1 posted on
01/21/2004 2:53:37 PM PST by
ambrose
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
To: ambrose
Set foot.
To: ambrose
Yes.
3 posted on
01/21/2004 2:56:41 PM PST by
annyokie
(Wesley Clark: Howard Dean with medals!)
To: ambrose
NO; unless the UN wants to move.
To: ambrose
Among the products we use today that would not have been without the U.S. Space program: satellites, fire-resistant materials, sewage treatment, wireless communications, firefighter air tanks, winter tires, engine coatings, lightweight cutters to free accident victims, computer chips used for digital imaging breast biopsies, ultrasound scanners, insulin pumps, MRIs, radiation insulation, hydroponics, aerodynamically-efficient corporate jets, safer bridges, emission testing, electric cars, auto design, new semiconductors, structural analysis used by auto manufacturers, air quality monitors, virtual reality, global positioning systems used in navigation, microcomputers, enriched baby foods, water purification systems, scratch-resistant lenses, pool purification technology, energy-saving air conditioning, competition swimsuits, golf ball aerodynamics, portable coolers/warmers, cardiovascular sports training, athletic shoes, Dustbuster, shock-absorbing helmets, home security systems, smoke detectors, flat panel TVs, high-density batteries, trash compactors, food packaging and freeze-dried technology, sports bras, weather forecasting technology, laser angioplasty, microlasers for precision welding, and interactive computer training.
Does anyone actually believe this hyperbole?
To: ambrose
Only if NASA does it with voluntary donations.
The time has come to say no to every new government program that comes along, other wise it will be impossible to say no to any government program.
This is just a more "upscale" welfare program designed to transfer the wealth of the workers to those in government graces.
7 posted on
01/21/2004 3:07:42 PM PST by
Mark was here
(My fan club: "Go abuse some family member, as I'm sure is your practice." - Principled)
To: ambrose
Remember what Dubya said in his NASA speech last week:
Two centuries ago, Meriwether Lewis and William Clark left St. Louis to explore the new lands acquired in the Louisiana Purchase. They made that journey in the spirit of discovery, to learn the potential of vast new territory, and to chart a way for others to follow.
So the answer is a resounding "YES!"
Damn the Luddites. Full speed ahead!
To: ambrose
"Is it worth the money to step foot on Mars?"Are we going to be subjected to articles with these kind of titles for the next 20 years?
20 years of, "Can't this money be better spent on ......?" Please, no.
To: ambrose
Money spent getting to Mars is better spent than money spent supporting a million welfare brood mares
10 posted on
01/21/2004 3:10:07 PM PST by
SauronOfMordor
(Look as if you're playing by the other guy's rules, while quietly playing by your own)
To: ambrose
Tough to put a price tag on the value of exploration and discovery. Not a question I think you can absolutly answer in advance so by default I would say yes. Very few things on the list that have potential unlimited upside but this is one of them. Besides,if not us,who??
14 posted on
01/21/2004 3:13:11 PM PST by
calljack
(Sometimes your worst nightmare is just a start.)
To: ambrose
Should we return to the moon and step foot on Mars?I don't know, is the moon turning into Mars?
Just as a practical consideration, it will take months for an astronaut to hopefully land on that dismal excuse for real estate. Do we have a choice on who's going?
16 posted on
01/21/2004 3:14:58 PM PST by
xJones
To: ambrose
"Is it worth the money to step foot on Mars?"Follow the money and see who thinks it is worthwhile. Actually it may just be the Bush imitation of Roosevelt's WPA for unemployed scientists [hopefully American].
17 posted on
01/21/2004 3:14:58 PM PST by
ex-snook
(Where is the patriotism in the war on American jobs?)
To: ambrose
Yes. Absolutely. Positively. Affirmative.
Let's get a permission slip from the UN. [just kidding about the slavers and terrorists in the UN]
18 posted on
01/21/2004 3:14:58 PM PST by
Diogenesis
(If you mess with one of us, you mess with all of us)
To: ambrose
No
19 posted on
01/21/2004 3:15:37 PM PST by
petercooper
(Dean is Done!)
To: ambrose
Yes - Next Question!
To: ambrose
Yes, and for the reason he alludes to: spin off technologies.
They're inevitible whenever somebody sets out to do something new.
I'd sure rather see public money spent trying to get to Mars than spent on welfare and entitlements. The money IS going to be spent. Might as well spend it on something that will have some value down the road.
24 posted on
01/21/2004 3:22:06 PM PST by
Bobsat
To: ambrose
No NASA, no
To: ambrose
At 100 robots per human, I say stick to robots.
40 posted on
01/21/2004 3:44:16 PM PST by
Travis McGee
(----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
To: ambrose
The Chinese will probably beat us there since they really dont have to pay for the labor...
To: ambrose
74 posted on
01/21/2004 8:50:15 PM PST by
Major_Risktaker
(dididit dadadah dididit Oderint dum metuant)
To: ambrose
Pay for it yourself.
75 posted on
01/21/2004 8:52:12 PM PST by
Stew Padasso
(Head down over a saddle.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-24 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson