«

[PrejudiceSucks]

Dust is a good thing. Let's nick it all!

[omg]

mmm dust.

[BeefontheBone]

It's actually very low in fat, so you can eat as much dust as you want! </little britain impression>

[Sebatianos]

Nah, I prefer ashes.

[A. J. Raffles]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Jul 3 2005, 09:53 PM
Nah, I prefer ashes.

Ashes can be carcinogenic, though. Live healthy - eat dust.

[Sebatianos]

If you drive really fast I can eat your dust!

*cough, cough*

[a1s]

Originally posted by efthimios+Jul 3 2005, 01:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (efthimios @ Jul 3 2005, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Well, for those who actualy do not know them, it is the first of the Newton's laws.* Copy and Paste bring this: An object at rest tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

[/b]

well there is one unlanced force: F=mf*mM*G/r^2. where mf-is the mass of the flag, mM- is the mass of the moon, G- is the gravitational constatn, and r- is the distnace between the flag, and the center of the moon. (yes, indeed I'm talking about gravity).

<!--QuoteBegin-efthimios@Jul 3 2005, 12:32 PM
If you want to see an example of take the people's mind off what is directly important for them just look at wars or threats of war and killing across the globe. Not many people will say, "forget about food, just look how we went to the Moon!", but they might say "Oh no! The ...... are out to get us and kill us, we must do something about it and forget about the details".[/quote]
wars are effective but very resource consuming- it's a lot better to just call it a war ("the cold war" to be exact), and then make lots of patriotic messages- "lets bring comunism to space!" or "don't let our space program go unprepared- BUY NASA BONDS" and when a person comes to you in search of food and other stuff, just ask him why does he put his own interests above national ones- works like a charm.

Originally posted by efthimios@Jul 3 2005, 12:32 PM
Astral, do you mean the first Apollo mission that landed on the Moon or the first even Apollo mission? Is it that the 70's technology was not good enough the same type of reason behind "the egyptians could not have built the pyramids"? Give humans a break!

I don't think the real problem was lack of technological advancements, those of you who actualy did more than an hour of research know, that we today (and in fact for two decades now) have all the technolgy needed to set up clonies (well life supproting outposts realy) eather Mars or Venus, but we still didn't do that. why? because it's not cost efficient to do that. it would take roughly a years worth of all of earth production, to build a all the equipment needed to create a semi-self suffcient (such colny should be theorethicaly able to procure enough air, water, energy, and building matterilas for most basic needs, but it would still depend on earth for most of other stuff) colony for a 100 men, and the capacity to accamodate 100 more for a limited amount of time (month) and the ship (outfitted with 2 years worth of life support for a 100 men) to carry that equpment to Mars (I have no data on Venus, sorry).

as for using the moon as a Hub for travel within the solar system, that will work out eventualy, but not until we get some other planet colonised, otherwise you'd still have to go all the way from earth to reach the moon, which will take the same or more effort (fuel, computational time, etc...) than just launching it tawrds its destination in the first place.

Originally posted by R Havell+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (R Havell)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Triton, I think, as he is a homophobe.[/b]

Nononononono... Just because I think homosexuals should be rehabilitated doesn't mean I'm scared of them. Stop trying to change the subject, o m g.

<!--QuoteBegin-Quintopotere
The problem is not "who landed on moon and when", but "who will take the control of the moon?".[/quote]

Where is the problem in that? [sarcasm]America should have control of the moon, if only one country could control it. Consider all that America has done for the world, and compare it to what little good Asia and Europe have done.[/sarcasm]

[ReamusLQ]

Originally posted by Triton+Jul 3 2005, 04:33 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Triton @ Jul 3 2005, 04:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Nononononono... Just because I think homosexuals should be rehabilitated doesn't mean I'm scared of them. Stop trying to change the subject, o m g.

<!--QuoteBegin-Quintopotere
The problem is not "who landed on moon and when", but "who will take the control of the moon?".

Where is the problem in that? America should have control of the moon, if only one country could control it. Consider all that America has done for the world, and compare it to what little good Asia and Europe have done. [/b][/quote]
Yay for the arrogance of the USA! w00t! <US PRIDE!>

[efthimios]

Triton I am sorry to say but with that last sentence you made americans and wanna be americans (like myself) a bit embarassed. Unless of course you were joking.

ReamusLQ, don't blame the whole nation for one guy.

Triton, about your thoughts about rehabilitation, it is so ludicrous that I can't believe you wrote that.

Of course (as I too mentioned I think, earlier) we could have established colonies by now, but as you mention, it is not cost effective. BUT, it could be after years of research and developement. It ain't going to happen though soon. :-(

BTW, Triton, the Moon does not belong to anyone and cannot be claimed by anyone according to the treaty of.....something. I actualy researched that a tiny bit for my dissertation few years ago but it wasn't a main part so don't even remember the name That last was because I can't find any better smiley for my feelings on the matter. :-)