Bang, zoom Alice! You're goin' to the moon!:af: Seriously though, in a time when our country's national debt is skyrocketing, and many Americans are without jobs and healthcare, why on earth should we be worried about this again? Just because China wants to go there why all of a sudden do we need to do this? Who cares what China does, and why do we have to be on Mars first? About 3 years ago, there was a tv documentary that only aired once and was never heard of again. It claims that our landing on the moon in the past was faked, because at that time a rocket could not pass through the earth's radiation belt without burning up. Also, they had still pictures from the spacewalk and if you looked carefully, some frames clearly show wires and studio lighting. It was suggested that this was filmed on location in the Nevada desert at "area 51" where nobody is allowed to visit. there was also an issue of footprints in the sand that appeared in some footage but were then missing in others. I don't remember everything specifically, but this is the best I can recall. Did anybody else see this show? Do you think we need to do this space race thing all over again?
As much as I like Bush ( Please, don't flame me) this idea sucks! My tax dollars do NOT need to go to the Moon or Mars. I think NASA should be a donation only program, like during the CFC.
I agree with y'all I don't know what the facination is with the moon, but then again I may be dumber than a gum stump!!!!!!!!
I think the moon is redundant (unless they can mine it), but mars is important, we need to get the ball rolling on space and travel, its more important to the whole planet than it is to any one person. You have to think, long , long term. People argued against the car, the aircraft, and a whole raft of ideas that have made our lives more prosperous and convienant. The rewards may not be seen by us, but could be hugely important in the centuries ahead. I hope the chinese build a better spaceship than their sheetmetal! later Tim
I hate politics!!! I'll only say this one time,I beleive we should take care of our own first!!!!!!! We have a lot more important things to worry about at home before we go investigating the universe. Has anyone been to a retirement home lately??It is a shame the way we treat the elderly in this country,I think we should focus on US for a change and let the rest of the world deal with thier own problems,don't get me started :af: end of rant!
I believe we should go to Mars. But I don't think it should be government funded, it should be done by private corporations. -Bob Cunningham
Man has a need to explore. It cuts across ideology, religion, nationalism, and politics. Jobs can and will be created to further space travel. I work for a firm who makes/supports products for areospace. Some very interesting things are made, ideas scrapped, re-made, worked on, and sometimes end up in the commercial market. Just because it seems that not everyone is directly invovlved in space exploration does not mean that there isn't a trcikle down effect in jobs. You would be surpirsed to note that some gov't programs that are for aerospace win additional contacts for development firms that commonly spill over into civil engineering, for example, such as a composite struscture bridge, or into motorsport like F1 racing (which I had involvement with but can't really talk about, I think, but the link was simply a similar problem in military aircraft carbon structures and F1 racing carbon structures). So the idea of "space travel=loss of money for jobs" may not be as true as you'd like to think. In regards to the moon hoax...a couple points 1) this was 1969 we're talking about 2)wires and studio lighting...can't be in space?? 3)it would have much easier to go to the moon than to fake it (think Hollywood- how many skilled movie makers did it take to make even the cheesiest special effect in 1969?) 4) we love to disgrace heroes nowadays. Why have all the filmmakers and assorted crew kept their mouths shut? In comparison, our most beloved President in the last 100 years was wracked by scandal and JFK still can't rest in peace without speculation and comment by insiders 5) How did they fool all the astronauts? these are upstanding, outspoken men, not Joe Sixpack. These guys are intelligent, precise, and inquisitive. They are also not fools. These guys know what travel in light atmosphere is like- Chuck Yeager, himself NOT an astronaut, would take specially prepared F-104s to what is technically space, and that was an airplane, not a spacecraft. Yeager was excluded from being an astronaut not because he couldn't be trusted with a secret, but because of his schooling 6) As far as frames with footprints, and even apparent movie set frames go, consider editting for a second. Film is commonly spliced together even in present day movies incorrectly. A single frame with a questionable element proves not much about the whole film. And I'm not talking strictly about mistakes here, I can easily see how something could have been censored and even outright staged to fill in a blank section of footage. That's poor public relations, not proof we didn't go to the moon. If I brag about how I drove across the State in a record breaking time but I lied about the time, does that prove I didn't drive across the State? the biggest thing about that TV show that bugs me to this day is: Folks see that on TV, and now they automatically assume it was a hoax, because of the same thing that the show says they fell for in 1969- they took somebody's word for something. That doesn't prove the show told the truth. If you question the moonlanding, question the evidence that you feel disproves it's actuality with the same critical eye you turn to our landing on the moon. Until you do that, until you investigate it more completely than watching a TV show- which has the same chance of doctoring the information that you see as they said the gov't showed for the moonlanding- then you are simply taking someone else's word for something, just because they presented you with information and you choose to beleive it. They are doing exactly what they said the gov't did in my opinion. And I cannot trust that for a second. When someone uses the same technique as the liar to prove a lie, should that prove anything?
