If you were given the opportunity to travel to the moon in a space shuttle, would you take it?

No. Don't even like ordinary travel.

No....no reason It is just a gimmick, someone else is making a profit with the space program

I'd prefer to be more active than just passenger but any way I can go, yes.

Somewhere between probably and maybe. I'd like to take the opportunity assuming that somebody else is covering my costs but I can't tell what's going to happen with me in three years.

No, I dont think so. I get car sick very easily, so I would be sick the whole time. I tried deep sea fishing, OMG, I pucked the whole time. Took about ten dramamine. Nothing helped. All it did was make me sleep, waking up every few minutes to puke. That was the longest ten hours of my life. I wouldnt want to do that with a space helmet on.

> No....no reason It is just a gimmick, someone else is making a profit
> with the space program

Do you have proof for this statement?

I am not fond of flying... a flight to the moon... I'd have to think about it..

A cheese holiday, I'm in!

probably not but i just went to kennedy space center and it was fantastic!

Can you tell me really what good is the space program? We'll never be able to live anywhere but here. We were designed to live here. There are billions, upon billions of dollars that could be better spent elsewhere than in a space program. Someone is making a profit at taxpayers expense. To me, it's common sense. The earth is where we were designed to live. We're air people.

By merely not being a real productive system for mankind, is proof for me.

I guess if I wouldn't have to pay for it then I would. So, probably.

Not sure I would be a good candidate. Have a low pain threshold; there would certainly be some form of pain up there!

Why would you need 3 years to be a passenger only? It makes a difference in how you would really answer this. I'd say "Yes" if there was no training, just put me in a space suit and blast off, but not so sure about going through 3 years of training. Is NASA gonna pay me full time for 3 years? Would I even have a job afterwards? Would I have to disrupt my life and move to the training facilities?

I suggested deleting the explanation line. Or, it should have read "Assume you would have to train for three years."

> Why would you need 3 years to be a passenger only? It makes a difference
> in how you would really answer this. I'd say "Yes" if there was no
> training, just put me in a space suit and blast off, but not so sure
> about going through 3 years of training. Is NASA gonna pay me full
> time for 3 years? Would I even have a job afterwards? Would I have
> to disrupt my life and move to the training facilities?
>
> I suggested deleting the explanation line. Or, it should have read
> "Assume you would have to train for three years."

Maybe its going to be like the movie "Men in Black" You are going to give up your life for the mission.

Then why would anyone want to do it?

Yes, in a hot second. I wouldn't want to have to wait three years though.

> Can you tell me really what good is the space program? We'll never
> be able to live anywhere but here. We were designed to live here.
> There are billions, upon billions of dollars that could be better
> spent elsewhere than in a space program. Someone is making a profit
> at taxpayers expense. To me, it's common sense. The earth is where
> we were designed to live. We're air people.
>
> By merely not being a real productive system for mankind, is proof
> for me.
>
Hmm..where to begin....

First of all, the reason you can access this forum with a computer that doesn't take up an entire floor of a building is because computer components had to get smaller and lighter so they could be used in a spaceship. The research that went into that job of miniaturization has paid off hugely just because of the computer industry. If NASA were not a government agency and could have taken profits, they would be one of the largest companies in the world today. Virtually every aspect of modern technology that everyone uses everyday has been reshaped by research that was originally done for the space program, from the telephone to insulation for houses. Were it not for the space program, our current standard of living would be considerably lower than it is. This is due only to the purely technological aspects of it. Of far more value though is the information we gleaned about the origins of the Sun, the Solar System and the Universe itself. Eventually, humans will have to colonize other planets, because there is a limit to the population any planet can support. We could attempt to control our population so it remains stable, but that would be a dead end. The human race would stagnate, become mentally flaccid and tradition bound and die out fairly soon after a stable population limit was achieved. Or, if we don't die out as soon as I believe we would, and we don't get out into space, well then the Earth will be a sitting duck for some other race Out There who does get out into space. No guarantee that a race advanced enough for space travel will necessarily be peace-loving vegetarians either. Humans didn't get to be the chief nuisance on this ball of mud by eating lettuce and turning the other cheek. No reason to suppose things are that different on other planets.

No way! Absolutely not. This mission is aborted.

If and when we 'overpopulate', disease will come. People have to start using some self restraint, watch family size. I feel this earth is large enough, has enough space for alot of people. The problem is they all want to be here. The U.S. can't take in the world...the U.S. can be overpopulated.

...only in my dreams. I would love to travel in space. I would not love the air pressure sickness--and the cabin fever--that would probably come with it.

We're "designed" to live in Africa. We've used our brains to adapt to every environment on the planet. We can use our brains to adapt to space too, if we choose.

> If and when we 'overpopulate', disease will come. People have to
> start using some self restraint, watch family size. I feel this earth
> is large enough, has enough space for alot of people. The problem
> is they all want to be here. The U.S. can't take in the world...the
> U.S. can be overpopulated.

Disease is here. We manage to control it to an extent. Humanity may never see another epidemic that comes close to the devastation created by the Black Death in the Middle Ages. The way I see it, humanity has two choices for the future. We can get into space, or we can follow T. rex to the fossil beds.

I just realized why I dislike "religious " people. They are doomsdayers, They always expect the worst, that would drive me nuts!!!! Why do they spend so much money decorating their houses when the world is going to end like next month, or whatever the date is this year.I could just scream!!!!!!!! Anyway, just thought I'd share that

Africans, were designed to be in Africa, we are not. We did not evolve. All races were created separately. Too much ungodly teaching in our high education indoctrination camps, called government, some private schools. People are not going anywhere, outside of this realm. It's all big business.

Yes, disease happens, when something or someone is not healthy.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness.

Our flesh body will return to the earth, our spirits will leave us upon death. Mankind had better get used to taking care of this earth, learn to live here...because we're not going anywhere. The space program is a business, being paid by the taxpayer.

> Africans, were designed to be in Africa, we are not. We did not evolve.
> All races were created separately.

BULLCRAP.

We all evolved from a common ancestor. Evolution is now a FACT. Accept it and get on with your life.

Sorry...

It's an easy theory to impress on young impressionable people, makes it easier to push in communism, one world government... It's called the dumbing down of children, through the secular schools, the media.

2Timothy 3:1-5 Does it sound familiar?

Evolution or creation is irrelevant to my point. Just look and see how we are right now. Humans can not live on most of the Earth without taking actions to prevent being killed by the environment. Most of the planet is simply too cold for us. Other places are too dry or lacking in food. We have used our brains to adapt to environments that would otherwise kill us in short order. Whether those brains came from evolution or some god doesn't change the fact, easily observable by anyone who looks, that humans are not suited to most of the places we live.

Moving off-planet would be more extreme, certainly. However, take a look at what the Inuit achieved in living in one of the harshest environments on the planet with very limited technology.

http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3200&AD...

Look at the video...

> Sorry...
>
> It's an easy theory to impress on young impressionable people, makes
> it easier to push in communism, one world government... It's called
> the dumbing down of children, through the secular schools, the media.
>
> 2Timothy 3:1-5 Does it sound familiar?

Yes it does. It sounds like the situation that has always existed throughout recorded history.

Three years of training? Probably not. Lack of gravity would be fun. I'm sure the whole environment would be unforgettable, but I think tropical beaches would be a better investment of my time. There's a good reason we aren't born on the moon.

I was going to say much the same thing as cprasky, except for the needing to colonize elsewhere part.

The side-effects of NASA are immense. For nearly a year I was referencing NASA data weekly for everything from robotics programming to solar collector design and paint data. They do indeed invent the most clever mechanical and material stuff on the planet which revolutionizes how we live.

It's a strong example of what makes America a world leader.

As with everything, you mostly have two options, socialist or capitalist. Fortunately NASA both employs our best engineers who wouldn't have anything to do otherwise, and makes their results available to the public as well.

Everything in this society is for profit unless it's socialism. The exception is hobby stuff done by teenagers, retiress, or the independently wealthy. Everyone else needs to work for a living and be paid for what they do. If they do one job, for instance gardening, and offer something else for free, not profit, for instance guitar building or space travel, chance are that they aren't offering any where near the product or service as the person who does things like guitar building for a living.

You despise socialism, you disdain profit. That really doesn't leave much else. There's a limit to how generous people living on unemployment can be offering free products and services, and even that (because of the unemployment part) would really just be socialism anyhow.

Probably not.......... it does appeal to me

At this stage of my life, assuming it didn't prevent my studies/career from progressing (I'm assuming the training wouldn't be full time), then definitely. I think I might feel differently about the risks involved if I had children.

I understand everyone needing work. But there is profit, and then there is PROFIT (greed). I don't like socialism/communism because it destroys creativity, being inventive. Some people are creative, others maybe are not.

> http://shop.wnd.com/store/item.asp?ITEM_ID=3200&AD...
>
> Look at the video...

Ah Kirk Cameron. He's this guy who asked why there is no such thing as a croco-duck:

http://www.thegoodatheist.net/2009/06/kirk-cameron...

Watch it but especially at 2 minutes 6 seconds where he becomes laughable with his ignorance.

What Kirk and his partner are trying to do is reason, but they're dealing with unreasonable, narcissistic people, as stated in 2Timothy 3:1-5

NASA is socialism, and that's where our nation's most creative engineers choose to work. They work to create, and not for a profit, and not because they are meeting deadlines to release some product before some other company does. Basically they are free to be creative because they are unrestrained by the demands of capitalism. I have the same issue myself. Even contracting for a client to create something with no limits on how I achieve the project goal, it's still not nearly as creative as making products of my own design.

In capitalism very few actually get to be entrepreneurs. Most people are employees working for highly competitive companies with all the decisions made at the top. There is pressure to come up with something superior whethar you are inspired or not. Contrast this with something like NASA or other government think tank where the gov't can afford to be really general about what it requires, so the employees can work on whatever they are inspired about. The people who favor capitalism as a method of progress believe that competitive stress brings about creativity. For me it only brings stress, and I typically shut down in such circumstances.

