The "Aliens Are NOT Fake" Thread (spirits, Mars, light)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Enough Is Enough! They'll Come To Teach Us A Lesson!
Do you mean something like this?
Wait a second, didn't you just say "...if we continue to disturb them on the Moon..." and "...they will probably think that enough is enough and come and teach us a lesson"? What makes you think sending rovers to the Moon would not be disturbing to them?
Well, if the rovers stay away from the giant towers, the immense airplane that the aliens have on the moon, and all the other alien installations there, they'll be fine.
Well, if the rovers stay away from the giant towers, the immense airplane that the aliens have on the moon, and all the other alien installations there, they'll be fine.
You know how disturbing those pesky humans can be with their curiosity. First they'll explore the alien artifacts and installations. Then they'll start setting up hotels, 7-11s, and fast food chains like McDonalds for all the tourists.
You know how disturbing those pesky humans can be with their curiosity. First they'll explore the alien artifacts and installations. Then they'll start setting up hotels, 7-11s, and fast food chains like McDonalds for all the tourists.
The worst is when they leave rover tracks all over your lunar dust. I mean, come on...it takes billions of years for that to go away. Get off my lunar lawn, damn it!
Also, check out the Ancient Aliens series from the History Channel. This is "Part 1, The Evidence". There's some interesting stuff on this series. Part one is broken into 9 different videos on youtube.
The worst is when they leave rover tracks all over your lunar dust. I mean, come on...it takes billions of years for that to go away. Get off my lunar lawn, damn it!
You're right. It all starts with an infestation of rovers. Next thing you know there goes the whole neighborhood.
So, has no-one seen any valid reasons why we are not going back to the Moon - other than money.
I cannot believe that sending rovers to the Moon is more costly than sending them to Mars, and in fact the same science can probably be done to the Moon with a smaller budget. OK, the Moon is not so sexy at the moment as Mars, but apart from the money argument, why ignore an obvious first-step?
Yes, the rovers are disturbing, but I am trying to get an answer to the "Why not the Moon?" question and since we are going to disturb them anyway with satellites from China, India, Japan, Europe, AND the USA, then why not ask it? I dont think anyone has thought of any reason except money anyway.
I dont think anyone has thought of any reason except money anyway.
You say that as if it's unimportant. If it's only money, and money's no big deal, how are your efforts to fund moon rovers coming along? It's obviously important to you, and money isn't a valid objection, so why aren't you working on sending probes to the moon?
Money IS a valid reason. You don't like the answer so obviously you're going to pretend it isn't. But when there are limited dollars to be spent for exploration, why not spend them on exploring somewhere with a lot more open questions and opportunity for discovery?
Money IS a valid reason. You don't like the answer so obviously you're going to pretend it isn't. But when there are limited dollars to be spent for exploration, why not spend them on exploring somewhere with a lot more open questions and opportunity for discovery?
And, if you read the next paragraph, you will see why.
Quote:
I cannot believe that sending rovers to the Moon is more costly than sending them to Mars, and in fact the same science can probably be done to the Moon with a smaller budget. OK, the Moon is not so sexy at the moment as Mars, but apart from the money argument, why ignore an obvious first-step?
It is not that money is not available - it obviously is available because the US government is funding missions to Mars.However, there are more arguments for spending that money on the Moon rather than on Mars. If money is limited, which obviously it is, then it makes even more sense to start with making sure you have a firm understanding of all the processes of sending humans and robots to land on other planets by starting with the one nearest you.
It is not that money is not available - it obviously is available because the US government is funding missions to Mars.However, there are more arguments for spending that money on the Moon rather than on Mars. If money is limited, which obviously it is, then it makes even more sense to start with making sure you have a firm understanding of all the processes of sending humans and robots to land on other planets by starting with the one nearest you.
I'm sure you're well aware that the only missions to Mars funded by the U.S. so far has been orbital probes, rovers and stationary landers. The goal of a manned mission to the Red Planet has been proposed by the Obama administration, but it would be done in stages. Before anyone steps foot on the Martian surface, manned missions would be sent to the asteroids and one of the Martian moon Phobos. The idea being that such practice would aimed at resolving several issues such as whether or not we people can endure such long space flights, precision landings and take-offs. Once it has been determined that such trips are survivable, then an actual manned landing on Mars will be attempted. But that too involves matters that must first be resolved. Do we send cargo crafts periodically with food, water, equipment and supplies to the astronauts? Or will they have to manage on their own? Presently, searching for water is a very important step. What about lift off from the surface? We also need to develop a propulsion system that can get to distant reaches of the solar system much faster. With the system used at the present time, a round trip to Mars would take around 3 years. A lot of things have to be resolved long before such a mission can be taken in earnest.
I agree that Mars is a more attractive target than the Moon, if for no other reasons than that it appears to be more similar to the Earth in many ways than any of the other planets and moons in the solar syatem. The length of day on Mars is also similar with a day lasting 24 hours, 39 minutes and 35 seconds.
Attractive or not, any way you look at it, the Moon is much closer. If a problem occurs, it's at least possible to send a backup ship to rescue astronauts on the Moon or send supplies. While the prospect of sending people to Mars is exciting, to me it would make a lot more sense to send people back to the Moon with a trip to Mars, asteroids, etc., as goals. A manned mission to the Moon would be far cheaper to do than the proposed steps for a manned mission to Mars.
The only reason I can think of as to why manned lunar missions were scratched in favor of Mars would be for historical bragging rights to show that people can be sent to other planets in a practical way to work and live. It would be a major step in the colonization of space. I honestly think a manned mission to Mars should be an international venture as a way to reduce the overall costs of such a mission. At the same time, I also think that manned lunar missions should also be an international venture in the same way as the International Space Station.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Wait a second, didn't you just say "...if we continue to disturb them on the Moon..." and "...they will probably think that enough is enough and come and teach us a lesson"? What makes you think sending rovers to the Moon would not be disturbing to them?