Im a HUGE fan of Nasa and all it has done and will do.....but I voted No. What Nasa needs now is a replacement for the Space Shuttle.....NOW .....which in terms of Gov. procurement and contracts means 10 years or more. We have a Space station we cant get to....Satelites that need launching and fixing and a whole host of other reasons to have a safe, cost effective way to leave orbit and get back - but NO PLANS for such a vehicle. Long term....we need to get off this rock if for nothing else than to harvest necessary resources
nano-exploration. There's still lots of stuff we don't know about this planet. Investigating and understanding the small I think would benefit man much more than the large; at least for now.
Think about this another way: In civil aviation, when would the turbojet have been invented if not for WWII? Think about the jet engine not being invented until 1960. Reaching for high technical goals spins off products, ideas, and techniques useful in many areas not directly related to the goal. It also speeds up technical innovation's timeclock. I think it highly probable that beneficial technology would be made more readily available sooner if we strove for Mars, or even for a second time on the moon- perhaps using a replacement for the Space Shuttle? Or a vehicle carried by the Shuttle's replacement? I guess I'm one of those folks who see a lot of facets on a issue but why aren't these things something to consider?
The moon is the next logical step to reach for. It's close and cost effective to set up a base for further reaching goals ( Mars ). The one thing it will create is more jobs for a wide range of people, most probably our sons/daughters and grandsons/granddaughters. The reason to do it is for their benefit not ours. Ours was dictated by our fathers/grandfathers that shaped the country years before we became a working part of it. Yet what we have now is what they worked for so we would have a better life than them. Now is the time to step up and work to start the change to breath new spirit into this path for all the young men and women that are probably still children as we debate this. They will be graduated men and women with degrees of some sort that will be looking for a high tech job that will earn them a good living and lest not forget all the other jobs that go with it all, as in people have to eat (restaurants),live (housing developments)and play (recreational facilities,shopping,sports arenas, etc...) This is the time to plan for them. We may be able to change the world but they will be the ones to see it and be affected by it. Didn't they say this about cars back in the late 1800's, it's a waste of money to invest in these mechanical monsters that will put hundreds of horsehands out of work for what- the name of progress!!! It is worth the investment in our offsprings future.
Don't forget Tang, ballpoint pens, and KY Jelly. Oh, and the lesser known things that the space program has brought us, like fuel cells (though they're not consumer ready yet). I voted yes, though with the economy the way it is now, it's not an easy choice. (Hmm, would the space program affect the economy in the same way military spending does?) Actually, I'm disappointed that we laid off the space program. After hitting the moon a few times, it lost its momentum... so to speak. We should have had a base there by now.
THE MESS THIS COUNTRY IS IN WAS NOT CAUSED BY SPACE EXPLORATION AND THE MESS IS NOT GONNA BE FIXED BY THE LACK OF SPACE EXPLORATION. i think bush is just blowin smoke in the first place. ... tryin to appeal to another demographic for election time. if we did away with NASA all together, it would not make one bit of difference in the economy except congress might see that there is a lil more money in the till, so they could vote themselves another raise.
Money spent on NASA and space projects stays in the US. Also I heard that for every 1 Billion dollars spent on space projects ends up adding 23 billion to the economy because of all the new technology that is created by the research to do these projects. :TU:
I don't deny that it's neat, but I'd prefer my tax money in my wallet instead of outer space. Early automobile development wasn't gov't funded. Capitalism all the way! As for jobs created, the result is more dependence on gov't funded jobs. yeechh! :rant: How about the pro-space folks invest in a privatized NASA and reap the benefits from the things like KY-Jelly (you might need it when you get the return on your investment) :laugh:
It's a vision thing... Sure, it is partly political, GW trying to show leadership in an area other than fighting a war. I don't think that is a bad thing though. The most productive periods of technology development in American history were probably WWI, WWII, and the space race. I think it is better to use a peacetime pursuit like space travel to advance our abilities, rather than developing better weapons. Besides, it's not a significant change in NASA's budget (I know, a billion here, a billion there, pretty soon it adds up to real money...). It's really a realignment of priorities for the space agency. The money COULD be spent somewhere else, but how much difference would it make? I try to keep in mind some advice I heard once - "Don't eat your seed corn". In other words, keep preparing for the future, no matter how desperate the present appears. We wouldn't be in possession of these computers we are using if it hade not been for the space program. Think about it..
