|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
With NASA of Today How long Would it Take To Go To TheMoon?
Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the
past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert Can anyone seriously respond and explain why the USA spent billions of dollars going to the Moon in the first place? It certainly wasn't to bring back a bunch of rocks, nor was it to simply take a bunch of cool pictures. It certainly wasn't just political grandstanding as others have suggested either. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message
.rogers.com... G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert Can anyone seriously respond and explain why the USA spent billions of dollars going to the Moon in the first place? It certainly wasn't to bring back a bunch of rocks, nor was it to simply take a bunch of cool pictures. It certainly wasn't just political grandstanding as others have suggested either. The same reason the Soviets spent billions of roubles on a space program. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
anon wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message .rogers.com... G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert Can anyone seriously respond and explain why the USA spent billions of dollars going to the Moon in the first place? It certainly wasn't to bring back a bunch of rocks, nor was it to simply take a bunch of cool pictures. It certainly wasn't just political grandstanding as others have suggested either. The same reason the Soviets spent billions of roubles on a space program. Still no answer for NASA went to the Moon more than once I see. Even it was political grandstanding, why go more than once? What could be accomplished the second time around or the third or the fourth that wasn't accomplished in the first mission? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... anon wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message .rogers.com... G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert Can anyone seriously respond and explain why the USA spent billions of dollars going to the Moon in the first place? It certainly wasn't to bring back a bunch of rocks, nor was it to simply take a bunch of cool pictures. It certainly wasn't just political grandstanding as others have suggested either. The same reason the Soviets spent billions of roubles on a space program. Still no answer for NASA went to the Moon more than once I see. Even it was political grandstanding, why go more than once? What could be accomplished the second time around or the third or the fourth that wasn't accomplished in the first mission? Again, since you were not born at the time, I'll explain. Really, your teachers at grade school should have done a better job than they evidently did. That says something about the state of education in the US today. It was sold to the world as a scientific project. Going once to one place would have been politically stupid (the US showed time and again they could do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues. I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh? Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon. HTH |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Wally Anglesea wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message . cable.rogers.com... anon wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message ble.rogers.com... G=EMC^2 Glazier wrote: Yes I( realize it does not have the people with the brains of the past. Then it took us about 7 years. Still it is so much easier to copy(yes) With the low I Q of todays NASA could it be done in 20 years. I don't think so Bert Can anyone seriously respond and explain why the USA spent billions of dollars going to the Moon in the first place? It certainly wasn't to bring back a bunch of rocks, nor was it to simply take a bunch of cool pictures. It certainly wasn't just political grandstanding as others have suggested either. The same reason the Soviets spent billions of roubles on a space program. Still no answer for NASA went to the Moon more than once I see. Even it was political grandstanding, why go more than once? What could be accomplished the second time around or the third or the fourth that wasn't accomplished in the first mission? Again, since you were not born at the time, I'll explain. Really, your teachers at grade school should have done a better job than they evidently did. That says something about the state of education in the US today. You give nothing, NOTHING in the way of an answer that anyone reading on the internet could deduce. I am not surprised though, since you really have nothing remarkable to say about anything whatsoever. It was sold to the world as a scientific project. So then it really wasn't a scientific project according to you, other than a political project. Going once to one place would have been politically stupid Why? They 'beat the Russians' to the Moon, no need to prove it they could do it again. That IS stupid reasoning on your part. (the US showed time and again they could do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues. So here you prove that Science is not about understandin the universe for the 'benefit of all mankind' but rather an ego building exorcise for countries and politicians. That is exactly what Hoagland is saying about NASA. I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh? Hardly, you have no idea what my 'position' is on anything. Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon. HTH Corso says to people like you: "How would you know? Do you have the security clearance? Were you there? They can't prove anything, all they can do is criticise.' |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Mad Scientist" wrote in message news SNIP Again, since you were not born at the time, I'll explain. Really, your teachers at grade school should have done a better job than they evidently did. That says something about the state of education in the US today. You give nothing, NOTHING in the way of an answer that anyone reading on the internet could deduce. I am not surprised though, since you really have nothing remarkable to say about anything whatsoever. It was an accurate summation of you and your education. Sorry about that, you will just have to live with it. It was sold to the world as a scientific project. So then it really wasn't a scientific project according to you, other than a political project. No, primarily it was a political effort to demonstrate to the world that American science was better than Soviet. Lot's of countries get influenced by who is top dog. Going once to one place would have been politically stupid Why? They 'beat the Russians' to the Moon, no need to prove it they could do it again. That IS stupid reasoning on your part. Nope, stupid misunderstandikng by you. Something we have come to expect. (the US showed time and again they could do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues. So here you prove that Science is not about understandin the universe for the 'benefit of all mankind' but rather an ego building exorcise for countries and politicians. That is exactly what Hoagland is saying about NASA. No, nothing of the sort. Again, you show a simgular lack of logic. A WILLINGESS to remain stupid. I said nothing about Science being an ego building excersise. Hoaxland is a deliberate fraud. Tell him I said so. I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh? Hardly, you have no idea what my 'position' is on anything. Yes I do. Your position isn't to be educated. Your position is that you want to live in a fantasy land where whatever you beleive in is true, only true, and everyone else in the world is wrong. Your position is that astronomers cannot account for the relative brightness of the planet Venus, when it's been demonstrated that they can, and that you are an idiot. I could go on,. but anyone reading the tripe you post eventually realises you are full of crap. Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon. HTH Corso says to people like you: "How would you know? Do you have the security clearance? Were you there? They can't prove anything, all they can do is criticise.' Corso was laughable. His book is the worst form of crap. Have you read it? (I have, cover to cover).If you actually have, then if you can think critically, then you would realise if he was alive today he'd be laughed at, as he so richly deserves. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mad Scientist wrote in
Wally Anglesea wrote: It was sold to the world as a scientific project. So then it really wasn't a scientific project according to you, other than a political project. Who do you think provided the funding for this "scientific" project? Going once to one place would have been politically stupid Why? They 'beat the Russians' to the Moon, no need to prove it they could do it again. That IS stupid reasoning on your part. Sorry, we are not obligated to answer the question to your satisfaction. It is not our job to make you happy with the answers. (the US showed time and again they could do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues. So here you prove that Science is not about understandin the universe for the 'benefit of all mankind' but rather an ego building exorcise for countries and politicians. That is exactly what Hoagland is saying about NASA. And what surprises you that politics are involved? Politics are almost _always_ involved when the government is providing the funding. I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh? Hardly, you have no idea what my 'position' is on anything. Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon. HTH Corso says to people like you: "How would you know? Do you have the security clearance? Were you there? They can't prove anything, all they can do is criticise.' Hasn't school started yet? As I have pointed out to you NUMEROUS times, it is the person who makes the claim who must prove the claim. It is not the defendant who must prove the claim to be false. Therefore until evidence is provided to the contrary "no evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, etc." must be assumed to be correct. Sorry if you don't like it, that's the way it works. -- "I argue very well. Ask any of my remaining friends. I can win an argument on any topic, against any opponent. People know this, and steer clear of me at parties. Often, as a sign of their great respect, they don't even invite me." -Dave Barry |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Wally Anglesea wrote: "Mad Scientist" wrote in message news SNIP Again, since you were not born at the time, I'll explain. Really, your teachers at grade school should have done a better job than they evidently did. That says something about the state of education in the US today. You give nothing, NOTHING in the way of an answer that anyone reading on the internet could deduce. I am not surprised though, since you really have nothing remarkable to say about anything whatsoever. It was an accurate summation of you and your education. Sorry about that, you will just have to live with it. Wally demonstrates again why he is sociopathic. It was sold to the world as a scientific project. So then it really wasn't a scientific project according to you, other than a political project. No, primarily it was a political effort to demonstrate to the world that American science was better than Soviet. Lot's of countries get influenced by who is top dog. Ahh so you agree with Hoagland then, how ironic. Going once to one place would have been politically stupid Why? They 'beat the Russians' to the Moon, no need to prove it they could do it again. That IS stupid reasoning on your part. Nope, stupid misunderstandikng by you. Something we have come to expect. The only 'we' is in your head sociopath. (the US showed time and again they could do it as often as they felt it was neccessary, plus, the incremental cost of the following missions was not as huge as the cost of setting up to get there once, and what, you are going to say to your astronauts that only 2 of you will ever land on the Moon?), and the scientists, geologists, etc wanted more. It was worth it. There was a whole lot of what comes after, but poilitically, once the US had demonstrated that their Science was the best in the world, the US decided it wanted to spend more on domestic issues. So here you prove that Science is not about understandin the universe for the 'benefit of all mankind' but rather an ego building exorcise for countries and politicians. That is exactly what Hoagland is saying about NASA. No, nothing of the sort. Again, you show a simgular lack of logic. A WILLINGESS to remain stupid. I said nothing about Science being an ego building excersise. Yes you did. Sure you didn't use those specific words, but you said the Moon missions were all about 'beating the Russians'. Nuff said. Hoaxland is a deliberate fraud. Tell him I said so. Tell him yourself sociopath. I suppose, under your postion, once Columbus had reached the Carribean, that should have ben the last of it, huh? Hardly, you have no idea what my 'position' is on anything. Yes I do. Whatever you say sociopath. Your position isn't to be educated. Your position is that you want to live in a fantasy land where whatever you beleive in is true, only true, and everyone else in the world is wrong. Whatever you say sociopath, don't they have meds which calm people like you down? Forgot to take them I see. Your position is that astronomers cannot account for the relative brightness of the planet Venus, when it's been demonstrated that they can, and that you are an idiot. No my position is the solar system is going through electromagnetic changes which affect all the planets, not just Venus. I could go on,. but anyone reading the tripe you post eventually realises you are full of crap. So be it, but anyone reading your responses can plainly see how sociopathic you are. Incidentally, NO evidence of aliens, artificial structures, sphinxes, pyramids, machines, excavators, etc were found on the Moon. HTH Corso says to people like you: "How would you know? Do you have the security clearance? Were you there? They can't prove anything, all they can do is criticise.' Corso was laughable. Typical response of sociopaths, laugh at everyone. His book is the worst form of crap. Have you read it? (I have, cover to cover). Why bother reading crap? Now really is that not typical of insane people? Read what they think is garbage so they can insult it, and recommend to everyone to do the exact opposite of what they do. If you actually have, then if you can think critically, then you would realise if he was alive today he'd be laughed at, as he so richly deserves. Hypocrite. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"G=EMC^2 Glazier" wrote in message ... I think if the launch were made today it would take about the same amount of time. We have the same technology as far as propulsion goes. Oh, they might shave some hours, but there wouldn't be much difference. chuck |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 5th 04 01:36 AM |
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes | Michael Ravnitzky | Space Station | 5 | January 16th 04 04:28 PM |
NASA Releases Near-Earth Object Search Report | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | September 10th 03 04:39 PM |
Risks | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 38 | July 26th 03 01:57 AM |
NYT: NASA Management Failings Are Linked to Shuttle Demise | Recom | Space Shuttle | 11 | July 14th 03 05:45 PM |