"Scratching for Water on the Moon"

[elSicomoro]

I don't mind asshats, until they start throwing their lifestyle in my face every 10 minutes. If you’re an asshat, then you are in the population minority here...you don’t get to tell the majority what they should do or what they should think...you only get to ask.

[jimf747]

Originally posted by bmgb


Yep, sorry jimf747. If the majority of people here think you're an asshat, you'll have to leave. "Majority Rules."

Oh… and you have some idea of what’s negative or positive. It’s a clod like you who is negative… because you posses some ridiculous sense of an elevated self-importance.


What’s wrong… your feelings hurt, You think your worth talking to. … can’t have an argument unless you can call some one names, or is it you only allow people with political views that parallel your own to participate.

[elSicomoro]

Most of the people I talk to here are of differing political viewpoints than myself. However, when said people and I discuss things, we don't make ridiculous assertions and statements without qualifying ourselves or presenting facts. Furthermore, we're mainly a friendly lot...and you started off by being a fuckhead, which doesn't work too well here.

Now if you can't learn to play nicely, then get the fuck out of here. Thus far, you seem to be a piece of shit that has no real value to the Cellar, other than as a punching bag.

[jimf747]

Originally posted by sycamore
Most of the people I talk to here are of differing political viewpoints than myself. However, when said people and I discuss things, we don't make ridiculous assertions and statements without qualifying ourselves or presenting facts. Furthermore, we're mainly a friendly lot...and you started off by being a fuckhead, which doesn't work too well here.

Now if you can't learn to play nicely, then get the fuck out of here. Thus far, you seem to be a piece of shit that has no real value to the Cellar, other than as a punching bag.

You should read your own statements… how can you use the word friendly in the same sentence. I’ll support my argument anytime. And if you want to call me names then you can come to Omonia’s Café on Broadway in Astoria Queens New York on Tuesday nights at 8:00Pm and say them to my face (look for the flight jacket)… put you money where your mouths is slob.

[elSicomoro]

Originally posted by jimf747
I’ll support my argument anytime.

All you've done so far is wax opinion. Talk about putting your money where your mouth is...

The vast majority of my 5900 posts speak for themselves...ask around. You, however, still have much to prove.

And what if I do show up there and call you names...what are you gonna do? Not like I have any real reason to go to Queens on a Tuesday night, but you never know.

[tw]

kitsune posted
Okay -- lets say we limit NASA to nothing but launching satellites for-profit every year and that they have to support themselves. We'll get ~12 billion dollars back every year.

Just out of curiosity, what would you do with the money? Where would you budget it and make it be put to use?

First, NASA does not profit from launches. And it is a tough market since the French Arienne is a superiour launch vehicle for most satellites. France all but owns the launching business for reasons summarized at the end.

Second, NASA is chock full of good ideas that simply don't cost much. But this was even a complaint in the late 1980s. NASA's big buck project (space shuttle and then ISS) literally devours most every other science project. As one Greenbelt MD project manager complained to me once, everything must be proposed related to the Space Shuttle or it just does not get considered (let alone approved). Since then, the Challenger exploded meaning that some science was liberated. But ISS is again doing to science what the Space Shuttle did.

Third, there is no problem with defining safety procedures. They are well defined in NASA - and then routinely ignored by top managers that just don't understand the concerns of the little people - as the Columbia disaster report so roundly noted. Furthermore, the reasons for those management attitudes are attributed to NASA management structure. Such managerial procedures are simply illegal in other organizations such as the Nuclear Navy and Air Force.

But again these three points keep coming back to the same problem. We have priorities based upon political agendas - and not upon science. It is why a super collider did not get built. It is why ISS exists. It is why astronauts on Columbia were killed for the same reasons that Challenger exploded. Fundamental objectives should be based upon science. NASA has many good ideas and a paltry budget of something like $8billion.

Hell. A president finds no problem with lying to attack another nation, then lying that it will not cost anything - until we have no problem with another $87billion for a nation that did not want to be liberated. That will be something like $400 billion on one stupid country that was not even a threat to its neighbors. So why is the NASA budget considered so large? Its not. But it is poorly appropriated because polticians - not science - are making the decisions.

[Kitsune]

Originally posted by tw
Second, NASA is chock full of good ideas that simply don't cost much. But this was even a complaint in the late 1980s. NASA's big buck project (space shuttle and then ISS) literally devours most every other science project.

That's a really good point -- all the little stuff at NASA and its other organizations probably suffer greatly from the shuttle. Rather sad, because a lot of the little stuff (Mars rover, etc) is incredibly cool.

A president finds no problem with lying to attack another nation, then lying that it will not cost anything - until we have no problem with another $87billion for a nation that did not want to be liberated.

It bugged me that during his campaign he referred to the voters not as "voters", "citizens", or "constituents", but as "taxpayers". Now I understand why.

[OnyxCougar]

That will be something like $400 billion on one stupid country that was not even a threat to its neighbors.

Yeah, just ask Kuwait.

[vsp]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Yeah, just ask Kuwait.

About "diagonal drilling."

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by OnyxCougar
Yeah, just ask Kuwait.

It was the current president's father who reacted to the invasion of Kuwait. When GWB came in, Iraq posed no danger to Kuwait.

[OnyxCougar]

I disagree. But then, I'm still trying to get off the force-fed media nipple. It's a slow process, but accelarated by Cellarites....

[Happy Monkey]

addendum to previous post

Saddam only invaded Kuwait because he thought he had assurances that the US would look the other way. He was under no such illusion this time around.

[vsp]

Originally posted by bmgb
Yep, sorry jimf747. If the majority of people here think you're an asshat, you'll have to leave. "Majority Rules."

Nah, that's going too far. If all the asshats leave, the board will be an empty ghost town...

(one finger pointed back at myself, of course)

[hot_pastrami]

There are many valid points on both sides of the perpetually unwinnable "why explore space?" debate. I think space exploration is a good idea for the same reason all exploration is a good idea... Progress is born by discovery, and discovery is born by exploration. The more we explore, the more we progress.

That said, I think the suggested applications for manned space exploration are often misplaced. There is much that can be discovered without the risk and expense of transporting people to the site... the Mars rover is a wonderful example. This is particularly true as automated exploration machines are made more and more adaptable to the conditions they encounter... the main human trait that is invaluable in exploration is adaptability.

I think NASA is like the US Postal Service... they laid the groundwork, and they'll probably always be around, and may even be the best at some of what they do; but the market is ripe for commercial competitors who have cheaper and better ways of accomplishing some of the same things. And when space travel is commercialized, then it will be profitable, and then space will truly become the frontier rather than an over-expensive exercise in "gee whiz, that's nifty!"

[SteveDallas]

Originally posted by hot_pastrami
but the market is ripe for commercial competitors who have cheaper and better ways of accomplishing some of the same things.

Every time I read The Man Who Sold the Moon, I have to wonder how much companies would pay for promotions related to, say, the first manned trip to Mars. I mean, Fox shells out a couple billion a year for broadcast rights to NFC games from the NFL. How much would they pay to have exclusive video coverage of a trip to Mars?