I am against greed as a motive but it often does have the same results as generosity as far as others are concerned. It depends on if they earn their greedy intake by offering a fair value or not. Unfortunately most don't, but in the case of things like commercial space programs, you do it because it's what you love to do, not for the profit. If that were the goal, there are other less risky ways of directly making money, like buying and selling companies for instance.

I saw an interview of the guy making the first commercial space program. He's quite a creative engineer. He has other ventures operating like electric race cars. Yes, he's after huge profits, but only so that he can further his huge dreams. If anything, he suffers from subtle forms of megalomania and vanity, not greed per se.

Really neither capitalism nor socialism have any bearing on creativity at all. What matters is the matter of management. In either system there can be strict guidelines or liberal freedom. There is one difference though, and that is that in capitalism creative success tends to be rewarded with higher pay. Inventors and other types of true creatives are no different than those who choose to be dancers for a living. They will choose to be creative no matter what the financial incentive, and a concern with money is a distraction from their passion. I've had a conversation with you before where I pointed out that in America, those who come up with the ideas and those who make money from the ideas are very rarely ever even the same people. There are people who are motivated by money and are in the business of making money, and those who undertand and are in the business of creating something. A great many colleges this past decade or two churned out grads with training in no other skills than how to make money. They are the gears of wall street, and in my opinion, those who are driving this country into the ground. I'm not saying this to affirm your position on higher education. This is only one branch of college, and I believe the others are in fact worthwhile. Unfortunately, it's the branch which pays the expenses for the top name colleges, above advancements in medical science even, I suspect.

If anything, the lack of a crocoduck proves Darwin right. Things evolve to fill succesful niches. If crocoducks arrived here from outer space, they would quickly die off here. Beautiful 'designs' can appear randomly from just spewing rocks around, yet have no designer. What Darwin says is that randomness is constantly going on, but only sucessful randomness earns a permanent grip. If after generations of randomness in rats, some rats had greater strength in digesting styrofoam cups and other garbage, they would be the most thriving rats. Eventually most rats would be of the styrofoam eating variety, because those rats produce more off-spring in their long healthy lives. Such a thing is slow to start though then grows exponentially. It's when an entire species usurps some niche that we see the quickest growth. And then there are counter-balancing forces at work. Fox might take over a rabbit domain, but since the fox are carnivores they might eat creatures which indirectly build the conditions necessary for the fox in the first place. Rabbits were spreading seeds in their poop. Without the seeds, no forest, no fox.

I happen to believe in both God and evolution. The two don't contradict each other in the slightest. It takes quite a God to create something as marvellous as the physics of evolution. One might even argue that just as DNA creates humans, that the first atomic matter was a seed designed to evolve into galaxies, planets, algae, dinosaurs, and eventually people.

The real argument happening here is not between God and evolution, it's between the bible and evolution which is another matter entirely. There is more evidence and logical argument than not to support evolution, and any evidence at all is infinitely more evidence than there is for taking Genesis literally.

Evolution occurs in every system of thought and matter configuration we can observe. To imagine that genetics are an exception to this doesn't make sense. Corn didn't exist 15,000 years ago. It looked more like wheat back then. We helped it along with selective breeding, which is essentially exactly what evolution is, except that survival in nature, not man's culinary preference, is what determines the dominant evolving strains. We did nothing specific to make corn larger. The DNA mutates randomly enough to make some corn smaller and some larger; All we did is replant that which grew larger, such that future mutations of that would be smaller or larger than the large corn. After 15,000 years we have corn about six times larger than we started with.

Just four centuries ago, the western settlers of America, the Conquistadores and such, were roughly a foot shorter on average than Americans today. Look at all the hybridization of races now that people are so mobile. This is evolution. How people can deny something that is happening right in front of their face is beyond me. Us humans evolve quicker than other mammals because our standards of selection evolve quicker than for others mammals, as it is mostly conceptual.

The Darkside?

Probably not, unless there was a reason to go there. I hate itdiots who do stuff "because it is there" (like climb mountains, etc)...

I didn't read the qualifier!!!! Are you serious, train for 3 years to just sit there? NOT HAPPENING.

1st answer is totally incorrect SO THIS COMMENT CAN BE IGNORED:

"I definitely want to go into space and going to the moon would be a bonus. Space the final frontier!"

AND THE VOTE I MADE IS NOT CORRECT EITHER. SORRY TO MESS UP YOU SURVEY RESULTS.

Nope. I'm good.

> First of all, the reason you
> can access this forum with
> a computer that doesn't take
> up an entire floor of a building
> is because computer components
> had to get smaller and lighter
> so they could be used in a
> spaceship. The research that
> went into that job of miniaturization
> has paid off hugely just because
> of the computer industry.

You forgot to tell her about reverse engineering also!!!

Ha-llo, one-in-a-lifetime-experience here!