It takes billions of dollars to send just a few humans to any planet or moon.

They could all die along the way and everything that was put into such a

project would be lost. I know, that's just the chance we should take to

explore things. But I suggest otherwise. If we can use the money to build

robotic types of explorers that wouldn't cost as much and never put a

humans life in danger wouldn't that be more prudent? Imagine 100

explorations to many places to get information instead of one trip with

humans to one location. In the meantime scientists, engineers and others

can be experimenting with ways to get to places much faster than we can

travel today. So that within a 30 year or so period they COULD develop

much faster travel as well as safer and economical ways to do so .


So what do you think? Would more exploration by robotic spacecraft be

wiser now than trying to put our money all into one project of humans on

the Moon or on Mars?

I think you are missing something. We have made huge strides with robotic missions, and we still will. We also need to engage humans in exploration for some really good reasons, a couple of which are:

- Humans are still, and will be for a loooong time, by far the most capable instruments we send on any mission.

- The exploration of the universe is, after all, a human endeavor. We want to go. I question the thinking of people and policy makers that want to take this out of the equation with nary a thought. They seem to have a dreadful lack of imagination and drive.

By sending robots to 100 other locations in our solar system we could

gather more information for a longer period of time for roboots work 24/7.

They are easily replaced if they should be destroyed which many of them

are. They could be able to bring back samples of stuff from elsewhere as

well. This type of learning cannot ever be accomplished by humans so again

why isn't it better to spread ourselves out instead of just putting all of our

money on one or two major projects that could easily fail.

While the money spent on human missions to Mars would be much larger than robotic missions to Mars, the efficiency of dollars-to-knowledge gained is far greater. Not only would we have the knowledge of how to send and return humans to and from Mars (vital to the future of humanity), those explorers could do so much work in a very short space of time. Spirit and Opportunity, while impressive compared to other robotic missions, are feeble compared to the abilities a human possesses. A team of human explorers could do the work it has taken a rover several years to do in only a few months.

CommunistHamster is right above, but one of the main reasons to send humans elsewhere in the solar system is just for the politics. The reason why we haven't tried to go to mars or the moon yet is bvecause there is no competition. If Russia was planning to go to mars in 2010, the US would get off its ass in a second.

okay
The develoment of the apollo has costed around 135 billion dollars The 2 mars rovers have costed 820 million dollars

So all rougly______________mars rover___$VS-----Mannend moon program
costs____________________820 mil_______________135 bil
total numbre of science days_10 years_____________less then 5 days
area covered_______________20km_______________? guessing 90 km?

concluding: the rovers aren't doing so bad considerd they get around 1/164,63times the budget
To make things fare you would have to build rougly 330 rovers who by now would have covered 3 292 km and had a combined observition time of 1 650 years.

Feel free to dispute this

source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)
source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover)

It takes billions of dollars to send just a few humans to any planet or moon.

They could all die along the way and everything that was put into such a

project would be lost. I know, that's just the chance we should take to

explore things. But I suggest otherwise. If we can use the money to build

robotic types of explorers that wouldn't cost as much and never put a

humans life in danger wouldn't that be more prudent? Imagine 100

explorations to many places to get information instead of one trip with

humans to one location. In the meantime scientists, engineers and others

can be experimenting with ways to get to places much faster than we can

travel today. So that within a 30 year or so period they COULD develop

much faster travel as well as safer and economical ways to do so .


So what do you think? Would more exploration by robotic spacecraft be

wiser now than trying to put our money all into one project of humans on

the Moon or on Mars?

Too much value seems to be put in "human life" Its become a rather cowardly and rediculously cautious trend.

I do however agree with your other cost efficient and exploration efficient points with robots over humans in space exploration.

Some things require humans... they can't be done by any rovers.

How else are we to spread Earth's life beyond Earth? After all, isn't that the point and our duty?

How else are we to spread Earth's life beyond Earth? After all, isn't that the point and our duty?
Ultimately, that has to be the highest goal of humanity.

We know that we are not immune to giant asteroid impacts, global supervolcano events, severe ice ages, massive plagues, and our own stupidity (global warming, killer nanomachines, etc.).

If we are to survive in the long term, we must spread out. All of our eggs are in one basket after all...

If we are to survive in the long term, we must spread out. All of our eggs are in one basket after all...

homo sapiens sapiens apeared 200 000 years ago and you speak abouth our survival in the long term?
In the end where yust the vikings the new world is far from economical to reach and colombus is still a century away

homo sapiens sapiens apeared 200 000 years ago and you speak abouth our survival in the long term?
An eyeblink in geological history. I'm talking the really long term. More hundreds of thousands to millions of years.

What are you going to do, for instance, if a 10km wide asteroid hits your home town? I.e. the earth?

What are you going to do if global warming starts a runaway greenhouse effect?

Like I said, I'm thinking long term here, but humans have only been around for a tiny amount of time compared to what can happen to the earth over much longer time spans.

What are you going to do, for instance, if a 10km wide asteroid hits your home town? I.e. the earth?

What are you going to do if global warming starts a runaway greenhouse effect?


If we were to DEFLECT the asteroid before it hit we wouldn't have to worry

would we? Technology today gives us that type of information to protect

ourselves from such an event from happening. I'd think it should be more of

a priority to try and save the Earth rather than find a new home.





Global warming also can be dealt with through technology that is being

developed today. So again the real question is do you want to save the

Earth or just find another home for humans that really don't need to leave

this planet which has everything it needs in order to survive.

If we were to DEFLECT the asteroid before it hit we wouldn't have to worry

would we? Technology today gives us that type of information to protect

ourselves from such an event from happening. I'd think it should be more of

a priority to try and save the Earth rather than find a new home.





Global warming also can be dealt with through technology that is being

developed today. So again the real question is do you want to save the

Earth or just find another home for humans that really don't need to leave

this planet which has everything it needs in order to survive.

Why can't we do both? I'm not advocating abandoning the earth to whatever fate. But history shows that nations that became isolationist and stopped exploring did not do very well and in most cases dissappeared. When we have no new frontiers, we stagnate. Protect the earth, yes, but be bold and get the hell out there and explore too.

That's why my suggestion is to advance robotics and artifical intelligence

along with them. That is creating advances and keeping humans safe as

well. The big problem is the funding of a Mars mission which can take away

needed money from other programs being developed that would explore

more and advance our understanding of space travel better BEFORE we

send humans to Mars.

Why can't we do both?
Not economical
That's why my suggestion is to advance robotics and artifical intelligence
They do that, I wished more that they learned to life of the land, Some guy named Zubrin ones developed a sort of lander that could be launched to mars before a mannend mission and this lander could actually produce the return fuel from it's own reservoir a generator and the martian air, so that any lander doesn't have to land with it's return fuel making it much more economical. They should really use such technics and perhaps find a way to make a similar probe that can produce food on the side.
Anyway they should go there with the intent to stay there as long as possible and even set base development above exploration

The problem is the amount of time it will take them to get to Mars and

return with todays propulsion systems. The best time would be over 2 years

with little time for actual exploration which wouldn't be for more than a

month at best. The amounts of food, oxygen, supplies, fuel and many other

important things like spare parts will make the weight of this "platform" very

heavy which means very slow moving. If we were to wait engineers could

develop new technologies that could speed up the platform much faster

perhaps cutting the time to less than 6 months. The point being is that all

we are really doing is showing that humans can get to Mars because any

SCIENTIFIC study can and should be done with robotics over time for a hell

of allot less money and much safer as well. :)

It is possible that people we spend on a space mission to other planets where they have to spend 2 years or more in space could end up dying of various cancers several years later because of it.

If we could only freeze bodies for long periods and then revive them safely. I know there is work being done on human hibernation.

I think for now we should continue with robotic missions and better space telescopes till we have technology good enough to make space travel easier and cheaper for humans.

If we could only freeze bodies for long periods and then revive them safely.
You really think that murdering someone (freezing them) will have no repercusions on their body and also magical keep out the harmful radiation?

anyway cosmictraveler is right, we can not send large masses up economical and even then our indurance in a joke. It's yust stupid to walk around on Mars and be completly dependend on earth.

