Master Shake Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Seems like a lot more than 40 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I played a game of poker with the Yeti, Elvis, and a Mermaid. I was piloting my Nuclear Sub near North Korea when the Loch Ness Monster attacked it. I think he's fighting for for KJI. Crazy commie.... I did lunch with Santa Claus and the Keebler elves. Then a Leprechaun stopped by my place and played Scrabble with me and the Martian. I won his pot of gold in a bet. ^ how the fluff is that a conspiracy? Conspiracy: An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. eg: The conceptualization of the Tellytubbies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I was piloting my Nuclear Sub near North Korea when the Loch Ness Monster attacked it. I think he's fighting for for KJI. Crazy commie.... You piloted a nuclear sub? What kind of vessel... Los Angeles class? Or did you just take an Ohio-class missile boat and sit there while this Loch Ness monster swam by? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ^^Actually, it was a Typhoon 8.....The Loch Ness attacked us!! He bit the propeller and catepillar components!!! He's working for them!! It's a conspiracy!! Bigfoot may be trying to assassinate our Government Officials!! And they're putting dog hormones in our water to make us obedient! {JIGOS, if that stuff isn't conspiracy...I don't know what is:D} Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 My only question pertains to the 40 years following this event: What the hell happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ^^True, I ask myself that question, too. We could've advanced so far, but we lost our focus..there was both the Budget supporting the Space Program, and the Cold War. We were trying to outclass the Soviets and their allies in both ICBM tech and Space Tech, in the end, we worked together but couldn't make any huge advancements in Space exploration. That's what happens in arm races....that's just my opinion, though. If only we had kept going.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ^^Actually, it was a Typhoon 8. I was asking a serious question. That was a Russian class missile boat you mentioned. Was that really what you did in the military, or were you just putting that in to say you encountered the Loch Ness monster? I quite frankly think that the submarine was the most important element of the Cold War; not the Apollo spacecraft. Apollo was really more of a showpiece than anything else, but the missile subs were the most important weapons of the Cold War that served to deter enemies from mutually assured destruction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mimartin Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 My only question pertains to the 40 years following this event: What the hell happened? America got its Tang and then lost interest. I wish I could have seen it. Me too, oh wait. “Houston, the eagle has landed,” is my favorite quote from that mission. My favorite from the Apollo program is, “Houston, we've had a problem here.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 "May the spirit of peace, in which we came, be reflected in the lives of all mankind." -Gene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17 I really appreciated the last Apollo missions more than the first. Those missions were focused more on politics than scientific exploration. My favorite of the missions was 15, partly because of the 'Genesis rock' that was returned on that mission. That was really the first mission where geology was the first priority for collecting samples from the lunar surface. Although it was important to have good pilots, it was just as important to emphasize the importance of knowing what rocks on the surface to collect and why they were important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommanderQ Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I was asking a serious question. That was a Russian class missile boat you mentioned. Was that really what you did in the military, or were you just putting that in to say you encountered the Loch Ness monster? I quite frankly think that the submarine was the most important element of the Cold War; not the Apollo spacecraft. Apollo was really more of a showpiece than anything else, but the missile subs were the most important weapons of the Cold War that served to deter enemies from mutually assured destruction. Sorry, DY, I'd love to say that I piloted Nuclear Subs, but no, I'm not with the Armed Forces{yet:D}. I have met a few of the Captains that were in command of Los Angeles-Class Subs {some still do:)}, and I have done a lot of studying on these subs. Also had the pleasure of being aboard one of the Russian Typhoons {it had become a museum}. So, yeah, I was just putting that out there to add to the conspiracy:D I agree with you when you say that the sub played a far more important role in the Cold War then the Apollo spacecraft. It's far more deadly and efficient in it's peacekeeping abilities, and was something that both the Soviets and ourselves respected greatly. Space Exploration is cool, but in a tense arm race like the Cold War, you're going to need something like a Nuclear Sub to stay at the top of the game:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trench Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 ^ how the fluff is that a conspiracy? Conspiracy: An evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. eg: The conceptualization of the Tellytubbies. While we did all that stuff we were plotting a way to destroy the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 I think that NASA had done great things with the moon landings, but has since made many errors in judgment in regards to manned space flight. The Shuttle was meant to provide a cheaper alternative to one-time use rockets; but ended up being more expensive to operate than intended. Since its introduction, the Shuttle really has been used for missions that it wasn't suited for. Launching satellites ISN'T the shuttle's best attribute, but repairing the Hubble space telescope or retrieving satellites from orbit were exactly the kind of missions that it was designed for. The Orion spacecraft will be severely limited in its mission operations, where as the payload capacity and gliding abilities of the shuttle would have made it the ideal solution for performing manned operations. The International Space Station was simply the worst expenditure of money ever invested in space flight. It serves little purpose and doesn't expand our horizons into space. I would be for a massive radio telescope built in space or anything that allows us to see further into space than ever before. I though the Voyagers and Mars spacecraft were the greatest steps we've taken since the Apollo program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quanon Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Lets get back there, setup camp and dig out the Helium 3 gas and all the other precious minerals Then "waste" it to go to Mars! Time we left this dirt ball! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 Launching satellites ISN'T the shuttle's best attribute And it was designed for what purpose, precisely? I must admit that I'm rather curious. Besides killing astronauts through notoriously unaddressed design flaws, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 And it was designed for what purpose, precisely? Besides killing astronauts through notoriously unaddressed design flaws, of course. Perhaps I should rephrase that. It is more expensive to launch satellites using the Space Shuttle than a conventional rocket. Only when a satellite requires human assembly after launch does it make sense to use a manned spacecraft. Repairing the Hubble and retrieving satellites are jobs that can only be performed by the shuttle. Versatility is its greatest attribute, but only when you can afford to pay a premium to operate it. And the shuttles have flown MANY missions over the years. What 'design flaws' were you addressing? The solid booster problem was identified and addressed from Challenger, and the heat shield problem only happened once over the years and countermeasures were taken to prevent it from happening again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 21, 2009 Share Posted July 21, 2009 OK, that makes more sense. And you're right in that it is far cheaper to launch satellites using unmanned rockets. It may be possible that the shuttle program has actually delayed our progress by using up resources that would have been better used elsewhere. You're also right in that NASA's real success over the past four decades has been in its unheralded and under-funded unmanned programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 ^^Actually, it was a Typhoon 8.....The Loch Ness attacked us!! He bit the propeller and catepillar components!!! He's working for them!! It's a conspiracy!! Bigfoot may be trying to assassinate our Government Officials!! And they're putting dog hormones in our water to make us obedient! {JIGOS, if that stuff isn't conspiracy...I don't know what is} THERE we go. And they're putting dog hormones in our water to make us obedient! 7/10. excellent work. While we did all that stuff we were plotting a way to destroy the world. Needs more pizazz! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trench Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 Needs more pizazz! We had just stolen the worlds oil supplies, and the Martian was using his mind powers to control the Loch Ness Monster and the North Koreans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesusIsGonnaOwnSatan Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 We had just stolen the worlds oil supplies, and the Martian was using his mind powers to control the Loch Ness Monster and the North Koreans. 5/10, itll do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 22, 2009 Share Posted July 22, 2009 By this time, 40 years ago, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin should be in orbit around the Moon with their lunar module ascent stage docked to the command module. At any moment now, they will jettison that and fire the CSM engine to propel them back to Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A L I E N Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Question... why there hasn't been any moon landings since then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth_Yuthura Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 We had beat the Russians to the Moon. The scientific research was valuable, but until Apollo 11; there was a political stake in the race to the moon. There had been nine other landings planned, but the Apollo missions 18, 19, and 20 were cancelled due to budget cuts. The Apollo spacecraft intended for those missions had already been built, so they were instead used for the Skylab missions. It made use of one Saturn V rocket that had already been built to launch the station and smaller Saturn IB's for putting the spacecraft into orbit. That was a cheaper alternative to three additional Moon landings and yielded some valuable scientific research for the level of funding that went into them. The Apollo-Soyuz mission was purely political, and was regarded as a wasted opportunity that could have been used for a fourth Skylab mission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Question... why there hasn't been any moon landings since then? Frankly, part of it is budget related, and the other portion is NASA's fixation on the Space Shuttle program. I'm not saying that the shuttle hasn't been invaluable to the space program, but I think NASA has been way too focused on it. As far as the budget goes...NASA's operating budget has been reduced dramatically since the 60's as other things have taken Washington's attention away from the space program. President Obama, I think, feels differently about that so I'm hoping to see a bit of a resurgence as NASA retires the Shuttles and moves to return to the moon, and perhaps even establish a permanent base there. I'm not sure it will happen quickly, but I hope it will happen in my life time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quanon Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 I'm not sure it will happen quickly, but I hope it will happen in my life time. The samples brought back from the early missions, have shown lots of promise. One of the nicest finds is the Helium 3. The moon has been bombarded by Solar flares, the moon having no atmosphere has sucked it up like a spong. Which contain this gas. The benifit of this gas is its clean, no to bad side effects. EDIT: With this gas we can do the clean Nuclear Reactor thing, Fission, Fusion, can't remember now. About 1 ton of this can feed a city of 10 million for a year. Not only the Helium 3, but the moons minerals contained in its rock contains water. Seen a nice documentary about this just a few days ago. A scientist constructed his own moon dust, using his own research of the moon rock samples. He heated them to about 800 ° Celsius and got water out of them. Most helpfull if they ever plan to setup a moonbase. Which I think is the plan after 2016 when the ISS is completed or outdated Though there's still some worries, how to get the gas here on earth and such, plus how to/ do we devide the moon? Because its now the same as international waters... Plus do we want to "suck" out the moon like we do our planet... that's something to ponder about aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattig89ch Posted July 23, 2009 Share Posted July 23, 2009 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.