Triggerfish
New Member
tomchamp said:
I'm not not talking about the advanced tech to build the thing. I'm talking about the advanced tech needed on the ship.
Trying to figure these #'s!
- Thread starter tomchamp
- Start date
I'm not not talking about the advanced tech to build the thing. I'm talking about the advanced tech needed on the ship.
Triggerfish
New Member
It's not going to take that much longer now to build a model T than it would have taken decades ago except with for the automated robots would save time. However to build a modern car it would take a lot longer. More complicated parts and more parts in general.
Triggerfish
New Member
tomchamp said:
There is a difference between can and should. Why do you want to rush and do it in 9 years? Is there a rush? A race? What is the benefits? The con may be safety issues? More components means more components that can fail, which require even more testing. Some of the time concerning tech has very little to do with how advanced it is since we still have to test it and review it with the human eye even now.
Triggerfish
New Member
tomchamp said:
Even in 2005 it will take a lot longer to build a modern car than a model T if there were facilities to build both. I'm not talking about just assembling, it includes manufacturing the parts.
Triggerfish
New Member
However I think it has most to do with $$$$$ and how soon the government wants to fund the program.
MMDad
Lem Putt
tomchamp said:
Why? What do we get out of it? I am more than happy that my $$$$ go to food banks - they feed hungry people. I also support our military spending, highway spending, and even most of our foreign spending. Each of these has an arguable benefit to the taxpayer, but what is the argument for spaceflight? Star Trek?
Triggerfish
New Member
tomchamp said:
Many will not want as stated by some earlier. Yes, you have your say but no guarantee that the govt will listen. You can try to vote him/her out of office but I do not think this is going to be the main issue for most people. People will be more concerned with personal ownership of firearms, abortion, war, terrorism, environment, immigration, and religion.
soul4sale
New Member
tomchamp said:
HA! Bull. If a liberal is a conservative that hasn't been mugged, then a conservative is a liberal who hasn't been shafted by an insurance company.
Back to the topic, I think 13 years is optomistic and the Chinese will be setting up moon bases before we do. We don't have anything to prove by going back. The moon is like the South Pole, only much less habitable. Nobody wants it. Nobody will go there unless they have something to prove or we find something valuable. We can learn more and learn it faster with robots.
Triggerfish
New Member
They're talking about the program costing over $100 billion. However they are considering using the capsule in a future mars mission.
Railroad
Routinely Derailed
MONEY. Your Congress at play.tomchamp said:President Kennedy calls for a mission to send man to the moon during a joint session of Congress on May 25, 1961.
Less than 10 years later....Apollo 11 on July 20, 1969 lands on the moon!
Today...US to send four astronauts to moon in 2018.
Why will it now take 13 years. Knowing what they already know?
This should be a cake walk in space!
B
Bruzilla
Guest
The three year extension is needed for Democrats to oppose the effort by then President Condi Rice by saying that she's just awarding the moon contracts to her rich, white, buddies at Haliburton.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
At the rate that the President is willfully driving his image into the ground for taking responsibility for things that are not his fault, it just might be a Dem president.Bruzilla said:
