Moon, asteroids, and Mars are GO!

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by cygonaut, Jan 9, 2004.

  1. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    That's it? That's what you're wasting my time with? "Informal discussions"??? In other words, two lads yakking it up over a few pints. Wonderful source.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Vortexx Skull & Bones Spokesman Registered Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Well, you don't have to be a rocketscientist to figure that one out
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    Actually vortexx....
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Undecided Banned Banned


    The fact that this figure is shared by people within the administration, critics, and others. Shows that your idiotic assertions that this will cost $20 billion to the heap of the Bush administrations lies. I thought you of all people could see through this, but again special interests blinds people rationally. Anyways, even if it doesn't cost $1 trillion, it will cost just around $500 billion. You have yet to show a source that counts the missions entire cost from the moon to mars. The latest estimate is $1 trillion, and that figure will eventually end up in Congress hopefully to be voted down once again.
  8. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    No, it isn't. And you have yet to show an source that shows that as an offical prediction, as opposed to something two guys over a pint dreamt up.

    Not to mention the fact that a trillion dollars invested over 20 years in NASA would be a better investment for the money (which comes to $50 billion a year, less than 1% of the annual spending of the federal government, even at healthy spending levels) than any other government programme. Funding in basic research not only furthers scientific knowlege, but it also promotes growth in the private sector, which is better for the economy than tax breaks for the rich or increased military spending.
  9. Undecided Banned Banned

    Not to mention the fact that a trillion dollars invested over 20 years in NASA would be a better investment for the money

    Please spare me from this disgustingly subjective point. Not only now do you ceede the fact that the trillion is possible but you also don't see the inheirant dangers of investing money that simply does not exist. You still have not showed me where this $1 trillion will come from. This money just doesn't appear, current analysts say that the current deficit could last into the decades. Debt is increasing, and so will the payments, militarism is up and going to grow (inevtiably), and if Bush is re-elected believe you me, the deficit is only go get worse. Let's say that the program costs $500 billion, that is still massive amounts of money needed to be spent. Money that simply doesn't exist, and you know it.

    No, it isn't. And you have yet to show an source that shows that as an offical prediction, as opposed to something two guys over a pint dreamt up.

    This is real rich Sparks let get real, if you want real official stats, I will refer you to the official price tage of Iraq in March! Ok, let's be realistic here. You trust a government whom you know has lied overtly in the past about the costs of projects do you deny? So you are putting faith into a government that lies? Boy you would have loved Stalin. I thought you of all people knew better...but I guess talking to a mirror does that to people.
  10. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    It's not subjective.

    No, I do not, nor have I done so. The total cost of the entire apollo space programme, start to finish, in today's dollars comes to between $100 billion and $120 billion. To say that doing it again would cost ten times that is assinine in the extreme. I'm saying that if you did decide to invest ten times that in NASA, it would be a good decision. I am not saying that that is what is required to get back to the moon.
    It'd be nice if you could at least read my posts Undecided, if you're not even going to read primary material...

    The price tag of Iraq is nothing to do with the price of going back to the moon. I want a real, offical source from you for that $1 trillion estimate, or I want you to admit that it's not a real estimate.
    Put up or shut up, to use an idiom.
  11. 15ofthe19 35 year old virgin Registered Senior Member

    I can't decide if this is just another pathetic example of nicky's juvenile behavior, or if he's just too damned lazy to do his homework on this one, but regardless (irregardless is not a word nicky, stop using it), I did some hunting and can't find a single source that EVER uses the word TRILLION in any of their studies. Did anybody else notice that nicky embellished his own link to the cpbb? They never used the word trillion, he added that in his quote. Sad.

    Here's a good article on the topic, with real numbers. Considering I am the taxpaying American here, I can weigh in and say that I will support this.

    Considering you don't even pay taxes nicky, why are you so threatened by this?

    Oh, and one more thing....

    Last edited: Jan 19, 2004
  12. bradguth Banned Banned

    Truth is in the eyes of the blind beholder, as snookered Americans perhaps. Though the Moon is ours for the taking, and take He3 we well.

    The GW Bush moon; or just how incredibly happenstance is our moon?

    Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden, there's our nifty moon, just sitting there, overloaded with He3 or 3He.

    Sorry about the initial overload, but trust me, it's worth it.

    The absolute truth(s) about history, as well as for what's current and of what's to come, has been and well continue being skewed in order to suit those in power, much like religion and of evolution is all about lies, of liars telling whatever lies suit their hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Whereas a better form of government, and thereby science, would obviously be truth; go fish!

    For an example; pure evolution isn't worth squat up against terraforming, only as an afermarket adaptation in order to survive in spite of mistakes made by your creator, DNA/RNA or whatever. Such as, I'd certainly evolve myself along and adapt if my planet were going greenhouse, though to listen to the pro-NASA folks with regard to anything Venus, that's just not going to happen, even though for perfectly odd reasons (I think money and job security), just the opposit seems to apply towards Mars.

    Unfortunately, much like Hitler, or much worse being the Pope/Cathar fiasco, the GW Bush space initiative represents yet another for-real threat to humanity, and of whatever natural evolution isn't going to fix that unless evolution somehow manages the extinction of GW Bush on behalf of humanity, as otherwise the future threat is as real as his personal war in Iraq, and it'll soon get as bloody as need be. Thereby the Bush space initiative is a thoroughly bad notion, although the notion of going for our moon on behalf of humanity isn't such a bad notion, in fact it's a darn good idea that's way past due.

    There's been the rather unfortunate tit for tats that created the likes of 9/11 and of flight-800, plus another ongoing and rather pesky and costly war in Iraq, all because of Salem bin Laden and of the close business associations with our resident warlord "GW Bush". It's all about the hoarding of energy as well as future technology, possibly even ET technology. It's absolutely imperative as to keeping this oil off the spot market, especially of oil that's been outside the American cartel.

    Of ET life and consequences, besides O'Neill or Salem bin Laden, there's a light at the end of this tunnel.

    It seems a few too many folks have overlooked an important truth or self right, that of following a lying bastard and hiding within a collective of energy sucking Borgs is obviously become the moral right of every snookered American, yet no one owes us that right.

    The GW Bush moon; just how incredibly happenstance is our moon?

    At least the ulterior lunar focus for the moment should draw deeply our dastardly attentions away from Cuba, if nothing else it'll drain whatever reserves for NSA/DoD agendas, while giving us folks a great deal to think about, and of others to worry about.

    The GW Bush moon-base odds are actually relatively piss poor. Just for starters, we all realize that our resident warlord "GW Bush" lied as usual (covering some privet agenda plus whatever ulterior motives), such as about all those WMD, just like those of his educational "high standards and accountability" lies, that's only been superseded by his ultimate "so what's the difference" policy (he must have been referring to all those dead Iraqi souls that don't matter, as well as the Trade Towers fiasco that he and of his close Salem bin Laden business partner had supposedly absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with). Notice how the "all knowing" Dr. H.K. has vanished into thin air ever since 9/11.

    Just because our moon has become the most recent GW Bush topic of the hour, I'm not switching myself from the far greater importance of discoveries on Venus over to any moon tactic for the mere sport of it, as I've been there and done that for a good year's worth of trying to focus folks (snookered fools) away from the ESE fiasco, over to the obtainable and doable LSE-CM/ISS alternative, as of what the moon offers is simply an incredibly terrific gateway to other worlds, such as Mars and Venus, as well as for providing Earth sciences plus a bloody jackpot worth of He3/3eH energy that's just sitting there, waiting to being scooped up and shipped off to mother Earth.

    Speaking just a little off topic; of other life within our universe that doesn't have to continually lie; Sirius is certainly not only within our universe, but I believe 80,000 years ago it was situated damn close by.

    Within the following rant, I've stipulated upon quite a number of "what ifs" pertaining greatly to other life on Venus, among accomplishing a few essential lunar things along the way. Elsewhere are links to specific LSE-CM/ISS issues, although you'll have to disconnect from your Borg collective before reading such, as otherwise the collective may have to terminate your node, and that could hurt worse than the "Blue Screen of Death".

    "Sirius, Earth, Moon and Venus, preferably without GW Bush"

    In that order, and in that priority.

    In other words, first came Sirius, then we manage to screw up Earth (almost got that one nailed), then onto our moon for a little He3/3He snatching, and finish off our supper with the pillaging of Venus. We don't much have to include the likes of Mars because, it's way to spendy as well as too CO2 generating upon Earth as for sustaining any significant to/from enterprise of pillaging, and besides it's already a thoroughly dead horse (not that folks hadn't managed to live there once upon a time), except for the remains of some highly advanced/mutant microbes of which sub-freezing them into dry-ice and of irradiating those to death probably hasn't quite serialized their innards, and of those pesky diehard Mars microbes (in our infinite wisdom or lack thereof), we'll likely be bringing those suckers back to Earth via some future probe in order to prove how pathetically stupid we actually are, so go figure.

    Never to fear; as if it should perchance turn out that I'm the least bit wrong about the sanity or perhaps utter insanity, of some folks going to Mars that is, as then I'll simply impose our resident warlord's approved "so what's the difference" policy. As certainly whatever's left of Earth's humanity wont be any worse off for ware, after all, of my previous efforts at stipulating "I told you so" about how thoroughly frozen and irradiated to death Mars is, if that simply hasn't sunk in, nor about how little free energy awaits those arriving at Mars, but what the hell do I know?

    If I were as dumbfounded, and as much of a total moron bastard as our resident warlord, I guess I'd certainly have Earth's humanity headed for the likes of Mars. After all, from all of the previous probe information and of what's new, well, there really isn't anything new, other than it's still damn cold and thoroughly irradiated to death, as well as sufficiently strewn with all the expected meteorites and shards, and as always, being of the most time consuming and spendy as all get out for just getting there, much less for the task of our retrieving anything.

    Our Unique Moon;
    It's rather unfortunate how freaking little we seem to know about our extremely unique moon, of why it's even where it is, and of it's mass being so entirely different than Earth, yet thermal nuclear heated from within and of so influencing Earth in such an entirely positive sort of way, as well as somewhat intentionally contributing to our well being as a human race, yet it's been taking advantage of tidal forces so as to insure that it's never going to come crashing down, not in a trillion-billion years, not even if we devised a way of pulling out 5 terawatts continuously between us, as that's merely one form of unique force that's been so special about our uniquely synchronized moon.

    This one-of-a-kind moon offers us an incredibly stable gravity-well null point, as an ideal LSE-CM/ISS accommodation that's obviously situated between Earth and the moon, at roughly 84% of the distance from Earth, or 16% of the distance towards Earth, with a mere 2.25% variance at that. It's also the one and only recorded moon that's rotating itself in perfect harmony, as in absolute synchronization with it's mother World. All and all, that's better than rolling different dice on every shot and getting exactly the very same 4&3 as 7's a million times in a row. Not such bad odds.

    I mean, how incredibly happenstance is that?

    Finding water on the moon isn't such a big factor. With Earth's global warming, expedited along by GW Bush himself, we'll soon have way more water than you can possibly shake a flaming stick at, and thankfully today we've got numerous ways of robotically delivering terrific amounts of said water to the moon. Actually sending it as pure h2o2 would do lunar and LSE-CM/ISS operations a lot more good. In the good old days of Apollo, if speaking of a one-way ticket, we could deliver 36,000 lbs worth of whatever, whereas today that figure should be 72,000 lbs worth. And BTW; the lunar environment is absolutely ideal for that water being in the stabile form of frozen h2o2, whereas receiving whatever He3 infusions couldn't hurt.

    The next issue or topic of worth is that of Venus, of it's environment being what it is, greenhouse hot and nasty, though not by a long shot being outside the ballpark of supporting intelligent life, unless you're only considering upon the pathetic slim-mold based forms of bigoted life that's here on Earth, especially of those that can no longer think for themselves, having to depend upon their pagan worship of skewed as well as conditional laws of physics, as well as reliance upon numerous toilet bowl morals, as such being easily snookered and thereby representing the crude forms of life that can't hardly survive here on Earth without doing far more harm than good, much like dumb and dumber except on steroids.

    Fortunately, the thick and robust atmosphere of Venus is simply chuck full of benefits, as well as raw energy via thermal as well as powerful kinetics from just their vertical differentials, then there are simply loads of surface geothermals and of most likely a crust that holding onto all sorts of mineral deposits. Those relatively cool nighttime clouds contain megatonnes of H2SO4, thus H2O, thereby all sorts of chemical and subsequent reaction cocktails of various outcomes are possible. With said energy and of the sorts of natural element resources available, only an absolute idiot moron couldn't make a go of it.

    Of course, it only adds further insult to all the previous injuries by way of my uncovering a rather significant group of structures, of a significant community that's way too rational, as in being potentially life supportive functional as having been established as artificial (as in man made or perhaps more likely lizard folk made), hardly being the least bit natural unless those pesky laws of physics as well as for gravity took a hike for at least a few hundred years, which according to our NASA community of "all knowing" Borg wizards is absolutely suggesting what must have happened, somewhat like why all those Apollo moon pictures are so skewed and why their lunar reflective index was so incredibly bright, as well as for why there's so few meteorites and of their shards strewn about, much less there being any recent contributions of micro-meteorites to deal with, nor is there more radiation exposure than for taking a distant walk around Chernobyl.

    Of another keen interest is that of Sirius may not be so happenstance, though 80,000 years ago it was certainly darn close, thus extremely bright and most likely the biggest thing in our sky, bar none, as in illumination appearing at least as big as our sun but so much brighter, and that's certainly damn big, though 80,000 years is a mere geological drop in the bucket. Since then it's been moving away at roughly 20 miles per second, whereas today it's over 8.5 lightyears off, and still Sirius represents the next biggest and baddest star(s) in our sky, and since it's so bright and far away, our best instruments can only detect the Sirius/a&b, as Sirius/c and of whatever planets are only known to the Dogon. Go figure that one out.

    Seems as though it is as likely as not that planets within the zone of life, like Mars, Earth and Venus could have been those terraformed by creators, thus well intending folks that did whatever they could, to see that their efforts were not in vain. Natural disasters and perhaps creator mistakes (no one's perfect) may have plaid a role, but mankind has more than influenced if not sealed the fate of Earth, especially of lately, with our frequent energy wars and of pagan worshipings, now we're off snipe hunting for those WMD in order to justify our warlords taking of thousands of innocent lives. At least the only one of us that should feel better off is the Pope, as for what their Catholic church did to those nice Cathars was truly despicable, as certainly representing nothing at all like what any reasonable terraforming creators would have intended. As how freaking sick would you have to be if you were some creator that intentionally constructed such god offal DNA/RNA and/or manipulated your beings for such a horrific task. So obviously, mankind is 99% responsible for our own fate, as there's only so much that a remote world of creators can accomplish from afar, especially from as far away as Sirius.

    I know, I know, there I go again, slipping myself way off the deep end by suggesting that I'm sufficiently right and that you're the one that's been snookered and subsequently skewed so way off base. Well, what can I say, short of getting myself entirely reprogrammed and connected back into your Borg collective, so that I'll follow our fearless WMD snipe hunting leaders off the nearest cliff, or back into their cesspool of life, is always an option.

    The fact that privet agendas and ulterior motives have been in full swing for decades, most recently based entirely upon our dwindling global energy reserves, our leaders having fought many wars (hot and cold) over whom has what and of most importantly of whom gets access to it, and/or selectively partitioning out shares of profits from the spoils of said energy. This lethal tug-of-war is simply what's been responsible for the most recent waves of carnage and of collateral damage, with the undertow of powers struggling to grasp all the energy rings and then some. Well guess what, the moon has become the next best thing on the map, as energy wise the moon is by far offering the biggest energy pot and simultaneous strategic starwars outpost over the entire Earth, so much so that it'll likely supersede our need of taking Cuba, of which we've previously tried seven times and badly failed seven times. Although, with the LSE-CM/ISS tether dipole element reaching to within 50,000 km of Earth, hosting a few of those 100 GW 0.5 milliradian laser cannons, we could light off an individual Cuban cigar if we wanted to.

    If you think you can contribute to these issues, or to this novel of life and consequences, I'm all ears, though I've been told that there's not all that much between them ears because, my Borg collective interface has been broken down for at least the past three years and counting, though your's is probably still fully functioning and synchronized to the collective.

    Some good but difficult readings: SADDAM HUSSEIN and The SAND PIRATES

    The latest round of insults to this Mars/Moon/Venus class action injury:

    Some other recent file updates:

    Regards, Brad Guth / IEIS~GASA
  13. buffys Registered Loser Registered Senior Member

    damn! thats a thread killer if I ever saw one.
  14. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    The tinfoil hat market just went up a notch allright.
  15. Undecided Banned Banned

    It's not subjective.

    Yes it is because I believe that money is better spent finding cures for diseases. So please, look up what you think you know.

    No, I do not, nor have I done so.

    The mere fact that you were consider the fact that possibly a trillion figure is possible (by not totally rejecting it, in the post in question) makes you supportive of the fact a trillion is possible.

    The total cost of the entire apollo space programme, start to finish, in today's dollars comes to between $100 billion and $120 billion.

    I am sure that you support that assertion. Also if you want to illogically compare that time with today again, go ahead. Just think about this Sparks, the US government in 1969 was consuming 18% of the GDP, with current spending the US government is consuming up to 22% of the GDP. So yes the strain is much more today then it was back then. You let the numbers fool you, also let's consider the cost of program. Costs at the time were generally lower then now anyways, from wages to technology. So again to compare the two is largely illogical. Also just to add these two mission differ totally in mission, and require totally new technologies and sustained funding, unlike the Apollo missions.

    To say that doing it again would cost ten times that is assinine in the extreme.

    This is amazing Sparks, you have yet to show a figure to contest the trillion dollar figure over 20 years. Asinine? No, the only thing here that is asinine is your refusal to accept reality of a dire economic situation, so you can fulfill your dream of seeing a man on the freaking moon. You sound like Richard Perle.

    I'm saying that if you did decide to invest ten times that in NASA, it would be a good decision.

    That money would be better spent on much more urgent issues facing us here today.

    It'd be nice if you could at least read my posts Undecided, if you're not even going to read primary material...

    No I am not going to read that material because I rather not waste my time. Secondly the irony of you saying that I don't read your posts, you are the one, not me who is selectively quoting me, and omitting the real points. For instance you continue to ignore key questions, as where is the money going to come from?

    The price tag of Iraq is nothing to do with the price of going back to the moon.

    Of course it does, the administration has lied before about funding these programs. You know Einstein I believe was the one who coined the fact that if one expects something different by doing the same thing is a idiot. Look in the mirror Sparks...

    I want a real, offical source from you for that $1 trillion estimate, or I want you to admit that it's not a real estimate.

    There is no real estimate as of yet, but since there is nothing to counter it for the 20 year period of time. It has to be accepted, unless you want to defy logic.

    Put up or shut up, to use an idiom

    I see we are descending into the realm of trolldom...pathetic.
  16. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    No, yours is the subjective viewpoint. Because I've cited references and analyses to back mine up - and you have simply said "I believe it is so" and have repeatedly refused to cite any reference whatsoever.

    No it does not, not in any way, shape or form.

    And not only do I support it, I can support it, with references.

    And when apollo started, our tools were far fewer and far less capable than today, our materials science was less advanced, our science and technology in general were far less advanced or nonexistant, and noone knew what needed to be known to do the job.
    Today, none of that is true. In other words, it's a far easier task today than it was in the 60s. So the cost will be less, and the results will be greater.
    So your figure of $1 trillion is rubbish, and your labelling of NASA as the source of economic woe is unfounded rubbish.

    I have already cited Zubrin's plan several times, which contests that figure quite comprehensively. I've also cited examples of projects like Clementine which proved that low budgets are both realistic and achievable.
    On the contrary, then Undecided - it is you who have yet to show any figures, and your $1 trillion estimate is unfounded and erroneous. It is, in short, rubbish.

    I am sick to death of hearing this. You talk as if that amount of money would actually make a difference. The fact is, it wouldn't fix the problems we face. Those problems are not solvable by throwing large amounts of cash around - they require social reform, which, while not free, is not assisted by surplus cash at all.
    Investing in basic research, however (which is what NASA is), means that everyone's lot is improved.

    And yet you expect me to waste my time on your arguments?
    No longer Undecided. Welcome to my ignore list. You're not worth the time it takes to refute you, because frankly, it's like sandblasting a soup cracker.

    I hereby claim that Undecided is, in fact, a child molestor. I know there's no offical proof to that effect, but it there's no proof that he isn't and therefore you must accept my statement, unless you want to defy logic.
  17. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    before I try for the third time to post a poll for this excellent thread, Here are the poll questions I will be asking, please think of more to add.

    This poll is multiple pick-and-choose: please vote for each response your agree with.

    1A. Robots should do all exploration and mining, as they are far better suited for it and much cheaper.

    1B. We should send people to explore space because at present they our far more intelligent then robots, robots can still be use to assisted of course but we need people up there.

    2A. We (USA) should send people to the moon before China does.

    2B. Who cares if China goes back to the moon before we do?

    3A. We should spend no money on space what so ever tell we have things going right down here or at least until we have the money.

    3B. Things will never be fixed down here and we will always complain about money its best we get this done, even if it’s just a little at a time.

    4A. We never need to go into space; just wait until we all are super evolved cyborgs/robots and space travel and colonizing will be really cheap and effective, because we won’t need to breath air, eat or need temperate living conditions or even a physical form.

    4B. Human colonizing of space is essential. We need to go into space to assure the future of our species, homo sapiens (AKA, talking monkeys).

    5A. Space technology is not worth its spin-offs, for example we have gotten far more spin-off tech from weapons research. We should fund (even more money) into that or (perhaps better yet) fund new technologies directly!

    5B. Space technology provides great spin-off tech in industry down here and is worth it. Its far better developing technology this way then by funding continued weapons research to kill people.

    6A. There is no offical claim that it will cost 1 trillion for this new space program, EI_Sparks is full of shit!

    6B. Thre is offical proof but EI_Sparks is either to lazy or stupid to find and post it.
  18. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    "I see we are descending into the realm of trolldom...pathetic."
    This has become rampant. It's all due to the recent spike in chemtrails.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  19. Fukushi -meta consciousness- Registered Senior Member

    Let's go to the moon, asteroïds AND Mars,....

    THEN the outer solar systems,...if we happen to find any ET's,...I'm shure we'll manage to get one of our spaceships blown up, so we can launch a FULL NUCLEAR STRIKE (LOL)

    Serious: don't you think 400.000.000.000 Dollar$ is a big buget for the Departement of Defense?

    So if you think MONEY, you might as well, point you finger in the right direction.

    No pun intended.
  20. hypewaders Save Changes Registered Senior Member

    Al-Qaeda could be regrouping on Mars right now.
  21. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    1C. Robotic exploration serves to make manned exploration safer and faster. It is not, however, an end in itself.

    2C. Space exploration is a human activity, not a nationalistic one. International cooperation is the appropriate model, not competition.

    3C. The money we spend on space exploration benefits us because it solves the problems we have down here by finding other, practically infinite resources and energy.

    4C. The oil will run out during our lifetimes. Or grow so scarce as to be uneconomic for all but a small few. We are rapidly running out of time in which we can go into space easily - too much of our manufacturing and industrial base is dependant on oil and it's products. If it runs out before we locate another source, we'll have to spend a generation or two rebuilding our manufacturing base to not need oil/plastics/and a dozen other products now central to it. So it's not "should" we go, it's "we must" go.

    5C. Denial of reality is not proof that public sector basic research is not worth the money we spend on it.
  22. EI_Sparks Registered Senior Member

    6C. EI_Sparks is not the one saying the cost estimate is $1 trillion, in fact he's pointed out repeatedly that there is no such estimate, and all the extant realistic estimates are for far, far less.
  23. Fukushi -meta consciousness- Registered Senior Member


Share This Page