What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
83 Comments
- chicken101, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Welcome to my moon base, Mr. Powers. It's comprised of team Alpha...and team Zappa.
- foxhoundadmin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14"in soviet russia, base moon you!"
- sourgrapes, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10Kennedy first initiated the Moon craze not a Republican.
All Bush did was make a speech and cut budgets for NASA in the same breath. - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Ohhhhh how full of ***** you are, let me count the ways:
1) CONGRESS, not the President, creates the budget. You should have paid more attention in Jr. High Civics.
2) NASA asked for, and recieved, it's full 16.2 BILLION dollar budget. http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_041122.html
3) The 2005 budget included a 6% INCREASE in funding.
I'm embarassed for your lack of knowledge, are you? Perhaps you should quit watching all the MSM and go learn something on your own. - antdude, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Since, not sense. :P
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Whoops, forgot one!
4) EISENHOWER, not Kennedy, created NASA and started the US Space program. http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch4-3.htm - leTus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Russians anounnced a moon base a couple of months ago, it was also posted on digg. Here is the link http://digg.com/technology/Russia_to_Build_Permanent_Moonbase
- dfunct, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6I hope they call it "Moon Base Alpha" ... =)
- helix400, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You know whats odd Buelldozer, your factual comment proving that NASA got budget increases was modded down. The one that complains that Bush reduced NASA's budget was modded up way up. I pitched in and helped bump you up.
- gearwrench, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5We need better propulsion technology. That's something you can't put a dollar amount on, even if you put every genius in the world on the problem, no one knows how long it will take. It's just not worth it, it's like flying a plane over the Atlantic Ocean to France. Not really useful unless hundreds can do it economically. If they say, build a manufacturing base on the moon, which is essentially colonization, then it would make sense. You will need hundreds of people living up there...not one or two dozen. The technology just isn't there yet. Yes they have portable nuclear reactors now, but imagine how much power you would need to send two or three, fully loaded tractor trailers to the moon and land safely? One for the reactor, and one for the habitat, digging materials and vehicles.The base is probably going to be underground or in a mountain. This is something that no one country can muster except maybe China in 2040 as it becomes the largest economy on the planet.
- TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Regardless of the changes to the total NASA budget, funding for the science department has been slashed significantly. The faster better more paradigm (or whatever it was) has been replaced with a pie in the sky manned program which accomplishes nothing unmanned landers couldn't do and much cheeper. This is a distraction.
Until we can set up a permanent settlement on Mars with a sustainable biosphere (something we can't even do on Earth, remember biosphere 2?) sending people to the moon or mars is just nationalistic masturbation. I'd like to see NASA return to its core mission, providing science and innovation in aeronautics and space. - ibrudiiv, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Last time I checked this isn't English class.
- dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I know Kennedy first started the whole tie between NASA and the moon. I was referring more to the official policy of putting man back on the moon, which was outlined by Bush. It really wasn't a dig at republicans, I promise. I just remember him outlining the plan, tying up all the money (which also doomed the Hubble) to get back to the moon and then Mars.
- Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't care who does it as long as it gets done!
- caporion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3chicken101, shouldn't that have been:
"Welcome to my moon base, Mr. Powers. It's comprised of Moon Unit Alpha...and Moon Unit Zappa." - lava, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4milo... stop watching fox news man. Wanna talk restricting innovation? What about stem cell research? Wanna talk nucular? How bout pronouncing it right for once?
- starmanjones, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3i think nasa does fine research. but implimentation of practical things like going and living on the moon and doing commercial research... preparing to deflect asteroids headed for earth... mining... maybe doing something with mirrors to keep the gulf stream moving north... maybe a mirror to make new york habitable... seems like there are plenty reasons it just needs trained volunteers that want to go live there. all that stuff is infrastructure based. it takes time to move in and operate efficently. we should leave soon so we have experience enough to be useful when humanity needs us... or something like that.
- imtigger2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3deadlierchair... I agree. Most people are SO uninformed as to the benefit of NASA just doing the research and development of the tools and tech needed to accomplish such a program. We ALL use tools and products (computers, cell phones, thermos', bowling balls, tin foil, etc..) every day that NASA developed, and we all seem to take for granted.
Here's a link to some of the thousands of NASA-created technologies we enjoy today:
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html - wilsonics, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"the US is going to the Moon.....The Chinese are preparing to go to the moon....Europe too....." Here's an idea, why don't we set our petty differences aside for a while (or have the US get off of it's pedestal) and do this TOGETHER! Working together, three world powers can do it much faster working together than separately.
Fact is, the United States does not have any cash left. We're in a war that we should never have started (please do not flame me on this, I'm just making a point) and our country just can't handle everything on our own anymore....sure, we got up to the moon back in the day by ourselves, but those days are over...
