What is Digg?Sponsored by Rockstar Games
Grand Theft Auto: Episodes from Liberty City view!
rockstargames.com - Out Now on Disc for Xbox 360. Includes The Lost and Damned plus the all-new The Ballad of Gay Tony.
148 Comments
- JimMayJr, on 08/06/2009, -9/+34Building colonies on the moon, mars, etc. are stepping stones to deep colonization of space. At some point us humans either aren't going to have enough room on earth or earth is going to be practically destroyed by natural or human causes. Although this point will probably be thousands of years in the future, where else are we going to live?
- FishyJoe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+26Have any of you taken a look at how the government spends money? There are far, far, far more wasteful things that the government spends money on here on earth than NASA will ever spend. If you count all the tax breaks that sports teams get that other businesses do not, it would easily eclipse the entire NASA budget many times over.
- oriondr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16I know I would be a lot more excited if they weren't talking about all these great space missions that wont happen for another two decades. What am I supposed to do? hold my breath until 2030? Just ***** go to the moon already and stop talking about it. I'll be cheering all the way.
- krisper, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15The most depressing feature of this article is at the end, where the loser 19 year old says that the moon landings were faked because he saw it on YouTube. Morons like that are what the draft used to be for.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+21I say we hollow out the moon and fill it with garbage.
- SteelChicken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12spend more money on clean energy and propulsion research.
- D3koy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11I want tot go to the moon someday...am I the only one?
Let me add, I am a teen - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11dude, get off the internet and go back to watching FOX NEWS before your brainwash juice wears off
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -19/+28What NASA needs to do is present any worthwhile reason to build a base on the Moon, because as far as I can tell there's NONE.
Except maybe military reasons, and I don't see that the NASA budget should cover that. - TheWriteGuy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Without delving into the politics behind it, I think there's a general apathy toward science in America these days.
Secondly, there's lots of cynicism and skeptism. A moonbase? What about the robot servants, orbiting hotel, hypersonic passenger jet planes, and flying cars that countless movies and other media speculated on/promised over the past half century that would happen by now? In other words, people probably feel that a moonbase is yet another fantastical, yet ultimately unfulfilled promise of the future that won't happen due to bureacratic and corporate BS.
Here we are in the 21st century, and the technologies that the common person sees which has benefited him/her the most are probably the personal computer, mobile phone, internet, and iPod. - richlizard24, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11I hate that kid in the article that say we didn't land on the moon. We landed on the moon and we are going back to the moon. He is completely disrespecting the millions of people that put their time and effort into making the moon landing possible. Somebody should beat that kid until he understands that.
- davebg8r, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11Wow, so many here have no idea about the space program and traveling in space.
Do you like your video games? Satellite tv? Microwaves and so many other products? Thank the space program. Thats how they came about.
As far the Mars base over the moon. Some of the comparisons here are just plain stupid. We cant even get a manned mission to Mars because we cant protect us from the radiation for that long. You need a Moon base so we can learn how to deal with living in space, away from out atmosphere. Lets think a little people. Moon, a few days trip. Mars, its a little bit farther. If theres a problem, we have some chance of getting to the moon to help. Mars? Forget it. Stepping stones are what they are for a reason. We are not anywhere near prepared to deal with a base on Mars, or even getting there at this point. It all starts with the Moon, just like the ISS is a stepping stone for a base on the Moon.
Additionally lets face it, we need to get of this rock. Whether through our own methods, planet changes, asteroid, whatever, as some point we will need to get off this planet. We dont know when that time will come so the sooner we are prepared the best chance our species has for survival. Not to mention all the unintended discoveries and advancements we receive because of the research that we do along the way. As an example. who knows what new ores and materials exist on other planets or in comets or asteroids that might be extremely useful to withstanding the pressure of our oceans to explore its depths. Imagine not needing to strip our planet of resources when we could 'clean up' our solar system mining asteroids for materials that we need and at the same time removing potential threats to our survival. - Adorism, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Maybe if space was a bit more accessible to someone other than 10-15 people per year.
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"What will you do when you go to the moon? Stare at earth and wish to be there? Because earth has so much more than just dirt?"
I bet you're real fun to travel with. Just for starters, I would:
*Ride a luner rover.
*Hit a golf ball in low-G.
*Listen to 'House of Pain - Jump Around' on my iPod while navigating lunar craters.
*Have 'moon sex'.
*Draw the FSM in the dirt, take a picture, and submit it to boingboing.
*Enjoy the fact that I'm ON THE ***** MOON!!! And you aren't. - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10to the boneheads to don't see the importance of NASA and how it affects our lives check out these pages
http://space.about.com/od/toolsequipment/ss/apollospinoffs.htm
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/news/releases/2000/00-067.html
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/technologies/spinoffs.html - richlizard24, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7You wouldn't have to ask me twice to go.
- captjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Go to the far side of the moon and listen to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon...
// See you on the dark side of the moon
// Let me add, I'm only 21 - unitedstatians, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I think that NASA will eventually return to the moon and build a Lunar fort colony, what I think that NASA needs to do first, build and send a new 'Lunar Surveyor mission' and then we can aggressively fight the mental poverty the entertainment medias have created. We’re preoccupied, with immense resources gathering, debunking conspiracy theories and celebrity worship. We either need another space race (e.g. Chinese, Indians, corporations, private citizens, etc..) or rapidly shift the national personality views on space. Junkyarddawg is right we don't have a overwhelming (political) reason to reland on the moon. We only seem to rally around NASA when there's a perceived cataclysm or threat to our intellectual pride.
- EatingPie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Wow, not a single comment on the most imperative reason of all!
Explore, discover, be challenged, beat the odds -- it's all about being human! Going to the moon is the single greatest adventure humanity ever undertook. What I wouldn't give to be part of that continued journey into space!
-Pie - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7neither are your thoughts
- neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Today's youth don't care about the moon, Mars or space because it's seen as irrelevance to them, it has no perceived bearing on their daily lives.
Also, astronomy as a whole is seen as geeky because it's an intellectual interest. Today we live in a culture that only reveres the physical: skiing, mountain climbing, sky diving, tennis, golf, bowling, hockey, football ... they're all physical pursuits. Even just watching sports is OK because it's related to a physical pursuit. But mental stuff? Nah, forget it; it is culturally unacceptable. - Phatt138, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8"Building colonies on the moon, mars, etc. are stepping stones to deep colonization of space."
If we were -building- a colony, I'd tend to agree with you. But we're making minimal use of new technologies and falling back heavily on things we learned 40 years ago in order to place what amounts to a corrugated metal shack on a barren rock...all so that we can make China look inferior. It's like the Space Station: there's a lot of promise, but once the thing's up and it's served its political purposes, we'll let it fester rather than commit to fleshing the idea out. A self-contained bubble of a shack versus the goal of self-sustaining, long-term colonization? To say that this is practice for the future is like saying that building a lean-to will help you later build a multi-story house.
"Chronic funding is better than sporadic funding."
It's still going to be sporadic. Not only will funding fall back to normal levels after the project is completed, it'll probably actually decline. Most Americans (for good reason) feel this to be a needless waste anyway - not to mention something that we could have done 20 or 30 years ago - so when the whole thing's over and people start asking what exactly the purpose is, NASA's prospects will look even less interesting than they do now. Part of the job (unfortunately) of an 'expendable' government-funded institution is to sell itself to the public, and that's just not happening here. "Ow wow. We dropped a trailer on the moon. God Bless America."
NASA has become a political tool, and - importantly - one that will always be losing steam once the big, politically-driven projects are complete.
If we were slapping a trailer onto the face of Mars - something we certainly could attempt with some degree of certainty - that'd be one thing. But we're just rehashing old dreams to make sure that China sits in its appropriate place in the history books. - baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9todays youth does not give a ***** about the moon because they are too busy updating the avatars on their myspace pages and getting fat.
- pile0nades, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6http://orbitersim.com/
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7from space.about.com:
Every day, in a variety of ways, American lives are touched by space technology. Since 1976, about 1,400 documented NASA inventions have benefited U.S. industry, improved the quality of life and created jobs for Americans. The Apollo program has helped change the way of life in America, especially in health care. Here are some of the inventions contributed by the Apollo program.
Kidney dialysis machines were developed as a result of a NASA developed chemical process that could remove toxic waste from used dialysis fluid.
As a medical CAT scanner searches the human body for tumors or other abnormalities, the industrial version, or advanced computed tomography inspection system, finds imperfections in aerospace structures and components, such as castings, rocket motors and nozzles.
A cardiovascular conditioner developed for astronauts in space led to the development of a physical therapy and athletic development machine used by football teams, sports clinics and medical rehabilitation centers. - afmajernik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6I am right there with you i would love to go to the moon. I am all for any NASA space exploration.
and let me add i am part of the twenty somethings. - afmajernik, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8hey now i dont want idiots like that joining me in the military
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6< applause >
Yes, from a scientific / space exploration standpoint, sending robotic probes is much better and more cost effective. For a given sum you get so much more science out of robotic probes that it's not funny.
Still, I'd like a "backup-population" of humans on another planet, just in case. From that point of view perhaps a moonbase isn't so bad an idea after all. - soulinthestars, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Actually, yes. Some of us do.
And I suppose I need to make a disclaimer in advance that any opinions expressed below are my own.
For me, and probably many of the others out there who believe in our mission, an article like that and many of the comments I see here are tough. It's easy to sit on the outside and tell us what we should be doing and why. It's easy to say the money we spend could be put to other things without realizing how little it is that we actually get. The days of NASA getting a blank check to do whatever it wants are long over, and in the end we're still bound (missions, funding, etc) by what congress dictates.
Why aren't we going to the moon right now instead of having to wait a decade or so to see it? Because it takes time and planning and work. Even if you have the vehicles built you still need the facilities, training, communications systems, and every other tiny piece that takes a project like this from conceptual to real. It's only sitting on the inside that I've come to see and appreciate just how much goes into what we do every day. It's incredible, really.
NASA.gov has a page dedicated to why we're going to the moon first (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/mmb/why_moon.html), but honestly guys, if the opinion of NASA is /that/ bad right now, how on earth could anybody justify going straight to Mars when many don't think we've proven ourselves enough as it is? If we're failing to inspire people, we've got a real problem. That, to me, is the biggest tragedy.
To those of you in support of us, thank you. The knowledge that you're out there really does make a difference, and I am always uplifted by it.
And just for the record, I have the privilege of working with many wonderful, intelligent and dedicated people who are excited about our mission, strive to change the world through our work, and believe in being good stewards of the taxpayer's money. It's not all the "bloated self-serving bureaucracy" you want to believe it is. Some of us actually do give a damn about more than ourselves. - adml_shake, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9We just need to find some Orion slave girls....
- triskaid, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Let's see what's in our own oceans before we abandon this planet. As far as I know, in the few billion years this planet has been around, nothing has ever exterminated all life in the ocean. The earth produces a lot of energy itself, down where the techtonic plates vent where there is pressure released. There are organisms that have no dependence on the Sun, or any bi-product of the Sun. If we are so worried about disaster, wouldn't it make sense to go into the two thirds of our planet that is primarily water, rather than looking for trickles of it on other planets that we have no evidence will actually sustain life?
The space program is where it is today because it is an extension of proectile technology. It's sophisticated artillery. The military will support NASA because NASA will support the military's progress.
The space porgram is where it is today because it's... to say it's easy isn't fair, but it's a whole lot easier than exploring our own planet. Lower pressure environments are much easier to work with than extremely high pressure environments, like deep in the ocean or within the core of the earth itself. But if we are looking for challenges that will bear fruit, let's get a little more creative exploring what our own planet has to offer before we abandon it.
I agree with Junkyarddawg. Astronomy is great; but manned space travel is just about the basest form of aggrandizing self-promotion NASA stoops to. Someday, we will travel through space. but if we can't overcome the comparatively minor challenges of building colonies in our oceans or burrowing into the core, inter solar system travel is a pretty big piece to bite off and chew. - Afreyt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Public excitement about space should be driving NASA, NASA should not be spending money driving public excitement about space. If the public isn't excited about space, doesn't see the need for it, it doesn't need a space agency.
Here is what the futile cycle looks like:
NASA Spends Money on Outreach -> Public Excitement about Space Demands NASA gets more money -> NASA Spends Money on Outreach
Quit spending money on outreach, do excitiing stuff that offers tangible benefits and the public will follow. I am not excited about creating a antarctic outpost on the moon that is simply a PR project, utterly reliant on the earth for monthly shipments of supplies, that doesn't do any real science, just like the boondoggle that is the ISS. It looks good, insures you get my tax money, but returns NOTHING to me. - captjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5@negativeye
I am sick and tired of this futile argument. Here is just a small list of spin-off technologies
http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html - dagonweb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I am pretty sure chinese kids aren't that apathic.
- dschrute, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I have a better idea....
Let's spend all of the money and resources it would have taken us to get to the moon and start a war in the Middle East instead. - Kenzan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Frankly, I think most American teens are not interested in going to the moon again because most (not all, but most) of them are can't tear themselves away from video games and porn long enough to develop the math skills and discipline which will be needed to undertake such a project.
- baxtermaddux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5then you are just naturally a moron. no washing needed. even more lollerific.
- jasonleeholm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Get the roomba guys to team up with a mmorpg company, and let young Americans explore the moon via remote controlled robots:
http://www.e-sheep.com/spiders/ - Pacotheparrot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9No, I'm all for NASA promoting it's image. The sooner we can get off world the better. At the rate we're going, our planet won't last even another 100 years. The time to colonize is now. Go go NASA!
- straxus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Show me one thing you use, created by NASA, and show me how ESSENTIAL that thing is for us, that we should have it Instead of feeding a kid in Kenya who will otherwise die tomorrow."
It doesn't have to feed starving kids to be worthwhile or have merit. - JimMayJr, on 08/06/2009, -2/+6I agree, mars is a better choice, although the technology we build for a base on the moon will be expanded upon for a base on mars.
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Someone tell me just WTF people born in the 80's and 90's care about at all. Except cellphones, fashion, and their egos.
A wise man once said "After Generation X came Generation Whine". - Junkyarddawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4That may be a bit inflated - as far as I know NASA estimates that the Moon base should cost 105 billion to build and operate. A Mars colony, on the other hand, is expected to cost $450B to set up and operate for the first 30 years.
However, for comparison one might still consider things like that the two Mars rovers combined cost $1 billion to build, send, and operate on Mars, the Hubble telescope has from inception to today cost perhaps $7 billion, and the Mars Science Laboratory is projected to cost $1.5B. Less ambitious missions, like Stardust and Deep Impact, cost $500M each or less.
In short, one can get an awful lot more exploring done with robotic missions for the same cost as the Moon base. Even with the ultimate goal of human expansion in space, the money is better spent developing new propulsion systems, exploring Titan and Europa, or detecting extrasolar Earthlike planets.
I know of no compelling *scientific* reason to send humans to the moon, and I have this sneaking suspicion that the only reason for going to the moon is because the administration moved $10B from other NASA projects and earmarked them for a moon base. - mediaphile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@negtiveye: "Show me one thing you use, created by NASA, and show me how ESSENTIAL that thing is for us, that we should have it Instead of feeding a kid in Kenya who will otherwise die tomorrow."
WATER PURIFICATION SYSTEM - NASA-developed municipal-size water treatment system for developing nations, called the Regenerable Biocide Delivery Unit, uses iodine rather than chlorine to kill bacteria.
SOLAR ENERGY - NASA-pioneered photovoltaic power system for spacecraft applications was applied to programs to expand terrestrial applications as a viable alternative energy source in areas where no conventional power source exists.
DIGITAL IMAGING BREAST BIOPSY SYSTEM - The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy system incorporates advanced Charge Coupled Devices (CCDs) as part of a digital camera system. The resulting device images breast tissue more clearly and efficiently. Known as stereotactic large-core needle biopsy, this nonsurgical system developed with Space Telescope Technology is less traumatic and greatly reduces the pain, scarring, radiation exposure, time, and money associated with surgical biopsies.
BREAST CANCER DETECTION - A solar cell sensor is positioned directly beneath x-ray film, and determines exactly when film has received sufficient radiation and has been exposed to optimum density. Associated electronic equipment then sends a signal to cut off the x-ray source. Reduction of mammography x-ray exposure reduces radiation hazard and doubles the number of patient exams per machine.
LASER ANGIOPLASTY - Laser angioplasty with a "cool" type of laser, caller an excimer laser, does not damage blood vessel walls and offers precise non-surgical cleanings of clogged arteries with extraordinary precision and fewer complications than in balloon angioplasty.
ULTRASOUND SKIN DAMAGE ASSESSMENT - Advanced instrument using NASA ultrasound technology enables immediate assessment of burn damage depth, improving patient treatment, and may save lives in serious burn cases.
PROGRAMMABLE PACEMAKER - Incorporating multiple NASA technologies, the system consists of the implant and a physician's computer console containing the programming and a data printer. Communicates through wireless telemetry signals.
MEDICAL GAS ANALYZER - Astronaut-monitoring technology used to develop system to monitor operating rooms for analysis of anesthetic gasses and measurement of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen concentrations to assure proper breathing environment for surgery patients.
Other spinoffs in this area include: Arteriosclerosis detection, ultrasound scanners, automatic insulin pump, portable x-ray device, invisible braces, dental arch wire, palate surgery technology, clean room apparel, implantable heart aid, MRI, bone analyzer, and cataract surgery tools.
RADIATION HAZARD DETECTOR - NASA technology has made commercially available new, inexpensive, conveniently carried device for protection of people exposed to potentially dangerous levels of microwave radiation. Weighing only 4 ounces and about the size of a cigarette pack, it can be carried in a shirt pocket or clipped to a belt. Unit sounds an audible alarm when microwave radiation reaches a preset level.
EMERGENCY RESCUE CUTTERS - Lightweight cutters for freeing accident victims from wreckage developed using NASA pyrotechnic technology.
FIREMAN'S AIR TANKS - Lighter-weight firefighter's air tanks have been developed. New back-pack system weighs only 20 lbs. for 30 minute air supply, 13 lbs. less than conventional firefighting tanks. They are pressurized at 4,500 psia (twice current tanks). A warning device tells the fireman when he or she is running out of air.
SELF-RIGHTING LIFE RAFT - Developed for the Apollo program, fully inflates in 12 seconds and protects lives during extremely adverse weather conditions with self-righting and gravity compensation features.
***** moron. - lousybeatnik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The moon isn't completely useless, it has helium-3.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000630.html - Adorism, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3and put that big boobed chick in an advertisement on myspace / facebook. but only after my chemical romance and jim jones make songs about it.
- JorgeGT, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Show me ONE PRACTICAL, EVERYDAY USE of feeding starving childs in Kenya.
But we do feed poor people anyway! Think about your own examples, brainwashed fool! - neave, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4But this is the very problem. People don't see how putting taxes into cutting-edge research pays off in other ways, it's too far removed to seem worthy.
NASA should, in my view, not just be a clever way to get cool new technology, but be a useful and inspirational pursuit in itself that people directly want. - captjc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Directly and indirectly, yes
Government workers, government contractors, Military involvement, those who supply the needs (parts, electricity, services) of those who are directly involved (ie, government and independent contractors). Don't forget about the tax payers who are working to foot the bill...
This was a large undertaking in a very interconnected and interdependent world. - neave, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3If people want to be inspired by NASA's achievements, they should read Anousheh Ansari's space blog, an American-Iranian who recently visited the ISS as a space tourist, showing the unification of nations in the pursuit of exploration:
http://spaceblog.xprize.org/ and http://www.flickr.com/photos/spaceexplorer/
This is real, this is what makes people care about NASA, not cheap gimmicky celebrity endorsements. -
Show 51 - 100 of 148 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is