I disagree… I’m a major advocate of space exploration, both manned and unmanned, as it’s key to the elevation of humanity into becoming a space-faring species. This is, after all, the 21st century. I mean, we were able to land on the moon in the 60s back when we were listening to LPs and 8-track tapes. This is the age of DVDs and .mp3s. We’re much more technologically advanced.
I want to live to see man landing on Mars, at the very least. (The invention of warp drive would be nice, too!)
Out of all the decisions that Obama has made, this has disappointed me the most.[/quote]
I thought the point was to cut funding a manned trip to the moon that Bush said would go ahead to win political points and is sucking funds up without progressing technology and refocusing this energy on new techs that will get us to mars sooner. Europe got the first ion drive going and this tech is requireed to fly to mars, solid/liquid fuel just wont cut it in long space flight
Sure there are 1000s of other advances that need to be in place before mars mission is a reality
[quote=“itakitez”]
I thought the point was to cut funding a manned trip to the moon that Bush said would go ahead to win political points and is sucking funds up without progressing technology and refocusing this energy on new techs that will get us to mars sooner.[/quote]
Agree. Sending humans to the moon doesn’t teach us anything new. Lunar exploration by probe / lander / rover is so much more cost-efficient. Developing a heavy lift vehicle to move bigger payloads into orbit is going to be useful later, but sending men to the moon again isn’t.
[quote=“redwagon”][quote=“itakitez”]
I thought the point was to cut funding a manned trip to the moon that Bush said would go ahead to win political points and is sucking funds up without progressing technology and refocusing this energy on new techs that will get us to mars sooner.[/quote]
Agree. Sending humans to the moon doesn’t teach us anything new. Lunar exploration by probe / lander / rover is so much more cost-efficient. Developing a heavy lift vehicle to move bigger payloads into orbit is going to be useful later, but sending men to the moon again isn’t.[/quote]
Yeah, but, sending men to the moon gives astronauts the opportunity to publish a book, Hollywood to cash in on a free storyline (if there’s a disaster or near disaster - Apollo 13), and then the astronauts can wax lyrical about how seeing the Earth from space changed their world views when they realised how fragile the planet is (conveniently forgetting how large a carbon footprint they left behind to gain this massive insight )…
But sure, I’m all for space exploration and new technologies that long range exploration would need etc…
[quote=“urodacus”]You mark my words, sonny Jim: the next manned trip to the Moon will be by the Chinese: they’re so cool and so technically advanced.
“Hey look, you can see the Great Wall from here! But gee, Beijing looks a bit brown.”[/quote]
Yes, and I am sure they are going to come back with some frozen rabbit poop that ‘proves’ the moon is Chinese territory.
And, who remembers who the second man on the moon was? I remember because I watched it happen live, but how many others can come up with the name without googling it?
)…