Now if I was to mold that clay into a pot and drink water from it. Sometimes it's not what's there, but what you can do with it. Thanks for proving my point, and with such an accurate anology.

Edit
How one can have such great powers of scrutiny and yet still miss the point is beyond me.

So landing one onse tiny section = done ?

Nno need to explore the oceans either, dont worry I visited a beach once, saw nothing.

http://wallpampers.com/pictures/3339/imperial_star_destroyer.jpg


THIS is what NASA is supposed to be doing. not this boring "can hamsters have six in space?" crap they are doing now. i want at least one of those done before i do or i figure that all the taxes ive payed my entire life have accomplished absolutely nothing.

I am sorry, but that just made no sense. anologies are just that - anologies, meaning that at some point the similarities stop. Not only has your point not been proven but it has not even been revealed. If what you want to say is that moon would be great to have a base on, I don't see why a base on the moon would be better than a space station in orbit around the Earth not on the moon - it would be easier to build and easier to get materials and people to and from.

The difference being that the moon has some gravity. Not a lot, but some.

I don't think the Jedi would approve of that.

Oh I thought these things were little bacteria things. The picture was a bacteria. lol

Indeed, which is why if there was a space station in Earth's orbit

Which would be more uncomfortable and awkward for those that aren't accustomed to zero gravity.

Let me just go ahead and say this: The moon is the closest celestial body to planet earth, not going back there or not colonizing it when we would colonize another rock MUCH farther away instead would be a VERY stupid thing to do. It's in our own back yard so to speak and as such should be our starting point.

To use an anology, even though you seem to keen to throw them out as irrelevant, it's like stepping out your back door, looking around, saying "meh", then going back inside and NEVER stepping foot in your back yard again. NEVER MIND the fact that it could be turned into a beautiful garden.

Which is why astronauts are trained to be accustomed to zero gravity.

Eventually not everyone is going to be a fully trained astronaut. With much of the development being shifted the private sector I have no doubts one of the first things they will consider putting up there is some sort of tourist attraction for the obscenely rich. Most likely a space station as a first hop, and then something on the moon. Finally from there it would be possible to reach deeper into the solar system.

Astronauts aren't going to be the only ones in space, not forever. Keep arguing with me, it won't get you far.

Its rather sad everyone pays for NASA and a private company will come along and do more tan them, better, faster and sooner.

Its already begun as a tourist thing, people can pay a insane amount to go into a plane then a rocket then experience zero g for a few minutes.

Damn NASA svck.

Sorry, I forgot we weren't talking about NASA and practicality.


No, but then the astronauts won't be the only people who receive zero-gravity training. Also what, you think that someone doesn't have to be trained to adapt to the moon's low gravity? Don't be ridiculous.

And I am not arguing, I am stating facts.

Could the fossilized lifeforms be earthlings growing on the meteor?

NASA needs an empowerment evaluation to look at alternative way to remain viable and sustainable.
Most of our ocean have not been fully explored, could NASA use their resources in this area?

No, but everyone won't be able to receive training either. And yeah, the moon's gravity would be hard to adapt to, but less so than just floating in space.

The "facts" you claim to be stating are highly opinionated. Just because you think the moon is a useless rock doesn't suddenly mean everyone else does. Nor does it mean they should.

I never said the moon is a useless rock. If the moon was suddenly gone nearly all life on Earth would be seriously compromised. All I am saying though is that, as far as space exploration goes, there are more important and smarter things NASA can do than making bases on the moon. Unless you think NASA should be interested in space tourism.

What could be more important than getting experience for long term colonization of other planets? Surely you don't suggest we build an immense space station for this, it would be far more viable on the moon. At least at first, once we have these technical skills built up we can most likely look towards mars, but nothing is happening without a base on the moon to be used as a jumping point.

Now you're stretching it so much that it's not even funny any more.



Again, I don't see why an orbiting space station would be any less of a good "jumping point".


Anyway, I'm too tired so I'm off to bed, don't miss me.

They should be, otherwise they'll be in trouble financially... Like they are now, correct? Donations and tax money are all good and fine, but unless they make money they'll keep their aspirations modest. Having a hotel on the moon or something or the sort would generate income for them to be able to further expand the space program.

That's one of the reasons the private sector is getting more involved in space programs.

Evidently we must remain stranded upon our rock drifting in a sea of human stupidity right? Yea, let's just go and do space related stuff without building up the necessary skills and technology. That will be good. Can't see that ending in disaster. Creating a space station that large and self sustaining would be considerably higher of an upkeep. It then becomes a question of how long they plan to do this. Eventually the additional expense of getting parts/men onto the moon might be cheaper than sustaining this vast and complex space station. Though only at first, so it becomes an issue of just what they want either of these projects for to maximize cost/efficiency ratio.

Edit
I just realized we're flinging opinions at each other. *sigh* How did you drag me into this pointless conversation.

Mentioning the supposed "ClimateGate" AND your inherent distrust for brown people. Brilliant.

*Applause*

Quite easily. Inflexible Christian religions, for example, will probably just call it a test of faith :shrug:. 'Course, there are other flavours for whom the bible is more of a guide...


What you're not taking into account is that space travel is only one of the many things NASA researches/does. It also looks at lights in the sky, rocks in the ground, and various other things.

I'm underselling it a lot :hehe:. A lot of it is actually pretty cool, like finding proof of aliens coming to earth. Sure, they may not have had enough cells to even have brains to be sapient with, but they was 'ere :nod: (assuming this bloke is correct).


You misread him. He commented on them making up data in at least one instance, and the non-scientific project they have of seducing Muslims, then he stated that he does not trust NASA.

It is on Yahoo News and a random website. IT MUST BE TRUE.


Sorry. When it is published in a journal that I know and respect, I will believe it. But come on. If we found extra terrestrial life, why isn't it in Science or Nature? Unless of course it can't get published in there...

The article said they're getting it looked at thoroughly before it gets officially published anywhere :shrug:.