by The Rebel 579 Replies latest jw friends
Wow! I can't believe this thread is still alive
I might be suspicious of the Nasa and people in authority, but when you dig deep into this subject, you'll find more proof on Nasa side than otherwise. So I digress...
Thanks Viviane for pointing me in the right direction
Viv your answers to my questions:-
" I am out of a book to read when I am pooping.....?
Why not answer the question?
...............
Bush " Our goal is to return to the moon ion 2020"
My two questions are :-
A) WHY did Bush not explain, WHY it would take 15 years with 21st tecnology to return to the moon, when it only took 8 years to accomplish this achievement with 1960s tecnology?
B) Why to my knowledge was this question not raised by journalists at the press conference.
A respectful answer would be appreciated, as I have now researched this question and found no sattisfactory answer.
The best answer from Viv " I am out of a book to read when I am pooping"
The Rebel.
) So WHY did Bush NOT explain WHY it would take 15 years with 21st tecnology to return to the moon, when it only took 8 years to accomplish this achievement with 1960s tecnology.
Maybe because he assumes that anyone interested in the subject already knew the answer to that question. It's not exactly rocket science, lol.
They are trying to do more than just land on the moon and plant a flag. They are looking to put people there for several months, so they need a bigger ship to transport all those supplies, and time to design and build everything. Nasa doesn't currently even have the kind of rockets that would get us out of the earth's orbit. And of course all this takes money, there is only so much in the budget.
Full explanation here :
http://m.space.com/7015-40-years-moon-landing-hard.html
By the way, it took me exactly two minutes to find this information.
B) Why to my knowledge was this question not raised by journalists at the press conference?
Maybe because they, being good journalists and not lazy, had already researched and knew why.
Because he is Bush. He is a dummy. He couldn't pour piss out of a boot with the instructools written on the heel.
By the way, it took me exactly two minutes to find this information.
Which was why i didnt give it as i knew Rebel isnt really interested in the answers. This isnt about answers after all is it.
i think Viv has the right idea with the poop memes, that's all this thread deserves right now.
Why the hateful comments and the battlefield of insulting visual images?
Its a simple question " WHY did Bush NOT explain WHY it would take 15 years with 21st tecnology to return to the moon, when it only took 8 years to accomplish this achievement with 1960s tecnology?
Why to my knowledge was this question not raised by journalists at the press conference?
Lisa Rose answer" maybe because they not being lazy journalists, and not being lazy had researched and knew why?
Well journalists inform the public, the public probably had not researched and didn't know why?
Probably most of the public still don't know the answer.
So what was the answer?
THe Rebel,
Haha the retarded comments on that link are priceless...
A) Because NASA are not funded to the same degree as they were in the sixties, not even taking into account inflation NASA has a budget less than the cost of the moon landings. You would have to increase the NASA budget tenfold to get to the sort of money they need to get to the moon. The cost in the sixties for the moon landing was $25Billion, NASAs entire budget this year was $18Billion.
B) Because it is a matter of public record that NASA is not funded to the same degree and hence is the sort of question that you could find the answer to yourself given a computer and five minutes.
In engineering you have three criteria cheap, accurate and on-time. You get to pick two so if you want it cheap and you don't want it to go wrong then it is going to take time.
Here's the speech you keep harping on about: http://history.nasa.gov/Bush%20SEP.htm
Bet you dont read it....
If you cant be bothered to search for it yourself and read it already to make sure you know what you are talking about before posting about it, i doubt you'll read it when someone else posts it for you.
Hmmm, about 10 seconds on google found that, not too hard is it?
Sorry but I hate to be the person to point out certain things because it sounds like I support conspiracy,
But public funding and not public funding are two completely different things. Now to my knowledge NASA gets no off the record funding, but you know who does? Lockeed SkunkWorks. Why are people so naive to think the government wants to honestly show them everything they do? You guys are giving the tin foil hat wearers fuel.
If there was a strategic purpose for it, the funding would be there, visible or not. The public view of how money moves and works, and why people do certain things is funny. The government is no different than the mob, or wolf of wall street types, everything involving money has a reason.
So maybe a better reason behind it taking so long to go back is it doesn't benefit anyone now. Who's gonna pay for that?
