TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush to Announce Mission to Mars, Moon
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Where are my pejoratively labeling 'Conspiracy Theorist' oppugner's now?

Where's the know-it-all contention I was anticipating?

What's going on here?

quote:

Originally posted by Galapidate Does anyone else see the problem for itself? Does anyone see that Bush tries to divert the American peoples' mindsets with these things whenever something is wrong with the country?

It's called subterfuge.

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Where are my pejoratively labeling 'Conspiracy Theorist' oppugner's now? Where's the know-it-all contention I was anticipating? What's going on here?

Hehe take it easy. I was more or less joking. I never doubted that space based weaponry was never going to happen. It's an inevitability in the future in as much as war has moved to the seas and then to the air. The topic of discussion was NASA's restructuring to get to the moon and after your original post, I mistook your post to reference NASA as some kind of coverup for a space weaponry development program ... which it clearly doesn't need to be as their are existing programs designed to accomplish that end as you so succintly pointed out

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono You're going to think of me as some ideolistic nut-job, but here's how I see the Hubble situation. Hubble has done an excellent job of allowing us to see beyond Earth and our own galaxy, allowing us to see a plethora of new things and teaching us a great deal. However, after all the time we have had with Hubble, we are no closer to the places we have seen. The Mars mission may be an infintesimally small step to getting us to the sights seen by Hubble, but it is at least a step. In our lifetimes we will never have the technology to get us to the places that Hubble has shown us, but if we never begin the process, we will never get there in anyone's lifetime. Hubble has taken some wonderful postcards of the great tourist spots of the Universe, now its time to start thinking about making a real visit. It's great to see the Universe through a telescope's lens, but I want to see it through human eyes. No, I'm not high right now.

The only problem with that is the universal speed limit; the speed of light. But ironically that same limit is what allows Hubble to see billions of years into our past.

Well, I agree with the speed of light "limit," as to traditional velocity, but there are ways around it, although theoretical. They are way beyond our technology at this time, but two leading methods of so-called "faster than light" travel would be worm holes and warp drive, namely the proposed Alcubiere drive. Also, a group of physicists suppossedly transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony through a barrier faster than the speed of light useing quantum tunnelling. Regardless, both forms of faster than light transportation require negative energy, and that is a stumper. Communication at faster than light may be in our not-to-distant future, but faster than light travel will take a while. We gotta start sometime though...it's fun to dream.

Alcubiere

Worm Holes

Mozart FTL

Good all-around article on FTL travel and communication.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono Well, I agree with the speed of light "limit," as to traditional velocity, but there are ways around it, although theoretical. They are way beyond our technology at this time, but two leading methods of so-called "faster than light" travel would be worm holes and warp drive, namely the proposed Alcubiere drive. Also, a group of physicists suppossedly transmitted Mozart's 40th symphony through a barrier faster than the speed of light useing quantum tunnelling. Regardless, both forms of faster than light transportation require negative energy, and that is a stumper. Communication at faster than light may be in our not-to-distant future, but faster than light travel will take a while. We gotta start sometime though...it's fun to dream. Alcubiere Worm Holes Mozart FTL Good all-around article on FTL travel and communication.

wow those star wars things are cool

I tend to find this whole space program a little ironic, considering Bush has practically pissed on the majority of scientific research as a whole for pro-business and pro-religious interests. So you'll have to excuse me for being a little skeptical of Bush's intentions. While I think he may have a few good intentions, I tend to believe the majority of his intentions with this space program is a sincere diversion to our domestic and war difficulties.

Oh yeah, did you hear they now have pamplets at the Grand Canyon that give Creationist theories to it's possible formation? Love that faith-based initiative by Bush. Just piss on science a little more why don't you?:

http://www.workingforchange.com/art...fm?itemid=16200

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I tend to find this whole space program a little ironic, considering Bush has practically pissed on the majority of scientific research as a whole for pro-business and pro-religious interests. So you'll have to excuse me for being a little skeptical of Bush's intentions. While I think he may have a few good intentions, I tend to believe the majority of his intentions with this space program is a sincere diversion to our domestic and war difficulties. Oh yeah, did you hear they now have pamplets at the Grand Canyon that give Creationist theories to it's possible formation? Love that faith-based initiative by Bush. Just piss on science a little more why don't you?: http://www.workingforchange.com/art...fm?itemid=16200

Going to mars doesn't conflict with theism so I would imagine it wouldn't assault his sensibilities

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Going to mars doesn't conflict with theism so I would imagine it wouldn't assault his sensibilities

It's not the conflict with beliefs that I'm getting at. It's the irony of him spending money (though much of it is merely diverted in NASA programs) on a science program while at the same time dropped dung on other science programs to make way for his faith-based initiatives. That is the crux of my skepticism.

I do believe, however, that Bush's religious speak is nothing but lip service to appeal to religious voters, but that's just my personal opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I tend to find this whole space program a little ironic, considering Bush has practically pissed on the majority of scientific research as a whole for pro-business (...).

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/gray.php

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...&c=1&s=shorrock

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 It's not the conflict with beliefs that I'm getting at. It's the irony of him spending money (though much of it is merely diverted in NASA programs) on a science program while at the same time dropped dung on other science programs to make way for his faith-based initiatives. That is the crux of my skepticism. I do believe, however, that Bush's religious speak is nothing but lip service to appeal to religious voters, but that's just my personal opinion.

Out of curiosity, what science programs (besides stem celled research) has he tanked?

Personally, I don't care what his motivations are for his sudden interest in kick-starting NASA into bigger, better projects. Diversion or not, it's the kind of policy decision I've wanted to see happen for quite some time. Just about the only thing I do not like about the new NASA initiatives is that the Hubble telescope will need to be retired in 2008 (It's gyroscopes/solar panels are failing and NASA cannot dedicate a service mission with a space shuttle as they are slated for retirement). In the long run though, I think it's still a good decision since it would be far too costly to recertify the shuttles for hubble alone. Additionally the next generation space telescope is due to be launched in 2011 or so, so I think 3 years without a hubble is doable ... still got Chandra and the other great observatories at least.

I really want to act surprised, but I guess I'm not:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jan15.html

Here comes the cronyism conspiracists....

I'll get to your comments this afternoon, Occ.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I really want to act surprised, but I guess I'm not: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...-2004Jan15.html Here comes the cronyism conspiracists.... I'll get to your comments this afternoon, Occ.

Lol halliburton wouldn't see ANY results until the year 2020 at the least. Not only would a permenant base have to be established on Mars or the moon, but peremenant work habitats would have to be constructed after the science habitats.

One wonders why kennedy's grand mission to the moon lacked cronyism whereas this does. After all Kennedy DID double the budget for Boeing/lockheed/whoever through their NASA proxy

By this sense of logic we should abandon all space exploration until it becomes feasible for mom and pop aerodefense stores can build lunar orbiters so that it the big corporations cannot benefit.

Really, I can't wait until that dumbass bush gets voted out of office so I can then perpetuate the same taglines for democrat cronyism. I mean really, EVERY government spending program is cronyism. If you want to eliminate all of it, you would have my libertarian utopia of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Now is that what you really want?

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Lol halliburton wouldn't see ANY results until the year 2020 at the least. Not only would a permenant base have to be established on Mars or the moon, but peremenant work habitats would have to be constructed after the science habitats. One wonders why kennedy's grand mission to the moon lacked cronyism whereas this does. After all Kennedy DID double the budget for Boeing/lockheed/whoever through their NASA proxy By this sense of logic we should abandon all space exploration until it becomes feasible for mom and pop aerodefense stores can build lunar orbiters so that it the big corporations cannot benefit. Really, I can't wait until that dumbass bush gets voted out of office so I can then perpetuate the same taglines for democrat cronyism. I mean really, EVERY government spending program is cronyism. If you want to eliminate all of it, you would have my libertarian utopia of NO TAXES and NO GOVERNMENT SPENDING. Now is that what you really want?

Now Occ, don't blame me for believing it's possible cronyism (hence my sarcasm in previous post), blame your #1 candidate supporter:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php

Can I put a little more salt in your wound? Hehe, I'm lovin' it.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Now Occ, don't blame me for believing it's possible cronyism (hence my sarcasm in previous post), blame your #1 candidate supporter: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/index.php Can I put a little more salt in your wound? Hehe, I'm lovin' it.

I hate you

Yes well if Moore thinks it ... maybe you're right. Of course, if we are to apply this logic fairly and equally to everything, one can view the whole NASA agency as a ploy since the 50's to get Halliburton to Mars. Every advancement NASA made has and will eventually make money or benefit Halliburton so can we just rename NASA halliburton? Can we rename every single company and government spending program halliburton? Just so we don't get confused ...

Damn you Halliburton!

Will you stop at nothing in your quest for galactic domination??!!

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0218/gray.php http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?...&c=1&s=shorrock

Actually I was under the impression that Rummy was fighting with congress to get rid of the crusader . Did he change his mind?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/rumsfeld.crusader/

quote:

Originally posted by occrider I hate you Yes well if Moore thinks it ... maybe you're right. Of course, if we are to apply this logic fairly and equally to everything, one can view the whole NASA agency as a ploy since the 50's to get Halliburton to Mars. Every advancement NASA made has and will eventually make money or benefit Halliburton so can we just rename NASA halliburton? Can we rename every single company and government spending program halliburton? Just so we don't get confused ...

You're not taking me seriously, are you?

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 You're not taking me seriously, are you?

Of course not ... you referenced michael moore

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Actually I was under the impression that Rummy was fighting with congress to get rid of the crusader . Did he change his mind? http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/05/16/rumsfeld.crusader/

The Crusader contract was terminated (after the UDI initial public offering) and then it was replaced by:

http://www.kare11.com/news/news-art...p?NEWS_ID=56746

Rummy is a Navy man and is looking to modernize the Army with light armaments (and privatized soldiers) in order to ease in mobility and deployment, he's constantly fighting the Army's "old guard" which wants the opposite.

http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/mondo5.php

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X The Crusader contract was terminated (after the UDI initial public offering) and then it was replaced by: http://www.kare11.com/news/news-art...p?NEWS_ID=56746 Rummy is a Navy man and is looking to modernize the Army with light armaments (and privatized soldiers) in order to ease in mobility and deployment, he's constantly fighting the Army's "old guard" which wants the opposite. http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0350/mondo5.php

Ah ok ... I knew about his fighting with the "old guard" I didn't know that UDI salvaged some of their lost bid. At any rate, I somewhat agree with Rummy. I don't know if the $2 billion contract to UDI was necessary, but I was certain that the $11 billion Crusader project was unnecessary. I was glad he cancelled the crusader project and is fighting with the cold war pentagon to upgrade it.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.