Next time you think sci-fi, think again

[theavonlady 2]

They surrender dont shoot    

http://www.arabnews.com/cartoon/2004/01/11.jpg

For some contrast:

Mar comics at Slate.com.

[denoir 0]

[theavonlady 2]

Ouch! Hitting them when they're down:

[SpecOp9 0]

With the Bible mentioning "Wine" all the time, I have come to the conclusion the "Son of God" was a drunk when he wrote it.

[theavonlady 2]

With the Bible mentioning "Wine" all the time, I have come to the conclusion the "Son of God" was a drunk when he wrote it.

Are you on the wrong thread or are you intoxicated?

[Acecombat 0]

With the Bible mentioning "Wine" all the time, I have come to the conclusion the "Son of God" was a drunk when he wrote it.

Are you on the wrong thread or are you intoxicated?

Probably both i would say ...

[denoir 0]

Bush unveils Moon plans

Quote[/b] ]

The US will send astronauts back to the Moon by 2020, US President George W Bush has announced.

Humans would live and work on the Moon to prepare for exploration further afield such as to Mars, he said.

The US space agency will get an extra $1bn over five years in the proposal, already denounced by critics as an over-expensive election year gimmick.

The US says the "affordable" programme, including plans to replace the space shuttle, will benefit all Americans.

President Bush's "new vision" for American space exploration calls on the United States to:

[*]Send astronauts back to the Moon as early as 2015, no later than 2020

[*]Use human and robotic exploration of Moon to prepare for living base and missions to Mars

[*]Return the space shuttle to flight, but retire it by 2010

[*]Develop shuttle replacement by 2008 for manned exploration by 2014

[*]Finish US work on the International Space Station by 2010

White House officials say the president's announcement will reinvigorate the US space programme following setbacks, including the Columbia shuttle disaster.

BBC News Online's science editor Dr David Whitehouse says for the first time in decades US astronauts will actually be going somewhere.

.....

Aw, what a disappointment. 2020? What a lousy deal. 2020 would have been ok if it was to Mars, but 2020 to repeat something that was achieved in the 60's and 70's

This sucks. I hope that EU, the Chinese or Russians will have more balls than that.

[toadlife 3]

Aw, what a disappointment. 2020? What a lousy deal. 2020 would have been ok if it was to Mars, but 2020 to repeat something that was achieved in the 60's and 70's

This sucks. I hope that EU, the Chinese or Russians will have more balls than that.

I agree, it's lame. Kennedy brought us from barely being able to launch satelites to walking on the Moon in less than 10 years. Why should it take us 20 years just to get back to the moon?

Election year ploy sounds about right.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]I agree, it's lame. Kennedy brought us from barely being able to launch satelites to walking on the Moon in less than 10 years. Why should it take us 20 years just to get back to the moon?

Because it has to filter through the bureaucracy.

[ralphwiggum 6]

lack of funding, NASA needs to get its head straightened out, and political gesture.

[Balschoiw 0]

I guess this is already part of Bushies election campaign.

He has not much to show as a good result of his presidency so he warps to space.

It is indeed questionable if this goal can be achieved either as the shuttles are pinned to the ground and NASA is already very outdated with technique and material.

A boost in finance will enable them to keep up their work but you don´t know where the president starts to cut when the US continue to tumble on financial markets. Look who cut a lot of NASA money when he got president.

Ohhh, surprise, it was Bushie

Moon...what a goal for a president...in 1950 maybe.

[Apollo 0]

Promisses ,promisses ,many have been made of those in the past ,surprinzingly most of the times when aproaching ellections......

20 Years?You got to freaking kidding me ,he has at most 4 more years to go as pres (and hopefully NOT ,and ill light a candle in Santiago de compostella for that) ,now way his plan will survive trough 3 following cabinet's ,and Bush knows that to ,or he really has a peanut for a brain.

[red oct 2]

yea this kinda of a let down having to go to the moon again just to set up lunar base instead of just going to mars, but in his speech he did have a reasonable point on it being real expensive and taking a lota fuel to launch heavy shuttles and cargo out into space. if we plan on having multiple trips to mars, it may just be cheaper in the long run to launch the shuttles from the moon because of its low gravity we'll spend less on fuel and energy on launch and get out into space much quicker than we could hear on earth. sure theres going to be risks in space exploration but we don't wana get too careless. having a moon base will give us better insight on what we can can't do when traveling deep in space and i don't think tax payers will be too pleased w/ their government having spent somewhere close to a trillion dollars of tax money only to hear there was an incident and all the crew somehow died before they even managed to get half-way to mars.

[denoir 0]

Aw, what a disappointment. 2020? What a lousy deal. 2020 would have been ok if it was to Mars, but 2020 to repeat something that was achieved in the 60's and 70's  

This sucks. I hope that EU, the Chinese or Russians will have more balls than that.

I agree, it's lame. Kennedy brought us from barely being able to launch satelites to walking on the Moon in less than 10 years. Why should it take us 20 years just to get back to the moon?

Election year ploy sounds about right.

Indeed. Going to the moon was an tremendous achievement both in absolute scale and in relative. It was I would say one of the more important steps in the history of mand kind. On the relative level it was nothing short of amazing. When Kennedy announced the plan, America had only been in space for 15 minutes and was pathetically lagging behind the Soviet union. Eight years later, the first man stepped on the moon. And that is something Americans can and should be really proud of.

I think Bush's 'initiative' will be just a long of broken promises that followed after Kennedy:

Kennedy, 1961: To land a man on the moon by the end of the decatde [sUCCESS]

Reagan, 1984: Establish a permanent presence on the moon within 10 years [ABANDONED]

Bush Sr, 1989:  To put a man on Mars by 2010 [ABANDONED]

Clinton, 1996: To cut NASA's budget by 30% [sUCCESS]

Bush W, 2004: To establish a permanent presence on the moon by 2020: [?]

As a BBC reporter put it: This may not be a giant leap for man kind, but it will probably be a small step towards re-election.

[m21man 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a BBC reporter put it: This may not be a giant leap for man kind, but it will probably be a small step towards re-election.

[Acecombat 0]

Quote[/b] ]As a BBC reporter put it: This may not be a giant leap for man kind, but it will probably be a small step towards re-election.

 

ROFLMAO

Now that was a good one ...

[denoir 0]

I watched the full speech now. First of all, Bush is truly an terrible, terrible speaker.  

Anyhow, I'm a bit less critical to the content of the new initiative now. First, what should be accepted that this won't be an equivalent of the Apollo program. It won't be an all out priority - and that sucks. Beyond that, his suggestions, while not in any way revolutionary, are good as they set a long term direction for NASA. The steps he is suggesting are modest but significant.

1. Complete the ISS. (2010)

2. Build a new Space Shuttle. (2008)

3. Go to the moon (2014)

4. Build a base on the moon (2020)

5. Train on the moon and assemble spacecraft there (?)

6. Go to Mars (?)

The good part about it is not so much in some tremendous progress, but in giving NASA a clear direction.

Here is the full speech, video included too.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]I watched the full speech now. First of all, Bush is truly an terrible, terrible speaker.

Yeah I had the impression he was going for another war first

[Harnu 0]

Is it true he referred to himself as the govenor during his speech?

[ralphwiggum 6]

forgot to add. another addition to gov't deficit anyone?

Quote[/b] ]Is it true he referred to himself as the govenor during his speech?

the official speech does not have it, but maybe during speech?

[theavonlady 2]

He meant governor of the moon.

[Apollo 0]

Must be Governer of Half the moon ,the other half is still owned by the USSR.

Russia should really send a mission to the moon the replace that commie flag that is still waving over the dark side of the moon...

[theavonlady 2]

Roll over, Beethoven!

Quote[/b] ]NASA Commands Rover to Roll Onto Mars

56 minutes ago Add Science - AP to My Yahoo!

By ANDREW BRIDGES, AP Science Writer

PASADENA, Calif. - The Spirit rover successfully rolled onto Mars early Thursday, placing its six wheels on solid martian ground for the first time since the robot bounced down on the Red Planet nearly two weeks ago.

Engineers and scientists at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory cheered loudly after receiving confirmation at 5 a.m. EST that the maneuver was a success.

"Mars now is our sandbox, and we are ready to play and learn," said JPL director Charles Elachi.

Personally, I'll wager they won't find much anything to really get excited about.

If they don't I hope the US will reconsider their grand vision of a manned Mars mission within the next decade.

[Balschoiw 0]

The territorial question is a good one.

The UN in 1967 set up the "Outer Space Treaty" that forbids nations to own land on foreign planets. So no nation is allowed to claim land on moon or any else planet as their property.

It is not forbidden for privat persons though.

So in 1980 Dennis Hope from the USA went to a governmental office in San Francisco and had himself inscribed as the owner of the moon. No joke.

During the next 8 years noone else claimed that he was owner of the moon and so Dennis Hope got legal and official owner of the moon. He started selling this land in small units of 1000 square meters and big packets for redistributors.

I got a present from friends of mine wich is some land on the moon. 4047 square meters to be precise. I got the official certificate , owners contract and a topographical card of my area. This is not a joke.

So my question now is. What if NASA wants to build their space station exactly at my land ?

I smell big big money in the air

I´m legal owner, so they will have a hard time negotiating with me. I also think of raising customs for trespassing

If you don´t believe me visit this webpage or search for Lunar embassy.

German reseller of moon property

I´m gonna be rich, I´m gonna be rich.

[theavonlady 2]

I´m gonna be rich, I´m gonna be rich.

Rumor has it that Washington is wise to your hiding Saddam's WMD's on your moon property and their not gonna take this sitting down - no sirree bob!