given that crude oil is organic plant material that's been fossilized it would be quite the thing if petroleum is found on the moon.
On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 4:07 AM, Maureen <mamamaur...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I cannot count the times I have had to explain some clueless fool that > money spent by NASA is not put in the rocket and blasted into space. > It is spent right here on earth, providing jobs and as you stated, a > very good return on investment in terms of the discoveries and > inventions. > > My only objection to space exploration is I am afraid they'll put > cities and suburbs on the moon someday and destroy its beauty, and > commercial interests like mining and petrochemical companies will > pollute space the same way they have earth. Put rules in place before > that happens would make me a happy camper. > > On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Larry C. Lyons <larrycly...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Exactly and report after report has shown that for every dollar spent >> on NASA there's been a $10 to $20 return. If all one can see are the >> dollar signs involved, you have to admit that's a pretty good return >> on investment. >> >> On Sat, Jun 9, 2012 at 10:38 PM, PT <cft...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well, the new Hubble is already under construction. This would be an >>> unplanned addition. The NASA folks said if they got both, they could >>> use one to look at wide area views of the universe and the other to >>> really zoom in on something interesting when they find it. I believe >>> the term ideal was tossed about. This is in addition to different >>> detection capabilities that weren't designed into the current and >>> replacement Hubbles. >>> >>> We already have one replacement Hubble for 8.8 billion. Why not add an >>> entirely different system that can work in tandem with it for only 1.3 >>> billion more? >>> >>> That seems like a pretty good deal to me. The money can come from >>> striking 6 of those stupid JSFs from the order of over 2,000 expected to >>> be placed. The upkeep on those planes is estimated to cost well over 1 >>> trillion dollars over their operational lifetime. The fewer we have, >>> the better. 6 planes means nothing to the military, who only wants them >>> because they are cool new toys anyway. They would just have to make do >>> with those old PoS F-22s. Just one extra space telescope would mean the >>> world to NASA researchers. We don't even know the full contents of the >>> solar system yet. It is sad. >>> >>> On 6/9/2012 6:23 PM, Larry C. Lyons wrote: >>>> >>>> Dana you may think its OK for us to permanently live with cranial >>>> recto-inversion I do not. The possibilities of two nearly identical >>>> satellites operating at the same time opens the possibility for >>>> instance of a system with an aperture the size of the earth >>>> effectively. We've been good at detecting extremely large exo planets. >>>> This system would increase the resolution to detect objects the size >>>> of asteroids or smaller. It would be like having a new Hubble system, >>>> even more modern. >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:351870 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
