This one is for Bob.

Just keep your hat lined with tin foil, petrous.

Close the whole damn program and use the money for entitlements to people like me.

I'd have to agree: this one is tailor made for Buffalo Bob.

Countless scientific types have addressed the old "we really didn't go to the moon" theories many times. My favorite was when the folks from Mythbusters tackled the issue, good television!

Why doesn't the public sector take care of space exploration and commerce? Seriously, it's a matter of priorities. But I am surprised that an arrogant guy like Obama would shut this down. Imagine colonizing the moon and calling the first city New Obama, or maybe Baracktown. No imagination.

#3 Jackass> Close the whole damn program and use the money for entitlements to people like me.

Do we get to send you on a one-way trip to the Moon or Mars? If it cut out your whining, I'd probably support the idea. Hey, don't you have a good paying union job? If so, why are you asking for handouts? Have some pride, man! (last sentence quoted from Mayor Wilson in Back To The Future).

its amazing how many elites fall right into line with global warming scam but still think the moon landings were filmed on sound stage.

And believe Paul Volker was a great chair of the fed, too, AFK.

ditto

and even the republicans who said that the only man YET BORN to run the treasury was tim gaithner...

AKAT I can always use a little more. The key to being happy is never being satisfied.

Did we forget something last time we were there?

I could understand if there was something useful there, like green cheese.

But, we have plenty of silicon here on earth to make our microprocessors with.

Find another planet that can support life, then we'll talk.

So how did that mirror we bounce LASER light off of to measure the distance to the moon get there?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a pathetically stupid bullshit thread.

I like Obama and all, but this shows a lack of vision and leadership.

Space exploration spurs numerous innovations that are felt throughout the private sector and the world.

Moreover, it inspires us as a nation and inspires competition on the world stage.

In 2004 Dumbya took the stage and announced that he was planning on "landing a man on Mars". It was two weeks after the Spirit landed on Mars and 11 months after the last shuttle disaster.

Spud considered it at the time as being an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from the debacle that was Iraq in those days.

And now Obama has scrapped the "Visions" project including the proposed moon landing.

That Spud has no problem with.

FTA: There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

More public funds fer research ending in corporate profits?

K, there we may have a problem.

Be Well.

So how did that mirror we bounce LASER light off of to measure the distance to the moon get there?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

What a pathetically stupid bullshit thread.

Well, if I were to be on the side of the equation that said we did not get there (which I am not) I would simply say to you, "we did send a rover to mars, and that did not have to be manned, could they not send a simple machine that would stay put with a giant mirror on it?"

Yup, there's the lunar module Antares on the fucking moon right where the Apollo 14 crew left it.

That Spud has no problem with.

FTA: There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

More public funds fer research ending in corporate profits?

K, there we may have a problem.

Be Well.

#14 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-01-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Why would you have a problem with any of it? YOU DONT LIVE HERE - YOU DONT PAY TAXES HERE. Please quit giving your approval or dissaproval on issues on which you: do not have a vote, do not contribute taxes to, and are not affected by. Do they even grow potatoes in Canada?

#19 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-01-27 04:02 PM | Reply | Flag

Mostly blueberries and GMC's...

And hold up our pipelines...

Now, on topic: technology developed as a direct result of NASA:

#19 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-01-27 04:02 PM

Too bad that you had to make a complete fool out of yourself because you don't realize that all opinions are welcome here. You really think that Spud or anyone else is going to stop posting their opinions because of your little temper tantrum?

Yes, they grow potatoes in Canada. You're welcome. How unfortunate for you that you couldn't figure it out yourself.

"That Spud has no problem with.
FTA: There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis to take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.
More public funds fer research ending in corporate profits?
K, there we may have a problem.
Be Well.
#14 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-01-27 03:23 PM"

Why would you have a problem with any of it? YOU DONT LIVE HERE - YOU DONT PAY TAXES HERE. Please quit giving your approval or dissaproval on issues on which you: do not have a vote, do not contribute taxes to, and are not affected by. Do they even grow potatoes in Canada?
#19 | Posted by ELCIDCE90 at 2010-01-27 04:02 PM

Your point being that so long as privatization of our public access comes with a price tag everyone should STFU?

dethspud is correct and prolly knows the name of the provisions in our own government documents that even those involved Americans do not. I simply cannot say the same regarding your participation.

Are you somehow profiteering from the space privatization?

And now Obama has scrapped the "Visions" project including the proposed moon landing.
That Spud has no problem with.
#14 | Posted by dethspud at 2010-01-27 03:23 PM | Reply | Flag:

Even if the policy decision to put a man on Mars by 2030 was merely a deflection (which I don't believe, BTW) it does not negate the advantages of pursuing such a policy. The Shuttle Program is going away - there is no stopping that. After that goes away, what stretegic goals does NASA have besides to safely fly to the ISS once every few months? The Constellation Program and goals to put man on the moon again (and eventually Mars) gave NASA a real purpose; a purpose it really hasn't had since the 60's. If NASA isn't reaching and growing by doing hard stuff like inventing new technologies to go back to the moon, space research in the US (and possibly the world, as we are generally the leaders in this arena) WILL stagnate. I think this is a poor choice by President Obama.

And before anyone mentions that we don't have the budget for this program, check out how Obama plans to grow - that's right, GROW - the agency's budget, all while slashing content. How does this make sense??

look at this article in relation to the article I posted the other day about our defense budget.

If we cut say $100,000,000,000 from the defense budget per year and put it into space exploration, we could have lots of well paying and cool tech jobs and all the benefits of a space program.

nah much more fun to kill people

Countless scientific types have addressed the old "we really didn't go to the moon" theories many times. My favorite was when the folks from Mythbusters tackled the issue, good television!

www.youtube.com

#4 | Posted by AKat at 2010-01-27 12:48 PM | Reply | Flag:

The Mythbusters episode tackled weak scenarios that had long been discarded by people like me, and made it look like the questions they were examining were the only questions being asked. Such as the two angles of shadows supposedly proving two different light sources. If you have two light sources that are offset in the slightest, you will have two shadows. Since there was only one shadow, there was only one light source---but was it the sun? Some of the photos say--no.

I still say that if we started from scratch in 1960 to go to the moon, and made it in less than a decade, it shouldn't takes us nearly that long to go again with all the computer power, and previous experience.

So how did the footprints get there?
piratenews.org

#16 | Posted by Zatoichi at 2010-01-27 03:46 PM | Reply | Flag:

I could probably come up with a nice fuzzy picture with the same look with photoshop and a large sandbox in my backyard. Who says that is a picture of the moon? The government? Oh yeah---they would never lie.

My pictures aren't nearly as fuzzy.

Who says that is a picture of the moon? The government? Oh yeah---they would never lie.

Geez. anybody that skeptical might even go so far as to suggest that flight 93 was shot down or that the pentegon was hit by a missle.

wait I thought bush promised us to be on the moon by 2020
#26 | Posted by truthhurts at 2010-01-29 04:59 PM | Reply | Flag

Moon by 2020, Mars by 2030. The sad thing about your point in #25 is that by funding NASA an additional $3B a year (versus the $100B you suggested) would allow us to actually realize the moon/Mars missions.

#27 | Posted by Buffalo_Bob at 2010-01-29 05:08 PM | Reply | Flag

Bob, NASA in the 60's operated under safety guidelines (or rather, the lack of safety guidelines) that would never be countenanced these days. It's amazing how much more difficult it is to do something when you want to do it safely. Also, NASA had 4% of the entire federal budget in the 60's. Give 'em that today and you'll see them on the moon by 2013. It's all about the money. Finally, NASA isn't just flying Apollo to the moon like we did in the 60's. The Constellation Program was inventing an entire series of new rockets to be used for the next 25 years. If we wanted to re-fly Apollo, we could just pull the plans and rebuild Apollo. That wasn't what NASA wanted to do. The new technologies and heavy lifting capacity (along with a bit of mismanagement here and there) are what is taking NASA so long this time around.

"My pictures aren't nearly as fuzzy."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Nothing's more fuzzy than your pictures, BoOb.

Now about that LASER ...

"II.6 Measuring the Earth - Moon Distance with a Laser
1. Principle of this measurement

From the Earth, a flash of light is sent towards the Moon. This light is reflected back to the Earth with a reflector which was placed on the Moon ground by members of an Apollo mission."

The point still stands sheeple.

As to the lasers---who told you about their configurations? The government---is that your source? They could have been robotically deployed. The government says they couldn't have been robotically deployed? Wow, it must be true.

The LASER is at McDonald, femtobrain.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FAce it bOoB, if you killed yourself the world's average IQ would double.

And that's including Aflac.

Zatoichi

Sorry--I should have said laser reflectors--my mistake.

The point still stands--live with it.

Bob, NASA in the 60's operated under safety guidelines (or rather, the lack of safety guidelines) that would never be countenanced these days.

#30 | Posted by bartimus at 2010-01-29 05:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

That's a weak excuse. We lost no one in the actual missions. Losses should be expected. If we wait until there is no risk, we will never go. We knopw what we did in the 60's---do the same thing and apply as much safety as possible. If they had waited until it was safe, America would still belong to the Indians.

In their place,...NASA will look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit. But that day will be years possibly even a decade or more away

CHRIS

I left a couple posts for you here: