Back to the Moon or go to Mars?

Lamb

God's Lil Lamb
Community Team
Administrator
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2015
Messages
32,649
Age
57
Gender
Female
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The US is busy working on getting back to the moon but one of the astronauts who was already there says that the US should concentrate on getting to Mars. Which do you think should happen?
 

NewCreation435

Well-known member
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
5,045
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
neither. sounds like a big waste of money.
 

psalms 91

Well-known member
Moderator
Valued Contributor
Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2015
Messages
15,282
Age
75
Location
Pa
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Charismatic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Research how many things that we use every day came from the space race to the moon, it will astound you! Not a waste then and probably not now either
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
Maybe this time we'll actually go to the moon rather than faking it :) Although with modern CGI graphics there's no way of knowing what's real and what isn't any more....

(going to hide now....)
 

MennoSota

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 24, 2017
Messages
7,102
Age
54
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Moderate
Marital Status
Married
Sending rovers is cheaper and produces better data. There is no bang for the buck in jeopardizing human lives at this present time.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I say let the astronauts do what they do the best, land on things :) robots are boring ;)
 

Jason76

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2019
Messages
465
Age
47
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Unitarian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
No
Oh great! More white people invading places! Oh, wait, now it will be humans - in general! O.K. well, at least there are no native inhabitants to complain! (All this is "tongue in cheek".)
 

Josiah

simul justus et peccator
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jun 12, 2015
Messages
13,927
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Lutheran
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
The US is busy working on getting back to the moon but one of the astronauts who was already there says that the US should concentrate on getting to Mars. Which do you think should happen?


I am opposed to humans landing on Mars UNTIL we have adequate assurance that there is NO life there to contaminate and perhaps bring back here to contaminate life on Earth.

Putting people on the planet is PURE egoism. We can learn FAR more for FAR less via robotics without risking lives and life. But those motivated KNOW (and I'm sure they are right) that the public won't fund sending robots, they will sending people.
 

tango

... and you shall live ...
Valued Contributor
Joined
Jul 13, 2015
Messages
14,695
Location
Realms of chaos
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
I am opposed to humans landing on Mars UNTIL we have adequate assurance that there is NO life there to contaminate and perhaps bring back here to contaminate life on Earth.

Putting people on the planet is PURE egoism. We can learn FAR more for FAR less via robotics without risking lives and life. But those motivated KNOW (and I'm sure they are right) that the public won't fund sending robots, they will sending people.

I have to wonder if it's even possible to get much assurance of that, given so much is an unknown. Of course if you put a robot on the surface of another planet it can explore and beam back its findings and pictures, and you don't have to worry about getting it home again. As soon as you put a person on the surface of another planet the mission can't start until you can be sufficiently confident (at least confident enough for the astronaut to undertake the mission) that you can get them home again. I don't know that I'd want to be the first person to explore another planet, knowing that if anything went wrong with the ride home I'd be stuck there and would almost certainly die there.

Even without the unknowns of being able to get a person back again, how would we ever know whether or not there are pathogens living on Mars that might infect an astronaut and subsequently infect our planet? How could we have known that before going to the moon?
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
History tells us that man loves to explore so sending out probes to space alone is not in mans best interest, eventually we will want to get our feet wet even at the expense of casualties along the way.. according to our historical nature.
I can't really say how soon is too soon, heck we went to the moon in a race and it actually worked, I believe tho that we want to be more careful next time, btw didn't NASA declare the universe/outer space to be property of the USA? lol..

On another note: I don't believe in astrology charts one bit and I definitely don't believe in the New Age movement as some spiritual evolution taking place. I do find a subtle relevance in the constellation Aquarius in relation to our view of the heavenly sky due to Earths slow wobble in the heavens (New Agers would say this is some major event as we are moving into this age from the age of the constellation pisces) this constellation of Aquarius is dubbed the "water bearer" and is considered to be an air sign, I never understood why a supposed "air" sign was used to represent a "water bearer", I figure it's all just ridiculous astrology nonsense but I like to subject any possible logic into whatever I can if possible at all.
Oddly enough if I squint my mental eye just right I can find some correlation of "air" with "water bearing" in our upcoming solar precession because ironically during this so called "shift" between these two "ages" we are becoming rapidly more air born and venturing to more elevated altitudes via breakthrough technological advances, hence "bearing water" (beholding water from air/sky) and it has nothing to do with universal friendship or an age of spiritual "enlightenment", just coincidence I suppose..
Anyway I do believe we are in the end times just as the Bible has prophesied and their are still signs to come, not all of Revelation will be understood until the signs actually appear so no matter how weird we view future outer spacial travels such as manned missions to mars, it may very well have a part in the end times wrap up.. also according to scripture "World/Earth" can refer to any "land" just as we discovered the Americas separated by waters so may we find land separated by space. Just sayin.
We will be on a new world in physical bodies after the judgment, this physical planet will have no need for a sun, interesting... Heaven is also called 'the heavens' in the bible, I believe Gods plan for us is just so amazingly impossible to comprehend that we can't even imagine it's beauty.
 
Last edited:

Webster

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2019
Messages
105
Age
49
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Methodist
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
If the ultimate goal is going to Mars, you had better test the equipment you're going to need first and the best testing ground for that is about 240-250k miles away on the moon; if it works there and missions are successful, then you go. But to stay on earth and not go anywhere, given the propensity of asteroids and meteors to come smashing into the planet every so often?

Yeah, no, I'd rather see humanity spread out amongst the planets and stars, thank you very much.
 

Andrew

Matt 18:15
Joined
Aug 25, 2017
Messages
6,645
Age
40
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Christian
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
Acceptance of the Trinity & Nicene Creed
Yes
If the ultimate goal is going to Mars, you had better test the equipment you're going to need first and the best testing ground for that is about 240-250k miles away on the moon; if it works there and missions are successful, then you go. But to stay on earth and not go anywhere, given the propensity of asteroids and meteors to come smashing into the planet every so often?

Yeah, no, I'd rather see humanity spread out amongst the planets and stars, thank you very much.
Amen to that! Can't stay cooped up on a single planet if we have the means to journey across and multiply on other "lands" especially if God has provided us the capacity to see threats and venture out to distant lands, my point in my above post was that we should view all possible land as "Earth" and this includes land separated by space be it oceans or vacuum as long as we are capable of getting there.
 

Frank

Member
Joined
Jul 27, 2019
Messages
6
Gender
Male
Religious Affiliation
Catholic
Political Affiliation
Conservative
Marital Status
Single
I feel like a majority only want to go to the moon to prove that it wasn't all fake which was shown on the news back in the day. Mars seems like a worthwhile shot since it makes a ton more sense (why go to a small planet that is nearby when you could go to one that isn't fully visible during half of the night/day cycle).
 
Top Bottom