Ice on the moon a "game-changer"
 

"Sensors have detected 24 gallons of water from the 60-foot crater created by the LCROSS experiment."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB2000...196040232.html

I knew it! Sweet. I swear I'm going to live in a moon dome some day.

so now we have an excuse to spend billions of dollars to destroy and exploit the natural resources of another heavenly body

What are they going to do to my body? :eek:

Oh, you meant the moon.

Well, it's just sittin' there doin' nuthin'... ;)

And get off my moon!

We might as well, after all, there's nothing that needs doing here on Earth. :rolleyes:

I thought water would flash off, in a vacuum?

There's plenty to do here, that's for sure, which is why I would like to live in a dome on the moon. Preferably, without many other humans. The idea appeals to my imagination and adventurous spirit.

:moonsmilenotthebuttmoon:

It's quicker if we both just head to Antarctica. Get to packing!! :D

True. Meet you at the bus station.

Wait, it was only 24 gallons? I hadn't heard that; I thought it was way more. Shit, we could carry 24 milkjugs' worth up in a rocket and pour it out on the ground if that's all we needed. How is that a game-changer?

The article explains it, Clod. Pushing up weight from earth is expensive. The fact that anything useful is there at all is a good thing.

It's only useful in that it indicates there might be more. Even with all the useful things we can do with water on the moon, 24 gallons alone ain't gonna cut it.

It's only useful if we're there. The question remains, what the fuck are we doing there? Whatever it is, it's got to be uber expensive/difficult/dangerous, so what's the payback, other than satisfying someone's curiosity?

And couldn't that money/effort be better used right here on Earth?:eyebrow:

I think the idea is that if there is that much water in that much area, there will be X amount (lots more) to be used for future missions.

Apparently it is frozen at a very cold temperature, which keeps it solid and stable.


That's the idea, but they had to look in the shjadows of a crater near the moon's south pole.... not exactly a typical part of the moon (but it does suggest that there is at least water about.


Regretfully, I have to agree. Going to and living on the moon would be waaay cool, but the resources required could rehabilitate a much larger area of damaged farmland, restore a few rainforests, rejuvenate some run down urban areas, and have enough left over to have a kick-ass moon-theme party afterwards.

At some point in time, the neighbor of your ancestors said the same thing to one of your ancestors before they left for the New World.

We're still benefiting from the 60s space program - better electronics, materials etc. We don't know just how much we'd learn from going to the moon -- that's one of the reasons to go.

The space program is a tiny fraction of the US budget. And it pays off in many ways. I think it's worth it even if the only payoff is the satisfaction of having done it.

I agree dar! You said it better than I could have. I was thinking along those lines, about pioneers, but couldn't put it into words.

Strawman. :p
tw already exploded that myth. And Tang was around before the space program.
Satisfaction? We've already done it, I'm already satisfied.
We've seen enough, and without sending people there, can find out more than we need to know about the moon. The only reason to go back is to exploit it, mine it. But there's nothing there we can't get here... cheaper. There's no environment there, we can't duplicate here... cheaper.
This is nothing but a giant, expensive, dangerous, ego stroking, for a few space geeks.
Don't think so? How many people watched the last half dozen Gemini shots on TV?

Yea, I think I remember reading about a similar conversation between Columbus and Queen Isabelle.

Well, I can tell you who won't be invited to my dome-warming party. ;)

The word you're looking for is 'analogy'.

I must have missed that bit of tw-ism. Yes, both Tang and transistors were around before the space program took off. It was the pressure of the space program that refined them.

So your next vacation you'll be sending a legobot? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?

I'm not saying the unmanned exploration is useless. But I certainly don't see it as a permanent substitute for on-site exploration.

I think mankind needs a frontier. It would be sad if we gave up on space exploration.

Maybe you should work in aerospace before assuming something. What kind of electronics go into space craft? Only stuff that has existed long ago. In satellites, only electronics that would no longer appear in any desktop or laptop is used. The old stuff.

What microprocessor is controls the Martian Rovers? 8086. Technology of the original IBM PC. Used in space are electronics that were long first refined in earth applications.

What did the shuttle use for its five major computers? Core memory. Iron rings. Semiconductors were introduced much later in the latter 1980s - only after semiconductor memories had been better understood by multiple decades of use on earth. Semiconductor memory was pioneered by Intel in the 1960s.

Space program did not advance other technologies by using them. The space program is a consumer of the most reliable and long proven technologies. A useful space program does science. And so we canceled eight earth study satellites for pennies while spending hundred dollar bills to do no science in the ISS. Where is the science? Almost all NASA science is done in the less than 10% budget that does not fly humans.

This point was made previously, repeatedly, and long ago. This is where space science is conducted: The best science now does not deploy humans. Humans do not even go the ground based telescopes. Best science is done by machines and robots. Which is what happened when we spent so much money putting man in space resulting in no research. The amount of science performed by $80+ billion on ISS could be written on the back of a postage stamp. ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned in 2014. Big bucks. Near zero science - because we deployed men - not machines.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/14...ine/index.html

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

Just a couple of the many sites documenting the payoff from the space program.

People who can visit me in my moon dome:

Spexx
dar
regular.joe

people who cannot visit me in my moon dome:

tw
bruce
zen

No, strawman.
So your next vacation you'll be sending some guy you don't know, have only seen on TV, and demands the Presidential suite at the Hilton? Think it'll be just as good as going yourself?:p

There are much more beneficial frontiers, right here on Earth.We whom would not be sad, out number you by an order of magnitude. Space geeks represent a tiny fraction of the world.

I'm hardly a geek, and I think it's fascinating and worthwhile. Like I said before, it appeals to my imagination, and sense of adventure, and that spirit to discover new things that has advanced the human race in ways never dreamed of in the beginning.

That's just because they haven't let you in on the secret yet--they're paying for it with mammogram money.

:lol2:

Oh no you di'int!

Sadly, I will not be going into space personally. I'm too old and we waited too long. But I'd like to hope that my children's children could go if they had a mind to.

I don't have any objections to pursuing those as well.

Really? When did you do the survey?

If this does turn out to be true, then that just makes me sad as well. It means we really have turned into a nation of bean-counters.

:(

And the myths live on. A few innovation that already existed. Reality. It used the same component sold by Hamamatsu in the 1980s (and maybe earlier). How do I know? I designed a device using the same technology to detect a human body by remotely and passively detecting emissions (temperature) from warmer human skin. Same technology used in proximity switches that detect the human body, turn on lights, and detect motion in burglar alarm systems - in the early 1980s. What better promotes new products and innvoation (using your reasoning)? Crime.

In a Hitachi factory in the mid 1980s (during a fire alarm), we were playing with a device that measured infrared emissions and reported temperature. We (Americans and Japanese - some of whom could not speak English) were playing with it; measuring each other's body temperature from across the room.

Of course, in a million discoveries, we could find one or two had some basis in the space program - or would have happened anyway. Meanwhile, how many hundred discoveries were stifled because we were spending $billions on space programs that did no science? More rediculous are these electronics advances - that you are no longer preaching now that someone who actually did the stuff provided reality. Did you forget how many hundred new ideas could have happened if billions were actually being spent on science?

$8 billion for a Super Collider to actually do science in TX. Instead we killed science to spend $80billion keeping three men in space. Notice the longer list of innovations not existing because so many productive people were wasting $80billion doing no science. After $80billion, we could have a thermometer in 1991 that was doing what we were already doing in semiconductor fabs in the 1980s? You call that an innovation by simply ignoring that it already existed?

What is doing the best (productive) science? What creates far more innovations? The less than 10% of the space program that launches no humans. How many Hubbles could have been launched for the price of one year’s worth of shuttle launches? Many. Too many. The Martian Rovers alone do more science than any mission to the ISS over the last ten years – using only 8086 processors, standard solar cells, orbiting communication satellites, and electric motors - and no humans.

What was Columbia doing when it disintegrated? Columbia remained in service because it was the only space shuttle that could do any science - had no other mission. So we gave science the shittiest space shuttle. Did they forget to mentino that since propaganda rather than science is the purpose?

The best science means no humans, lots of machines, remote sensors, and robots. Same applies to undersea as well as outer space. So many innovations that do not exist because we wasted so much money putting man in space.

Who are the leaders in space launches? French. Russians. Why? Because the biggest spenders wasted so much good money and labor on something that provides so little science and innovation: manned space flight. So mismanaged is space research for a political agenda that we will soon be completely dependent on the Russians (and maybe the French) for access to the ISS. A reality when propaganda rather than reality and science pervert the exploration of space.

"Man to Mars" is a code word for one of the dumbest administrations in American history. An adminstration with so much contempt for science and innovation as to even have science papers rewritten by White House lawyers. Where is the best (almost all) science ongoing? Unmanned probes, sensors, and robots. Things that are productive and not hyped by myths. Things also subverted by that administration that only saw *glory* in "Man to Mars".

How to create so many new products and innovations? Using their reasoning: increase crime. Then lie about the infrared thermometer. Those who actually know better are not their target audience.

Public Service Announcement: The term "game changer" is on my list of over-used phrases which need to be forcibly eradicated. As is "sea change."

Although this thread is going the "let's see who's for or against the space program" route, I'd like to stick to the original title. First off, they didn't discover that there was only 24 gallons of water on the Moon, they discovered that approximately 24 gallons of water was contained in the ejecta of the two LCROSS impacts. These were relatively small cratering events, so the amount of ejecta was relatively little. Since there wasn't a hell of a lot of stuff thrown up in the grand scheme of things, the fact that there was 24 gallons of water in it means that not only is there water in that crater, bound up with the lunar material, but there's relatively a lot of it.

Water on the moon means a couple of things. First, it means a source of water for possible human exploration. Second, it means a source of hydrogen for propulsion. The Moon can be a filling station for further exploration of space.

I'm a fan of the space program because of all the fascinating discoveries that have come out of it. The primary purpose of manned exploration is adventure, sure, but it is also true that a lot more science can be done by people than machines. Machines have to have a pretty narrow focus, able to do only a few tasks, and largely unable to respond to problems that arise. However, manned spaceflight is vastly more expensive, because people are fragile.

Oh, so the 24 gallons was only the splash? That makes more sense. I was imagining this bathtub's worth of a puddle in the bottom of a crater.

Right, and the "splash" wasn't a splash in the normal sense of the word. It was a splash of lunar material, a cloud of regolith and rock, and part of that material is water. It is certain that there is no liquid water (no atmosphere = no atmospheric pressure = water sublimates and goes bye bye), and probably not even any ice on the macro scale, for the same reason. The water is bound up somehow, and preserved in that bound state by dint of the fact that this particular part of the moon is perpetually cold because no sunlight hits it.

In the Human Vs Machine debate, if the purpose is science, machines are better value. A human would only use fancy instruments anyway, so they might as well control the instruments from back on earth or via software.
A machine can stay so much longer. Consider the two Martian Rovers, Spirit and Opportunity. Despite their 90-martian-day design plan, they have been running for 2,092 and 2,071 days respectively. All this for well under a billion dollars. Love those little tigers.

Sorta;
Hey, did you see the space shot?
Naw, I was watching Sponge Bob... There was a space shot?... Why, they all look the same?
Plus the TV ratings showed a precipitous drop.

No, it isn't the money, it's not good theater, unless you do an Apollo 13. You can't explore the moon, in a real time two hour show, minus 40 minutes of commercials.

They are only thinking about this to beat the Chinese there.

Hydrogen is not a fuel. That water means that with massive and extensive extraction equipment and with energy obtained from elsewhere, then some water may be extracted. Therefore an astronaut can have drinking water when he arrives to service machines that are doing science.

Limited water is only in deepest craters (that have no sun). Does not constitute sufficient water for anything major. And does not provide fuel - energy. It simply means frozen water can exist even on low gravity bodies that have no atmosphere. A major discovery along with living creatures that live in boiling sulfuric water. Facts necessary to learn more of god's laws.

Productive science means less men and more machines. Productive space science means NASA's budget should increase to as much as 50% devoted to science without launching humans. Science devoted to science; not to glory. Today we no longer send humans to deepest reaches of the ocean - because it is about science; not glory.

Why are the Martian Rovers so successful? Why is Hubble probably the most successful science tool in over 20 years? Because they are robots. Humans are back on earth. Who are the leaders in robot technology? Japanese. Why? Japanese are doing science for science - not for glory. Just another example of American job losses because too many would rather have glory than science.

Man in space means $80billion wasted on something that did near zero science. No way around that reality. $80billion of innovations that were stifled; that do not exist.

Again, water is not a fuel - does not provide energy. And requires massive energy to extract just enough for drinking water. Machines do not need drinking water. Are more productive in that same environment.

95% agree ... but you could use energy from sunlight, collected by photovoltaic cells, to separate the hydrogen from the oxygen, thus turning the lunar water into usable fuel, or oxygen for breathing. But, as you say, massively inefficient and pretty pointless.

Meanwhile, New scientist has a discussion on human space flight here.

but then

Moon's got nothing but time.

I have to admit that I was pretty impressed by how Hubble serviced itself all those times.

From that article: Technical details. Probably the most difficult part of Man to Mars (or living on the moon) is genetically destructive radiation. We have no theoretically reasonable solution. Only solution was to surround a spacecraft with six feet of water - at something like $1000 or $10,000 per oz (forgot the exact number).

To solve this problem will require solutions probably located in quantum physics. But America has killed numerous research projects because $80billion was burned to keep men unproductively in space. That $8billion Super Collider that would now be doing years of quantum physics research. But was quashed to pay for an $80billion ISS. Damning numbers.

Numerous other problems are best solved first on earth. Most solutions to space are first developed on earth. Only then might men be sent to Mars or the Moon to service machines. IOW science must be defined by scientists - not by a political agenda or 'glory'.

Kennedy was so much different than George Jr. Kennedy did due diligence when deciding we could put a man on the moon. He question those who actually knew how things work. The project even came in under budget. George Jr did what he always does. Looked into someone's eyes to see his spirit. Then know we could put a man on Mars. IOW he decided using a political agenda. Unfortunately our space program is now dominated by a political agendas. People who think like George Jr.

America has already lost the satellite launching business to other nations that made decisions productively based upon numbers and science - France and Russia. Leadership lost only because 'glory' was more important than the science.

That New Scientist article demonstrates the problem. But I fear it is too restrained. America's space program is so mismanaged by politics that only Russian and French rockets will get to the ISS. A problem created by classic American political agendas - not by science and numbers.

That New Scientist article describes what has been obvious long before Columbia disintegrated - because management could not be bothered to listen to scientists and engineers.

It did that repeatedly for years until eventually man went to service a 1970s technology. 30 years later and we still had nothing better? Well, $80billion was wasted to keep men unproductively in space.

Sky could have had complete coverage with multiple later generation Hubbles easily serviced by robots if $80billion was not wasted on something that does no science. Then we had to spend even more to send humans to fix an old technology Hubble. No replacement existed. Technologies that could have done the work better still do not exist. Instead we spent $80billion dollars for a political agenda - science and innovation be damned.

Ah. So Hubble is both a brilliant example of robotic science, and a dismal failure at the same time. Got it.

TW - From your posts, I can tell that your head is (very firmly) shoved right up your arse. Please, remove it.

$80 Billion? For a new frontier? For exploration? For science? Seems great.

Compare that to one year of America's swelling military budget. Compare it to federal bail-outs.

Still a big number? No.

The benefits of finding water on the moon? Using it as a staging post for future missions to other planets. A high theoretical possibility, especially now that we have discovered water, regardless of the limited quantities.

Science is not all about facts and figures. It's about EXPLORATION. This is what defines us, as a species. Our intelligence, our ability to question, or desire to know more... You cannot truly know something, until you see it for yourself, until you touch it, feel it, smell it. Having a billion rovers on Mars, will still not tell us about it, not on a human level. GOING there, a manned mission, will change it, it'll change everything about it.

More money, the world over, should be spent on such endeavours... Exploration vs War... it's a no-brainer, really. The more we strive to reach the stars, to question, to understand, the less we'll feel the need to attack one another, over meaningless, stupid lines on a map, or points of view.

United through exploration. That's humanity. That's mankind.

Bean-counters like yourself, who deny the human impact, and requirement... are the people holding back true exploration... holding back the social advancement of our entire species, simply because you're so out of touch with the true essence of humanity. What a waste, what a shame.

When we look up at the stars, we seek understanding. When we run out of questions, we ask new ones. It's not about the cost, it's NEVER about the cost. It's about the questions, the understanding... The thrill of something new.

Are you even human? Do you even care?

Okay, you may now re-insert your head into your anal cavity. Enjoy your closed world.

--

EDIT: The above is all true, too, in regards to the ISS... We have men, and women, of multiple nations... living together... working together... in space. How can you deny the amazing impact that this has, on the whole world? Doesn't do much in terms of "science," by your definition? Big deal. It's astonishing, that it's there... They are living OUT OF THIS WORLD. That's the human spirit, in full force. That's exploration. That's pushing boundaries. That's exploring new frontiers. That's growth.

You know what else? It's science, too... They may not perform amazing experiments, all the time, nor produce entirely new ideas, nor test every possible theory... but they do experiment, test, and theorise... The money is not a factor that should ever be placed, on such an amazing achievement... on such a leap towards the stars.

And, again - It's nothing, in comparison to a warmongering nation's military budget, so... why fret over pennies?

Science is exploration. Only myths say someone must touch it. The best science, discovery, and exploration involves things that cannot or must not be touched. Welcome to science and exploration where touching something may even create less useful knowledge. Simply kill the knowledge or the human. Exploration is about knowledge - not touching something.

ISS means three people do nothing but maintenance. Massive innovation, science, exploration, discovery, and knowledge could have happened if listening to scientists who actually do this stuff. Instead you have reiterated a political agenda.

Turning screwdrivers in space. Trying to fix a defective toilet. That proves science was ongoing? That means exploration? It must. According to you, they were touching something. People from many countries were participating. Therefore science and exploration was happening. Aw shit.

Learn about the Martian Rovers where science, exploration, discovery, and knowledge is actually happening. Much of what made the Rovers so successful were equipment custom designed, built, operated, analyzed, or diagnosed in places such as Manhattan, Germany, Spain, and Australia. How can this be since they all were not in space - doing nothing productive? Science and international cooperation is found mostly in unmanned science. Many nations actively working to join large groups of international explorers who are doing science, exploration, and discovery using the only thing that does almost all of exploration - unmanned space vehicles. Only useful exploration of space is conducted by humans who never leave earth. Learn about what was required to actually do any advancement of mankind - ie Cassini - an international endeavor.

ISS is a science disaster. ISS is how to not search out anything. Does not even go when no man has gone before. More exploration and research was performed on one short Columbia mission than on ISS after a decade. Worse ISS is scheduled to be decommissioned in about four years. Mankind learned so much building a science station that does virtually nothing? That is good? List it. Not subjective 'human learning to be friendly to humans' nonsense. List $80billion worth of accomplishments. Nobody else can. Share what you know. Let’s see all these accomplishments - not previously posted press releases.

$80billion makes the obvious even simpler. No science. No exploration. Even a Super Collider to perform massive science, exploration, and discovery using people from all over the world was only $8billion. But we killed that and so much more to pay for ISS and 'glory'. Somehow 'glory' advances mankind? Somehow glory is called exploration?

Worse again, ISS is barely in space. Must be repeatedly boosted to higher orbit due to friction from earth's atmosphere. You call that exploration? Barely out of earth's atmosphere. Doing nothing but fixing and replacing parts for almost ten years and $80billion. No instruments to study stars. But that is exploration?

Add to a list of 'glory' accomplishments "Mission Accomplished". A purpose similar to ISS. Since you want to add irrelevant peripherals such as a military budgets, let's discuss another useless endeavor conducted only for 'glory' with no useful purpose. Initiated by the same people who destroyed so many ongoing space missions that did not have glory - just did science. Apparently you approve. After all, mankind learned so much by overthrowing Saddam - using your reasoning. Since we touched him, then mankind's knowledge was advanced. After all, 'glory' advances mankind - apparently.

How many stars did ISS astronauts study? None. All 'looking at the stars' is performed by robots atop mountains or by robots in space. ISS crew is too busy fixing and replacing broken parts that don't even look at stars. Somehow "human life support equipment" maintenance becomes science, exploration, discovery, and the advancement of mankind? I did not know Ed Norton and the Maytag repairman advanced mankind - also do exploration.

Fortunately, less than 10% of NASA's budget does virtually all the science and exploration - using unmanned solutions and international cooperation.

What creates war? Things done in the name of glory. What unites all in mankind's advancement? Science. The world is fully cooperating in things that actually do science such as the Large Hadron Collider in Cern. Massive money spent to achieve science means so many go elsewhere where science is actually ongoing and earning more respect. Fixing toilets and replacing gyroscopes in orbit does not advance mankind. But operating unmanned probes all over the solar system through international cooperation advances all. That means no money wasted on the ISS or 'Mission Accomplished' - which do no science and therefore do not advance mankind. Both exist only for 'glory'.

You know, in the unlikely event that our species isn't extincted by the time the Sun turns into a big bloated red thing and consumes all but the rocks of our fair Earth, I'd kinda like our species to be really, really comfortable with the relocation process.

TW - You really are an ignorant little thing, aren't you?

You didn't pay attention to a word I wrote... Which is terribly sad, and shows how closed-minded you are. Must be all the shit clogging your ears from having your head so firmly shoved up your arse, for so long.

It is NOT just about numbers. It is NOT just about pure science. It is about exploration, it is about doing something, reaching outwards... These are things that machines CANNOT do. They can explore, yes, but, not in the true sense of the word. That's like saying "I watched The Discovery Channel, and explored The Amazon Rainforest." You didn't explore it, you didn't interact with it, you didn't do anything other than sit on your arse, and see moving images of it, on a T.V screen. That is NOT exploration. What makes that so difficult for you to understand? Do you have a single human bone in your body? Are you that much of a bean-counting, fact-toting douche, that all desire for true, human exploration, human question, the quest for human knowledge, has been taken away from you?

Replacing man, with robot, will destroy mankind, in terms of exploration. We will create robots to do the menial jobs for us, so that we can spend more time doing exactly that - Explore, Discover, Question. Leave the ROBOTS to the bean-counting, to the number-crunching science. Leave the exploration, to the only creatures capable of doing so - THE HUMANS... because robots will never do it as we can. They'll crunch the numbers, they'll throw the facts... they won't live it, nor experience it.

You completely glossed over the fact that, in comparison to federal bail-outs, or America's swelling military budget, that $80 Billion is a few pennies... A few pennies, for something as extraordinary, as living in space, with multiple nations, performing experiments (no matter how "mundane," if that is what you believe,) and partaking in a new frontier. How can that be a bad thing? It's not, that's how. Pennies, sir... pennies.

How sad your life must be, if you will try to take from that accomplishment, from the greatness of that human achievement, just because your Government doesn't allocate enough funds from its warmongering, to allow for Earth-based science, as well as extra-terrestrial exploration.

Humans explore. Humans ask questions. Humans seek that personal connection with anything.

It is in our nature. Why try to take away from that?

