Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake (Read 4656 times) previous topic - next topic

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #30 –
Quote from: Thunder Chicken;282749
I know the moon landing was real. I stowed away on the space ship and went with them (yes, I know, it was two years before I was born - I used a time machine). The weather there is only marginally worse than Nova Scotia's. And astronaut farts stink.

It's not that astronaut farts are any worst than anyone else's. It's just that there's no getting away from them. A space suit is the ultimate personal dutch oven, and a lunar module isn't much better for your friends.

Vinnie, I'm sure parts of the earth are flat. :)

Oh yes, one more thing. The world Super Powers (are there any of those left?) and companies like SpaceX would better serve the planet if they all got together and finally built us that Space Elevator. To hell with rocket fuel. A solar array attached in space, with no atmosphere to shade the panels, would supply plenty of power to 'lift' a satellite or any other type of module, within reason, into space without burning a drop. At other times it can be used to provide power to the planet. NASA wants to use a bloody laser mounted at the base of the elevator (that they're not building) to propel the 'car' up into space. That, of course, would have to be powered by current means from the surface. In other words, power plants.

I do believe we went to the moon, but I also don't put much stock in anything NASA says anymore, after their involvement in the matters of the IPCC. How can you trust anyone who ignores their own solid proof just to support a political agenda? I can't.

Chuck, I agree that SpaceX is here just in time, as NASA is ending their current space missions, with no timeline for a return, but I think Virgin Galactic is much more interesting, and they're at least thinking out of the box in their endeavours. SpaceX is just building more rockets, not advancing anything. VG is finding a new way to get us into space at a fraction of the cost of energy.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #31 –
Quote from: oldraven;282917

I do believe we went to the moon, but I also don't put much stock in anything NASA says anymore, after their involvement in the matters of the IPCC. How can you trust anyone who ignores their own solid proof just to support a political agenda? I can't.

That's certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NASA is a complex entity due to it's inherent nature. It doesns't serve a vital need in the public's eye, so it makes up for it by spreading out the spending in important congressional districts. The centers are largely independent - the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

 
Quote
Chuck, I agree that SpaceX is here just in time, as NASA is ending their current space missions, with no timeline for a return

NASA has had a timeline for the shuttle's replacement for 5 years.

Quote
but I think Virgin Galactic is much more interesting, and they're at least thinking out of the box in their endeavours. SpaceX is just building more rockets, not advancing anything. VG is finding a new way to get us into space at a fraction of the cost of energy.

Howso? SpaceshipTwo is a suborbital vessle using run of the mill technology (besides the composites).

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #32 –
Quote
Yep,I was there.I got tossed out by a BIG bouncer,and I didn't even drink alcohol.10 minutes after we landed (I was a crew chief on the KC-135R),it was so foggy you couldn't see 10 feet in front of you.Nice place though.



oh man, before they banned civilians, the G-club was on Playboy's top 10 list for, uhh, meeting ladies.  But back on topic, you know that poop was faked, especially as good as the computers and CGI effects were back then.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #33 –
Quote from: JeremyB;282940
That's certainly throwing the baby out with the bathwater. NASA is a complex entity due to it's inherent nature. It doesns't serve a vital need in the public's eye, so it makes up for it by spreading out the spending in important congressional districts. The centers are largely independent - the right hand often doesn't know what the left hand is doing.


That doesn't exactly instil more confidence. We're all entitled to our opinions, and mine is that if they can lie to themselves, they certainly will lie to the public.

Quote
NASA has had a timeline for the shuttle's replacement for 5 years.


Well, that's good news, isn't it. Obviously news I hadn't heard yet. The last I saw was a guess that it may take another 12-15 years before they're ready to go back up. Nothing concrete.

Quote
Howso? SpaceshipTwo is a suborbital vessle using run of the mill technology (besides the composites).


It's not the technology, it's the way they're using it. Also, getting the public into space helps make space flight, and other space programs, more of a vital service to the average person, which you mention as being one of NASA's reasons for having to enter the political arena. Suborbital, but it is reaching space. The idea of piggybacking an aircraft to it's maximum height before using rocket propulsion can be adapted very easily to regular space missions, as is evidenced by NASA working with VG. Finding a new way into space doesn't mean you have to reinvent the technology to do so.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #34 –
Quote
Well, that's good news, isn't it. Obviously news I hadn't heard yet. The last I saw was a guess that it may take another 12-15 years before they're ready to go back up. Nothing concrete.

PR is not one of NASA's strong suits, that's for sure. However, the current first manned flight of Ares I is scheduled for 2015. Originally meant for 2014 before delays added up.

Quote

The idea of piggybacking an aircraft to it's maximum height before using rocket propulsion can be adapted very easily to regular space missions, as is evidenced by NASA working with VG. Finding a new way into space doesn't mean you have to reinvent the technology to do so.

Actually, piggybacking isn't a feasible way of getting rockets into space. When I say space, I mean orbital flight. Manned suborbital flight is of no use to NASA. If you used a 747 for air launch, you only achieve an 8% decrease in required delta-v.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #35 –
Look up Spaceshiptwo. It is expected to go beyond the 100km mark. That's space. And every little bit counts.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #36 –
Quote from: oldraven;282970
Look up Spaceshiptwo. It is expected to go beyond the 100km mark. That's space. And every little bit counts.

100km is the arbitrary demarcation for space. Zooming straight up to 100.1 km and coming back down is an order of magnitude less effort than achieving orbital flight. Suborbital flights are only of use for space tourism and for quick military strikes. Suborbital manned flight lost its scientific value about 50 years ago.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #37 –
And how much effort do you think it would take to go from that to full orbit? Not a hell of a lot. And they're target is 110km. Still, they're at least doing something new with their efforts, not just building more of the same.
 

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #39 –
actually, i can see them using rockets as nasa concluded was the most economical way to get out of here.    Apparently, they want to trial all options but i can see it coming full circle.,,unless they figure out how to make a couple magnets pop them off the planet.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #40 –
Quote from: EricCoolCats;283010


daym,,
what season is the northern part of earth in that pic?

winter or summer ,, it prob doesnt matter cause we're all dead.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #41 –
Quote from: oldraven;283004
And how much effort do you think it would take to go from that to full orbit? Not a hell of a lot.

The internets ate my post, but basically...
There is a massive difference between a suborbital zoom to 110km and getting to orbit. You'll need >10 times the mass and far more complexity. I did advance propulsion technology assesment and architechture buttstuffysis for 5 years under contract for NASA. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #42 –
Oh SNAP! It's on. ;)

Quote from: jcassity
daym,,
what season is the northern part of earth in that pic?

winter or summer ,, it prob doesnt matter cause we're all dead.

A little too much LDS, Scott, decrease the dosage next time. :rollin:

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #43 –
none of us kno for sure if we did or didnt,,unless u work for nasa or u were on the shuttle u will never kno if i had my guess,,it doesnt matter to me either way,if we did good for us if we didnt oh well
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
1979 Mercury Cougar X R 7
White w/ Maroon Vynl Top
Maroon Interior
302 BIG HP IN PROGRESS

To all those quacks who think the moon landing was fake

Reply #44 –
Quote from: JeremyB;283090
The internets ate my post, but basically...
There is a massive difference between a suborbital zoom to 110km and getting to orbit. You'll need >10 times the mass and far more complexity. I did advance propulsion technology assesment and architechture buttstuffysis for 5 years under contract for NASA. I have a pretty good idea of what I'm talking about.


10x? Are you kidding me? That's nuts (not you). Doing some searching, I see now that full orbit has less to do with altitude (well, it does, but you get what I mean) than it does with speed. Even still, you can achieve orbit at this altitude, is that 10x what is necessary just to get to a speed that can maintain or break orbit? That sounds pretty extreme, since terminal velocity isn't an issue in space. Wikipedia says 7.8km/s (a pretty good clip) @100km. Then again, they're saying an object experiences atmospheric drag at 200km, so perhaps terminal velocity is an issue. Yeah, I'm in way over my head. What's messing me up now is that I always thought 'space' was beyond the boundary of our atmosphere.

I still commend VG for doing something new, rather than simply building the same rockets we've been using for over half a century. And I still would like to see a serious effort made in planning a space elevator. It can't be a lost cause if so many different organisations, including NASA, are trying to figure out how to do it, even to the point of competing in an X Prize competition.