A new Earth?

posted on April 26th, 2007, 6:34 pm

Not to mention the impracticality of colonizing a planet 20 light years away...

TheOldMan

914 posts

posted on April 26th, 2007, 7:38 pm

Perhaps the existence of this planet will make scientists work harder on possible solutions for high-speed space travel. Now there's at least a place where we could want to go to.

posted on April 26th, 2007, 9:16 pm

Nope Nasa has ben order by Press Bush to spind most of its munny on going back to the moon in sted of reashering space fisics and new ways to keep humans in spase for longer and longer times with out letting thare bodys tern in to jello.

posted on April 26th, 2007, 9:37 pm

Not that that's a bad decision, though. The moon doesn't deserve to be neglected, and it is much more practical.

Heck, you can't say it goes against "Trek" ideals of far-reaching stellar travel, either.

After all, the moon is heavily colonized in Star Trek...

posted on April 26th, 2007, 10:06 pm

Yeh but we cut funding to the hubal telisope and funding from alot of other worth olits thay should not have. I mean we have the international spase station we dont need to refulling stations that close to each other.

Well all so cut funding from sinding manned spase shuttals up wish is much more inportent to seeing how people can safly live in space for long times.

posted on April 26th, 2007, 10:10 pm

Actually, a space mission within the next few months is going to repair hubble.

posted on April 26th, 2007, 10:19 pm

Waw I am inprested. The last I heird of the Hubild was bush saying hubales to exspisive and we need to junk it. Mabby this new congress have overterned that polasy :woot:

Prowannabe

97 posts

posted on April 26th, 2007, 10:46 pm

The Hubble is quite expensive, just think about fixing something over 100 miles above you; they need to prep a shuttle and get a team of experts to repair the Hubble and come back down and wait until it breaks again and now we can make digital telescopes many times better with better repair systems; i.e. backup systems, auxiliary systems, and repair software too actually tell you exactly whats wrong with it and it would be smaller specially with MEMS technology; its still a little experimental though, but they use MEMS in the new mirror televisions. :borg:

posted on April 27th, 2007, 2:43 am

Well its cheaper than bilding a new one. The huble is still usefule it still can find new things.

Yes but if something works for what its need for way thow it away? The hubale has systoms that tell you when thares a problom and what it is and it has a serton amont of softwhare repar proticals.

Is that what the voses in yoe head told you? J/K

posted on April 27th, 2007, 4:13 pm

We are building a new one; the James Webb space telescope will be deployed in 2011.

posted on April 27th, 2007, 8:34 pm

Space in a big place. you can have 100 telescope and still not see every thing the Hubble is still useful.

TheOldMan

914 posts

posted on April 27th, 2007, 8:44 pm

ewm90 wrote:Nope Nasa has ben order by Press Bush to spind most of its munny on going back to the moon in sted of reashering space fisics and new ways to keep humans in spase for longer and longer times with out letting thare bodys tern in to jello.

Wasn't it Bush who talked about colonizing Mars until 2020? At least this was the last announcement (in which he also talked about going back to the Moon) of him I can remember. So how does it come they cut NASA's budget? I'm just asking.

posted on April 27th, 2007, 9:26 pm

Mars makes sens theirs anoff resoreses their to start a self sustainable habituate. after that speech the white house put out a announcements about these cuts.