Assault (CAN) 1 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I read somewhere that the moon is going away from us.<span id='postcolor'> Actually, it is. However it is moving VERY slowly. It has moved about 1 foot away since Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon in 1969. Our days are also getting longer. We know that the moon causes tides, right? Well, the ocean water on the Earth bulges about 1 metre on both sides of the Earth at any one time, this is due to the gravitational affects from the Moon and Sun. This "bulging" water acts like a giant set of brake pads on the planet. To compinsate for the slowing rotation of the Earth, the moon moves away as the Earth turns slower. This is what keeps the moons rotation in perfect sycronization with that of Earth. Thats why we never see the opposite side of the moon. It is a perfect balance. Cool stuff. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted February 1, 2002 You don't want to know what I REALLY think about the U.N. The U.N. is innefective, all of the money in the world could not straighten it out. Politicians and Buerocrats get in the way. (I am mainly talking about the peacekeeping aspect here.) Try telling the 100,000+ dead in the former Yugosalvia or the 900,000+ dead in Rwanda that the U.N. is the least bit effective. Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brgnorway 0 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Assault (CAN) @ Feb. 01 2002,06:44)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">You don't want to know what I REALLY think about the U.N. The U.N. is innefective, all of the money in the world could not straighten it out. Politicians and Buerocrats get in the way. (I am mainly talking about the peacekeeping aspect here.) Try telling the 100,000+ dead in the former Yugosalvia or the 900,000+ dead in Rwanda that the U.N. is the least bit effective. Tyler<span id='postcolor'> I largely agree, but then again UN is allready there as a vehicle for future benefit - if only it could be rationalized a bit - a lot actually! Info about the reason for the moon moving away was interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Wobble @ Jan. 31 2002,10:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">and all great empires have those who envy and hate them.. no matter how fair or unfair they are.. the US could do every single thing on earth correct.. and just because it is THE superpower thee would still be little people like you who look for any excuse to call it"evil" "greedy" you forgot to mention the whole funding 1/4 of a 16 nation establishment donating more troops to it than any 2 other combined and giving billions of dollers worth the aid.. PS.. Â dont look now.. but an Evil empire air/spacecraft has snuck its evil self into yer avatar..<span id='postcolor'> I probably should have stressed this a little more: I have no problem with U.S. doing whatever they do around the world with theit big armies and bullying politics. I understand that anybody with so much power will use it only to further their own agenda. This is how the world works and this is how I personally would probably also act. Evil and greedy is okay with me. What I despise, however, is the fact that U.S. tries to justify its actions with some benevolence crap. So I keep pointing out shit U.S. does so that somebody from the land of the proud and free would just say: "Fuck you, we MOSTLY do this shit because we PROFIT from it and not because we are so goody-good." Hence I have no problems with having a high-tech spacecraft U.S. scrapped because of a moronic president as my avatar. X-33, rest in peace. And about aid to foreign countries. I'm pretty sure that if you calculate foreign aid given per capita, U.S. is not nearly the biggest giver. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hilandor 1 Posted February 1, 2002 not sure but u can bet the first building on the moon will be a damn McDonalds fly thru and a few family choice corner shops =-]]] Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shabadu 0 Posted February 1, 2002 Didn't some estate agent sell most of the land on the moon over the net? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Rogue2020 @ Jan. 31 2002,03:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think it would be more of a science type place....not many civilians there...... We are not talking tara forming (spelled wrong)....it's not star trek "you can see lake Armstrong from earth"<span id='postcolor'> I'll agree with Rogue on this one... It will be mainly scientific, most likely controlled by the military at least for the first decade or so. It most certainly won't be monarchy, or capitalistic (you have to have supply/demand and consumers to have that). I highly doubt any civilians not associated with the military or scientific research will even be allowed up there for some time....hmmm...maybe the new Area 51 (no pesky people snoopin' around). I would also guess that it will be mainly (at first) be Russian and American colonies. Then maybe Chinese (who have already stated they plan to send someone to the moon in a few years). Europeans will come in eventually. Just my opinion Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MrLaggy 0 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Feb. 01 2002,08:38)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hence I have no problems with having a high-tech spacecraft U.S. scrapped because of a moronic president as my avatar. X-33, rest in peace. Â <span id='postcolor'> That and the fact that the X-33 was becoming a corporate welfare program with little prospect of success, so cancelling it was a good move. If you think that stealing taxpayers money to fund corporations to develop spacecraft is a good idea then you should be more upset that they picked the Lockheed X-33 design over funding further development of the DC-X, which would almost certainly have produced a workable spacecraft rather than a multi-billion-dollar doorstop. NASA, of course, is probably very happy because a cheap, reliable, simple to maintain spacecraft would put KSC out of business, with an associated multi-billion-dollar reduction in their annual pork supply. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nizzemancer 0 Posted February 1, 2002 Like, your asking what kind of republic it should be, I answered monarchy, but if it's supposed to be a republic it can't be that, (I may be wrong) a republic's got a president and a monarchy has a king or queen (monarch). You can't have both a president and a monarch...so to be correct you should have written "what kind of goverment should it be?" Anyway...I think it would be cool to terra-form the moon, only it should be a place without viechles or anything, like a paradise that people could visit (and no I ain't one of those people who think we should go back to the stoneage to save the world etc.) like an enormous park with animals (ok maybe separation of the peacefull vs Dangerous animals would be to prefer) I think that would be cool, of course we would have to invent some cheaper way of getting there, I hardly think some ordinary person could pay enough to get a ride... just my 2 cents Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted February 1, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Nizzemancer @ Feb. 01 2002,23:43)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Like, your asking what kind of republic it should be, I answered monarchy, but if it's supposed to be a republic it can't be that, (I may be wrong) a republic's got a president and a monarchy has a king or queen (monarch). You can't have both a president and a monarch...so to be correct you should have written "what kind of goverment should it be?" Anyway...I think it would be cool to terra-form the moon, only it should be a place without viechles or anything, like a paradise that people could visit (and no I ain't one of those people who think we should go back to the stoneage to save the world etc.) like an enormous park with animals (ok maybe separation of the peacefull vs Dangerous animals would be to prefer) I think that would be cool, of course we would have to invent some cheaper way of getting there, I hardly think some ordinary person could pay enough to get a ride... just my 2 cents<span id='postcolor'> Sounds like a bunch of tree huggin' hippie crap to me.... Just kidding Flame shield on! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Thehamster 0 Posted February 1, 2002 The moon will be controled by the Illuminati. You can't stop what you don't know. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmy 0 Posted February 2, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Shabadu @ Feb. 01 2002,11:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Didn't some estate agent sell most of the land on the moon over the net?<span id='postcolor'> yes, i saw somthing about space travel in the future and it said that it would be the biggest real estate market in the next 50-100 years. and that some celeberties have already bought property there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Assault (CAN) 1 Posted February 2, 2002 I don't think that the moon can be terra-formed becuase it's gravity is too weak (1/6th that of Earth's) to hold any oxygen near the surface. </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"> and that some celeberties have already bought property there.<span id='postcolor'> Wow, they sure know how to waste their money! Tyler Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