Much more money has been spent on failed projects, on warmongering, on bailing out failing businesses, just to keep the fat-cats happy. Complain about THAT money being poorly used, because, no matter what you say, you CANNOT justify a few pennies being "misused" to further the boundaries of human exploration, understanding... human nature. If you feel so strongly about the lack of science being performed on the ISS, stop seeing it as merely a "tool of science," and see it for what it truly is - A station, in space, where people live, perform experiments, observe, and... explore. It is not a robot, it is not a tool, therefore, it is not comparable to the Mars Rovers, nor the Hubble Space Telescope, nor any machine that you desperately try to compare it to, simply to pursue your pathetic agenda.

The emboldened statement has nothing to do with this discussion, at all.

Stating an opinion of ignorance, is not childish. It's an opinion based on the ignorance of your posts.

We could panic - do no science by constantly launching man into space - and then never create a solution, learn how to travel in deep space, or learn something useful.

Best hope for your catastrophic scenario is to stop launching men uselessly in space so that science is actually conducted; so that solutions for 'a man in space' is possible. Why condone catastrophic based fears that only create short term thinking, panic, and no advancement of mankind? Advancement comes only from the hard core work that is based in science; not in glory.

Fact - virutally nothing was learned keeping three men in space for $80billion. Massive amount of science and advancement lost because so much money was wasted in glory. Only way man accomplish deep space travel - $80 billion better redirected to things that actually do science such as unmanned science vehicles and quantum physics. Spending $80billion so that people can keep fixing toilets and replacing gyroscopes did nothing useful; did not advance knowledge or mankind. But worse, that is so obvious.

But in this case it is appropriate. Until now they were only able to play golf up there. Now they can play hockey, too!

Your every post is starts with an insult. Being nasty is how you like it. So lets talk about the size of your penis - since that also has so much relevance to your brain size.

Thank god you do nothing that involves science. Numbers are irrelevant? Well, they were to George Jr. So how big does your penis get everytime you say science is not about discovery and exploration?

When I drop a tool, it sometimes lands on my foot. Nobody cares. If I slice a golf ball, that is normal. When a lady dropped her tools, it is monitored and tracked by people all over the world for years. Her tool bag is now listed alongside other orbiting satellites. Some mistakes are not forgotten. (Whatever happened to Bill Buckner?)

Numbers are not so important, in terms of human exploration, you dolt.

As I have repeatedly stated - It's not about "true science," nor "number-crunching," nor "bean-counting." An endeavour like the ISS is about pushing boundaries, exploration, co-operation, not just "hardcore science." A simple point that you seem unable to comprehend, hence my opinion of you as "ignorant."

You're unwilling to bend, unable to see beyond the tip of your nose.

You think the world is black and white. There are many facets to science, to discovery, and even to the number-crunching that you're ever so fond of... You need to realise this, or you'll forever remain, well... ignorant.

(PS: It may seem like a random question, but, where are you from? I only ask, because it seems apparent that English is not your first language. Perhaps that is why you're unable to grasp this concept? Because you are unable to understand the manner in which I string together a sentence? If so, I apologise. Language barriers are annoying.)

snort.
Typical

The entire world stopped, and if a TV was available, watched mankind take it's first step on the moon. I missed this happening when we dropped the rovers on Mars.

Apparently, there is *something* to manned exploration of space, whether you, TW, believe it to be of value or not. Or are we talking about the "millions of flies can't be wrong, so shit must be good" thing, here?

Sure, I told my wife she could drive herself to that shower, I was going to watch the Moon Landing, just like the rest of the world.

But, after it's been done, repeats don't hold a candle to a first, the first.

Now if the Moon surface wasn't so boring, or there was a chance of a giant worm coming up and snatching somebody, maybe it could develop regular viewers. :haha:

:lol:

I sometimes ask students who the first man on the moon was. About 75% know it.

Then I ask who the second man was. ..... ..... ..... maybe 2%.

Poor Buzz Aldrin. He even got a Movie character named after him, and still no one knows him

To which are you referring, the Moon Landing or the wife? :lol:

Moon landing, the second wife was much better.