SUPPORT THE SPACE PROGRAM ?

Forums: Politics
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I LOVE THE SPACE PROGRAM,
n eagerly support abundant funding thereof.

I 'd multiply NASA 's budget, if I cud.

I 'm also a big supporter of PRIVATE
exploration of outer space.

The Earth was Man 's cradle;
it shud not be his grave.
The Earth has gotten smacked from above,
1000s of times; there is no reason to believe
that the last time was the last time.

Since life on Earth got into business,
there have been 7 mass extinction events,
not all of which were fun for those involved.

It has taken human DNA * a while * to evolve.
For my part, I 'd rather not go the way of the dinos
the next time that a big, heavy thing falls from the sky;
( nor the time after that ).
The more viable, self-sufficient space stations,
the better; the same applies to extra-territorial colonies,
when thay become possible.

If King Ferdinand n Queen Isabella
cud fund space exploration,
I say WE CAN TOO !

Comments ?
David

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,344 • Replies: 21

No top replies

Love the program. Get with the program.

0 Replies

Yeah; I predict that the next generation
will have the option of vacation moonwalks

I wonder if Disney will set something up ?
David

0 Replies

One thing tho:
Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion being what it is,
conventional guns will not have the desired effect,
in the absence of gravity of outer space.

That cud be a problem.
We might need to revert to earlier
technology, until we get our ray-guns up n running.
So, a word to the wise: bring your swords.
David

0 Replies

I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

0 Replies

count me in, i'm all for david being shot into space

it's a one way trip right

also, way to show restraint, david, three posts before you start mentioning guns in space

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

Perhaps Columbus's trip should have been denied funds until poverty was wiped out in Spain (which it still hasn't been). Perhaps some ancient cave man who wanted to find out what was over the next hill was told by those with no foresight, that his energies would be better spent gathering more food for the tribe. You speak as though the two projects were mutually exclusive. The government is spending a lot of money on programs less worthy than either. Money spent on exploration is not actually taken directly from the rebuilding of New Orleans.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

snood wrote:
I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

Perhaps Columbus's trip should have been denied funds until poverty was wiped out in Spain (which it still hasn't been).

i'm pretty sure the indigenous peoples of many countries would have been very happy with that decision

0 Replies

djjd62 wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
snood wrote:
I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

Perhaps Columbus's trip should have been denied funds until poverty was wiped out in Spain (which it still hasn't been).

i'm pretty sure the indigenous peoples of many countries would have been very happy with that decision

Probably, but it has nothing to do with my point about the worthiness of science and exploration.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

Okay, this scares me (you can only imagine how much)...I agree with you.

Extending it further, I would like to add that the U.S. should take care of all (or at least the majority of) its internal matters before zooming off to the moon. The Appalachian regions and many other areas of the nation need help and if the money is there, well then, the government has a responsibility to assist in creating programs and educational incentives which will make the future of the U.S. worthy of a space program.

0 Replies

snood wrote:

I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans
before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the
moon.
But that's just me.

Yeah; THAT is the essence of the opposition to the exploration
of outer space. I doubt that government has jurisdiction
to re-build a city after bad weather. I don 't remember seeing that
authority granted in the Constitution.

A few days b4 Katrina, we were in New Orleans for Mensa 's Annual Gathering.
( We had our own private Hurricane; it was Dennis. It blew us in the street for about 45 seconds. )
I loved the place.
The people were fantastic.
Thay gave me free drinks in the Commander 's Palace.
Thay gave me free food in the Commander 's Palace,
spontaneously, and insistently, without my request.
Unique.

I look forward to going back,
but I 'm not sure from whence federal jd to re-build is to be found.

More broadly, I deny the existence of any
jd for any anti-poverty schemes,
such as those of Lyndon Johnson.

Snood does not address my supportive argument
in preservation of Earth based life,
by disseminating it thru out space stations
and extraterrestrial colonies,
to defend it from the next mass extinction event
( or from the one after that ).

David

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

snood wrote:
I say we fund and ensure the rebuilding of New Orleans before we fund and ensure the construction of vast new structures on the moon. But that's just me.

Okay, this scares me (you can only imagine how much)...I agree with you.

Extending it further, I would like to add that the U.S. should take care of all (or at least the majority of) its internal matters before zooming off to the moon. The Appalachian regions and many other areas of the nation need help and if the money is there, well then, the government has a responsibility to assist in creating programs and educational incentives which will make the future of the U.S. worthy of a space program.

I am pretty sure that no jursidiction
was ever granted to the government
to do those things; whereas the exploration of space
began almost immediately ( referring to the explorations of Lewis & Clark ).
David

0 Replies

How odd, David, that you have forgotten the preamble to the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems to me that the portion which i have bold-faced above is precisely what Sturgis was talking about.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

One thing tho:
Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion being what it is,
conventional guns will not have the desired effect,
in the absence of gravity of outer space.

That cud be a problem.
We might need to revert to earlier
technology, until we get our ray-guns up n running.
So, a word to the wise: bring your swords.
David

I have to say I agree with the basic idea of this thread.
And I mean this as the highest complement (as I don't
think I have ever said that to you before).

But I have to correct your physics.

Newton's third law
has nothing to do with gravity and there is no
reason that conventional guns won't work
in space-- except perhaps that the explosive
mechanism that propels a bullet requires oxygen
to fire.

Providing oxygen to a gun-- perhaps by adding
a chemical to provide it is probably easy to fix. Or
of course you could just fire from inside your
space suit (if you only needed to fire once).

But once fired, without the drag of air or the
pull of gravity... the bullet would fly straight and far
without slowing down.

And the added benefit is that even a grazing
hit-- merely puncturing the skin of your target
will be spectacularly deadly. And the gun will
be silent... a quick spinning death without
notice.

So fear not David.

The ability for human beings to kill each other
in space will not be hampered, even by the laws
of physics.

0 Replies

The second law provides that, in the absence of a significant gravitational field, if you were free-floating in space, and you fired a gun, the bullet would remain in place, and you would fly backward.

0 Replies

I couldn't agree more with supporting the space program. It is more important than any other pursuit we could possibly be taking part in as a nation.

If we had spent the amount of money we've spent in Iraq, on space, there's no telling where we would be right now...

Even from a purely military point of view, space is where it's at; the next war is one for control of space, and coincidentally, if you win that one, you win the rest of them. All this mucking about in Iraq is f*cking idiotic. We could of used a tenth of the money to go grab a bunch of asteroids and then we pretty much control the entire world...

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

How odd, David, that you have forgotten the preamble to the constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

It seems to me that the portion which i have bold-faced above is precisely what Sturgis was talking about.

It is not odd,
and I did not forget it,
nor is it APPLICABLE, witness the fact that
thay never did anything of the filosofical ilk
until F. Roosevelt decided to veer off
in that leftward direction in the 20th Century,
beating a round peg into a square hole.

That is a Jonny come lately distortion,
of which the Founders wud have been aghast.

Doing things for the general welfare
included coining money,
defending the place from military attacks,
from the Indians, building roads, post offices,
n court houses to resolve disputes among the citizenry,
all of which have very clear support in the Constitution.

David

0 Replies

ebrown_p wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:
One thing tho:
Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion being what it is,
conventional guns will not have the desired effect,
in the absence of gravity of outer space.

That cud be a problem.
We might need to revert to earlier
technology, until we get our ray-guns up n running.
So, a word to the wise: bring your swords.
David

I have to say I agree with the basic idea of this thread.
And I mean this as the highest complement (as I don't
think I have ever said that to you before).

But I have to correct your physics.

Newton's third law
has nothing to do with gravity and there is no
reason that conventional guns won't work
in space-- except perhaps that the explosive
mechanism that propels a bullet requires oxygen
to fire.

Providing oxygen to a gun-- perhaps by adding
a chemical to provide it is probably easy to fix. Or
of course you could just fire from inside your
space suit (if you only needed to fire once).

But once fired, without the drag of air or the
pull of gravity... the bullet would fly straight and far
without slowing down.

And the added benefit is that even a grazing
hit-- merely puncturing the skin of your target
will be spectacularly deadly. And the gun will
be silent... a quick spinning death without
notice.

So fear not David.

The ability for human beings to kill each other
in space will not be hampered, even by the laws
of physics.

U do not appear to have understood my point.

There is no problem with the charge burning n exploding
within the shell; there is enuf oxygen in there already.
We know this from guns being successfully discharged under water.

I did not represent that Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion
pertained to GRAVITY.

My point is that whereas Earth 's gravity
holds a gunner 's feet in place when he discharges a firearm on Earth,
that wud not be so in either the lesser gravity of a smaller celestial object
( such the Moon, nor a space station, nor [ to a lesser extent ] on Mars )
nor wud gravity hold a gunner 's feet in place,
if he were so injudicious as to discharge a firearm in outer space.

What wud happen is that both the gunner and his projectile
wud very swiftly move away from each other, in opposite directions.
Most gunners wud not find those firing conditions to be acceptable.

Every gun is a rocket launcher.
Every cartridge thereof is a rocket.
Gunfire operates by Newton 's principle of rocketry,
his 3rd Law of Motion.

Even swinging a sword,
wud be very troublesome,
as to stopping the swing of the blade.
It wud begin a twirling effect,
with no brakes.

U have my gratitude for your effort to console me;
alas, it was unsuccessful.

David

P.S.:
Your blu lettering has nice eye appeal.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

ebrown_p wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
One thing tho:
Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion being what it is,
conventional guns will not have the desired effect,
in the absence of gravity of outer space.

That cud be a problem.
We might need to revert to earlier
technology, until we get our ray-guns up n running.
So, a word to the wise: bring your swords.
David

I have to say I agree with the basic idea of this thread.
And I mean this as the highest complement (as I don't
think I have ever said that to you before).

But I have to correct your physics.

Newton's third law
has nothing to do with gravity and there is no
reason that conventional guns won't work
in space-- except perhaps that the explosive
mechanism that propels a bullet requires oxygen
to fire.

Providing oxygen to a gun-- perhaps by adding
a chemical to provide it is probably easy to fix. Or
of course you could just fire from inside your
space suit (if you only needed to fire once).

But once fired, without the drag of air or the
pull of gravity... the bullet would fly straight and far
without slowing down.

And the added benefit is that even a grazing
hit-- merely puncturing the skin of your target
will be spectacularly deadly. And the gun will
be silent... a quick spinning death without
notice.

So fear not David.

The ability for human beings to kill each other
in space will not be hampered, even by the laws
of physics.

U do not appear to have understood my point.

There is no problem with the charge burning n exploding
within the shell; there is enuf oxygen in there already.
We know this from guns being successfully discharged under water.

I did not represent that Newton 's 3rd Law of Motion
pertained to GRAVITY.

My point is that whereas Earth 's gravity
holds a gunner 's feet in place when he discharges a firearm on Earth,
that wud not be so in either the lesser gravity of a smaller celestial object
( such the Moon, nor a space station, nor [ to a lesser extent ] on Mars )
nor wud gravity hold a gunner 's feet in place,
if he were so injudicious as to discharge a firearm in outer space.

What wud happen is that both the gunner and his projectile
wud very swiftly move away from each other, in opposite directions.
Most gunners wud not find those firing conditions to be acceptable.

Every gun is a rocket launcher.
Every cartridge thereof is a rocket.
Gunfire operates by Newton 's principle of rocketry,
his 3rd Law of Motion.

Even swinging a sword,
wud be very troublesome,
as to stopping the swing of the blade.
It wud begin a twirling effect,
with no brakes.

U have my gratitude for your effort to console me;
alas, it was unsuccessful.

David

P.S.:
Your blu lettering has nice eye appeal.

Fortunately you don't completely
understand the 3rd law of motion.
you are correct that firing a bullet in space
would mean the shooter would move
backwards.

But you exaggerate the effect.

In the absence
of any holding force
the shooter would move backwards
at a speed inversely proportoinal to his mass
compared with the mass of the bullet.

Since a .38 caliber bullet is about 2600 times
lighter than an average 180 pound man. Shooting
a bullet at 1200 feet per second would cause the shooter
to move at less than 1/2 a foot per second.

Of course even this can be fixed by simply
attaching oneself to a spaceship (probably a
good idea anyway if involved in space
combat).

When I am in space I will probably invent
a gun that shoots lighter bullets because
it is much easier to kill people in space than
on Earth.

I think you should be consoled. A gun will
work much better than a sword in space.

0 Replies

Quote:

if you were free-floating in space, and you fired a gun, the bullet would remain in place, and you would fly backward.

In a just world, this would be the consequence each time omsig blasts away.

Other than that, how surprising to find myself in agreement with omsig and brandon. Spending at the level the US government does it isn't an either/or proposition. Both the space program and government programs designed to maximize equality and minimize suffering can be managed.

0 Replies

SUPPORT THE SPACE PROGRAM ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know