Conquer Club

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:35 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:There are gold-etched phonographic records on board so hypothetical aliens that find them can learn about humans.

They included records from the '70s? Hopefully they at least thought far ahead enough to put some Elton on there. What are the songs?

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:39 pm**

They're pretty much all Disco since that was the future of music at the time.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 1:09 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:
Dukasaur wrote:There are gold-etched phonographic records on board so hypothetical aliens that find them can learn about humans.

They included records from the '70s? Hopefully they at least thought far ahead enough to put some Elton on there. What are the songs?

They included a selection of influential pieces of music throughout the centuries, ranging from Bach and Mozart to Beethoven and Stravinsky.

Oh, and a Chuck Berry song.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:01 pm**

Dukasaur wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
That's awesome that not only are we creating space junk but space nuclear waste as well.

The Sun spits out about 80 tonnes of radioactive waste every second. 80. Tonnes. Every. Second.

And the Sun is not a particularly energetic star.

Fear not, our contribution won't upset the apple cart...

True but solar radiation and decayed plutonium or whatever the hell they have in there are two totally different paint jobs! I'm just imagining some unsuspecting E.T.s taking the thing on board and frying their sperms or worse by cracking it open. :cry:

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:48 pm**

saxitoxin wrote:Should NASA turn it around and put the pedal to the metal to get it back to the Earth?

Short answer; they can't. It's already out of fuel. It's been using gravity assist to get it from point A to point B.

Second it's really old technology. By the way, the Mars rovers are also old technology. Cutting edge technology isn't used in deep space because you can't go there when it breaks down. So Voyager wasn't even "new" technology for its day. It's really really old.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:51 pm**

maxfaraday wrote:They did not give it solar panels? It could communicate forever.

Standard solar panels won't work past jupiter. Basically you need "stellar panels" and they would have to be massive.

You basically have to put a nuclear battery pack in any long range explorers.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:55 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:True but solar radiation and decayed plutonium or whatever the hell they have in there are two totally different paint jobs! I'm just imagining some unsuspecting E.T.s taking the thing on board and frying their sperms or worse by cracking it open.

First of all, space is extreemely massive.

Second of all, space is extreemely deadly. A small plutonium battery doesn't even form a blip on the potential dangers out there in space. Realize that the E.T. would be playing with forces far beyond our ability to comprehend just in order to travel freely through the stars fast enough to find, locate and capture the item in the first place.

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 10:57 pm**

I should point there is absolutely no chance that it wil find a wormhole.

Absolutely positively no chance. :shock:

Well, if it does, don't worry, Kirk will save the day!

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:27 pm**

Yeah, worms can't live in vacuum! Have you seen the way they squirm when you simply drop 'em in the water?

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:35 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:Yeah, worms can't live in vacuum! Have you seen the way they squirm when you simply drop 'em in the water?

That was pretty cute. O:)

Posted: **Tue Nov 13, 2012 11:45 pm**

jonesthecurl wrote:Yeah, worms can't live in vacuum! Have you seen the way they squirm when you simply drop 'em in the water?

They're writhing in ecstasy because they know they will soon be part of Shai-Halud!

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:04 am**

Dukasaur wrote:
jonesthecurl wrote:Yeah, worms can't live in vacuum! Have you seen the way they squirm when you simply drop 'em in the water?

They're writhing in ecstasy because they know they will soon be part of Shai-Halud!

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2012 3:08 am**

Thanks Saxi, Just wanted to be %100* sure.
FAST-POSTEDFAST-POSTEDFAST-POSTED
Damn, this thread is too fast for me. Bit like that satellite...

*all Percentages presented here have a +5/-5 range of variation

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:11 pm**

Pretty sure the answer here is blow up the Sun.

Posted: **Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:40 pm**

tzor wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:Should NASA turn it around and put the pedal to the metal to get it back to the Earth?

Short answer; they can't. It's already out of fuel. It's been using gravity assist to get it from point A to point B.

Second it's really old technology. By the way, the Mars rovers are also old technology. Cutting edge technology isn't used in deep space because you can't go there when it breaks down. So Voyager wasn't even "new" technology for its day. It's really really old.

So essentially the satellite is the dead car to our galactic front yard.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:31 pm**

i say blow the stupid thing up,nasa is a waste of money

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2012 6:51 pm**

karel wrote:nasa is a waste of money

Agreed.

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:08 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:
karel wrote:nasa is a waste of money

Agreed.

yeah, we need to spend more on killing each other. That's the important stuff. That and colourful confetti for our newest glorious leader who will surely solve all of our problems.

Even if nasa had not done one practically useful thing ever it would still be worth the money simply for what it symbolizes and for helping change the way we think about ourselves.

It has however done a shitload of practical things. first result on google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Posted: **Fri Nov 16, 2012 10:18 pm**

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
karel wrote:nasa is a waste of money

Agreed.

yeah, we need to spend more on killing each other. That's the important stuff. That and colourful confetti for our newest glorious leader who will surely solve all of our problems.

Even if nasa had not done one practically useful thing ever it would still be worth the money simply for what it symbolizes and for helping change the way we think about ourselves.

It has however done a shitload of practical things. first result on google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Just because I think NASA is a waste means I am Pro-military? How does that work? Those are the only two options eh?

Posted: **Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:35 am**

Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
karel wrote:nasa is a waste of money

Agreed.

yeah, we need to spend more on killing each other. That's the important stuff. That and colourful confetti for our newest glorious leader who will surely solve all of our problems.

Even if nasa had not done one practically useful thing ever it would still be worth the money simply for what it symbolizes and for helping change the way we think about ourselves.

It has however done a shitload of practical things. first result on google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Just because I think NASA is a waste means I am Pro-military? How does that work? Those are the only two options eh?

It seems like one might want to first fix the gaping hole wasting tons of liters of water rather than the little crack wasting 500 grams.(which, turns out, aren't really wasted in the first place)

Posted: **Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:11 am**

I believe both shooting people and nuclear waste into space as well as killing babies lead to many innovations in civilian products.

People are not generally aware of how many civilian contractors are involved in making equipment for NASA. JPL has been making stuff for them for a pretty long time and I believe it's the main reason they won X Prize and are now making equipment for Ricky Branson.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:10 am**

I see that the petition is still 24,999 short of 25,000.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:30 pm**

Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
Haggis_McMutton wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:
karel wrote:nasa is a waste of money

Agreed.

yeah, we need to spend more on killing each other. That's the important stuff. That and colourful confetti for our newest glorious leader who will surely solve all of our problems.

Even if nasa had not done one practically useful thing ever it would still be worth the money simply for what it symbolizes and for helping change the way we think about ourselves.

It has however done a shitload of practical things. first result on google: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies

Just because I think NASA is a waste means I am Pro-military? How does that work? Those are the only two options eh?

It seems like one might want to first fix the gaping hole wasting tons of liters of water rather than the little crack wasting 500 grams.(which, turns out, aren't really wasted in the first place)

Wtf? The military is a completely different subject and doesn't affect the fact that NASA is a waste. The advances gained through NASA are paltry compared to the amount of money dumped into the program.

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2012 5:32 pm**

Funkyterrance wrote:Wtf? The military is a completely different subject and doesn't affect the fact that NASA is a waste. The advances gained through NASA are paltry compared to the amount of money dumped into the program.

Are they? For $18 billion dollars per year, what exactly do you expect out of them?

Posted: **Sun Nov 18, 2012 9:45 pm**

Metsfanmax wrote:
Funkyterrance wrote:Wtf? The military is a completely different subject and doesn't affect the fact that NASA is a waste. The advances gained through NASA are paltry compared to the amount of money dumped into the program.

Are they? For $18 billion dollars per year, what exactly do you expect out of them?

Meaning advances that can be useful to purposes other than NASA, to clarify. If anyone argues cell phones I'm going to laugh, btw.

Conquer Club

Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?

Re: Should NASA turn Voyager I back around?