[AATW]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.

[totallackey]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.

Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:

1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...

Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...

And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...

Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?

[StinkyOne]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.

Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:

1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...

Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...

And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...

Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?

1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)

[totallackey]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.

Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:

1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...

Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...

And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...

Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?

1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)

Sorry...

You do not make "one small step/one giant leap," and then essentially retract.

Humanity has never done this.

Just goes against the grain.

Bridges = always longer.

Buildings = always taller.

Outer space = "We need to go to Mars."

If nothing else, the building of a base on the Moon (much like a base camp on the slopes of Everest) could have been accomplished by now, given the cost of the Shuttle program, et.al.

You are joking if you actually think the US has been cutting taxes.

Reshuffling, playing three card monte is more like it.

Fuel taxes, who pays what taxes, collections of lottery revenue, etc...

The government collects more of your money now on the back end. They just do not advertise it as much.

[StinkyOne]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

More to do with the funding dryiing up. The space race in the 60s was politically motivated. Russia had some initial successes, first satellite, first man in space. The US were desperate to catch up and overtake them, which they did. But it wasn't cheap. After they'd done it a few times the public appetite for it was on the wane hence the later missions being scrapped.

Here are the two favorite RE-tard responses as to why we never went back to the moon:

1) Nothing more to learn; and,
2) Public appetite wanes...

Well, the first is so freaking silly, I do not believe it even merits a response...

And the second? Public appetite for high taxes also wanes...has not stopped the government...

Can you fellas at least come up with something novel?

1) There is almost no reason to risk someones life to study the moon. Given small budgets versus the actual cost of doing science in space, every project needs to make financial sense. The moon just doesn't rank that high. You may not think that is the truth, but that doesn't make it any less true.
2) Not sure where you live, but in the US they keep cutting taxes. (which is ridiculous given our debt, but that is a topic for another day)

Sorry...

You do not make "one small step/one giant leap," and then essentially retract.

Humanity has never done this.

Just goes against the grain.

Bridges = always longer.

Buildings = always taller.

Outer space = "We need to go to Mars."

If nothing else, the building of a base on the Moon (much like a base camp on the slopes of Everest) could have been accomplished by now, given the cost of the Shuttle program, et.al.

You are joking if you actually think the US has been cutting taxes.

Reshuffling, playing three card monte is more like it.

Fuel taxes, who pays what taxes, collections of lottery revenue, etc...

The government collects more of your money now on the back end. They just do not advertise it as much.

You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.

A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.

I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.

[totallackey]

You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.

Faster =/= more efficient.

More passengers does.

Hence the survival and modifications/upgrades of the 747, the introduction of the Airbus 380, more powerful and more efficient jet engines, allowing a longer range of flight.

Cruise missiles took the place of long range bombers.

So, we did not backtrack.

We went forward, WAY FORWARD!!!

For crying out loud, you are wrong.

A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.

Horse hockey.

There have been plenty of projects here on Earth that have not "failed miserably," and the money spent POST APOLLO could have just as easily been spent on establishing such a base.

I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.

Bull cookies...given your butt is being kicked on the initial argument I cannot blame you for wanting to avoid another butt kicking on this slightly tangential argument, especially since you introduced the tangent.

[StinkyOne]

You're just wrong. The first thing that comes to mind is aviation. Concord - gone, SR-71 - gone, the fastest "plane" we ever built, the X-15, was built in the 1960s. Then there is the xb-70, a bomber that could travel mach 3.1 - cancelled. These are just some items off the top of my head where humanity has reached a point and then backtracked.

Faster =/= more efficient.

More passengers does.

Hence the survival and modifications/upgrades of the 747, the introduction of the Airbus 380, more powerful and more efficient jet engines, allowing a longer range of flight.

Cruise missiles took the place of long range bombers.

So, we did not backtrack.

We went forward, WAY FORWARD!!!

For crying out loud, you are wrong.

A moon base isn't really feasible. We've tried doing self-sustaining domes on Earth and they fail miserably. Constantly sending supplies to the moon would be very expensive and would soak up vast sums of money that could be spent elsewhere. It's called prioritization.

Horse hockey.

There have been plenty of projects here on Earth that have not "failed miserably," and the money spent POST APOLLO could have just as easily been spent on establishing such a base.

I can't cover every single state/county/local tax rate. Federal tax rates have dropped. My spending on taxes as a percent of income has dropped. This isn't really on topic though.

Bull cookies...given your butt is being kicked on the initial argument I cannot blame you for wanting to avoid another butt kicking on this slightly tangential argument, especially since you introduced the tangent.

Thank you for blindly walking into the point I was making. We give up some things (travel speed, exceedingly fast bombers) because they are not economically feasible/not needed. The same thing happens in the space program. It is NOT economically feasible to have a base on the moon and do the other projects that yield more science. You seem to think having a base on the moon would be worth the expense. People who actually know better don't. You think the Earth is flat - you probably should steer clear of the science discussions. Who, exactly, is getting their butt kicked here???

Taxes - as I said, I can't comment on all localities. Federal rates are comparatively low. I'm guessing that you had no idea the top tax rate in the US used to be over 90%.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

Google Biosphere 2 for an example of the difficulties of running self sustaining communities on Earth. Now try to imagine a small community trying to survive on the freaking moon.

[totallackey]

Thank you for blindly walking into the point I was making. We give up some things (travel speed, exceedingly fast bombers) because they are not economically feasible/not needed. The same thing happens in the space program. It is NOT economically feasible to have a base on the moon and do the other projects that yield more science. You seem to think having a base on the moon would be worth the expense. People who actually know better don't. You think the Earth is flat - you probably should steer clear of the science discussions. Who, exactly, is getting their butt kicked here???

You are.

Every other "long range" "difficult" "insert adjective for arduous" venture made by man has invariably established outposts in the pursuit of the final goal.

Name one that has not.

"blindly walking into the point..." my ass.

Taxes - as I said, I can't comment on all localities. Federal rates are comparatively low. I'm guessing that you had no idea the top tax rate in the US used to be over 90%.
http://federal-tax-rates.insidegov.com/

Yes.

I did.

Pre-Kennedy, until he came into office.

And those rates were essentially never paid because of shelters, actual fraud, off-shore accounts, maintenance of dual citizenship, etc...

So my point about government effectively collecting more tax per dollar still stands.

Google Biosphere 2 for an example of the difficulties of running self sustaining communities on Earth. Now try to imagine a small community trying to survive on the freaking moon.

Establishment of self-sustaining colonies with that (the establishment) as the final objective is nothing like establishing outposts to reach a far greater objective.

All prior experience required such steps.

Nope.

You lost.

First, we never went.

The fact we have not gone back despite the "increase in tech," is the primary reason I believe we did not go in the first place.

You really need to speak to your handlers and tell them to come up with some better talking points that are not so easily thrashed and trashed.

[StinkyOne]

LMAO - I think you've forgotten the original point. It wasn't worth the cost to keep going to the moon. History and science is on my side. If you think winning an debate is running your mouth, not providing any evidence, and forgetting the point, you win. Congrats.

[a_violet_fluid]

Did anyone else see in the news today that Trump has signed a bill for NASA so  they can supposedly send humans to the moon for long term exploration and begin human exploration to mars! First of all, that’s major tax money for nothing, and secondly that tells me the government is worried that people are catching on. Why has it been so long since the United States has been to the moon? Since then, for years there have only been low earth orbit missions. Interesting..

The reason we haven't gone to the moon again is that there is nothing else to be learned there. Why spend billions of $$ for no reason?

This question as a rebuttal in reference to the United States government?? 

[AATW]

LMAO - I think you've forgotten the original point. It wasn't worth the cost to keep going to the moon. History and science is on my side. If you think winning an debate is running your mouth, not providing any evidence, and forgetting the point, you win. Congrats.

The answer to "why have we not been back to the moon" is informed by the answer to the question "why did we go to the moon in the first place"?
And that wasn't just in the spirit of discovery, it was largely motivated by the cold war. Basically it came down to beating the Russians.
I'll be honest, I'm disappointed we haven't been back in my lifetime, I'm disappointed we don't have a lunar base. But the fact is those things would be crazy expensive and exploration of space has moved on - the ISS, putting Curiosity on Mars. But NASA's budget isn't what it was in the 60s when the space race was in full swing.

http://www.spaceflightinsider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg_.png

Technology does always move on but as you say that doesn't mean everything gets faster. Concorde was developed in the late 60s and we still don't have any other commercial airliners going at over Mach 1. Going faster is expensive. Basically, F=ma. And you have something to provide that F. So airline technology has moved on in different ways, more comfort, better entertainment systems and so on.

It's unclear why us having not returned to the moon is in some way a smoking gun for flat earth theory. If the claim is that all the missions were faked then they could have just faked more. Actually would be much easier these days with the CGI available. Is the theory that NASA are instead pumping money into faking the ISS instead? Ludicrous really.