- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 36,913
- Reaction score
- 11,283
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
First one "there" wins.
Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.
First one "there" wins.
Trust me, you have absolutely nothing in common with THAT Democrat. Democrats had balls in those days, and didn't whine about cutting trees.Kind of cool how a Democratic president was the one who pushed so hard for us to get to the moon, then, huh? I guess they're not all taskmasters or loafers.
The space program is absolutely necessary, both for the innovation it brings and because if we don't colonize space, someone else will and they're going to have the first crack at the infinite resources that lie beyond our atmosphere. I would absolutely die happy if I lived long enough to see the Doomsday clock disabled as we spread into space, and maybe even to see Enrico Fermi's paradox fade away as we found another intelligent life form.
Fermi paradox - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Of course, without public schools we're not going to have many educated colonists, but that's a whole other ball game. Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin both graduated from public high schools.
Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.
First of all, who in their right mind would trust anything you say here?Trust me, you have absolutely nothing in common with THAT Democrat. Democrats had balls in those days, and didn't whine about cutting trees.
Only in Master of Orion...or Civilization. All editions.
Abrogate them.
Space is already "weaponized", since all ICBM's travel above the atmosphere to get to their targets. Also, all nations that can have surveillance sats up there. Information is a potent weapon indeed. China, Russia, and the US have a-sat capability.
Putting missiles on the moon is an essential national security step.
You mean as opposed to establishing safe, reliable, and durable transportation for non-tourists?
Cattle are cattle, are they not?
And if it's determined that permanent residendence in sustained low-gee can extend the human life span by twenty years? What, after all, is the main cause of death in the elderly? Strokes, cardiac problems, other struggles of the body against gravity. Sustained zero-gee is harmful, yes. What about 1/6 gee, strong enough to give an up and down for bodily fluid distributions, not strong enough to strain the muscles and skeleton.
Medicine on earth can't adjust for the gravity parameter, and the human life expectancy has plateaued to the point where gains will be dependent upon whether we can get people to excercise and eat right, and stop shooting each others.
Including Civilizations Ultimate Hardcore Mode.
aka Real Life.
I think they ban it from College campuses in the US..too realistic and it scares the wanna be communists really bad.
How are Moon Missiles more effective than Earth Missiles? :lol:
They can be targeted by nations with ICBM's. Change missiles a bit, if at all... and just retarget.
They take MUCH longer to reach Earth, hence China/Russia launches and we are dead in 30 minutes while they have a couple of days to relocate...
...and I have to ask, water on the moon for what, beyond perhaps helping moon colonists grow plants and survive... what? Bring it to Earth?
You can't be serious.
Poll 38 to 6 in favor of continuing. Motion carried, manned exploration of space will continue. :mrgreen:
Seriously, are none of you opposers excited about the idea of a new frontier to colonize? If not for yourself and your kids, for your grandkids or great-great's?
I've talked to a lot of those foolish people. Their opposition to Man taking his rightful place among the stars are based on:
Man shouldn't pollute the pristine environment of the moon.
Yeah. Just retarget a missile designed to reach sub-orbital velocity and return to a target on earth to hit a target that requires escaping earth's gravity to reach. Yeah, just pushing a few buttons ought to do the trick....not.
So you throw out the idea simply because it is difficult? Alrighty then... :roll:
No, you're rejecting the use of a lunar base as a national defense asset, not I.
I answered your objection with solid fact.
I am talking about that one specific issue, re-routing missiles to the moon. It is absolutely possible and you ignored it... I also can and have used solid fact... so? Taking nukes to the moon is a bad idea, not to mention that nobody owns the moon, unless you are using the whole "finders keepers" smoking gun of an argument.
No, it's not possible, they don't have the ability to get there. They're not even designed to achieve low earth orbit, let alone go past that.
And what's wrong with the notion that someone that pays to discover an asset should be the one, and the only one at that, who gets to exploit it and profit from it?
Did Uruguay subsidize Neil Armstrong and the other astronauts?
No.
So why should they have a single word of input on what the United States does with whatever it can find on the Moon?
It is about getting missiles to the moon, and that does not include only ICBMS, this is your thing, not mine.
Nations can and would get missiles that could get to the moon.
We have enough nukes
and there is no logical reason that we need to take some to the moon. We could blow up the Earth enough times without ****ing up the moon and planets beyond.
Yeah, that's because that's what the arsenals contain at this time.
How cost effective is it for nations to maintain an arsenal of lunar attack missiles when the effectiveness of those warheads is minimal, the location of the launch site can be presumed hidden, and the act of launching an attack at those bases would be presumed by the owner of those bases as the first strike attack of a nuclear war and will retaliate long long before the attacking missiles can arrive, that being the nature of having the orbital high ground in the first place?
Let's, the rockets to attack a lunar base will be liquid fueled, since solids just don't have the power to do the job, and that adds all sorts of problems.
The avenging missiles will be out of their silos and dropping towards earth DAYS before the attacking missiles arrive. That's an issue of concern, I'd say.
And yet those avending missiles can be routed so that it could take weeks to reach their targets, if desired, giving the defenders a long time to negotiate the surrender of the attackers.
What is clear that a nuclear missile base on the moon holds all the advantages, none of the disadvantages in this exchange.
So why not do it, when it would contribute to other, commercial successes?
Only Russia has demonstrated the ability to launch such weapons to date.
Not really, that bumbling ass that left office reduced the number of warheads to two thousand or so, the ignorant Kumbaya Messiah that took his place is talking about dropping the number to a thousand. No where near enough for strong deterrence.
We can't blow up the Earth, not once. Maybe we should build a Lexx, the issue is debatable, since we lack the technology. We probably don't have the ability to even destroy the human race any more. (I bet that pisses PETA off.)
Water on the Moon would be the most valuable solar system resource ever. It would make lunar colonization possible,
Scarecrow Akhbar said:and yes, men will always be able to do what robots and telerobotic gadgets cannot.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:If there's enough water, it can be used directly as fuel, otherwise, it's used to supply the colony and the ships passing through.
I've talked to a lot of those foolish people. Their opposition to Man taking his rightful place among the stars are based on:
The government should be spending that money on Earth, not in space.
I guess they never figured out that NASA doesn't actually take that money up in crates and scatter it among the aliens.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:The money should be spent on something useful, like welfare.
Scarecrow Akhbar said:I've never had a use for burdens living at the expense of others, outside of votes, I'm not sure what the Left gets from them, either. Probably guilt, for which they need my money to assuage.