CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › NASA Budget Too Slim to Reach Moon by 2020
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

NASA Budget Too Slim to Reach Moon by 2020

post #1 of 50
8/13/09 at 5:31pm
Thread Starter 
Link

Quote:
A White House panel charged with reviewing NASA's exploration plans has dropped any hope of sending astronauts directly to Mars and found the space agency's budget too slim to accomplish its goal of returning humans to the moon by 2020.
So it's obviously sad to see the near-death throes of NASA, but am I wrong to be thinking these declarations of manned missions to the moon and Mars lately have been incredibly short-sighted?

To be sending humans off to planets for a few hours before heading back home again seems like a waste of money. We cant even look after our own planet let alone terraform another, so if we're going to be sending humanity to other plantery bodies it better be at a time where we're completely confident of ourselves and at least capable of staying for more than a few hours.

We should be developing the space station as a platform for launches rather than relying on risky rockets, and we should be developing smarter exploration robots and sending them to places like Europa, Titan, Iapedus, etc. If you dangle the prospect of valuable natural resources out there in the solar system to governments then funding will surely follow.

And we cant expect the private sector to pick up the slack, they're not going to be going anywhere past the atmosphere, or the moon if you're an idealistic fool, for a long while if ever.
Reply
post #2 of 50
8/13/09 at 5:34pm
We've got to get there in the first place before we can think about staying longer. Those who'd be willing to invest in long-term installations on the moon or Mars are going to want to see it feasible to actually get there before they put any money into it.
Reply
post #3 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:29pm
I really hate the "we've got problems here on Earth, we can't waste time going to space right now!" argument. Unlike in the placid, turmoil-free 60s, I guess.
Reply
post #4 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:33pm
I think we aren't going to Mars because the psychology of it wouldn't work. On a mission that long, with that much stress, in those close quarters, things could definitely get ugly. You can't throw $200 billion into a project that is dependent on a very small number of stressed out people being in extremely close quarters.

For the time being, I have to agree that unmanned exploration is a far better use of funds, with a better scientific value. I don't know what man could do on Mars that couldn't be done with Mars rovers. Going to the moon was a different proposition: we didn't even know if they would be able to successfully land the LEM.
Reply
post #5 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:36pm
Yeah, I think Moon 2020 is a rallying cry those in favor of manned space flight can use. It's simple, futuristic and actually achievable. If we can't manage to do that again and repeatedly going forward, then there is no way in hell we're ever going to make it to Mars.

I just fear that with Boeing and Lockheed Martin and all the other crappy defense contractors being as bloated and useless as they are now that there's not really any hope of doing this without severe budget overruns and stories about how screwed we are by these companies.

Still, I'd rather them go for something than nothing.
Reply
post #6 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I think we aren't going to Mars because the psychology of it wouldn't work. On a mission that long, with that much stress, in those close quarters, things could definitely get ugly. You can't throw $200 billion into a project that is dependent on a very small number of stressed out people being in extremely close quarters.
Reply
post #7 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I really hate the "we've got problems here on Earth, we can't waste time going to space right now!" argument. Unlike in the placid, turmoil-free 60s, I guess.

You greatly underestimate the value of propaganda.

Wait till the Chinese or the Russians start making plans to build something permanent on the moon. NASA won't know what to do with all the money Congress will be trying to bury them with. Assuming of course we can find enough Nazi's and Canadians to help us do it this time around.
Reply
post #8 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:38pm
China is already making very serious plans for going to the Moon.
Reply
post #9 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I really hate the "we've got problems here on Earth, we can't waste time going to space right now!" argument. Unlike in the placid, turmoil-free 60s, I guess.
I've heard this quite a lot lately. Couldn't agree with you more.
Reply
post #10 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
China is already making very serious plans for going to the Moon.
The general public doesn't really realize that though. So once China lands some sort of craft on the Moon is when it will really sink in. The trouble is of course that by the time that happens we would be quite far behind in the process so we'd have to pick a new thing to try to beat them at, and I guess that would have to be Mars.
Reply
post #11 of 50
8/13/09 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
You greatly underestimate the value of propaganda.

Wait till the Chinese or the Russians start making plans to build something permanent on the moon. NASA won't know what to do with all the money Congress will be trying to bury them with. Assuming of course we can find enough Nazi's and Canadians to help us do it this time around.
That was the big motivating factor to the whole moon shot thing. We didn't want Russia to get there first. I agree that the money is better spent sending probes to some of the moons of the gas giants as there's some interesting stuff going on there.
Reply
post #12 of 50
8/13/09 at 8:59pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
I really hate the "we've got problems here on Earth, we can't waste time going to space right now!" argument. Unlike in the placid, turmoil-free 60s, I guess.
I hate that too and I hope you wasnt directing it at me because of my comment about our inability to do anything of substance on Mars when we get there. Like Zhukov mentioned earlier, there isnt anything we could do that robots couldnt do for us. (I'm obviously not referring to our current rovers up there but better developed stuff later down the line)

We shouldnt be overstepping our bounds for emotional kicks, because sure it worked out ok for us with the moon landings, fuelled by politics and appearences for the ones with power, but what about when it goes wrong? It could set us back for years, and I'm sure some will say its worth the risk, but why take unnecessary risks? And you know that if an astronaut dies up there, the knee-jerk reaction is going to be to halt the space program or some retarded shit.

I just wish humanity could just focus on the space around the planet, create a big space station (you know, one where people can actually walk around like in the movies), launch craft from it with ease, make moon bases, and then move onto Mars. Etc, etc. Just small steps forward, rather than giant leaps ahead then back for a nap for forty years.

But anyway, as was mentioned, yeah the Chinese, Indians and Japanese and Russians are making moves lately too, I dont even know why I'm complaining about a Mars voyage, I mean I would love to be around when one happens and we all know if one country plans to send people to the moon then the US will automatically send people to Mars.
Reply
post #13 of 50
8/13/09 at 9:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dontEATnachos View Post
The general public doesn't really realize that though. So once China lands some sort of craft on the Moon is when it will really sink in.
So this century's Sputnik will be Chinese astronauts waving "Ni Hao" from the lunar surface?

Can't wait!
Reply
post #14 of 50
8/13/09 at 9:55pm
I'm more worried about the "NASA Budget Too Slim to WATCH FOR KILLER ASTEROIDS" news that came down the other day.
Reply
post #15 of 50
8/13/09 at 10:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
You greatly underestimate the value of propaganda.

Wait till the Chinese or the Russians start making plans to build something permanent on the moon. NASA won't know what to do with all the money Congress will be trying to bury them with. Assuming of course we can find enough Nazi's and Canadians to help us do it this time around.

Pick me! Pick me! I'm an electrical engineer! I'm in radio! I know a good chunk of radioastronomy too! And I already do work for US Defense! When NASA starts using some of that money to build serious orbital telescope arrays, I'm so there. If not for those darn terrorists I could've been at JPL already.

I even speak a little German too.
Reply
post #16 of 50
8/13/09 at 10:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BTSMGL View Post
I'm more worried about the "NASA Budget Too Slim to WATCH FOR KILLER ASTEROIDS" news that came down the other day.
All we need is the World's Best Oil Driller!
Reply
post #17 of 50
8/13/09 at 10:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
You greatly underestimate the value of propaganda.

Wait till the Chinese or the Russians start making plans to build something permanent on the moon. NASA won't know what to do with all the money Congress will be trying to bury them with. Assuming of course we can find enough Nazi's and Canadians to help us do it this time around.
You know, to be fair, Von Braun was like 1/2 of a Nazi :-P
Reply
post #18 of 50
8/13/09 at 10:52pm
If we made it to the moon in what could almost be considered a rickshaw by today's technological standards, budgetary constraints or not, how has this nut still not been re-cracked by 2009. I don't get it. And it's not just NASA, it's the entire world that can't figure out how to get to the moon. Makes you wonder if we were ever really there...

Conspiracies!
Reply
post #19 of 50
8/13/09 at 11:08pm
Eric, get out. You're crazying up the thread.
Reply
post #20 of 50
8/13/09 at 11:17pm
Listen, alls I'm sayin' is have you personally ever been to the moon? Have you ever met anyone who's been to the moon? I didn't think so.

I think I've proven my point.
Reply
post #21 of 50
8/14/09 at 12:36am
Hell OJ didn't actually go to Mars afterall....
Reply
post #22 of 50
8/16/09 at 1:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Cordo View Post
If we made it to the moon in what could almost be considered a rickshaw by today's technological standards, budgetary constraints or not, how has this nut still not been re-cracked by 2009. I don't get it. And it's not just NASA, it's the entire world that can't figure out how to get to the moon. Makes you wonder if we were ever really there...

Conspiracies!
Like someone stated before, it's all the "We've got enough problems here" mentality. The future of mankind is out in space. Our resources will run out one day, and if we don't have reliable ways to collect the resources out on other planets' moons and in the asteroid belt we're doomed. The sooner people realize that the better.
Reply
post #23 of 50
8/17/09 at 10:55am
While I do agree that making a space station, orbital platforms first would probably greatly improve, you know, not having to deal with all that escape velocity crap and make getting to Mars and other places easier, I have to put that West Wing piece that was in the moon landing thread. In 30 seconds, it seems to capture all the romance:

Rob Lowe telling it like it is
Reply
post #24 of 50
8/17/09 at 11:00am
Anyway, even if robots can get you the same information what's the fun in that? We need to send people out into space, it'd be flippin' sweet.

I may make it significantly more expensive but it also makes it significantly more AWESOME.
Reply
post #25 of 50
8/17/09 at 12:09pm
I guess the thing I don't understand is that we got to the moon in less than a decade after JFK made the initial pronouncement that we would put a man on the moon. So 40 years of technological advancements later, it still will take us almost a decade to send someone there again? Were the directions from the first trip listed on an 8 Track tape or something? Why don't we melt down all those "clunkers" and use that for rocket-buildin' material?
Reply
post #26 of 50
8/17/09 at 12:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martianman View Post
I guess the thing I don't understand is that we got to the moon in less than a decade after JFK made the initial pronouncement that we would put a man on the moon. So 40 years of technological advancements later, it still will take us almost a decade to send someone there again? Were the directions from the first trip listed on an 8 Track tape or something? Why don't we melt down all those "clunkers" and use that for rocket-buildin' material?
Well, we could get there the same way, but they want to use some of that advanced technology, like the microchip, that wasn't used last time. It takes time and money to put together a rocket, and we haven't been focusing on going to the moon for a long time. Add in the fact that there's very little money to be made from going to space in the short term, and it really hasn't been a goal for anyone.

So yeah, it'll take time. And money, and with this economy and people getting on the government about their spending, it might come down several notches on the priority list, as evidenced by the link in the first post.
Reply
post #27 of 50
8/17/09 at 12:31pm
People who believe that robots can achieve as much as humans on Mars really need to study up on the subject or at the very least watch a few Discovery/NatGeo documentaries. NASA fully acknowledges that even the best robots wont be able to match the skills and values of a professional petrologist or geologist. NASA's own opinion on the matter is that robots can do a great deal up to a certain point, but if we want real results we'll need a manned mission at some point.
Reply
post #28 of 50
8/17/09 at 7:14pm
I'll be damned if I can find a link, but there was a very interesting poll that came out a few months ago around budget time. It basically asked people what programs they would like to see have their budgets cut and then the answers were broken down by political party.

Only one program saw a majority of either party agree that its budget should be cut. And that was NASA... by Democrats. There's just no support for the idea any more.
Reply
post #29 of 50
8/17/09 at 7:38pm
Until and unless we discover some alien race that we can kill and/or enslave, I imagine NASA's budgets will continue to dwindle.
Reply
post #30 of 50
8/18/09 at 7:00am
Never mind the Chinese, if a Muslim country decides to go to the moon or beyond you can be sure as shit that NASA will suddenly be awash with money.
Reply
post #31 of 50
8/18/09 at 7:15am
There is two ways to solve this problem nether of which will ever be used.

1. Combine Nasa with the European Space agency and share the cost of running it between several contries.

2. More private sector funding, the future of space travel is through the private secotor anyway so why not embrace it?
Reply
post #32 of 50
8/18/09 at 7:32am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
People who believe that robots can achieve as much as humans on Mars really need to study up on the subject or at the very least watch a few Discovery/NatGeo documentaries. NASA fully acknowledges that even the best robots wont be able to match the skills and values of a professional petrologist or geologist. NASA's own opinion on the matter is that robots can do a great deal up to a certain point, but if we want real results we'll need a manned mission at some point.
Watch the From the Earth to the Moon episode "Galileo Was Right" to see this point vividly illustrated.
Reply
post #33 of 50
8/18/09 at 9:44am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bitches Leave View Post
People who believe that robots can achieve as much as humans on Mars really need to study up on the subject or at the very least watch a few Discovery/NatGeo documentaries. NASA fully acknowledges that even the best robots wont be able to match the skills and values of a professional petrologist or geologist. NASA's own opinion on the matter is that robots can do a great deal up to a certain point, but if we want real results we'll need a manned mission at some point.
My point was to put money into developing robots that can achieve as much, if not more, than humans. Robots will be applicable on Earth just as well as space, so you're killing two birds with one stone which makes the idea of giving NASA money a better sell.

Robots are the way to go. We all want robots, technological singularity theory demands robots, robots save us from unnessary risks into the unknown, robots can go places humans cant, robots can make you tea, but more importantly robots are just a better sell than the idea of sending people to other planets at this point in time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by KEN SAVAGE
Combine Nasa with the European Space agency and share the cost of running it between several contries.
If only there were one big global space agency with multiple sources of income. Shit might actually get done that way.
Reply
post #34 of 50
8/18/09 at 9:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zhukov View Post
I think we aren't going to Mars because the psychology of it wouldn't work. On a mission that long, with that much stress, in those close quarters, things could definitely get ugly. You can't throw $200 billion into a project that is dependent on a very small number of stressed out people being in extremely close quarters.
U.S. national strategic assets are based on that very principle.

I disagree with making it unmanned only. If you remove the human element of the equation, then you remove widespread human interest in the results. Doing that takes away one of the principle gains of the money spent - renewed interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). There was a fascinating government report on STEM a few years back called "The Rising Storm". America might have a lot of college students, but the numbers in STEM majors are way down (plenty of students are in it, but a huge number are Indian, Chinese, etc). One of the major technological drivers in the 60's was the space race, and the US (and the world) gained a lot of ancillary benefits from that. Getting such a drive back again might be worth the cost and risk differential between manned and unmanned.
Reply
post #35 of 50
8/18/09 at 9:55am
Thread Starter 
It's not like I dont want humans to go out and explore, but in my ideal fantasy robots would go and explore first, like scouts, and then humans would immediately follow. We need robots for this fantasy to be realised, and right now the best robot on planet Earth is probably that white stair-walking Japanese one that looks like a constipated astronaut.
Reply
post #36 of 50
8/18/09 at 10:02am
My fear is that without the immediate human connection, we'll hem and haw and spend prepatory money, and it'll become underfunded real quick. We'll spend seed money and go nowhere and do nothing.

Here is a nice op-ed (by an author some of us might recognize) of a few weerks back. It examines the psychology of the Space Race and the aftermath of touching down on the moon. Just something to ruminate over.

Click Me
Reply
post #37 of 50
8/18/09 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post
Robots are the way to go. We all want robots, technological singularity theory demands robots, robots save us from unnessary risks into the unknown, robots can go places humans cant, robots can make you tea, but more importantly robots are just a better sell than the idea of sending people to other planets at this point in time.
And then the robots enslaves us and you're up mining shit on the moon 24/7. No thanks!
Reply
post #38 of 50
8/18/09 at 10:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by cognizant View Post
My point was to put money into developing robots that can achieve as much, if not more, than humans. Robots will be applicable on Earth just as well as space, so you're killing two birds with one stone which makes the idea of giving NASA money a better sell.

Robots are the way to go. We all want robots, technological singularity theory demands robots, robots save us from unnessary risks into the unknown, robots can go places humans cant, robots can make you tea, but more importantly robots are just a better sell than the idea of sending people to other planets at this point in time.



If only there were one big global space agency with multiple sources of income. Shit might actually get done that way.
Trouble is it never will. America and Russia can't even agree who gets to use the high tech toilet on the ISS (US design toilet with Russian parts apparantly).
Which just goes to show how petty things can get.
Reply
post #39 of 50
8/18/09 at 2:30pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
And then the robots enslaves us and you're up mining shit on the moon 24/7. No thanks!
Hey, at least people will be working! Cant say the same thing for the economic situation now, eh? Eh?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage
Trouble is it never will. America and Russia can't even agree who gets to use the high tech toilet on the ISS (US design toilet with Russian parts apparantly).
Which just goes to show how petty things can get.
Hah, so the countries of the world uniting would mean shit literally getting done.
Reply
post #40 of 50
8/18/09 at 6:34pm
Actually I remember a very interesting article that had a think-tank consisting of many respected scientists come up with a top ten list of events that will most likely end up killing humanity. Robots was in the top 3, maybe even first place. I'll see if I can find it.
Reply
post #41 of 50
8/18/09 at 7:16pm
Thread Starter 
Surely the #1 reason must be humans themselves. Whether directly or indirectly, we'll be responsible for our own demise. Probably before we even invent robots that actually follow Asimov's laws, let alone break them.
Reply
post #42 of 50
8/19/09 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Savage View Post
Trouble is it never will. America and Russia can't even agree who gets to use the high tech toilet on the ISS (US design toilet with Russian parts apparantly).
Which just goes to show how petty things can get.
I don't know about that....

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Quote:
US ambitions for manned space exploration have hit a major hurdle in the wake of severe budget constraints, according to preliminary findings of a panel appointed by President Barack Obama.
Reaching Mars was deemed too risky while returning to the Moon by 2020 was ruled out barring an additional three billion dollars per year to replace the retiring space shuttle fleet and build bigger rockets, according to the group led by Norm Augustine, a former CEO of US aerospace giant Lockheed Martin.


"Really, we've given the White House a dilemma. The space program we have today, the human space flight program, really isn't executable with the money we have," Augustine told PBS public television last week.

"So either we have to do something with the current program that's not going to be very successful, I'm afraid, or spend a nontrivial sum more than that to have something that's really exciting and workable, and that's the challenge the White House is going to have, is to sort that out."

NASA allocates about 10 billion of its 18-billion-dollar annual budget on human space flight.

The outlook is bleak, with maintenance of the almost-completed International Space Station (ISS) through 2020 the only remaining viable project.

But the US space agency will be unable to transport its astronauts beyond 2010 due to the planned retirement of its current shuttle fleet, depending instead on Russia's Soyouz spacecraft until at least 2015 when the new Orion crew exploration vehicle and its accompanying Ares I rocket will be ready.

Also in the works is a plan to use commercial rockets to ensure transportation to and from the ISS.

The Review of US Human Space Flight Plans Committee, which presented its preliminary findings to the White House on Friday, will issue a final report on August 31 following a series of public meetings across the country.

Augustine said the panel, created by Obama shortly after he took office in January to review the space program launched in 2004 by his predecessor George W. Bush, would present four main options in its report.

Even if a manned mission to Mars remains a long shot for now, it's a "logical place that you'd ultimately like to wind up," Augustine said, while noting the many technical challenges facing such an endeavor.

He pointed to the little-known effects of galactic cosmic rays on human beings exposed to outer space for prolonged periods of time -- a footnote to keep in mind for travel to Mars, a 260-day roundtrip undertaking that Augustine said would probably also require one year on the red planet.

The White House could take months to decide its course of action, said John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University.

"We have inherited one of the many failed promises of the Bush administration -- to set out a very good program without providing the resources to fund it," he told AFP, urging a new direction.

"We have lived an illusion for five years."

The US space shuttle program and the ISS, he said, "were a mistake" when compared to the Apollo Project that landed man on the moon for the first time.
From the article:
----
But the US space agency will be unable to transport its astronauts beyond 2010 due to the planned retirement of its current shuttle fleet, depending instead on Russia's Soyouz spacecraft until at least 2015 when the new Orion crew exploration vehicle and its accompanying Ares I rocket will be ready.
----

If that isn't the biggest fucking insult to all insults. We're depending on the ruskies to get us into space, a little over 40 years after we beat them landing on the moon.
Reply
post #43 of 50
8/19/09 at 11:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Martin Savage View Post
And then the robots enslaves us and you're up mining shit on the moon 24/7. No thanks!
"Merry Christmas from Chiron Beta Prime!"
Reply
post #44 of 50
8/20/09 at 1:59pm
My old-man was working for NASA during the glory years...then worked for ESA...now he's retired and is enjoying his garden and showing his grandchildren 'frogspawn>tadpole>frog'...He loves it.

...and whilst he STILL has a subscription to 'Aviation Week (and Space Technology)' he is aware of the politics...and is resigned.
Reply
post #45 of 50
8/21/09 at 2:58am
All this talk about just going to the moon, never mind Mars or beyond makes me think of something I read once a while back:

Basically someone wrote a piece talking about how we as humans are essestially marooned here on Earth. Despite all the advances in tech. etc. the distances in space that we are dealing with are so vast that manned missions to the depths of space are an impossibility. I don't agree with this, but it does make a lot of sense.
Reply
post #46 of 50
8/21/09 at 3:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post
All this talk about just going to the moon, never mind Mars or beyond makes me think of something I read once a while back:

Basically someone wrote a piece talking about how we as humans are essestially marooned here on Earth. Despite all the advances in tech. etc. the distances in space that we are dealing with are so vast that manned missions to the depths of space are an impossibility. I don't agree with this, but it does make a lot of sense.
Until we discover the real world equivalent of Galactus or the Vogon Fleet its heading our way...then we'll be "Ohhh, we should at least made the effort".
Reply
post #47 of 50
8/24/09 at 8:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post
All this talk about just going to the moon, never mind Mars or beyond makes me think of something I read once a while back:

Basically someone wrote a piece talking about how we as humans are essestially marooned here on Earth. Despite all the advances in tech. etc. the distances in space that we are dealing with are so vast that manned missions to the depths of space are an impossibility. I don't agree with this, but it does make a lot of sense.
People once believed the world was flat as well. I know there are several orders of magnitude of difference in this analogy, but it was once a long and difficult journey just to make it across the ocean, and now it's an everyday occurrence for some people.
Reply
post #48 of 50
8/25/09 at 6:02am
Actually, who would have forseen Quad Core processors possible, affordable and in private homes 10 years ago? Hell, 5 years ago the entire industry was still banking and planning on single-core CPUs and lost a lot of cash in that.

Or the advances in robotics? Cell Phones being a throwaway tool, when 20 years ago they were strictly Science Fiction? There are a lot of very recent examples of massive technological leaps that changed the way we live and work fundamentally, so I dont think anything is impossible just because of a big technological hurdle.

Some decades ago, it was a question of whether mankind can do it, can make something that does it. Nowadays, its more a matter of whether anyone wants to spend money for it.
Reply
post #49 of 50
8/25/09 at 6:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by History Buff View Post
All this talk about just going to the moon, never mind Mars or beyond makes me think of something I read once a while back:

Basically someone wrote a piece talking about how we as humans are essestially marooned here on Earth. Despite all the advances in tech. etc. the distances in space that we are dealing with are so vast that manned missions to the depths of space are an impossibility. I don't agree with this, but it does make a lot of sense.
That sounds like the opening chapater of Bill Bryson's a brief history of everything. Not sure I agree with it ether.

The thing is all the best leaps forward have been made by people who were a little but nuts, the scientest who belive in abosolutes are normally the ones who get proven wrong.
Reply
post #50 of 50
8/25/09 at 8:17pm
WormHoles!!!!

Though strictly theoretacle, they appear to be the only concievable way to traverse the distances in space that we're speaking of.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › NASA Budget Too Slim to Reach Moon by 2020