Bush Sets America's Sights on the Moon, Mars

  • Thread starter TurboSmoke
  • 86 comments
  • 2,086 views
:lol: Keep spelling it that way and we're going to be fine :D

I get a similar sort of line - but the terms seem to be interchangeable. The first computer network - or web. Or net - was at Caltech (I think). But I'm led to believe that Berners-Lee's work on the Mosaic browser gave rise to the internet - or world wide web.

How terribly convoluted!

I've been drawn to another site of British firsts, so I'm going to update my list accordingly. Some of it's quite fascinating...

But again - I mention it for information rather than superiority (which is of course taken for granted :D)...
 
Originally posted by Viper Zero
Things America has contributed to the world (continued):

Stealth aircraft

0WneD.

ahh, you mean the ones that consistently got shot down by the enemy during the Kosovo war?...the one you can see with you own eyes not to mention basic radar equipment...?

i would also like to point out that 90% of the items supposedly listed to be american inventions were infact invented by immigrants, educated in europe and gained american citizenship later....

the telephone may have been invented by Bell, a Scotsman..? (please clarify)

electricity wasnt invented....like trees and planets, they are discovered, or more correctly applications that exploited the energy contained in electrical charge were discovered...not invented...the mere notion tyhat electricity was invented by someone is laughable...

i dont hate everything american viper my friend as i have previously pointed out...just Bush and your government whom i despise..

:)

man, i didnt beleive my threrad would provoke such feelings however misguided...its about hidden agendas and political spin....somehow its been taken all the wrong way....

danoff, you dont know if the staion on mars can be done in 25 years or not...you can insist that you do know but you dont, none of us do, i was basing my prediction for the next 25 years on the last 25 years of development which has produced nothing at a rate which suggests the next 25 years will produce a quantum leap in technology, research and economics...

no offence is intended by my cynisism..
 
ahh, you mean the ones that consistently got shot down by the enemy during the Kosovo war?...the one you can see with you own eyes not to mention basic radar equipment...?

Yes you can see them with you eyes in the day, but can you at night?

I don't believe any B-2 or F-117 were shot down. The B-1 and F/A-18 have lower radar cross sections but are not clasified as 'stealth'.
Just to clear this but stealth planes do have radar signatures, but only the size of small birds. And when an operator is looking at a radar screen that shows coverage of 50 miles in each direction, a small bird isn't easy to see.
 
The Harrier is british designed and powered by the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.
Nowadays it isn't the only VTOL plane, the JSF has also proven it can.
 
Originally posted by ExigeExcel
I don't believe any B-2 or F-117 were shot down.

At least one F117-A was shot down, to my knowledge, during the last NATO incursion into Yugoslavia to oust Milosevic.
 
a couple did fall. I remember having seen that on the news - the memory of my favourite airplanes having been shot down stuck with me I guess. It's because the f117 and such are most effective by avoiding radar installations in the first place. When flying through a radar zone, they must fly relatively straight without tilting in any direction in order to take advantage of the stealth capabilities.
 
ahh, you mean the ones that consistently got shot down by the enemy during the Kosovo war

There was one that I know of. That does not warrant the word consistently.

electricity wasnt invented....like trees and planets, they are discovered

...and the guy who discovered it was franklin.

just Bush and your government whom i despise

Don't make such a destinction between our government and our people. Our people pick our government and popular support is with our president. If you hate bush, you're hating American public opinion... so deal with us on the issue because we're the only ones who have the power to change it.

its about hidden agendas and political spin

Yawn. Everyone knows that at least some of this is political. Nobody is questioning that, we moved the discussion to a more interesting area where there is some disagreement.

you dont know if the staion on mars can be done in 25 years or not...you can insist that you do know but you dont, none of us do

Yes I do! With unlimited funding it can be done in a hell of a lot less time than that. You consistantly underestimate what the American space program is capable of. I would recommend that you go to www.jpl.nasa.gov and read up. You don't just have to read about MER-A, you can read about Stardust or Cassini or any other other missions currently up or that will be up soon. You're such a doubter or technology and human inginuity. No wonder you're a socialist. The next statment proves your doubt

, i was basing my prediction for the next 25 years on the last 25 years of development which has produced nothing at a rate which suggests the next 25 years will produce a quantum leap in technology, research and economics...

What the hell? The last 25 years has seen the invention and rise of the digital age. Exactly the quantum leap that you were looking for. Where have you been?


Don't bother responding to any of these points either. Just make a different misguided closed minded attack based on whatever you want to claim is true and then ignore the responses to that too. It's a good way to grow as an individual.
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
ahh, you mean the ones that consistently got shot down by the enemy during the Kosovo war?...the one you can see with you own eyes not to mention basic radar equipment...?

i would also like to point out that 90% of the items supposedly listed to be american inventions were infact invented by immigrants, educated in europe and gained american citizenship later....
You often make up "statistics" that overstate your case to such an absurd degree that it totally invalidates everything else you're saying. I'm sure that doesn't concern you, since you're not interested in basing your thoughts on anything approaching reality. I just thought, in the public interest, that I would point it out to you. The way you, in the public interest, like to point out every little American failing that you think totally invalidates America.
90% of the items supposedly listed to be american inventions were infact invented by immigrants, educated in europe and gained american citizenship later.

the telephone may have been invented by Bell, a Scotsman..? (please clarify)
I'd tell you to go do your research, but you're not intersted in anything approaching openmindedness (or effort, for that matter).

Approximately 80% of the inventions I listed were from people who were born in America. The rest were from people who received the bulk of their education in America. Yes, Bell was born a Scot. His adult life was lived in America, and the telephone was invented while he was working here. Ever heard of Bell Labs? An American company he founded.

That aside, allow me to drive at least two large trucks through the holes in your thinking:

1) Until the last decades of the 19th century or so, most American people were born in Europe and educated in Europe. Not surprising, since America had only existed for about 100 years. We had no Oxfords or Sorbonnes here, with their precious thousand year histories. Also, immigration played a huge role in the growth of America, since our native population couldn't begin to reproduce quickly enough.

2) If your supposed 90% of these inventors' home countries were such wonderful paradises of scientific development, why did they go to America in the first place? Better resources, better opportunities.
electricity wasnt invented....like trees and planets, they are discovered, or more correctly applications that exploited the energy contained in electrical charge were discovered...not invented...the mere notion tyhat electricity was invented by someone is laughable...
Are you really that stupid? Or do you just pretend to be when it suits your purposes? Electrical appliances, the use and generation of electricity, was American. Yes, there were tons of Europeans working on harnessing it as well. But only after Franklin discovered it as a force.

You know, being on the staff here prohibits me from describing the true extent of my opinion of you. So I'll just say this:

You are quite possibly the most pig-ignorant, illogical, narrow-minded, pompous and bigotted ass I have ever encountered. I refuse to spend another milliwatt of mental energy on you.

Enjoy your life of smug, self-satisfied and self-inflicted ignorance.
 
Originally posted by ExigeExcel
The Harrier is british designed and powered by the Rolls-Royce Pegasus engine.
Nowadays it isn't the only VTOL plane, the JSF has also proven it can.
The Hawker-Siddely Harrier is the first widely successful VSTOL fixed-wing aircraft, and having seen them in flight up close and personally, they are amazing machines. But it is far from the first. Americans invented the concept during and after WWII. If you're interested, I can find you pictures of working protoypes that flew many years before the Harrier.

The same goes for the Concorde: Americans were the first to beak the sound barrier. In fact we had supersonic fighters and bombers well before the Concorde was even conceived. America was developing a supersonic airliner as well, but they quickly realized it would never be economically viable and abandoned the project after flying a protoype. In fact the Concorde never did reach profitablitly, ever, and required substantial subsidies to stay in operation.
 
If you could find something on VTOL I'd be grateful...

The first supersonic passenger plane ever to take the skies was Concordski - the Tupolev Tu-144. It crashed. But Concorde wasn't the first.
 
I can't validate this, but supposedly a relative of mine was a helicopter stunt pilot, and did unsanctioned barrel roll stunts while in that branch.
 
I LLLLLOOOOOOVVVVVEEEEEE BBBBUUUUSSSHHH, in every sense of the word.


Wow, I am certainly glad, SOME of the right people got to bush. This is VERY good news.
 
Here is the problem with Bush's funding. When he entered office, he substantially cut NASA's funding. Therefore, even with these increases, the level of funding is still below the level it was at under Clinton.
 
Here is the problem with Bush's funding. When he entered office, he substantially cut NASA's funding. Therefore, even with these increases, the level of funding is still below the level it was at under Clinton.

Click on budget summary for each year to see the total budget for NASA since 1999. If you look at each year's summary you will see that your statement is incorrect.

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/formedia/features/MP_Budget_Previous.html
 
Hmm, I guess it dropped less than had been projected several years ago, when the news was full of buzz about budget cuts.

Still, money was allocated away from development of a new spacecraft (shuttle replacement) in the early days of the administration, money that is now only beginning to be recouped. And, as the Coloumbia showed, a new craft is certainly needed.
 
Originally posted by danoff

The NASA budget “increase” in an effective decrease because of inflation and will actually reduce as a percentage of the government’s budget. So the American tax payer will actually get a break.

So there will be no more increase in investment by the tax payer to fund this project?....more phychic abilities?

Originally posted by danoff

The 8 trillion dollar cost, which is 5.5 trillion dollars over NASA’s proposed budget over the next 25 years is meaningless because until NASA looks deeply at what it will cost and runs a few missions, not even they know. Besides, that figure is less than 3 times the current NASA budget which is only 84 billion. Did you know that our government pisses away over 30 billion dollars on government housing projects alone?

Its no less meaningless than yours because as NASA says. "no official figures have been released for this project"...some scientist at least put forward a prediction. Your quoting a budget that does not take into account this venture and is there for irrelevant when comparing the two.

Originally posted by danoff

Natural resources are there to be plundered.

Plundered perhaps but if they can be replaced after plundering that would be better. They cant so renewable energies would be a better chioce every time if available.


Originally posted by danoff

No land on any celestial body or Antarctica can be claimed by any country.

I didnt disagree with you on this..i asked for proof...there's a difference.

Originally posted by danoff

Bush’s plan to build a base on the moon would enable new exploration (which we cannot currently accomplish) that would benefit all humanity.

I dont believe we argued whether this would benefit humanity...if i did say that woudlnt "benefit all humanity" please show me. This has arguement been invented.

Originally posted by danoff

You have shown no figures indicating that a Mars base cannot happen by 2030. That’s over 25 years! How the hell do you know what we can do in a quarter century? I don’t have to prove that it will happen, you have to prove that it can’t in order to back up your statement (which is currently defeated).

You apparently KNOW that this will happen since you have stated this categorically, you dont have a 90% certainty....you just know it...no one knows the future danoff and i challenge anyone in here to give me a convincing agruement that any one knows 100% what will happen in 25 years. Not a forecast and a prediction. yes, you have defeated my with you amazing esoteric and psychic abilities.

Originally posted by danoff

Investing in space technology is focusing on renewable energies.


Its not the sole or even main ojective other wise you will be contradicting your own arguement.

Originally posted by danoff

Turbo I would call this a logical defeat. You have conceded every one of these points and yet will not change your opinions on the matter. I would call that a closed mind.

Yes, hmmm...but you are very quick to call a defeat while someone is in bed sleeping which is when this was posted. But i am still looking for an explanation as to how you know the future.
 
Originally posted by danoff
You're such a doubter or technology and human inginuity.

i have studied Science, Technology and Engineering the whole of my adult life to a fairly advanced level. I am employed as an electronics engineer and i run a technology based business on the side. Dare i say unless you hold two or more engineering degrees that i maybe in a better position than you to hold a more valid opinion on the subject of technology and engineering.

another example of presumption being your stumbling block.
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
Dare i say unless you hold two or more engineering degrees that i maybe in a better position than you to hold a more valid opinion on the subject of technology and engineering.

another example of presumption being your stumbling block.
danoff works in the aerospace industry. Directly. In one of the big name labs. And not as a janitor, either. I think it's safe to say he knows what he's talking about on this subject.
 
Originally posted by neon_duke
danoff works in the aerospace industry. Directly. In one of the big name labs. And not as a janitor, either. I think it's safe to say he knows what he's talking about on this subject.

well in that case, great!...a fellow engineer...more power to him...i worked for a very short while as an aviation technician, just for a matter of weeks though,

when i left school my first job was a ships electrical engineer then i went to uni...now i am a design engineer dealing in electronic systems...
 
now i am a design engineer dealing in electronic systems

Cool. Glad to hear you're in a technical area. I think that the people on this board (because of their interest in cars) are more likely to be engineers.

Duke is right, I work in the space industry and I have two engineering degrees.
 
Originally posted by TurboSmoke
i have studied Science, Technology and Engineering the whole of my adult life to a fairly advanced level. I am employed as an electronics engineer and i run a technology based business on the side. Dare i say unless you hold two or more engineering degrees that i maybe in a better position than you to hold a more valid opinion on the subject of technology and engineering.

another example of presumption being your stumbling block.
LOL glad to see the DEBATE still rolling on and Turbosmoke being just as closed minded as ever. Keep the faith, man! Never give in.

Turbosmoke = Pwned by danoff though he's too stubborn to admit it and danoff is too good a sport to rub it in.
 
Originally posted by Captain Coffee
Turbosmoke being just as closed minded as ever.

Captain Coffee..please explain this phenomenon.

Bush, your beloved Bush is respected in America right?…No? well why do so many of your people bi*ch about the guy, they hold protests and rallies against him….even on these very forums Americans hate the guy…

As soon as a foreigner joins in calling him a no-brainer you all suddenly stand up and defend him?
There are threads on this forum that with an American slating the guy then when we join in they end up staunchly defending him and his war stance…

Whats the deal there?

and dont give me some pish about patriotism...thats a joke.
 
As soon as a foreigner joins in calling him a no-brainer you all suddenly stand up and defend him?

I've defended him against plenty of Americans on this board. I don't treat foreigners any differently. Lots of people diagree with Bush's policies. The problem is that they tend to disagree with his good policies and agree with the bad ones.

...anyway I've defended some of his policies to all kinds of people.
 
Dan,

this is your area of expertise...i just heard a thing on the radio...the guy said he didnt know if it was real or just rumour....

what do you think...?

the portholes on the space shuttle actaully have no practical applications in space...they are only there because the test-pilots on earth demanded it because they felt undignified sitting in a metal tube without windows....

sounds like BS....but its one of these things that just might be true...
 
Well in the Apollo 13 movie Tom Hanks used them to see that he was losing oxygen :)

I think the shuttle portholes are mostly used by the astronauts taking pictures of Earth. They could be used to see if something is floating away. Some of the portholes look back into the shuttle cargo bay and are used for visual confirmation of the movements of the robot arm. The robot arm has cameras on the end, though, so those aren't really necessary either.

I guess it just makes a lot of sense for the astronauts to be able to see out just in case something weird happens. They're not relied on for any operations that I know of.
 
it could also be a morale boost. Its probably better than sitting there surrounded by instruments and the same few people days on end.
 
Back