/dev/null Posted December 7, 2012 Posted December 7, 2012 (edited) December 7th of course marks the anniversary of when Pearl Harbor was suddenly and deliberately attacked by naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan. But it also marks the anniversary of the last time man blasted off for the Moon: http://news.discover...ges-121206.html *Edit, why does this editor keep changing the freakin text size Edited December 7, 2012 by /dev/null
BillsWatch Posted December 10, 2012 Posted December 10, 2012 Complaints >> /dev/null I think the US lost something when they stopped going to the moon. I know the reason with space station and shuttles and all that but I think the US lost something in science development when they stopped going to the moon.
TheMadCap Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 (edited) Complaints >> /dev/null I think the US lost something when they stopped going to the moon. I know the reason with space station and shuttles and all that but I think the US lost something in science development when they stopped going to the moon. I have always, and will always, continue to agrue that the entire point of having manned space flight is to actually go somewhere. There is simply no reason to place humans in space unless we are going to another world. Zero. The space shuttle and its bastard child, the Space Station, were completely dependent on the existence of the other. While NASA had grand plans for post-Apollo Mars missions, congress was never going to give them the funds necessary. We beat the Russians, mission accomplished, time to move on. So they settled for what they could get, the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately, instead of having a clear idea of the shuttle's purpose and applications, they tried to market it as all things to all parties and ended up with the flawed machine it was... Edited December 11, 2012 by TheMadCap
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 I have always, and will always, continue to agrue that the entire point of having manned space flight is to actually go somewhere. There is simply no reason to place humans in space unless we are going to another world. Zero. The space shuttle and its bastard child, the Space Station, were completely dependent on the existence of the other. While NASA had grand plans for post-Apollo Mars missions, congress was never going to give them the funds necessary. We beat the Russians, mission accomplished, time to move on. So they settled for what they could get, the Space Shuttle. Unfortunately, instead of having a clear idea of the shuttle's purpose and applications, they tried to market it as all things to all parties and ended up with the flawed machine it was... Wonder how much it would actually cost to put boots on the Martian ground.
TheMadCap Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 Wonder how much it would actually cost to put boots on the Martian ground. Depends on who you ask and what plan they use. They can go essentially two ways: The giant Battlestar spacecraft that will take astronauts, food, water, fuel, lander, etc etc, there and back, or they can do the smaller launches over time and send the materials piecemeal to Mars. Check out Mars Direct for details on the latter option. It is, IMO, the best way to go...
Just Jack Posted December 11, 2012 Posted December 11, 2012 Wonder how much it would actually cost to put boots on the Martian ground. Do you want people in those boots? Cause if you just want the boots, I can do it for $19.95
Recommended Posts