physorg.com— Europe's Rosetta spacecraft is en route to intercept a comet and to make history. In 2014, Rosetta will enter orbit around comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenkoand land a probe on it, two firsts.
Feb 3, 2012View in Crawl 4
lets hope that brutes willis and ben afleck can make it 2 in a row! im sure aerosmith is down to do another jam to. just saw that him on american idol the other day in fact.
NASA should be doing more of this type stuff. Instead we waste about $100 billion on the space station just to study people pooping in zero-g.
The nearest planet that *might* be habitable is 22 light years away and we don't have a clue how to get there. It's going to be a few centuries before pooping in zero-g is really relevant knowledge.
I agree, but they do want to get a moon settlement going by 2020. On discovery they had a few mock ups that made it look like a resort. People jumping off the high dive at 5 stories up etc.
Imo we need to figure out anti gravity + free energy, then shoot for a space station that can make it's own O2. After that, figure out how to become as fast as utterly possible, and then take a crew of a few thousand out to deep space.
"On discovery they had a few mock ups that made it look like a resort."
In other words, it'll be the space station times 100 --- a super expensive project done with public money for no really good reason other than to provide the ultra-rich with a new vacation spot.
The economy being what it is, do you really think the public will go for this?
"After that, figure out how to become as fast as utterly possible, and then take a crew of a few thousand out to deep space."
The thing that should be "intuitively obvious" by now is that chemical rockets are never going to take people very far or very fast. Spending more money on this is absolutely senseless.
What's needed is a physics breakthrough. And that will come from things like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) instead of NASA.
The ISS cost 10 times the LHC yet the LHC is much more likely to have a real lasting impact on human space travel.
jaketyson85Feb 4, 2012
lets hope that brutes willis and ben afleck can make it 2 in a row! im sure aerosmith is down to do another jam to. just saw that him on american idol the other day in fact.
jqp123Feb 3, 2012
NASA should be doing more of this type stuff. Instead we waste about $100 billion on the space station just to study people pooping in zero-g.
The nearest planet that *might* be habitable is 22 light years away and we don't have a clue how to get there. It's going to be a few centuries before pooping in zero-g is really relevant knowledge.
couragewulfFeb 4, 2012Submitter
I agree, but they do want to get a moon settlement going by 2020. On discovery they had a few mock ups that made it look like a resort. People jumping off the high dive at 5 stories up etc.
Imo we need to figure out anti gravity + free energy, then shoot for a space station that can make it's own O2. After that, figure out how to become as fast as utterly possible, and then take a crew of a few thousand out to deep space.
jqp123Feb 4, 2012
"On discovery they had a few mock ups that made it look like a resort."
In other words, it'll be the space station times 100 --- a super expensive project done with public money for no really good reason other than to provide the ultra-rich with a new vacation spot.
The economy being what it is, do you really think the public will go for this?
"After that, figure out how to become as fast as utterly possible, and then take a crew of a few thousand out to deep space."
The thing that should be "intuitively obvious" by now is that chemical rockets are never going to take people very far or very fast. Spending more money on this is absolutely senseless.
What's needed is a physics breakthrough. And that will come from things like the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) instead of NASA.
The ISS cost 10 times the LHC yet the LHC is much more likely to have a real lasting impact on human space travel.