talion Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3950099/ well, at least he tries to be a visionary. still alot of problems left on earth though.
Yupa Posted January 14, 2004 Report Posted January 14, 2004 visionary? people have wanted to do this for a LONG time I believe one of the original goals the space shuttle was designed to accomplish was to be used to travel to a space station, then to Mars He also just plunged us into HUGE -*BAD WORD*-ing debt and is now committing all this money to something that we shouldn't need ...I also can't help but gag when I think about a President who's slashed into the environment so much that is now pursuing something that we only have a use for if we do indeed finish off our planet he just wants to get elected again
Dav Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 well bush is an idiot, no doubt about that he has wasted too much on iraq and shouldnt haven been there in the first place. I gthink what he is doing is tring despratly to gain support, it is commonly know that NASA has been seriously underfunded and the us space program has been slowed down. He is tring to win support by fixing this but its too late. Personally i suppoet space exploration, there is so much unknown out there and as humans are so curious scientists could be kept busy for years over the findings of these missions.
talion Posted January 15, 2004 Author Report Posted January 15, 2004 i said at least he TRIES to be a visionary interesting that they say there's no more spending required for this effort (1 billion more in funding a year or something). that just doesn't seem right, at all. and at the rate various geopolitical problems are going, by 2020 there might not be any people to send on a manned mission to mars. it is an election ploy im not debating it. trying to get people to evaluate him on his promises for next term (if elected) rather than what he didn't accomplish this term (As you say, the economy). doesn't really help that the democrats are basically screwing themselves over, or so it seems to me anyways. none of them are clean in terms of standing on "democratic" ground all the time, and they all have really crappy answers when asked about their strategies for iraq after the election, if elected.
Yupa Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 -*BAD WORD*- democrats and -*BAD WORD*- republicans those parties are too old, they're lost in bureaucracy
Lupper Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 who'll be captain of the spaceship? i nominate captain janeway.. and perhaps sneak Seven onto that ship...
Dav Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 what he promisces, if a president fails to keep promices in one term wwhat says he will keep them if reelected?
Wargh!!! Posted January 15, 2004 Report Posted January 15, 2004 I was watching letterman acouple of days/weeks ago, and i saw: Dave's unfair edit of the day. "the Bush administration" "is a" "complete" "failure"...So true.... but im in New Zealand, what wouldi know
Aileron Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 no, the Democrats suck. If the compe!@#$%^&*ion wasn't so sucky, Bush would have to improve.
Yupa Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 -*BAD WORD*- democrats and -*BAD WORD*- republicans those parties are too old, they're lost in bureaucracy
Aileron Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 So, you suggest we get two new parties? Most likely, they would just be identical to the two that we already have, except with a different name. Really, the only problem with the political parties is that too often people don't care about the primary elections, which under theory are supposed to be more important than the final one. That and mid-terms.
mr. scruff Posted January 17, 2004 Report Posted January 17, 2004 What is the poiint in traveling to the moon? So a few asternaughts and cosmonots can have fun? Bush is trying to cover up for his mistakesd and inadequecies by wars and space travel, when he should be sending the money on rebuilding America's economy, which is still recovering from 9/11.
Aileron Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 Its a capitalist economy. The government can't just "spend money" on it. It can only play with indirect variables such as interest and tax rates. Bush did all he could for the economy - cut taxes. Other than that, there isn't too much he can do. Besides, your tone implies that Bush is in trouble. His "mistakes" are only mistakes if one already does not support him in the first place. Those who support Bush don't count his actions as mistakes. Bush's political strategy is really a work of genius, if not completely insane. He pisses off every group that ultimately does't matter, in order to get his core supporters to love him all the more. He pisses off foreigners, but they don't get a vote. He pisses off liberals, but they are too small in number and would never vote for him anyway. On top of this, he makes the opposition angry. Anger is an emotion, thus being angry makes one emontional. Emotional people do not appeal to a rational thinking center. Thus, the next election is pretty much in the bag. By sacrificing his appeal to liberals, he builds his appeal to the right and center.
Fluffy White Bunny Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 In order to start on the projects that bush asked for, NASA is going to cut funding to the Hubble Space Telescope, which is going to leave it to burn up in the atmosphere within the next ten years. Makes me sad =( that thing was cool.