The world should work together in colonizing the moon, as we have (sort of) done with the space station. I understand that things aren't all soft and creamy with our countries these days...or rather, everyone hates the US....because we can be pretty arrogant without even knowing it...(again, please don't flame me....but all you US flag wavers, wake up....it's a fact)
The moon could be a first step to peace with all people. - sbritner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2We'll never get to the moon or Mars until someone shows Big Business how to make money from it.
- Enisin, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Let's just hope the Mooninites don't have a problem with this.
- devilsanthem, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3"Which party is full of people that are crazy-stupid-anti-nuclear?
Which party is full of people that restrict the ability for industry to come up with innovative solutions?
Which party taxes and regulates the hell out of everyting so technology innovation goes to other countries?"
Are you f*cking kidding me? Living under a rock since you were born? I won't even bother rebutting your so called argument. Why don't you use Google and check if what you said is fact. It's because of people like you that this country has gone to dogs. People like you make it hard to believe in this country but I still do because I love it. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They should just lease Eric Fletcher's secret moonbase instead of building a new one.,
- tijer, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Today's republicans are more into disrupting and distorting science actually, mistaking it for religion and vice verca.
Wake up. Just a little. Please. - dWhisper, on 10/12/2007, -5/+7Wasn't the idea of a Moonbase first laid out in the Mars Direct plan, and then made "necessary" by Bush's drive to get America to Mars in a few years? It was one of his speeches a couple years back, to distract us from war and recession.
- purpleslog, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They should just do the Mars Direct plan instead (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Direct). The NASA plan is overly complex: too costly, and too long of a timeline.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US!
- Dradis, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6"Except for the 60s" So you mean, "Except for the golden age of space exploration", when men landed on the moon and funding was absolutely massive.
You're the kind of mindless right-winger who condemns the 'liberal media', and uses 'left wing' as an insult. The sooner you realize that Democrats and Republicans are just two sides of the same coin, the sooner you'll stop making inane statements like the one above. - cyclotron, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2See how ***** retarded you guys are. Did I say the Republicans are better? I didnt even mention them!
But if you look at the last 30 years, both Clinton and Carter admins cut the budget. You are just dumb Democrat fanboys with no real ***** knowledge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget - deadlierchair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Since the 60's, where is the proof that either party is making big pushes into space? Recent ideas of militarization into space are recieving attention but I don't think that's what we're thinking of when we say investment into space. It's been ~30 years since we made those big efforts. I'm not really sure why we're not making them again. Put money towards primary education, universities, financial aid, and we'll see smarter Americans innovating, and thus increasing industry and profits. It seems like a worthwhile goal for anyone in any party, so why did we just cut billions from education?
- Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2NASA asked for, and recieved, it's full 16.2 BILLION dollar budget. http://www.space.com/news/nasa_budget_041122.html
Also, The 2005 budget included a 6% INCREASE in funding. - Arramol, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Relax, it happens. No, it's not always fair, but that's life unfortunately. And if it's anybody's fault, it's technically the users', not Kevin's. Personally, I just write it off to circumstance. And for that matter, if you'll read the opening comments, you DID get credit, so you had it better than most people whose stories get duped.
- deadlierchair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.space.com/searchforlife/seti_culberson_060316.html
The story I was thinking of covered planned budgets for 2007, in which they will lose $3 billion. - lax01, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2bwahahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahhahha
- alf86, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Funding was massive because we were competing with the Russians and afraid of them getting ahead of us. NASA had a military budget, i.e. virtually unlimited.
- Dennis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't understand what the point of a moon base is. Why are we trying to occupy other planets? Clean up Earth, and everything will be fine again. Don't go trying to build civilizations elsewhere. It most likely won't happen.
- deadlierchair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think most Digg readers value science and the scientific progress further NASA research would bring. There have been a variety of political happenings affecting NASA's funding, including ones in the past few weeks explaining that many missions would have to be cut due to severe funding problems. If you feel like NASA is a worthwhile investment, then do something to show it! Not to place blame anywhere, but the current people in power clearly don't understand how much we value the space program. Change that!
- diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is going to be expensive lol
- FuManchu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@ wilsonics:
A couple good points!
I'd just like to clarify, however, that the US contribution to the ISS is NOT in the launch vehicle area. Currently, the US does not have the capability to put people into Earth orbit. They pay the Russians to launch astronauts up there and bring them back when they are due to rotate out.
The only serious $$$ Congress seems willing to spend on outer-space tech advances and hardware is in spy satellites and secret military projects that the Pentagon can't fund out of its regular budget.
That being said, I seriously doubt anybody is going to the moon within our lifetimes. The US is, by all accepted accounting standards that apply to any legal business entity, financially bankrupt with no reorganization or recovery plan. Other nations will dabble in manned orbital flight and robot interplanetary missions, but have too many pressing concerns to consider a manned moon mission.
