Results of NASA Moon Bombing to Take 2 Weeks

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]nas_a-feil[/nom]NASA fail[/citation]
[citation][nom]El_Capitan[/nom]Two weeks?! Who's getting the results? FEMA?[/citation]

You're kidding, right? A two week turnaround on analyzing scientific data of this magnitude is pretty darned impressive.

 

[zipzoomflyhigh]

Great, just enough time for them to build another film set so we can get more fake moon shots.

 

[zipzoomflyhigh]

We have never been to the moon people, it was all a fake to make the world think we were so far ahead in technology. Think about it, dont you think we would have been back by now if we went there in the 60's? Why does NASA need 10 more years to get ready for something they did in 1969?? Get real people.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]zipzoomflyhigh[/nom]We have never been to the moon people, it was all a fake to make the world think we were so far ahead in technology. Think about it, dont you think we would have been back by now if we went there in the 60's? Why does NASA need 10 more years to get ready for something they did in 1969?? Get real people.[/citation]

Because this time around they have a lot less money, a lot less bravado and no cold war inspired Space Race. Back then the race to space and the moon wasn't just for science, it was also for showing the strength of your missile technology to the opposing faction. It was a race to show that capitalism could further the world more than communism. It was a clear 'race' to the whole world and one that had individuals of Earth hooked. Money wasn't an issue and nor was safety to an extent.
The lunar lander's walls were so thin that you could have punched a hole through. These days that kind of safety would be unacceptable. Safety means far more R&D, far heavier designs which also means a hell of a lot more in development costs and launch costs. Had NASA's budget remained constant as a proportion of US government expenditure from the mid space race era to today then man would probably already have a base on the moon but could have even been to Mars by now. Had the Soviet Union not collapsed things would likely have been different too. There can be no space race if there's no competition after all.
In 1966 the NASA budget was 5.5% of the US Federal Budget. It is now 0.55% and is meant to drop to 0.52% in 201. The Apollo program cost about $23 billion, about 4 times NASA's budget for 1966.

In regards to your claim that it was faked: The Apollo landing sites have been imaged by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/lroimages/apollosites.html
The Apollo 15 site was also found in images in 2001 taken by the Clementine lunar orbiter: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/missions/apollo15_touchdown_photos_010427.html

 

[Guest]

Moonbombings resulted in the dissapearance of the moon!
Let's go home, and think on how we can burn a hole in another planet!

 

[asjflask]

LOL @ people who think we'll ever be able live on another planet. Quit watching sci-fi movies and get back into reality. Even if we could live on another planet (not to mention actually AFFORD to move there) it'd take billions of years to terraform the planet into a breathable atmosphere. So unless you want to wear an oxygen breather for the rest of your life you can forget that idea. Humanity will be long dead before another planet is terraformed to support life because our Sun will burn out in a few billion years. I forget the exact number of years but it's less than 10 billion and more than 1 billion. Regardless, it'd take over 10 billion to just terraform any other planet. Besides, the only place we could get oxygen would be from Earth or from plants we grow in a greenhouse. Good luck supplying 1+ million people with that (assuming you could even get that many people to move there or afford it).

This was a complete waste of money. I like NASA and its technological advances it has brought us, but this was a complete waste of taxpayer money. Money we don't even have to spend mind you.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

[citation][nom]asjflask[/nom]LOL @ people who think we'll ever be able live on another planet. Quit watching sci-fi movies and get back into reality. Even if we could live on another planet (not to mention actually AFFORD to move there) it'd take billions of years to terraform the planet into a breathable atmosphere. So unless you want to wear an oxygen breather for the rest of your life you can forget that idea. Humanity will be long dead before another planet is terraformed to support life because our Sun will burn out in a few billion years. I forget the exact number of years but it's less than 10 billion and more than 1 billion. Regardless, it'd take over 10 billion to just terraform any other planet. Besides, the only place we could get oxygen would be from Earth or from plants we grow in a greenhouse. Good luck supplying 1+ million people with that (assuming you could even get that many people to move there or afford it).This was a complete waste of money. I like NASA and its technological advances it has brought us, but this was a complete waste of taxpayer money. Money we don't even have to spend mind you.[/citation]

Actually, terraforming could be done far faster in theory. Such a planet would obviously go through various levels of habitability in the process. Habitable domes could likely be used in the mean time. It would certainly take far far less than 10 billion years to terraform a planet, hell the Earth's environment has flipped between an ice age and 'normal' about every 100,000 yearsish for a while now and that's without the impact human intervention can have. Of course it wouldn't take a matter of days but significant changes could be made within just a few years, getting things stable and habitable would like take a few hundred to thousand years. Think about it this way, like I said nature has been flipping the Earth's environment into an ice age within timescales of about 100,000 years. If we blew up a few nukes around the Earth now (i.e. nuclear holocaust), we could cause an ice age within about a year.

Although all of this is besides the point, NASA's not talking about terraforming the moon, its talking about hoping to find water so that a moon base would be easier to build. Why would a moon base be worthwhile? Well ignoring all the scientific benefits and general ideals of man going forward and exploring, the moon is laced with Helium 3, which is comparatively rare on Earth. Helium-3 can be used as a superb fuel source for Fusion power - generally seen as the power source for the next generation and future. Mining the moon for helium 3 to power fusion reactors on Earth is not nearly as far fetched or 'sci-fi' an idea s you might think. Economically, the moon could as well be made of gold.

 

[ssalim]

Unfortunately you and I won't be able to see the results are we'd be 100 years old. Now I want to be immortal... but I don't want to outlive my loved ones... this is frustrating.

 

[ckthecerealkiller]

[citation][nom]alyoshka[/nom]Instead of wasting all that money on spoiling a perfectly good solar system, they ought to be spending that money on trying to clean up the clutter they've already creted out there with dead sats and debris.

Plus that'd only cost them a little,

To all the nerds who say keep up the good work. what a lot of BS.[/citation]

I have cut out all of the crap response that your frivolous mind vomited on the keyboard.

Do you know how much man power it would take to recover all the satellites orbiting our planet? Now you want to stop exploring the universe and it's limitless possibilities of use so we can clean up a couple of satellites.

Seriously, we are no where near in danger of using up .0000001% of the neutral gravity zone. The surface area of the earth is just over 500 million sq KM. The approx surface area of the neutral gravity zone is just over 33 billion sq KM. That is just how much room we have to put satellites into orbit.

I still think that NASA should continue their efforts to explore the solar system.

 

[Spanky Deluxe]

Well said ckthecerealkiller.

 

[Guest]

I'm getting tired of hearing how the moon program is somehow justified because we received residual technologies from the effort. You will get residual technologies from any endeavor that you throw money at.

We could have just as easily threw money at traveling to the bottom of the ocean and received residual technologies, but that isn't the point. It is just an extreemly ineffecient way to develop technology.

Why not just spend the money developing technology directly if that is what you want? Heck, we could have just as easily pretended that we were going to go to the moon and had developers develop the same residual technologies. Then we would have the same technologies without having to actually waste money on building a rocket. I mean, the tang argument will only get you so far.

It is just not reasonable to propose that the space program is justified because it results in residual technologies. No, it has to result in direct benefits. I'm not saying that we don't need a space program or that there are no direct benefits to space travel. What I am saying is that NASA is showing us that it has little interest in such things, and that is a problem. NASA simply wastes money in pursuit of intellectual and academic interests.

And about the idea that we NEED to populate Mars or some other extra-terrestrial body. Why? It is the same problem. What is the NEED? Other than to satisfy some intellectual egos. A lot of people say that we NEED to do it because we are destroying the Earth. Well, then don't destroy the Earth and spend the money on trying to fix the Earth. Honestly, none of you are going to Mars even if the Earth was going to end. You are just not important enough or connected enough to get a ticket. You are going to die with the rest of us. It is just silly for a few select people to want to spend human resources just to save themselves. Why not just fix the problems here on Earth and save everyone? It just seems like a completely premature argument to suggest that saving a few thousand people is somehow the only solution and that there is no way that we can simply save everyone by fixing our approach to our environment here on Earth. I honestly think that the idea that people think that somehow NASA is going to populate Mars at some point in the near future, leads to people being lackadaisical about taking care of the Earth today. Its almost an excuse to be abusive on our environment.

So, again the reality is that this is also just an intellectual or academic pursuit. It just makes no sense. What we need is a real plan to achieve something that is of direct benefit to the Earth (U.S. in fact since it is U.S. taxpayers money). Then with that we may see such residual technologies that may lead to a community on Mars, but such would be a byproduct of something that is of direct benefit and not just a waste of time and money that has no real benefit to us. I mean, even if we find an Ocean of water on the moon it does nothing to water the crops and feed people here on Earth.

I know many people will disagree with me, but you simply have to ask yourself why you believe what you believe? Is it because you see a real direct benefit to what NASA is doing, or is it because you simply watched too much Star Trek as a youth and are simply projecting that fantasy onto NASA?