FOLLOW BOREME
TAGS
<< Back to listing
Buzz Aldrin about the plans to put man on Mars

Buzz Aldrin about the plans to put man on Mars

(3:56) Buzz Aldrin (2nd person to walk on the moon) envisages a Mars flyby in 2018, and a small human colony by 2035, much of it funded by the private sector.

Share this post

You can comment as a guest, but registering gives you added benefits

Add your comment
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Knobette Knobette (1621 days ago)
I'm looking forward to the first manned mission to Uranus
ReplyVote up (101)down (89)
Original comment
I'm looking forward to the first manned mission to Uranus
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1621 days ago)
Ha, that's funny. According to Futurama, astronomers are going to rename that planet in 2620 to stop these kinds of jokes. LINK
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Ha, that's funny. According to Futurama, astronomers are going to rename that planet in 2620 to stop these kinds of jokes. LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: mtoz (1621 days ago)
OMG! The video froze just as Buzz was shape-shifting!
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
OMG! The video froze just as Buzz was shape-shifting!
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
TheBob TheBob (1621 days ago)
03.25 "The opportunities for tourists are great" - could he look any less convinced?
ReplyVote up (101)down (100)
Original comment
03.25 "The opportunities for tourists are great" - could he look any less convinced?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
somebody's already working on warp drive. i hope i see it done before i die LINK
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
somebody's already working on warp drive. i hope i see it done before i die LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: space-nut (1621 days ago)
They call their runway a 'spaceway'? Oh please.. how lame. Here's your space-coffee sir, and oh dont forget your space-napkin and your space-sick bag... actually that last one is probably a good idea.
ReplyVote up (74)down (101)
Original comment
They call their runway a 'spaceway'? Oh please.. how lame. Here's your space-coffee sir, and oh dont forget your space-napkin and your space-sick bag... actually that last one is probably a good idea.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1621 days ago)
WalterEgo, you're always so concerned about global warming so here's your chance to start over again on Mars. See if you can be one of those people going and then you wouldn't have to worry as much about what is happening on planet Earth.
ReplyVote up (75)down (153)
Original comment
WalterEgo, you're always so concerned about global warming so here's your chance to start over again on Mars. See if you can be one of those people going and then you wouldn't have to worry as much about what is happening on planet Earth.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1621 days ago)
Actually you bring up 2 interesting points - 1, that we'd need to instigate global warming on Mars if we want to make it habitable, and we know how to do that through our experience on Earth. And 2, it is these sorts of projects where private enterprise really excels - when the goals of private money and the goals of society are in harmony. Unlike the oil industry which promotes burning MORE fossil fuels, when we need to burn LESS to deal with climate change. I say nationalise oil and use the profits to subsidise green energy, rather than buying more private jets.
ReplyVote up (101)down (99)
Original comment
Actually you bring up 2 interesting points - 1, that we'd need to instigate global warming on Mars if we want to make it habitable, and we know how to do that through our experience on Earth. And 2, it is these sorts of projects where private enterprise really excels - when the goals of private money and the goals of society are in harmony. Unlike the oil industry which promotes burning MORE fossil fuels, when we need to burn LESS to deal with climate change. I say nationalise oil and use the profits to subsidise green energy, rather than buying more private jets.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
i have to agree with the last sentence. As for Cengland0's suggestion, i have to say i found it funny :) "go to Mars and leave me alone" , LOL
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
i have to agree with the last sentence. As for Cengland0's suggestion, i have to say i found it funny :) "go to Mars and leave me alone" , LOL
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
I wasn't asking him to leave me alone but trying to help him out. WalterEgo is a severe alarmist so I thought he would appreciate the opportunity to leave this planet before we all die of global warming. Until citizens no longer need oil products, we will still be purchasing it. If you nationalize oil in your local country, not all countries will do the same and it will not stop the consumption of oil products. It will only make it more expensive of a commodity by removing competition.
ReplyVote up (107)down (75)
Original comment
I wasn't asking him to leave me alone but trying to help him out. WalterEgo is a severe alarmist so I thought he would appreciate the opportunity to leave this planet before we all die of global warming. Until citizens no longer need oil products, we will still be purchasing it. If you nationalize oil in your local country, not all countries will do the same and it will not stop the consumption of oil products. It will only make it more expensive of a commodity by removing competition.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
the price of oil is decided by OPEC and the other smaller oil producing countries, so what you said about nationalization being the culprit for increased oil prices is false. There's an oligopoly for you. Capitalist logic doesn't apply. Count to think of it... Capitalism is Utopia, more so than Communism. Under the cloak of the "Capitalism" idea, the Oligopolies thrive, leaving the ones who bought into the idea to fight in vain for a dream that is just a carrot on a stick.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
