Nasa is Planning the "ESCAPE FROM PLANET EARTH"

>> A few quotes:
>> "But the goal isn't just scientific exploration . . . it's also about
>> extending the range of human habitat out from Earth into the solar
>> system as we go forward in time. . . .
> Isn't is also about benefiting the human race down here
> on earth? How is this generic scientific exploration going
> to change things for the better? Or is simply gathering 'data'
> and end in itself?
>> In the long run a single-planet
>> species will not survive.
> In order to justify a long term investment that yields ....zero...
> returns for anyone but themselves, the long term is redefined
> to mean 50,000 years, or is it one million?
> How convenient.
>> We have ample evidence of that . . . [Species
>> have] been wiped out in mass extinctions on an average of every 30
>> million years. ... We don't know of any other species anywhere, but
>> while I cannot say that multiple-planet species will survive, I think I
>> can prove to you from our own geologic record that single-planet
>> species don't."
>> "Now, you know, in the sense that a chicken is just an egg's way of
>> laying another egg, one of our purposes is to survive and thrive and
>> spread humankind.
> So the goal is to propagate the species then? I can think
> of another term for what this program is doing to the taxpayers.
>> I think that's worth doing. There will be another
>> mass-extinction event. If we humans want to survive for hundreds of
>> thousands or millions of years, we must ultimately populate other
>> planets. Now, today the technology is such that this is barely
>> conceivable. We're in the infancy of it."
>> "I'm talking about that one day, I don't know when that day is,
> Could you at least tell us what those four astronauts will be
> doing on the Moon? Collecting more rocks, building a shack?
> What? Why are they going there?
>> but
>> there will be more human beings who live off the Earth than on it. We
>> may well have people living on the moon. We may have people living on
>> the moons of Jupiter and other planets. We may have people making
>> habitats on asteroids.
> Once we run out of oil, food and our climate is swinging from
> steam to ice...yes...we'll probably go to those places.
> The entire point is to prevent those things from happening
> so we don't ....have....to evacuate.
> How is Nasa's long term goal in any way help these earthly
> problems our future is sure to expose?
>> We've got places that humans will go, not in our
>> lifetime, but they will go there."
> Success for this program will only be measured in centuries.
> In other words since there are no real goals being set, there
> is nothing that needs to be accomplished. Perfect!
> No objective way at all to determine whether this program
> is meeting/exceeding or failing expectations in return for
> the money. Since there are none.
> How convenient.
>> "generations of upper-level NASA managers have tried to characterize
>> the shuttle as routine and safe, and it is not routine, and other than
>> in the sense that a mountain climber would use the word, it's not safe.
>> Mountain climbing is an activity that's riskier than flying on the
>> shuttle. If we elect to go climb Mount Everest, the odds are 10 percent
>> we're going to die. That's riskier than getting on board the shuttle."
> So Nasa is mountain climbing. For the sake of it, just because
> it's there. This policy statement merely means we are not
> even contemplating the exploitation of space or related
> technology. We are not in the mountain 'mining' phase, just
> still climbing, look around, take a few pictures
> and go home.
> Then we can all toast these elite explorers for their grand
> adventure. Kind of like the peasants cheering the return
> of their King from an exotic hunt. Look at all the strange
> things! Wow.
> For Nasa to call this a 'vision' is pornographic.
> Unless Nasa's goal is wrapped around ....OUR...future
> not there own careers, it is a vision of space that has as it's
> goal the exploitation of ....us.
> This, or something like it, is what we should be doing
> with the new hardware.
> Space Solar Power Home
> http://spacesolarpower.nasa.gov/
> This administrator is a yes man for the White House.
> President Bush gets to completely reorganize Nasa
> through his limited and militaristic lens. And in return
> Nasa gets promises for future missions that other
> administrations will have to honor.
> I imagine President Bush told 'em, "plan any mission you
> want" if you'll implement my 'vision'. Why not, he knows
> some other President will have to fund them, so they'll
> never happen.
> Nasa gets it's wish list...or so it thinks.
> What fools. Unless Nasa's goals inspire everyone
> at once, they have no legs at all. Solving our energy
> future qualifies. As it bring America future independence
> and prosperity. It would bring stability to global warming.
> It would reduce wars over diminishing resources.
> It would help bring electricity and prosperity to the
> entire world.
> And ya know what, we'd probable have to go to the
> Moon anyways to pull it all off. Only difference is that
> now we'd have a reason to see it through. A reason to
> fund it for the long term.
> Nasa
> Main Entry: pur·pose·less
> Pronunciation: -l&s
> Function: adjective
> : having no purpose : AIMLESS, MEANINGLESS
> Jonathan
> s
>