The money could be better used altough I believe that Orion is improvement compared to the shuttle, solar powered high atmosphere satllites, air breathing rockets and perhaps space elevators are the near future for space exploration and any colonisation will have to be done with those who do not desire a return ticket (meaning robot's)

Feel free to dispute this

Costs: $820 million (rovers), $135 billion (Apollo)
That $820 million for the Mars rover program covers "the total cost of building, launching, landing and operating the rovers on the surface for the initial 90 day primary mission" (your source). It does not cover R&D in launch vehicle, avionics, and numerous technologies developed as an essential part of the Apollo program or the operations cost after those first 90 days.

That $135 billion Wikipedia number (no reference given) is for the entire Apollo program, which included Mercury, Gemini, and several unmanned lunar probes. The research done to get people to the Moon paved the way for later unmanned missions, including the rovers.

total number of science days: 10 years (rovers), less then 5 days (Apollo)
That 10 year figure is vastly overstated. The rovers don't do much of anything at all during Mars nighttime or during storms.

Comparing the total time the rovers have been on Mars to the time people set foot on the Moon is an invalid comparison. The rovers don't do much of anything even when it is sunlit. It takes a lot of time for those rovers to do much of anything at all. One of the early successes in the Mars rover program was the identification of a rock as volcanic. It took nearly a month to maneuver the rover to the rock, drill a bit of dust off the rock, analyze the dust, and people on the Earth to identify the dust as of volcanic origin. A Harrison Schmitt protege could have accomplished the same with a rock hammer in five minutes.

==========

Science is an important secondary outcome from sending people into space. First and foremost is the very act of sending people into space. The act of human exploration has a value in and of itself. Comparing robotic missions to human space flight on the basis of science alone eliminates the most important aspect of human space flight. Comparing robotic space missions to human spaceflight is an invalid comparison.

Since performing science is the primary reason for sending robotic probes into space, a better comparison is contrasting robotic space missions to science conducted right here on Earth. How much Earth-based science does one billion dollars buy? Those billion dollar robotic missions contribute very little in terms of scientific knowledge compared to the amount of knowledge gained with Earth-based scientific endeavors.

It does not cover R&D in launch vehicle, avionics, and numerous technologies developed as an essential part of the Apollo program or the operations cost after those first 90 days.

I agree that both Mercury and Gemini shouldn't be put with the apollo costs more on that later, However I'm lost on the scientific contribution that apollo would have had on developing these rovers it's not in the booster it's not in communication it's not in the landing and the rover itself was certainly not developed from the lunar buggy.
Considering the costs afther those 90 days I don't gather it's that much renting time for the equipments paying the workforce and asking advice from prominent scientists, how much can it be? No more then 20 million at least.
(wich is more then dubble I believe)

That $135 billion Wikipedia number (no reference given) is for the entire Apollo program, which included Mercury, Gemini, and several unmanned lunar probes. The research done to get people to the Moon paved the way for later unmanned missions, including the rovers.
The cost of the program is estimated at $135 billion (2006 dollars) ($25.4 billion in 1969 dollars). The Apollo spacecraft cost $28 billion (2006 dollars) to develop: $17 billion for the command and service modules, and $11 billion for the Lunar Module. The Saturn I, IB and V launch vehicle development cost about $46 billion. source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program)

Those only totals in 102 billion dollars but as you can see these are mainly developing costs and not actual building costs. So I stick with the 135 billion
(No references where made to indicate towards Gemini or Mercury)

That 10 year figure is vastly overstated. The rovers don't do much of anything at all during Mars nighttime or during storms.

Correct, but then again technological improvements and future energy sources will increase their productivity so in adition to their durability they will become more efficient then a human.
New developments in solar panels for example are clearly shown with juno (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_%28spacecraft%29)
While I won't even begin describing the developments in electronics autonomy.

Since performing science is the primary reason for sending robotic probes into space, a better comparison is contrasting robotic space missions to science conducted right here on Earth. How much Earth-based science does one billion dollars buy? Those billion dollar robotic missions contribute very little in terms of scientific knowledge compared to the amount of knowledge gained with Earth-based scientific endeavors.
That's rather personal don't you think I for example find all space telescope related developments and the results (shoemaker pulsars exoplanets...) more interesting then the life support developments boneloss studies and moonhopping.

It is possible that people we spend on a space mission to other planets where they have to spend 2 years or more in space could end up dying of various cancers several years later because of it.

If we could only freeze bodies for long periods and then revive them safely. I know there is work being done on human hibernation.


