ADVERTISEMENT

Juno probe arrives at Jupiter

Interesting note about project...after 50 some days NASA plans to crash Juno into Jupiter. Reason? They don't want to take a chance of it actually crashing into Europa. Europa contains massive liquid oceans under its frozen surface. Everywhere on Earth that there's water, life has been found. Even miles under the ice in Antarctica in water that hasn't been exposed for millions of years. The fear? They're afraid that an inadvertent crash into Europa would contaminate it with Earth borne bacteria. Evidently there's some kind of planetary protection protocol designed to keep planet environments intact. Missions are being drawn up to search for life under the Europa's ice with assurance that any life possibly discovered didn't hitch a ride.
 
Waste of money. The country is bankrupt.

I knew what you were going to say before I even read your response. I think you have a niche with your way of thinking, you were just born too late. You'd have been perfect for the Dark Ages. Your way of thinking is so passé post Renaissance though.
 
Herdman, think of it as exploration to find someone, somewhere with the nads to bring Hillary to justice.

Oh, and I believe it was Star Fleet who came up with the no interference/impact rule, not NASA.
 
  • Like
Reactions: andy4theherd
Oh, and I believe it was Star Fleet who came up with the no interference/impact rule, not NASA.

I looked it up. There's actually an Outer Space Agreement and this falls under the planetary protection part of it. Every few years the Council for Space Research meets...a group of several thousand scientist from all over the world. These types of things...interplanetary contamination from space missions...are actually discussed.

I didn't know that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
 
I looked it up. There's actually an Outer Space Agreement and this falls under the planetary protection part of it. Every few years the Council for Space Research meets...a group of several thousand scientist from all over the world. These types of things...interplanetary contamination from space missions...are actually discussed.

I didn't know that

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_protection
Can you imagine how dull that conference is
 
  • Like
Reactions: wvkeeper(HN)
Interesting note about project...after 50 some days NASA plans to crash Juno into Jupiter. Reason? They don't want to take a chance of it actually crashing into Europa. Europa contains massive liquid oceans under its frozen surface. Everywhere on Earth that there's water, life has been found. Even miles under the ice in Antarctica in water that hasn't been exposed for millions of years. The fear? They're afraid that an inadvertent crash into Europa would contaminate it with Earth borne bacteria. Evidently there's some kind of planetary protection protocol designed to keep planet environments intact. Missions are being drawn up to search for life under the Europa's ice with assurance that any life possibly discovered didn't hitch a ride.

We have to decide are we going to keep paying for bums and welfare or are we sending people to Mars. Can't have both in the long run.
 
We have to decide are we going to keep paying for bums and welfare or are we sending people to Mars. Can't have both in the long run.

You could say the same thing about a thousand other programs. You picking and chosing our space program vs welfare is a contrived argument that you artificially created to suit your own ideological viewpoint. I can do the same. *I say if we eliminated guns we could save conservatively up to 229 billion dollars per year (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4) that could be used for space research. So we have to make a decision...guns or space. "Can't have both in the long run."



*i don't subscribe to this, but you get my point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: herdit44
You could say the same thing about a thousand other programs. You picking and chosing our space program vs welfare is a contrived argument that you artificially created to suit your own ideological viewpoint. I can do the same. *I say if we eliminated guns we could save conservatively up to 229 billion dollars per year (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4) that could be used for space research. So we have to make a decision...guns or space. "Can't have both in the long run."



*i don't subscribe to this, but you get my point.
In the 1960s we had Both. Blowing gooks away with guns AND sending people to the moon, the dependent class was much smaller in those days.
 
Interesting note about project...after 50 some days NASA plans to crash Juno into Jupiter. Reason? They don't want to take a chance of it actually crashing into Europa. Europa contains massive liquid oceans under its frozen surface. Everywhere on Earth that there's water, life has been found. Even miles under the ice in Antarctica in water that hasn't been exposed for millions of years. The fear? They're afraid that an inadvertent crash into Europa would contaminate it with Earth borne bacteria. Evidently there's some kind of planetary protection protocol designed to keep planet environments intact. Missions are being drawn up to search for life under the Europa's ice with assurance that any life possibly discovered didn't hitch a ride.
Thats correct GK. That arose from the fact that NASA sent the Surveyer Aircraft to the moon, and then retrieved a portion of it several years later on Apollo 12 and bacteria had survived for 2-3 years on the moon.
 
In the 1960s we had Both. Blowing gooks away with guns AND sending people to the moon, the dependent class was much smaller in those days.

I'd love to return to the 60s level NASA budgets as a percentage of US spending. In the height of NASA spending (1965-66) the program was allotted around 4.5 percent of the US budget. That stands at .5 percent today. 1960s level spending would increase our spending eight times more than it is presently.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/feb/01/nasa-budgets-us-spending-space-travel
 
Thats correct GK. That arose from the fact that NASA sent the Surveyer Aircraft to the moon, and then retrieved a portion of it several years later on Apollo 12 and bacteria had survived for 2-3 years on the moon.

Hard to believe that bacteria could survive all that solar radiation. Interesting.
 
I'd love to return to the 60s level NASA budgets as a percentage of US spending. In the height of NASA spending (1965-66) the program was allotted around 4.5 percent of the US budget. That stands at .5 percent today. 1960s level spending would increase our spending eight times more than it is presently.
And would get people off the public dole as well. Not just Scientists and engineers etc, but blue collar jobs in construction, maintenance etc.AND we we again see huge developments in RD for public use again as well. Think how many people are alive today thanks to plastics, alloys etc that were developed during space program.
 
I would totally rather Money be pumped into NASA contractors, Roads projects etc than SSI Checks or EBT cards, public housing etc. Society benefits much more in the long run without creating a dependent class.

I actually agree with you. The problem is we became an entitlement nation. Then, the politicians figure out how to print money and not back it up with gold.

I don't mind money being spent on space research. It leads to many other good things.
 
You could say the same thing about a thousand other programs. You picking and chosing our space program vs welfare is a contrived argument that you artificially created to suit your own ideological viewpoint. I can do the same. *I say if we eliminated guns we could save conservatively up to 229 billion dollars per year (http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-violence-costs-america-more-than-229-billion-every-year-2015-4) that could be used for space research. So we have to make a decision...guns or space. "Can't have both in the long run."



*i don't subscribe to this, but you get my point.

That would work if we were like Denmark but only for a little while because those countries are two bit compared to us. Nobody else can do it lie us. And, as for guns they are protected by the constitution. But, that doesn't seem to matter anymore.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT