Print 117 comment(s) - last by Piiman.. on Jul 19 at 3:51 PM

Aldrin says that a Mars ticket should be marked "One-Way"

Tesla Motors and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is making a big push to put more Americans in space safely, efficiently, and economically. SpaceX’s current endeavors with its Falcon rockets and Dragon capsules are mere stepping-stones to the endgame: Mars.
Buzz Aldrin, 84, the second human to step foot on the surface of the moon, has his own thoughts on space travel and the inevitable manned missions to Mars. Aldrin participated in an AMA on Reddit discussion yesterday, and the topic turned towards Mars.

Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon in 1969

Aldrin was asked about Musk’s Mars ambitions, and whether a privately funded company could possibly make the trip:
There is very little doubt, in my mind, that what the next monumental achievement of humanity will be the first landing by an Earthling, a human being, on the planet Mars…
Some people may be rooting for Elon - I think he could, with his SpaceX, contribute considerably, enormously, to an international activity not only at the moon but also on Mars.
Things took an interesting turn when Aldrin started discussing his thoughts on colonization of Mars:
I have considered whether a landing on Mars could be done by the private sector. It conflicts with my very strong idea, concept, conviction, that the first human beings to land on Mars should not come back to Earth. They should be the beginning of a build-up of a colony / settlement, I call it a "permanence." A settlement you can visit once or twice, come back, and then decide you want to settle. Same with a colony. But you want it to be permanent from the get-go, from the very first. I know that many people don't feel that that should be done. Some people even consider it distinctly a suicide mission. Not me! Not at all. Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of 6-7 years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the Moon.

Buzz Aldrin and Buzz Lightyear 

Aldrin also couldn’t help but get in a few digs on how poorly funded NASA is compared to years past:
We in the United States cannot come close to the return to leadership that the United States had 45 years ago, and shortly thereafter. The lack of funding that supported missions to the Moon and return, a pioneering effort for humanity, required 4% of the national budget of the United States. Now we are at 1/2 of 1% and have been that way for quite some while.
He goes on to state that we shouldn’t focus on returning NASA astronauts to the moon, because “we’ve done that.” Instead, he says we should set our sights further:
OUR resources should be directed to outward, beyond-the-moon, to establishing habitation and laboratories on the surface of Mars that can be built, assembled, from the close-by moons of Mars. With very little time delay - a second or less. Much better than controlling things on the Moon from the Earth. So when NASA funding comes up for review, please call your lawmakers to support it.
Aldrin’ AMA is full of some wonderful commentary, so if you have the time, be sure to check out the musings of a true American hero.

Source: Reddit

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The safe return factor.
By drycrust3 on 7/9/2014 4:36:43 PM , Rating: 3
They should be the beginning of a build-up of a colony / settlement, I call it a "permanence." A settlement you can visit once or twice, come back, and then decide you want to settle.

Aldrin overlooks the fact that the Lunar Module he used had been through 3 full test runs before it left the ground, and an integral part of his mission was "the safe return" factor. I've heard that no one has successfully managed to live in total and complete isolation for a long period of time, which, if true, begs the question of why they think it will work on Mars?
We have one local lad who had been selected to go on this mission. He said they were going to play games there. If that is his thinking then I expect the whole thing to be a massively expensive failure. Those that go to Mars will have to be prepared to work day and night to make it work otherwise they will fail.
The problem is this: Mars isn't earth like. We are created for earth, and earth was created for us. We and earth are linked together. There are thousands of reasons relating to us and earth being more or less exactly right so we can live here, and most of those thousands of reasons either don't exist on Mars or they aren't right for humans. For example, here we have a good mix of Oxygen and Nitrogen so we can breath, but on Mars they'll have to take their own atmosphere; the place is freezing cold, so you need to provide heating, the sunlight is inadequate, so they'll have to provide their own lighting so plants will grow, etc.
To make a trip to Mars work those there will have to work like Trojans to make sure everyone of those thousands of factors that we take for granted are more or less right otherwise the absence of that factor would kill them.
Since the Apollo mission entailed three test runs before the thing left the ground, I think they should find 3 nice "half Martian" sites here, e.g. nice high mountains like Mt Everest, have the volunteers parachute in from a passing plane with their kitset homes and duct tape, and then see how things work out. Sure, people will say that is unrealistic, that in those circumstances the whole thing will fail, and that is exactly the point: If a parachute in, build your own home, then live in it for 5 years without help from the outside, mission on top of Mt Everest fails, then at least it doesn't cost hundreds of billions of dollars to get them back.

RE: The safe return factor.
By macca007 on 7/10/2014 4:16:49 AM , Rating: 1
You are talking to a basement dweller right here.,No problem living in isolation just give me fast net connection,food and water and I'll happily take the challenge. ;)

RE: The safe return factor.
By ShaolinSoccer on 7/10/2014 7:51:55 AM , Rating: 3
You haven't put much thought into this, have you? How the hell are you going to have fast internet connection from Mars to Earth? It takes an average of about 8 minutes for light to go from the Sun to Earth and there will be times when Mars will be on the other side of the Sun. If anything, we need to send smart people to Mars. Not people who's thought process stops at "Just give me fast internet, food and water." Why is the internet full of people like you who are willing to throw your lives away just to go to outer space? Is it because of movies like Star Trek or Star Wars? Is it from playing too many video games? I don't get it!

You are talking to a basement dweller right here.,No problem living in isolation just give me fast net connection,food and water and I'll happily take the challenge. ;)

RE: The safe return factor.
By marvdmartian on 7/10/2014 8:42:55 AM , Rating: 2
I'm thinking someone needs to get their sarcasm meter re-calibrated.

RE: The safe return factor.
By drycrust3 on 7/10/2014 3:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
Your basement is luxury compared to Mars: Not too cold, ample supply of electricity, grocery store down the road, gaps and holes all over the place that help ventilate the place, ability to "get out" and take a walk, the occasional takeaways, pizza delivery, oxygenated air with humidity, gravity of 9.8 m/s^2, 1 bar air pressure, daylight outside (for Vitamin D), etc.
Now compare this to Mars: "Freeze to death in an instant" cold outside, outside air pressure that is too low for your body to handle, absolutely no ventilation with the outside allowed, BYO (bring your own oxygen) air, gravity that would result in weakened muscles over time, limited amount of electricity (most of which is used for growing veges), vegetarian diet (well, you aren't expecting to take cattle with you ... are you?), etc. Oh, I forgot: the cycle generator ... we need you to pedal on a cycle to generate more electricity to grow more veges (well, we don't want to push the nuclear power pack too hard, it has to last us a life time).

RE: The safe return factor.
By JediJeb on 7/10/14, Rating: 0
RE: The safe return factor.
By MamiyaOtaru on 7/12/2014 3:14:43 AM , Rating: 3
yeah, but when people hopped off the ship, they could *breathe*. There was air there, and food to be found (with hard work). Mars has none of what we need for life (Well maybe some frozen water somewhere)

RE: The safe return factor.
By ghost49x on 7/16/2014 11:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
Now lets compare this to mars with actual facts:
Gravity: Mars has a little less than half Earth's Gravity. (Earth being 9.798m/s and Mars being 3.711m/s) While we would definitely lose muscle it won't be anywhere close to being in Zero-G space for extended amount of time. And we would eventually adapt.

Atmospheric Pressure: 0.636(0.4–0.87)kPa (or 0.004–0.0087 Bar) and only 0.146% of that is Oxygen. So we would definitely require a source of oxygen at all times.

Surface Temperature Min -143°C, Max 35°C and Average -63°C
While it may reach incredibly cold temperatures at times, on average it can be comparable to cold arctic winters which can go as low as -68°C. The temperature on Mars can also sometimes rise up to 35°C, so while a heavy parka would be needed on most days on others we might even be able to chill in summer clothes.

In ether case choosing the right location for a settlement will be extremely important to avoid the worst of the harsh environment.

My sources:
Info on Mars
Info on Earth
Comparison to the Arctic

RE: The safe return factor.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2014 4:13:28 PM , Rating: 4
Just to elaborate on your point, we couldn't even get the Biosphere experiment in Arizona to be self sustaining. And they had access to running water, oxygen (until it ran low), vast gardens, sunlight, and all kinds of things that we wouldn't have on Mars.

Don't get me wrong, it's important that we colonize Mars (or somewhere else) imo, but let's do it right. Enough with this suicide mission talk, it's not THAT imperative to do that we need to unnecessarily risk lives.

RE: The safe return factor.
By drycrust3 on 7/10/2014 5:28:29 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks, I thought that was the case.

RE: The safe return factor.
By kleinma on 7/11/2014 12:30:33 PM , Rating: 2
That was pauly shores fault though...

RE: The safe return factor.
By DennisB on 7/11/2014 2:54:33 PM , Rating: 2
Well, what's the difference between playing or doing something else until you die? Dying from "accident" or starvation? Anyway, once there you are stuck for the next two years before you can attempt to return so you can as well stay. Given that you are still alive of course. That's probably his thought.

As far as electricity goes just get the japanese RAPID-L reactor. It only needs 2 deliveries at most and last for 10 years at max. power production or 20 year with less power or 100 years. It doesn't need maintenance so even the dumbest guys can use it safely.

RE: The safe return factor.
By Piiman on 7/19/2014 3:51:53 PM , Rating: 2
"and earth was created for us"
No it wasn't.

Habitat at Moon
By pawannathani on 7/11/2014 4:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
Some people even consider it distinctly a suicide mission. Not me! Not at all. Because we will plan, we will construct from the moon of Mars, over a period of 6-7 years, the landing of different objects at the landing site that will be brought together to form a complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the Moon.

What has buggged me last sentence
complete Mars habitat and laboratory, similar to what has been done at the Moon.

Is he delusional that there is a habitat on moon or has he spilled the beans that there is a habitat on moon.

Frankly, I am not sure, how to interpret it. but if he has misquoted and is himself under delusion that there is habitat on moon then we can completely discount what he has said in that interview.

RE: Habitat at Moon
By JediJeb on 7/11/2014 11:52:00 AM , Rating: 2
I am thinking that Moon there relates to Phobos, building the habitat and laboratory on Mars' moon then sending it down to the surface. If you think about it, return missions would be much easier to perform leaving Mars orbit or the surface of its moon than leaving the surface of Mars itself. This way you could have several missions sent and returned while building the habitat before actually having to drop into Mars' gravity well.

RE: Habitat at Moon
By pawannathani on 7/12/2014 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 2
I feel, everyone is thinking too long. we are not satisfactorily supporting Space Station which is just 400 miles above us. we are not able to efficiently reach moon, which comparatively too near and we all wishfully keep thinking about mars...

I hope we first prove ourselves with our moon.

Stupid people
By Etern205 on 7/14/2014 6:16:21 PM , Rating: 2
They want to go to Mars, not for the sake of being the very first to colonize another planet. They want to go to Mars because they think, they will get big money, be famous, and other things that fills up their huge ego.
Do they even realize that Mars is not Earth. They can't just go outside for a walk. Go to their local deli for a sandwich and their favorite pizza at the Pizzeria down the street. They isn't night and day and even the simple things we pass by every day will not be there.
I bet the very first thing they will do is post on their Facebook and upload a ton of their idiotic selfie on Instagram.

RE: Stupid people
By Etern205 on 7/14/2014 6:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
list of people who actually want to go Mars.

Maybe someday we can colonize another planet, but it isn't now nor in this lifetime.

way long term commitment
By Jeffk464 on 7/9/2014 8:44:47 PM , Rating: 2
Building a colony on Mars requires a huge financial commitment for the long term, something our government has not been able to do. You are talking a regular launch schedule to mars with a huge industry backing it for who know how long.

By KOOLTIME on 7/13/2014 2:24:08 AM , Rating: 2
Mars is a total waste of time, in current life times. We dont have space tech to do anything there. All you have to do is look at the mars rover, its nothing but barren rock.

Develop a real world star ship enterprise then go to those places. so far we have terrible space ships for long range travel.

The distance to get to mars is to far for a human to survive. Going to mars they would be dead well before arrival.

By KOOLTIME on 7/13/2014 2:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
Mars is a total waste of time, in current life times. We dont have space tech to do anything there. All you have to do is look at the mars rover, its nothing but barren rock.

Develop a real world star ship enterprise then go to those places. so far we have terrible space ships for long range travel.

The distance to get to mars is to far for a human to survive. Going to mars they would be dead well before arrival.

Silly things
By BRB29 on 7/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: Silly things
By Brandon Hill on 7/9/2014 10:35:11 AM , Rating: 4
When will us humans learn that religion, color, and race does not separate us as a species.

We need our leaders to brush up on Star Trek: The Next Generation

RE: Silly things
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: Silly things
By Brandon Hill on 7/9/2014 11:53:37 AM , Rating: 3
Did you not see what I quoted?

When will us humans learn that religion, color, and race does not separate us as a species.

As a species. Humans -- for the most part -- in TNG worked together for the common good and didn't really bicker between each other about the things in the quoted sentence.

Now Klingons, Romulans, Cardashians, Ferengi, etc. all had their own vices -- just like humans -- but as a whole their respective races were united on their respective fronts.

The point being, humans need to get their s**t together first before we can tackle the intricacies of dealing with other lifeforms.

But then again, as the episode "The Chase" showed us, they all had a common ancestor:

RE: Silly things
By kattanna on 7/9/2014 12:14:34 PM , Rating: 2

that episode is one of my favorite..what if.. episodes

RE: Silly things
By vortmax2 on 7/10/2014 2:34:05 PM , Rating: 2
What if? People freak when Intelligent Design is mentioned...

RE: Silly things
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 12:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Oops, I sorta went on a tangent there. Ah well forgive me Brandon.

The point being, humans need to get their s**t together first before we can tackle the intricacies of dealing with other lifeforms.

Bah, we're doing just fine. I mean really, the human race is still an infant, generally speaking. Give it some time. Everyone is so hyper-critical and has unbelievably unrealistic expectations.

The average human lifespan is comically short. Yet everyone expects dramatic improvements, in all areas, within their lifetime. It just doesn't work like that.

RE: Silly things
By Brandon Hill on 7/9/2014 12:29:51 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, I completely agree. I was more talking about within the ST universe rather than the real world.

Anyway, your comment makes me want to go watch 2001 again.

RE: Silly things
By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: Silly things
By JediJeb on 7/10/2014 4:14:39 PM , Rating: 3
I like Star Trek, but not as much as Star Wars, then if you want the down and gritty the way life really is just watch Firefly.

RE: Silly things
By retrospooty on 7/9/2014 12:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
"we're doing just fine. I mean really, the human race is still an infant, generally speaking. Give it some time. Everyone is so hyper-critical and has unbelievably unrealistic expectations."

Wow... Some very wise words from Reclaimer. You are on a roll lately. I feel like I have to point out that I am not being sarcastic. That is some profoundly true stuff right there.

RE: Silly things
By Sonicmerlin on 7/10/2014 10:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
Are you just reclaimer with a different SN praising yourself?

RE: Silly things
By croc on 7/10/2014 3:22:15 AM , Rating: 3
My grandfather grew up hitchin' up the mules to go pull stumps, took the horse and cart to go to town. He lived to see men walk on the moon.

Some lifetimes are better than others...

RE: Silly things
By kattanna on 7/9/2014 11:42:39 AM , Rating: 2
dont worry.. im pretty sure they know full well how to violate the prime directive

RE: Silly things
By CSMR on 7/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: Silly things
By w8gaming on 7/9/2014 12:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
There is a constant risk of a big enough meteor will fall on Earth sometimes, knocked out civilizations and possibly even all lifeforms. It has not happened for millions of years, but there is always a chance that it could happen. The same reason why many people buy insurance even though they may never need it.

Natural, unpredicatable cosmic disaster aside, it is also possible that we are actually on a race with other intelligent lifeforms to reach and colonize the stars first. Think about what if the European never sailed west and discovered the new continent, but it is the native America Indians who sailed east and discovered Europe? The world would have been very different now, no? So it is always best to ensure humans tried to expand across the galaxy earlier. If human waits 10000 years on Earth, they may find that all the neighbouring star systems have been taken and Solar System is now considered a "reserved zone" for human race.

RE: Silly things
By Mint on 7/9/2014 2:55:29 PM , Rating: 2
Natural, unpredicatable cosmic disaster aside, it is also possible that we are actually on a race with other intelligent lifeforms to reach and colonize the stars first.
The possibility that we are in a such a race is orders of magnitude less than the chance of us getting hit by an asteroid or even destroying our own planet.

It took us 4 billion years to evolve to our current state, and it'll take a matter of centuries for us to colonize nearby star systems, and maybe 1M years to colonize the galaxy. That's still only <0.1% of the age of the universe. If we were in any such race, even the tiniest difference in evolution rates or starting times virtually guarantees one of the following two outcomes:
1. An alien race would have already have taken over the earth millions of years ago
2. We are the first species in our galaxy capable of leaving our planet, and will beat everyone else by at least millions of years

Since non-identical evolution is guaranteed, and #1 is false, #2 is the only realistic outcome. We're guaranteed to win the race, and even something stupid like shutting down NASA won't change that.

But I disagree that such a race is a primary reason for becoming an interplanetary species. Technological progress is littered with innovations that cross fields and help humanity. Living on Mars could drive us to all sorts of innovation in agriculture, energy, transportation, communication, medicine, etc. We'd have a new canvas to do extreme experiments without worrying about messing up Earth's biosphere. We may find some minerals there which are rare here.

That's the real value of colonizing Mars. All the things I mentioned above would be fundamentally fueled by humanity's innate drive to explore, and Mars is orders of magnitude more alluring than any other destination we can reach in the foreseeable future (including the Moon).

RE: Silly things
By Makaveli on 7/9/2014 8:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
I must say minus the political bs I thoroughly enjoyed read this thread!

RE: Silly things
By jRaskell on 7/10/2014 2:05:47 PM , Rating: 3
1. An alien race would have already have taken over the earth millions of years ago

That outcome makes a number of assumptions that are impossible to know are valid.

1. That an alien race advanced enough would be interested in our Solar System at all, nevermind our planet.
2. That said alien race biology would be compatible with Earth Environment.
3. That said alien race would be malevolent and thus actively interested in taking over an already inhabited world.

Some will possibly argue that 3 is a perfectly valid assumption and use Human history as the basis of that assumption, but that assumes that any other alien race out there will be analogous enough to the Human race to make such an assumption, and that in itself if likely invalid.

As far as the point you make regarding evolution and times scales, I think that is absolutely valid and even probable. I just don't agree that there are only two possible outcomes as a result of that. There are very possibly some potential outcomes that we can't even conceive of right now, but there is at least a third:

3. The galaxy is largely colonized by an alien race that either has zero interest in the human race and it's solar system, or are of some sort of attitude that essentially results in leaving us alone.

RE: Silly things
By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2014 3:01:56 PM , Rating: 2
Mint's post was intriguing. But an top of your list of issues with it, I'll just add one:

The interstellar distances involved are incomprehensibly vast, and we simply do not know if it's even possible to travel faster than light to cross them. No matter HOW advanced a species is, the Universe could absolutely have a speed limit as Einstein theorized.

Forget other galaxies, distances WITHIN galaxies are mind boggling. Our Solar Systems closest star, Proxima Centauri, is a full 4.24 light years away from us.

RE: Silly things
By JediJeb on 7/10/2014 5:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
These are all interesting comments, but they do still assume that other life would be very similar to humans.

What if, there existed a species of intelligent life that lived 1000 or even 10,000 year lifetimes. At 10% of the speed of light our nearest star would be 40 years away, that would seem to be a very short time to someone who lived 10,000 years, even at 1% the speed of light a 400 year trip would still seem short in comparison to their entire lifetime.

If some species could have 12,000,000 year life expectancy then in their lifetime they could traverse the entire galaxy in one lifetime at 1% light speed. If I could live that long and had a ship to travel that distance and speed, it would be something I would like to try, I imagine it would be a very interesting life! Even with the long periods of nothing along the way.

The thing that limits human imagination in the majority of us is that we,, well,, think like humans :)

By astralsolace on 7/9/2014 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
Totally moronic. Want someone to blame for the slow death of the space program?

Look no further than George W. Bush, who saw fit to spend trillions of dollars on meaningless wars, oversaw the economy sink into a tailspin before skipping town, and whose successors bleated "Austerity! Cuts!" to everything *EXCEPT wars* as the magical answer to the problems *they* caused.

By atechfan on 7/9/2014 10:36:28 AM , Rating: 1
The economy was in bad shape when Bush took office. Then it turned around for most of his predidency. The housing bubble burst because the Clinton-era affirmative-action inspired preferential lending to minorities finally reaped what it sowed. Bush can be blamed for a lot of bad decisions, but the economic meltdown was not his doing.

By TreeDude62 on 7/9/2014 10:52:42 AM , Rating: 2
You must be joking! Bush walked into a government with a surplus and figured he could cut taxes. Then went to war and borrowed from China instead of raising taxes to properly fund the war effort. The economy was doing fine until Bush came along.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 11:23:47 AM , Rating: 4
Raising taxes to fund a war? Raising taxes is the LAST thing you want to do, that discourages economic activity and growth.

In the 4 year period after Bush cut taxes the IRS recorded record, yes RECORD, revenues.

That pretty much shatters this myth that cutting taxes equals less federal tax revenue.

I understand some of you (Leftists) are apposed to cutting taxes as an ideological statement. That's fine, you have a right to an opinion. But making up lies to justify it, is not.

By Etsp on 7/9/2014 11:45:52 AM , Rating: 4
That pretty much shatters this myth that cutting taxes equals less federal tax revenue.
There seems to be a different myth among conservatives, that cutting taxes increases tax revenue.

The facts are: Tax revenue has gone up after tax cuts. Tax revenue has gone down after tax cuts. Tax revenue has gone up after tax hikes, and tax revenue has gone down after tax hikes.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 12:15:49 PM , Rating: 2
There is an expression: You cannot squeeze blood from a turnip.

Liberals act as if they increased taxes by 100%, they'll get 100% more revenue out of the people. Wrong.

When you understand how Capitalism works, and America's economy, it makes perfect sense how cutting taxes stimulates growth. However to the layman, this is counter-intuitive because it goes against the simplistic static-economy model they have in their heads.

I'm not disputing your second paragraph. However in the example of the Bush tax cuts, it's hard to believe the record setting 4 year period of IRS revenue that directly preceded them to be a coincidence.

I think we've debunked the "OMG you gotta raise taxes to start wars" nonsense here. Which was my goal.

By Just Tom on 7/9/2014 2:09:37 PM , Rating: 5
What 4 year period are you talking about? Because if you are talking the 4 years immediately after cutting the rates, 2001-2004, your claim is inaccurate. Tax revenue fell sharply after 2001 and did not reach their pre-tax cut levels until 2006. The 4 year period from 1998-2001 had significantly higher aggregate income tax revenue.

I think that the economy probably would have been much worse absent the tax cuts but it is difficult to say that the cuts drove tax revenues higher since they did not do so for 5 years.

I think we're probably on the left side of the Laffer curve and raising of taxes would increase revenue, ceteris paribus. That does not mean we should raise taxes; the government, especially the federal government, should only spend money that fulfills a Constitutional objective and is not more efficiently done by the private sector. War happens to be one of those areas.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 2:14:54 PM , Rating: 1
"But the real jolt for tax-cutting opponents was that the 03 Bush tax cuts also generated a massive increase in federal tax receipts. From 2004 to 2007, federal tax revenues increased by $785 billion, the largest four-year increase in American history. According to the Treasury Departmen"

By amanojaku on 7/9/2014 2:52:35 PM , Rating: 2
Biased source is biased. It's an opinion piece published by a lawyer unaffiliated with the Washington Times. He IS affiliated with the National Review Institute, a conservative organization.

Moreover, it's a poor analysis. It completely ignores the effect of the housing market bubble (2002-2007) and the increased tax revenues from the financial companies that benefited from it. Bush's tax cuts had little impact, if any.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 3:38:20 PM , Rating: 3
Those numbers are straight from the Treasury Department. What bias? Even if the article was loaded with bias, you simply cannot deny that 4 year period.

Also Liberals love to bring up Clinton's surplus. Guess what also happened under Clinton? A tax cut!

Seriously nice try, but I'm not having any of it. There is zero evidence that Bush's tax cuts did any harm. That's just political theater for Obama apologists to, once again, 'Blame Bush' for every wrong.

Oh yeah and this source is "biased" too. For some odd reason I'm having a hard time finding Liberal sources that extol the virtues of low tax rates. I wonder why?

By amanojaku on 7/9/2014 1:28:05 PM , Rating: 4
There seems to be a myth amongst everyone in this thread that the President of the United States is responsible for levying taxes. That is the role of Congress, so any increases or cuts are ultimately the responsibility of Congress. As they say, the President proposes, Congress disposes.

There is another myth that taxes are responsible for economic trends. Here's a short list of economic booms and busts since Federal taxes were implemented in 1913:

Note: Boom/Bust compared to previous period
1) Boom - 1917 - 1919 - World War I
2) Bust - 1920 - 1921 - Post-war recession
3) Boom - 1922 - 1929 - Roaring Twenties
3) Bust - 1929 - 1933 - Black Tuesday/Great Depression
4) Boom - 1934 - 1937 - New Deal
5) Bust - 1937 - 1938 - Recession of 1937
6) Boom - 1938 - 1941 - Post-recession recovery
7) Boom - 1941 - 1945 - World War II
8) Boom - 1945 - 1973 - Post-war expansion/US superpower
9) Bust - 1970 - 2014 - Growth of imports
10) Bust - 1971 - 1971 - Bretton Woods dissolution
11) Bust - 1973 - 1973 - OAPEC oil embargo
12) Bust - 1973 - 1974 - Stock market crash
13) Bust - 1973 - 1975 - Post-crash Recession
14) Boom - 1975 - 1979 - Post-recession recovery
15) Bust - 1979 - 1979 - Iranian Revolution/Energy scare
16) Bust - 1980 - 1982 - Early 80's recession
17) Boom - 1983 - 1990 - Post-recession recovery
18) Bust - 1990 - 1991 - Early 90's recession
19) Boom - 1991 - 2001 - dot-com bubble
20) Bust - 2001 - 2002 - Early 2000's recession/Sept. 11
21) Boom - 2002 - 2007 - Housing bubble
22) Bust - 2007 - 2008 - Financial crisis
23) Bust - 2007 - 2009 - Great Recession

None of these events were influenced by taxes.

By bupkus on 7/9/2014 12:16:51 PM , Rating: 1
That pretty much shatters this myth that cutting taxes equals less federal tax revenue.
Lets see now... if we cut taxes to zero we should then approach infinit tax revenue.
This makes as much sense as dividing by zero.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 12:25:36 PM , Rating: 2
If you cut taxes to zero, there would be no taxes. So no, you wouldn't get any tax revenue.

I mean, bravo. No really, take a bow. That was just brilliant.

By Helbore on 7/9/2014 1:02:17 PM , Rating: 5
That's really quite stupid and clearly not what Reclaimer was saying at all. Here's the idea;

You have 10 businesses taxed at 50%. Each business makes $100. The government collects $500 in tax.

The government decides to cut tax to 25%. Now the government only makes $250 off those 10 businesses. But because the cost of running a business has gone down, smaller businesses are able to open up and grow, when previously they couldn't afford to. Now we have 30 businesses.

Now the government collects $750 in tax. That's a 50% increase in tax revenue, even though the tax rate was dropped.

You can address it the same way with income tax or sales tax. Drop the tax rate to increase the spending power of the population and stimulate business growth because customers have more money to spend. Do it in reverse and you increase people's cost of living and reduce their spending power, impacting business profits and potentially forcing them out of business.

Of course it doesn't always work, as the economy is so huge you can't predict every potential outcome. But the principal is sound.

Your statement shows a total lack of understanding of the principles of economics. Heck, it shows a complete lack of understanding of percentages.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 2:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
That was quite an excellent and succinct explanation of the underlying principle.

Thank you, honestly that was a joy to read.

By Krotchrot on 7/9/2014 2:21:41 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, way to make up some numbers. So you believe that if you cut taxes in half that The number of business and sales will triple?? Seriously? Show me where that has ever come close to happening.

I think if businesses and sales(which is really the only thing that matters) increase by 50% then you would be doing good. So now you have 15 businesses. Of course that means that your tax revenue is still decreased by 25%.

Talk about a complete lack of understanding of the principles of economics. You might just take the cake.

By Mint on 7/9/2014 3:09:55 PM , Rating: 1
Typical supply-sider nonsense. Of course he's going to use fantasy numbers like that, because there's zero proof of that in the real world. And of course we see Reclaimer kissing Hellbore's balls because his favorite posts are those based on BS with no real world data.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 4:09:14 PM , Rating: 3
Which is why you've posted all this 'real-world data' that shows otherwise instead of just leveling insults.

Only a complete Progressive idiot (you) still believes this inept Government is better at spending money than the people.

Supply side economics have been the foundation of most every economic expansion in history.

But of course Mint the Marxist scorns it. You and your ilk believes all our money essentially belongs to the Government, and they just decide how much of it we get to keep.

By Helbore on 7/10/2014 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
Its funny how people like you conveniently miss the line where I say that there's no guarantee such a policy will always work in the real world because the economy is incredibly complex. Obviously there are lots of factors involved and anyone who was willing to consider it objectively would accept that there are circumstances where raising the tax rate would result in higher tax income and circumstances where lowering it would result in higher tax income.

The main difference is in the length of time it takes to see a return. Raising taxes will show an immediate increase in revenue, but if it results in putting companies out of business over the next few years, you would ultimately see a decrease in revenue. Similarly, if you cut taxes, you will see an immediate drop in revenue - but if it stimulates growth in the economy, your revenue might ultimately be much higher. But it could take years to see a return.

Just like how a business might increase its profits by lowering the price of its goods or drastically kill profits by pricing their goods out of reach of most of the market. Look at a company like Microsoft, that has constantly made near-term losses in order to play for a long-term gain in market share.

Such an economic model can clearly work and there are numerous instances of it that are easy to find, both in the public and private sectors. But of course that doesn't mean it will ALWAYS work in all circumstances and I don't think anyone is suggesting such. If economics was really that simple, we'd all be rich.

But, of course, you spectacularly fail to grasp the point of my post and why I am using brad, simple numbers. Read the post I was responding to and see how awfully they are grasping the concept of percentages (or, more likely, acting intentionally disingenuous). They're suggesting that Reclaimer was claiming some sort of asymptotic pattern where lower tax rates equals more income, to the point that a zero percent rate would equal an infinite income.

That's just plain stupid and required a very basic example to explain why that notion is not even close to what was being suggested. I could have talked about businesses in the millions and changes in tax rates in fractions of a percent, but considering the level of inanity on display, I thought nice, simple, round numbers would help make the illustration easier to understand for those having a hard time grasping how a percentage works. You know, the same way we teach young children in maths classes.

It seems it was still too complicated for people to understand, though.

By Helbore on 7/10/2014 10:08:40 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, do you not understand the basic principle of an EXAMPLE?

I used simple numbers to illustrate the basis of how cutting taxes can actually increase tax revenue. Do you think I also believe there are only 10 businesses currently operating in America, too?

I used broad, simple figures to illustrate, the same way you would do so if creating an example for a school textbook. Its staggering how that was still too complex for some. Perhaps I ought to illustrate with some pictures of Farmer McGrew counting his beans. Dial the intellectual level down a bit more so people can understand.

By Krotchrot on 7/10/2014 11:13:13 AM , Rating: 1
Are you really that stupid? The argument wasn't that you used examples. It was that you used ignorant examples. My example showed that you would still be getting less revenue even if there was some income increase. Your numbers were just asinine. A triple increase in income due to tax cuts. Moronic at best.

By Helbore on 7/10/2014 11:28:46 AM , Rating: 3
Oh. My. God.

The example is about the principle, the figures are to keep it simplistic. Do you really not understand this? Hence the reason they are all round figures and every single business pays the same amount of tax.

Business growth obviously isn't just about making more businesses, but also increasing existing business revenue. Your numbers were just as stupid because you also followed my example of only having each business make $100. NEWSFLASH! Businesses make different amounts of money in reality. But if I made each business earn a different amount of profit, then the example would have been needlessly complex to address the issue at hand.

For example, let's take your "only increase by 50% at best," claim. So we have only 5 new businesses. But all the businesses are now more profitable. Let's keep it simple again and stick with your 50% increase. So now we have 15 businesses making $150 each. Taxed at 25% and that means we are brining in a tax revenue of £562.50 - an increase of £62.50 over the original tax income of $500 at the 50% tax rate.

You call my figures asinine, but you only altered the ones that suited your claim. Your rebuttal was just as simplistic.

You're doing nothing but creating a strawman to attack. Read the post I was responding to and understand what it is claiming the principle to be. Then read my post and understand what point it is I am trying to make IN RELATION TO THE POINT IN THE PREVIOUS POST THAT I AM CONTESTING.

You are doing yourself no favours by continually going on about numbers that are clearly not designed to be a true representation of a real economy. Have you never encountered an example using simplistic figures to demonstrate a mathematical principle before?

By bupkus on 7/9/2014 5:12:02 PM , Rating: 2
It is unfortunate that you cannot identify sarcasm.

My simplified model was meant to mirror the simplistic mantra of "lower taxes stimulates economic growth thus increasing revenue."
In fact, most big corporations redirect income to off-shore offices denying income tax completely. Why even pretend they pay taxes?

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 5:38:44 PM , Rating: 1
Wow that right there shows you don't comprehend this issue.

You just confused corporate taxes with income taxes.

Even if a corporation pays zero taxes, if pro-growth policies have encouraged them to hire more people, you've still increased income tax revenues.

By Sonicmerlin on 7/9/2014 11:16:50 PM , Rating: 3
The only thing that will encourage a business to "hire more people" is if more people are buying their products, and they need more employees to supply their goods and services. Besides, "pro growth services" require money, and you hate taxes.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2014 8:14:56 AM , Rating: 1
When you let people keep more of their own money, due to lower taxation, of course the buying of products goes up. Hello?

By Sonicmerlin on 7/10/2014 10:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
Where do you think that tax money goes? You think it just disappears into the ether, never to be seen again? If that government revenue ends up as a government employee's paycheck, cutting taxes just shifts money. At the same time the loss of a government agency's function can introduce inefficiencies into the system that drain resources. If the FDA can't afford to properly regulate the pharmaceutical industry, how much human capital would be lost to defective drug products harming people?

By TSS on 7/9/2014 7:31:59 PM , Rating: 2
The principle is only sound if you belive all 30 businesses are sound and viable long term.

If those businesses are sustained by a bubble, I.E. the extra money allocated to high-risk or otherwise unviable businesses/assets, then in the following bust those extra companies are just going to go belly up.

Even if the 200% increase in businesses is followed by only a 50% correction, your 30 businesses are cut down to 15. 15x$25=$375, leading to lower revenues in the long term.

So really you'd have to weigh the theory against the ultimate cost of the after-effects. That $100 being "made" by each company doesn't come out of thin air, it's most likely invested money to get the revenue up to $100. If it takes $1000 to get $100 of revenue, and the company only returns say $35 dividend (partly helped by lower taxes) for 2 years before going bust, that's alot of capital lost. Capital that can no longer be invested after the bust.

Then you're in a situation where not only are tax revenues down, but there's reduced capital available for new investments due to the amount of previous capital wiped out by risky assets. New business growth slows down to pre-tax cut levels while returning less tax revenue.

Ofcourse future lost tax revenue comes ontop of currently incurred deficits. As we all know, the government doesn't suddenly cut spending. So while tax revenues drop sharply, the unrevised rate of spending means future tax revenue has to be even higher despite the pre-cut revenue levels and business growth. Thus it can prove to be even more harmfull in the longterm then a tax raise is.

In short, basically one of the reasons why after 2008 job growth has been so slow and of the jobs added, most are minimum wage instead of middle class. Businesses went belly up in the bust while credit had already been stretched to the limit during the boom, leaving nothing left for after the bust. Business growth stagnated by the unwillingness of banks to lend due to toxic assets while tax revenue has remained lower due to unrevised laws (2006 revenues where higher then 2013 revenues adjusted for inflation). Which doesn't help pay down the increased deficit over the same period (nearly $10 trillion needs to be collected in extra tax revenue now compared to 2006).

The same goes for individual tax breaks. If the consumer is stretched to the limit on credit a la 2008, then any additional funding will go straight into paying down debt instead of extra consumption. Tax revenues decline while consumption stays the same.

It's not impossible to predict what the economy will do. As long as you're willing to accept you'll be the least popular guy around town.

By snhoj on 7/10/2014 10:01:34 PM , Rating: 2
You have 10 businesses taxed at 50%. Each business makes $100. The government collects $500 in tax.

The government decides to cut tax to 25%. Now the government only makes $250 off those 10 businesses.

If you supposed that the businesses gross margins were 25% then in order make $100 profit they would each have to sell $400 worth of widgets i.e. the widgets cost $300 to produce and sell. NPAT would be $50 or 12.5% of revenue at 50% tax. Slash taxes to 25% and NPAT would swell to $75 or 18.75%.

This would allow those businesses to sell those widgets for $366.67 and still make the same profit after tax. If the businesses did this tax paid would fall from $50 to $16.67 assuming the market size remained static. Realistically how much is an 8.3% drop in price going to expand the market, certainly not to three times the size.

The consumers would however have another $33.33 of disposable income to spend elsewhere. You could assume that a 50% drop in taxes would result in an 8.3% growth in the size of the economy except that the public sector would have to shrink by that amount unless the government borrowed to make up the short fall.

By hpglow on 7/9/2014 12:37:32 PM , Rating: 3
As usual Reclaimer you have no clue what you are talking about. Just your usual regurgitation of crap you heard on bias news outlets. Raising taxes in our modern economy does stunt growth, but only due to the fact that we have allowed big business to pass too many laws, lobby too many congressmen, and get in bed with the federal reserve and irs. Our country had the lowest level of unemployment, poverty, and the strongest middle class when the tax rates were the highest. 93% (33% effective) for the wealthy, and the pres was a republican at the time. I'm not saying the Dems are better because I think both choices are ass.

The emancipation proclamation claims we have the right to change or abolish our government when needed and it is past due. All there is left is corruption and that includes the toolbags that you vote for that pay off the news channels you watch and listen.

By bupkus on 7/9/2014 5:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely said. ++

By cruisin3style on 7/9/2014 2:51:29 PM , Rating: 4
I don't know a single person that is categorically against cutting taxes, but I bet a lot of them would fall under your so called "leftists" label.

I think the problem today is it has become okay to be a "political racist" or however you choose to describe it. People are disgruntled with the state of our country, and our politicians and news organizations are in a "me vs you" type of dialogue right now.

So it has become perfectly fine if, when someone shares one view, they immediately are labeled as liberal or conservative. For instance if you are against cutting taxes, you are a "leftist". Without even knowing anything else about that person's views. I bet i fall into your "leftist" category (if you remember me, anyway) but if I only shared certain views out loud you would think me a conservative (i think a strong military is important for our country, for instance, and sometimes cringe when i hear about certain proposed defense cuts)

This behavior is really not much different than promoting stereotypes of races, like if you see a hispanic person and think they probably like tacos or similar ideas like that.

And for the record, higher revenue for a few years after tax cuts isn't proof positive of anything. It is compelling, sure, but tax revenue comes from a lot of places for instance real estate valuation that might have kept rising therefore more taxes coming to offset the tax cuts. I think you need a few more samples to say anything for sure.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 4:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
Excuse me but I'm not just randomly categorizing people. Every single person I've seen criticizing the "Bush tax cuts" has been a Progressive/Liberal. Especially the loudest and most fanatical of those who blame the tax cuts for any number of things.

See Bush cut taxes across the board, for everyone, which included the rich. I've seen hundreds of definite Leftists accuse Bush of "helping the rich" etc etc. It doesn't matter that everyone benefited. NOTHING drives a Progressive crazier than seeing someone succeed while other don't. They feel the rich should be punished, literally punished.

I've also seen these same people claim, probably got this from MSNBC, that ONLY the "rich" got tax cuts from Bush.

Yeah when someone proposes a tax increase, ESPECIALLY during horrible economic times like when Obama tried to reverse the tax cuts in the middle of a recession, I'm going to call you a Liberal and dismiss you off hand.

Because there is ZERO justification for raising taxes. Ever. Only a Socialist-leaning person would want to grow the size of the Government at the cost of citizens economic potential.

In fact I feel there can be no justification for an income tax at all. Certainly not a moral one.

And the only thing I remember about you, is you occasionally come into a discussion, level an insult at me, and run off. You don't seem interested in a conversation.

By Sonicmerlin on 7/9/2014 11:14:48 PM , Rating: 3
If taxes never increased, and government agencies never grew, you would essentially hamstring every single agency in existence as the population grew and funding required to manage any particular industry increased.

Would you prefer not to have the FDA ensure newly approved drugs or foods won't kill you in your sleep?

By Reclaimer77 on 7/10/2014 8:18:58 AM , Rating: 2
A few problems with your premises:

1. You assume these agencies are efficient, and their funding is actually going toward their stated goal.

2. What population growth? We've been in negative growth for some time now. Or flat growth, depending on your source.

Seriously the federal Government gets a MASSIVE amount of funding even under our "lowered" tax rate. Enough to run two United States. Spending is, and has been, the problem. NOT funding.

By Masospaghetti on 7/10/2014 10:12:44 AM , Rating: 2
2. What population growth? We've been in negative growth for some time now.

Per the US Census, there's a net gain of one person every 13 seconds.

By Masospaghetti on 7/10/2014 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
From your link:

"According to the Census, there were 2,541,000 deaths between July 2012 and July 2013...Meanwhile, just 3,953,000 people were born during that time."

3,953,000 > 2,541,000

The article shows that population growth is slowing, not that populations are declining.

Hence why the Census says a net gain of one person every 13 seconds.

By Sonicmerlin on 7/10/2014 10:18:32 PM , Rating: 2
The vast majority of funding is spent on the military and social security and Medicare.

By cruisin3style on 7/10/2014 6:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
And the only thing I remember about you, is you occasionally come into a discussion, level an insult at me, and run off. You don't seem interested in a conversation.

You are referring to my patented policy of Spit It n Quit It

By Sonicmerlin on 7/9/2014 11:09:44 PM , Rating: 3
Bush's presidency was the only instance in the history of the US that taxes were dropped instead of raised during wartime. This applies to pretty much every other nation in modern history as well. If you don't want to slow economic activity, don't go to war.

IRS records record revenues every year. That's because our population and thus tax base, as well as our GDP, grows every year. It's really nothing to be surprised at. The rate of growth however was much slower during Bush's presidency. Average wages actually shrank for the first time in over a hundred years. And to top it off Bush took a surplus and turned it into a multi trillion dollar deficit- thanks to his unpaid for wars and tax cuts.

By rlandess on 7/10/2014 7:01:16 AM , Rating: 2
C'mon. You can't draw a reliable correlation between tax cuts and increased revenue in a 4 year window. There are other things at play. Yes tax cuts may increase revenue in the short term but that is a "tax holiday" effect. If you impose crippling taxes on businesses then you can economic downturn but small changes in tax rates don't make serious changes to the overall economy over longer periods of time as long as the changes are competitive with our economic partners.

I think the idea of funding wars with taxes gets at the point that starting a war should be more difficult. No politician would go on the offensive if they had to destroy their political credibility to do so. Tax payers would pay up front to defend their homes, but not to drop bombs in the desert.

By Masospaghetti on 7/10/2014 10:09:37 AM , Rating: 2
That pretty much shatters this myth that cutting taxes equals less federal tax revenue.

There is a point where raising taxes equals less tax revenue (because it stunts growth so badly) but we are probably nowhere near it. Look at European countries for example - most of which have higher total tax rates than we do - and notice that their governments do achieve much higher tax revenue than the US government does.

As an aside, I think France found the point of negative returns with their infamous 75% tax on the rich.

This is not to say that European tax rates are "ideal" for the entire economy, but the notion that lower taxes equals more revenue is a flawed one (at least at the tax levels that the United States is currently at).

By Dr of crap on 7/9/2014 12:04:59 PM , Rating: 3
Do we really have to spin down to the Dem vs Rep, my side is better, on a site such as this??

NO ONE POLITICAL PARTY is better, OR has any better views than any other!

You'll notice I didn't say between the two parties. Because I believe we need more than just two main parties, and until that happens, ... keep your fighting to yourself! I'm am sooooo tored of the Kindergarten type finger pointing and blaming the other "side of the aisle"!

By integr8d on 7/9/2014 1:06:51 PM , Rating: 3
'...gleefully rejects science...'

It'd be interesting if the other party, which apparently fully accepts science (and gives it deity status) was so callus. But they aren't. They're quite the emo bunch themselves, often making many decisions based on how they 'feel' than what the numbers actually say.

Then again, if you think platform superiority (of which any makes perfect sense, depending on your priorities) will have any practical representative effect, you're puffing on some serious dank. With the minor exception of the Ron Paul's and Liz Warren's who slip through the cracks, the vast majority are wholly paid-for corporate employees.

And if you think that all of the government-funded projects and BILLIONS that Goldman et al have dumped into green/eco/sustainable/rainbow/unicorn/marshmallows haven't had a massive influence on your science, --- you --- are --- insane.

By Sonicmerlin on 7/9/2014 11:12:18 PM , Rating: 3
Yea I see democrats saying "let's spend a trillion dollars" all the time. Wait no I don't.

And Al Gore isn't a scientist.

By TEAMSWITCHER on 7/9/2014 1:30:33 PM , Rating: 5
Preferential lending wasn't the problem - bad mortgages happen all the time. The REAL problem is what Wall Street did with the bad mortgages. They bundled them together, had AIG insure them with a AAA rating, and sold them as "Complex Financial Vehicles."
Let me put it this way...If you put Wall Street in charge of America's nuclear waste they would turn into into colorful breakfast cereal and feed it to our kids.

By mephit13 on 7/9/2014 10:37:18 AM , Rating: 2
Please don't feed the trolls.

By stoogenadoot on 7/9/2014 11:57:44 AM , Rating: 2
But this one is so hungry. The ignorance level is maxed out on this guy.

By stoogenadoot on 7/9/2014 11:04:10 AM , Rating: 2
Really? I get that you dont like his politics. Hell, I dont like his politics, but can we please get over the muslim thing? He is not a muslim.

By Flunk on 7/9/2014 11:45:47 AM , Rating: 2
What I don't understand is why it matters if he is or not Muslim (I personally believe he's most likely an atheist). America is not at war with Islam, that would be similar to when Hitler declared war against all Jewish people. Yes, I realize that Hitler comparisons are overused on the internet but this time it's actually apt.

It's seriously racist and bigoted to relate everyone of an entire religion with the acts of a few people. Not only that it doesn't seem like the people doing this even know anything about Islam and how similar it is to Christianity.

By stoogenadoot on 7/9/2014 11:55:28 AM , Rating: 4
Calling Obama a muslim, the OP just looks more uneducated than anything. It's just pointing out his total ignorance and fanning hate.

It drives me nuts because there really are alot of things to complain about with Obama. He is doing a crummy job IMO, and there are plenty real issues to discuss. This whole muslim thing takes away from the real issues and just adds ignorance.

By Dorkyman on 7/9/2014 1:31:02 PM , Rating: 1
Agreed. What scares the hell out of me is how many sheeple blindly follow him. The man's speeches "sound" good but if you actually analyze what he says, he's famous for setting up strawman arguments and then knocking them down. Oooh, how brilliant.

By Reclaimer77 on 7/9/2014 2:02:41 PM , Rating: 2
He's definitely the master of setting up his own win conditions, that's for sure.

My favorite is passing a law that mandates every American buy health insurance.

Then using the fact that Americans are buying health insurance, as proof that he's "won" and that the law (ACA) is sound.

Uhhh news flash, but people aren't choosing to endorse your law. You FORCED us to!

By sgw2n5 on 7/9/2014 1:33:56 PM , Rating: 2
Funny thing is, I'm sure you voted for Bush. Probably twice.

The guy that actually really did irrevocable harm to not only the US but the world.

By amanojaku on 7/9/2014 12:08:27 PM , Rating: 2
King Goat Herder
I know you meant that as an insult, but I kind of like the idea of a president with a background in farming or herding. It would mean he or she is used to doing real, work. Hard work, even.

moon photo
By sulu1977 on 7/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: moon photo
By MadMan007 on 7/9/2014 6:12:43 PM , Rating: 2

RE: moon photo
By ianmills on 7/9/2014 6:16:28 PM , Rating: 2
The camera had a flash on it. Big mystery LOL

RE: moon photo
By puplan on 7/9/2014 10:29:14 PM , Rating: 3
There is no atmosphere on the Moon, therefore sunlight is highly directional, not diffused as on Earth.

RE: moon photo
By SlyNine on 7/10/2014 12:16:12 PM , Rating: 3
Don't bother wasting your time on these moon hoax people. Every question about the moon landing hoax has been answered ad-nauseam.

No matter how much evidence you show that the moon landing couldn't have possibly been faked at the time. No matter how many answers you give to their BS "proof", they will never answer your questions. They will just circle full round, using ad-hominem arguments, using the same "proof" again and again.

RE: moon photo
By soccerballtux on 7/10/2014 3:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
Buzz Aldrin should be the first Marstronaut.

RE: moon photo
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/11/2014 10:43:29 AM , Rating: 1
Let's send him there with no return ticket. See how he likes the idea.

By Monkey's Uncle on 7/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: Funny
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/9/2014 10:47:08 AM , Rating: 1
Grrr! DT, Put in a frigging edit function dammit!

RE: Funny
By tayb on 7/9/2014 11:04:53 AM , Rating: 1
There is no point in a round trip mission to Mars. If all we are doing is going to visit we are better off sending robots. We can leave the robots there and get them there much cheaper. If the exploration isn't for the purpose of colonization I don't see a reason to do it.

And space exploration should be about ensuring the survival of the human race.

RE: Funny
By kattanna on 7/9/2014 11:20:33 AM , Rating: 2
our "visit" there would not be a short one. we would be there for months before we could come back. hardly a quick visit like we did on the moon.

and during our stay there we would be able to learn a great deal more, in a more rapid manner then any rover could, and thats not dissing them at all, they are doing fantastic work. but you talk to any geologist and they will tell you a person could get more done then any machine.

RE: Funny
By bupkus on 7/9/2014 12:50:18 PM , Rating: 2
Establishing a long term presence should early on involve growing grasses for herding and plant varieties for the gathering of tubers, berries and edible greens.

This cannot be done without establishing a bacterial and insect population to decompose waste to replenish nutrients into the soil. It would help if we could establish a breathable atmosphere with frequent rainfall, and for those who prefer not to command a horse driven plow we can begin plans for an oil refinery just as soon as we discover Martian oil.

I'm sure Haliburton could make that happen at a reasonable price.

Yep. Lots of potential there for establishing a human colony.
Any volunteers for Castle Black 2?

RE: Funny
By Monkey's Uncle on 7/9/2014 12:55:42 PM , Rating: 2
I doubt they are thinking that far into the future. Especially with Mars.

The thing is that in order to set up shop on planet that is inhospitable to human life, you need a lot of infrastructure already in place -- sustainable necessities like food, air, gravity must be already there.

We are nowhere near close enough technically to do that remotely with robots. You need shifts of humans to go there and build it or at least maintain the robots doing most of the grunt work.

Thing is it is a lot more technically feasible to send a human to mars and bring him back, than it is to send him there and strand him there for the rest of his very, very short life. Would you volunteer for that mission? I wouldn't.

"Intel is investing heavily (think gazillions of dollars and bazillions of engineering man hours) in resources to create an Intel host controllers spec in order to speed time to market of the USB 3.0 technology." -- Intel blogger Nick Knupffer

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki