• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Thoughts on the space station mission?

Bit of a strange topic for people's thoughts - the space station has been there for almost 20 years. It's only coming up because now the country can lay some patriotic claim to it.

As for spotting it, you could certainly give it a go: http://spotthestation.nasa.gov/
 
It's the petrol station mission I'm more concerned about tbf. Tho it would be shit to have to go to the space station every time for a box of Amber Leaf.
 
Sharapovafistpump said:
It's the petrol station mission I'm more concerned about tbf. Tho it would be shit to have to go to the space station every time for a box of Amber Leaf.
Click to expand...

I'm just waiting for the day they catch someone trying to start a grow up there. I bet space weed would be, well, out of this world. Might even be possible now the US is moving slowly towards legalisation. They just need to move from Cape Canaveral up to Seattle and everything would work out wonderfully.
 
Surely some astronauts have snuck up mushrooms or DMT whilst they're there.

I totally would.

But that is probably why they would never let me anywhere near a space station.
 
I'd love to belet loose on the space station with a sack of 3-fmp, I'd find thos frikken laser's - 'ONE MILLION DOLLARS'
 
Holy fuckin christ, this guy's still alive!

Got a few orbits under y'belt already though i believe?

Good to see you back, and it's nice to knoe yer namesake has a good old fashioned drug scandal to give her some hip cred.
 
Kittycat5 said:
The space station is the biggest waste of money for science ever.
Click to expand...

It's cost less so far than the Apollo program or Shuttle program, and waste wise the Buran blows it out the water. Granted the Buran only cost $71bn (vs ~150bn for the ISS so far) at the time of cancellation, but for that they got 3 and a half hours of flight time. Compare that to 15+ years of continual occupation for the ISS (and all that time gathering data on the response of humans to long-term exposure to microgravity conditions) there's no contest when it comes to wasted money.
 
Hahaha we can't all sit on forum's mulling drugs - gotta reconstruct the old life again (before burning it like Rome)

I knew that fistpump, that's a fucking meth heads fist pump when he scores and over head kick in Pro Evo Soccer. Intrestig if she still has to take the 'heart pills' .. after 10 years ... should a 4 year od with a heart condition make tennis her life - OF COURSE, fucking legend

SpaceJunk - dunno if you've seen this but def watch - it's 100% Nutbush City Limits https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4J_oee1S66M
 
SquidInSunglasses said:
It's cost less so far than the Apollo program or Shuttle program, and waste wise the Buran blows it out the water. Granted the Buran only cost $71bn (vs ~150bn for the ISS so far) at the time of cancellation, but for that they got 3 and a half hours of flight time. Compare that to 15+ years of continual occupation for the ISS (and all that time gathering data on the response of humans to long-term exposure to microgravity conditions) there's no contest when it comes to wasted money.
Click to expand...

Im not comparing it to other space missions or equipment. If you ask astrophysicists, they would probably say the money would have been better spent on bigger and more sensitive telescopes. Physicists in general certainly would have rather had the Superconducting Supercollider built instead. Most chemists, biologists, doctors or any other field have little to no use for it. It took money away from other projects and up until maybe 5 years ago, there were basically no scientific returns. The goddamn thing wasnt even complete until around 2012 and I will give since then it has been turning out nice results but many of them are too narrow or space-mission oriented for scientists in general to care.
 
Kittycat5 said:
Im not comparing it to other space missions or equipment. If you ask astrophysicists, they would probably say the money would have been better spent on bigger and more sensitive telescopes. Physicists in general certainly would have rather had the Superconducting Supercollider built instead. Most chemists, biologists, doctors or any other field have little to no use for it. It took money away from other projects and up until maybe 5 years ago, there were basically no scientific returns. The goddamn thing wasnt even complete until around 2012 and I will give since then it has been turning out nice results but many of them are too narrow or space-mission oriented for scientists in general to care.
Click to expand...

So wait, your complaint is that the flying space station full of people in space is only providing data about people in space? That's not a useful criterion for judging its contribution the advancement of science, that's a personal judgement of the value of space-related research as compared to other field. And besides, the ISS is providing medical data on the longterm impacts of the freefall environment it would be literally impossible to obtain in another way. Whether that data is useful in another context is irrelevant. There's also plenty of crystal stuff (and I think some combustion experiments, I haven't really been keeping that much track) that rely on freefall that can be done conveniently in the ISS, and that recent growing lettuce in freefall experiment they did recently (again, primarily important for advancing work on human presence in outer space, but that doesn't make it any less of a contribution to science for being in that field).

Incidentally, if you want to talk time to operational status, ITER's almost certainly going to take longer to get running, and I wouldn't be surprised if it overran even that estimation. Just because something takes a while to be built has no bearing on how useful it is, especially if it involves difficult engineering problems, which is certainly true for a persistent human habitat in orbit.
 
SquidInSunglasses said:
So wait, your complaint is that the flying space station full of people in space is only providing data about people in space? That's not a useful criterion for judging its contribution the advancement of science, that's a personal judgement of the value of space-related research as compared to other field. And besides, the ISS is providing medical data on the longterm impacts of the freefall environment it would be literally impossible to obtain in another way. Whether that data is useful in another context is irrelevant. There's also plenty of crystal stuff (and I think some combustion experiments, I haven't really been keeping that much track) that rely on freefall that can be done conveniently in the ISS, and that recent growing lettuce in freefall experiment they did recently (again, primarily important for advancing work on human presence in outer space, but that doesn't make it any less of a contribution to science for being in that field).

Incidentally, if you want to talk time to operational status, ITER's almost certainly going to take longer to get running, and I wouldn't be surprised if it overran even that estimation. Just because something takes a while to be built has no bearing on how useful it is, especially if it involves difficult engineering problems, which is certainly true for a persistent human habitat in orbit.
Click to expand...

No my complaint is the 100+ billion it cost could and should have been spent elsewhere. If I was saying that ISS cost too much to learn about the enviorment of space and how it affects organisms or any other of the space related data that has come from it then certainly I would be speaking nonsense. But had we used that money for a few super projects or many small to midsize experiments in other fields, it would have been put to better use.
 
Apparently it's only the size of a 5 bedroom house. Bet some wait on LHA for it. Has it brought back any craic from the dark side of the moon?

The only future this parasitical species has is up beyond the ether. The eco-system, the stark Apollo photo's, the seminal essay's in Limits to Growth. Based on the concept's produced by a 1972 computer simulation that has 'broadly' born out - in conjunction with Moore's law of exponential growth book and Kurzweils of diminished returns - the singularity - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jxNEiZhpinY
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top