Obama/McCain and space exploration

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

NASA's a waste of money??? and sending troops to Iraq isn't?

How do you know there isn't resources that can be used on Mars?

This is a thread about NASA, don't make it into something else.
There would have to be a resource worth the cost of obtaining it, which would be over $10,000 per POUND.

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

This is a thread about NASA, don't make it into something else.

Thanks for saying this. It's not like we have to either continue the war in Iraq or work on taking people to Mars. Theoretically, we could do one, neither, or both, so the war is really not relevant.

[JonoBN41]

This is not a thread about what WE think about space exploration (or Iraq), it's about what the CANDIDATES think about space exploration. Once the readers know that, they can - in part - base their opinions of the election on the candidates' viewpoints.

So far, no one has explained McCain's view of space exploration.

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

This is not a thread about what WE think about space exploration (or Iraq), it's about what the CANDIDATES think about space exploration. Once the readers know that, they can - in part - base their opinions of the election on the candidates' viewpoints.

So far, no one has explained McCain's view of space exploration.

5 seconds in google does wonders...
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...e/4260504.html

According to you I suppose the thread is over now?

[JonoBN41]

"Popular Mechanics"? I'm not even clicking on that link.

Doesn't McCain have something on his official website on NASA or anything pertaining to the space program?

[PhiGam]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

"Popular Mechanics"? I'm not even clicking on that link.

Doesn't McCain have something on his official website on NASA or anything pertaining to the space program?

Whats wrong with popular mechanics? The only people I've ever met that had a problem with that publication are the "truthers" because popular mechanics systematically destroyed every statement in "loose change."

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by PhiGam

This is a thread about NASA, don't make it into something else.

Uhmm, been on greekchat long? How many threads on this message board start off as the "thread title" and end up something else?

Originally Posted by LightBulb

the war is really not relevant.

The war in Iraq is a waste of money. Scientific research and in this case space exploration is not. I would even like to see money spent on ocean exploration. There is so much life in the deep that we don't even know about.

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

This is not a thread about what WE think about space exploration (or Iraq), it's about what the CANDIDATES think about space exploration. Once the readers know that, they can - in part - base their opinions of the election on the candidates' viewpoints.

So far, no one has explained McCain's view of space exploration.

Exactly

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

A few reasons why atually.

1. We are decades away from setting up a permanent base there to even see if we can survive there for long periods.

2. We may be at least a century away from even being able to refine and ferry anything we find there and bring back

3. With the way we are wasting money here on EARTH tearing shyte up we won't ever be able to do one or 2....not at least in my lifetime.

Daemon, I agree partly, but if we cut NASA spending, I don't think we would know in even 100 years. I think we have the technology now, just with more spending and research we can make it a reality sooner than we think. I know all the stuff I posted earlier may very well be wrong, but no one on GC really knows. I mean, we could be on the brink of an amazing discovery. There are planets like our own all around us. Think about it. If you had a telescope like the one I have, and if you went to some of the places I go to look at the stars you would see what I'm talking about. I go where there are no city lights and it's beautiful. You can see everything. You can actually see a few thousand of the billions of stars in our galaxy alone.

20 bucks if the Cold War was still going on as we speak, I'll bet we would either have been on Mars or on our way there within the next few years. I also think that if there were images of some kind of life form there sent back to Earth we would find a way to get there now. People just think there isn't anything there based on the small amount of area that we've seen through cameras. I know Mars can be an ice ball at times, but terrestrial organisms have an extraordinary ability to adapt themselves to extreme conditions, including cold, acidic, and hot environments. Without more money being spent on research, how do we know if life can begin in such an environment? Life can adapt to extreme environments, but can it originate there? Like with extremophiles. They can live and adapt to an amazing range of environments. So that can make it possible for life to exist on other habitable worlds. I'm thinking that if extremophiles don't need mild climate conditions in order to evolve, then we can imagine a 1st glimpse of the variety of habitable planets among the stars, from frozen planets on the outer rim of their habitable zone, with bacteria living below the ice, to planets with high iron content in their atmospheres. So just because Mars isn't like Earth doesn't mean there isn't or hasn't been life there. We're just not pressed in spending the money to go because we haven't seen anything that gives us a reason to go, or so we think.

ETA: lol @ the "tearing shyt up" comment. lol

[LightBulb]

Originally Posted by cheerfulgreek

I know Mars can be an ice ball at times,

This just deserved quoting.

Here's a map of Mars, courtesy of Google Maps.