mars=Feasible
Self-sustaining orbital colonies=Feasible


Seriously, and in a non trolling way, can you explain to me how the intersection between technology necessary to land things on Mars and technology necessary to create a self sustaining orbital platform could POSSIBLY preclude a self sustaining Moon platform? I can imagine reasons for it to be silly, impractical, maybe even pointless, but I can't possibly see how it could be argued as infeasible from a technical perspective if the other two are.



no problem. its a subject that could(and does) fill many books, but i will give you one tidbit to get started from;

atmosphere: mars has it, moon doesn't. not an atmosphere we can breathe, we don't care about that, but it does mean other things. for starters, thermal management. heat, no place to put it - on the moon it can be hundreds of degrees in the sun on one side of a rock, hundreds below in the shadow of it. atmosphere means heat moves and equalizes, giving consistent and survivable temperatures. also, a place to dump heat. moon offers no such options. vacuum is an insulator.
another point to atmosphere (and weather), mars has dirt that won't kill you and equipment. lunar regolith has never been weathered and so the super fine dust on a microscopic scale is incredibly spiky and abrasive. destroys everything. gets into fabric and cuts it up like little knives (apollo suits would not have lasted more than a few hours more. you could put your finger right through them after they came back). does the same thing to lungs - it looks a lot like asbestos under a microscope. kills you all the way dead if you breathe any. no way to get around this. any seals would be destroyed almost immediately. equipment would be impossible to maintain, and it would be impossible to keep it out of habitats, especially if they were made form the stuff.

those are just two facets of one point. it goes on from there. lunar surface is hostile as fark, mars is a relative resort in comparison.
 
2012-01-30 05:11:50 PM
Everything that starts "Newt's...idea" is pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-01-30 05:15:03 PM
If we want space exploration, then we need energy. We need to develop methods of harnessing the energy pouring off of the sun on a continuous basis, and we need to do so in an energy cycle that does not require millions of years, like the formation of oil, e.g. directly with solar or indirectly with wind.

If energy costs are negligible, then that opens up almost anything.
 
2012-01-30 05:25:18 PM

rebelyell2006: You are correct. I just wish that humans actually would return to the moon, establish bases and other cool shiat, doesn't matter if it is the USA, China or the EU. But only if we don't do something stupid like go to war with Iran.


Hell, it's not just for 'cool shiat'. We can do a lot on the Moon. It's a good place to stage for further space exploration, since we don't have to fight the Earth's gravity to launch ships. We can also design new, more efficient ships of lighter material for the same reason. We could generate nuke power on the moon safely, since there is no atmosphere to pollute, no ecosystem to ruin, and any waste can be launched into a trajectory that would send it into the Sun, where it would just become fuel.

Those are just the first few off the top of my head.
 
2012-01-30 05:28:52 PM
images.wikia.com

Can I come too?

/Space
//Not obscure
 
2012-01-30 05:50:05 PM
You have no chance to survive make your time.
 
2012-01-30 06:04:30 PM
Party like it's 1999.
 
2012-01-30 06:09:15 PM
But the Moon needs more Starbucks!

/JFK, can you say a few words?
 
2012-01-30 06:18:46 PM

FightDirector:
On the other hand, given how unprofitable space exploration is in the short term (which is what corporations care about), and given how much our manned space program has been gutted recently, I'm having a hard time arguing against anyone championing such a program. What's the quote about "someday the sun will go out, and if we aren't off this rock, everything humanity has ever done is for nothing"? It seems relevant.


"Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes
 
2012-01-30 06:28:06 PM
A poster above made the point that we need to put a human face on the project, and I think that's exactly right.

It needs to be glamorous and cool to lure the bright minds to the project and away from the high paying other options.

Consider:
When I was a kid (in the early 60's) toothpaste would make you sick if you accidentally swallowed it.
Come the NASA program, and some bright person came up with a way to make it safe to swallow, for the astronauts. No one had figured it out before, because there wasn't a need.

The moon program has touched all our lives in thousands of ways because it was a glamorous and cool project that spun off thousands of ideas.

Every electronic thing you can hold in your hand started with the space program.

Newt (or any leader) doesn't need to design the project.

As a leader they need to set the goal.

We as a nation need some kind of project to direct our energies that doesn't involve playing on fear and distrust.

Why not a moon colony?
 
2012-01-30 06:32:32 PM
nativefloridian "Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes


To me, its one of the most irritating. First off, almost every scientist also agrees that it will take 5 billion years for the sun to go out. Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of space exploration. But to argue that all of the above are for nothing unless we go the stars is bullshiat. All of the above are important regardless of whether humanity lasts eternally (and "going to the stars" won't prevent the ultimate heat death, anyway). Buddy Holly's music, to name only one of the names listed, has been enjoyed by countless people for the last 50 years. Is their joy somehow not real if humanity is destroyed in 5 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant? Concern for the future is great, but at some point you need to live for today, as well. Otherwise you go nuts. This advice is applicable, not only to the issue of space exploration, but in your daily lives, as well.
 
2012-01-30 07:02:44 PM

nlindstrom: Two words: gravity well.


This. A moon base is a good idea in a comic book. Very little about a moon mission would carry over to a Mars mission.

With current technology, the Mars vehicle with fuel will have to be 12 times the mass of the ISS (ISS is about a million pounds) and we still aren't sure we can get astronauts to Mars without cooking them. Build a station at a Lagrange point so we can get out of the gravity well easily.
 
2012-01-30 07:11:27 PM
images.cheezburger.com

From the moon base, Newt Gingrich can start his interplanetary search for his next wife.
 
2012-01-30 07:19:17 PM

LMark: nativefloridian "Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu, Einstein, Morobuto, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars."

Commander Sinclair, Babylon 5

/One of my favorite quotes

To me, its one of the most irritating. First off, almost every scientist also agrees that it will take 5 billion years for the sun to go out. Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of space exploration. But to argue that all of the above are for nothing unless we go the stars is bullshiat. All of the above are important regardless of whether humanity lasts eternally (and "going to the stars" won't prevent the ultimate heat death, anyway). Buddy Holly's music, to name only one of the names listed, has been enjoyed by countless people for the last 50 years. Is their joy somehow not real if humanity is destroyed in 5 billion years when the sun becomes a red giant? Concern for the future is great, but at some point you need to live for today, as well. Otherwise you go nuts. This advice is applicable, not only to the issue of space exploration, but in your daily lives, as well.


The problem being pointed to tho is that we've been living for today so long that we will eventually run out of days. This planet will probably run out of the needed and affordable resources for space development long before the sun burns out.
Possibly before the end of this millennium.
Technology simply isn't deserved over time. Sooner or later the party has to stop long enough for earnest development to continue while you still have the means.

Since we are the only voices we know of in a very big universe, it's easy to assume that many others have met their ends before figuring this whole deal out.
The sun is setting, winter is nearing, and taking time out to enjoy the view is probably not wise.
 
2012-01-30 07:24:10 PM
4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-01-30 07:29:57 PM

rwfan: Mr. Titanium:
HOWEVER, the station is too low, because we wanted to be able to reach it with the shuttle. At the time, we had no evidence that the insulation on the wiring could survive the ozone levels at that atmosphere. The low orbit provides a lot if disadvantages, but we were so locked-in to Reagan's "space taxi" that we could not put it up where it belongs.

/Yes, Reagan is not responsible for the low orbit.
//The moron who told him it was a "space taxi" is responsible for a multitude of sins.

What the hell are you talking about?


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).
 
2012-01-30 07:34:18 PM
way south
The problem being pointed to tho is that we've been living for today so long that we will eventually run out of days. This planet will probably run out of the needed and affordable resources for space development long before the sun burns out.
Possibly before the end of this millennium.
Technology simply isn't deserved over time. Sooner or later the party has to stop long enough for earnest development to continue while you still have the means.

Since we are the only voices we know of in a very big universe, it's easy to assume that many others have met their ends before figuring this whole deal out.
The sun is setting, winter is nearing, and taking time out to enjoy the view is probably not wise.


Technology is growing fast enough. What's needed now is an eye towards conservation. That is the real problem you are describing. The "take time out to enjoy the view" crowd is not the problem. It's the "technological advances uber alles" crowd that wants the latest toys. That's why we're running out of resources. Besides, if your only concern is the long term survival of the human race, regardless of quality of life, then that raises the question of why we want to survive in the first place. Life can be wonderful, it can also suck worse than death. I've experienced both. I'm sorry, but the existence of humanity in 5 billion years is a little bit low on my radar right now.
 
2012-01-30 07:40:24 PM
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.
 
2012-01-30 07:41:04 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: proving that Teabaggers aren't even in their right minds. They can't even be consistent enough in their own 'belief' system.


Most the 'baggers around here go on about how Ron Paul is pants-on-head retarded. Not bad for a movement started by Ron Paul supporters, eh?
 
2012-01-30 07:50:10 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: In all fairness to Newt, he doesn't really believe that we need a moon base. He's just pandering to the aerospace employees in FL.

When the NV primaries roll around, he'll probably be advocating for a casino and whorehouse on Mars.


cdn.fd.uproxx.com

Intrigued.
 
2012-01-30 08:00:24 PM

SpectroBoy: I'll vote to fund this:
[www.oocities.org image 575x414]

If they can guarantee the women will dress like this:
[1.bp.blogspot.com image 400x301]


Fine. As long as we don't find this:

www.scifi-movies.com
 
2012-01-30 08:01:16 PM

Benni K Rok: [images.wikia.com image 513x525]

Can I come too?


I knew it was really all about Portal technology. How much Aperture Science Enrichment Center stock does Newt own?
 
2012-01-30 08:03:45 PM
Gingrich has a retarded idea? What a shock.

Is it more retarded than his "fire all the adult janitors and give their jobs to teenagers for less money" idea?

(skims article)

Eh, it's a wash.
 
2012-01-30 08:08:02 PM
I do believe in space exploration. It should be done, however, in a gradual manner, with unmanned probes for the foreseeable future. It is important for the future of humanity, but so many other things are, as well.
 
2012-01-30 08:10:13 PM

Rincewind53: timujin: Newt being a dingbat notwithstanding, I do have at least one issue with the article:

It took more than $100 billion to manufacture a white elephant in near-Earth orbit called the International Space Station, a large, smelly metal can that to date has produced no science, no manufacturing, and tourism that only billionaires could afford

No science? (warning: PDF, pops)

I came in here to add the same thing. Wiki's got a very extensive list of the science coming out of the ISS, here.

The author probably thinks because he doesn't have flying cars yet, there has been "no science" coming out of it. Other commenters on the article share a depressing lack of understanding of how science works, especially the guy who says that with the $100 billion the ISS cost you could "Create an HIV vaccine (probably)" and "Create a universal flu vaccine (probably)."


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!
 
2012-01-30 08:17:05 PM
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.
 
2012-01-30 08:18:54 PM
When I was a child, we were promised space stations, Moon bases, men on Mars. As I grew I watched those lofty goals tread under by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Junior until they were hollow shells.

Fark Reagan's "Star Wars", fark his military spending. Fark every one of them cutting funding for the next generation space vehicle instead of demanding it be finished before they left office.

These selfish arseholes have stolen my dreams, and the dreams of thousands of children. They have squandered our national pride.

Newt is bad news. He's bad for the Republican party. He's bad for America. He's only good for getting Obama re-elected; as funny as his candidacy would be, we did that four years ago with Palin. Let's not repeat ourselves.

It's difficult for science to justify day-to-day or even year-to-year expenditures when we talk about the money and lives spent exploring space, but who can argue that the benefits from things as simple as Velcro to the computer you're reading this on. The indirect benefits of space exploration and scientific experimentation are enormous.

Newt may be saying these things for selfish reasons but that tarnishes the vision none. I hope that we can have a national dialogue on space exploration again, and if that occurs I will thank Newt for all that he has done.
 
2012-01-30 08:20:47 PM
way south A better answer to your analogy is is yes, the sun is setting. However, it's April. We need to figure out how to survive the night, and we also need get the crops in during the next couple of months. We shouldn't be so worried about how we're gonna get to our winter home quite yet.
 
2012-01-30 08:20:51 PM

manimal2878: fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.


Clearly you are a goddamn communist.

/or something
 
2012-01-30 08:27:49 PM

manimal2878: fark putting men on the moon until we figure out how to put every man in a house.


Democrats tried that, and the resulting housing crunch destroyed our economy. Way to go, Captain Dumbass.
 
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 226 of 226 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report