/sci/ - Science & Math

We have more pressing issues like taking the power back from elitist 1% dipshits.

Because we've already been there. Our next target is Mars.

Financial reasons. Simply too fucking expensive.

Not financially sound given that we would likely learn absolutely nothing.

It isn't financially viable
there's no reason as of yet to go spending that much

colonization of the moon, however, should be on the agenda today.

>>3992141
NO.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPTvdZBZQQM

you haven't seen apollo 18 yet have you?

all of your questions will be answered

It was all a stunt for the Cold War theater. It served its purpose and now the world has moved on with other political theatrical displays. It was never about space exploration or expanding the Human condition or any other of that crap. That's what they told you pasty-white, basement-dwelling, virgin-nerd, Cheetos-eating retards in order to keep you quiet.

so everything conspiracy theorists are saying is bunk, and it's not because there is alien technology on the surface of the moon? OP... serious..

>>3992174

they sent a new sattelitee up there to get more HQ pics of the landing sites

wait a month or two

>>3992130

>why have we not gone back to the moon?

Because the shuttle was supposed to make launches more affordable, but it failed spectacularly.

Economically naive sentiment from Tyson. He's just perpetuating blind faith in scientism instead of rational comprehensive consideration for the wider situation. He needs to be realistic and appreciate just how the close the world came to financial collapse. Wall street works by the here and now. His form of science is based on predicting unpredictable progress. The two are incompatible and unfortunately Wall Street will by necessity continue to hold the upper hand. It will take a decade or more to recover and the economy will falter again just as it has done. It won't be humans to Mars in 50 years. It won't be humans to Mars in 10. We are not likely to see further space exploration since we were born too soon following the initial landing. We're still only coming to terms with routine aviation. We're a few hundred years off further spaceflight

>too expensive
NASA would have bases on Europa if they were given 2% of the money wasted on all the wars US waged from 1980-now
>nothing to learn
Could you be more ignorant? Every single re-entry gives us new information. More data to construct models leads to more accurate models which leads to greater efficiency

>>3992161
Holds a lot of truth, right now the imperative is to feed laquanda's 10 children and bail out the banks while printing an ungodly amount of money

Google
FED audit 16 trillion

spread the truth

>>3992228
>It won't be humans to Mars in 50 years. It won't be humans to Mars in 10. We are not likely to see further space exploration since we were born too soon following the initial landing. We're still only coming to terms with routine aviation. We're a few hundred years off further spaceflight

>>3992176
And it is not striking you in a simplest bit, that there are no HQ pics of moon surface with at least 1meter=1 pixel resolution.

After 40 years since last moon mission we got one small stripe of moon in considerable quality. But only that one.

Whole areas on google moon are blurred out, or there is simply a huge black shit.

Seems totally legit to you ?

>>3992151
why colonize the moon
unless by colonize you mean put a few robots and monitoring stations on it

>>3992246
>Whole areas on google moon are blurred out, or there is simply a huge black shit.
>huge black shit
>black shit
>black
are you sure you not looking at space?

Sorry, I guess I should have been a little more clear.. I guess, "IS THERE A COVER UP?"
is what I meant to ask.

Are there any valuable resources on the moon?

>>3992130
enjoy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ep4aw_CXAgY&

>>3992246
Apollo 12 landing site, 25 cm/pixel.

>>3992314
helium.

>>3992383
pretty sure we already have that stuff

>>3992406
its not renewable and its running.

>>3992416
I doubt it's worth going to the moon for balloon gas. It's probably cheaper to make it through hydrogen fusion.

>>3992426
but we use helium in rockets, the rockets that one day will go to the moon.
Also where do you think the helium for helium3 will come from?

>>3992439
>use helium in rockets
lol no. hydrogen and oxygen

>>3992439
Tritium decay.

>>3992450
>Helium helps NASA’s shuttle get into space. The space shuttle’s main engines generate the enormous amount of power needed to propel the shuttle off the earth by burning liquid hydrogen and oxygen. When the fuel is burned it becomes a gas. Mixing of the hot gas and the ultra-cold liquid fuel would be very dangerous; they’re kept separate by a cavity that must be continuously purged by helium gas.

its not rocket science... oh wait.

also helium makes a great rocket engine cleaner.