Bacchus Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 Bush's political strategy is really a work of genius, if not completely insane. He pisses off every group that ultimately does't matter, in order to get his core supporters to love him all the more. He pisses off foreigners, but they don't get a vote. He pisses off liberals, but they are too small in number and would never vote for him anyway. On top of this, he makes the opposition angry that's the description of a brainless bully with powerful friends. By "every groups taht doesn't matter", do you mean the rest of the world? Anyway, face it, your pres is a moron with enough cash flow to buy think tanmk services. -*BAD WORD*-, Bush was given a passport upon entering office... Going to the moon...bah, that's ball licking the companies which are building parts for spacecrafts engines, sol/air equipments, etc. those are also one of the major contributor to the Bush fund for presidency. -*BAD WORD*-. here, a cookie:http://www.bushin30seconds.org/view/12_large.shtml
Dav Posted January 18, 2004 Report Posted January 18, 2004 In order to start on the projects that bush asked for, NASA is going to cut funding to the Hubble Space Telescope, which is going to leave it to burn up in the atmosphere within the next ten years. Makes me sad =( that thing was cool.the sucsessor f the hubble space telescope is under devolopment and is dur to go up about 2011
Killing Ape Posted January 19, 2004 Report Posted January 19, 2004 In order to start on the projects that bush asked for, NASA is going to cut funding to the Hubble Space Telescope, which is going to leave it to burn up in the atmosphere within the next ten years. Makes me sad =( that thing was cool.the sucsessor f the hubble space telescope is under devolopment and is dur to go up about 2011 the hubble space telescope mission has no impact at all on the mission to mars... you don't understand it's not that NASA will replace every space mission with the Mars, it is just adding it. NASA is responsible for trillions of other things such as analyzing the earth, maintaining satellites, coming up with new aero-technology ect...
Killing Ape Posted January 19, 2004 Report Posted January 19, 2004 Also the thing that people are forgetting is they are automatically !@#$%^&*uming that a $1 trillion (estimate) investment to the mission to mars/moon will be successful... now what if something tragic happens... not only will some more astronauts die but 1 trillion dollars, yes 1 trillion will go down the train and it would possibly be the biggest embar!@#$%^&*ment of the USA ever and would probably ruin all space/technology investment and exploration for the next 25 years at least which means the European Space Agency and the Chinese and Russians and Israeli's will go ahead in technology and bla bla bla... eventually we are going to go back to the moon and mars in a manned mission but i don't see any benefit of it now... especially later on there will be an incredible advancement of technology. I agree this is just a scheme to boost bush's popularity since the majority of American's think cool what an achievement. I have to say going back to the moon might be remotely in the ballpark since their is incredible amount of evidence of all this lunar energy astro fuel on the moon and the moon has more of a significance than Mars..............
Dav Posted January 19, 2004 Report Posted January 19, 2004 well before they can go to mars the shuttle will need resigning, proputtion methors need a redesigmn cus they will never carry enough fuel, they need to rethink food stores so that trilloion dollers will be needed. Before that tho morew landers need to make their way to mars.
Killing Ape Posted January 19, 2004 Report Posted January 19, 2004 well before they can go to mars the shuttle will need resigning, proputtion methors need a redesigmn cus they will never carry enough fuel, they need to rethink food stores so that trilloion dollers will be needed. Before that tho morew landers need to make their way to mars.uh no they are suppost to retire the shuttle fleet by the year 2010... and foods not that big of a problem... you can easily just pack a bunch of food in a spaceship and fuel not so much either (solar,nuclear energy,and/or alota old fashioned fuel)... The big problems are human interaction with long periods of being in space (most anybodies been up is maybe a couple months... not years) and human health, particles hitting the spaceship, loss of communication contact to earth, some kind of technical flaw, the process of entering and leaving Mars atmosphere and making a safe landing and takeoff, an onboard computer bug, or some other problem scientists havn't researched... I say when the Mars spaceship gets built to take humans to Mars, which will happen nobody knows when... we should send the spaceship or an exact replica of the ship to Mars to make sure everything carries out and executes perfectly... while doing surveys graphs ect... I'd rather have a 1 trillion dollar successful Mars mission than a 700 billion dollar failure...
Dav Posted January 20, 2004 Report Posted January 20, 2004 true, the shuttle to take them there will need a rethink, in fact a regular shttlee wont do it, there will have to be entertainment and other facilities there to keep to astronauts going. i still think a new propultion system is needed, 2 years is simply too long to be tarviling to mars.
Yupa Posted January 21, 2004 Report Posted January 21, 2004 we don't need anything new at all if you wanted to you could get there with a Gemini rocket, a suit, a big pack of food and a bunch of compressed air/gas
Killing Ape Posted January 21, 2004 Report Posted January 21, 2004 we don't need anything new at all if you wanted to you could get there with a Gemini rocket, a suit, a big pack of food and a bunch of compressed air/gasi dont think a Gemeni Rocket will get you to Mars lol... im kiddin i know u wer bein sarcastic, but still going to my last post the time isnt now to send someone to Mars, but sometime it WILL happen and it will cost $$$$$
Recommended Posts