Everybody likes to claim they're going to, though! - longman2g, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't see how, you have to launch the materials from the earth to begin with, so it would take more energy to overcome the earth's gravity and then the moon's as well. The only reason for a moon base that I can figure is once we get all of the parts up there, we could assemble a bigger rocket which would require less fuel because it is being launched from a place with lower gravity.
- devilsanthem, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7"Let's just hope the Mooninites don't have a problem with this."
Or Moonians.
"I am planning a base on the moon, too. But that doesnt mean its going to happen. Except for the 60s, democrats would rather spend money on social services and government paper pushers, not on supporting the science and enginneering industries that require college degrees."
..and Republicans do? - deadlierchair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Explore them both! I agree that we should explore the oceans more, we should be studying everything more! It's all relevant to our lives today and in the future. There is a lot we can learn from extreme environments like oceans, mountains, space, super-hot areas (deserts to earth-core area), why not invest in it all?
- shortcircuit13, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1To those who think that any mission to the Moon is folly, consider NASA's current PR debacle:
All the talk of funding cuts, ISS budget overruns, and most importantly Space Shuttle mishaps have put NASA in a bad light in the public sphere. Operationally, we cannot compare the White House's current lack of actual enthusiasm for NASA (as opposed to grandstanding rhetoric) to that of the Kennedy era. In the 1960's, the space race was motivated by one thing first and foremost: Russia. If we had not been in the midst of an arms race with The Big Communist Nation, NASA would have wallowed in stagnation.
If we had not been in a pissing contest with the Soviet Union, we would probably never have gone to the Moon.
In the present day, an "Apollo on steroids" mission is exactly what NASA needs for a desperately needed PR boost, and get the American public more enthused about space travel. While, on paper, a new manned lunar exploration program will need a good scientific reason, manned lunar missions using current technology will always be bids for PR (and thus better funding).
A Moon base is a pipe dream with current technology. Previous plans of using the ISS as a springboard for manned lunar and Martian exploration have all but evaporated in the face of the actual limitations of technology and political fiscal measures. Current propulsion, resource recycling, and low-gravity dustproof habitation is prohibitive impractical. A Moon mission with no boasts or foolhardy aspirations of permanence is exactly what NASA needs.
This new talk of lunar bases and Martian exploration may seem wild and exciting to some, but to many who actually follow space exploration to any degree, it reminds us of the past two decades of wide-eyed dreams and empty promises.
In terms of manned vs. robotic exploration, I see two distinct & different scenarios for lunar and Martian exploration:
Moon: robotic exploration is excellent, as radio communication (data transfer and instruction) is virtually instantaneous and uninterrupted by lunar rotation (the lunar period of revolution and period of rotation are equal, which means the same side of the Moon always faces Earth).
Thus, from a scientific point of view, manned exploration is unnecessary. For low-gravity and space-travel training/research and PR, manned missions are an excellent idea.
For Mars, light takes about 4 minutes to travel from Earth to Mars, one-way. Thus, good remote control of a rover is limited to jerky turn-based commands and feedback. For this reason, I believe that manned exploration of Mars would be much more worthwhile. In addition, while the past two decades have undermined the credibility of any bold push for a manned Mars mission, - tonejac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Space has such bad return on investment. We should be exploring the Oceans instead. There's so much there that we don't know about and probably "alien like" creatures we've never seen before.
- pcking1, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I can't think of a worse thing that could happen to space exploration (besides a private nuclear powered craft crashing and causing a fallout) than NASA getting back in the moon game. We need deregulation and private enterprise if we ever want to get off this planet before it melts. If it isn't profitable, it shouldn't happen.
- jdwyckoff, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oceanography is a very important field that doesn't get the funding it deserves but as a species we have to look forward and see that the earth is going to become a dead star in 2 billion years, and the sun is going to run out of hydrogen in 5 billion. So we have to have a plan when that happens so we are not stuck on a dead planet. Unfortunatly due to Bush we might be stuck on a dead planet sometime in the very near future.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Name a private industry that has those minds and that kind of budget... then ask yourself what they are currently doing to help.
- devilsanthem, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Suck it up moron.
1. I agreed to the topic being killed.
2. The duplicates didn't even pop up during the submission.
3. The other guy beat both of us to it.
4. It's about the news, not who gets most diggs.
So stop begging for diggs. - pshultz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Sending humans to Mars is a bad idea. The best argument against it, is that robots do such a better job. Consider the two Mars explorers there now. They where to run for only 3 months but have been operational for 2 years. No human mission to mars could be extended by even a week. Robots are much much better explorers then humans.
- Pentarix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It'll never fly.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is