Did NASA have an actual mission in mind for this last space launch?
For at least the last 30 years, it has been funded with less than 1% of federal spending. To put this in perspective, our country spends more (40% more) on the food stamps program than it does on space program.cmarsh90 said:I think there are better ways to spend our billions of tax dollars.
Yeah, this mission could have funded several hours of the War on Terror.cmarsh90 said:I think there are better ways to spend our billions of tax dollars.
bodypainter said:Yeah, this mission could have funded several hours of the War on Terror.
White92 said:As far as the other topics go, in my own opinion there are many more ways to further mankind here on our own earth right now. There are so many problems with poverty, starvation, basic education, etc....
bodypainter said:I was 13 in 1969 and watched the first moon landing live on TV. I will never, ever, forget that moment.
The emotions were indescribable. It saddens me that generations since can't know what that was like.
Good question. This illustrates perfectly how there is so much more to application of technology than simply having the technology:SNDSOUL said:My question is, if we could send a team to space and land on the moon with the technology present in 1969, then why is it that NASA says that we wont have the capability to land on the moon again until somewhere around 2020??
I wondered about this, but apparently, it’s not possible. Not even Hubble can see such small objects. From Hubble site:SNDSOUL said:Can anyone see the supplies and equipment that was left there with a telescope>?
I think Hubble is bumping up against an optical physics limitation (determined by size of the lense and how far away the object being viewed is).A closeup view of Copernicus' terraced walls. Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across.