Freezing them still won't prevent cosmic rays, gamma rays or other things

penetrate their bodies. Also if they are asleep what happens if something

should go wrong and needs to be fixed?

That 10 year figure is vastly overstated. The rovers don't do much of anything at all during Mars nighttime or during storms.[QUOTE]


But they have done so much more when they are working. They have

instruments onboard that can immediatly tell scientists back here what

types of rocks, how old they are, different soil anaylsis as well as many

other experiments.




[QUOTE] Comparing the total time the rovers have been on Mars to the time people set foot on the Moon is an invalid comparison. The rovers don't do much of anything even when it is sunlit. It takes a lot of time for those rovers to do much of anything at all. One of the early successes in the Mars rover program was the identification of a rock as volcanic. It took nearly a month to maneuver the rover to the rock, drill a bit of dust off the rock, analyze the dust, and people on the Earth to identify the dust as of volcanic origin. A Harrison Schmitt protege could have accomplished the same with a rock hammer in five minutes.[QUOTE]


But those rovers kept finding more and more rocks to examine, which they

did, and give scientists a clearer picture of what is actually there WITHOUT

a human there. Humans cannot stay on Mars for more than 30 days

because of the Earth and Mars orbits to return home in time. Rovers are a

one way ticket and are expendabile.




[QUOTE]Science is an important secondary outcome from sending people into space. First and foremost is the very act of sending people into space. The act of human exploration has a value in and of itself. Comparing robotic missions to human space flight on the basis of science alone eliminates the most important aspect of human space flight. Comparing robotic space missions to human spaceflight is an invalid comparison.[QUOTE]


Humans have sent over 30 spacecraft to Mars and only 13 of them actually

arrived. I think that should tell you how hard it is just to get a small robot

to Mars. After humans can get a better way to improve their missions

without so many failures , then I believe humans could begin to plan for a

human trip there. If there's enough money to do so.



[QUOTE]Since performing science is the primary reason for sending robotic probes into space, a better comparison is contrasting robotic space missions to science conducted right here on Earth. How much Earth-based science does one billion dollars buy? Those billion dollar robotic missions contribute very little in terms of scientific knowledge compared to the amount of knowledge gained with Earth-based scientific endeavors.


You are joking aren't you. Your compairing what can be accomplished on

Earth as to what can be accomplished in space? That's not exactly a good

argument whatsoever. Humans can just drive to work and do science here

but it takes quite allot of time and allot smaller robots to just do a little

science in space. But add up all those little robots and you get a hell of allot

of data overall. More than one human flying to Mars would ever accomplish.

The technology is advancing very fast now and robots can do much, much

more than ever before and if we keep progressing they will even do

thousands of things if we so desire. Artifical intelligence will make tommrows

spacecraft be as good as a human powered one plus they are cheaper and

more can be built without worry to the safety of humans.

+ none require a return ticket that's probably the biggest bonus

Niether of you (cosmictraveler nor orcot) has disputed my main contention, which is that space science, manned or unmanned, is very expensive compared to Earth-based science. If you look at the space program solely from the viewpoint of scientific value, the space program comes off as a very bad investment.

The space program is viable only after one accounts for value to the act of exploration itself. IMHO, sending probes doesn't cut it. We send robotic probes in part (in large part) because to the Moon and Mars because someday people will go there. I switched from working for the unmanned space program to working on human spaceflight for this very reason twenty years ago. There will always be some aspect of danger associated with human spaceflight. To say we should stop human spaceflight until it becomes "safe" is tantamount to saying we should stop human spaceflight forever. If that is the case, why should we send probes?

A more reasoned risk/benefit analysis is needed. We have sent people to the Moon with a reasonable degree of risk, and we can do so once again. Sending people to Mars with current technology does indeed involve too much risk. None of the world's space agency, including NASA, has an active program for sending people to Mars. We do need something better.

Just to play devil's advocate here, I am going to twist the question posed in the OP to ask why we should even bother sending robotic probes to Mars or beyond. The probes we send out now are downright stupid, dumber than insects, even dumber than bacteria. Truly intelligent scientific probes will do a much, much better job of gathering scientific data than the probes we send out today. Shouldn't we wait until true artificial intelligence is developed before we send any more unmanned probes out into space?

How else are we to spread Earth's life beyond Earth? After all, isn't that the point and our duty?

Don't you think that making a hash of one planet scarcely qualifies us to do the same to another ?

Just to play devil's advocate here, I am going to twist the question posed in the OP to ask why we should even bother sending robotic probes to Mars or beyond. The probes we send out now are downright stupid, dumber than insects, even dumber than bacteria. Truly intelligent scientific probes will do a much, much better job of gathering scientific data than the probes we send out today. Shouldn't we wait until true artificial intelligence is developed before we send any more unmanned probes out into space?

Isn't it better to send stupid robots rather than stupid humans?

Is that the best you can do? We don't send stupid humans into space.

I seem to remember that soimeone was frozen for a few hours (accidentally) and made a full recovery. The necessity is fast freezing so there is no cell damage (expanding ice). If it could be accomplished, with the body in a gold coffin in a tank of water ice, that would protect against most harmful radiation.

As such, there would be no need for food, water, oxygen, etc in huge quantities for a number of people living in a capsule for years each way on such a journey.

Niether of you (cosmictraveler nor orcot) has disputed my main contention, which is that space science, manned or unmanned, is very expensive compared to Earth-based science. If you look at the space program solely from the viewpoint of scientific value, the space program comes off as a very bad investment.

I'm afraid that's relative again I agree people have a better PR that robots and a mannend space program is important in terms of the (near) future. But do not underestimate the scientific/economical value of for example GPS.
Weather satelites, Tv satelites,...
And conserning Mars the real first observations to my understanding where always abouth life on the planet and how to find/contact and studieng the unknown

Just to play devil's advocate here, I am going to twist the question posed in the OP to ask why we should even bother sending robotic probes to Mars or beyond. The probes we send out now are downright stupid, dumber than insects, even dumber than bacteria. Truly intelligent scientific probes will do a much, much better job of gathering scientific data than the probes we send out today. Shouldn't we wait until true artificial intelligence is developed before we send any more unmanned probes out into space?
China? Russia?
The sad thruth is that NASA's anual budget is only or only 0,6% of the 2,9 trilion United States federal budget, that's 17,3 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget).
I looked it up and the costs of the war on terror anual budget 2008 is $145.2 billion.

0,6% :o I'm afraid you don't have a space program it's more of a verry cheap space hobby. I'm pretty sure that people spend more on booze on their anual budget then america afords on space (if you make 500$ a week you could only drink for 3$).

as a result all NASA's discoveries and developments are formidable and desirve praise

But do not underestimate the scientific/economical value of for example GPS.
Weather satelites, Tv satelites,...
Earth observation satellites, communications satellites, and GPS do represent an incredible return on the investment. However, these are not probes to other planets, and are not NASA's. Communications satellites are private endeavors. GPS was developed by and for the military. Earth observation satellites are run by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration in the Department of Commerce.

The sad thruth is that NASA's anual budget is only or only 0,6% of the 2,9 trilion United States federal budget, that's 17,3 billion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget).
I looked it up and the costs of the war on terror anual budget 2008 is $145.2 billion.

NASA's share of the budget is pathetically small. However, that tiny budget is not the fault of the war on terror. NASA's budget has been tiny since the end of Apollo. The blame lies with a whole generation of politicians, not just the lastest batch.

I seem to remember that soimeone was frozen for a few hours (accidentally) and made a full recovery. The necessity is fast freezing so there is no cell damage (expanding ice). If it could be accomplished, with the body in a gold coffin in a tank of water ice, that would protect against most harmful radiation.

As such, there would be no need for food, water, oxygen, etc in huge quantities for a number of people living in a capsule for years each way on such a journey.

What if there's a malfunction in the freezing machines? Then all would end up dead.

Niether of you (cosmictraveler nor orcot) has disputed my main contention, which is that space science, manned or unmanned, is very expensive compared to Earth-based science. If you look at the space program solely from the viewpoint of scientific value, the space program comes off as a very bad investment


You can't study the rocks, soil, weather, atmosphere, or other

environmental things on other planets without somehow sending something

there. I agree that it is expensive to become educated about anything in

space, but humans will one day explore there and they need all the

information they can get before endeavoring into the unknown. The cost of

human space flight is at least 10 times that of robotic spacecraft so the

costs are allot less with them and much safer too.


Exploration of space isn't cheap I'll agree but your sense of a bad

investment and mine are very different. I look at the war in Iraq as a bad

investment of close to one trillion dollars and so far over 5,000 US soldiers

have died. For what I ask? What has been gained? What has been learned

to advance humanity? I can cite many other things as bad investments like

Vietnam, Korea, the war on poverty, farmers subsidies for corporations with

millions of acres of farmland and on and on.


To say we should stop human spaceflight until it becomes "safe" is tantamount to saying we should stop human spaceflight forever. If that is the case, why should we send probes?


I have never suggested that human space flight should be stopped only

slowed down to make it safer as well as faster and cheaper. Sending probes

advances scientific understanding of many areas including propulsion which

also will be used with human spacecraft. Exploration is humankind's

wonderment about the unknown and science is always researching things

that can further the knowledge of humankind. Would you rather just sit

around and not send anything into space? Or rather send things and learn

that mistakes are going to me made, radioactivity will kill people not

protected properly and an array of other things we here on Earth cannot

imagine until we go into space and learn.



Just to play devil's advocate here, I am going to twist the question posed in the OP to ask why we should even bother sending robotic probes to Mars or beyond. The probes we send out now are downright stupid, dumber than insects, even dumber than bacteria. Truly intelligent scientific probes will do a much, much better job of gathering scientific data than the probes we send out today. Shouldn't we wait until true artificial intelligence is developed before we send any more unmanned probes out into space?


I was only trying to lighten things up with my flippant reply before. ;)

The probes today, as compared to say 1970's, are so far advanced that

they can do thousands of experiments instead of just a few as was

previously done. Many were lost along the way and many malfunctioned as

well. Would it not for those early failures we wouldn't know how to improve

and advance the design and propulsion of what we have today. that is why

probes are sent, not humans, so as to experiment with them and what

happens to them because they can't be killed. Space is a much more

precarious place than Earth for you can't make any mistakes there or your

dead and no one will be able to help you.

Isn't it better to send stupid robots rather than stupid humans?

Is it cost-effective to take all those Bibles ? Does anyone know what they weigh ?

Is it cost-effective to take all those Bibles ? Does anyone know what they weigh ?

:confused::shrug:

I never mentioned bibles.

I seem to remember that soimeone was frozen for a few hours (accidentally) and made a full recovery. The necessity is fast freezing so there is no cell damage (expanding ice). If it could be accomplished, with the body in a gold coffin in a tank of water ice, that would protect against most harmful radiation.

As such, there would be no need for food, water, oxygen, etc in huge quantities for a number of people living in a capsule for years each way on such a journey.

Have you thought of volunteering ?

:confused::shrug:

I never mentioned bibles.

You just dont know about the Bible payload. Next you'll be telling me you don't know that Oral Roberts will be taking off in his Prayer Tower as part of the Sermons from Space project.

They fully train men and women for jobs like this as a human is cappable of withstanding any thing and being able to adapt to any envoironment

sumtimes i wonder if they just think they dont belong here on earth
and want the greener grass onthe other side
when this one is full of strange and weird things we havent not yet explored

i have no interest in what goes on in other planets
no concerne no thought for other life force or living cells in other planets
every one has there own opinions on space no one is right or wrong

guess thats why they want to explore to get the truth or find another life like our earth
i dunno whats in their thoughts and they prolly will lie to us if we ask them the truth
maybe they think if they can get another planet we can be moved or sum can live there
or even use it as a prison for really fucking bad people

either way dont we have a vote for when that does happen
like they might say well people vote for so and so and i will use the planet for a prison
or the other might say vote for me and i will use it for a holiday camp thing

and if it does eventuate and is another planet out there with life like ours
we prolly would destroy it for the bible will be placed on it
then people will follow that rule and drain every life force it has
then they will say does god exist

and search for more of god only to put the bible on that life
well i doubt very much anyone would ever know the truth what they do for the bible and they will kill for it and drain every life force in every planet they go

i call it an alien invasion hahahaha
well not far off it
no one can fight it no one can see it but its there in the bible
and the bible says so ...right
well duh wouldnt you think the bible is the invasion
how old is the bible only what we know isnt it
what if its older than u think or can imagine
and whose to say it hadnt been to other planets
where is the life of other places where did it go
i would think it already been there and done that

who would need weapons if they can use a book and gather every ones beleif
with faith u can move mountains or melt ice even
or you can make everyone believe that gold is more important than peoples lives or the living creatures that live
we build and build and multiply yet natural animals have a significance importance to
beeding for a food chain
whats ours ....its draining the life force of every planet we go too
that is our reason for life here not to find god but to drain
and yet no one will admitt or find the reason
they dont know the reason cause they will not do what they have been put to do if they found out
when they finished we are easily replaced
we have death yet they dont and they promise us this and that
hmmm dont get it do u people

i made a very bad mistake i ment to delete most of that i wrote
i clked the wrong dam thing

AM SORRY

i type what i feel at that moment and i never ment to make this mistake
i usualy delete most of it before i send it

God im stupid i just type what i think at the time
its not true and never ment to hurt anyones beleif in the bible
FOR THIS IM SORRY

i type what i feel at that moment and i never ment to make this mistake
i usualy delete most of it before i send it

God im stupid i just type what i think at the time
its not true and never ment to hurt anyones beleif in the bible
FOR THIS IM SORRY

You didn't do anything wrong at all. You expressed your viewpoints very well and I understand what you said. Thank you for your time to write all of that down for us to learn how you feel about it.

You just dont know about the Bible payload. Next you'll be telling me you don't know that Oral Roberts will be taking off in his Prayer Tower as part of the Sermons from Space project.

They're sending Oral Roberts off into space? That's great. I think they should send him to the sun, a central place from which to preach. Of course, god and his guardian angels will protect Oral Roberts from the heat there. Where do I donate for this good cause?

i type what i feel at that moment and i never ment to make this mistake
i usualy delete most of it before i send it

God im stupid i just type what i think at the time
its not true and never ment to hurt anyones beleif in the bible
FOR THIS IM SORRY


The bible is totally without evidence and is not supported by history, science or common sense. It is an embarrassingly awful book full of mistakes. No religionist has a shred of evidence for what they believe so as Dawkins says, they are delusionists. Would you be upset if you let it slip that there was no Santa Claus?

Wow. I agree with kaneda's last two posts. Go figure...

They're sending Oral Roberts off into space? That's great. I think they should send him to the sun, a central place from which to preach. Of course, god and his guardian angels will protect Oral Roberts from the heat there. Where do I donate for this good cause?


Just send $500 to me.

i type what i feel at that moment and i never ment to make this mistake
i usualy delete most of it before i send it

God im stupid i just type what i think at the time
its not true and never ment to hurt anyones beleif in the bible
FOR THIS IM SORRY

You just write what you want cobber. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that you will shake anyone's faith in the Bible. They "know" they are right, so there is no danger of them tinking about anything you say to the contrary.

It takes billions of dollars to send just a few humans to any planet or moon.
It doesn't matter because dollars are just paper and metal, and they can be reused how many times you want.

Wow. I agree with kaneda's last two posts. Go figure...

I've found I agree with some of your posts sometimes but am too embarrassed to admit it. :rolleyes:

dollars are just paper and metal, and they can be reused how many times you want.

Not really because paper currency always decays and shreds away into oblivion.

Well, i just say that a lot more satilites and robots need to be sent into space, absolutly hundreds of thousands of them need to be sent. The skelton of the space agencies that we currently have is not sufficent to carry out the nessacary job.
The mass production of satlites and exsploration robots should be done simular to the automoblie industry.
It is amazing how a little fact can change so much, really it appears that the current understanding of space by leaders is without the knowledge of the indepth inportance to human existance that remains in space, mainly our solar system.

Shame on the goverments of the world for not presueing such a inportant figure in human existance.

DwayneD.L.Rabon

It was said a few decades back that the NASA budget was about the same as Americans spend on ice cream a year (at the time).

More money will go into space to fit the needs of countries, and so other countries don't fall behind. Even multinational companies will one day have sufficient free funds as space gets cheaper, to join the space race. Like the idea that we would all have flying cars about 1980, the reality of space travel is far more difficult than originally realised and it cannot at present be solved by just throwing money at it. NASA are even willing to accept ideas from the public on possible new propulsion systems for space.