the price of oil is decided by OPEC and the other smaller oil producing countries, so what you said about nationalization being the culprit for increased oil prices is false. There's an oligopoly for you. Capitalist logic doesn't apply. Count to think of it... Capitalism is Utopia, more so than Communism. Under the cloak of the "Capitalism" idea, the Oligopolies thrive, leaving the ones who bought into the idea to fight in vain for a dream that is just a carrot on a stick.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
If the true cost of oil (damage caused by climate change) was factored into the price at the pump, then clean energy would be way cheaper and the market will follow. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
ReplyVote up (101)down (94)
Original comment
If the true cost of oil (damage caused by climate change) was factored into the price at the pump, then clean energy would be way cheaper and the market will follow. That's how capitalism is supposed to work.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
Do you pay for the disposal of your milk cartons at the time you purchase them at the grocery store? What about when you buy lead acid batteries? Do you pay for the cleanup of those toxic chemicals at purchase time?
ReplyVote up (149)down (77)
Original comment
Do you pay for the disposal of your milk cartons at the time you purchase them at the grocery store? What about when you buy lead acid batteries? Do you pay for the cleanup of those toxic chemicals at purchase time?
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
we will soon enough LINK . Carbon tax is one example. Environmental Taxation A Guide for Policy Makers LINK . It's gonna be harder in the US to implement such rules, because Corporations are ...not people, but Gods according to your corrupt capitalist democracy and your corrupt supreme court linkhttp://www.nytimes.co m/2013/05/14/business/mon santo-victorious-in-genet ic-seed-case.html?_r=0 , so the Koch brothers are gonna have a field day on this one.
ReplyVote up (95)down (101)
Original comment
we will soon enough LINK . Carbon tax is one example. Environmental Taxation A Guide for Policy Makers LINK . It's gonna be harder in the US to implement such rules, because Corporations are ...not people, but Gods according to your corrupt capitalist democracy and your corrupt supreme court linkhttp://www.nytimes.co m/2013/05/14/business/mon santo-victorious-in-genet ic-seed-case.html?_r=0 , so the Koch brothers are gonna have a field day on this one.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
So as WalterEgo tells us, it's already too late for the planet. We are going to experience temperatures that will kill all life on earth even if we stop all CO2 production today. So what is this carbon tax going to be used for? It's called extra profit for the country. Think they will use that money to scrub the air and remove CO2? Doubful.
ReplyVote up (101)down (93)
Original comment
So as WalterEgo tells us, it's already too late for the planet. We are going to experience temperatures that will kill all life on earth even if we stop all CO2 production today. So what is this carbon tax going to be used for? It's called extra profit for the country. Think they will use that money to scrub the air and remove CO2? Doubful.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
It's not me who's telling you that it's too late, scientists are saying that even if we cut our CO2 emissions to 0, the planet will continue to warm. It's quite easy to understand - it's like being in a heated room wearing a pullover which is too thick. Leaving the pullover on means you WILL get warmer unless you turn down the heating or take counter measures like sweating. For the planet, we can't turn down the sun, so we are going to need to remove some greenhouse gases or come up with other ingenious ways to control the level of greenhouse gases. I'm afraid, like it or not, that is reality. This recycling carbon dioxide stuff found by guest123456789 sounds promising. It should be front page news.
ReplyVote up (101)down (66)
Original comment
It's not me who's telling you that it's too late, scientists are saying that even if we cut our CO2 emissions to 0, the planet will continue to warm. It's quite easy to understand - it's like being in a heated room wearing a pullover which is too thick. Leaving the pullover on means you WILL get warmer unless you turn down the heating or take counter measures like sweating. For the planet, we can't turn down the sun, so we are going to need to remove some greenhouse gases or come up with other ingenious ways to control the level of greenhouse gases. I'm afraid, like it or not, that is reality. This recycling carbon dioxide stuff found by guest123456789 sounds promising. It should be front page news.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
Latest comment: thanks :)
ReplyVote up (101)down (74)
Original comment
Latest comment: thanks :)
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
well... the tax is to raise the price of non-environmentally friendly products, if i got it right. I also don't think that we're all going to die because of man made climate change because the scientists have just discovered graphene; i can only speculate that sometime in the near future, these environmental policies posted above, along with "atmospheric carbon removal technology" ( LINK , LINK , LINK ) that can be used to produce graphene without having to mine for coal, will balance things out, the sooner the better.
ReplyVote up (101)down (77)
Original comment
well... the tax is to raise the price of non-environmentally friendly products, if i got it right. I also don't think that we're all going to die because of man made climate change because the scientists have just discovered graphene; i can only speculate that sometime in the near future, these environmental policies posted above, along with "atmospheric carbon removal technology" ( LINK , LINK , LINK ) that can be used to produce graphene without having to mine for coal, will balance things out, the sooner the better.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
Do you really believe the money collected by those carbon taxes will be used to clean the environment? If you do, you're more naive than I thought. The UK would probably use that money to give more free medical to their citizens or some other socialism project like giving the poor anything they want without asking them to work for it.
ReplyVote up (101)down (95)
Original comment
Do you really believe the money collected by those carbon taxes will be used to clean the environment? If you do, you're more naive than I thought. The UK would probably use that money to give more free medical to their citizens or some other socialism project like giving the poor anything they want without asking them to work for it.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
GOOD! the idea behind the taxes is to raise the price of non-environmentally friendly, poisonous products so that people will choose to buy safer greener more ethical products. if the State chooses to spend the money on healthcare...GOOD! you seem to like seeing people sick and dying of cancer. I think(hope) that eventually people will start removing carbon from the air on their own, because it will be profitable when the graphene technology is mature enough; It can also be profitable right now according to this LINK . the only thing that's stopping this is Oil interests and the interests of "financial institutions" that invested a lot of money in Oil interests.
ReplyVote up (101)down (84)
Original comment
GOOD! the idea behind the taxes is to raise the price of non-environmentally friendly, poisonous products so that people will choose to buy safer greener more ethical products. if the State chooses to spend the money on healthcare...GOOD! you seem to like seeing people sick and dying of cancer. I think(hope) that eventually people will start removing carbon from the air on their own, because it will be profitable when the graphene technology is mature enough; It can also be profitable right now according to this LINK . the only thing that's stopping this is Oil interests and the interests of "financial institutions" that invested a lot of money in Oil interests.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
You have it wrong. I do not like seeing sick people and people dying of cancer. Anyway, I'm an advocate for everyone taking care of themselves. It's unfair for hard working people to pay for the health and well being of the lazy people. I do have a fix for this but I'm just an individual and have no power to make changes in laws. It is my feeling that everyone should pay the same price for the same services from the same doctor and pharmacists. What happens when we visit a doctor, we have a copayment to make. Mine is $15 for my regular doctor or $25 for a specialist. Then, the doctor bills my insurance company. Let's use $200 for an example. My insurance company has a maximum negotiated price of $50 that they will pay for that service so the doctor writes off $150 and my insurance pays $50. The doctor gets a total of $65 for that visit. Now here's the problem. If I went to the same doctor and did not have insurance and wanted to pay cash, how much should I pay? Should be $65, right? That's what a copay plus insurance adds up to but in actuality I'd end up paying the full $215. A drug that I take would cost me $71 for a 30-day supply for generic and with the insurance, I only pay $5 and the rest is written off. So people without insurance are getting screwed. If everyone paid the same price as the insurance companies, more people would be able to afford healthcare and would only need catastrophic insurance. Even if I visit my doctor every month, those visits would be significantly less than the price of insurance that I pay. Just doesn't make economic sense to me. I pay for some of the insurance and my employer pays the rest. Just the portion that I pay is $173.82 each month and I suspect my company pays over $500 per month for their portion. That would not be necessary for a $65 visit each month.
ReplyVote up (96)down (101)
Original comment
You have it wrong. I do not like seeing sick people and people dying of cancer. Anyway, I'm an advocate for everyone taking care of themselves. It's unfair for hard working people to pay for the health and well being of the lazy people. I do have a fix for this but I'm just an individual and have no power to make changes in laws. It is my feeling that everyone should pay the same price for the same services from the same doctor and pharmacists. What happens when we visit a doctor, we have a copayment to make. Mine is $15 for my regular doctor or $25 for a specialist. Then, the doctor bills my insurance company. Let's use $200 for an example. My insurance company has a maximum negotiated price of $50 that they will pay for that service so the doctor writes off $150 and my insurance pays $50. The doctor gets a total of $65 for that visit. Now here's the problem. If I went to the same doctor and did not have insurance and wanted to pay cash, how much should I pay? Should be $65, right? That's what a copay plus insurance adds up to but in actuality I'd end up paying the full $215. A drug that I take would cost me $71 for a 30-day supply for generic and with the insurance, I only pay $5 and the rest is written off. So people without insurance are getting screwed. If everyone paid the same price as the insurance companies, more people would be able to afford healthcare and would only need catastrophic insurance. Even if I visit my doctor every month, those visits would be significantly less than the price of insurance that I pay. Just doesn't make economic sense to me. I pay for some of the insurance and my employer pays the rest. Just the portion that I pay is $173.82 each month and I suspect my company pays over $500 per month for their portion. That would not be necessary for a $65 visit each month.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
france and italy disagree. i would like to see in the USA similar system as the italian one LINK . here's the top 190 LINK , us is only on te 38'th spot, because you have the "big pharma" oligopoly and because the US would much rather spend their money on war.
Original comment
france and italy disagree. i would like to see in the USA similar system as the italian one LINK . here's the top 190 LINK , us is only on te 38'th spot, because you have the "big pharma" oligopoly and because the US would much rather spend their money on war.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
here's one for you: The quality of service in Finnish health care is considered to be good; according to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland has the highest number of people satisfied with their hospital care system in the EU: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%.[2]
ReplyVote up (101)down (78)
Original comment
here's one for you: The quality of service in Finnish health care is considered to be good; according to a survey published by the European Commission in 2000, Finland has the highest number of people satisfied with their hospital care system in the EU: 88% of Finnish respondents were satisfied compared with the EU average of 41.3%.[2]
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
See, it's the way you word things that are intended to get me upset and it's obvious you're doing it purposely. The US does not want to spend money on war and you know that. Nobody likes war -- war is hell. America would like to see the world in peace but there are tyrannical governments out there trying to kill us (North Korea and Iraq are examples) and citizens of other countries so we have a huge defense budge. Notice that it's called a "defense" budget -- not an "offense" budget.
Original comment
See, it's the way you word things that are intended to get me upset and it's obvious you're doing it purposely. The US does not want to spend money on war and you know that. Nobody likes war -- war is hell. America would like to see the world in peace but there are tyrannical governments out there trying to kill us (North Korea and Iraq are examples) and citizens of other countries so we have a huge defense budge. Notice that it's called a "defense" budget -- not an "offense" budget.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
Guest: guest123456789 (1620 days ago)
what???????? WHAT??? :))) they've got you hooked on the propaganda. You're a believer, you dismiss the evidence like a christian dismisses science. You want to believe that there are no oligopolies in the food, military, pharmaceutical, agricultural, information, financial and banking sectors of the economy, and you want to believe that these oligopolies don't use their money to buy your politicians to grant them all sorts of benefits; what you actually have there is far from a democratic republic, and even though i'm not keen on capitalism, i have to say that in the US (and the world in general) there is very little of it. It's a rigged game and they have you believing that it's the best thing for humanity, but it's not. And about your comment on the "defense" budget, ever heard of misleading names? ""The Contract with America would give us the American Dream Restoration Act, the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act and the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act."" Who could vote against restoring the American dream, common sense and jobs? but these Acts do exactly the opposite, that's how your system works. Renounce your unfounded faith and look at the evidence.
ReplyVote up (111)down (79)
Original comment
what???????? WHAT??? :))) they've got you hooked on the propaganda. You're a believer, you dismiss the evidence like a christian dismisses science. You want to believe that there are no oligopolies in the food, military, pharmaceutical, agricultural, information, financial and banking sectors of the economy, and you want to believe that these oligopolies don't use their money to buy your politicians to grant them all sorts of benefits; what you actually have there is far from a democratic republic, and even though i'm not keen on capitalism, i have to say that in the US (and the world in general) there is very little of it. It's a rigged game and they have you believing that it's the best thing for humanity, but it's not. And about your comment on the "defense" budget, ever heard of misleading names? ""The Contract with America would give us the American Dream Restoration Act, the Common Sense Legal Reforms Act and the Job Creation and Wage Enhancement Act."" Who could vote against restoring the American dream, common sense and jobs? but these Acts do exactly the opposite, that's how your system works. Renounce your unfounded faith and look at the evidence.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
Well summed up guest123456789
ReplyVote up (101)down (97)
Original comment
Well summed up guest123456789
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
I wouldn't describe myself as a severe alarmist. Global warming is physics. I'm just listening to the experts.
ReplyVote up (78)down (101)
Original comment
I wouldn't describe myself as a severe alarmist. Global warming is physics. I'm just listening to the experts.
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
WalterEgo WalterEgo (1620 days ago)
I might consider going to Mars if you paid for it
ReplyVote up (79)down (101)
Original comment
I might consider going to Mars if you paid for it
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
cengland0 cengland0 (1620 days ago)
It's a one-way trip and I believe it's a free trip for the passengers. It's supposedly going to cost 6 billion for the first trip and they are looking for funding from suppliers. Here's the application for you LINK
ReplyVote up (88)down (101)
Original comment
It's a one-way trip and I believe it's a free trip for the passengers. It's supposedly going to cost 6 billion for the first trip and they are looking for funding from suppliers. Here's the application for you LINK
Add your reply
Submit as guest (your name)

Copy code captcha


Submit as member (username / password)

CANCEL
RELATED POSTS
Astronaut Chris Hadfield on SpaceX's ambitious plans
Astronaut Chris Hadfield on SpaceX's ambitious plans
Astronauts city-spotting from ISS
Astronauts city-spotting from ISS
What does it take to be a NASA astronaut?
What does it take to be a NASA astronaut?
Inside Russian Soyuz spacecraft
Inside Russian Soyuz spacecraft
ISS spacewalk POV
ISS spacewalk POV